Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 15-11; GARFIELD CUSTOM BEACH HOMES; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2015-03-12REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Rincon Residential Project MS 15-11, 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 15-10691 12 March 2015 Prepared for: Mr. Kevin Dunn Rincon Real Estate Group, Inc. RECMVED APR 05 2016 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING N10 eawechnka~ ration, Inc. 31-0 ___ SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING 0 GROUNDWATER ENGINEERING GEOLOGY I I I 12 March 2015 Mr. Kevin Dunn RINCON REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. 1520 N. El Camino Real, Unit 5 San Clemente, CA 92672 Job No 15-10691 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation I Rincon Residential Project MS 15-11, 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, California I Dear Mr. Dunn: I In accordance with your request and our proposal dated February 2, 2015, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the geotechnical and general geologic conditions at the subject site. The field work was I performed on February 11, 2015. In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed I residential project consisting of two, two-story residential structures with attached garages and associated improvements. I This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 15-10691 will expedite a response to your inquiries. 1 Respectfully submitted, GEOTHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. Lesli D. Reed, President R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391 Senior Geotechnical Engjeer toNAL Jo. 999 p - 3/31/17- CERTIFIED * 921210 (858) 549-7222 0 FAX: (858) 549-1604 SEAM" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1 II. SCOPE OF WORK 1 III. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 2 IV. SITE DESCRIPTION 3 V. FIELD INVESTIGATION 4 VI. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION 4 VII. SOIL & GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 6 VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 8 IX. GROUNDWATER 16 X. RECOMMENDATIONS 17 XI. GRADING NOTES 37 XII. LIMITATIONS. 37 FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan IIIa-e. Exploratory Handpit Logs Laboratory Soil Test Results Geology Map and Legend Retaining Wall Drainage Schematic APPENDICES Unified Soil Classification System Seismic Data - EQ Fault Table Modified Mercalli Index USGS Design Maps Summary Report REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Rincon Residential Project MS 15-11, 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 15-10691 I The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project. I. PROJECT SUMMARY It is our understanding, based on conversations with the property owner, Mr. Kevin Dunn of Rincon Real Estate Group and review of a conceptual site plan prepared by I Shackelton Design Group, that the existing residence, detached garage and improvements are to be removed, and the property is being developed to receive I two 2-story residential structures with attached garages, driveways, and associated improvements. The new structures are to be constructed of standard-type building I materials utilizing conventional foundations with concrete slab on-grade floors. I Final construction plans for development have not been provided to us during the preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available I for our review. IL SCOPE OF WORK I The scope of work performed for this investigation included a review of available published information pertaining to the site geology, a site geologic reconnaissance I and subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing, geotechriical engineering analysis of the research, field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of I U I [1 I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 2 I providing geotechnical design and construction criteria and recommendations for the project earthwork, building foundations, and slab on-grade floors. IlL SUMMARY OF GEOTEHNIAL & GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 1 Our subsurface geotechnical investigation revealed that the lot is underlain at I relatively shallow depth by medium dense, silty sand of the Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Q0136.7) overlain by approximately 1 to 3 feet of variable density I weathered terrace materials and minor wall backfill soils. In their present condition, the surficial soils (fill soils and weathered natural soils) will not provide a I stable base for the proposed residences and associated improvements. As such, we recommend that, after demolition of existing structures and debris removal, the I upper 3 feet be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the addition of any new fill or structural improvements. The formational terrace I materials have good bearing strength characteristics, are of low expansion potential, and are suitable for support of the proposed recompacted fill soil and i structural loads. In our opinion, the site is suited for the proposed residential construction provided I our recommendations are implemented during site development. No geologic hazards exist on or near the site that would prohibit the construction of the new I residential improvements. Conventional construction techniques and materials can be utilized. Detailed construction plans have not been provided to us for the I preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available for our review for new or modified recommendations. I I I I I I' Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 3 I IV. SITE DESCRIPTION I The property is known as Assessor's Parcel No. 204-270-04-00, Lot 1 in Block "M" of the Palisades, according to Recorded Map 1747, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. For the location of the site, refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure No. I. For purposes of this report, the front of the property is I considered to face west. I The rectangular-shaped site, consisting of approximately 6,300 square feet, is located at 3806 Garfield Street. The property consists of a two relatively level I building pads separated by a short masonry retaining wall constructed on a gentle easterly-sloping lot. The western upper pad is at an approximate elevation of 64 I feet (residence pad) and the lower, eastern pad is at an approximate elevation of 61 feet (detached garage pad) above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Elevations across the I lot range from a high of 65 feet MSL along the west property line to a low of 59 feet MSL along the eastern property line. Information concerning approximate site I elevations was obtained from a topographic survey map prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter, dated February 23, 2015. I The property is a corner lot bordered on the north by the easterly descending Hemlock Avenue; on the south by a similar easterly sloping residential property at U the approximate same elevations; on the west by Garfield Street; and on the east by a similar residential property at a slightly lower elevation (for Site Plan, refer to I Figure No. II). 1 Existing structures include a single-story, single-family residence with a detached garage, a concrete driveway, concrete walkways and a concrete patio area, short I masonry retaining walls, and associated improvements. Vegetation consists W 40 u,1 ,I U I I' Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 4 I primarily of ornamental landscaping including mature trees, decorative shrubbery and some lawn grass. I V. FIELD INVESTIGATION 1 A. E __xp _________ loratory Excavations I Five exploratory excavations were placed on the site in areas near where the I proposed residential structures and improvements are to be located and where access and soil conditions allowed (for exploratory handpit locations, refer to Figure I No. II). The handpits were excavated to depths ranging to 6 feet in order to obtain representative soil samples and to define a soil profile across the lot. The soils encountered in the exploratory handpits were observed and logged by our I field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils. Excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory testing. I The results have been summarized on Figure Nos. HI and IV. The predominant soils have been classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification - System (refer to Appendix A). VL LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed on retrieved soil samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed residential structures and improvements. Test results are presented on Figure Nos. III and IV. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 5 Moisture content (ASTM 02216-10) Standard Test Method for Density of Soil In-place by the Drive- Cylinder Method (ASTM 02937-10) 11 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM 01557-09) Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than #200 Sieve (ASTM 01140-06) Moisture content measurements were performed to establish the in situ moisture of samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations. Moisture content and density measurements were performed by ASTM methods D2216 and D2937. These density tests help to establish the in situ moisture and density of samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations. Laboratory compaction values (ASTM D1.557) establish the Optimum Moisture content and the laboratory Maximum Dry Density of the tested soils. The relationship between the moisture and density of remolded soil samples gives qualitative information regarding existing fill conditions and soil compaction conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. I The passing -200 sieve size analysis (ASTM D1140) aids in classification of the tested soils based on their fine material content and provides qualitative I information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength. LI The expansion potential of soils is determined, when necessary, utilizing the Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829). in accordance with the Standard (Table 5.3), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows: I I dPAP P 1 I I I I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 6 EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION o to 20 Very low 21 to 50 Low 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 130 Very high Based on our particle-size test results, our visual classification, and our experience with similar soils, it is our opinion that the majority of the on-site silty sand formational terrace materials have a very low expansion potential (El less than 20). Based on the laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion for those soils which will have significant lateral support or load bearing functions on the project. These values have been utilized in determining the recommended bearing value as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria. I . I I I I I I I I I n I I VII. SOIL AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION A Stratiaraphv Our investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that formational terrace silty sands identified as Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Q0P67) underlie the entire site. The encountered soil profile includes minor wall backfill soils/fill soils overlying the formational terrace soils. I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 7 Wall Backfill/Fill Soils (Qaf): Wall backfill soils were encountered in the central I portion of the lot adjacent to the north-south retaining wall that separates the upper pad from the lower pad at the location of excavation HP-3. Minor fill soils were also encountered along the eastern edge of the lot at the location of I excavation HP-5. The backfill/fill soils consist of red-brown, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand with some roots. These soils are generally of variable density, damp, I and of very low expansion potential. They are not suitable in their current condition for support of loads from structures or additional fill. Refer to Figure Nos. III and 1 IV for details. I Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6-7 ) Old Paralic Deposits formational terrace materials were encountered at shallow depths at all excavation locations and consist of I generally loose to medium dense, red-brown to light red-tan-brown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. The formational terrace soils are of very low expansion I potential and have good bearing strength characteristics. The terrace materials are underlain at depth by the Eocene Santiago Formation. The upper 3 feet of the I terrace soils are in a relatively loose weathered condition and are not suitable in their current condition for support of loads from structures or additional fill. Refer to Figure Nos. III and IV for details. i B. Structure Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits underlie the entire site at shallow depth and I are underlain at depth by the Eocene-age Santiago Formation (Tsa). The Old Paralic Deposits are relatively flat-lying as depicted on the geologic map (Kennedy I and Tan, 2008; Figure No. V). Although not encountered in our shallow excavations, the Santiago Formation strikes approximately east-west and dips 8 to 1 10 degrees to the north-northeast as depicted on the geologic map. No faults are I . I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 8 indicated on or nearby the site on the geologic map. The geologic structure and relatively flat topography presents no adverse soil stability conditions for the property. VIIL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The following is a discussion of the geologic conditions and hazards common to the Encinitas area, as well as project-specific geologic information relating to development of the subject property. A Local and Regional Faults Reference to the geologic map of the area, Figure No. V (Kennedy and Tan, 2008), indicates that no faults are mapped on the site. In our explicit professional opinion, neither an active fault nor a potentially active fault underlies the site. Rose Canyon Fault: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon Faults) is mapped approximately 4.7 miles west of the subject site. The Rose Canyon Fault is mapped trending north-south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of generating an M7.2 earthquake and is considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquakes are known to have occurred on the fault. 1 I I I I I I I 11 I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 9 Investigative work on faults that are part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego, at the SDG&E facility in Rose Canyon, and within San Diego Bay and elsewhere within downtown San Diego, has encountered offsets in Holocene (geologically recent) sediments. These findings confirm Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault, which was designated an 'active" fault in November 1991 (Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Geological Survey Special Publication 42). In a report compiled by Rockwell et al. (2012) for Southern California Edison, it is suggested that the recurrence interval for earthquakes on the RCFZ is in the range of 400 to 500 years, with the most recent earthquake (MRE) nearly 500 years ago. The report indicates the slip rate on the RCFZ is not well constrained but a compilation of the latest research implies a long-term slip rate of approximately 2 mm/year. Newport-Inglewood Fault: The offshore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is located approximately 5.2 miles west and northwest of the site. A significant earthquake (M6.4) occurred along this fault on March 10, 1933. Since then no additional significant events have occurred. The fault is believed to have a slip rate of approximately 0.6-mm/yr with an unknown recurrence interval. This fault is believed capable of producing an earthquake of M6.0 to M7.4 (SCEC, 2004). Coronado Bank Fault: The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 20.6 miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979). The Oceanside earthquake of M5.3 recorded July 13, 1986, is known to have been centered on the fault or within the Coronado Bank I I I I I I I, I I Li I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 10 Fault Zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman, 1973). It is postulated that the Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating a M7.6 earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater San Diego metropolitan area. Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault is located approximately 25 to 59 miles east and northeast of the site. The fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and en echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identify it as being a part of the highly active San Andreas Fault system. Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al. (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active. Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest-trending, right-slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a M6.0 earthquake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Parke, I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 11 1982). However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as M7.5.. Study and logging of exposures in trenches placed in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0 mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of M6.0 to M7.0 (Rockwell, 1985). More recently, the California Geologic Survey (2002) considers the Elsinore Fault capable of producing an earthquake of M6.8 to M7.1. San Jacinto Fault: The San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 47 to 60 miles to the northeast of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone consists of a series of closely spaced faults, including the Coyote Creek Fault, that form the western margin of the San Jacinto Mountains. The fault zone extends from its junction with the San Andreas Fault in San Bernardino, southeasterly toward the Brawley area, where it continues south of the international border as the Imperial Transform Fault (Earth Consultants International [ECu, 2009). The San Jacinto Fault zone has a high level of historical seismic activity, with at least 10 damaging earthquakes (M6.0 to M7.0) having occurred on this fault zone between 1890 and 1986. Earthquakes on the San Jacinto Fault in 1899 and 1918 caused fatalities in the Riverside County area. Offset across this fault is predominantly right-lateral, similar to the San Andreas Fault, although some investigators have suggested that dip-slip motion contributes up to 106Io of the net slip (ECI, 2009). I I F I LI I I I I I I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page .12 I The segments of the San Jacinto Fault that are of most concern to major metropolitan areas are the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and Anza segments. Fault slip rates on the various segments of the San Jacinto are less well constrained than for the San Andreas Fault, but the available data suggest slip rates of 12 ±6 1 mm/yr for the northern segments of the fault, and slip rates of 4 ±2 mm/yr for the southern segments. For large ground-rupturing earthquakes on the San Jacinto I fault, various investigators have suggested a recurrence interval of 15.0 to 300 years. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2008) I has estimated that there is a 31 percent probability that an earthquake of M6.7 or greater will occur within 30 years on this fault. Maximum credible earthquakes of I M6.7, M6.9 and M7.2 are expected on the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and Anza segments, respectively, capable of generating peak horizontal ground I accelerations of 0.48g to 0.539 in the County of Riverside, (Ed, 2009). A M5.4 earthquake occurred on the San Jacinto Fault on July 7, 2010. The United States Geological Survey has issued the following statements with respect to the recent seismic activity on southern California faults.:. I The San Jacinto fault, along with the Elsinore, San Andreas, and other faults, is part of the plate boundary that accommodates about 2 inches/year of motion as the Pacific plate moves northwest relative to the. North American plate. The largest recent earthquake on the San I Jacinto fault, near this location, the M6.5 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake April 8, 1968, occurred about 25 miles southeast of the July 7, 2010, M5.4 earthquake. This M:5.4 earthquake follows the 4th of April 2010, Easter Sunday, M7.2 earthquake, located about 125 miles to the south,, well south of the US Mexico international border. A M4.9 earthquake occurred in the same area on June 12th at 8:08 pm (Pacific Time). Thus this section of the San Jacinto fault remains active. I 1 I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 13 Seismologists are watching two major earthquake faults in southern California. The San Jacinto fault, the most active earthquake fault in southern California, extends for more than 100 miles from the international border into San Bernardino and Riverside, a major metropolitan area often called the Inland Empire. The Elsinore fault is more, than 110 miles long, and extends into the Orange County and Los Angeles area as the Whittier fault. The Elsinore fault is capable of a major earthquake that would significantly affect the large metropolitan areas of southern California. The Elsinore fault has not hosted a major earthquake in more than 100 years. The occurrence of these earthquakes along the San Jacinto fault and continued aftershocks demonstrates that the earthquake activity in the region remains at an elevated level. The San Jacinto fault is known as the most active earthquake fault in southern California. Caltech and USGS seismologist continue to monitor the ongoing earthquake activity using the Caltech/USGS Southern California Seismic Network and a GPS network of more than 100 stations. B Other Geologic Hazards I Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds M5.0. If a M5.0 earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface-rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). Our investigation indicates that the subject site is not directly on a known active fault trace and, therefore, the risk of ground rupture is remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and the seismic response characteristics of I I I I I I I [1 I I I I L I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 14 I underlying soils and geologic units. Earthquakes of MS.O or greater are generally associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon or Newport-Inglewood Faults. Although the chance of such an I event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure. Landslides: Based upon our geotechnical investigation and review of the geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2005 and 2008), there are no known or suspected ancient I landslides located on the site. I Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process by which soils are I transformed into a viscous fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs primarily in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are sufficiently shaken by an I earthquake. I On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation materials due to seismic shaking is also considered to be remote due to the medium dense nature of the natural- ground material, the anticipated high density of the proposed recompacted fill, and the lack of a shallow static groundwater surface under the site. No soil liquefaction or soil strength loss is anticipated to occur due to a seismic event. Tsunami: A tsunami is a series of long waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of a large volume of water. Underwater earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, or onshore slope failures can cause this displacement. Tsunami waves can travel at speeds averaging 450 to 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami nears the coastline, its speed diminishes, its wave length I decreases, and its height increases greatly. After a major earthquake or other 4 51 I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 15 I tsunami-inducing activity occurs, a tsunami could reach the shore within a few minutes. One coastal community may experience no damaging waves while I another may experience very destructive waves Some low-lying areas could experience severe inland inundation of water and deposition of debris more than 1 3,000 feet inland. I The site is located less than 0.15-mile from the Pacific Ocean strand line at an elevation of 61 to 70 feet above MSL. It is unlikely that a tsunami would affect the I lot. I Geologic Hazards Summary: It is our opinion, based upon a review of the available geologic maps, our research, and our site investigation, that the site is underlain by I relatively stable formational materials (and shallow slopewash and weathered terrace materials to be recompacted), and is suited for the proposed residential I structures and associated improvements provided the recommendations herein are implemented. No significant geologic hazards are known to exist on the site that I would prevent the proposed construction. In our professional opinion, no "active" or "potentially active" faults underlie the project site. The most significant geologic hazard at the site is anticipated ground shaking from earthquakes on active Southern California and Baja California faults. The United States Geologic Survey has issued statements indicating that seismic activity in Southern California may continue at elevated levels with increased risk to major metropolitan areas near the Elsinore and San Jacinto faults. These faults are too far from the subject property to present a seismic risk. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault and the Coronado Bank Fault. U I I LI I Li I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 16 No significant, geologic hazards are known to exist on or near the site that would prevent the proposed construction. IX. GROUNDWATER I Groundwater and/or perched water conditions were not encountered at the I explored excavation locations and we do not expect significant groundwater problems to develop in the future if proper drainage is maintained on the property. I It should be kept in mind that construction operations will change surface drainage I patterns and/or reduce surface permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation I of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The I appearance of such water is expected to be localized and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented, as recommended in this report, during and at the completion of construction. I Based on our site observations and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the silty sand formational terrace soils are relatively permeable and well-suited for .the use of permeable payers. Shallow perching conditions were not encountered on this lot I and are not characteristic of the sandy soil conditions comprising this area of Carlsbad. I It must be understood that unless discovered during initial site exploration or I encountered during site grading operations, it is extremely difficult to predict if or where perched or true groundwater conditions may appear in the future. Water I conditions, where suspected or encountered during grading and/or construction, I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 17 I should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants. The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post- construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site- specific basis. I X. RECOMMENDATIONS I The following recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation I conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with similar soils in the Carlsbad area. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are I contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork I and installation of foundations. Recommendations presented herein are based on undated preliminary conceptual plans provided by our client. A. Seismic Design Criteria 1. Seismic Data Bases: An estimation of the peak ground acceleration and the repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site I is based on the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site. In addition, we have reviewed a listing of the known historic 1 seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at an M5.0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the I experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical record. I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 18 The RHGA and seismic events within 100 miles are derived from tables generated from computer programs EQSearch and EQFault by Thomas F. Blake (2000) utilizing a file listing of recorded earthquakes (EQSearch) and a digitized file of late-Quaternary California faults (EQFault). The EQSearch tables are retained in our files for future reference, and we have included the EQFault Table as Appendix B. Estimations of site intensity are also provided in these listings as Modified Mercalli Index values. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Index is provided as Appendix C. 2. Seismic Design Criteria: The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the 2013 CBC, which incorporates by reference the ASCE 7- 10 for seismic design. We recommend the following parameters be utilized. We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site based on a latitude of 33.1497 degrees and longitude of 117.3447 degrees, utilizing a program titled "U.S. Seismic Design Maps and Tools," provided by the USGS, which provides a solution for ASCE 7-10 (2013 CBC) utilizing digitized files for the Spectral Acceleration maps. In addition, we have assigned a Site Classification of S0. The response parameters for design are presented in the following table. The design Spectral Acceleration (SA) vs. Period (T) is shown on Appendix D. TABLE I Mapped Spectra! Acceleration Values and Design Parameters ISr51 I F F Sms Smi Sds Sd1 1.158 1 0.444 I 1.037 1.556 1.201 0.691 I 0.800 10.461 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 1510691 I Carlsbad, California Page 19 B. PreDaration of Soils for Site Development I 3. Clearing and Stripping: The existing structures, improvements, and vegetation on the site should be removed prior to the preparation of the I building pads and areas of associated improvements. This includes root systems of the existing trees. Holes resulting from the removal of root I systems or other buried foundations, piping, debris or obstructions that extend below the planned grades should be cleared and backfilled with I properly compacted fill. 1 4. Treatment of Existing Loose Fill and Surf/cia! Soils: In order to provide suitable foundation support for the proposed residential structures and I associated improvements, we recommend that the existing fill soils and loose surficial soils that remain after the necessary site excavations have been I made be removed and recompacted. The anticipated depth of removal is approximately 3 feet. The recompaction work should consist of (a) removing the existing fill soils and loose surficial soils down to native medium dense to dense formational I terrace materials; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the exposed subgrade soils; and (c) replacing the excavated material as I compacted structural fill. The areal extent and depth required to remove the fill soils and loose surficial soils should be confirmed by our representatives during the excavation work based on their examination of the soils being exposed. The lateral extent of the excavation and recompaction should be at least 5 feet beyond the edge I of the perimeter foundations and any areas to receive exterior improvements 1 Rincon Residential Project Job No. 1540691 I Carlsbad, California Page 20 I or a lateral distance equal to the depth of soil removed at any specific location, whichever is larger. Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize I rubble or rocks, and/or organic matter) should be selectively removed as directed by our representative and disposed of off-site. I Any rigid improvements founded on existing loose or soft surface soils can be I expected to undergo movement and possible damage. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. takes no responsibility for the performance of any I improvements built on loose natural soils or inadequately compacted fills. 1 5. Subarade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils in the areas to I receive fill and/or building improvements should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements for I structural fill. The near-surface moisture content of fine-grained soils should be maintained by periodic sprinkling until within 48 hours prior to concrete 1 placement. I 6. ExpansivepJl Conditions: We do not anticipate that significant quantities of medium or highly expansive clay soils will be encountered during grading. Should such soils be encountered and used as fill, however, they should be I moisture conditioned or dried to no greater than 5 percent above Optimum Moisture content, compacted to 88 to 92 percent, and placed outside building I areas. Soils of medium or greater expansion potential should not be used as retaining wall backfill soils. I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 21 Material for Fill: Existing on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are, in general, suitable for use as fill. Any required, I imported 1911 material (such as for retaining wall backfill) should be a low- expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less per ASTM D4829-11). In I addition, both imported and existing on-site materials for use as fill should not contain rocks or lumps more than 6 inches in greatest dimension. All I materials for use as fill should be approved by our firm prior to filling. Retaining wall and trench backfill material should not contain material larger I than 3 inches in greatest dimension. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent based upon ASTM D1557-09. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should I be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either: (1) aerating and drying the fill if it is too wet, or (2) moistening the fill with ' water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture.. For low expansive soils, the moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum. No uncontrolled fill soils should remain after completion of the site work. In I the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to I completion of the grading operation. 1 9. Trench and RetaininQ Wall Backfill: Utility trenches and retaining walls should preferably be backfilled with on-site, low-expansive or imported, low- expansive compacted fill.; gravel is also a suitable backfill material but should I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 22 I be used only if space constraints will not allow the use of compaction equipment. Gravel can also be used as backfill around perforated subdrains I protected with geofabric. All backfill material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and I compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent by mechanical means. I Our experience has shown that even shallow, narrow trenches (such as for I irrigation and electrical lines) that are not properly compacted, can result in problems, particularly with respect to shallow groundwater accumulation and I migration. I Backfill soils placed behind retaining walls and/or crawl space retaining walls should be Installed as early as the retaining walls are capable of supporting I lateral loads. Backfill soils behind retaining walls should be low expansive, with an Expansion Index equal to or lower than 50. All areas backfllled with I gravel should be capped with a minimum 12-inch-thick layer of properly compacted on-site soils overlying Mirafi 140N filter fabric to reduce the potential for fines loss into the gravel. C. Design Parameters for Pronosed Foundations In order to support the proposed structures on conventional continuous concrete I foundations the following recommendations should be followed. Footings should extend into formational soils or properly compacted fill soils to a depth of 18 inches. I I 4 I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 1540691 I Carlsbad, California Page 23 1 10. Footings: Footings for the new residential structures should bear on undisturbed formational materials or properly compacted fill soils, The I footings for the proposed structures should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished soil grade and have a minimum width of 1 12 inches. The footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. I Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing I surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.0:1.0 plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench. Otherwise, the trenches I should be excavated farther from the footing locations. I ll. Bearing Values: At the recommended depths, footings on native, medium dense formational soil or properly compacted fill soil may be designed for an I allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and may be increased one-third if including I wind or seismic loads. The footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. 12. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning I of local irregularities. We recommend that a minimum of two No. 5: top and two No. 5 bottom reinforcing bars be provided in the footings. A minimum I clearance of 3 inches should be maintained between steel reinforcement and the bottom or sides of the footing. Isolated square footings should contain, I as a minimum, a grid of three No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both ways. In order for us to offer an opinion as to whether the footings are I founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential that our I I I 1 Rincon Residential Project I Carlsbad, California Job No. 15-10691 Page 24 representative inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel orconcrete. NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer should review all reinforcing I schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum reinforcement to I reduce the potential for cracking and separations. 1 13. Lateral Loads: Lateral load resistance for the structure supported on footing foundations may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms I and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance equal to an I equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat I against the adjacent undisturbed formational materials and/or properly compacted fill materials. These lateral resistance values assume a level I surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of three times the embedment depth of the footing. 14. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within I tolerable limits for the proposed residences. For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding paragraphs, we anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch I and that post-construction differential angular rotation should be less than 1/240. I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 25 I D. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria I, Slabs on-grade may only be used on new, properly compacted fill or when bearing on dense natural soils. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have I found that, for various reasons, floor slabs occasionally crack. Therefore, we recommend that all slabs-on-grade contain at least a minimum amount of I reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur. I Interior floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, both ways, placed at I midheight in the slab. Slab subgrade soil moisture should be verified by a Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. representative to have the proper moisture I content within 48 hours prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. Shrinkage control joints should be placed no farther than 20 ' feet apart and at re-entrant corners. The joints should penetrate at least 1 inch into the slab. I Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of I floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. I Slab Moisture Protection and Vapor Barrier Membrane: Although it is not the responsibility of geotechnical engineering firms to provide moisture protection recommendations, as a service to our clients we provide the I following discussion and suggested minimum protection criteria. Actual I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 26 I recommendations should be provided by the architect and waterproofing consultants or product manufacturer. I Soil moisture vapor can result in damage to moisture-sensitive floors, some I floor scalers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor,, in addition to mold and staining on slabs, walls, and carpets. The common I practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60- mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10-mil in thickness. These products are no longer considered adequate for moisture I protection and can actually deteriorate over time. I Specialty vapor retarding products possess higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission I into and through concrete slabs. The use of such products is highly recommended for reduction of floor slab moisture emission. The following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and I American Concrete Institute (ACI) sections address the issue of moisture transmission into and through concrete stabs: ASTM E1745-97 (2009) Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact I Concrete Slabs; ASTM E154-88 (2005) Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth; ASTM E96-95 Standard Test I Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials; ASTM E1643-98 (2009) Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact I Under Concrete Slabs; and ACI 302.2R-06 Guide for Concrete Slabsthat Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 27 1.6.1 Based on the above, we recommend that the vapor barrier consist of a minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1-7.1.5) should be less than 0.01 perms (grains/square foot/hour in Hg) and comply with the ASTM E1745 Class A requirements. Installation of vapor barriers should be in accordance with ASTM E1643. The basis of design is 15-mil StegoWrap vapor barrier placed per the manufacturer's guidelines. Reef Industries Vapor Guard membrane has also been shown to achieve a permeance of less than 0.01 perms. Our suggested acceptable moisture retardant membranes are based on a report entitled "Report of Water Vapor Permeation Testing of Construction Vapor Barrier Materials" by Dr. Kay Cooksey, Ph.D., Clemson University, Dept. of Packaging Science, 2009-10. The membrane may be placed directly on property compacted .subgrade soils and directly underneath the slab. Proper slab curing is required to help prevent slab curling. 16.2 Common to all acceptable products, vapor retarder/barrier joints must be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape or sealing products; In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder's effectiveness. In no case should retarder/barrier products be punctured or gaps be allowed to form prior to or during concrete placement. I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 28 16.3 As previously stated, following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of any floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and control joints (sawcuts) to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. We recommend that concrete shrinkage joints be spaced no farther than approximately 20 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected. Exterior Slab Reinforcement: Exterior concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, we recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.), be founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native formation and be underlain by 2 inches (and no more than 3 inches) of compacted clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers, both ways, at the center of the slab. Exterior slabs should contain adequate isolation and control joints as noted in the following paragraphs. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. It is therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing I I I I LI I I LI I 1 I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 29 I soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills placed without our observation and testing. The subgrade of exterior I improvements should be verified as properly prepared within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. A minimum thickness of 2 feet of properly 1 recompacted soils should underlie exterior slabs on-grade for secondary improvements. 19. Exterior Slab Control Joints: For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage 1 reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 12 feet apart or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant I corners. Control joints in exterior slabs should be sealed with elastomeric joint sealant. The sealant should be inspected every 6 months and be I properly maintained. Concrete slab joints should be dowelled or continuous steel reinforcement should be provided to help reduce any potential differential movement I 20. Concrete Pavement: New concrete driveway and parking slabs should be at least 51/2 inches thick and rest on properly prepared and compacted subgrade I soils. Subgrade soil for driveway and parking areas should be dense or, if fill, be compacted to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. The driveway and parking slabs should be provided with reinforcing consisting of I No. 4 bars spaced no farther than 15 inches apart in two perpendicular directions. The concrete should be at least 3,500 psi compressive strength, I with control joints no farther than 12 feet apart and also at re-entrant corners. Pavement joints should be properly sealed with permanent joint sealant, as required in sections 201.3.6 through 201.3.8 of the Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction, 2012 Edition. I 4 I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 30 Control joints should be placed within 12 hours after concrete placement or I as soon as the concrete allows sawcutting without aggregate raveling. The sawcuts should penetrate at least one-quarter the thickness of the slab. 1 21, Permeable Driveway Payers: If permeable payers are considered, it is our opinion based on our site observations and laboratory testing, that the on- site silty sand fill soils and underlying medium dense silty sand formational soils are well-suited for the use of permeable payers. It is recommended that a minimum 6-inch thick base layer of crushed I' miscellaneous rock material, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, be placed below a 1-inch thick leveling sand layer under the I payers. The subgrade soils supporting the base layer should also be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. E. Slopes It is our understanding that no permanent slopes are proposed at this time. Should I portions of the site be modified to include new slopes, our office should be contacted for additional recommendations. 22. Temporary Slopes: Temporary slopes needed for retaining wall construction and/or removal and recompaction during site grading should be stable for a I maximum slope ratio of 0.75:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) to a maximum height of 12 feet. No soil stockpiles, improvements or other surcharges may I exist or be placed within a horizontal distance of 10 feet from the excavation. I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 31 I The stability of temporary construction slopes will depend largely on the contractor's activities and safety precautions (storage and equipment loadings near the tops of cut slopes, surface drainage provisions, etc.), it should be the contractor's responsibility to establish and maintain all I temporary construction slopes, at a safe inclination appropriate to his methods of operation. I If these recommendations are not feasible due to space constraints, I temporary shoring may be required for safety and to protect adjacent property improvements. This office should be contacted for additional I recommendations if shoring or steep temporary slopes are required. I 23. Cal-OSHA: Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site I should be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by Cal-OSHA.. F. Retaining Wall Design Criteria I It is our understanding that no retaining walls are currently proposed. The following retaining wall design criteria are provided based on the encountered soil I conditions. 24. Static Des/an Parameters: Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining retained surface. We recommend that restrained retaining walls with level backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 56 pcf for low expansive import or on-site soils. Wherever restrained walls I Rincon Residential Project Job No 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 32 I will be subjected to surcharge loads, they should also be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to 0.47 times the anticipated I surcharge pressure. backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced. 25. Seismic Earth Pressures: If seismic loading is to be considered for retaining walls more than 6 feet in height, they should be designed for seismic earth I pressures in addition to the normal static pressures. The soil seismic increment is an equivalent fluid weight of 14 pcf. A Kh value of 0.18 may be I used is a computer program such as "Retaining Wall Pro" or a similar program is used for wall design. The soil pressures described above may be used for the design of shoring structures. I 26. Design Parameters Unrestrained: The active earth pressure to be utilized in the design of any cantilever retaining walls (utilizing on-site or imported I very low- to low-expansive soils [El less than 50] as backfill) should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). In the event that an unrestrained retaining wall is surcharged I by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure should be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table. I I I. I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 33 I I *10 determine design active earth pressures for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. Backfill soils should consist of low-expansive soils with El less than 50, and should be placed from the heel of the foundation to the ground surface within the wedge formed by a plane at 301 from vertical, and passing by the heel of the foundation and the back face of the retaining wall. Surcharqe Loads: Any surcharge loads placed on the active wedge behind a cantilever wall should be included in the design by multiplying the vertical load by a factor of 0.31. This factor converts the vertical load to a horizontal load. Wall Drainage. Proper subdrains and free-draining backwall material or board drains (such as ]-drain or Miradrain) should be installed behind all retaining walls (in addition to proper waterproofing) on the subject project (see Figure No. VI for Retaining Wall Backdrain and Waterproofing Schematic). Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures or improvements that is attributable to poor drainage. Architectural plans should clearly indicate that subdrains for any lower-level walls be placed at an elevation at least 1 foot below the top of the outer face of the footing, not on top of the footing. At least 0.5-percent gradient should be provided to the subdrain, Eli I I I I I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 34 I The subdrain should be placed in an envelope of crushed rock gravel up to 1 inch in maximum diameter, and be wrapped with Mirafl 140N filter fabric or I equivalent. The subdrain should consist of Amerdrain, QuickDrain (rectangular section boards), or equivalent products. A sump pump may be I required if project elevations and discharge points do not allow for outlet via gravity flow. The collected water should be taken to an approved drainage I facility. Open head joint subdrain discharge is not considered acceptable for retaining walls. All subdrain systems should be provided with access risers I for periodic cleanout. Drainage Quality Control; It must be understood that it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or I subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper I wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc. G. Site Drainage Considerations Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad areas or causing erosion on soil surfaces. 31. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finish- grade the lot after the residential structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties should be I directed away from the footings, floor slabs, and slopes, onto the natural I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 35 drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer in the grading plans. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the residences, with the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the footings and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and possible differential settlement of the structures or other improvements or cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the California Building Code requires a minimum 1-percent surface gradient for proper drainage of building pads unless waived by the building official. Concrete pavement may have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent. 32, Planter Drainage: Planter areas, flower beds and planter boxes should be sloped to drain away from the footings and floor slabs at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Any planter areas adjacent to the residences or surrounded by .concrete improvements should be provided with sufficient area drains to help with rapid runoff disposal. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence or other improvements or anywhere on the site. H. General Recommendations 33. Project Start Up Notification: In order to reduce any work delays during site development, this firm should be contacted at least 48 hours prior to any need for observation of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 36 I reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observing the excavations; in the event that our observations reveal the need for I deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas I would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the I excavation, etc.). I 34. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)i Construction BMPs must be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the controlling I jurisdiction. At the very least, sufficient BMPs must be installed to prevent silt, mud or other construction debris from being tracked into the adjacent I street(s) or storm water conveyance systems due to construction vehicles or any other construction activity. The contractor is responsible for cleaning I any such debris that may be in the streets at the end of each work day or after a storm event that causes breach in the installed construction BMPs. All stockpiles of uncompacted soil and/or building materials that are intended I to be left unprotected for a period greater than 7 days are to be provided with erosion and sediment controls. Such soil must be protected each day when the probability of rain is 40% or greater. A concrete washout should I be provided on all projects that propose the construction of any concrete improvements that are to be poured in place. All erosion/sediment control I devices should be maintained in working order at all times. All slopes that are created or disturbed by construction activity must be protected against I erosion and sediment transport at all times. The storage of all construction materials and equipment must be protected against any potential release of pollutants into the environment. I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 I Carlsbad, California Page 37 XL GRADING NOTES Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be retained to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated in this "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation" for the project. In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be observed and tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly compacted. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our observations and testing. XII. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with similar soils and formational materials located in this area of Carlsbad. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It, is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and, recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 38 our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of this project are incorporated in the structural plans. We should be retained to review the project plans once they are available, to, see that our recommendations are adequately incorporated in the plans. As stated previously, it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor and/or their retained construction inspection service provider to verify proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board installation (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc. I This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own; the safety of others is the responsibility of the I contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considered any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. I The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc shall not be held responsible for I changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and 1 the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval. I Rincon Residential Project Job No. 15-10691 Carlsbad, California Page 39 I Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 15-10691 will expedite a reply I to your inquiries. I Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. I I Cathy-K. Ganze L-' Senior Project Geologist JaeF.E. ( R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer I [ii 1 I 11earie D. Reed, PresMent C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391 I I I I 1 I I I I I REFERENCES JOB NO. 14-10691 March 2015 Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, p. 44. Berger & Schug, 1991, Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Hazard in the San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Region, Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists. Blake, 1., 2002, EQFault and EQSearch Computer Programs for Deterministic Prediction and Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults and Historical Earthquake Catalogs. California Geological Survey 2009 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, La Jolla Quadrangle, San Diego County, Cooksley, K., 2009-10, Report of Water Vapor Permeation Testing of Construction Vapor Barrier Materials, Clemson University, Department of Packaging Science. Crowell, J.C., 1962, Displacement Along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p. Derriere, T.A., 2003, Geology of San Diego County, California, BRCC San Diego Natural History Museum. Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and San Diego, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region," P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott, editors. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10. Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999. Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (ML=5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the Continental Borderland, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p. 1885-1906. Hileman, ).A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology. Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. Moore and D. M. Burns, 1994, A digital (GIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismological Data Base for the San Diego 30x60 Quadrangle, California—A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 63. I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I [1 I REFERENCES/Page 2 Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997A, Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10k Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 19978, Age of Faulting in San Diego Bay in the Vicinity of the Coronado Bridge, an addendum to Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-108. Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology. Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman, and G.W. Chase, 1975; Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego. Metropolitan Area, California, Special Report 123, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology. Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan, 2005 and 2008, Geologic Map of San Diego 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Dept. of Conservation. Kennedy, M.P. and E.E. Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, Metropolitan San Diego California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1:50,000. Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8. Kern, P., 1983, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego, Pickle Press, San Diego, California. McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, v. 17, No. 4. Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19 p. Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 809-826. Southern California San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization Research Project, 2012, Paleoseismic Assessment of the Late Holocene Rupture History of the Rose Canyon Fault in San Diego. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03. Toppozada, T.R.. and D.L. Parke, 1962, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif. Treiman, IA., 1.993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates. URS Project No. 27653042.00500 (2010), San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan San Diego County, California. U.S.G.S. Earthquake Hazards Program, 2010, httD ://earti.iauake.uscis.gov/. 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 I I I I I .\ tic g. :' j RK \ Crbd \ F . Park & ikIcq \ - \,/ \ Phi j \' hasi~ \ \e \\ p -\ \4 \ - - "Id '3 sx >ø d4 \ c - 20 cP ' RAZIF tkw 3, SO Ip Carlsbad",, LORE LV COVE N N state C + Thomas Bros Guide SanDiego County pg 1106-E7 Rincon Residential Lot 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. I Job No. 15-10691 HEMLOCK AVE. N56W16E 709' cc 7 'S A-OLE , AOWA.i ..' ' '—E0. 357' RON PIPE WITH BRASS 0100 RE 825$ Qop 6 -7 'GSWI$N CAB CA- / rL 4 ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT I A 11.7715 "1771 P11157.054 IN TiE CA-V CI CSRL$EACL 001*7.701 SIN $5100 STATE CF CALIFORNIA. SC 050 70 VIII MAP THEREOF 10. 1747 F1L7DR THE OFFZE T'N0LTV RECORDER 01 RAN C4EG7cC-L11TA. 10044111EV 5 VOTE (AS DEDOR 5011 INCUTTCLAlM 010071707 1,Tl400AFICLOFTAZS&N $5100700517 RECORDER ASODEQASI$11194.04$50E7) SURVEY NOTES 1. VASE LILD R E-:S, AND QIMaISI1DNS717110 Si4VV0Y$Q 505701111 050Il$510ON 571 ENSIC 7J11111L71 $57101. $07000 000501018 0111(5577. THE 10115115511$ CA ADJOINING 757470757.055 700P11EC FROM $10057007073757175501050 4518105 P17.54152 PJNPOIES ONLY. 2 SLEVAIIONS 04131114051711 ARE BLEED ON $171 OFCARLSDII) CCV-11R$L 51411711151, PER 15708201 1115401 'lI) 17271. EtEVATON: 71.70 il:. SAA5057$I 3. 7501077.10140 OF 1111771$RC1187 ISTUTY 11485 1101CR S 1111017)555 SHEET 1 OF I SHEET _ ..... ......- SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE THIS SIP CORRECTLYp$CSEST$A$..RV$V 7.7151 $107 uNDER NV $5510171 A OO'i0155NC! 414 THE REIOUREMZHTSCATHE P*14$IONAL LRVE5OP$PT2O1$2U5$ 95AFF TOW 0 PROJECT INFORMATION -- 21 23/2018 CLIENT $111071 REAL E6TATEDiiCP - 5705110 3105 GARFIElD $7 CARL-10A3 CA 0317.5 SEN 55-275.04 o(2P-2a T I-W56701Y 16 BRICK 3 WALK JHP HP3 Im HP-1 1 Ilan _J 17 IT 0512 rn 15-10691-pal LEGEND 0 471557 $111 58540713 — — — — EROEFRIA 14417 NIOHTa-wAv LIE — - -. 71541051710 - - — — 5555543 P5104711E LISlE 1704101155 — WALL FACES S 117.44 LEE 741 71015 775410114 LIII Q5SRP1INESEAIW .7.5 SOPHII.TNUEEACE TOPCFO.I8B "S Fll'A$HESSLRFACIE 1171 77401147 SURFACE 11 17110101 1A5IP,11Ml rj '15-1710545 -0- PQ'7.55 IDLE 50 115154051145 075011717 11487500 P1055-1171431 PLOT PLAN PORTION OF LOT 18, BLOCK M, MAP 1747 41 16 CORN R ST JSk,1 AT PROPORTIONA:E 42 METER APN! DISTANCE BETWEEN 7~ AT PROPORTRONATE; DISTANCE BFrVFEN ..-..---- z -------------- LOT 3, BLOCK M, MAP 1747 10. 1' IRON PIPE RUST 00, OPEN ED. 3" RON PIPE WCTH CRASS DISC RE 8250 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP — 3806 GARFIELD ST. 33 N EtS1s50y 201,831 A, 8715010041412, CA 92073 7h L LEGEND REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from an rn Approximate Location existing SITE PLAN by Shackelton Design Group Eli - r1PP e . Proposed Structure dated 2/6/2015 and from a Topographic Survey Map of Exploratory Hand pt by Pasco Laret Suiter dated 2/23/2015 and from on-site field reconnaissance performed by GEL Qop 6 -7 Old Paralic Deposits Rincon Residential Lot 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, CA Figure No. II Job No. 15-10691 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. March 2015 r L EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Hand Toots 2' X 2'X 4.5' Handpit 2-11-15 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 65.5' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered CKG I I I FIELD DESCRIPTION 2.... AND . CLASSIFICATION . c DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS IL (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) C1 9 SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Loose to SM - medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. - WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop - X. 6-7) 1- 2 ! - 2' - probes easily to 9"- 12w, : 96.6 77 J.-- 18% passing #200 sieve. - 8.3 125.3 transitions to.. ------------------------------- SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Medium SM 23 1025 84 dense. Damp. Light red-brown. - OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6.7) 3 1.9 102.7 84 I: - 17% passing #200 sieve.. 1.9 104.2 86 8.5 .121.7 Bottom © 4.5' YL PERCHED WATER TABLE BULK BAG SAMPLE j IN-PLACE SAMPLE MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I 1 I I I I JOB NAME Rincon Residential Project SITE LOCATION 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY 15-10691 4rP4A4 Gea FIGURE NUMBER lila LDR/JAC LOG No. I Khntcal ration, Inc.1 HP=1 FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION .> LU .+ 0 U71 IS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Uj (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) 9 - SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with SM — — — - extensive roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp. - Red-brown. - WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Clop 1- 6-7) 2- --becomes medium dense. 5.2 104.4 83 5— — ------------1 S SILTY SAND, Fine- to medium-grained, Medium dense. Damp. Light red-brown. - OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qopfi.7) I Bottom © 6' I I I I i I I I I "EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION - DATE LOGGED Hand Tools 2' X 2'X 6' Handpit 2-11-15 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY 165' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered CKG I I I El - .i I PERCHED WATER TABLE [_Rincon JOB NAME Residential Project BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA ft IN-PLACE SAMPLE zi $ MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE I JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY I LDR!JAC LOG No. TEST _ 15-10691 Geotechntc.af Hr-mz 0 I J NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY FIGURE NUMBER STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [ lllb 1 I EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Hand Tools TX TX 4.5' Handpit 2-11-15 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER! SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 83' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered CKG FIELD DESCRIPTION CD AND CLASSIFICATION ° . Uj 93 .e DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Uj (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with SM roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. FILL! WALL BACKFILL (Qaf) 1- 2- -- © north-south perforated corrugated subdrain with some gravel. T SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Medium SM - XX dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) 4 -0 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Medium - 1-SILTY SM - . dense. Damp. Light red-tan-brown. - OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop,7) - - Bottom @ 4.5' _-- 1! PERCHED WATER TABLE BULK BAG SAMPLE j IN-PLACE SAMPLE MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE ns NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST STANDARD PENETRATION TEST JOB NAME Rincon Residential Project SITE LOCATION 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY 15-10691 FIGURE NUMBER EWI INc LDR!JAC I LOG No. echntcat I p_3 ratSon, Inc.I I I I I I I I I I I I Id I I I I I I FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ., u + 0M C-L U5 30 63 LU DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS a. ca (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) 4 § M0 LE m SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with SM U some tree roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp Red-brown. j WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6-7 ) I 2 —©2-probes to&-12". I 5.6 100.0 80 • -- becomes medium dense. 4 1 SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Medium SM dense to dense. Damp. Light red-tan-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QopR.7)j - Bottom @ 4.5' I [1 I I I I I I I I EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Hand Tools 2' X 2' X 4.5' Handplt 2-11.15 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER! SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 61' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered CKG I I U ci PERCHED WATER TABLE 1JOBNE RinconResidentialProject 9i r BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA [] IN-PLACE SAMPLE $ MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE - JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOGLOGNo. 1 NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 15-10691 ______________________ Geoteclmkal 1 loron H P-4 FIGURE NUMBER STANDARD PENETRATION TEST hid I FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 3 DESCRIPTION 2~5 J (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) on R CE 9 LU SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with SM roots to 6" in diameter (large rubber tree). Loose. • Damp. Red-brown. FILL (Qa 2 - SILTY SAND, line- to medium-grained. Medium SM - dense. Damp. Red-brown, - OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6.7) SILTY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Medium Sm - dense. Damp. Light red-tan-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop67) 4_2.. - Bottom @ 4' 5- I I I I I I U EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Hand Tools 2' X 2' X 4' Handpit 2-11-15 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 60' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered CKG I U I U- <I JOB NNvIE .Y. PERCHED WATER TABLE [_Rincon Residential Project BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION jJ IN-PLACE SAMPLE 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDRIJAC1 LOG No. __________________ GeotecJinlcal FIGURE NUMBER P Ds NUCLEAR FIELD.DENSITY TEST 1510691 Exploration,, Inc. HP=5 ol I STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Ille I I V", \\\ 0°F QQp 6 5 Tsa—\\\. 'S QO 7 \C \\ \cs- AU's'. hen 'SA*aStaphy 5,15117 CUd IIAU 5.5. 5511 5111 5171151151 1.55. Sen 5555511 111 57*511 O*dThP5 55*1.5 lclt*5ftcCflO 5557 U'S as. 40W 010.5505575,,!, 155511,1 011,110,, S,1!757.U: ccn,snen *04 *11*ft, b0nalr, SUIt 50511 5551 old UgUOsSen An, PUU0fl.; 0157 1175 7*, 5*uthA'ownlr. OWL',! 1527 Rincon Residential Lot 3806 Garfield Street Carlsbad, CA. Contour interval 50m EXCERT FROM GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30'X 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA 557 555/0*d011.51*o,,01 nnd,050lt$ 15,, jIll)! DtglA0 Pnpsetilol /t1 5511'eR. iiUennt'. 5,5757150 ,*50570'U,J 07575,1,41. W.1 .11' OS-W5dSeS, .n,/.Ut &'gnlo,1 .5,055' ,'17U*',,U kMn,* DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS EEI Old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle l0leis(occne)—Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandlins, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltotone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the now rnnOrgent wave cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift Where more than one number is shown (ng., Qop those deposits are undivided (Fig. 3) Includes: Old paratie deposits, Unit 7 (late to middle Plcletocenc)Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluviai deposits composed of silttone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 9.-11 in Bird Rock terrace (Fig. 3) Old paralic deposits, Unit 6 (late to middle LJ Plelstoceste)_Most]y poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, intertingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstoue, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 22-23 m Nester terrace (Fig, 3) Santiago Formation (middle lo ene-_Narnret by Woodnisg and Popanne (1945) far Eocene deposits of northwestern Santa Ma Mountains. There are three distinctive parts. A basal tuembar that consists of buff and brownish-gray; massive, coarse-grained, poorly sorted arkonic sandstone and conglomerate (sandstone generally predominating). In spine areas the basal member is overlain by gray and brownish-gray (salt and pepper) central, member that consists of soft, medium-graitied, moderately well-sorted arkosie sandstone. An upper member consists of gray, coarse-grained arkosic sandstone and grit. Throughout the formation, both vertically and laterally, there exists greenish-brown, massive clayslose interbods, tongues and lenses of often fossiliferoua, lagooaal ulaystone and ailtatona. The lower pact of the Santiago Formation intertingera with the Delmar Formation and Totrey Sandstone in the Encinitas quadrangle SIrd,e and dip of beds Indited Strike and dip ofignsoLs jarils Inclined Wiliest Strike and dip of ir.btaoiorpile foliation 'IndlIriad ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS Contact - Confect between geologic units; dotted where concealed. 75 + Ii Fault - Solid aSterS accurately located; desired where approximately located; totted where concealed. LI = tiplhrowri Stack. 0 dewnit'irown block. Arrow and Somber Indicate dirsction and angle of dip of fault plans. Antiefirte - Solid where accurately located: dashed where approobnataly tecetes; dotted where concealed. Arrow indicates direction of SOIBI pluoga. Syr.throe - Seist where eccuretiry located; Oc'tfsct where concealed, Arrow Indicates direction of axial plunge. - . 1.sn55lde-Arrows Indicate pslncipat direction of movement. Queried 5,15505 sotutwice is qbs.tionable. ~ WS 511,7*1 11.0 U p011 t 170 '0.5. 5.055,1.1 S*y7t0ti5flI Ctw5*g. Gonef5c M.pm P1051,,, 55111155,! 5*0*11 ,n.WMt25O20a* Pp.'s1 11c11w5'sth U.C.cs',M 5's,, 0,tC5111JAni751np54Fl5*5l. Conc1seh 5300 byl,o 057'550111110501 *51100511 - AU 151.101*05,100 050 ,0t515505n1*5 he 10.00115*6 ,71t1157*A15*75,111511 II 6". CAUIOIISO 051053105*5 T. 510.157,5 ci 55cnn5 .57040, US 'st0521557 5, SIr, " P-" r.n00511a7551p5,, rincon-3806-gorfleld-geo.ai Figure No. V Job No. 15-10691 Geotechnical U Exploration, Inc. March 2015 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCHEMATIC. RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN 3-Foot High Free-Standing Masonry Wall Retaining Wall --- Yard Area Soils 1;. NOTE: As an option to Mirodrain 6000, gravel or crushed rock, 3/4" maximum diameter may be used with a minimum 12" thickness along the interior face of the wall and 2.0 cu.ft./ft of pipe gravel envelope. 15-10691—W Perforated PVC (SDR 35) 4" pipe with 0.25% mm. slope, with bottom of pipe located 12" below yard elevation, with 1.5 (cu.ft.) of gravel 1" diameter max. wrapped with filter / cloth such as Miradrain 6000. / For yard area conditions in / front of retaining wall, the 1 subdrain may be placed on 4 top of foundation. Ameridrairi, Quickdrain or equivalent I c ) 1\ products may be used as J..- p/ an alternative. 'PAP A Miradrain Cloth Figure No. Vi Job No. 15-10691 Geotechnkal 'I Exploration, Inc. March 2015 6" Mm. Asphalt Parking Lot (Adjacent Property) I -Miradrain 6000 Waterproofing NOT TO SCALE 1 APPENDIX A I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse than half of material a sieve) -grained (More is larger than No. 200 GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little I (More than half of coarse fraction or no fines. is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3") GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or I no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES CC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures I (Appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines (More than half of coarse fraction I is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. (Appreciable amount) Sc Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve) I SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt I and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. I Liquid Limit Greater than 50 MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. I CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils (rev. 6/05) I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEISMIC DATA EQ FAULT TABLES Li I [1 I Li Li Li I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rincon Garf eqf peak TEST.OUT ** ** * * * * * ** * *** ** *** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * - version 3.00 * * * * ** * * * * ** ** ***** ** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 15-10691 DATE: 03-02-2015 JOB NAME: RiflCofl Garfield eqf Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Rincon Garf eqfTest Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: COMGFLTE .DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1497 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3447 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 8) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Soft Rock-uncor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 Rincon Garf eqf peak TEST.OUT --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 I ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK J EST. SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) JEARTHqUAKEJ SITE INTENSITY MAG.(MW) I ACCEL. 9 MOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A. easi n) SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) WHITTIER SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN ELYSIAN PARK THRUST SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino SAN ANDREAS - southern SAN JACINTO - BORREGO SAN JOSE PINTO MOUNTAIN SIERRA MADRE CUCAMONGA SAN ANDREAS - Coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN. RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS Mojave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) VERDUGO HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 4.7( 7.6) 5.2( 8.4 20.6( 33.2 24.7( 39.7) 24.9( 40.0) 34.1( 54.9) 35.6( 57.3) 442( 71.2) 46.1( 74.2) 47.2( 76.0) 47.7( 76.8) 48.0( 773) 51.6( 83.0) 52.9( 85.1 55.8( 89.8 58.3( 93.8) 58.8( 94.6) 60.2( 96.9 65.4( 105.3 65.4( 105.3) 66.7( 107.3) 68.9( 110.9) 72.4( 116.5) 72.5( 116.7) 72.8( 117.2) 73.6( 118.4) 76.2( 122.6) 77.9( 125.4) 78.5( 126.3) 80.5( 129.6) 80.7( 129.9) 81.0( 130.3) 81.0( 130.3) 81.3( 130.8) 82.3( 132.5) 83.0( 133.6) 83.1( 133.8) 84.9( 136.7) 86.6( 139.4) 87.7( 141.1) 6.9 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.5 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.6 6.5 7.0 I 7.0 I 7.0 I 7.1 7.0 I 6.5 I 6.4 6.5 I 6.7 I 7.1 7.8 I 6.4 I 6.5 6.6 I 6.7 I 6.4 6.6 I 6.6 0.402 0.384 0.162 0.085 0.105 0.057 0.068 0.032 0.042 0.051 0.040 0.040 0.033 0.032 0.041 0 028 0.035 0.025 0.036 0.039 0.020 0.021 0.025 0.030 0.030 0.027 0.028 0.015 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.024 0.041 0.013 0.017 0.015 0.020 0.015 0.014 0.014 X X VIII VII VII VI VI V VI VI V V V V V V V V V V IV IV V V V V V IV IV IV IV IV V III IV IV IV IV Iv IV Page 2 Rincon Garf eqf peak TEST.OUT ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE mi (km) 88.2( 142.0) IESTIMATED I MAXIMUM [EARTHQUAKE [EARTHQUAKE1 7.3 MAX. EARTHQUAKE I PEAK SITE 0.025 EVENT LEST. SITE IINTENSITY !:L I V - .__ -----------------------------------'__ LANDERS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 88.7( 142.8) 7.1 0.021 1 iv SANTA MONICA 1 89.5( 144.1)1 6.6 1 0.016 I iv LAGUNA SALADA 89.6( 144.2)1 7.0 1 0.019 I IV MALIBU COAST 1 92.1( 148.2)1 6.7 1 0.017 I iv LENW000-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 92.8( 149.3)1 7.3 1 0.023 I iv BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 95.8( 154.1)1 6.4 1 0.011 1 iii JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 96.0( 154.5)1 6.7 1 0.014 1 III NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) 1 96.3( 155.0)1 6.9 1 0.022 1 Iv EMERSON SO. - COPPER Mm. 1 96.5( 155.3)1 6.9 1 0.016 I Iv SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 96.9( 156.0)1 6.7 1 0.016 1 Iv SAN GABRIEL 1 97.2( 156.4)1 7.0 1 0.017 I iv ANACAPA-DUME 1 98.7( 158.8)1 7.3 I 0.026 I V -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.7 MILES (7.6 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4016 g 1 I LI I LI I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 3 I I Rincon Garf eqf rhga TEST.OUT * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * version 3.00 * * * ** * * ****** ** ** * ** * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 15-10691 DATE: 03-02-2015 JOB NAME: Rincon Garfield eqf Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Rincon Garf eqfTest Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1497 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3447 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 ml ATTENUATION RELATION: 8) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Soft Rock-Uncor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, s=sigma): M Number of sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE RHGA HORIZ ACCEL. (FACTOR: 0.65 DISTANCE: 20 miles) FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I Riflcofl Garf eqf rhga TEST.OUT --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 I ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I RHGA JEST. SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) JEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. 9 IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON I 4.7( 7.6)1 6.9 1 0.261 1 ix NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) I 5.2( 8.4)1 6.9 I 0.250 1 IX CORONADO BANK 20.6( 33.2)1 7.4 1 0.162 1 VIII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 24.7( 39.7)1 6.8 1 0.085 1 VII ELSINORE-JULIAN I 24.9( 40.0)1 7.1 1 0.105 1 VII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 34.1( 54.9)1 6.8 0.057 1 VI PALOS VERDES 35.6( 57.3)1 7.1 0.068 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 44.2( 71.2)1 6.5 1 0.032 1 V NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 461( 74.2)1 6.9 1 0.042 1 VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA 47.2( 76.0) 7.2 0.051 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 47.7( 76.8)1 6.9 0.040 v CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 48.0( 77.3) 6.7 0.040 V WHITTIER 51.6( 83.0) 6.8 0.033 V SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 52.9( 85.1)1 6.8 0.032 V COMPTON THRUST 55.8( 89.8) 6.8 0.041 V ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 58.3( 93.8) 6.8 0.028 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 58.8( 94.6)1 6.7 1 0.035 1 V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 60.2( 96.9)1 6.7 1 0.025 1 v SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 654( 105.3)1 7.3 1 0.036 1 V SAN ANDREAS - southern 1 65.4( 105.3)1 7.4 1 0.039 1 V SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 66.7( 107.3)1 6.6 1 0.020 I iv SAN JOSE 68.9( 110.9) 6.5 0.021 1 $ IV PINTO MOUNTAIN 72.4( 116.5) 7.0 0.025 I V SIERRA MADRE 72.5( 116.7)1 7.0 1 0.030 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 72.8( 117.2)1 7.0 1 0.030 1 V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 73.6( 118.4)1 7.1 1 0.027 1 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 76.2( 122.6)1 7.0 1 0.028 1 V CLEGHORN 77.9( 125.4) 6.5 0.015 w BURNT MTN. 78.5( 1:26.3)1 6.4 0.014 I IV RAYMOND 80.5( 129.6)1 6.5 1 0.017 I iv NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 80.7( 129.9)1 6.7 1 0.020 I IV SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 81.0( 130.3)1 7.1 1 0.024 I IV SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 81.0( 130.3) 1 7.8 0.041 I V EUREKA PEAK 81.3( 130.8) 6.4 0.013 I III CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 82.3( 132.5)1 6.5 1 0.017 IV SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 83.0( 133.6)1 1 6.6 1 0.015 Iv VERDUGO 83.1( 133.8)1 6.7 I 0.020 1 iv HOLLYWOOD 1 84.9( 136.7)1 6.4 I 0.015 1 IV ELMORE RANCH 1 86.6( 139.4)1 6.6 I 0.014 I IV SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 87.7( 141.1)1 6.6 I 0.014 I Iv Page 2 I I 1 I U I I I I I I I I I I [1 I I I Rincon Garf eqf rhga TEST.OUT ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE mi (km) ----- - ------- ----- 1 88.2( 142.0)1 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM JEARTHQUAKE1 7.3 MAX. EARTHQUAKE I RHGA SITE 1 0.025 EVENT ]EST. SITE JINTENSITY I V ------------------- LANDERS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 88.7( 142.8) 7.1 0.021 I IV SANTA MONICA 89.5( 144.1) 6.6 0.016 IV LAGUNA SALADA 89.6( 144.2)1 7.0 0.019 I IV MALIBU COAST 1 92.1( 148.2)1 6.7 0.017 I IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 92.8( 149.3) 7.3 0.023 I IV BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 95.8( 154.1) 6.4 1 0.011 I III JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 96.0( 154.5)1 6.7 1 0.014 I III NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) 1 96.3( 155.0)1 6.9 0.022 1 IV EMERSON SO. - COPPER MTN. 96.5( 155.3)1 6.9 1 0.016 IV SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 96.9( 156.0)1 6.7 1 0.016 Iv SAN GABRIEL 1 97.2( 156.4)1 7.0 1 0.017 1 Iv ANACAPA-OUME 1 98.7( 158.8)1 7.3 1 0.026 1 v -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.7 MILES. (7.6 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2610 g I I I I I I I I I Li [1 I I [1 I I Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Rincon Garfield eqf Test Run 1100 Ewc Mal 800 700 600 500 I,1 300 200 100 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 L, APPENDIX C MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Excerpted from the California Division of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology 0MG Note 32) The first scale to reflect earthquake intensities was developed by deRossi of Italy, and Fore[ of Switzerland, in the 1880s, and is known as the Rossi-Forel Scale. This scale, with values from I to X, was used for about two decades. A need for a more refined scale increased with the advancement of the science of seismology, and in 1902, the Italian seismologist Mercalli devised a new scale on a I to Xli range. The Mercalli Scale was modified in 1931 by American seismologists Harry 0. Wood and Frank Neumann to take into account modern structural features. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. It should be noted that because the damage used for assigning intensities can be obtained only from direct firsthand reports, considerable time -- weeks or months -- is sometimes needed before an intensity map can be assembled for a particular earthquake. I On the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, values range from Ito XII. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of "1 -- not felt except by very few, favorably situated," to 'XII -- damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air." While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it can have many intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter. I It is difficult to compare magnitude and intensity because intensity is linked with the particular ground and structural conditions of a given area, as well as distance from the earthquake epicenter, while magnitude depends on the energy released at the focus of the earthquake. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight. VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible In building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable In poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars. VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected In small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air. I I I I Li 1 1 Li I I I USGS DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY REPORT MUSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title 3806 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA Tue March 10, 2015 17.2627 UTC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33,14970N, 117.3447°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/11/11I - - I 2mi L I 5000in 'Oeeanside Vista dsbad ... San h N 0 R T, H11 ,S. 1. Emapqwst 001 MapQuet Some d615 'Op '' MpQuest USGS-Provided Output S= 1.158g 1.201g S= 0.800g S1 = 0.444 g S = 0.691 g S = 0.461 g For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 MCEft Response Spectrum 1.4 1,0 1.17 0 0.79 .79 1.04 0. 1 0.65 0.52 0.35 0.26 0.13 0.00 I I I- 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.B0 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.00 Period, T (sec) Design Response Spectrum 8.50 0,21 0.72 0.63 0.45 £1.26 0.27 0.19 0.05 0.00 000 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1,90 2.00 Period, I (sec) I 1 I For PGA, TL' C,,, and C, values, please view the detailed rep t. rj I Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. I [1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I dWig USGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.1497°N, 117.3447°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category Jill/Ill Section 11.4.1 - Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4,3. From Figure 22-i' Ss = 1.158 g 11 From Figure 22_212] S1 = 0.444 g Section 11.4.2 - Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20,3-1 Site Classification Site Class Hard Rock Rock Very dense soil and soft rock Stiff Sod Soft clay soil Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 VS N or >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: Plasticity index P1> 20, Moisture content w ~t 40%, and Undrained shear strength s < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 I] I I I I I I I For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 rn/s 1lb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/rn2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (M.CER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F Site Class Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period S 0.25 Ss = 0.50 S5 = 0,75 S = 1.00 S > 1.25 A 08 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 L 1,1 1.0 j F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S5 For Site Class = 0 and S 1.158 g, Fa = 1.037 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S :5 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0,30 S1 = 0.40 S. 'e 0.50 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C L7 E 1 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1 For Site Class = 0 and S1 = 0.444 g, F,, = 1.556 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Equation (11.4-1): S F2S5 = 1.037 x 1.158 = 1.201 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = FS1 = 1.556 x 0.444 = 0.691 g Section 11.4.4 - Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): SDS = 2/ SMS = 2/ x 1.201 = 0.800 g Equation (11.4-4): = % S 1 = % x 0.691 = 0.461 g Section 11.4.5 - Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 TL = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum ( 74T0:SS(0.4+06T/T2) S,0.800 I To STT8:Sa S ,Ts <T9Tk: S.= SO, /T <T*T"S S'O"T S=0.461-"" TA T,=011S T=0.576 1,000 Period, T (sec) a. S=L2O1 C I I Section 11.4.6 - Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCE Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1,5. 7 11 15 T 1. Period, T (sec) I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I 1 I I I' 1 I I I I I I Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 (41 PGA = 0.462 Equation (11.8-1): PGA = FPGAPGA = 1.038 x 0.462 = 0.479 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGAS0.10 PGA =0.20 PGA =0.30 PGA =0.40 PGA 2:0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0,8 0,8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 J E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.462 g, FPGA = 1.038 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 1-53 Cf:S = 0,935 From Figure 2218[6] CRZ = 0.988 I Section 11.6 - Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF S RISK CATEGORY lorli UI IV 505 <0.167g A A A 0.167g:5 SOS < 0.339 B B C O.33g:5505 <O.50g C C D O.5OgSS05 D D D For Risk Category = I and S = 0,800 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Desiqn Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF S01 RISK CATEGORY lorli III IV S01 < 0.067g A A A 0.0679 S < 0.133g B B C 0.133g < S01 < 0.209 C C 0 O.20g5501 0 0 D For Risk Category = I and S01 = 0.461 g, Seismic Design Category = 0 Note: When S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and Ill, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category 'the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = 0 Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References Figure 22-1 http://earthquake.usgs,gov/hazards/designmaps/down loads/pd fs/201 0_ASCE -7.Figu re...2 2-1.pdf Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs,gov/hazards/designniaps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure22-2.pdf 3, Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usg s.gov/h azards/designmaps/down loads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figu re_22- 12 .pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthqu ake.usgs.govJhaza rdsJdesigrimaps/down loads/pd1s120 1O_ASCE-7_Figu re_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17. pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earth quake. usgs.gov/h azards/designmaps/down loads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figu re_2 2- 18. pdf I I I I I I I I I I I I I I