Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
35 DEL MAR - SOILS
2860 WALNUT AVE. - SIGNAL HILL, CALIF. 90755 - PHONE 562/426.7990 - FAX 562/426-1 842 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers May 12, 2006 Project No. 06-5905 Fari International, Inc. 2015 Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92627 Attention: Mr. David Loucks Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan Review Tract No. 16455, Lot 36; 35 Del Mar Crystal Cove Area, County of Orange, California Gentlemen: Presented herewith is the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan Review ("Soils Report") prepared by Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE) for the proposed residential development to be constructed at the subject site. The work has been conducted in accordance with our proposal dated March 29, 2006, with your subsequent authorization to proceed. The subject soils investigation has been planned and performed based upon information provided by you as .to the proposed future development of the site, including the 8-Scale Precise Grading Plan prepared by Duca McCoy, Inc. Engineering evaluation of site conditions has been made with regard to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. Our evaluation indicates that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations presented herein are followed during the design and construction of the project. otechnical criteria fo resents geologic/seismic hazard assessments, ges This soils Report p site grading, preliminary foundation design and construction recommendations, as well a post -grading criteria. We thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this important project, and look forward to assisting you during site grading and foundation construction. if you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Q�01FESS10/yq� rie R. Bartee R" �� J'D' Project Geologist � 6 g NQ, 67987 G (04 Reviewed by: � > D Q�� a �xp 3a CO RIDDELL No. 1775 MT,9r� F cAL�F� CERTIFIED Lawrence J.D. C �� �J Edward C. (Ted) i .� _ C;lNEER±SIG Civil Engineer, RCE C6798 Engineering Geol I,,�C� LRB/ECR/LC:Irb p c Enclosures: Appendix A - Site Exploration & Laboratory Tests Appendix B - Site Faulting And Seismicity Data Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Local Seismic Hazard Map Figure 3 - Seismically -Induced Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram Figure 4 - Retaining Wall Drainage Details Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Distribution: (6) Addressee ,A, INC. 1 U INTRODUCTION This Soils Report presents the results of ASE's geotechnical investigation for thehproposed ivate it residence to be located at 35 Del Mar within the The development of a single-family Calif Crystal Cove area of unincorporated Orange County, � The purpose community in the Y of the site is shown on the Site Location Map(Figure proposed .development approximate locationof the p p of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical feasibility and to provide geotechnical based on the general subsurface soils conditions at the osos�d project. recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed SCOPE OF WORK of work In order to accomplish the purpose of the subject soils investigation, our scope included the performance of the following tasks: assembly of an exploration program. A. Review of av ailable project data and of drilling one (1) bucket auger boring to a maximum B. Field exploration consisting grade, field logging of the boring and obtaining bulk depth of 49 feet below existing g and relatively undisturbed samples of soil. representative samples to aid in the classification of C. Laboratory testing on selected repres the materials sampled and to determine their engineering properties. aluation of the data obtained and preparation of this D. Interpretation, analysis and evaluation grading, foundation design and Soils Report presenting recommendations for g otential and takin into account site geologic/seismic hazard p construction, g corresponding mitigative measures, if necessary. laboratory testing upon which the evaluation The results of ASE's field exploration and resented in the Appendix to this report. and recommendations are based are p Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 .LNG, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 1 MILE ,oject No.- 06-6906 SITE LOCATION MAP pThis ex loration did not include any evaluation or assessment of hazardous or toxin ma terials, which may or may not exist on or beneath the site. ASE does not consul the field of potential site contamination/mitigation. 2.0 SITE D�:�c;t�'r ��o� �1.4w ! - subject site is located at the southwestern end of the cul-de-sac of Del Mar in the The private community of Crystal Cove located within the unincorporated area of Orange p To the west of the existing rough County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). 100 feet high. To graded pad is a descending manufactured 2:1 fill slope that is roughlyvacant. It is our the north and southeast are adjacent pads that are currently understanding that the site is to be re -graded to accommodate a multi -level, single and 9 extensive appurtena nt family residence with a subterranean basement/and garareas, and detached construction including a pool, spa, paved drive, walks parking buildings. Based on a review of the existing geotechnical report,- (i.e. Goffman, McCormick & approximately 92 to 100 Urban, Inc., "GMUI", 2004), the site was a designed fill lot with pe of the Monterrey feet of compacted fill overlying siltstone, sandstone and ha For mation. According to the referenced GMUI (2004) report, the southern adjacent descending slope is a fill slope which descends approximately 100 feet from the subject lot at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). According to the Precise Grading Plan, cuts of up to 14 feet and minor fill of less than two feet at various areas on site have been planned, together with retaining walls as high as 10 feet to achieve the proposed grades. As a result of the proposed precise export g Duca McCoy, Inc., grading, per the 8-scale Precise Grading Plan prepared by material of up to 4500 cubic feet will likely be generated. May 12, 2006 �o Fari International Custom Builders page 2 06-5905 .ERING, INC. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site exposes compacted fill (Afc) graded under the purview of the referenced GMUI (2004) report. The fill encountered in ASE's boring generally consisted of clayey silt with sand to silty clay with sand, soft to stiff, damp to very moist and light to dark yellowish brown with occasional siltstone fragments. The upper two (2) to three (3) feet of the existing fill has been subjected to weathering since the completion of site rough grading. More detailed descriptions of the soil encountered and conditions observed during the subsurface exploration are shown in the boring log in the Appendix. Included in the log is the depth of soil samples, field dry densities and field moisture contents. 3.1 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING No groundwater was encountered during ASE's field subsurface investigation to the maximum depth of approximately 49 feet explored. Caving did not occur in our test boring. 4.0 PREVIOUS GRADING Grading on the site was conducted along with the remainder of the tract from 1994 through 2000 by Leighton & Associates, Inc., (L&A, 2000), and 2001 through 2002 and 2003 through 2004 by Goffman, McCormick & Urban, Inc. (GMUI, 2004). The previous grading utilized typical cut/fill grading to construct individual graded pads with 2:1 manufactured fill slopes varying in height. All of the slopes constructed on and adjacent to the site were either design fill slopes or were replacement fill slopes. The subject lot is currently underlain by compacted fill varying in depth up to approximately 100 feet placed over siltstone and shale of the Monterey Formation. Details of the grading operations are summarized in the referenced reports, prepared by Goffman, McCormick & Urban, Inc. (GMUI, 2004). \� 12, 2006 \ Fari International Custom Builders May Page 3 06-5905 AG, INC. 5.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY Newport Beach, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest -trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Newport -Inglewood and Elsinore fault zones. By definition of the California Geological Survey ("CGS"), an active fault is one which has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The CGS has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within Special Studies Zones to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not located within the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of active or potentially active faulting was observed during our investigation. The subject site is likely to be subject to strong seismic ground shaking during the life of the project. The Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) Fault is closest to the site and is located approximately 2.5 miles away. Other nearby faults include the Newport -Inglewood (L.A. Basin) Fault and Compton Thrust Fault which are located approximately 5.5 and 15.3 miles away, respectively. Estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration resulting from the Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) Fault with a 6.9-Mw earthquake is on the order of 0.441g, should the event occur at the fault's closest approach to the site, using the attenuation relationship published by Sadigh et al. (1997). Relevant faulting data obtained from the analysis using the "EQFAULT" software are presented in the Appendix B. UP • e SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 4 The seismicity of the Site was also evaluated utilizing probabilistic analysis available from CGS. The CGS analytical framework considers two earthquake sources, i.e. fault sources and area sources, together with geologic/soil characteristics and tectonic movements, for the quantification of peak ground acceleration ("PGA") of bedrock that carries a 10% exceedance probability in 50 years. As site -specific ground conditions, i.e. soft rock and alluvium, might attenuate or amplify PGA's recorded on bedrock, CGS further incorporates recommendations proposed by NEHRP that modify bedrock -based PGA's for both soft rock sites and alluvium sites. For structural design with a typical damping ratio of 5%, two spectral acceleration ("Sa") values representing structural periods of 0.2 second (typical of low-rise buildings) and 1.0 second (typical of multi -story buildings) have also been analyzed. As shown in the Appendix B, CGS's probabilistic analysis with a soil classification of Sp, the site is subject to a PGA of 0.4g, a Sa (0.2 sec) of 0.95g, and a Sa (1.0 sec) of 0.475g. As the PGA assessed from "EQFAULT", i.e. 0.441g, appears to be more conservative, it is recommended herein to be incorporated in project structural design and planning, if dynamic analysis approach is adopted. 5.1 SEISMIC -DESIGN PARAMETERS The closest "known active" fault is the Newport -Inglewood fault. Within the last several years it has been theorized by some that a blind thrust fault called the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust may be under the subject site (i.e. less than 2 km). The State of California Geologic Survey has recently included the fault in their source model for Probalistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) on their website. Utilizing the limited information supplied about the presumed fault presented on the CGS website, the following seismic design parameters per California Building Code, 2001 Edition ("2001 CBC") are presented for the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault: AQo Fari International Custom Builders ov�Q A 06-5905 Q- 44 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 5 2001 CBC . Cha after 16 Table # Seismic Parameter Indicated Value or Classification 16-1 16-J 16-Q 16-R 16-S 16-T 16-U Seismic Zone F _ Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient C. Seismic Coefficient C, Near -Source Factor N; Near -Source Factor SN, eismic Source TvrJe 0.40 -- so 0.44 N 0.6464 N 1.3 1.6 B Upon review of Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones CDMG Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is approximately 4 kilometers fro 1997)' the following seismic design parameters are presented for the Newport -Inglewood he site. The g ood fault: 2001.CBC . Chapter 16 Table # Seismic Parameter Indicated Value or Classification 16-I 16-J 16-Q 16-R 16-S 16-T 16-U Seismic Zone Factor Soil Profile T e Seismic Coefficient C. Seismic Coefficient C„ Near -Source Factor Na Near -Source Factor Nv Seismic Source Type 0.40 SD 0.44 Na 0.64 N„ 1.1 1.3 B B Final selection of design coefficients should be made by the structural c based on the local laws and ordinances, expected building response an onsul tant level of conservatism, d the desired ired 5•2 SEC®NDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Published data ("State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Official Beach Quadrangle") from the California Division of Mines and Geology,Maps Laguna 15, 1998, indicates that the project site is within an area identified as havin leased April for earthquake induced landslides. g a potential ovP ° SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Fari Intemational Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 6 ' r c'E O (0 U S C O O J � N N J J d N N S 15 1 GN903-1 According to GMUI's 2004 report "the site grading mitigated the of induced hazards to a level consistent with the current standards of seismic - induced s of practice in g geology and geotechnical engineering in accordance with CDMG Special Publication 117 for seismic hazard areas identified by the State of p I seismic hazard potential at the site was addressed in our referenced California. The addressed these slopes as part of the approval process with the OCE epos GMUI 2004). After review, ASE concurs with the conclusions presented MA (see GMUI, referenced reports that the natural and manufactured slopes surroun GMUI in the in grossly stable under both static and pseudo -static conditions as erding the site are in CDMG Special Publication 117. p criteria stipulated As 1) groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of and 2) the presence of both compacted fill and of the Monterey Formation material rfeet, site the exhibit stiff to moderately hard consistency and moderatelymaal on - feet, coh the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered negligible. esive nature, 6.0 SOIL EXPANSION AND SULFATE CONTENT ASE's laboratory test results in that the on -site soi tested are considered "Medium" in expansion potential per 2001 CBC Table 18-I-B. Result Indicate on -site soils generally exhibiting "Severe" sulfate. ex osoluble sulfate content testing the requirements for "Severe" sulfate exposure as required in 2001eCa condition implying thatBC Table 19-A-4 should be followed for design of structural concrete in contact with on -site ls summarized in Appendix B and should be considered preliminaryinorTest results are design. Additional testing should be performed at the completion of egard to foundation and/or modify the design and construction recommendations. precise grading to verify 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, combined with engineering analysis and our experience and judgment, it is the o inf may be developed as planned, p on of ASE that the site provided the site grading and foundation criteria discussed A5 0J . Fari International Custom Builders �`� 06-5905 1Z May 12, 2006 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Page 7 herein are incorporated into the project construction, plans and specifications and implemented during The recommendations provided herein apply to conventional shallow foundations com r' Of continuous spread footings and isolated Pad d footings, as well as concrete slab -on -grade sed 7.1 SITE PREPARATION 7,11 Clearing and Stripping Prior to initiating re -grading operations to establish the building vegetation, debris and Idin stockpiles should be g pads, surface construction. Any soils contaminated with Organic stripped from areas of proposed strippings mixed into the soils) should be disposed matter (such as root systems or in landscaping areas. p sed of off -site or set aside for future use 7• 1.2 Remedial Grading; In areas to receive. compacted fill "processed ore upper approximate) two 2 Y ()feet of existing compacted fill should relative com removed, and recompacted to a minimum 90% paction prior to additional fill placement. Proposed grades duringAny areas disturbed near or removed to exposec excavation and clearing operations should also patent materials. Such areas should be re e processed minimum one foot depth and recom worked to a pacted to a minimum 90 percent over the corresponding percent relative to backfilling with a p 9 optimum moisture contents prior approved soils. The areas observed and approved by the GProposed to receive fill Consultant prior to t711in , should be g In areas to be cut on site, the exposed surfaces trimmed neat and devoid of any loose soils. upon completion of cutting exposed, the e g should be Should any localized soft or loose soils be extent of removal of loose soils should be representative of the Geotechnical Consultant a inspected and directed by the on -site or importand should be backfilled with approved soils as per recommended in Section 7.2. 1. pp ed Fari International Custo ' ' 06-5905 m Builders IILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 8 T 1.3 Temporary Excavation: Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored accordance with Cal OSHA requirements. or sloped in �° C5d SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. a) Temporary Slopes: In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to structures or public ri ht-of-wa s sloping in existing g y , p g procedures may be utilized for temporary excavations. It is recommended that temporary slopes in on -site compacted fi soils be graded no steeper than 1:1 (H:V) and 1 % t :1 (H:V) for excavations u II feet and 20 feet in depth, respectively. The above temporary sloe criteriao 1s based on level soil conditions behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading is (structures, traffic) within a lateral distance behind the top of slope e uiva loading slope height. q nt to the It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distan top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance e uivice from the slope height should be maintained between the to of q ale a to p excavating/grading equipment. slope and heavy Should running sand conditions be experienced during excavation o flattening of cut slope faces or other special Aerations, p procedures may be required to achieve stable, temporary slopes, The stability of temporary excavations depends .on many factors, including slope angle, the shear strength of the existing material, orientation and inclin the of the geologic structure, the height of the exposed slope and the length of tiination excavation remains unsupportedg me the and exposed to equipment vibrations and weather. All excavations should be observed by the engineering geologist during excavation. g ing Far! International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 page 9 Soil conditions should be reviewed by the ASE as excavation progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction procedures and schedule. b) Shoring: Temporary shoring will be required for those excavations where temporary sloe cuts as specified above are not feasible. p For the 19-feet-deep excavation planned on site, temporary shoring system consisting of soldier piles and lagging system with internal bracing/struttingis deemed suitable. It is cautioned that, while preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of temporary shoring are presented below, the actual shoring design should be provided by a specialist shoring contractor experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. For the design of internally braced shoring system, it is recommended that a trapezoidal distribution of apparent earth pressure shown below, as recommended In Caltrans (1995), be utilized. The design of shoring should also include surcharge loading effects of existing structures and anticipated traffic, including delivery and construction equipment, when loading is within a distance from the shoring equal to the depth of excavation. The lateral contribution of such a uniform surcharge load may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge load by 0.33. In addition, minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot in the u a feet of shoring should be incorporated in the design peer ten Permitted within ten feet of the shoring, g when normal traffic is Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 Q- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 10 _° oc1�4& SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 0.8 Ka H The soldier piles should be design in accordance with the eote Presented in the table below. Soldier piles should be spaced no further parameters feet on centers. further apart than 8 Geotechnical Design Parameters for Soldier Piles For temporary shoring design, the depth of embedment isolated soldier pile into on an -site compacted fill soils can f be calculated factored using ultimate lateral passive resistance in terms of EFP.* The factored ultimate lateral passive resistance value takes into account 1) the arching effect when soldier piles are spaced less than 4 pile diameters on centers and 2) a factor of safety of 2. 250 pcf To develop the full lateral resistance, provisions should be to ken contact between the soldier piles and the soils. The concrete l ceto assure firm pile excavations may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the con elts used in that in the soldier Portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated lev sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to el should be of materials. the surrounding Drilling of the pile shafts should be accomplished using hey equipment. Some raveling of the side walls may occur i the heavy-duty excavation u pper sandy gravel Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 11 • P 30ILS ENGINEERING, INC. soils and, if necessary, the pile shaft may have to be cased encountered during installation. of shafts, dewatering and tremielf water seepage is necessary, seals may also be c) Temporary Excavation Stability: Basal heave or instability as a result of bearing capacity failure soils below deep excavation bottom could take place if one or a o the subgrade following conditions exist: mposite of the • Presence of soft clay with low shear strength at the excavation bottom. • Presence of granular soils with insufficient shearing resistance especially ially in deep excavation. pec • Presence of groundwater level within the depth of excavation t reduce the effective shearing resistance. hat might • Insufficient embedment depth of solider piles beyond the excavation that allows the development of excessive lateral of rotational displacement. bottom • Excessive surcharge loading at ground surface within close distance to excavation that, combined with effective weight of soils behind shoo the overcome the shearing resistance of the subgrade soils. ring, • Insufficient strength/capacity of members of shoring used. The Geotechnical Consultant should be on -site during temporary excavation to inspect and evaluate exposed excavation conditions and, if deem recommend mitigation measures against potential excavation instability, As a precautionary measure safeguarding the occurrence of Potential ground displacement, it might be desirable to install movement m nitoriexcessive selected locations on 1 ormg points at ) ground surface immediately behind shoring, 2) vertical surface of shoring members, and 3) subgrade soils exposed upon c excavation. The monitorin p ompletion of g points, if installed, should be surveyed on a regular basis during the course of excavation and construction. Th e* Geotechnical Far! International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 12 Consultant should be consulted for the reco monitorin mmendatlons regarding set-up and 9 program of movement monitoring points. 7.2 COMPACTED FILL 7.2.1 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements: Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered during site grading and backfillin of utility trenches suitable for re -use g y ,provided they are free of debris, particles greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, or deleterious materials, and are moisture conditioned to near o panic matter or other to permit achieving the required compaction. ptimum moisture content On -site and import materials approved for use should be Placed exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditio ed to In horizontal lifts not Optimum moisture contents, and compacted to a minimum 2 to 4 percent over maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557- 90 percent of the 02. 7.2.2 Benching: Fills placed on surfaces sloping greater than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material as the fill is placed. Keys and benches should geotechnical consultant. Removals and deep benchin be observed by the Placement of fills where unsuitable soils exist. g may be necessary prior to 7.2.3 Tests and Observations: All grading, compaction, and backfill operations should observation of and testing by the Geotechnical .Consultant'be performed under the adequate number of field tests should be taken to ensure co field representative. An compliance with this report and local ordinances. If if is determined during grading that site soils require o q verexcavation to greater depths for obtaining proper support for the proposed structure, this additional work �o o�& 1�34SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Fari International Custom Builders06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 13 should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Maximum density for control of grading should be determined in a ASTIVI D1557-02 test procedures. ccordance with 7.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN It is our understanding that a conventional shallow foundation and slab -on - flooring system will likely be adopted for the site. It is our opinion ontigrade that conti spread footings and isolated pad footings bearing on approved co nuous undisturbed formational material may be used to mpacted fill or provide support for the proposed residence. The foundations and slab -on -grade should 1816 of the 2001 CBC. Presented below are the recommended with Section 1815 or for the design of footings. geotechnical criteria 7.3.1 Allowable Soils Bearing Capacity: An allowable soils bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot psfl may be used in the design of continuous spread footings that are at least 15-inch inches deep and isolated pad footings measuring a minimum 30-inchesS wide and 18- inches deep, when founded entirely in approved compacted fill. Thisquare and 18 increased by 250 psf for each additional 12-inch increment of depth s value may be maximum ceiling value of 4000 psf. These values may be increased b or width, to a structural calculation when considering short term, transient wind or seismic loading.. 7.3.2 Lateral Resistance: Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided and by friction acting on structural components in permanent by passive earth pressure subgrade soils. p manent contact with the Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 14 Lateral resistance may be computed using a passive earth pressure sure expressed in terms of equivalent fluid pressure ("EFP") of 150 pounds per square foot per foot (i.e. pcf) embedment into approved compacted fill, subject to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot. For design of footings adjacent to a 2:1 descending slope, a reduced EFP value of 150 pcf should be used. An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.25 may be supporting soils assumed with dead load forces between concrete and the y . 7.3.3 Retaining Walls: As shown in the following table, cantilevered retaining walls should be designed for an a ctive lateral earth pressure of 43 pcf EFP for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions. An "at -rest" lateral earth pressure of 61 pcf EFP for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions should be used for top -restrained retaining walls. For transient seismic loading based on 50% of a PGA of .0.441 , additional earth pressure for 2 different wall fixity conditions as shown in the following lateral g able and Figure 3, Seismically -Induced Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram, should be considered for retaining wall exceeding 10 feet in height. The Structural Consultant should verify whether an acceptable factor of safety exists with the retaining wall structural design upon the impact of additional lateral earth pressure induced by the seismic loading. Retaining walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third (1/3) the anticipated surcharge pressure. Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the Structural Consul appropriate back drainage Consultant with g provided to avoid excessive build-up of hydrostatic wall pressures. Q° o�� Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 15 w a° a w a a a v_ 0 c t9 ` O N i3 C C t m v U N � 3d "- ro a H w i a W i a w CIO IW v y 12 w Z CD C1 !r a� o Q ,q in o o 0 N V � ov yi c) 10 Z tl � C O C •'+ 41 d E M Z V c F�1 CA c c c > 'CM Q W= +O � O 4 CO N f0 •O h Detaining EAt-rest sy n Parameter Bearing Ca acit sure level ssure level Wall DesignParameters assive Pressure (per foot of der Seismic Loading (active), APAE(3) Seismic Loading (at -rest), OPor (6) Coefficient of Friction Minimum Footing Depth Minimum Footing Width Minimum Reinforcement Value 2,000 psf (1) 43 pcf EFP(2) 61 pcf EFP(2) 150 psf 15 H2 ca> 2 H2 (5) 0.250(6) 18 inches 15 inches 4 No. 4 rebar - 2 near top and 2 near bottom (1) Based on compliance with above earthwork recommendations; (2) Design values assuming a drained condition with non -expansive materials (El less than or equal to 20) within the backfill zone and no surcharge loading conditions; (3) Based on 50% of a PGA of 0.441 g and the Mononobe-Okabe equation. See Figure 3 for pressure distribution diagram; (4) Height of retaining wall measured from the bottom of retaining wall footing; (5) Based on 50% of a PGA of 0.441g and the NAVFAC (1985) equation. See Figure 3 for pressure distribution diagram; (6) Passive lateral resistance may be combined with frictional resistance provided the passive bearing component does not exceed two-thirds of the total lateral resistance; The Geotechnical Consultant should be on -site during slope cutting and retaining wall construction to inspect the slope conditions, to evaluate the stability of slope cuts and, if necessary, to provide additional remedial or mitigative recommendations. Backfill should consist of approved low -expansive material (i.e. El of 20 or less per 2001 CBC 18-2 Test Method) and should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent saturation. Figure 4, Retaining Wall Drainage Details, illustrates the general configuration and requirements for retaining wall drainage. Should any conflict noticed between recommendations stated in this report and those shown in Figure 4 the re should ore govern. Other retaining wall drainage alternatives may be considered but Far! International Custom Builders oc;P 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 16 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Soil backfill, compacted to min, 90% relative compaction per approved by the Geotechnical Consultant* Retaining wall per structural plan Finish grade Compacted Fill- Retaining wall footing wo �G Q SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. !::n�scAin!t Gec�r•.r,?^sal'bngi::eer, Wall waterproofing per Architect's specifications ------__ - 18"Typ. :--7- - - - Filter fabric envelope (Mirafi 6" min. ;- _ = 140N or approved equivalent) overlap 1' min. _ _ _�- 3/4" N 1.1/2" clean gravel** 4" (min.) diameter perforated PVC pipe (Schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations oriented down as depicted Min. 1% gradient to suitable outlet 3" min. Competent bedrock or certified compacted fill per approved by the Geotechnical Consultant Based on ASTM D-1557-01 ** If Caltrans Class 2 permeable material (see gradation to left) is used in place of 3/4" N 1-1/2" gravel, filter fabric may be deleted. Caltrans Class 2 permeable material should be compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Note: Composite drainage products such as Contech C-Drain, Miradrain or J-Drain may used as alternative to gravel or Class II. Installation should be performed in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. chemato scale Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. 2860 Walnut Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755 Tel (562) 426-7990 Fax (562) 426.1842 Prop. Residential Developmen4 Tract No. 16455, Lot38; Project: 35 Del Mar, Crystal Cove Area, County of orange, Californi, Figure 4 Proj. No.:06-5905 Date: I May, 2006 should first be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to implementation. Should the space behind the new retaining wall be too tight to implement the above recommended backfill effort, as an alternative, 2-sack control density fill may be used in lieu of regular soil backfill, provided that the integrity and functionality of wall backdrain is protected and maintained. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater than that normally associated with the development of active or at -rest conditions. In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. 7.3.3 Foundation Construction: Recommended minimum footing dimensions should be as per Section 7.3.1, and should be minimally reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two near the top and two near the bottom, from a getechnical viewpoint. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at Feast 12-inches wide should be provided across large entrances or openings with spans greater than 10 feet. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 7.3.4 Concrete Slab -on -Grade: The upper 15 feet of soils underlying the proposed structure are anticipated to consist of relatively uniform previously placed compacted artificial fill. Based on the results of plasticity index determined by Atterberg Limits Tests, as shown on Plates E-1 and E-2, per Section 1815 of the 2001 CBC, the slab -on -grade system should be designed for an Effective Plasticity Index (EPI) as follows: Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 Q- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 17 0 EPI = WPI X CS X Co Whereas WPl=weighted plasticity index for soils = 34 x 1.05 x 1.0 within the upper 15 feet = 35.7, say 36 CS = Sloping factor = 1.05 (for 5% gradient) Co = Overconsolidation factor = 1.0 (considering compacted fill condition) Geotechnically, concrete slabs should be a minimum of five (5) inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 12-inches on center, or the equivalent reinforcing area. Slab reinforcement should be supported near mid -height of the slab. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of two (2) inches of sand. In moisture sensitive areas the sand should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum ten (10) mil polyvinyl chloride membrane, with all laps sealed. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the slab subgrade soils should be at least 120 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 18-inches, and be verified by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of the slab. Exterior concrete flatwork should be supported on properly compacted soils or firm, undisturbed native soils, as recommended in the Site Grading section of this report. Slabs should be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, amount and type of reinforcements, joint spacing, etc., should be established by the Project Structural Engineer. The ultimate foundation design details, such as concrete strength, reinforcements, footing dimensions, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer. Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 e- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 18 7.3.5 Settlements: The existing fill underlying the subject site varies up to 100 feet. Based upon the calculations presented in GMUI, 2004, total long term settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 2.6 inches. For design purposes, differential settlement of 1.0 inch over a distance of 40 feet should be expected. 7.3.6 Footing Observation: All footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant's representative to verify minimum embedment depths and competency of bearing soils prior to placement of forms and reinforcement. 7.4 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE "PCC" DRIVEWAY For PCC slabs designated as driveway from geotechnical view point, the minimum thickness should be six (6) inches, reinforced with a minimum 6" x 6" W2.1 x W2.1 welded wire mesh placed at mid -height of the slab, or #4 reinforcing bars spaced at a minimum 18 inches on centers. The top 12 inches of subgrade soils supporting PCC driveway should be further compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction in order to minimize potential settlement resulting from dynamic traffic loading. 7.5 The slab subgrade should be proof -rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, unyielding surface, especially if the subgrade has been disturbed or loosened by the Passage of construction traffic, Final compaction and testing of slab subgrade should be performed just prior to placement of concrete. FREE STANDING TOP OF SLOPE WALLS Based on the generally "Medium" expansion potential of the site soils, potential slope creep should be anticipated within the outer approximately 10 feet of the slope face (measured horizontally). In order to minimize the potential effects of slope creep, wall and pilaster footings should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of at least 10 feet from the outside edge of the footing bottom to the slope face from a geotechnical �° Fari International custom Builders ��0 06-5905 May 12, 2006 P SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Page 19 viewpoint. Caissons may be used to achieve the appropriate depth. Footings penetrating the creep zone should be designed to resist active pressures of 40 pcf for the portion of the. footing within the creep zone. Passive pressure for footings adjacent to a descending 2:1 slope should utilize 150 pcf and should be ignored in the upper five feet. 7.6 POOL. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION • Due to the generally "Medium" expansion potential of the site soils, pool and spa walls should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 95 pcf. ® The portion of the pool within 15 feet of the top of the descending slope should be designed to be capable of supporting water without soil support. • Hydrostatic relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa design. ® All fittings and pipe joints, particularly those in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the underlying soils. ® An elastic waterproof expansion joint should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 7.7 SITE DRAINAGE Surface grades adjacent to buildings and slopes should be designed and constructed to facilitate drainage away from structures and the top of descending slopes. Recommended minimum grade in unpaved areas around buildings is 2 percent, and in concrete paved areas is 1 percent directed toward an approved area drain inlet or catch basin. In order to reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water into the soil, it is recommended that irrigation programs be for all landscaped areas be well controlled, extensive area drain systems be placed in landscaped and hardscaped areas, and roof gutters be utilized and tie into the area drain system. ooP ° 4 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 20 Any planter areas placed adjacent to perimeter footings or at the top of slope should be provided with solid bottoms and a drainage pipe, or other devices to divert water away from foundation and slab subgrade soils. Excessive moisture variations in such soils could result in significant volume changes and movement. When development is completed, it should ultimately be the homeowner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices and provide proper irrigation, landscaping and control of burrowing animals. An effective maintenance program should be continued on a regular schedule and any corrections made, especially prior to each rainy season. All slopes are subject to creep or potential instability and homeowners should be informed as to their responsibility where slopes exist contiguous to their property. 7.8 SOILS CORROSIVITY A soluble sulfate content of 0.330% by weight has been recorded from corrosivity testing conducted on on -site soils, as indicated in the Appendix. Per Table 19-A-4 of 2001 CBC, soils exhibiting soluble sulfate content more than 0.2% by weight are classified as having Severe sulfate exposure and should follow the requirements presented in 2001 CBC Table 19-A-4 if any concrete construction is considered. Test results are summarized in the Appendix. The soluble chloride content of 104 ppm recorded in our limited laboratory tests, as shown in the Appendix, is considered low to the threshold values between 0 and 200 ppm per .Federal Highway Administration Standards (FHWA), 2002 and Caltrans Standards, 1999, respectively. Therefore, no special measure in terms of rebar protection against chloride corrosion is recommended herein as a result of the low soluble chloride content tested. The resistivity value of 300 ohm -cm, as well as an accompanying pH -value of 7.78, classifies the on -site soils tested to be SEVERLY corrosive to buried ferrous metals. Fari Intemational Custom Builders May 12, 2006 . 06-5905 Page 21 Q- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Based on California Test 643, the year to perforation for 18-gauge steel in contact with soils of similar resistivity and pH -value is approximately 20 years. In lieu of additional testing, alternative piping materials, i.e. plastic piping, may be used instead of metal if longer service life is desired or required. Alternatively, clean open -graded sand should be laid around the buried metal pipes to prevent the pipes from contact directly with on - site native soils. In addition to the sand buffer zone, a layer of insulation coating may be applied to the metal pipes to provide added protection against potential corrosion. This low resistivity value of on -site soils may also have implications to other building materials and depths of embedment for steel reinforcement etc. It might be advisable that a qualified corrosion consultant be engaged to review the building plans. 7.9 UTILITY TRENCHES Backfill of all trenches should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90 percent, in accordance with ASTM D1557-02. Care should be taken during backfilling to prevent utility line damage. The walls of temporary construction trenches may not be stable when excavated nearly vertical. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes should be considered for temporary excavations deeper than 5 feet. Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity of soils or cause settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches parallel to foundations should be clear of a 45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge of the foundations. All work associated with trenches, excavations and shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code. N`40 Fari International Custom Builders May 12, 2006 oc, A 06-5905 Page 22 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. a 7.10 PLAN REVIE1i� OBSERV,4TIONS AND TESTING All excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to verify minimum embedment depths, competency of bearing soils and that the excavations loose and disturbed materials. Such observations should be made prior to a placementfree oof of any fill, reinforcing steel or concrete. All grading and fill compaction should be performed under the observation of and testing by a Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. As foundation and grading plans are completed or revised, they should be forwarded to the Geotechnical Consultant for review for conformance with the intent of these recommendations. 8.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Fari International Custom Builders Inc. and their design consultants relative to the design and construction of the proposed development. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties. The Owner or their representatives should make sure that the information and recommendations contained in this report are brought to the attention of the project engineers and architects and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary are t steps confirm that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field, p taken to This office should be notified should any of the following, pertaining to the final site development, occur: 1 • Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally proposed for construction. 2. Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this report. 3. The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report. 4. Change of ownership of property occurs. �° SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Far! International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 23 Should any of the above occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of site development for our review to enable us to provide the necessary recommendations for additional work and/or updating of the report. The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the information obtained from the limited number of test borings and the results of laboratory testing and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis it has been assumed, and is expected, that the geotechnical conditions that exist across the area of study are similar to those encountered in the test excavations. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the conditions at locations or depths other than those excavated. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be contacted immediately for recommendations prior to continuation of work. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. These findings and recommendations are, however, dependent on the above assumption of uniformity and upon proper quality control of fill placed and foundations installed. Geotechnical observations and testing should be provided on a continuous basis during grading at the site to confirm design assumptions and to verify conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If parties other than Associated Soils Engineering, Inc., are engaged to provide geotechnical services during construction they must be informed that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities. We appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you during construction related services. '`"q Fari International Custom Builders j • Page 06 06-5905 May 12, ° 24 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES I. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map, Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Released April 15. 2. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, California Data Map Series, Map No. 6. 3. Goffman, McCormick & Urban, Inc., 2004, Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing of Rough Grading, Portion of Lower Customs, Lots 60 through 66, 68 through 71, 87 through 105, and 109 through 111, Tentative Tract Map 15613, Crystal Cove, Newport Beach, Orange County, California, Project No. 03-90-10, dated November 16. 4. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2000, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1 through 28, 34 through 39, and 46 through 80, Lettered Lots, and Streets (excluding masonry walls) within Tract 15586, Crystal Cove, Newport Coast...., Project No. 1830019- 30, dated January 20. A��a SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 May 12, 2006 Page 25 APPEN_ The following Appendix contains the substantiating data and laboratory test results to complement the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained in this report. Figure 1 Figure 2 Site Location Map Figure 3 Local Seismic Hazard Map Figure 4 Plate 1 Seismically -Induced Lateral Earth Pressure Dia Retaining Wall Drainage Details gram Plate B-1 Geotechnical Map Boring Log Plates C-1 through C-3 Plates D-1 through D-3 Consolidation Test Results Plates E-1 and E-2 Direct Shear Test Results Atterberg Limit Test Results SITE EXPLORATION On April 19, 2006, field explorations were performed by drilling one (1) test boring at the approximate location indicated on the attached Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The exploratory boring (B-1) was drilled by Al Roy Drilling Company utilizing a truck -mounted bucket auger drill rig. The boring extended to a maximum depth of forty-nine (49) feet below the adjacent grade. 1 A continuous observation of the materials encountered in the boring was recorded in the field. The soils were classified in the field by visual and textural examination classifications were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future examination aand these the laboratory. Relatively undisturbed samples of soils were extracted in a barrel nsamn er In lined with one -inch high, 2.375-inch interior diameter rings and tipped with a tapered cutting shoe. All samples were secured in moisture -resistant bags as soon as taken to minimize the loss of field moisture while being transported to the laboratory and awaiting testing. Upon completion of exploration, the boring was backfilled with excavated materials and compacted by tamping with the Kelley bar. Description of the soils encountered, depth of samples, field density and field moisture content of tested samples, are given on the Boring Log. �o Fari International Custom Builders �06-5905 May 12, 2006 o�6 P� Page 25 ;OILS ENGINEERING, INC. LABORATORY TESTS After samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide sufficient data for our evaluation was established. CONSOLIDATION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Consolidation and direct shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples to determine the settlement characteristics and shear strength parameters of various soil samples, respectively. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended "C" and "D" Plates. MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST The following maximum density test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D1557-00, Method A, using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, 10-pound hammer, 18 inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold. The result is as follows: BORING NO., DEPTH; FEET MAXIMUM. DRY DENSITY, PCF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, % MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION. -B-1 0-5 94.5 25.5 CL EXPANSION TESTS Expansion tests were performed on soil samples to determine the swell characteristics. The expansion tests were conducted in accordance with a modification of the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 18-2, Expansion Index Test. The expansion samples were remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content, subjected to 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and saturated. MOLDED.. LOCATION MAX. DRY DENS., PCF OPT. MOIST. .CONTENT, % DRY DENSITY, PCF MOLDED MOIST. CONTENT, % % SATURATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION' CLASSIFICATION Boring B-1 0-5' 95.0 25.0 86.5 24.4 69.5 63 Medium Boring 10-1111' - 77.2 22.0 50.3 52 Medium Fari International Custom Builders 06-5905 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 27 LABORATORY TESTS — continued SOIL CORROSIVITY Tests of soluble sulfate and chloride content were performed in accordance with California Test Methods 417 and 422, respectively, to assess the degree of corrosivity of the subgrade soils with regard to concrete and normal grade steel. Resistivity and pl-I-value tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 643 to assess the degree of corrosivity of the subgrade soils with regard to ferrous metal piping. The test results are shown below. Sulfate Content*. Chloride Content*" Resistivity"* (OH - pH Sample N / Degree of (ppm) I Degree of cm)1 Degree of Val.ue*�`* Location Corrosivity Corrosivity. Corrosivity B-1: 0-5, 0.330 / Severe 104 / Low Corrosivity 300 / Very Severely 7.78 Corrosive California Test Method 417 California Test Method 422 * * California Test Method 643 ATTERBERG LIMITS Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318-84. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended "E" Plates. Fari International Custom Builders 0 A 06-5905 �z- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. May 12, 2006 Page 28 q FIELD LOG OF BORING B-1 �,'� • Sheet 1 of 2 Project: Far! International S%ILS ENGINEERING, lydC Location: 35 Del Mar, Crystal Cove Project No. 06-5905 Dates(s) Drilled: 04/19/06 Logged By: Lorie Bartee Drilled By: AI -Roy Drilling Company Total Depth: 49 Feet Rig Make/Model: - Hammer Type: n/a Drilling Method: Bucket Auger Hammer Weight/Drop: 2150#(0-24')1350#(25-44') 650#(45 Hole Diameter: 18" Surface Elevation: - Comments: No caving, no groundwater SAMPLE INTERVALS z o z O U) LL W > ZJ GEOTECFiNICAL w a >>o �Y, d O DESCRIPTION a- uU 0 -m o o °.° _ w _J Z) 0 0 �� �� 0 5 —i— 5 10 -I- 10 15 -I- 15 20 1 20 MUCL CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY: FILL (Afc)-Light yellow brown todark yellowish —_-- ; brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff y 4(Ring) ` V @ 5': Becomes a bit more gravelly, stiff 78.5 28.2 — _-- _- and moist -�-�V @ 9': Siliceous rock V 5(Ring) ML 82.0 28.2 SANDY SILT WITH CLAY: Dark gray to pale brown, moist, abundant siltstone pieces 10(Ring) SM 72.4 33.8 =; ;= ; ;= SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Brownish yellow, moist, dense, fine grained, some small gravel MAX, E.I., Corrosivity Suite, REM. SHEAR, Atterberg CONSOL, UND. SHEAR UND.SHEAR MAX, E,I., Afterberg CONSOL, UND. SHEAR � . % A . � SOILS ENGINEERING. INC SAMPLE INTERVALS U- 3 / L \ L CO / E2 Li 0 U / mc& £ / O & E 2 » m 7(Ring) mg) » 25 n \N \ m 30/ \ m 35 © (Ring) \ \ m m \ \ 45 4 \ \\§ szo pRing FIELD LOG OF BORING B-I Sheet of 2 Project: F r International Lc{!0¢ 3SDel mar\tyskcove Proe|No. 0654 F 2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION / / w / k xLU /0 /0 cO 2E Rq - SANDY SILT WITH CLAY: Light a,l §h ka SJ br p,molb very moist, abundant to2v,tm¥gau #25:Becomes yellowish brown, I mJ ¥ very darkbrown cy #3o:Same as above k: 235:Same make with gravel a@ 1�ag 122.7 rock # 45:-N A#i m ku possible I- I. / o. oc 1.0c 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0 0 7.00 ca 0 8.00 10 a) 0 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 0. I 1.0 10.0 100.0 Pressure ,p'(ksf) Boring No. B-1 Depth (ft.) 5.0 Sample Type: Silty Clay with Gravel roject Name:New Residence -Lot 36,Tract 16455,35 Del Mar ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Dry Density (pcf) = 78.5 Moisture (%) = 28.2 Project No.: 06-5905 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS (ASTM D 2435) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0 0 7.00 c� 10 .8.00 W 0 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 0.1 1.0 Pressure ,p (ksf) Boring No. : 13-1 Depth (ft.) 15.0 Sample Type: Silty Sand with Clay and Gravel roject Name:New Residence -Lot 36,Tract 16455,35 Del Mar ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 10.0 Dry Density (pcf) = 72.4 Moisture (%) = 33.8 100.0 Project No.: 06-5905 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION. PROPERTIES OF SOILS (ASTM D 2435) U. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.01 6.0( 0 0 TOC a 8.00 a� 0 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 0, 10.0 100.0 Pressure ,p (ksf) Boring No, ; B-1 Depth (ft.) 25.0 Sample Type: Silty Clay with Sand roject Name:New Residence -Lot 36,Tract 16455,35 Del Mar ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Dry Density (pcf) = 82.3 Moisture (%) = 34.2 Project No.: 06-5905 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS (ASTM D 2435) 3. 1.0 we 2.0 3.0 Normal Stress (kip/ft2) 4.0 Boring No. : B-1 Depth (ft.) : 5.0 Sample : Undisturbed Sample Type : Silty Clay with Gravel Project Name:New Residence -Lot 36,Tract 16455,35 Del Mar ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Cohesion(C) = 380 psf Friction (�) = 210 Dry Density (pcf) = 78.5 Moisture (%) = 28.2 Project No.: 06-5905 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 3080) PLATE N n n 3 a U) Cn 2.( a s W 1.0 M C 4.0 3.0 Normal Stress (kip/ft2) 4.0 Boring No. : 13_1 Depth (ft.) ; 10.0 Cohesion(C) = 395 psf Sample :Undisturbed Friction (�) = 260 Den82 Sample Type : Sandy Silt with Clay and Siltstone pieces Dry tune y o) (pcf) _ 28. p Moisture 2 Project Name: New Residence -Lot 36 Tract 16455,35 Del Mar ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Project No.: 06-5905 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 3080) pl ®i9: n_' 19 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4313-93 Project Name: Proposed New Residence-35 Del Mar, Tract 16455, Crystal Cove Project No.: 06-5905 Boring No. B-11 Depth (feet): 00-5 Visual Sample Description: Clay CL PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST NO. 1 2 1 2 3 4 Number r of Blows N 33 24 17 Container No. bl cl Al B1 C1 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 15.44 15.50 18.98 18.44 17.33 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 12.87 12.92 15.95 15.63 14.67 Wt. of Container (gm 4.30 4.31 11,18 11.36 10.72 Moisture Content (%) [Wn] 29.99 29.97 63.52 65,81 67.34 Liquid Limit 65 Plastic Limit 30 Plasticity Index 35 USCS Classification CH PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 32.85 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL=Wn(N/25n "' PROCEDURES USED 70.00 Wet Preparation 69.00 68.00 Multipoint - Wet 67.00 66.00 ® Dry Preparation 65.00 a 64.00 Multipoint - Dry 63.00 62.00 ® Procedure A " v 61.00 60.00 Multipoint Test v 59.00 58.00 Procedure B .E � 56.00 5.00 One -point Test 55.00 54.00 53.00 52.00 51.00 50.00 10 60 50 grainea sons ana tine- n grained fraction of coarse- 40 grained soils /U"- Line 30 j CL or OL z 20 °- 10 r -cL-ML MH or OH n ML or OL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1( Liquid Limit ILL) • 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 1b0 Number of Blows PLATE E-1 ATTERI ERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318-93 Project Name: Proposed New Residence-35 Del Mar Tract 1.6455, Crvstal Cove Project No.: 06-5905 Boring No. BB=1 Depth (feet): 10-11 Visual Sample Description: Clay (CL) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST NO. 1 2 1 2 3 4 Number ofBlows [N ] 35 28 1 9 Container No. b2 c2 A2 B2 C2 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 14.59 15.58 18.91 17.99 16.81 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont, (gm) 12.14 12.81 15.81 15.41 14.44 Wt. of Container (gm 4.26 4.31 10.84 11.39 10.85 Moisture Content (%) [Wn] 31.09 32.59 62.37 64.18 66.02 Liquid Limit 65 Plastic Limit 32 Plasticity Index 33 USCS Classification CH PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 32.85 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL =Wn(N/25; " PROCEDURES USED 70.00 Wet Preparation 69.00 68.00 Multipoint - Wet 67.00 66.00 ® Dry Preparation 65.00 0 64.00 Multipoint - Dry 63,00 62.00 ® Procedure A U 61.00 60.00 Multipoint Test 59.00 58.00 ❑0 Procedure B 2 57.00 56.00 One -point Test 55.00 54.00 53.00 52.00 51.00 50.00 10 60 50 axi 40 30 20 °• 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1C Liquid Limit (LL) 0 tu Lb :Ju 4u bu 60 70 80 70o Number of Blows PLATE E-2 SITE FAULTING AND SEISMICITY DATA PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC ASSESSMENT UTILIZING CGS's ANALYSIS Project No.: 06-5905 Project Site Coordinates: Longitude - W-117.83361 Latitude - N 33.58010 Project Site Soil Classification: Alluvium TABLE OF DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS frirxC PrnhahM&+in A.v�l., '-N Soil Type Design Firm Rock() Soft Rock(Z) Aliuvium(z) Acceleration (G) PGA 0.355 0.366 0.4 Sa (0.2 second)(4) 0.834 0.869 0.95 Sa (1,0 second)() 0.311 0.387 0.475 (1) Classified by NEHRP (FEMA, .1997) as rocks having a shear wave velocity no less than 760 meters per second. (2) Modification factors from PGA reflecting local site soils conditions are per NEHRP (FEMA, 1997), which are ground acceleration -dependent. (3) Per Cao et al. (2003), it is defined as the peak ground acceleration for the subject site that carries a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, (4) Spectra acceleration derived from respective PGA with a 5% damping ratio incorporated. �vZ O�Q • ;OILS ENGINEERING, INC. TEST.OUT * E Q F A U L T * * * version 3.00 * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 06-5905 DATE: 05-03-2006 JOB NAME: New Residence -Lot 36,Tract 16455,35 Del Mar Crystal Cove,Orange County,california CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.5801 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.8336 SEARCH RADIUS: 62 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clOdis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT Page 1 TEST.' .OUT APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED DISTANCE I MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY MAG.(MW) ACCEL. g --0.441- MOD.MERC. NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) 2.5 4.0) 6.9 X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 5.5 8.9 6.9 0.329 IX COMPTON THRUST 15.3 24.7 6.8 0.199 Vill PALOS VERDES 15.5 25.0 7.1 0.180 VIII ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 20.1 32.3 6.7 0.144 VIII CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 20.9( 33.6) 6.7 0.138 VIII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 11.7 34.9 6.8 0.110 Vii WHITTIER 21.8 35.1 6.8 0.109 VII CORONADO BANK 22.2 35.7 7.4 0.153 VIII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 28.3( 45.5) 6.8 0.082 VII SAN JOSE 31.8( 51.2) 6.5 0.073 vii SIERRA MADRE 37.9( 61.0) 7.0 0.085 VII CUCAMONGA 38.2 11,4 7,0 0.085 VII ROSE CANYON 39.0 62.8 6.9 0.060 VI RAYMOND 41.1 66.1 6.5 0.053 VI VERDUGO 42.3 68.1 6.7 0.059 VI CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 42.4( 68.2 6.5 0.050 VI HOLLYWOOD 43.7(70.3 6.4 0.044 vi SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 45.1( 72.6 6.,7 0.042 vi SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 45.7 73.6 6.9 0.049 VI SANTA MONICA 47.9 77.1 6.6 0.046 VI ELSINORE-JULIAN 49.3 79.3 7.1 0.051 VI MALIBU COAST 50.9 81.9 6.7 0.046 VI SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 52.5 84.5 7.3 0.055 VI SAN ANDREAS - Southern 52.5 84.5 7.4 0.059 VI SAN ANDREAS - MO aVe 53.4 86.0 7.1 0.046 VI SAN ANDREAS - 187 Rupture 53.4 86.0 7.8 0.077 VII SAN JACINTO-ANZA 53.9 86.8 7.2 0.049 VI CLEGHORN 54.8( 88.2 6.5 0.028 V SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 55.1( 88.6) 6.7 0.041 V NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) 55.8 89.8) 6.9 0.048 vi ANACAPA-DUME 56.9 91.6 7.3 0.064 VI SAN GABRIEL 57.1 91.9) 7.0 0.039 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 59.3 95.5) 7.0 0.048 VI -END OF SEARCH- 34 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 2.5 MILES 4.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM -EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4413 g Page 2