The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 2019-0012; BLOCK (WARD) RESIDENCE; REVISED REMEDIAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS, PROPOSED WARD RESIDENCE, 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE; 2020-12-07December 7, 2020 Brett Ward 7043 Whitewater Street Carlsbad, CA 92011] Subject: Revised Remedial Grading Recommendations Proposed Ward Residence, 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California References: 1) Omega Engineering Consultants, Grading Plans for \Xlard Residence, undated ECO CWE 2200524.03 2) lvlike Suprenant & Associates, \Xlard Residence, Foundation Plans, dated October 27, 2020 3) Christian \Xlheeler Engineering, Report CWE 2200524.01, dated October 5, 2020 Dear lvu:. Ward: At the request of Omega Engineering, we have prepared this letter to revise our recommendations regarding the lateral removal linuts as presented in our referenced report. In order to lessen the inclinations of the proposed temporary cut slopes we are providing herein revised lateral removal linuts for the remedial grading operations. After further review of referenced grading and foundation plans, it is our opinion that lateral removal limits behind the proposed basement retaining walls may be reduced to 3 feet fr~m the back of wall. However, the limits of remedial grading must encompass the entire foundation area. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional se1vice is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully subnutted, CHJ?irhNGmEERlNG Da1uel B. Adler, RCE #36037 DBA:djf:dba ec: brettoward@gmail.com scan@omega-consu1tnnts.com Daniel J. Flowers, CEG #2686 -COPY ' J_ 'l,. b,' November 9, 2020 Brett Ward 7043 Whitewater Street Carlsbad, CA 92011] CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING Subject: Unshored Temporary Cut Slopes Proposed Ward Residence, 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California CWE 2200524.02 References: 1) Omega Engineering Consultants, Grading Plans for Ward Residence, undated 2) Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report C\X1E 2200524.01, dated October 5, 2020 Dear Mr. Ward: At the request of Omega Engineering, we have prepared this letter to address proposed unshored temporary cut slopes associated with the remedial grading operations and retaining wall construction at the subject site. According to the referenced plans, temporary cut slopes up to about 10 feet and 14 feet high will be necessary for proposed retaining wall construction and remedial grading operations associated with the proposed residence, respectively. It is our understanding that it is desired to incorporate unshored temporary cut slopes during the construction. The upper portions of old paralic deposits underlying the site were found to friable and moderately. At depth the old paralic deposits became more competent. If the more competent materials are exposed within the lower portions of the excavations, the temporary cuts can be excavated vertically for the lowest 4 feet and then at an inclination of 1 ½:1 or flatter above. Excavations required for footing construction are considered as part of the temporary slopes. Based on the anticipated soil conditions, it is our opinion that the proposed remedial grading operations (5' below pad and 5' outside of the structure) may be accomplished by incorporating ½: 1 (horizontal to vertical) unshored temporary slopes provided tl~gra ed in alternating slots not exceeding 8 feet in length. The 8-foot wide slot removals should be excavated and backfilled in the same day and no personal should be allowed in or near tl1e excavations. It should be understood that some localized sloughing may occur. 3980 Hom e Avenue + S a n Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 CWE 2200524.02 November 9, 2020 Page No. 2 We recommend that our firm be contacted to have an engineering geologist observe the temporary cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions requiring revised recommendations are encountered. If adverse conditions are identified, it may be necessary to flatten the slope inclination. No surcharge loads such as soil or equipment stockpiles, foundations, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRI EELER ENGINEERING DBA:djf:dba cc: brcttoward@gmail.com sean@omega-consultants.com July 8, 2020 Brett Ward 3291 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 CHRJSTIAN WHEELER. ENG IN EER_ING Subject: Limited Geotechnical Review of Grading Plans Proposed Ward Residence, 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California C\XIE 2200359.01 References: 1) Omega Engineering Consultants, Grading Plans for Ward Residence, undated 2) Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report CWE 2190330.04, dated October 23, 2019 4) Christian \X!heeler Engineering, Report C\X/E 2190330.02, dated July 19, 2019 Dear Mr. Ward: At your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical review of the referenced grading plans for the subject project in order to ascertain that the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report have been implemented, and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the proposed construction. Based on this review, it is our opinion that, in generai the plans reflect the recommendations contained in the referenced report, and that no additional recommendations are necessaiy. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Daniel B. Adler, RCE # 36037 ec: brcttoward@gmail.com 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619 -550-1700 t-FAX 619-550 -1701 July 10, 2019 Brad Block 3512 Seagate Way, Suite 130 Oceanside, California 92056 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Subject: Report of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations CWE 2190330.01 Proposed Block Residence, 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Block: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report to present our preliminary geotechnical findings and recommendations for the subject project. This report is based on our subsurface explorations performed at the site and our knowledge and experience with the general geotechnical conditions of the site vicinity. PRELIMINARY SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of a developed, irregular-shaped lot located at 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California. The site is identified as Accessors Parcel Number 205-051-11 and presently supports a one- story, single-family residence and other associated improvements. A detached garage previously existed to the northwest of the residence which was recently demolished. The property is bounded on the east by Highland Drive and on the remaining sides by developed residential properties. According to the topographic base map (Omega, 2019), the site slopes gently to the west with elevations ranging from approximately156 feet at the westerly property line to approximately 171 feet at the easterly property line. We understand that the subject project will consist of remodeling and constructing one-story and two- story lateral additions to the existing residence. The additions to the west of the residence are anticipated 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 {-FAX 619-550-1701 CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 2 to be partially subterranean. The project will also entail the construction of decks and a two-story garage/accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to the northwest of the residence. We anticipate that the proposed lateral additions and garage/ ADU will be of conventional, wood-frame construction whereas the underground portion of the additions will be of masonry and/ or concrete construction. The proposed additions as well as the garage/ ADU will supported by new shallow foundations and will incorporate a conventional concrete on-grade floor slab. In addition, a driveway with associated retaining walls up to about 3 feet high as well as property line walls up to approximately 4 feet high are proposed. Grading to accommodate the proposed construction is expected to consist of cuts up to approximately 7 feet and fills of less than a few feet from existing grades. To aid us in the preparation of this report, we were provided with topographic base map prepared by Omega Land Surveying, Inc., dated April 3, 2019, structural plans prepared by PCSD Engineering, dated May 17, 2019, a grading concept plan of unknown origin dated June 6, 2019, and a set of miscellaneous architectural plans of unknown origin, dated May 2, 2019. A copy of the grading concept plan has been used as the base for our Site Plan and Geotechnical Map, and is included herein as Plate No. 1. FINDINGS EXISTING FOOTINGS The footings supporting the existing structure were exposed at 2 locations. The following table summarizes our measurements of the existing footing and the foundation soils. In both locations the footings appeared to have been reinforced relatively recently by placing approximately 4 inches to 6 inches of concrete adjacent to the footings which extends to varying depths. Sketches of the footings are presented in Appendix A. TABLE I: EXISTING FOOTINGS Pit Location Footing Depth/ Width Foundation Soils Pit P-l(North) 14"/2" Loose to Medium Dense (Qop)'' Pit P-l(East)'''' 6"/12" Loose to Medium Dense (Qop)'' Pit P-2 6"/15" Loose to Medium Dense (Qop)'' ,:-old paralic deposits •f>f Leach line encased in crushed rock under footing C\VE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, and analysis of readily available, pertinent geolo gic literature, it was determined that the area of the site investigated site is generally underlain by topsoil and old paralic deposits. These materials are described below: ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): A layer of artificial fill approximately 1-foot-thick was encountered in test pit P-6 . Artificial fill may exist in areas of the site not investigated. The upper 4 inches of the fill material appeared to be imported DG associated with the existing driveway. The materials below this generally consisted of light gray and light brown, dry, loose, silty sand (SM). The artificial fill was judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI< 20). TOPSOIL: A relatively thin layer of topsoil was encountered underlying the artificial fill or at grade throughout the site, except in test pit P-1 north. As encountered in the test pits, the topsoil layer had a maximum thickness of about 1 ½ feet (test pit P-3). The topsoil may be thicker in areas of the site not investigated. These materials generally consisted of light grayish-brown and light brown, dry, very loose and loose, silty sand (SM). The topsoil was judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI<20). OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were encountered underlying the surficial soils throughout the site. These materials generally consisted of light brown, orangish-brown reddish-brown and grayish-brown, dry and moist, silty sand (SM). The old paralic deposits were found to be loose to medium dense to a maximum depth of about 4 feet below existing grade (test pit P-6), and medium dense below said depth. Deeper loose to medium dense old paralic deposits may exist in areas of the site not investigated. The old paralic deposits were judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI< 20). GROUNDWATER: No groundwater or seepage was encountered in our subsurface explorations. CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 4 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS It is our professional opinion and judgment that no geotechnical conditions exist at or the general vicinity of the subject property that would preclude the construction of the proposed additions and ADU provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The main geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction include potentially compressible fill soils, topsoil and old paralic deposits and undersized exiting footings. These conditions are discussed hereinafter. The site was found to be underlain by potentially compressible fill soils, topsoil, and old paralic deposits extending to a maximum combined depth of about 4 feet below existing site grade (test pit P-6). However, deeper potentially compressible soils may exist in areas of the site not investigated. These soils are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements. In order to mitigate this condition, it is recommended that these materials be removed and replaced as compacted fill. In addition, in order to create a uniform foundation soil condition, it is recommended that old paralic deposits be partially removed and replaced as compacted fill. Special consideration will be necessary in areas of the site were these operations are unfeasible. The existing footings were found to be undersized and founded on potentially compressible soils. As such, existing footings to receive new loads should be underpinned. Consideration should be given to underpinning all footings to remain. Site preparation and grading recommendations will be included in our forthcoming geotechnical report. The following foundation recommendations should be considered preliminary and may require revisions after the results of our laboratory tests are analyzed. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgment, the proposed addition, ADU, and exterior miscellaneous improvements may be supported by new conventional shallow foundations. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on soil conditions and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. These recommendations assume that the site preparation recommendations contained in the forthcoming report are implemented. CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page N o. 5 DIMENSIONS: Spread footings supporting the proposed addition and ADU should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. Spread footings supporting the proposed light exterior improvements should be embedded at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Retaining wall footings should be at least 24 inches wide. In areas where site preparation is unfeasible and along property lines the foundations should be deepened and founded at least 6 inches into competent old paralic deposits. BEARING CAPACITY: Spread footings with a minimum depth and minimum width of 12 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (ps~. This value may be increased by 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment and 400 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width up to a maximum of 4,000 pounds per square foot. These values may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural designer. However, based on the expected soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the top of the footing. Footings located adjacent to existing footings or slabs should be doweled as recommended by the project structural engineer. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.30. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. UNDERPINNING: Underpinning recommendations should be provided by the project structural designer. Underpinning may consist of the construction of a pad footing under existing continuous footings and/ or constructing a sister footing adjacent to it. Underpinned footings should extend to a depth such that the footing is at least 24 inches deep and founded at least 6 inches into competent old paralic deposits, whichever is greater. These footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 6 pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psQ. This value may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads.4 PROPERTY LINE FOUNDATIONS: Property line footings should extend to a depth such that the footing is at least 24 inches deep and founded at least 6 inches into competent old paralic deposits, whichever is greater. These footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psQ. This value may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING EXCAVATION COMPACTION: The bottom of underpinned and property line footings as well as footings located in areas where site preparations are unfeasible should be watered thoroughly and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Compaction should be confirmed by performing in-place density tests. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing of forms and reinforcing steel to determine whether the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level, and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch over 40 feet, respectively, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. However, it should be recognized that there is a higher than typical potential for differential settlements for additions. It is further our opinion that these conditions may result in cosmetic distress that may be easily repaired, and not result in significant structural distress to the structure. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The prevailing foundation soils are assumed to have a very low expansion potential (EI< 20). The recommendations within this report reflect these conditions. CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 7 SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS The seismic design factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented in the following Table II. TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS Site Coordinates: Latitude 32 .163° Longitude -117.335° Site Class D Site Coefficient F. 1.048 Site Coefficient Fv 1.566 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss 1.131 g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period S1 0.434 g SMs =F.Ss 1.185 g SM1=FvS1 0.680 g Sos=2/3':•sMs 0.790 g Soi= 2/3''SM1 0.453 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. ON-GRADE CONCRETE SLABS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed addition and ADU will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. These recommendations assume that the site preparation recommendations contained in the forthcoming report are implemented. CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page No. 8 INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches (actual) and the slab should be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars spaced at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend down into the perimeter footings at least 12 inches. New slabs located adjacent to existing footings or slabs should be doweled as recommended by the project structural designer. UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor coverings. Local industry standards typically include the placement of a vapor retarder, such as plastic, in a layer of coarse sa nd placed directly beneath the concrete slab. Two inches of sand are typically used above and below the plastic. The vapor retarder should be at least 15-mil Stegowrap® or similar material with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings. The sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30, and contain less than 10% passing the Number 100 sieve and less than 5% passing the Number 200 sieve. The membrane should be placed in accordance with the recommendation and consideration of ACI 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction" and ASTM E 164 3, "Standards Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs." It is the flooring contractor's responsibility to place floor coverings in accordance with the flooring manufacturer specifications. EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for any proposed retaining walls should be constructed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented previously in this report. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The upper foot of embedment should be neglected when calculating passive pressures, unless the foundation abuts a hard surface such as a concrete slab. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. CWE 2190330.01 July 10, 2019 Page N o. 9 ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 37 and 56 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values are based on a drained backfill condition. Seismic lateral earth pressures may be assumed to equal an inverted triangle starting at the bottom of the wall with the maximum pressure equal to 9H pounds per square foot (where H = wall height in feet) occurring at the top of the wall. WATERPROOFING AND WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: The need for waterproofing should be evaluated by others. If required, the project architect should provide (or coordinate) waterproofing details for the retaining walls. The design values presented above are based on a drained backfill condition and do not consider hydrostatic pressures. The retaining wall designer should provide a detail for a wall drainage system. Additionally, outlets points for the retaining wall drain system should be coordinated with the project civil engineer. BACKFILL: Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. CLOSURE If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, 711}71:;GmEEfilNG Daniel B. Adler, RCE #36037 DBA:djf encl: Plate No. 1 Appendix A ec: brad@gcs-inc.com Daniel F. Flowers, CEG #2686 ----- ---... .,,,,,, {'611111 " 'In i '"' CWELEGEND f!il P-1 TEST PIT LOCATIONS Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS *Note: Topsoils and Artificial Fills <1' Not Mapped SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGIC MAP DATE: BY: t, I \ \ \ 0 PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JULY 2019 JOB NO.: SD PLATE NO.: 20' 40' SCALE: 1" = 20 ' 2190330.01 ,~!:.~ tr'& CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENG INEE R ING Appendix A Subsurface Explorations LOG OF TEST PIT P-1 (East) C,1 SPT Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: g z :::, 0 ~ iS < ;>-""' 1-1.l 1-1.l .... 0 >1--1 0 -- 0.5-- SM ->- 1--SM -- 15----- -- 2->- I -- I 2.5->- -- :\->- ->- I I 3.5- ->- 4-- -- 4.5->- 1-l 5->- -- 5'5->- ->- 6-----; ->- 6.5->-'-- -- 7-l I I -- 7.5-- ~ Notes: ---,- 6114119 Equipment: Hand tools DJF Auger Type: NIA ± 164.5 feet Drive Type: NIA 162.0 feet Depth to \XI ater: NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) 6" PCC Footing Toesoil: Light grayish-brown, dry, loose, v1ery fine-to medium-grained, SILTY SAND with rootlets. ~ Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Light brown, dry, loose, very fine- medium-grained, SIL TY SAND, porous, highly weathered. Crushed rock and 6" clay pipe leach li~e@ 1.5 to 2.5 feet, abundaJt roots. I Orangish-brown, moist, medium dense. I I Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwateror seepage encountered. 1 i' ST 1\D S04 SA HA SE Pl er z~ 0 1, ~._£ ~ l f---< ~ 1-1.l jj, z~ 1-1.l J:l ""'~ I Symbol Legend PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Groundwater Level During Drilling Samele Tree and Laborato!)' Test Legend Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Standard Penetration Test DR Dri\'e Ring Shelby Tube Max Densiry DS Direct Shear Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation Sie,·e Anal)•sis El Expansion Index Hydrometer R•Val Resistance Value Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides Plasticity Tndex Res pH & Resisrivit)' Collapse Potential SD Sample Density >1--1 ~ b z ~ ""' '# 0 /'.: ~~ (f) ~~ 0 15 'B' f---< 1-1.l i::~ ~(f) .... o ..e. ""' ~ ~z <""' o'"' ~ s ~ .... ~ ~(f) Oo ~o~ (f) i:Q ~u 0 u~ .... ~ I cal i I I I '' Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non•Representative Blow Count /rocks oresent) BY: ENG IN EERI NG SRD APPENDIX: A-1 0 I __ 0.5 -- 1 -- 1-- -- 1.5-- --1 2-l 3-t 1-- 1 -3.5--i _l I 4-- I ,-- 1-- 5.5-- I 7.s-...!.. I LOG OF TEST PIT P-1 (North) Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: g .. : ,. '·: .. r .. 6 ~ <Fl <Fl ~ ::i SM 6114119 DJF 163.0 feet 162.0 feet Equipment: Auger Type: Drive Type: Depth to Water: Hand tools NIA NIA NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) / Light brown, damp, loose to mediu~1 dense, very fine-to medium-grained, SILTY SAND-;-p?rous, friable, moderately wrathered to 2 feet. 1 • I L I Reddish-brown, moist, medium dense. ---, I Test pit termindted at 2.5 feet. No grounowat'( or seepage epcoimtered. Sample Type and Laborato1)' Test Legend C,I SPT ST Modified California Sampler CK Chunk ~J;e1i;r1i~emnion Tm DR DriYe Ring MD Max Dcnsit)' S04 Soluble Sulfates SA Sieve Analysis HA Hrdromctcr SE Sand Equivalent PT Plasticity Tndex CP Collapse Potential I ~ ~i <Fl J-, .... z Oo ::s u DS Direct Shear Con Consolid.uion El Expansion Index R-Val Resistance Value Chl Soluble Chlorides Res pH & Resistiviry SD Sample Density -j- t I Notes: -1-- I * ** Symbol Legend Groundwater level During Drilling Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage No Sample Recovery Non•Representative Blow Count rocks oresent) DATE, BY: PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 SRD APPENDIX: A-2 cfd CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING LOG OF TEST PIT P-2 Col SPT ST Date Logged: 6114119 Equipment: Hand tools MD Logged By: DJF Auger Type: NIA S04 SA Existing Elevation: ± 163.0 feet Drive Type: NIA HA SE Finish Elevation: 162.0 feet Depth to Water: NIA Pl er g z g 0 ~ ~ ;> ,,.. µ.i µ.i ,-l 0 µ.i c.., ,-l Z,z- 0 0 0 0 ,-l /:Q i::: -E u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~ ~ 5:l (based on Unified Soil Classification System) V) I-< ~ ,,.. V) ~] ~ u V) µ.i~ c.., ::> ,,..~ 0 2" PCC Slab --:-. -- SM Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Reddish-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, 0.5--very fine-to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND, upper 12" slightly weathered. I I .. --.•. ' 1--.• : --'I'· Medium dense. - ·•· LS--,. ·' --' 2--•. - I .,. ---.. .. I 2.5--:•, .. : : 1-- 3--I ---' .. I , ... I ' I Test pit teriuinated at 3 feet. ' I I No ground\vater or seepage encountered. ' I 3.5----I - 4--- --I 4.5-- I--- 5--,_ I I I I I -1 5.5-,.!... - ·-- 6--I -- 6.5-- -- 7--' l 1- I 7.5-T Notes: ' I --- I Symbol Legend Groundwater Level During Drilling PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Samele Tree and Laborato!)' Test Legend Modified California Sunpler CK Chunk Standard Penetration Test DR DriwRing Shdby Tube MaxDo?nsity DS Direct Shear Soluble Sulfates Con Cons0Hd.11ion SieH Analysis El Expansion Tndex Hrdrometer R-Val Resistance Value Sand Equi,·.1lent Chi Soluble Chlorides Pl:micity Tndcx Res pH & Resistivity Collapse Potential SD Sample Densi1r µ.i b 5 ~ ,,.. t'- 1:: ~;::-V) ~~ 0 ~~ I-< µ.i ~~ ~ V) ,-l 0~ ,,.. i:d V) I-< <,,.. 01-< ~ 5 .... z ~ ,-l ~ /:Q V) Oo ~o~ ::ll:'.l V) /:Q ~u 0 u~ 1CK I I I I I " r - - l L I ~~, Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR..lSTlAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count rocks oresent) BY: ENGINEER.ING SRD APPENDIX: A-3 :;, i!2 "'" 11.l 0 0 -- 0.5->- -- 1->- -- 1.5-- ·->- 2--' ->- 2.5-- ->- 3-J_ -- 3.5->- -- 4->- ->- 4.5-- 1->- 5-- -- 5.5->- I -- 6---- 6.5-- T -I- 7-T 1-- 7.~-.l t LOG OF TEST PIT P-3 Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: ~ :;, z 0 i:::: ~ ~ 11.l (!) ,-l 0 0 ,-l ~ u ~ :I: V) "'" V) ;z u V) (!) ::i .. SM ,•• : SM •: .. . ~ . ..... '•: - I - 6114119 Equipment: Hand tools DJF Auger Type: NIA ± 163.0 feet Drive Type: NIA 162.0 feet Depth to Water: NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Topsoil: Light brown to light grayish-brown, dry, very loose, very fine-to nfrdium-grained, SIL TY SAND, porous with rootlets and animal 7urrows. Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Light brown to oraogish-brown, damp, loose to medium dense, very fioe~to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND, friable, pbrous, moderately weathered to 3.5 feet. t I I I I Reddish-brown, moist, medium dense. I I Test pit terminJted at 5 feet. 1 No groundwate1r or seepage encountered. . j . -- - - I I I • --r -------l Cal SPT ST MD 504 SA HA SE PT er z'µ' 0 0 i:::: ..2 ~~ ,... ~ 11.l ~ z .£ IJ.l.&l "'"~ I Notes: ---- - Symbol Legend Groundwater Level During Drilling I PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Sample Type and LaboratO!)' Test Legend Modified Californi.i S2IllplC"r Standard Penetration Test Shelby Tube Max Density Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis Hrdrometcr Sand Equiv.i.lent Plankitr Tndex Collapse Potential 11.l "'" ,f< ~ ~~ 11.l ,-l "'" :.: V) ,... ~ s '""'z Oo V) ~ :g u CK - CK I ~ - CK ' I I I I I ' ' CK Chunk DR Drive Ring DS Direct Shear Con ConsoliWtion El Expansion Index R-Val Resistance Value Chi Soluble Chlorides Res pH & Resistivi1r SD Sample-Density ~ z 0 '""' V) Z ,;:;-11.l u ~~ os <"'" ~ 0 - ,-l :g ~8l I i I r t (·~~ ~fl - ~ 0 ,... ;z V) o,... ~ V) j~ t I Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count rocks oresem) BY: ENGINEERIN G SRD APPENDIX: A-4 LOG OF TEST PIT P-4 Samele Tyee and Laborato1y Test Legend c,1 Modified California Sampll'r CK Chunk SPT Standard Pcncualion Test DR Drive Ring ST Shelby Tube Date Logged: 6114119 Equipment: Hand tools MD Max Density DS Direct Shc.-ir Logged By: DJF Auger Type: NIA S04 Soluble Sulfam Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index Existing Elevation: ± 163.5 feet Drive Type: NIA HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides Finish Elevation: 162.0 feet Depth to Water: NIA Pl Plastfrity Tndcx Res pH & Rcsistivit)' CP Collapse Poicntial SD Sample Density g (!) >-l z~ 1-i.l ~ z ~ z 0 0 0 '5 ~ -;f1 0 >-l i:q i::: .£ ~ ~i &l ~~ 0 g 0 u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~ ~ Z G I-< i5 ~ :i:l (based on Unified Soil Classification System) ~ 1-1--1 u ~ VJ VJ I-< ~ 0~ ~ ~] ~ ~ VJ I-< <~ 0 I-< ~ ~ VJ ~ -z ;,-. >-l ~ ~ u i:q VJ 1-1--1 >-l VJ 1-1--1.&> Oo ~ :::lo~ < 1-1--1 0 1-1--1 (!) ::i ~~ VJ i:q ~u 0 u~ >-l 1-< 0 .. SM Toesoil: Light grayish-brown, dry, loose, very fine-to medium-grained, SILTY I ·--SAND, porous with rootlets and animal burrows. 0.5-'- --'-; l -'T ... -'-,. I SM Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Light brown to orangish-brown, damp, loose to 1.5-.. ~ medium dense, very fine-to 1nedium-grained, SIL TY SAND, friable, porous, I ' --'- .. t ~ ; • highly weathered to 3 feet. :,: .. 2-'-... ... -~ .. I ., 2.5-I-I I_ .. ,_ .-~ I tCal ' I I 3-I-... I--' Reddish-brown, moist, medium dense . I ,_ ..L ., r I 3.?-~-- -I-----.. 1-,_ ' -.. I-~ ' ., I 4.5-,_ .. I .. :-·1 I {, •. : ~ ' -I --,.,,. I : Cal 5-'-I I I J. I Test pit terminated at 5 feet. I -I No groundwater or seepage encountered. - 5.5-l - -cl.. -I 6-~ -I I I I ---I I 6.5-J_ - I --- 7--,-i I -~ -- I I I 7.5-'-I I ' ----~ -+ + ~ Nott\s: I I I I ----- ; j I I S~mbol Legend PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE ? Groundwater Level During Drilling 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE fl .'! Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA !! Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. * No Sample Recovery ENG INEER ING ** Non-Representative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX: A-5 frocks nresent\ g gJ p.. µ,;j 0 0 -- 0.5-- -- 1-- -~ 1.5-- -~ 2---- 2s--. I 1-,..,_ 3-l -T I 3.5-- -~ 4---- 4.5-- -- 5-l.. -- 5.5--_l I 6-- ·-- 6.5-- -- 7----' 7.5-- LOG OF TEST PIT P-5 Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: g z 0 ~ G'.i ... µ,;j C) ... 0 0 ... 11:l u ~ :2 VJ p.. VJ ;z u VJ C) 0 .. SM .. : SM + .,. ,', ' •' . '•: ·,::: I 6114119 DJF 161.0 feet 160.5 feet Equipment: Hand tools Auger Type: NIA Drive Type: NIA Depth to Water: NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Toesoil: Light grayish-brown, dry, very loose, fine-to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND with rnotlets. ' Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Light brown, damp, loose, very fine· to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND with rootlets, porous, friable, highly weathered to 3 feet. Reddish-brown, moist. I ' I I Test pit terminyed at 5 feet. 1 ! No groundwater or seepage encountered. I I I Cal SPT ST MD S04 SA HA SE PT CP z~ O o i:: .,£ ~ ~ I-< ~ µ,;j ~ z .£ µ,;j .,Q p..~ I j Notes: I -,-- I Symbol Legend Groundwater Level During Drilling PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Samele Tyee and Laborato1:,y Test Legend Modified California Sarnpler Standard Penetration Test Shdby Tube Max Density Soluble Sulfates Sie\'e Analysis H)'drometer Sand Equivalent Pla!iticity Tndex Collapse Potenti:il µ,;j p.. 'if. /: ~;::- µ,;j ~ 15 ... p.. :ad VJ I-< ~ :3 ..... z Oo VJ 11:l :Su I I I I CK Chunk DR Drive Ring DS DirectShe,1r Con Consolid.nion El Expansion Index R-Val Resistance Value Chi Soluble Chlorides Rcs pH & Resistivity SD Sample Density ~ z 0 VJ ZQ µ,;j u ~~ 0~ < p.. ~ 0 ... ::s ~o;;-u~ I ,~-~ A ~ ~ ;z Cf) 0 I-< 11:l ;fl j I-< I Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count frocks oresent) BY: ENG I NEER ING SRD APPENDIX: A-6 0 , __ I 0.5 -T -r J-,- 1.s-- LOG OF TEST PIT P-6 Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: SW- SM - SM 6114119 DJF 165.0 feet 163.75 feet Equipment: Auger Type: Drive Type: Depth to Water: Hand tools NIA NIA NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Artificial Fill (QaQ: Light gray, dry, loose, very fine-to coarse-grflined, well-graded SAfD ,Vith silt. (4" DG driveway). --+ Light brown, dry, loose, very,fine-to medi_t!m~rainied, SP,TY SAND-._ I Topsoil: Light brown to light grayish-brown, damp, loose, very fine-to mediurn-grainied, SILTY SAND, porous with root!~ --- I Sample Type and Laboratol)' Test Legend C,I SPT ST Modified C.,lifornia Sampler Standard Penemuion Test Shelby Tube MD Max Density S04 Soluble Sulfates SA Sie\·e Analysis HA Hydrometer SE Sand Equin..lem Pf Plasticity lndex CP Collapse Potential CK Chunk DR Drive Ring DS Direct Shear Con Coasolid.ation El Expansion Index R•Val Resistance Value Chl Soluble Chlorides Res pH & Resistivity SD Sample Density 2->--1,-1,··--------,f-------------------------'-1---------+----+----!--+----!---+----+--- I I 2.5->-_l I I 3-r- -l 3.5-l ' _J.. i 4-- 1 -- 4.5-- 5-T I -T -5.s-l 6-- 1 _1_ I 6;5 -T 1-T 7-~ 1-l I 7.5-- 1 I * ** SM .: ,, : I Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Reddish-brown, moist, loose to me9ium dense, very fineTornedium-grained, SIL TY S-A:ND, porous, friable, highly wfathered to 4 feet. I I I I _I ____ ' ----- M1edium de.nse. I l Test pit terf"inated at 5 feet. I No grounorater or seepage encountered. -_[ - I I Symbol Legend PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Groundwater Level During Drilling Cal Cal t I I Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count rocks oresent) BY: SRD APPENDIX: A-7 --f- 1fl I -, CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEEIUNG g i5 ""' 1-J.l 0 0 1-- 0.5--I -...L 1-', ->- l.S-- ->- 2->- ->- 2.5->- -- 3->- I 1->-I 3.5-- ->- 4-- ->- 4.5->- ·->- 5->- -- 5.5->- -J._ 6-- ->- 6.5-- ->-I 7-'- -~ I I 7.5-- LOG OF TEST PIT P-7 Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: ~ :;, z 0 i:::: < ~ ..-l 1-J.l 0 ..-l 0 0 ..-l l'Q u ~ :I: V) ""' V) ;z u V) 0 ::i .. SM SM 1 6114119 DJF 159.0 feet 160.5 feet Equipment: Hand tools Auger Type: NIA Drive Type: NIA Depth to Water: NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Toesoil: Light grayish-brown, dry, very loose, very fine-to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND with rootlets and animal burrows. Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Light brown, damp, loose, very fine-to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND, friable, porous, highly weathered to 3.5 feet. - I I -I ' I Reddish-brwon, moist, medium dense. I ! - Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet. No groundwate1r or seepage encountered. 1 ' -I j I - I ~ - ' I I I l c,1 SPT ST MD S04 SA HA SE Pl er z~ 0 '5 i::::-£ ~~ I-< ~ !t ] 1-J.l,&, ""'~ ➔ Notes: ' ---- Symbol Legend Groundwater Level During Drilling PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Samele Tyee and Laborato!)'. Test Legend Modified Dliforni3 Sampler Standard Prnetralion Tm Shdby Tube Max Dmsi1y Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis H)'drome1er Sand Equi\·alc:nt Plasticity Index Collapse Potrmial 1-J.l ~ >'< ""' ~;:-r:: 1-J.l i: t'i ..-l ""' ~ <I) I-< ~ .... z s Oo V) p:i ::s u I . CK Chunk DR Drin-Rins DS Direct Shr.ar Con Consolidation EI Expansion Index R-Val Resistance Value Chi Soluble Chlorides Res pH & Resistivity SD Sample Density b z 0 V) t'i 'u o-e, ~§ ;,. ~ 0 - - <""' ..-l ::s ~8l I ' i ' I (·~~~ trfl ~ i2 ~<I) Oi--, ~~ ..-l 1-< I Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR..ISTIAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count rocks oresem) BY: ENGINEER ING SRD APPENDIX: A-8 g iS p., I.I.l 0 0 -- 0.5-- -1 1-- -- J;:,-T 1-T 2-- -- 2.5--1-t- I 3-i'" -J_ 3.5-t- I --I J._ 4-I I -- 4.5-t- --I 5-I I I _ 5.5-- -t- 6-t- -T 6.5---- 7-"T" -J._ I I 7.5-- ~- LOG OF TEST PIT P-8 Date Logged: Logged By: Existing Elevation: Finish Elevation: ~ z 0 i::: ~ I.I.l ,-1 I.I.l - c., s u ~ c., ., ; ' '· :,: ·· ... ·,:: SM SM 6114119 DJF 170.0 feet 171.5 feet Equipment: Hand tools Auger Type: NIA Drive Type: NIA Depth to Water: NIA SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Toesoil: Grayish-brown, dry, very loose, very fine-to medium-grained, SIL TY SAND with tr.-ce gravels. Old Paralic Deeosits (Qoe): Light brown, damp, loose to medium dense, very fine-to medium-grained, SILTY SAND, porous, friable, highly weathered to 3.5 feet. , I I I - - Reddish-brown, moist, medium dense. I " - I Test pit terminated at 5 feet. I I N'o groundwater or seepage encountered. - ' I_ C,I SPT ST MD S04 SA HA SE Pl CP Notes: I I I ' '2" !' Symbol Legend Groundwater Level During Drilling I PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Samele Tyee and Laboratory Test Legend Modified California Sampler Standard Penetration Test Shdby Tube .M:u: Density Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Sand Equivalent Planiciryln~x Collapse Potential I - I I - ~! V) I-< .... z Oo ::Su CK Chunk DR Drive Ring DS DirectShe.ir Con Consolid.nion El Expansion Index R-Val Resistance Value Chi Res SD - - Soluble Chlorides pH & Resistivity Sample Density I I l (·~-~ tr~ ~ ~ V) 0 I-< ~ V) < I.I.l ....11-< - 11 Groundwater Level After Drilling Apparent Seepage DATE: JULY 2019 JOB NO.: 2190330.01 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. * ** No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count /rocks present) BY: ENGINEERING SRD APPENDIX: A-9 T 1'" 1ETIETT =111=11r- 6" leach line and crushed rock ~rade Limits of P-1 1"" P-1 (EAST) 6" PCC Stemwall f-6" --l PCC Recent -----; PCC T Crawl space grade 17" vmID' 2" PCC Slab P-2 l--12"---l Grade 1EITT='TT =1TI=lfr- f-6" --l T 1~" PCC Stem Wall J P-1 (NORTH) I-6" -----j . r I I J.. PCC Foottng I Recent '-----'. PCC · Limits of P-1 ~ ~~II Crawlspace grade 2" PCC Slab PCC Stem Wall l--14 "----l PCC Footing r-15"-----l Limits of P-2 ~ SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP DATE: BY: !Recent PCC 1-4"-1 18" Crawl space grade 2"PCC Slab PROPOSED BLOCK RESIDENCE 3291 HIGHLAND DRNE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JULY2019 JOB NO.: NOTTO SCALE 2190330.01 I~~~ ¥ft ~- CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER ENGIN EER.ING SRD APPENDIX A: A-10