HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2017-0018; POLZIN RESIDENCE; GRADING PLAN REVIEW; 2017-10-03South Shore Testin
23811 WashingtonAve,SuiteCII0,#112,Murrieta,CA 92562
Phone: (951) 239-3008 FAX: (951) 239-3122
October 3, 2017
Mr. Joe Polzin
P.O. Box 268
Temecula, CA 92593
SUBJECT: GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single-Family Residence
4382 Adams Street
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Work Order No. 3011601.00F
E-mail: ss.testing@aol.com
RECEl,1ED
OCT O 4 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
REFERENCES: South Shore Testing & Environmental, 2017, "Updated Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 4382
Adams Street, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California", Work
Order No. 3011601.00AR, Dated October 3, 2017.
Dear Mr. Polzin:
Spear & Associates, Inc., 2017, "Precise Grading Plan for: Polzin
Residence, 4382 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008", Sheet 1 thru 6 of 6,
Scale: l"= 10'.ProjectNo. CDP2017-0018.
Pursuant to recommendations in the above referenced report, we have reviewed the above
referenced Precise Grading Plan for the proposed single-family residence. It is our opinion the
proposed Precise Grading Plan is in general conformance with the recommendations presented in
the referenced geotechnical report. We have not verified the plans for accuracy, as we do not
provide civil engineering, surveying, or structural engineering services, but have reviewed the plans
in conjunction with the soil parameters and have found them to be generally consistent with the
minimum recommendations contained in the referenced soil report.
All recommendations contained in the referenced report are still considered appropriate.
RECORD COPY
Initial Date
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. No. 3011601.00F
\
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Limitations and conditions contained in reference
documents are considered in full force and applicable. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully.
South Shore Testing & Environmental
[~ P. Frey P}
P~ ect Geologist
South Shore Testing & Environmental
/
William C. Hobbs, RCE 42265
Civil Engineer
W.O. No.3011601.00F
South Shore Testin & Environmental
23811 Washington Ave, Suite Cl 10, #I 12, Murrieta, CA 92562
Phone: (951) 239-3008 FAX: (951) 239-3122
October 3, 2017
Mr. Joe Polzin
P.O. Box 268
Temecula, CA 92593
E-mail: ss.testing@aol.com
SUBJECT: UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single-Family Residence
4382 Adams Street
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Work Order No.3011601.00AR
Dear Mr. Polzin:
Pursuant to your authorization, a preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted on the
subject site in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.11. Attached
as Plate I, the Geotechnical Map is a not-to-scale image of the I 0-scale "Conceptual Grading
Plan", prepared by Spear & Associates, Inc., indicating the proposed development, the
approximate location of the exploration trenches, our geologic cross-section, and pertinent
geotechnical information.
Scope of Work
The scope of work performed for this study included the following:
1. Onsite observation and documentation of existing site geometry with respect to the
location of the proposed single-family residence. No grading plans were available for our
use, but we anticipate that the proposed residence will be constructed on the northeasterly
portion or upper elevations of the site.
2. Advancement of two (2) exploratory trenches to the total depth explored of 7 .0-ft below
the ground surface (bgs) for sample recovery for laboratory testing and observation of
subsurface conditions.
3. Engineering analysis of test results to develop specifications for grading and preliminary
foundation design.
4. Research of Geologic literature to develop design specifications for hazards such as
seismic shaking and related effects.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 301 1601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 2
5. Preparation ofreport of findings, including conclusions and recommendations for grading
and minimum foundation design.
Introduction
This investigation has been conducted resulting from a 2016 California Building Code Chapter
18 requirement for preliminary geotechnical investigations being conducted for all projects in
Seismic Category D. This investigation will address geotechnical conditions existing on the site
as they may pertain to the proposed single-family residence with associated paved driveway that
will be constructed on the site. It is our understanding that the single-family residence will be a
typical two story type V structure. Contained herein also are preliminary recommendations for
foundation design for the proposed construction.
Site Description
The subject residential pad will be located on the north central portion of a nearly rectangular-
shaped 0.38-acre parcel located along the northeasterly side of Adams Street (4382) in the City of
Carlsbad, westerly San Diego County, California. The geographical relationships of the site and
surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. The site is bounded on the west
and north by residential development, on the east by a vacant parcel and further residential
parcels and on the south by Adams Street and vacant land.
Topographically, the subject site is located in an area of gently to moderately sloping terrain with
natural gradients of approximately 13 to 20 percent. Drainage on the subject site is accomplished
by sheetflow to the southeast and northwest toward to Adams Street. Overall relief on the
subject site is approximately 34-ft, from above mean sea elevations 92 to 124. Currently, the
subject area is vacant and undeveloped with scattered ground cover and annual weeds and
grasses and trees along the westerly boundary of the subject site. Man-made features on the
subject site were generally limited to temporary perimeter fencing along the easterly boundary of
the subject site.
Proposed Development
Based on the I 0-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", we anticipate that proposed development
consists of cutting a flat pad into the existing hillside on the north-central portion of the subject
site. The majority of the site will be founded in cut with very minor fill. Grading quantities
indicated on the "Conceptual Grading Plan" include 2,500 cubic yards of cut and 30 cubic yards
of fill. Please refer to Plate 1, Geotechnical Map, for proposed site geometry and approximate
location of the proposed.
Foundations are anticipated to consist of continuous spread and isolated column footings to carry
structural loads, otherwise typical wood-framed, slab-on-grade construction.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
~ subject 10 r
e Oel.0<me Topo ;::,;se -c:efO AmeriaJTM 9
rme.com
r M1'1(1t.f'IJ
FIGURE 1
;
0. ~8
///
' ,~.
0.
'\ • 0 ,, , 0
:•)'
ef' ' ..,.., . ~ -< ~ ~ z 0 e: ;:,. z c,.
o1j
0 ~ ... "' ~ ...
gi
0 = "' = !;
0 "'
[
p t:.t: t:t:.
Ii a a sc a •!!'
I :! ~ ti ~ iS u -.it;i ; hE~ "' .... s ~ cd~0
i:~~l §;Sj
I ~ i 11: u .. 0
l• iiri 1l
I -~ ~
8
h r I B
~ 0 ~ r;!
0 ~ i
..... .._ ... .,;.--,·.-... .. -.... ·--
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 3
Field Work
Field work on the site consisted of review of available literature and observation and logging of
two (2) exploratory trenches advanced with a Case No. 580 Super M extenda-backhoe equipped
with a 24-inch bucket. A representative bulk sample of earth materials was obtained for
laboratory testing and observing the conditions of the soils on the site. Subsurface exploration of
the subject site was performed on Saturday, September 24, 2016 and the exploratory trench logs
are presented in Appendix B. The approximate location of our exploratory trenches is presented
on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Observation and sampling of the exploratory trenches was
performed by our field personnel, who logged approximately 1-ft of undifferentiated
alluvial/colluvial soils overlying Old paralic sediments (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) to the total depth
explored of 7-ft bgs.
Laboratory Testing
The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. It should be noted test results are
preliminary and generally representative for the purposes of demonstrating feasibility of design
for proposed construction. Additional testing recommended by this report may result in changes
of minimum design requirements.
Subsurface Conditions
The California Geologic Survey Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle (Kennedy
& Tan, 2002) indicates the formational earth materials underlying the site to be late to middle
Pleistocene Old paralic nonmarine sedimentary deposits (map symbol Qop). A Regional
Geologic Map is included in this report as Figure 2 and a Geologic Cross-Section with proposed
site development is included as Figure 3. A brief description of the geologic units underlying
the site that are considered pertinent to proposed development follows:
Undifferentiated AlluviaVColluvial Soils (Map Symbol -Oal)
Approximately 1-ft of undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils was encountered at the
ground surface within exploratory trench T-1. This unit consisted of silty Sand (Unified
Soil Classification -SM) that, for the most part, can be described as dark brown, fine to
medium grained, dry, loose with minor organics.
Old Paralic Nonmarine Sedimentary Units (Map Symbol-Oop)
Old paralic sedimentary units (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) underlie the subject site throughout.
This unit, for the most part, consisted of sandstone (Unified Soil Classification -SM) that
can be described as medium brown, fine to medium grained, well sorted, dry, massive,
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
G~ 1 c. cl'O ~s -~e,-ho('\
A
/'itl -
Qo.l
1'2.0 ~.""'<:~=--'---. 1\-o~'"'A >1-,1.~ ~ ----a::_ ✓ t=-..,~+-~
':::,. Qop --
5"""'J.
100
Prof'03ed-11.' /' '-... ---
~;~'--2.'.\ (-,:s) Z'-7 -c;::
e,_,~ S\~• f¼,o,el I Q op 8,,,!<)w I I L Q~ I I ---, ----~~~•~ 1 '\.ftopo«l 1
Ito•~ p..l ~o.r~.:i• f',cl.
_Oo.£_
q~•
P,-of'~ .. i-D.:,v~:; r
A ,,
I l\.,.I~ .. -~
!)llk\
·1'1(
1,,
II
j '2-s;.. ... .., 1-..,..,. Q.~
80 I I I i I !o <:. -~ "2 ¼ I 'i!U 0 20 '10 (PO /00 I T O I O I O 'l,00
Sc.-le , ... ,. = '20' (\.l : v)
WO I 3011601.00A
JOE POLZIN
4382 ADAMS STREET
CAALSBAO,CA
Oal Und1llerentiated Alluvial/Colluvial soils
Qop 0 1,j rarahc Nonmanne deposits
'·
FIGURE 3
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page4
friable, weakly cemented and medium dense to dense. Detailed descriptions of the onsite
units are presented on our exploratory trench logs included in Appendix B.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory trenches, which were advanced to a
maximum depth of 7-ft on the lower elevations of the subject site. The subject site is not located
within a groundwater basin (USGS, 1985). Historic high groundwater is anticipated to be at least
50-ft below the ground surface (Department of Water Resources, 2016). Minor fluctuations can
and will likely occur in moisture or free water content of the soil owing to rainfall and irrigation
over time
Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that the onsite Old paralic sedimentary units can be excavated with moderate
difficulty to the proposed depths utilizing conventional grading equipment in proper working
condition.
Seismicity
There are no known active of potentially active faults transecting the site, and the site is not
located within the presently defined boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
(Hart, 2000). Active fault zones regional to the site include the Rose Canyon Fault, the Newport-
Inglewood fault, and the Elsinore fault (Julian segment), which are located 8.0-kilometers
southwest, 9.3-km northwest, and 51 .0-km northeast, respectively. The following table lists the
known faults that would have the most significant impact on the site:
FAULT
Rose Canyon
(8.0-km SW)
Newport-Inglewood
(9.3-km NW)
Elsinore (Julian Segment)
(51.0-krn N_fil
South Shore Testing & Environmental
MAXIMUM PROBABLE
EARTHQUAKE
(MOMENT
MAGNITUDE)
7.2
7.1
6.8
SLIP RATE FAULT
TYPE
1.5 mm/year B
1.5 mm/year B
5 mm/year A
W.0. NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 5
2016 California Building Code (CBC) -Seismic Parameters:
Based on the geologic setting and soil conditions encountered, the soils underlying the site are
classified as "Site Class C, Very Dense Soil & Soft Rock", according to the CBC. The seismic
parameters according to the CBC are summarized in the USGS Design Maps Summary Report
presented in Appendix E. The corresponding value for peak ground acceleration from the design
response spectrum based on the 2016 CBC seismic parameters is 0.449g.
SEISMIC EFFECTS
Ground Accelerations
The most significant earthquake to affect the property is considered to be a 6.8 Richter magnitude
earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone. Based on Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 California
Building Code, peak ground accelerations modified for site class effects (PGAM) of
approximately 0.449g are possible for the design earthquake. The seismic parameters according
to the CBC are summarized in the USGS Design Maps Summary Report presented in Appendix
E.
Ground Cracks
The risk of surface rupture as a result of active faulting is considered low owing to the absence of
an active fault on or adjacent to the site (Kennedy & Tan, 2002). Cracking at the ground surface
are possible and may occur due to shaking from seismic events.
Landslides
The subject property is located in an area low rolling gently sloping terrain and no landslides
have been mapped in the area (Tan & Giffen, 1995). Tan and Giffen (1995) have mapped the
subject site and adjacent properties as 3-1 generally susceptible. Owing to the gently sloping
nature of the subject site, we anticipate the risk of seismically induced landsliding to affect the
proposed development is low.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a
significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re-arrangement of
the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand
boils, and flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, where
groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are particularly susceptible when subject to
ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0 . NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 6
The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated loose, poorly graded fine
sands with a mean grain size (D50) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. Typically, liquefaction has a
relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft.
Procedures outlined in two publications, 1) The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special
Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California:
Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California ( 1997), provide for a
"screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis.
It is our opinion that, owing to the absence of shallow groundwater, and the medium dense to dense
Old paralic sedimentary units underlying the subject site, liquefaction is not anticipated, and further
analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Liquefaction potential is considered to be
negligible.
Seismically Induced Soil Settlement
The proposed footings are anticipated to be founded medium dense to dense engineered fill
materials or in-place sedimentary bedrock units. The settlement potential, under seismic loading
conditions for these onsite materials, in our opinion, is low.
Seiches and Tsunami
Considering the location of the site in relation to large bodies of water, seiches and tsunamis are
not considered potential hazards of the site (Cal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 2009 -Figure 4).
Rockfall Potential
The subject pad is proposed to be located on sloping terrain that is free of boulder outcroppings
located above the proposed pad. The potential for rockfall is anticipated to be negligible.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
General
The development of the site as proposed is both feasible and safe from a geotechnical standpoint
provided that the recommendations contained herein are implemented during design and
construction.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
C.elttc.:nl.t ~mlf\l'ti\Cy Jiir..1qr9f,,:,ri: "iu rc~,
como;nlo Gc~~l!.I !tJN",Y I.Mt\l'snlly o: .?',out:nrn c~,:o:no:-
T~•Jnam! lriuridat1«• MaF, :or Er.-:ugency Plcmn!r.o
C),::ean~lde Oua'1r.ongllllStin t u!:,, Rey Qut1dr1m9l~
------------~;:_ ________ _
~-
/
' .
·' i
OlOtt ol Ctl~Tom:n
CO!UTl'J ol t5.Qn 1)~9,
I .:-;·-,,,
~
'1";4 ---\
A
METHOD OF PREPARATION
----♦-... ----~tt,IKI s-::::==::..=-c:~:~ =:.::::...:;;:.:-:::.:'i-:-:::=.::..-:-:= ..... ~-----... ----· _..,_,,... --.... -•J-ll't-•--_.,,,..,,_..,._ .. .,.." ...... -•--• =·--··--... -... ,., ... __ _.,.. ·-------.-..-..-.--,-______ ... ~----,-•·1.M•--------------::..."::;i::..·==:=="-==-=---_____ .,.. ______ .. __ __ ,.__,.,.,.o,.-_, ___ ....-w __ _ ___ ,.._0.-.... ,..
=E=-.-iZ:Z*==E~-0-,........, .-i--~---... --.. -_ .,. __ .,_.. ... ....., ... ____ _ ,...... __ ,... ____ ... __ _
=-==-.. ·-------. ... ---.... __ ... _______ _.....,.-...
... ---·-----.----,.._......_.....,_....,_ ____ .. __
..... _, -. ....... ---~--...... ·----..................... _,. ... _ ·--------..... -......... --.. _____ ..,._....., __ .... -.. ---.-----.. ----·~--.... ,,_,, ,..,, ... ______ ..,..._,,_ ___ ...,
" ....................... ---
==:=:..-:::::::=":':"::.-----E:~~ac:=...J':~=---c.:-_....._...."a.-____ l,OIOl,,flt __ _ =..:::::::--_....10of'•..,_t-._C ___ ,....,...1
=:.~::=.::..:~~~.~~:--""'-~::::::-..::.=...:=:;;:i:::c:~.,., ,,.
~~o:":o!:"r.:,-•-u......,...,....
TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP
FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING
State of California -County of San Diego
OCEANSIDE QUADRANGLE
SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE
June 1, 2009
.. \
\
\
MAP EXPLANATION
~ Ttunaml lnundabon Une
Taun81TWlnund.riottAI"
PURPOSE OF THIS MAP ____________ ....,,... ____ ,. __________ _ .,_,_..., ___ ... _.,..__ ... ,,_ _,... ___ .._. _______ _
-... --..-.-==---:.::::---===--=-=-=-:::~=:-..::..-:c..==. -:::::::.:-__ .. _.., .. -........ --...... -·-____ ... ______ ......, .... _ ,,_ __ .,,_ __ _
__ 0-.-........,_,..,..,...,...~-....._ ......
==,~~~IC =:.-~-...,_-::-c.... ·--~~ .............. -----~-=-~-=--.,....c-::..----~,--1
MAP8ASE
-... ...... -..... --... "'•-.--...-• ... "' ... ,_ ~--....-.1,.. __ ,__ __ ___ ....,._.,..__..,.__.......,. __ __ ......... ___ .. __ _
DISCLAIMER
FIGURE 4
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 7
1. According to the 10-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan" map provided by you, we anticipate
that the proposed pad will be constructed entirely in cut on the north-central portion of the
subject site.
2. Observation of excavations indicates that suitable material for support of fill and/or
structures is near the surface on the site. Earth materials on the site are also suitable for
use as compacted structural fill.
3. Observation, classification, and testing indicate that the near surface soils are non-
expansive with an expansion potential (EI=0) consisting of a low plastic silty sand.
4. Based on our exploratory trenches, the subject site in underlain by Old paralic deposits
consisting of sandstone and extended to a maximum depth explored of7-ft bgs. This unit
is overlain by 1-ft of loose and porous undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils in the
vicinity ofT-1.
Site Grading
General
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the 10-scale "Conceptual Grading Plans", we anticipate that the majority of the
proposed development will be founded entirely in cut with very minor fill. Cut slopes
constructed at 2: 1 (h:v) slope ratios to vertical heights of 7 and 12-ft on the southerly and
northerly boundaries of the subject site, respectfully. Cut slopes are anticipated to expose
massive, dense sedimentary units. No fill slopes are anticipated on the subjects site.
Cut generated from excavation of the pad will likely be utilized as fill on the southerly portion of
site with the majority being exported offsite. It is important to note that all imported soils must
be observed and approved by the soil engineer prior to use as fill to verify compliance with
project specifications and consistency with onsite soils with respect to expansion potential and
structural contact pressure.
Site Specific Grading
A representative of this firm shall be present to observe the bottoms of all excavations including
keyways and overexcavations. A representative of this firm shall be present during all fill
placement operations to monitor and test as the earth materials are being placed. This
observation and testing is intended to assure compliance with the recommendations of this report
as well as project specifications as they relate to earthwork construction, City, County and State
ordinances and Table 1705.6 of the 2016 California Building Code.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 8
Where structural fill is to be placed, all loose undifferentiated aJluvial/colluvial soils,
undocumented fill and weathered bedrock at the ground surface shall be removed to competent
earth, i.e., sedimentary bedrock. Cut-to-fill transitions should be eliminated from building pad
where the depth of fiJI exceeds 6-inches. This should be accomplished by overexcavating the cut
portion a minimum of 2-ft below the bottom of the deepest footings and replacing the materials
as properly compacted fill.
No structural fill shaJI be placed within the building area on any ground without first being
observed by a representative of the company providing this report and then providing written
certification that the ground is competent and prepared to receive fill.
Onsite soils derived from excavations will be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are
free of large rock (8" or larger) and organic debris or construction waste. Approved fill material
should be placed in 6 to 8-inch loose lifts, brought to optimum moisture content, and compacted
to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D
1557-12 test method. No rocks larger than 8 inches in diameter should be used as fill material as
they inhibit the compaction process. Rocks larger than 8 inches may be removed or crushed and
used as fill material. Rocks larger than 8 inches that cannot be crushed, organic materials,
asphaltic concrete or oil bearing surface aggregate should be removed from the graded area and
in the case of oil bearing materials, removed and taken to an appropriate dump site that is
designed to handle such.
All earthwork should be done in accordance with the specifications contained in Appendix D.
Additionally, it will be the responsibility of the owner and or the grading contractor to provide
this firm with schedule information for grading activities that require observation and testing. It
is preferred that we have a minimum of 48 hours of notice for such.
It will also be recommended that at the completion of rough grading, additional testing of
engineering characteristics such as expansion potential and ancillary testing should take place to
determine final design requirements for foundations, slabs and concrete used.
Slope Construction
Cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2: I (h:v) slope ratio, to a maximum vertical height of
approximately 30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in this report and in Appendix D of this report. Based on our review
of the 10-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", cut slopes have been designed at 2: 1 (h:v) slope ratio,
to maximum vertical heights of approximately 7 and 12-ft on the southerly and northerly portions
of the site, respectively. Cut slopes are anticipated to expose massive sandstone and no adverse
conditions are anticipated. No fill slopes are planned.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 9
No adverse conditions are anticipated, but should be re-evaluated during grading operations by
the project engineering geologist. Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down
the face of any slope during grading. Loose fill on the face of the slope will require complete
removal prior to shaping and or track walking. Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should
follow as soon as practical to inhibit erosion and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper
moisture control will enhance the long-term stability of the finish slope surface.
Bearing Value and Footing Geometry
A safe allowable bearing value of 1,800 psf for foundations embedded into observed competent
fill soils compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the dry density as determined by ASTM D
1557 test method. Continuous footings, for single-story or equivalent structures, should have a
minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 12 inches and conform to the minimum criteria of the
2016 CBC for low expansive soils (EI=0). Continuous footings, for two-story or equivalent
structures, should have a minimum width of 15 inches and depth of 18 inches and conform to the
minimum criteria of the 2016 CBC for low expansive soils (EI=0). The use of isolated column
footings is not discouraged, however, where utilized, should have a minimum embedment of 18
inches below lowest soil grade. The minimum distance of the bottom outside edge of all footings
and any slope face shall be 5 feet. All footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches into
observed competent native materials or properly compacted fill, regardless of depth below the
adjacent ground surface.
Settlement
The bearing value recommended above reflects a total settlement of 0.5-in and a differential
settlement of 0.5-in within a horizontal distance of 20-ft (U480). Most of this settlement is
expected to occur during construction and as the loads are being applied.
Concrete Slabs
All concrete slabs on grade should be 4 inches thick, minimum. They should be underlain by 2-
inches of sand or approved non expansive onsite materials. Impo1ted or approved onsite
materials may be utilized for this purpose. Contractors should be advised that when pouring
during hot or windy weather conditions, they should provide large slabs with sufficiently deep
weakened plane joints to inhibit the development of irregular or unsightly cracks. Also, 4-inch
thick slabs should be jointed in panels not exceeding 8-ft in both directions to augment proper
crack direction and development.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO.3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 10
Moisture Barrier
When the intrusion of moisture through concrete slabs is objectionable, particularly with interior
slabs where flooring is moisture sensitive, a vapor barrier should be installed onto the subgrade
prior to the pouring of concrete. It should consist of a minimum 10 mil visqueen, protected from
puncture with 2-inches of sand above and 2-inches of sand below. This is considered a minimum
recommendation as there are other devices that provide as good as or better moisture protection.
The project architect and or structural engineer may recommend alternative devices for moisture
protection.
Reinforcement
From a Geotechnical standpoint, continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of
two number 4 steel bar placed at the top and bottom. In no case should the content of steel in
concrete footings be less than the recommended minimums of the appropriate sections of the
AC.I. standards. Slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of number 3 steel bars placed at
the center of thickness at 24-inch centers both ways (CBC 2016). These are considered
minimums and additional requirements may be imposed by other structural engineering design
requirements. In addition, at the completion of grading, testing of the near surface soils may
indicate that different or more stringent reinforcing schedule minimums may be appropriate.
Careful consideration should be given to the recommendations that will be contained in the final
report of compaction test results and foundation design requirements.
Concrete
Based on our corrosivity suite testing, Type II Portland cement concrete can be utilized for the
subject site .. Test results indicated that the percent soluble sulfates were 0.001, which equates to a
Negligible sulfate exposure per American Concrete Institute (ACI), 318, Table 4.3.1 (2005).
Soluble sulfate content testing should be conducted within the building pads at the completion of
rough grading to confinn concentration of sulfite ions within the onsite earth materials.
Corrosivity test results indicated a saturated resistivity of 13,000 ohms/cm for the onsite soils,
which indicates the onsite soils are mildy corrosive (NACE International, 1984). Laboratory
analysis was perfonned by Soi!Cor of Murrieta, CA, and is included in Appendix C. South Shore
Testing and Environmental does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific information or
evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that
a competent corrosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and
mitigation.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 30 I I 60 I .00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 11
Lateral Loads
The bearing value of the soil may be increased by one third for short duration loading (wind,
seismic). Lateral loads may be resisted by passive forces developed along the sides of concrete
footings or by friction along the bottom of concrete footings. The value of the passive resistance
for level ground may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf for level ground.
The total force should not exceed 3,000 psf. A coefficient of friction of .35 may be used for the
horizontal soil/concrete interface for resistance of lateral forces. If friction and passive forces are
combined, then the passive values should be reduced by one third.
Earthwork Factors
Shrinkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a higher
density. A shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent for the undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils
should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils
to an average relative compaction of 92 percent. A shrinkage factor of O to 3 percent for the
sedimentary units should be anticipated when excavating and compacting these units to an average
relative compaction of 92 percent. An increase in relative compaction, or deeper removals, could
correspond to an increase in shrinkage values. Subsidence, as a result of ground preparation, may
also be anticipated on the order of 0.15 feet, occurring mostly during site construction.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed to resist the active pressures summarized in the following table.
The active pressure is normally calculated from the lowermost portion of the footing to the highest
ground surface at the back of the wall. The active pressures indicated in the table are equivalent
fluid densities. Walls that are not free to rotate or that are braced at the top (at rest) should use
active pressures that are 50% greater than those indicated in the table. Retaining wall footings
should be embedded a minimum of 12-inches into competent engineered soil. Where retaining
walls are greater than 6 feet of active pressure region height, they should be designed to resist
seismic lateral pressures in accordance with section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. A seismic load
of 20H should be used for design.
Table of Retaining Wall Design Pressures
Slope of
adjacent ground
LEVEL
2:1
South Shore Testing & Environmental
Active Pressure
35 pcf
55 pcf
Passive Pressure
300 pcf
150 pcf
W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 12
The pressures in the preceding table are for retaining walls backfilled with non-cohesive (El<20),
granular materials and provided with drainage devices such as weep holes or subdrains to prevent
the build-up of hydrostatic pressures beyond the design values. It is imperative that all retaining
wall backfills be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in order to achieve their
design strength. Failure to provide proper drainage and minimum compaction may result in
pressures against the wall that will exceed the design values indicated above. Surface waters
should be directed away from retaining wall backfill areas so as not to intrude into the backfill
materials. Retaining wall backfill should be constructed in such a way so as to have granular
non-cohesive backfill placed in all but the upper 2-ft. The upper two feet should consist of onsite
or cohesive materials to minimize the potential for surface waters to infiltrate into the retaining
wall backfill system.
Retaining Wall Subdrains
Subdrains should be placed at the back of all retaining walls to achieve proper drainage and
reduce the possibility of increased hydrostatic pressures. Retaining wall subdrains should consist
of a minimum of I cubic foot per linear foot of gravel, placed at the heel, and be separated from
earth materials by a filter fabric or geotextile designed for that purpose. The gravel should be
drained by a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, sloped at a minimum of I% toward
outlets spaced no more than 50-ft apart. Outlet tubes through or around wall stems should be
solid pipe, sloped to drain, and maintained so to be unobstructed by earth, vegetation, or animals.
As an alternate, Mira Drain retaining wall back-drain system may be used where space is limited
and the typical drain system is not practical to install. Care should be taken to properly construct
or install the drain system per manufacturer's specifications where possible. Also, it is strongly
recommended that no surface runoff be allowed to infiltrate into retaining wall back-drains, and
that where outlet holes are provided at the toe of the wall, they remain open and free of
obstructions.
Oversize Rock
No oversize rock was observed during our site mapping and subsurface investigation of the subject
site. No oversize rock is anticipated. If any oversize material is to be generated during site
development, it should be disposed of off-site, utilized in landscaping, or placed in an approved
rock fill in accordance with Appendix D of this report.
Utility Trench Backfill
All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a
minimum. The soils encountered within our exploratory trenches are generally classified as Type
"C" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA (2007) excavation standards. Based upon a soil
classification of Type "C", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than 1.5:1
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 301I601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 13
(horizontal:vertical) for a maximum depth of 20-ft. For temporary excavations deeper than 20-ft
or for conditions that differ from those described for Type "C" in the CAL/OSHA excavation
standards, the project geotechnical engineer should be contacted.
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557-12 test method. It is our opinion
that utility trench backfill consisting of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by
mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The upper I-ft
of utility trench excavations located within pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum
of 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Fine Grading and Site Drainage
Fine grading of areas outside of the garage/studio should be accomplished such that positive
drainage exists away from all footings in accordance with 2016 CBC and local governing agency
requirements. Run-off should be conducted in a non-erosive manner toward approved drainage
devices per approved plans. No run-off should be allowed to concentrate and flow over the tops
of slopes.
Construction
South Shore Testing & Environmental, or a duly designated representative, should be present
during all earthwork construction in accordance with the standard specifications contained at the
back of this report, to test and or confirm the conditions encountered during this study. In
addition, post earthwork construction monitoring should be conducted at the following stages:
• At the completion of final grading of the building pad so that a finished surface
compaction test may be obtained. Moisture content near optimum will necessarily need
to be maintained, both to maintain proper compaction and to prevent wind erosion of the
pad.
• At the completion of foundation excavations, but prior to the placement of steel and or
other construction materials in them. As a requirement of this report, the undersigned
must, in writing, certify that the foundations meet the minimum requirements of this
report and the building plans for depth and width along with the earth materials being the
appropriate moisture content and compaction. Backfilling of over deepened footings with
earth materials will not be allowed and must be poured with concrete. Consequential
changes and differences may exist throughout the earth materials on the site. It may be
possible that certain excavations may have to be deepened slightly if earth materials are
found to be loose or weak during these observations.
• Any other pertinent post construction activity where soils are excavated or manipulated or
relied upon in any way for the performance of buildings or hardscape features.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011 601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 14
Supplemental Recommendations
If at any time during grading or construction on this site, conditions are found to be different than
those indicated in this report, it is essential that the soil engineer be notified. The soil engineer
reserves the right to modify in any appropriate way the recommendations of this report if site
conditions are found to be different than those indicated in this report.
• The soil at the surface is observed to be compact silty coarse grained soil. It is minimally
to non-erosive. It is dense at shallow depths, on the order of 1 foot and water does not
percolate well into the onsite soils.
• Cuts to 5 feet, or slightly more will stand vertical for normal time periods associated with
construction of backcuts for fill slopes or retaining walls. Time periods for unsupported
cuts 5 feet or greater vertical should be limited to 60 days in the non-rainy season and 30
days in the rainy season.
Foundation Plan Review
Once foundation plans are finalized, a Foundation Plan Review should be performed to review
plans and confirm that the plans are in general conformance with recommendations presented in
this report.
Construction Monitoring
Observation and testing by South Shore Testing & Environmental is necessary to verify compliance
with recommendations contained in this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions
encountered are consistent with those encountered. South Shore Testing & Environmental should
conduct construction monitoring during any fill placement and subgrade preparation prior to
placement of fill or construction materials.
LIMITATIONS
Our investigation was perfo1med using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
The report is issued with the understanding that it is used only by the owner and it is the sole
responsibility of the owner or their representative to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect, engineer, and
appropriate jurisdictional agency for the project and incorporated into the plans; and the necessary
steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations
contained herein during construction and in the field.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 15
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative;
however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations. The evaluation
or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the
scope of services provided by South Shore Testing & Environmental, or its assigns.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man
on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.
Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for this project should be retained to provide
testing observation services during construction to maintain continuity of geotechnical
interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented herein are implemented dw'ing site
grading, excavation of foundations and construction of improvements.
If another geotechnical firm is selected to perfonn the testing and observation services during
construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. Selection of another firm to perform any
of the recommended activities or failure to retain the undersigned to perform the recommended
activities wholly absolves South Shore Testing & Environmental, the undersigned, and its
assigns from any and all liability arising directly or indirectly from any aspects of this project.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0 . NO. 3011601.00AR
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2017
Page 16
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Limitations and conditions contained in reference
documents are considered in full force and applicable. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
South Shore Testing & Environmental
(
\ ~-~b John . Frey
Proje t Geologist
Mark Slatten, CEG 1605
Certified Engineering Geologist
ATTACHMENTS
Figure l -Site Location Map (2,000-scale)
Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 -Geologic Cross-Section
Figure 4 -Tsunami Inundation Plan
Plate l -Geotechnical Map (not-to-scale)
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Exploratory Trench Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D -Standards of Grading
Appendix E -USGS Design Maps Summary Report
South Shore Testing & Environmental
I
~ ----William C. Hobbs, RCE 42265
Ci vii Engineer
W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
APPENDIX A
References
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2016, "2016 California Building Code,
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of2".
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California", Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the
State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706.
California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, June 1, 2009, "Tsunami
Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California -County of San Diego, Oceanside
Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle", Scale: I :24,000.
Ciremele Surveying Inc., August 9, 2016, "Topographic Survey, Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA
92008", Scale: I"= 1 O', Sheet l of 1, Job No. 16-017.
Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655.
Department of Water Resources Website, 2016, "Groundwater Data Section".
Hart, E.W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CD-ROM Version).
Izbicki, John A., December 1985, "Evaluation of the Mission, Santee, and Tijuana Hydrologic
Subareas for Reclaimed-Water Use, San Diego County, California", U.S. Geologic Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 85-4032.
Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map
No.6.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2002, "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, California", Scale 1: l 00,000, California Geologic Survey -Geologic Map #2.
Knitter Partners International, Inc., June 27, 2017, "Site Plan, Polzin Residence, 4382 Adan1s
Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008, CDP 2017-00 I 8 DEV 2017-0061)", Sheet A-01, Scale: 1" = 1 O'.
South Shore Testing & Environmental, 2016, "Preliminary Geo technical Investigation, Proposed
Single-Family Residence, 4382 Adams Street, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California",
Work Order No. 3011601.00, Dated October 3, 2016.
Spear & Associates, Inc., 2017, "Precise Grading Plan for: Polzin Residence, 4382 Adams Street,
Carlsbad, CA 92008", Sheet 1 thru 6 of 6, Scale: 1" = l O' .Project No. CDP 2017-00 l 8.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
REFERENCES (continued)
Spear & Associates, Inc., 2017, "Conceptual Grading Plan for Polzin Residence, 4382 Adams
Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008", Sheet 1 of 1, Scale: l" = 1 O'.
Tan, Siang S. and Giffen, Desmond G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, CA", DMG Open-File Report 95-04, Landslide
Hazard Identification Map #35A, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Scale: 1 :24,000.
Weber, H.F., Jr., 1963, "Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California",
California Division of Mines and Geology -County Report 3, Plate 1, Scale: 1: 120,000.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
APPENDIXB
Exploratory Trench Logs
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO.3011601.00AR
LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER M EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 9/24/16
BACKHOE EQUIPPED W/ 24" BUCKET
ELEVATION: ±107 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN
z 0 w ►;;: t 5 8 ~w Ii'. wi !!I g ~ ~Ii'. ::I ~[ TEST PIT NO. 1 ~ I ~ t; w ~~ SOIL TEST
~ ai " i§ a DESCRIPTION
~ ~ ~ z ~ :le~ 0 ::,
UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIAUCOLLUVIUM MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM , __
f---_
~ SIL TY SANO ISMI: DARK BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED ORY LOOSE MINOR ORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT, SIEVE ANALYSIS,
-OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS EXE'AN-SlON INDEX. CORROSIVITY SUITE,
-SANDSTONE-MEDIUM BROWN, FINE GRAINED. WELL SORTED, ORY, MEDIUM DENSE, REMOLOEO DIRECT SHEAR
-
5 MASSIVE
'--
'--
TOTAL DEPTH = 7.0' -NO GROUND WATER -
10 ._.
'--
-
-
-
15
'--
'--
'--
'--
-
20 '--
'--
'--
'--
'--
~
-
-
-
-
~
'--
'--
'--
'--
~
'--
._.
'--
'--
~ c:
JOB NO: 3011601.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: T-1
LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER M EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 9/24/16
BACKHOE EQUIPPED W/ 24" BUCKET
ELEVATION: ±115 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN .. ., I
i:-15 I C w wi >;;: w i= illw ~ is~ ~ ~ gj ~ ! a: ,:: TEST PIT NO. 2 :, z WI: X ~ ~1 t; w ~~ SOIL TEST
t-" l5 ~ DESCRIPTION a. ..,
::ll 1 .., z :, :I! u zw
u CD :, ., -c
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS -SANDSTONE. MEDIUM BROWN, ORY & LOOSE IN UPPER 1 FT, BECOMING DENSER W/ DEPTH. ,__
,__ FINE GHAINEO...ERIABLE, MASSIVE
,__
5
TOTAL DEPTH= 5.0' ,__
NO GROUND WATER ,__
,__
,__
10 -
-
,__
,__
,__
15 -,.__
,__
'· ' -20 -
1--
1--
1---
~
,__
,__
,__
,__
30 -
1--
,__
,__
1--
35 1--
1--
.__
,__
,__
~
JOB NO: 3011601 .00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: T•2
APPENDIXC
Laboratory Test Results
Soulh Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
LABO RA TORY TESTING
A. Classification
Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Classification was supplemented by index tests such as maximum density and optimum
moisture content.
B. Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils
remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft2, in accordance with ASTM D-4829-
11. The test results are presented on Figure C-1, Table I and a copy of our laboratory
test results are presented on Figure C-2.
C. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content
A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical
sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standards used were ASTM 1557-Method A.
The test results are summarized on Figure C-1, Table II and laboratory results are
presented on Figure C-3.
D. Particle Size Determination
A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve) was performed on
a representative sample of the onsite soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63 and CAL
TEST 202. The test results are shown on Figure C-4.
E. Corrosivity Suite
Corrosivity suite testing including resistivity, soluble sulfate content, pH and chloride
content were performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory
standards used were CTM 643, CTM 417 & CTM 422. The test results are presented on
Figure C-1, Table III and Figure C-5.
F. Direct Shear
A remolded direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the
onsite undisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to
absorb moisture while preventing volume change. Test results are graphically displayed
on Figure C-6.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 301I601.00AR
TABLE I
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
T-1 @ 0-5 ft 0 Non Expansive
TABLE II
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 1557
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
TEST LOCATION (pct) (%)
T-1 @ 0-5 ft 131.0 8.0
TABLEIII
CORROSIVITY SUITE
TEST LOCATION SATURATED CHLORIDE SULFATE
RESISTIVITY pH CONTENT CONTENT
T-1 @ 0-5 ft 13,000 6.5 ND ppm 0.001 % by wgt
Figure C-1
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
¢ I /. r;c;~ , EXPANSIO N INDEX TEST
Job No. JO I f (,0/,00
Project ~t Po/, t' I\
T est Method ASTM D 4829 Tested By ,4 H
Date 9 /2<=,?/0
' Lot# Checked By
Depth (ft.) 0-'5' Date
Sample / Lab No. r-Tract
INITIAL CONDITIONS I
TNITIAL MOISTURE, W % ~.f::i
REMOLDED WET SOIL + TARE l iJ ,1
TARE (g) I q <i
WET SOIL, Wt (g) '-/ 1 L/, 1
DRY SOIL, Ws (g) 384
REMOLDED WET DENSITY t t /]5',;J, t = Wt(.30165) (PCF)
REMOLDED DRY DENSTTY ~d II r. s d = Ws(.30 165) (PCF)
WEIGHT OF WATER Ww 1. ~ Ww =1 t -i d (PCF)
SOLIDS VOLUME, Vs (ft 3 ) 10 Vs =td + 168.5
VOIDS VOLUME, Vv (ft a) 'S D % Saturation 40-60
Vv = I -Vs
Exnansion Results
!DEGREE OF SATURATION s l/ /_) (fJ S = Ww x 100/62.4 x Vv(%) Initial ReadinR
17D /, r--:, 'J.. I
Sample Description: Final Readin2 .
Hei~ht Chansze I l
Exnansion Index 0
C-2-
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Project No.: 3011601.00
Project: JOE POLZIN
Location: T-1
Elev./Depth: 0-5'
Remarks:
Curve No.: 2.60
Sample No.
D escription: ·
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
MEDIUM BROWN SIL TY SAND
Classifications -
·---Nat. Moist.=
Liquid Limit =
% > No.4 = %
uses: SM
Maximum dry density = 127.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 7. 7%
AASHTO:
Sp.G.-2~
Plasticity Index =
% < No.200 =
TEST RESULTS
140 I\. ' ~
' " '
Test specification:
' ' ' ' ' \. ' ' ' 301--+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+--l-l'.,-1--~,--i:~, ., ........ , ,,
ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
-/ -----,_ ' ' '
-· --. I --• ' '-.. '-""
Date: 9/26/16
·ii' '-' ' ' 120 1--+--t---+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+-+--~c+->~~_p..
-----... , ' '
" ' "' " ' "'
100% SATURATION CURVES
FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: -" ' ''-,-------__ , ' '-~------8.. 110 ..,;_ ----------+----+--+-+-+-+--+-+--+-+--1 ·-,___ ........ "'-~
.r:;.,· ' ''
--...._ _ _,___.,__ ·-·-
·-· -..+---1--J.-------·
-~ ---... ['.._ "'-
2.8
2.7
2 .6
~ ,~,
c:-' "-...... ,..__ o 1 00 1-t-+--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+--+--+~~,....-l' .... .._....!,..__-:::...........__
...... ' ........ ~
....... ~ ......... gol--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++-l--1--l--l--l--l--+---1---1-~~~f--1--+-P~~~-...dr-....::,,.._,_r-.....
r-..... ....................
...............
80f--l--l--1--l--,l--ll--l'--t-t-+-+-+'--t'--t---4---4--l---1---1--l--+-+-+-+--l---l----4--l--ll..-sl--l--t--t--t--r---1--t-t--f--.,J
70 ) '-o__,___,___,___,_....,5'--'---'--'---'--1 ..... o--'---'---'---'--1....1.5-....1.-....1.-....1.-....1._2...1.o---1..---1..---1..---1..-2...1.s-....1.-...1.-1.-1~3'-o-'--'--'--'--=3~5.....__.__._....,_40
Water content, %
Figure C-3
c.. 0 ID :z ~
GRAVEL
L ~ ~ 3/4" l/."11
~ -0 I • .
0) 0 o r ~ N
0 -O Z
1)
IT!
G)I ~ :0 IT!
J> ~ -z 1)
l> (/) (.fl -(.fl N z 111 C>
0 -(I)
-I :0 -m
C:
-I -0 z
"11
... \N,.. ...
90
80
7C
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10.0
COARSE
,It ... 4
..
J
I
l
c5 C: :u I'll
BORING NO. DEPTH, FT.
~'? T-1 0-5•
~
SAND
MEDIUM .FINE SILT
SIEVE SIZES--lls. STANDARD
I;) 20 40 11;,o 290 I
11' ..............
....... ... .
'
\
'
\
\
I
\
' I\.
\
\
'\ . ,
\. I n
\
" ' ·•
1:0 0.1 .bl
PARTICLE DIAMETER-MILLIMETERS
SYMBO L LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC INDEX CLASSI FjCATION
SM MEDIUM BROWN SIL TY SAND
CLAY
100
I' 90
80
70
-0 [Tl
:::t,
() 60 IT1 z
·-I
50 ~ (/)
(/)
40
130
20
10
.0
.001
z C)
IISoilCor
CORROSION & THERMAL SCIENCES
41765 Hawthorn Street Murrieta, CA 92562
ph (951) 894-2682 • fx (951) 894-2683
Work Order No.: 1613307
Client: South Shore Testing & Environmental
Project No.: 3011601.00
Project Name: Joe Polzin
Report Date: October 4, 2016
Laboratory Test(s) Results Summary
The subject soil sample was processed in accordance with California Test Method CTM 643
and tested for pH / Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643), Sulfate Content (CTM 417) and Chloride
Content (CTM 422). The test results follow:
Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride
Sample Identification pH Resistivity Content Content Content
(ohm-<:m) (mg/kg) (% by wgt) (ppm)
T-1 @0-5 ft. 6.5 13,000 10 0.001 ND
*ND=No Detection
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any
questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures.
• --•1CN111 .. ,t0to"'
MfMlfA
Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager
www.soilcor.com C-5
IISoilCor
CORROSION & THERMAL SCIENCES
41765 Hawthorn Street
Murrieta, CA 92562
DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM 03080
ph (951) 894-2682
South Shore Testing & Environmental
Project: 3011601.00 Joe Polzin Sample ID: T-1 @ 0-5'
Soil Description: (SM) Brown, Silty Fine-Medium Sand
Displacement Rate: 0.050 in/m Box Gap: 0.025 in Max Data: 127.6@7.7%
Remold Target Data:~% = 114.8 pcf _J_J_ %Mc(-No.10) 2.65 Gs(assumed)
*As Received Mc: 2.8 Adjusted Mc;~% **After Shear Mc: -%
"Existing Gradation for undisturbed specimens, -No.10 fractlon for remolded specimens
D Undisturbed **Test 1 Specimen (Highest Normal Stress)
■ Remolded Test 1 Test2 Test3
SHEAR RECORD; Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Prov. Ring Vert. Dial
Disolacement (inl: 0.010 9 100
0.020 24 100
0.030 53 100
0.040 91 101
0.050 158 104
0.060 210 108
0.070 233 111
0.080 226 111
0.090 185 110
0.100
0.110
0.12lJ
0.130
0.140
O.foL
0.160
0.170
0.18(J
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
*SHEAR STRESS: Divisions Pounds psf
Test 1: 233 69.6 2042
Test 2: 124 36.7 1077
Test 3: 73 22.8 669
*Peak Values
NORMAL STRESS (psf):
Proving Ring
SN: 6927
Calibrated 30-August-16
Reviewed By
Test 1: 2070
Test 2: 1035
Test 3: 517
~:, 41.7°
187psf
10/4/2016
Date
7 99 6 99
19 99 17 99
38 100 39 99
78 100 60 100
102 101 69 101
115 102 73 102
124 104 71 102
122 104 62 103
91 104
2500
500
0 J._.L.l-..L....'--JI-J__J_.l__.!.-4---L--L-.l-.....l...-l
0 1000 2000 3000
Normal Stress {psf)
Form No. 130R
Rev. 08/16 www.primetesting.com
C-6
APPENDIXD
Standards of Grading
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
STANDARD GRADING ANO EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present South Shore Testing & Environmental, standard recommendations for grading and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written
communication signed by the Solis Consu ltant. Evaluations performed by the Soils Consultant during the course of grading may result in
subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnlcal report.
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 The Soils Consultant Is the Owner's or Developer's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications,
observations by the Soils Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Soils Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and others
employed by and responsible to the Soils Consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the
allowance or the supervision of the Soils Consultant.
1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, t he
Contractor shall remain accessible.
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and
office services for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be
necessary that the Soils Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may provide an opinion as to determine
that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Soils Consultant and keep
him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in
accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, In the
opinion of the Soils Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, Inadequate
compaction, adverse weather, etc, are resulting in a quality of work less then required in these specifications, the Solis Consultant
will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
1.6 It is t he Contractor's responsibility to provides safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes.
This may require the excavation of the test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Soils Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications.
2.0 SITE PREPARTION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consultant and
concluded prior to fill placement.
2.2 Soll, Alluvium or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall
be removed from the site or used in open areas as determined by the Soils Consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a
compacted fill must be approved by the Soils Consultant prior to fill placement.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced and/or bladed by the Contractor until it is
uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the
scarified zone Is greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or
less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the soils consultant.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others
are to be removed or treated In a manner prescribed by the Soils Consultant.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 2
3.0
2.5 In cut-fill transitions lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide
uniform bearing conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet outside of build Ing fines shall be over
excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater over excavation could be required as determined by
Soils Consultant. Typical details are attached.
COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Solis
Consultant. Solis of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by Soils Consultant
or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the Solis Consultant.
3.2 Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided
• They are not placed or nested in concentrated pockets
• There Is sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks
• The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve Inches in diameter shall be taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Soils Consultant, areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (A typical detail for Rock Disposal Is attached.)
3.4 Material that Is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used In the compacted fil.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consultant to
determine the physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested Is encountered during grading, the
appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material.
3.6 Material used In the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six
Inches In thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant.
3. 7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Soils Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the
fill until It has been approved by the Soils Consultant.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by
the controlling government agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
If compaction to a lesser percentage Is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or
expansive soil conditions the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan
and/or appropriate reference made to the area In the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep material, into sound bedrock, or firm
material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical or In accordance with the
recommendations of the Solis Consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the
geotechnlcal report, (see detail attached.)
3.11 Sub drainage devices shall be constructed In compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the
recommendations of the Solis Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are attached.)
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 3
4.0
5.0
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill
slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure, which produces
the required compaction approved by the Soils Consultant.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified In the Soils report.
3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material Into rock or firm materials and the
transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill (see attached detail.)
CUT SLOPES
4.1 The Soils Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals exceeding five feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated In the geotechnical report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a
potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joint or fault planes encountered during grading, these conditions shall
be analyzed by the Soils Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems (Typical details for
stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are attached.)
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible
Interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut sloped shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the
ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the
recommendations of the Soils Consultant.
TRENCH BACKFILLS
5.1 Trench excavation shall be inspected prior to structure placement for competent bottom.
5.2 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision of the Soils Consultant.
5.3 After the utility pipes has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved
granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into
place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.
5.4 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shall be watered and mixed, as necessary, prior to
placement in lifts over the sand backfill.
5.5 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density, as determined by the
ASTM D1557-70 or the controlling governmental agency.
5.6 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consultant during backfilling to see that
proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contract shall provide test holes and exploratory
pits as required by the Soils Consultant to enable sampling and testing.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 4
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant during the progress of grading.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This
criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the Job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall
be made to verify that the required compaction Is being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should be made on the native surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Consultant.
6.4 All clean-out, processed ground to received fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved
by the Soils Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant prior to
placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant when such areas will be ready for inspection.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and
construction of permanent drainage controls.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspection by the Soils Consultant, no further filling or excavating, Including that
necessary for the footings foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval
of the Soils Consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during the final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or
other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
TYPE A
Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdralns should be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate 1
-12-lnch minimum
··· 6-inch minimum
A-1
Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per
lineal foot of pipe. FILTER MATERIAL
Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or
approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations
(¼-inch diameter) per lineal foot in
bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDA-35, or
ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40).
For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use
8-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or
ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40).
Sieve Size
1 inch
¾Inch
¾Inch
No.4
No. 8
No.30
No. 50
No. 200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
AL TERNA TE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL
Filter fabric -
\ ,,,.,.--6-lnch minimum
\ '-...._I I
I ; "-...____ 6-lnch
~--.1. minimum
A-2
6-lnch minimum j ---·
Gravel Material: 9 cubic feet per lineal foot.
Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1
Gravel• Clean ¾-Inch rock or approved substitute.
Fllter Fabric: Mirafl 140 or approved eubetitute.
I 1-·-6-inch mlnlml.lTI
I
AL TERNA 1E 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FIL TEA FABRIC
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate 2
--Toe of slope as shown
on grading plan
? ... c;:·.-: . .-_· .. :·.-.:·._, ·:.··.: ..... ·-~
Original ground surface to be, J < ,<"" , .. _·· _.. : .. ·. ·.:.~ ·-,/":·,. ····.;_--· ··.·_ ..
resto~ed with compacied fill \ 1 ✓--/. -~-·-:··, ·_.'_.:·_~ ·::-_:_..-?o-~~~~,-~~-f~l.:_:_. '.':>.:-.:··
_______ 1~----20 , -,.--·---~,~---·:·.-:·_·,.·_ .. ·· .. ··· .... :.·:,-, .. -.:· .. ,•:.··.·.:,.·. '·., ..
/
{b~ / I \___Original ground surface ,/-1 D • Anticipe.ted removal of lmuitable material
. \'~ ,.__-$'j / (depth per geotechnii ·ca1 engineer)
\ ,, "' ~\ /\
"'\~ / ~
~~~\\-(,:,;: \ /(',::,,;:..,~, \_,,
Back-cut varies. For deep removals,
backcut should be made no steeper
than 1:1 (H:V), or flatter as necessary
for safety considerations.
Provide a. 1=1 (H:V) minimum projection from toe of
slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended
removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and/ or
local conditions could dictate flatter projections.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL PLATE 3
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING'·
Proposed grade ~ -----_
Proposed additional compacted fill
Previously placed, temporary
compacted fin for drainage only
-----
~-.....
"¾,Z••···· ( /? ?t•?t@B0#2f jS,.
~<-» ~:zttiL?\}::\?f::•f.-·~~~~i:~~~~-~4.t.~i:i~. {t~~~-~~moved)
Existing compacted fill ~o_,,~·-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:•:•:-::.:( 0::: ·.' .. : ·:·::. _-. . ~~~\y\ \"<'.:-<---o-, ·:::::::. ·-· . . . . . ~ ').y\ \ /
.,.-'.'.'.'.::,....~--.-~-::~·:-"-~-~-?.·A-~=(\0-~' \ ,,,
.Y"'
L--To be removed before placing--~
additional compacted fill
Bedrock or approved
native material
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate 4
Design finish slope
Blanket fill (tt recommended by
the geotechnical consultant)
l 1s toot i !--minimum--,
Drainage per design
civil engineer ·110-foot minimum /
25-fool maximum/
_l-,z<--------------/ 1 / Buttress or
15-toot typ1ca1 stabilization fiD
1 to 2 cm, epacilg / .. ::. ~ >
I foot J _ j = / 2-Percent Gradient \_-~;tJ, \j_ b(
4
en
1
ch~g
-----4-inch-diameter non-perforated
_, __ --~ \' ::-(~ -00
2-foot lnml\Jn A ,'2:<~ Toe Heel \> · minimum) lcey dep1h ,\ 2--Percent Gradient--~ 7------~ ✓-.~ "' 1/,x1/,.,Y,, "' ,-, Bedrock or _
l, I 1s-toot minim':"1 ___ approved native
·----or H/2 where_H 18 lhe I material I elope hetghl
Subdrain as
recommended by
geotechnical consultant
outlet pipe and backdrain (see
detail Plate E-6). Outlets to be
spaced at 100-foot maximum
intervals and shall extend 2 feet
beyond the face of slope at time
of rough grading completion. At
the completion of rough grading.
the design civil engineer should
provide recommendations to
convey any outlet's discharge to
a slitable conveyance, utilizing a
non-erosive device.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate 5
I-I __ 2-foot __
I minimum I
I
4~~h mlnimuJ~--···------~10~
f pipe --2-lnch minimum
____ [ mninum J t ---1 ·-----
Filter Material: Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal
feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench.
Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material: Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric.
Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of
12 inches in all joints.
Minimum 4-lnch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM 0-2751, SOR 35; or ASTM D -1527 Schedule
40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength
of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of
pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at
upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected
to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow.
Notes= 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil.
2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench
drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional
drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
Filter Material shall be of the following
specification or an approved equivalent.
Sieve Size
1 inch
¾ inch
¾ Inch
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Gravel shall be of the following
specification or an approved equivalent.
Sieve Size
1½ Inch
No.4
No.200
Percent Passing
100
50
8
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate 6
Toe of slope as shown
on grading plan _
1 i
Natural slope to
be restored with
compacted fill
Backcut varies
NOTES:
I I i !
I I
Proposed grade \/ / ,,--
/
/
/
/ Compacted fill
/
-----,
I
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be
provided by the geotechnical consultant.
2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon
exposed conditions.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING FILL OVER NATURAL (SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate 7
H • hegit of slope
Cut/fill contact as
shown on grading plan -----.
\
Cut/fill contact as
shown on as-built plan 7
I I I
Original ( existing) grade
\ Pro~:gr:::
J, / :m_~::,:
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTE: The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
construction of the fiO portion.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plate 8
Natural slope
Proposed finish grade
----------------
:• .··.
..... :· ..
-: ... ::._,_ :_:•i·--_.,.-.·. -<;-. _;·<·:.:_·_-~. --~ : ___ ·_:.-_::·::··:··· ·; ,·
/
/
/
Typical benching
(4-foot minimum)
Compacted stablization fill
Bedrock or other
approved native material
~---If recommended by the geotechnical
consultant, the remaining cut portion of
the slope may require removal and
replacement with compacted fill.
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTES= 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant.
2 W shall be equipment width (15 feel) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than
25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H/2,
where H is the height of the slope.
so1Ers~~~ORE I STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL I Plate 9
Proposed finish grade ----.. Natur al grade
-----·------------
/ · ..... ;: · .. -~ 3-foot
mininum
H • height of elope
/ · ... ·.~.··.•
/ / .: ~e\<';t~~;~&\·./ · .. /
/ .. , ·# .. 1/
·. ··.~··.$''!,~ .
I • • . . .... . . .
·:;" < :•: .. ·: i ·. ··, .. ~•.··:~.·-.-·: .: .. :·:·_~
/ .. ··· .··___.-
/ . •· .· ::·"/" ----
/ ·•· .· .' •··· :: .. >/ · .. ·: .. ~
. . . . . . ~
Typical benching
(4-foot minimum)
NOTES: 1. 15-foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to back cut.
2. The need and disposition of drains win be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
3. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the
geotechnical consultant.
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate 10
Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2=1 or flatter
(may increase or decrease pad area)
Overexcavate and recompact
replacement tm
Avoid and/or clean up
Hoot minirnun -[key width --
Natural grade
~" . ~
-·· .... •, .
... ·.·· ........ , . :-·-.: .. ::·--":..-~-.'.Y
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTES: 1. Subdrain and key width requirements will be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and
thickness of overburden.
2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical
consultant
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate 11
. ·:.·
Natural grade
Proposed pad grade _ _...-·-----------------..
I • ,: • • • • • • ••: • •' : • • • • • • • .. . ··· · .. ·.:· "• .. : · :.: ... :_ ... :. ·.·.· .. ·.::~~:a~~ria;:i .. ;: .. ··._:\· ::.··:=-~
.. . .. . .... , . •. ·. ·.: :. \Jn.&lli\~e . -~
> ,-:: <~:~ .. :_:·':::~·,'··'~_..· .... :·,,_:_~~->:~· .. _··_ ------
CUT LOT OR MATERIAL-TYPE TRANSmON
Natural grade
-Proposed p~-----------------
·-:
.. · ... ·: .. =·.-: .. -~
.. . I
---------
J_
I -'-
Typical benching
(4-toot minimum)
Bedrock or
approved native
material
• Deeper overexcavation may be
recommended by the geotechnical
consultant In steep cuHUI transition
areas, such that the underlying·
topography is no steeper than 3:1 (HV)
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION)
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate 12
(E) Hold-down depth
minimum
NOTES:
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
Proposed finish grade --~
(E)---\ ~ 7(E)~ow::;h -----
/ ...cco ,!"XO 6) dJ
/ ~ \ <XO o' ,JS-fooJ ~ nilnlmuin
/ a::o dJ I (A) I l c:0---15-foot----c:co l_ dJ
minimum
cco (D) dJ 0
c:o:::, CCO(F)
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
Bedrock or approved
native material
A. One equipment width or e. minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows).
8. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow
shall be no greater than 100 feet.
C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant. windrows may be placed dlreclty on competent
material or bedrock, provided adequate space Is available for compaction.
D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be e.e recommended by the geotechnical engineer
and/ or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows Is not necessary unless recommended.
E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming poofs; Hold-down depth as specified in
text of report, subject to governing agency approval.
F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction or as recommended.
G. After fill between windrows Is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow
should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 13
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
Fill lifts compacted oyer -•··
rock after embedment r-------~
I .....
L _ _ _ ...:.--~:--:.:-: :-:-Large Rock I ..
I
I
I Compacted Fill
I
--·-· Granular material
------7
I
Size of excavation to I
be commensurate I
with rock size I
ROCK DISPOSAL LA YEAS
Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding ___ r ~ompacte~fi~ ~ /--.. Layer one rock high ___ · -:·. ·.·. :"°. ·o.-. . .
_j_ £ Proposed frnh gr~ ~ l~_?LOI
.. :. H~d-down depth '----._ PROFILE ALONG LA YEA
! ~'--"-~<-<--'--'-"-'----..
f Compacted fill
'----._ ~ • Hold-down depth
--m::r:xx:x:xx:x:xxx~ 3-foot
minimum -,--ccr-..:i::::::ccY-::ci::::X:::C:CX::,CC~~:.:-CX:)C::(:::ct'.::CC::io::::O:::c>:::cc:ci:::cx
•• Clear zone TOP VIEW
• Hold-down depth or below loweot utility as 8peclfied In text of report, oubject to governing agency approval
•• Clear zone for uliffly trenches, foundations, end swimming pools, ao specified In text of report.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY ANO MAY BE SUPERSEDED BYAEPOAT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FLLED IN
SOUTH SHORE
TESTING ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 14
APPENDIX E
USGS Design Maps Summary Report
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00AR
1 of2
http .' 'ehp I e>l 1hquc1ke. er ,isgs govldes1gnrnaps/u3/3,1rr,mary php'iterr
~USGS Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title 4382 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA
Wed September 28, 2016 22:49:46 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.1464°N, 117.3282°W
Si!~ Soil Classification Site ... Class c -"Very Dense Soil ang Soft Rock"
Risk Category I/II/III
USGS-Provided Output
S5 = 1.135 g
SJ = 0 436 g
SMS = 1 135 g
SMJ = 0.595 g
Sos= 0 757 g
S0 J = 0.396 g
For information on how the SS and SL values above have been calculate<! from probabil1st1c (risk-targeted ) and
cleterrrnr,ist1c ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application ancl
select the "2009 NEI-IRP" bu1lcl1ng cocle reference document
MCE11 Response Spectrum
I 20
1.08
0.'6
0.9~
! 072
" o.,o 4ll
0.49
0 36
01~
0 12
o. 00 +--1---+--t---t-----i--+--+--t---+--1
0 00 0 2°) 0 N O ~I) 0 90 l 00 I 20 I. ~O I GO l 110 2 00
P-eriod, T (sec)
0 98
0.90
0 12
o.u
0.56
g) 0.-49 -J: 0.40
0.32
0.24
0. I G
0.08
Design Response Spectrum
0. 00 +---<t---t---t---t----l--+--t--l---t---t
O 00 O 20 0. 41) 0 Gil 0. 80 I 01) l 20 l 40 1. GO l Sil 2. Ov
Period, T ( sec)
for PGAM, TL, CRs, and CR 1 values, please view the detailed report.
9/28/2016 3:50 I
Design Maps Detailed Report http:// ehp I -earthquake .er. usgs .gov/ designmaps/us/report. php?temp
I of6
EUSGS Design Maps Detailed Report
ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.1464°N, 117.3282°W)
Site Class C -"Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock", Risk Category I/II/III
Section 11.4.1 -Mapped Acceleration Parameters
Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal
spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric
mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain Ss) and
1.3 (to obtain S1 ). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.
Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.
From Figure 22-1 cii S5 ::;: 1.135 g
From Figure 22-2 c21 S1 ::;: 0.436 g
-----------·---··----------·----
Section 11.4.2 -Site Class
The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the
default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties In
accordance with Chapter 20.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification
Site Class
A. Hard Rock
B. Rock
C. Very dense soil and soft rock
D. Stiff Soil
E. Soft clay soil
F. Soils requiring site response
analysis In accordance with Section
21.1
-Vs
>5,000 ft/s
2,500 to 5,000 ft/s
1,200 to 2,500 ft/s ----------
600 to 1,200 ft/s
<600 ft/s
N/A
N/A
>50
15 to SO
<15
N/A
N/A
>2,000 psf -----------
1,000 to 2,000 psf ---------·--
<1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the
characteristics:
• Plasticity index PI> 20,
• Moisture content w 2: 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf
See Section 20.3.1
For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2
9/28/2016 3:50 I
Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehpJ-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?temp
2of6
Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE0) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Site Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
Site Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F,
Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
S5 s 0.25 55 = 0.50 55 = 0.75 55 = 1.00
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1
2.5 1. 7 1.2 0.9
See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for Intermediate values of S5
For Site Class= C and Ss = 1.135 g, Fa = 1.000
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient fv
S5 2: 1.25
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
51 s 0.10 51 = 0.20 51 = 0.30 51 = 0.40 51 ~ 0.50
0 .8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1
For Site Class= C and S1 = 0.436 g, F,, = 1.364
9/28/2016 3:50 I
Design Maps Detailed Report http:// ehp 1-earthq uake.cr. us gs.gov/ designmaps/us/report. php?temi
3 of6
Equation (11.4-1): SMs = FaSs = 1.000 X 1.135 = 1.135 9
Equation (11.4-2): SMl = f vS1 = 1.364 X 0.436 = 0.595 9
Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3): S os = ¾ SMs = ½ X 1.135 = 0.757 g
Equation (11.4-4): S01 = ¾ SMl = ¾ X 0 .595 = 0 .396 g
Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum
From Figure 22-12 c3 1 TL = 8 seconds
------------------
Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum
~
II Ill c
i " 'ii u u < ~ C 0 a. "' " ci:
ii t " a. Ill
Sos = 0.757 • -.-------.
T <Ta : s. = S1111 ( 0.4 + 0.6 T / Ta )
Ta s Ts T8 : S1 = 505
T.<TSTL:S,=501/T
T>TL: 51 =S01TL/T2
S Jl = 0. 396 • ·• -· --• --• · · • · · · --· · -• •
T0 = 0.105 Ts= 0.523 1.000
Period, T (s:ec)
9/28/2016 3:50 I
Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehp1 -earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?t
1 of6
Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response
Spectrum
The MCER Response Spectrum is detennined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by
1.5.
~ -: c .! ~ t "i u u <
Svs • 1.135 --.-------.
! S,,1 ~ 0.595
0 a. ., • " ii ti • :
1.000
Period. T (sec)
9/28/20163:501
Design Maps Detailed Report http:// ehp 1-earthq uake .er. usgs.gov/ designmaps/us/report. php?
; of6
Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic
Design Categories D through F
From Figure 22-7 £4 J PGA = 0.449
----~ ----------
Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FpGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.449 = 0.449 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA
Site Class Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
PGA :S 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA ~ 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class= C and PGA = 0.449 g, FPGA = 1.000
Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures
for Seismic Design)
From Figure 22-17 csJ CRS = 0 .945
From Figure 22-18 £6J C Rl = 0 .997
---··--------------
9/28/20163:501
Design Maps Detailed Report http:/ /ehp I -earthquake .er. usgs .gov/ des ignmaps/us/report.php?1
iof6
Section 11.6 -Seismic Design Category
Table 11.6·1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF Sos
IV I or II III
505 < 0.167g A A A
0.167g :S Sos< 0.33g B B C
0.33g :S Sos < O.SOg C C D
0.50g :S Sos D D D
For Risk Category= I and S05 = 0.757 g, Seismic Design Category= D
Table 11.6·2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-s Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF 5 0 1 I or II III IV
S01 < 0.067g A A A
0.067g :S S 01 < 0.133g B B C
0.133g :s 501 < 0.20g C C D
0.20g :s 501 D D D
For Risk Category = I and S01 = 0.396 g, Seismic Design Category= D
Note: When S1 Is greater than or equal to 0. 75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for
buildings In Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those In Risk Category IV, irrespective
of the above.
Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category In accordance with
Table 11.6· 1 or 11.6-2" = D
Note: See Section 11. 6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.
References
1. Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/deslgnmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE·
7 _Figure_22-1.pdf
2. Agure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/down1oads/pdfs/20l0_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-2.pdf
3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Flgure_22-12. pdf
4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-7. pdf
5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Flgure_22-17. pdf
6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20l0_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-18. pdf
9/28/2016 3:50 I