HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-042_2021_0709_SOILS REPORT23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone 949 629 2539 | Email info@rmccarthyconsulting.com
July 9, 2021
Mr. Eddie Chen File No: 8444-10
1424 Galaxy Drive Report No: R4-8444
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Report
Proposed New Custom Home
Tract 4224, Lot 78
1424 Galaxy Drive
Newport Beach, California
APN: 117-671-14
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for 1424 Galaxy Drive in the
Dover Shores neighborhood of Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine
various site and regional geotechnical conditions pertinent to the construction of a new custom
home on the lot. Analyses for this investigation are based upon a brief description of the project. A previous geotechnical investigation was performed for this property resulting in our report
dated November 4, 2020. The previous report addressed a remodel of the existing house
structure.
The purpose of our current report is to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the
compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the geotechnical features of the site,
and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for site precise grading and construction of the planned improvements. Specific information and
recommendations for site development are provided herein.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary during
preparation of site-specific foundation and grading plans, which are partly dependent upon
recommendations presented herein. Furthermore, this report is subject to agency (including City
of Newport Beach) review and approval.
Project Authorization
The work performed was per authorization based on our Proposal No: P2-8444, dated June 8, 2021.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 2
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Scope of Investigation
The investigation included the following:
1. Review of collected geologic, geotechnical engineering and seismological reports
and maps pertinent to the subject site. A reference list is included in Appendix A.
2. Subsurface exploration consisting of six hand auger borings. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 4.3 to 15 feet. The locations of the exploratory
borings are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1.
3. Logging and sampling of the exploratory borings, including collection of soil samples
for laboratory testing. The Logs of the exploration are included in Appendix B.
4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C.
5. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including
Geotechnical Cross Sections, Figures 2 and 3.
6. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the
design and construction in accordance with the current 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and for use by your design professionals and contractors.
Site Description
The subject property is located on the northeast side of Galaxy Drive, within the Dover Shores
community in the City of Newport Beach, California as shown on the Location Map, Figure 4.
The property is flanked to the northwest and southeast by similar developed residential lots.
The southwest side of the lot fronts Galaxy Drive. The northeast side of the property is bounded
by slopes and retaining walls, which are further described below.
The lot topography generally consists of a level graded building pad. The back of the building pad descends approximately 3.5 feet, over distances of about 10 to 15 feet, to the top of an
existing retaining wall at the northeast property line. The exposed height of the retaining wall
varies from approximately 4 to 10 feet along the rear (northeast side) of the lot. Immediately
beyond the northeast property line is an approximate 100-foot bluff slope which descends to
the Newport Back Bay along the east property boundary. The overall bluff slope gradient varies
from approximately 1:1 to 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). The approximate layout of the deadman
and anchors for the previous slope repair are shown on Figures 1 through 3. The determination
of the locations for the anchors is described in Reference 32.
The Topographic Map prepared by Apex Land Surveying, Inc. (Reference 1) indicates that the
lot has an approximate trapezoidal shape. The Apex plan was used as a base map for our
Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The subject property consists of a relatively level graded
building pad with elevations ranging from approximately 105.5 near Galaxy Drive to 107.5 feet
along the back of the house (NAVD88). The adjacent lots to the northwest and the southeast
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 3
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
are at similar elevations as the subject lot. The northeast slope retaining wall is contiguous on the adjoining lots.
The property includes an existing single-story wood-framed residential structure with an
attached garage. The front yard landscaping includes lawn, planter areas, and palm trees. An
approximate 6-foot high privacy wall is present in the front yard. Roof gutters and downspouts
direct runoff toward Galaxy Drive. Area drains were observed in the side and rear yard areas.
Drainage outlets were also observed in the curb face along Galaxy Drive.
The backyard is landscaped and terraced down to the top of the northeast blufftop retaining
wall and includes low height stacked stone retaining walls resulting in an elevation differential
of approximately 3 to 3.5 feet below the building pad. Landscaping generally consists of a thick
grass ground cover (Irish Moss), shrubs and trees. Patio cracks and stair separations were
observed in the rear yard hardscape. The top of the rear yard retaining wall varies from 103.54
feet at the northern corner to 103.98 feet at the eastern corner. The retaining wall exposure above the bluff slope ranges from approximately 10 feet at the northern property corner to
about 4 feet at the eastern property corner. Based on the Apex survey, the retaining wall is
located entirely within the legal property boundary.
The slope is part of a natural bluff above the Back Bay and exposes bedrock, terrace deposits,
slide debris, talus and slopewash. Vegetation on the slope is generally sparse to thick and
consists of groundcover, low brush and trees.
Site History
The site history with respect to geotechnical conditions is described in the references and
summarized previously in References 32 and 33.
Proposed Development
We understand that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of the existing
main house and garage structures to build a new single-family residence and garage. The
existing foundation elements and associated subsurface improvements will be removed during
demolition, which is expected to disturb the upper 2 feet of the building pad. Grading is
expected to consist of processing the surface soils to remove undocumented artificial fill soil, weathered terrace deposits, residual landscape soils and materials disturbed by demolition in
order to create a uniformly graded building pad.
Structural loads for the new structure were not reviewed as part of this investigation. We
anticipate wood-frame and light steel construction that is typical of the area and relatively light
construction loads. We assume that maximum column loads will be less than 25 kips and wall
loads of 2 kip/foot. Structurally supported, slab-on-grade construction is anticipated. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads for foundation elements are available to
check these preliminary assumptions.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 4
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Other improvements proposed include concrete decks, sidewalks and driveways. Area drains will be installed to collect surface drainage. Stormwater runoff will likely gravity flow via a pipe
system to Galaxy Drive.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting
The subject property is situated along an elevated coastal marine terrace near the northwestern termination of the San Joaquin Hills within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of
Southern California. This elevated terrace extends from Newport Mesa south to Dana Point.
Portion of: GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA ANA 30’ X 60’ QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIA U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2006-1217 Compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, 2006
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 5
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
The marine terrace was developed as a wave cut terrace overlying older Capistrano formation (Tc) sedimentary bedrock of early Pliocene age and Monterey formation (Tm) sedimentary
bedrock strata of late Miocene age that was uplifted, then cut flat by the onset of an
encroaching ocean with resulting marine terrace at the surface. The sedimentary rock
formations are present at depth below the artificial fill and terrace deposits, and are exposed on
the bluff below along the Newport Back Bay.
Earth Materials
The site is underlain at depth by sedimentary bedrock strata assigned on the basis of regional geologic maps to the Monterey formation of late Miocene, which is successively overlain by
terrace deposits and artificial fill. As observed in the borings, as well as on the bluff slope and
nearby roadcuts, the Monterey Formation consists of firm but friable, thinly bedded, light
whitish grey, diatomaceous and siliceous shale with discontinuous planar bedding surfaces
displaying iron and manganese staining and scattered concretionary beds.
Terrace deposits consist of medium dense reddish-brown to yellowish-brown silty sands and
diatomaceous silts derived from the bedrock. The terrace deposits were generally moist and
shell fragments were observed in the marine layers. Moisture contents of the terrace deposits
sampled varied from 6.9 to 37.9 percent. Dry densities of the terrace deposits varied from 75 to
109 pcf. These deposits are suitable to support anticipated structural loads but may be prone to
caving in steep-sided excavations.
Artificial fill ranged in thickness from about 2 to 8 feet in our exploratory borings and was
generally less than 5 feet in thickness. The fill materials consist of pale clayey, diatomaceous
silt, dark brown and reddish-brown mottled silty sand, and sandy silt. Moisture content of the
sampled fill material ranged from 11.8 to 42.1 percent. Dry densities of the fill material ranged
from 76 to 104 pcf. Laboratory test results indicate that the on-site clayey and silty fill materials
have a medium expansion potential (EI = 79).
Older fill materials are reported to have been place in the area to create level building pads on
the lots along Galaxy Drive in the 1960s. Reference 14 indicates that the building pads along
Galaxy Drive were covered by a 4-foot thick layer of clayey compacted fill that was placed to
limit infiltration of surface water. Additional fills and backfills may be present from the slope repair in the late 1970s.
The majority of the on-site earth materials should excavate readily with conventional moderate
to heavy-duty earth-moving equipment. Bedrock is not expected to be present at the
anticipated grading or construction depths. Most materials derived on-site will re-compact to
produce acceptable structural fill. Organic materials, debris and other unsuitable materials that
may be present as part of the demolition should be hauled away and not used in the re-compacted fill.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 6
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Geologic Hazard
The bluff slope at the rear of the property is identified by the State of California as a seismic
hazard zone on the Newport Beach Quadrangle Official Map, April 15, 1998. This places the site in
a category of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides. An initial screening
investigation indicates that the severity of the potential seismic landslide hazard was effectively
mitigated by the caisson and tie-back retaining wall that was previously constructed along the
northeast property line. The slope is primarily a natural bluff slope with older fill placed in a wedge to raise the outer lot grades toward the top of slope. Bedrock, terrace deposits and
slopewash materials appear to be present in the natural slope areas. The general interpretation of
the distribution of earth materials and the retaining wall/bluff repair is depicted in the cross
sections, Figures 2 and 3.
Other geologic hazards at the site are primarily from shaking due to movement of nearby or
distant faults during earthquake events. The site is a previously graded bluff top lot with a flat to gently sloping building pad located on older marine terrace sediments and bedrock. There is
no geologic hazard due to active faulting near the site, shallow groundwater or other known
conditions that would affect the site as further detailed below.
Structure
Bedrock is exposed on the bluff face along the northeast property boundary and is identified as
having a low angle dip to the north, while the bluff face slopes to the northeast. This was a
contributing factor to the landslide reported in the late 1970s. Reference 14 describes the event
mechanism as “the wedge of rock that was involved in the failure moved obliquely along a tilted
bedding plane, and it carried along the terrace deposits that rested above the bedrock.” The oblique adverse beds in the rock create continued instability along the face of the bluff. The
unstable conditions were addressed as part of the slope repair that included the construction of
the existing retaining wall. The retaining wall is reported to include a subsurface wall consisting
of a row of soldier piles embedded into the stable bedrock at depth with tie-backs at the top
that also extend into stable bedrock. The retaining wall was therefore built to mitigate the
adverse impacts to the lot that would otherwise result from failure on the bluff.
The State of California has mapped several splays of the Pelican Hills Fault Zone that trend
northwest-southeast to the northeast and southwest of the site. The faulting is within the
underlying bedrock and is concealed by the overlying terrace deposits. The faults are
considered inactive at this time; however, sympathetic movement may occur during significant
shaking on one of the nearby active fault traces.
Slope Stability
Slope instability has been largely mitigated by the caisson and tie-back wall that is in place
along the top of the bluff. The wall was designed to protect the lot above in the event of future
instability on the slope below. This descending slope area northeast of the site is located in a designated slope stability area as shown on the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the
State of California seismic hazard maps.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 7
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Cross sections were prepared to depict the soil profile and underlying geology. The cross sections are included as Figures 2 and 3. Care should be taken to not surcharge the existing retaining wall
or damage the wall system, including the tiebacks, during planned construction. Efforts should be
made to locate the existing wall tie-backs prior to drilling piles and/or excavating for deepened
footings at the site.
A structural analysis of the existing wall system was not performed as part of our investigation.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed in the exploratory borings at the time of the investigation.
Although not encountered in the borings, groundwater may develop along the contact between
permeable terrace deposits and the less permeable underlying bedrock or silt layers within the
deposits as a result of rainfall, irrigation and seepage from uphill properties. Groundwater
seepage is not anticipated to be a significant design or construction constraint, provided proper
surface drainage and subdrainage systems are incorporated into the project; however, the
presence of groundwater in deeper caisson borings during construction is possible and may
promote caving in caisson excavations.
Although no evidence of shallow groundwater was observed during our field investigation,
subdrains and waterproofing should be included in retaining wall design and construction as a
precaution against the development of hydrostatic wall loading and possible wall seepage.
Water Infiltration
On-site water infiltration is not recommended due to potential for future seepage and perched water in slope and retaining wall areas. Surface and subsurface drainage should be directed
toward approved outlets.
Surficial Runoff
Proposed development should incorporate engineering and landscape drainage designed to
transmit surface and subsurface flow to the storm drain systems via non-erosive pathways. Care should be taken to not allow water to pond or infiltrate soil adjacent to foundation
elements, retaining walls and slopes. Existing subdrains for walls or improvements that are not
scheduled for abandonment as part of the new construction, if present, should be adequately
marked, safeguarded and maintained in good working order through the construction period and beyond.
Faulting/Seismic Considerations
The major concern relating to geologic faults is ground shaking that affects many properties
over a wide area. Direct hazards from faulting are essentially due to surface rupture along fault
lines that could occur during an earthquake. Therefore, geologists have mapped fault locations and established criteria for determining the risks of potential surface rupture based on the
likelihood of renewed movement on faults that could be located under a site.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 8
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now referred to as the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults are generally categorized as active,
potentially active or inactive (Jennings, 1994). The basic principle of faulting concern is that
existing faults could move again, and that faults which have moved more recently are the most
likely faults to move again and affect us. As such, faults have been divided into categories
based on their age of last movement. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to
occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for
such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding.
By definition, faults with no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years
are considered inactive and generally pose no concern for earthquakes due renewed
movement. Potentially-active faults are those with the surface displacement within the last 1.6
million years. Further refinements of potentially active faults are sometimes described based on the age of the last known movement such as late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) implying a
greater potential for renewed movement. In fact, most potentially active faults have little
likelihood of moving within the time frame of construction life, but the degree of understanding
of fault age and activity is sometimes not well understood due to absence of geologic data or surface information, so geologists have acknowledged this doubt by using the term "potentially
active." A few faults that were once thought to be potentially active, have later been found to
be active based on new findings and mapping. Active faults are those with a surface displacement within the last 11,000 years and, therefore, most likely to move again. The State
of California has, additionally, mapped known areas of active faulting as designated Alquist-
SITE
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 9
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Priolo (A-P) "Special Studies Zones,” which requires special investigations for fault rupture to limit construction over active faults.
A potential seismic source near the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (SJHBT), which
is approximately 2 to 8 kilometers beneath the site at its closest point, based on the reported fault
structure. The SJHBT is a postulated fault that is suspected to be responsible for uplift of the San
Joaquin Hills. This fault is a blind thrust fault that does not intercept the ground surface and,
therefore, presents no known potential for ground rupture at the property.
The site is not located near an active fault, or within a special studies zone for earthquake fault
rupture. Inactive, northwest-trending faulting has been mapped to occur at depth under the
terrace deposits to the east in close proximity to the site. The potential for surface rupture at
the site is low.
The closest active fault to the site is the offshore extension of the Newport Inglewood Fault (north branch) located/mapped within a zone that is approximately 2 miles southwest of the
site. As such, the potential for surface rupture at the site is very low, but the site will experience
shaking, during earthquake events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take
into consideration the seismic design parameters outlined below.
SITE
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 10
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Site Classification for Seismic Design
Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report and in Appendix E for
use by the Structural Engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in
accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC.
The results of our on-site field investigation, as well as nearby investigations by us and others,
indicate that the site is underlain by Class D medium dense Terrace deposits and artificial fill. We, therefore, recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D (Default), “Stiff
Soil,” Site Classification.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle,
1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is
not located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced liquefaction. This
finding is in keeping with the results of our study.
Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle,
1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates that the bluff at the rear of the site is located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-
induced landslides. The planned development will be set back from the slope and retaining wall.
The existing slope conditions will not be modified as part of the proposed construction.
Other secondary seismic hazards to the site include deep rupture, shallow ground cracking,
lurching with lateral movement and settlement. With the absence of active faulting on-site, the
potential for deep fault rupture is not present. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site but does not pose a significant hazard to
site development. The potential for seismically-induced lurching and settlement to occur is
considered remote for the site. The potential for tsunami inundation at the site elevation is nil
at the planned foundation levels.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations of this report are followed during design, construction, and
maintenance of the subject property. Proposed development should not adversely affect,
or be adversely affected by, adjacent properties, providing appropriate engineering design, construction methods and care are utilized during construction.
2. The primary geotechnical considerations at the property will include the presence of the
buried anchors and associated construction materials, foundation embedment into
competent material, distribution of footing loads, slope setbacks, retaining wall setbacks,
protection of the existing tie-back retaining wall elements, drainage, subdrainage and
property line constraints.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 11
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
3. The property is underlain by siltstone bedrock, which is also exposed on the bluff behind the property. The bedrock is overlain by terrace deposits and artificial fill soils. Tie-back
anchors extend through the Terrace deposits below the property and existing house.
4. The on-site materials have a medium expansion potential based on laboratory testing.
5. Based on our findings, the existing artificial fill at the site is in place as a result of the
original building pad grading, slope repair construction activities, backfill of the existing deadman and tie-back retaining wall and landscape improvements/modifications
following the repair. We recommend remedial grading to create a uniform building pad
for mat slab construction for the site.
6. No active faults are known to transect the site and, therefore, the site is not expected to
be adversely affected by surface rupturing. It will, however, be affected by ground
motions from earthquakes during the design life of the residence. The potential for seismically-induced liquefaction affecting the residence is considered nil.
7. The planned improvements will not adversely affect the bluff slope and will be outside of
the influence of the slope and hazard condition since upslope property is assumed to be protected by the existing tie-back retaining wall. The property beyond the tie-back
retaining wall is part of an unstable bluff. Ongoing erosion due to weathering of the
exposed slope materials and shallow failures are possible. Future instability is likely but should not adversely affect planned top of slope improvements provided that the
existing deadman, tie- anchors and retaining wall are properly maintained and not
damaged by future construction or site activities.
8. Groundwater was not encountered in our excavations and is not expected to be a
significant concern during construction. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed
at retaining walls to mitigate possible transient seepage.
9. Concentrated water infiltration into the on-site near surface soils by use of trench drains
or infiltration devices is not recommended. Concentrated flows of water should be
directed to approved outlets. Surface and subsurface drainage should be directed either off-site toward Galaxy Drive, or toward approved alternative outlets, as necessary, for
BMPs. No runoff water should be directed toward the rear yard, retaining walls or bluff.
10. Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil
engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented.
11. The proposed residence may be supported by a thickened mat slab foundation system to provide uniform support for the structure. Caisson or deepened footing support of
improvements constructed within setback zones near the top of slope retaining wall may
be required.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 12
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
1. General
Site grading should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of
Newport Beach, the recommendations of this report, and the Standard Grading Guidelines of Appendix D. All excavations should be supervised and approved in writing
by a representative of this firm.
2. Demolition and Clearing
Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition, vegetation, organic matter
and trash, should be removed and disposed of off-site. Subsurface elements of
demolished structures should be completely removed, or appropriately remediated,
including any trench backfills, basements, foundations, septic tanks, cisterns, abandoned
utility lines, etc. Existing subdrains for the slope or retaining walls, if identified, should
be protected in place or repaired if damaged during demolition or construction.
3. Subgrade Preparation
Within structural improvement areas, excavations should be made to remove any
unsuitable soils, including those disturbed by demolition or past site activities,
undocumented fill and surficial soil materials. Removal depths of approximately 2 feet
are anticipated in order to provide a uniform graded pad for structural support below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 6-inches of scarification and
recompaction. Excavations should extend to a depth that provides at least 12-inches of
recompacted fill below footings and to avoid cut/fill transitions across the building pads.
Deeper excavations may be necessary to remove unsuitable materials, if encountered.
Excavations should be replaced with compacted engineered fill. The horizontal limits of
overexcavation should be outlined by the Geotechnical Engineer based on grading,
shoring and foundation plans when these are available for review.
The contractor and subcontractors shall not disturb or damage the existing deadman,
tie-back anchors or retaining wall during grading and construction.
Within graded areas that are to be filled, unapproved soils consisting of loose or porous
artificial fill, slopewash or weathered terrace deposits should be removed to competent
material as determined in the field by the geotechnical consultant. Removed materials
may be replaced as properly compacted, engineered fill. The exposed removal areas
within all excavations should be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing
fill and/or improvements. Cut areas below planned slab and foundation areas should be
overexcavated to eliminate cut/fill transitions.
Subsurface materials are depicted on the Geotechnical Plot Plan and Cross-Sections on
Figures 1 through 3. The attached figures are based on limited data and are idealized
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 13
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
profiles through the site. Actual conditions and removals will need to be verified and adjusted as necessary in the field during grading as conditions are exposed.
Removals should be followed by 6-inches of scarification and recompaction. Excavations
that require filling should be replaced with compacted engineered fill. Removals of
unsuitable soils should extend below all structural improvements that are supported by
on-site soil.
Removals below significant yard hardscape improvements such as driveways and
sidewalks should be sufficient to remove upper disturbed/weathered on-site soil.
Removal thicknesses are expected to be about 1 to 2 feet within exterior hardscape
areas. Deeper removals may be necessary in the rear yard.
The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer or
Geologist during the actual construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the
attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations.
4. Fill Soils
The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill for site grading.
Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments
greater than 6-inches in diameter.
Soils imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab areas should be
predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing.
All materials should be placed at near optimum moisture content and compacted under
the observation and testing of the Geotechnical Engineer. The recommended minimum
density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by
ASTM D1557.
5. Shrinkage
Shrinkage losses are expected to be about 2 percent overall. This does not include
clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. Subsidence should not be appreciable within terrace deposits and fill materials.
These are preliminary rough estimates and actual field results may vary.
6. Expansive Soils
Expansion tests should be performed during grading or construction to determine the
expansion potential of the processed fill materials. On-site soils tested during our investigation were determined to be silts and clays with a medium expansion potential.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 14
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
7. Compaction Standard
The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill, with the
exception of use as backfill for new retaining walls. Fill materials should be placed at
near optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the
Geotechnical Engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is
90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557.
8. Temporary Construction Slopes
Temporary slopes exposing on-site materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA
Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed on-site earth materials may be classified
as Type B soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) above a 4-feet-high
single bench is expected be appropriate for trenching to a maximum height of about 7
feet. Along property lines, cuts of 1:1 or flatter are typically prudent and are required by
the City of Newport Beach. Shoring is not expected to be necessary; however,
preliminary plans should be provided to us for review of the setbacks and removal
depths. The material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the
Contractor and Geotechnical Consultant during excavation and construction.
Lateral support of adjacent public and private property improvements should be
maintained during grading and construction.
The safety and stability of temporary construction slopes and cuts is deferred to the
General Contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section
1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). The Geotechnical Consultant makes no warranties as to the stability of temporary cuts. Soil conditions may vary
locally and the Contractor(s) should be prepared to remedy local instability if necessary.
Stability of excavations is also time dependent. Unsupported cuts should not be allowed
to dry out and should not be left open for extended time periods.
9. Adjacent Property Assessments and Monitoring
The operation of equipment will cause vibrations and sound pressure (noise) that may
be potentially disturbing to occupants of neighboring properties. If appropriate
equipment and experienced operators and Contractors perform the excavations, it is less
likely that such vibrations will be sufficient to promote structural damage in the vicinity.
The following measures may be considered in order to reduce the potential risks of
damage, and perceived damage, to adjoining improvements:
• Visual inspections and walk-throughs of each of the adjacent properties should
be arranged to document pre-existing conditions and damages.
• Measurements of all existing damages observed, including crack lengths, widths
and precise locations should be made.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 15
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
• Photographs should be taken to accompany written notes that refer to damages or even lack of damages. Video may also be considered; however, videos that
attempt to show these types of damages are often lacking in detail.
• Floor level surveys of nearby structures may be considered especially if pre-existing damage is evident.
• Vibrations from construction equipment may be monitored with portable
seismographs during excavation into bedrock materials.
• Surveys to monitor lateral and vertical position of adjacent improvements and
shoring elements is recommended.
• It is recommended that the Project Geologist be on-site during excavation to
evaluate conditions as the project advances.
Construction activities, particularly excavation equipment, produce vibrations that can be
felt by occupants of adjoining properties. People will often be annoyed by the noise and vibration caused by construction activities, which prompts them to personally perform
detailed inspections of their property for damage. Pre-existing damage, that previously
went unnoticed, can be unfairly attributed to current construction activities, particularly
when pre-construction property inspections are not performed. At that point, it may be
difficult to determine what caused the damage, especially damages such as wall
separations, cracks in drywall, stucco and masonry. Other common problems that may
be scrutinized can include uneven doors, sticking windows, tile cracks, leaning patio
posts, fences, gates, etc. Implementation of measures such as those listed above can
help avoid conflicts by monitoring construction activities that may be problematic as well
as provide valuable data to defend against unwarranted claims.
10. Exterior Improvements and Natural Areas
Areas of the property that are underlain by remaining surficial soil deposits, including
artificial fill, slopewash and landslide debris, may be subject to future soil movement. Various exterior improvements may be subject to future ground movement and resulting
distress. We recommend geotechnical review prior to construction of any future site
improvements.
Foundation Design
1. General
It is anticipated that foundation elements for the planned structure will bear in re-
compacted fill and will utilize a mat slab foundation.
The prepared and/or exposed subgrade materials are expected to exhibit a medium
expansion potential. When removed, mixed and replaced as compacted fill the materials
are expected to be in this expansion range; however, this will depend on the distribution of these materials on the site. The following recommendations are based on the
geotechnical data available and are subject to revision based on conditions actually
encountered in the field.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 16
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Foundations and slabs should be designed for the intended use and loading by the Structural Engineer. Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent
with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical
methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These
recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions
and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of
governing agencies.
2. Bearing Capacity for Mat Slab Foundation
A mat slab foundation system is recommended for the construction at the site. The
recommended allowable bearing capacity for the mat foundation is 1,200 pounds per
square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic
loading. A minimum slab thickness of 14-inches is recommended at the site. We
recommend a perimeter thickened slab edge to a minimum depth of 18-inches. For
design of a mat foundation system, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pounds per
cubic inch may be considered. The subgrade is expected to consist of compacted fill.
Actual thickness, depths and widths of the foundation and slab system should be
governed by code requirements and the structural engineering design.
3. Settlement
Settlement is anticipated to be less than ¾-inch total and ¼-inch differential across a
mat slab span distance of about 30 feet, provided that the recommended site grading
and bearing values are implemented. These estimates should be confirmed when
structural engineering plans are prepared and foundation load conditions are determined.
4. Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads for at-grade footings may be resisted by passive pressure forces developed
in front of foundation elements and by friction acting at the base of the slab/foundations.
Allowable lateral resistance for footings should not exceed 150 pounds per square foot
per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.25. These values may be used in combination per CBC 2019
Section 1806.3.1.
5. Foundation Reinforcement
Two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and bottom of any isolated continuous
footings or grade beams in order to resist potential movement due to various factors
such as subsurface imperfections and seismic shaking. Mat slab reinforcement
recommendations are provided below.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 17
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. Slope and Retaining Wall Setbacks
The rear slope bluff height is approximately 100-feet. A minimum horizontal slope
setback for foundations of H/3, per the CBC 2019 requirements should be maintained as
a code minimum for significant structures.
Seismic Design
Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided based on
ASCE/SEI 7-16 using the ASCE Hazard Tool to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria. A site-
specific Ground-Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) was not performed for the site.
Site and Seismic Design Criteria
For 2019 CBC
Design
Parameters Recommended Values
Site Class D (Default)*
(Stiff Soil)
Site Longitude (degrees) -117.890841 W
Site Latitude (degrees) 33.628595 N
Ss (g) 1.35
S1 (g) 0.481
SMs (g) 1.621
SM1 (g) 0.875
SDs (g) 1.08
SD1 (g) 0.583
Fa 1.2
Fv 1.819
Seismic Design Category D
*Per ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, the above values may be used provided the value of the seismic
response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5
times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T
> TL. This is due to the value of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g for this site. The values above are
generally applicable for typical residential structures. The Structural Engineer should verify that Section
11.4.8 is satisfied per the above.
A Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) may be beneficial for this project as part of the structural design. A Site-Specific GMHA can be performed at an additional cost if requested.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 18
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Supporting documentation is also included in a previous section of this report, Site Classification for Seismic Design, and in Appendix E.
Slab-On-Grade Construction
Mat slabs should be designed in accordance with the CBC 2019. The on-site soils are expected
to exhibit a medium expansion potential based on our site investigation. Mat slabs should be at
least 14-inches thick (actual). Slabs should consist of properly reinforced concrete materials. Reinforcement should be in accordance with the structural engineering design; however,
unreinforced concrete slabs are not recommended. Therefore, as a minimum, reinforcement
should consist of No. 4 bars placed at 12-inches on center in both directions at the top and
bottom of the slab.
Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of open graded gravel. Slab underlayment is deferred to
the project architect; however, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute, we suggest that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent)
placed over the gravel in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E:1745 and E:1643. A
layer of geofabric, such as Mirafi 140N, is recommended between the gravel and the plastic
vapor retarder. Slab subgrade soils should be pre-soaked to 130 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 18-inches prior to placement of the vapor retarder. All subgrade materials
should be geotechnically approved prior to placing the gravel for the slab underlayment.
Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No.
4 bars at 12-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be pre-soaked as indicated
above prior to placing concrete.
Lateral Earth and Bearing Pressures for Retaining Walls
Design lateral loading values for cantilevered retaining walls should be based upon the
following:
- Foundations
Bearing Capacity = 1,200 psf (18-inch embedment into approved soil)
Note: See applicable text herein where deep foundations are required in slope areas.
- Lateral Earth Pressures
Active Earth Pressure = 45 psf/ft (level backfill/ on-site soil)
Active Earth Pressure = 50 psf/ft (3:1 sloping backfill/ on-site soil)
Active Earth Pressure = 60 psf/ft (2:1 sloping backfill/ on-site soil)
Restrained Condition = 60 psf/ft at-rest loading (level b/fill, on-site soil)
Passive Earth Pressure = 150 psf/ft (for slopes - ignore upper 2 ft downhill side)
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 19
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Friction = 0.25
Other topographic and structural surcharges should be addressed by the Structural Engineer, as
appropriate. Stacked walls should include applied surcharges from the uphill walls as
appropriate. New retaining walls should not surcharge the existing top of bluff retaining wall
beyond current loading conditions.
Structural Design of Retaining Walls
1. Earthquake Loads on Retaining Walls
The Structural Engineer should determine retaining walls at the site within their purview
that will be subject to design lateral loads due to earthquake events. Section 1803.5.12
of the 2019 CBC states that the geotechnical investigation shall include the
determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and
retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design
earthquake ground motions. No retaining walls are currently planned to this height and,
therefore, the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12 do not apply for this report.
2. Foundation Bearing Values for Walls
Footings for retaining walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations
provided above and should be embedded in compacted fill or undisturbed terrace
deposits at a minimum depth of 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
3. Wall Backfill
The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Imported
backfill, if used, should consist of select, non-expansive sand or gravel. Gravel may
consist of pea gravel or crushed rock. Where space for compaction equipment is
adequate, on-site or imported granular, non-expansive sand materials may be
compacted into place in thin lifts per the compaction requirements provided herein. Imported pea gravel or crushed rock should be placed in lifts and tamped or vibrated
into place. The lift thickness for gravel is dependent on the type of material and method
of compaction. Gravel lifts of 18- to 24-inches or less are recommended. The
Geotechnical Engineer should observe the backfill placement of soil or gravel behind each wall. Approval of wall backdrains should be obtained prior to backfill. Gravel wall
backfill material should be separated from on-site soil materials, along back cuts and at
interfaces with other materials with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and
capped with on-site soil or concrete.
Fill and backfill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and rock
fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Fill materials should be placed in 6- to 8-
inch maximum lifts at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the
observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The recommended minimum density for
compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 20
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
D1557. Field density tests should be performed at intervals of 2 vertical feet or less within the backfill zone and in accordance with agency requirements at the time of
grading.
4. Subdrains
An approved exterior foundation subdrain system should be used to achieve control of
seepage forces behind retaining walls. The details of such subdrain systems are deferred to the Wall Designer, Builder or Waterproofing Consultant. The subdrain is not a
substitute for waterproofing. Water in subdrain systems should be collected and
delivered to suitable disposal locations or facilities. Additional recommendations may be
provided when plans are available.
Living area subterranean retaining walls should be provided with an approved drain at
the base of the backfill. Subdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe
(Schedule 40 or similar) surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per foot of ¾-inch gravel
wrapped in geofabric (Mirafi 140N or similar). Perforations should be placed down and
filter fabric should be lapped at least 12-inches at seams.
Exterior (non-living area) retaining walls should be provided with an approved drain at
the base of the backfill. Subdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe
(Schedule 40 or similar) surrounded by at least 1 cubic foot per foot of 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in geofabric (Mirafi 140N or similar). Perforations should be placed down and
filter fabric should be lapped at least 12-inches at seams. Weep holes or open head
joints may be included for low-height garden walls with a height of less than 30-inches
as an alternative to a pipe subdrain; however, the geofabric wrapped gravel burrito at the base of the wall is recommended to reduce clogging of the weep openings.
5. Dampproofing and Waterproofing
Waterproofing should be installed in accordance with the Architects’ specifications or
those of a Waterproofing Consultant. The criteria in Section 1805 of the 2019 CBC
should be followed as a minimum.
Hardscape Design and Construction
Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations in compacted fill. Such improvements should be designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations
presented above and should consider the expansion potential of the on-site soils. Cracking and
offsets at joints are likely; however, occurrence may be minimized by appropriate drainage and
the use of thickened edge beams to limit moisture transfer below slabs.
Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be
provided at maximum 7 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels (shorter spacing is recommended if needed to square the panels).
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 21
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to
principal foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is also important if they are
near retaining wall backfills.
Flatwork elements should be a minimum 5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars
at 12-inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be pre-soaked to 130 percent of
optimum moisture to a depth of 18-inches and geotechnically approved prior to placement of concrete. Maintaining the graded moisture content and preventing desiccation of the subgrade
soils through periodic watering of the exposed soils is recommended.
Concrete Construction Components in Contact with Soil
The onsite soils have a potentially high soluble sulfate content. As indicated in Appendix C,
sulfate concentrations of less than 0.1 percent were determined by laboratory testing; however
high sulfate levels are common in the vicinity of the site. It is recommended that a concrete
expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural
requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is recommended that the 2019 California
Building Code, Section 1904 and 1905 be utilized, which refers to ACI 318. As a minimum, it is recommended that Type V cement be utilized for concrete that is in contact with on-site soils,
or is in contact with water from on-site soils. A maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45 and a
minimum compressive strength of 4,500 pounds per square inch should also be used for these concrete elements. Testing should be performed during grading to confirm the sulfate
concentration.
Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil
On-site soils are anticipated to have a moderate potential for corrosion. Metal rebar encased in
concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, elevator shafts, air conditioner units, etc. that are in contact
with soil or water that permeates the soil should be protected from corrosion that may result
from salts contained in the soil. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if
needed, should be provided by a qualified corrosion specialist. Additional testing should be done
during grading to confirm preliminary test results.
Surface and Subsurface Drainage
1. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage
Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the
vicinity of footings, subterranean walls or slopes. Drainage design in accordance with
the 2019 California Building Code, Section 1804.4 is recommended or per local city
requirements. Roof gutters should be provided and outflow directed away from
structures in a non-erosive manner as specified by the project civil engineer or
landscape architect. Surface and subsurface water should be directed away from slope and basement areas toward approved outlets. Proper interception and disposal of onsite
surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape
architectural design.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 22
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
2. Drainage and Drainage Devices
The performance of the planned foundation and improvements is dependent upon
maintaining adequate surface drainage both during and after construction. The ground
surface around foundations and improvements should be graded so that surface water
will not collect and pond. The impact of heavy irrigation can artificially create perched
water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed.
Attention to surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the
potential for future problems related to water infiltration. Irrigation should be well
controlled and minimized. Seasonal adjustments should be made to prevent excessive
watering.
Sources of uncontrolled water, such as leaky water pipes or drains, should be repaired if
identified.
The Owner should be aware of the potential problems that could develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, paved walkways, utility installations or
other various improvements. Ponded water, incorrect drainage, leaky irrigation systems,
overwatering or other conditions that could lead to unwanted groundwater infiltration must be avoided.
Area drains should be installed in all planter and landscape areas. Planter surfaces
should be sloped away from building areas in accordance with code requirements. Roof
drainage should be tight-lined into the area drain system or carried to outlets at least 5
feet from building foundations. Planters and lawn areas should not be allowed adjacent
to foundations unless they are lined with a bottom barrier installed with a gradient away
from foundations and drained with a subdrain.
3. Infiltration
It is recommended that surface water be collected and directed to a suitable off-site outlet
rather than allowed to infiltrate into the soil. It is important to not purposely introduce site
water into the gravel zones along retaining walls or into slope areas. Cleaner sand zones
within subsurface soils may create pockets for collection of perched water that can back up along retaining walls or travel distances to outlet at lower elevation on slopes. This may
result in unwanted water infiltration around structures, nuisance water and potential
instability.
4. Slope Drainage
Water should not be allowed to collect in pad areas, behind retaining walls or overtop and flow down graded or natural slopes. Graded berms, swales, area drains, and slopes should
be designed to carry surface water away from pad, retaining wall and slope areas. Devices
constructed to drain and protect slopes should be maintained regularly. Slopes should not
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 23
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
be over-irrigated. Uniform moisture conditions through landscape planning and controlled irrigation is recommended for long-term maintenance of slopes. Modifications to slopes,
including placement of fill materials or excavations that steepen or otherwise modify
existing or designed slope angles should not be attempted without direction or approval of
the Geotechnical Consultant. Additional slope maintenance guidelines are provided in
Appendix F.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix D, Standard Grading
Guidelines. It is the Owner’s and Contractor’s responsibility to inform Subcontractors of these
requirements and to notify R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. when backfill placement is to begin. It
has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the local
agencies.
Backfill materials should be placed at near optimum moisture content and compacted under the
observation and testing of the Soil Engineer. The minimum dry density required for compacted
backfill material is 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close
proximity to a buried conduit, we recommend the utilization of lightweight mechanical
equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean granular material, which could be thoroughly jetted in place above the conduit prior to initiating mechanical compaction
procedures. Bedding materials should have a Sand Equivalent not less than 30. Other methods
of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
at the time of construction.
The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to be stable when cut into fill soils,
with only minor sloughing, provided the total depth does not exceed about 5 feet and laid back
as necessary for stability (see discussion above). Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of
slopes may be required if greater depths are necessary. All work associated with trench shoring
must conform to the State of California Safety Code. The depth of the site utilities is unknown
at this time. Excavation exceeding 5 feet below site grades should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to provide recommendations prior to digging.
Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity or cause settlement under
foundations. As a guide, trenches subparallel to foundations should be clear of a 45-degree
plane extending outward and downward from the edge of the foundations.
Foundation Plan Review
The undersigned should review final foundation and grading plans and specifications prior to
their submission to the Building Official for issuance of permits. The review is to be performed
only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with design concepts and the information provided herein. Review shall not include evaluation of the accuracy or
completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 24
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. (RMC) review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while
allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item
shall not indicate that RMC has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component.
RMC shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Contract Documents not brought to our
attention in writing by the Contractor. RMC shall not be required to review partial submissions
or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received.
Pre-Grade Meeting
A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the owner, contractor, architect, civil
engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official prior to commencement of construction to
clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional
recommendations.
Observation and Testing
General
Geotechnical observation and testing during construction is required to verify proper removal of
unsuitable materials, check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent
material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and
observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It
is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile
driving, and pier/caisson drilling.
An RMC representative shall observe the site at intervals appropriate to the phase of
construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the work completed by the
Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed
inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow RMC as an experienced professional,
to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the
grading and construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
RMC shall not supervise, direct, or control the Contractor’s work. RMC shall have no
responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures
selected by the Contractor, the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with
the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. RMC shall not be
responsible for any acts or omission of any entity performing any portion of the work, including
the Contractor, Subcontractor, or any agents or employees of any of them. RMC does not
guarantee the performance of any other parties on the project site, including the Contractor,
and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with
the Contract Documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations.
Construction-phase observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are
conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 25
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
construction and ongoing geotechnically-involved phases of construction is that of the Owner and his Contractor. We request at least 48 hours’ notice when such services are required.
List of Guidelines
The geotechnical consultant should be notified to observe and test the following activities
during grading and construction:
• To observe proper removal of unsuitable materials;
• to observe the bottom of removals for all excavations for the building pad grading,
trenching, swimming pool, spa, exterior site improvements, etc.
• to observe side cut excavations for shoring, retaining walls, swimming pool, spa,
trenches, etc.;
• to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill;
• during CIDH Pile/Caisson drilling, if used for shoring and/or deepened foundation
support;
• to check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material;
• prior to and after pre-soaking of the slab subgrade soils (if necessary);
• to check the slab subgrade materials prior to placing the gravel, vapor barrier and
concrete;
• to check retaining wall subdrain installation when the pipe is exposed and before it is
covered by the gravel and fabric; and again after the gravel and fabric have been
placed;
• to test and observe placement of wall backfill materials;
• to test and observe placement of trench backfill materials;
• to test and observe patio, pool deck and sidewalk subgrade materials;
• to observe any other fills or backfills that may be constructed at the site.
It is noted that this list should be used as a guideline. Additional observations and testing may
be required per local agency and code requirements at the time of the actual construction. The
2019 CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill materials and
during pile/caisson drilling.
LIMITATIONS
This investigation has been conducted in accordance with, and limited to, generally accepted
practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field, and in accordance with services
provided by geotechnical consultants practicing in the same or similar locality under the same
or similar circumstances. No further warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Conclusions and recommendations
presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply that we
have control over the natural site conditions. The samples taken and used for testing, the
observations made and the field testing performed are believed representative of the general
project area; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or
observed locations.
July 9, 2021 File No: 8444-10 Report No: R4-8444
Page: 26
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
The recommendations provided herein are subject to outside review and revision by the various governmental agencies, including the City of Newport Beach. The agencies, at their discretion,
may add requirements to planned construction that vary from the information provided herein.
Additionally, requirements of the agencies and their interpretations of relevant codes may
change over time and with each individual permit application.
Site geotechnical conditions may change with time due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur as a result of the broadening of knowledge, new legislation, or agency requirements.
The recommendations presented herein are, therefore, arbitrarily set as valid for one year from
the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development.
Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or
recommendations. Also, independent use of this report without appropriate geotechnical
consultation is not approved or recommended.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this
office.
Respectfully submitted, R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
Robert J. McCarthy
Principal Engineer, G.E.2490
Registration Expires 3-31-22
Date Signed: 07/09/2021
Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Text Figure - Geologic Map of San Bernardino and Santa Ana
Text Figure - Fault Map, Newport Beach, California
Text Figure - CDMG Seismic Hazards Location Map Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Figure 2 - Geotechnical Cross-Section A-A’
Figure 3 - Geotechnical Cross-Section B-B’
Figure 4 - Location Map Figure 5 - Geologic Hazard Map
Figure 6 - Aerial Map of Geologic Hazards
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Field Exploration
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing
Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines
Appendix E - Seismicity Appendix F - Maintenance of Hillside Home Sites
XXXLOT 78
CLTRACT NO. 4224
M.M. 157/1-14
LOT 77
LOT 79
BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK INFORMATIONBENCHMARK NO: NB6-14-70DESCRIBED BY OCS 2001 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISKSTAMPED "NB6-14-70", SET IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A 5 FT. BY5 FT. CONCRETE PAD WITH MANHOLE. MONUMENT IS LOCATED ALONG THEEASTERLY SIDE OF SANTIAGO DRIVE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITHNOTTINGHAM ROAD, 32.5 FT. SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF NOTTINGHAMROAD AND 22 FT. EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SANTIAGO DRIVEMONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE SIDEWALK.ELEVATION: 70.275 FEET (NAVD88), YEAR LEVELED 1992 VICINITY MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONREAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OFORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 78 OF TRACT NO. 4224, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTYOF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK157, PAGES 1 TO 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THECOUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
PAUL D. CRAFT, P.L.S. 8516 DATE
NOTE: SECTION 8770.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODESTATES THAT THE USE OF THE WORD CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION BY ALICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING OR THEPREPARATION OF MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS OR OTHER SURVEYINGDOCUMENTS ONLY CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINIONREGARDING THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THECERTIFICATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE,EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
LICENSE RENEWAL DATE 12/31/20
PAULD OM INICK
C
RAFTPROFESSIO N A L LAND
SU
R
VEYORCONCRETE SURFACE
LEGEND
EXISTING ELEVATION( )
ACASPHALT PAVEMENT
TEMPORARY BENCHMARKTBM
BLOCK WALLLCCENTERLINEGM GAS METERFSFLFINISHED SURFACEFLOWLINE
SET ON A WATER METER (WM)HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646PHONE:(714)488-5006 FAX:(714)333-4440 APEXLSINC@GMAIL.COMELEVATION = 105.33 FEET
FFGFINISH FLOOR GARAGENG NATURAL GROUNDCLFCHAIN LINK FENCEEVTELECTRICAL VAULTEGEDGE OF GUTTER
WATER METERWM
WROUGHT IRON FENCEWIF
CHAIN LINK FENCE (CLF)WROUGHT IRON FENCE (WIF)THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINEOF GALAXY DRIVE HAVING A BEARING OF N41°10'00"W PER TRACT NO. 4224,M.M. 157/1-14.FFFINISH FLOORBSBOTTOM STEPICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEPEQ POOL EQUIPMENTTOP OF CURBTCTELEPHONE PULL BOXTPBTOP STEPTSTOP OF WALLTWTOP OF DRIVEWAY XTX
6/25/2020
Figure 1: Geotechnical Plot Plan
1424 Galaxy Drive
Newport Beach, CA
File: 8444-10 July 2021
0 20 feet
N
Base map: Apex Land Surveying, Inc.EXPLANATION
Location of geotechnical cross section line
Estimated location of exploratory hand auger boring
Af/Qt/Tm
HA-6
HA-1
HA-5
HA-3
HA-2HA-4B’B
A’A
A A’ Af Articial ll
Qt Terrace deposits
Tm Monterey Formation
XXXLOT 78
CLTRACT NO. 4224
M.M. 157/1-14
LOT 77
LOT 79
BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK INFORMATIONBENCHMARK NO: NB6-14-70DESCRIBED BY OCS 2001 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISKSTAMPED "NB6-14-70", SET IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A 5 FT. BY5 FT. CONCRETE PAD WITH MANHOLE. MONUMENT IS LOCATED ALONG THEEASTERLY SIDE OF SANTIAGO DRIVE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITHNOTTINGHAM ROAD, 32.5 FT. SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF NOTTINGHAMROAD AND 22 FT. EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SANTIAGO DRIVEMONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE SIDEWALK.ELEVATION: 70.275 FEET (NAVD88), YEAR LEVELED 1992 VICINITY MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONREAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OFORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 78 OF TRACT NO. 4224, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTYOF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK157, PAGES 1 TO 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THECOUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
PAUL D. CRAFT, P.L.S. 8516 DATE
NOTE: SECTION 8770.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODESTATES THAT THE USE OF THE WORD CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION BY ALICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING OR THEPREPARATION OF MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS OR OTHER SURVEYINGDOCUMENTS ONLY CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINIONREGARDING THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THECERTIFICATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE,EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
LICENSE RENEWAL DATE 12/31/20
PAULD OM INICK
C
RAFTPROFESSIO N A L LAND
SU
R
VEYORCONCRETE SURFACE
LEGEND
EXISTING ELEVATION( )
ACASPHALT PAVEMENT
TEMPORARY BENCHMARKTBM
BLOCK WALLLCCENTERLINEGM GAS METERFSFLFINISHED SURFACEFLOWLINE
SET ON A WATER METER (WM)HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646PHONE:(714)488-5006 FAX:(714)333-4440 APEXLSINC@GMAIL.COMELEVATION = 105.33 FEET
FFGFINISH FLOOR GARAGENG NATURAL GROUNDCLFCHAIN LINK FENCEEVTELECTRICAL VAULTEGEDGE OF GUTTER
WATER METERWM
WROUGHT IRON FENCEWIF
CHAIN LINK FENCE (CLF)WROUGHT IRON FENCE (WIF)THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINEOF GALAXY DRIVE HAVING A BEARING OF N41°10'00"W PER TRACT NO. 4224,M.M. 157/1-14.FFFINISH FLOORBSBOTTOM STEPICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEPEQ POOL EQUIPMENTTOP OF CURBTCTELEPHONE PULL BOXTPBTOP STEPTSTOP OF WALLTWTOP OF DRIVEWAY XTX
6/25/2020
Figure 1A: Geotechnical Plot Plan
1424 Galaxy Drive
Newport Beach, CA
File: 8444-10 July 2021
0 20 feet
N
Base map: Apex Land Surveying, Inc.EXPLANATION
Location of geotechnical cross section line
Estimated location of exploratory hand auger boring
Af/Qt/Tm
HA-6
HA-1
HA-5
HA-3
HA-2HA-4B’B
A’A
A A’ Af Articial ll
Qt Terrace deposits
Tm Monterey Formation
Approximate Deadman,
Inferred from Construction
Photos and Plans
Approximate
Tiebacks, Inferred
from Construction Plans
Location of Tie-backs
Figure 2: Geotechnical Cross-Section A-A’
1424 Galaxy Drive
Newport Beach, CA
File: 8444-10 July 2021
Estimated location of exploratory boring
Af Articial ll
Qt Terrace deposits
Tm Bedrock (Monterey Formation)
Contact between geologic units
EXPLANATION
Notes:
1. All elevations estimated; gure is idealized.
2. Actual proles may vary signicantly; based on topographic and geologic interpretation.
3. As built repair plans were not available from the City of Newport Beach. The idealized repair
as shown is based upon a written description of the proposed repair for the property by
Moran (1978) and repair plans for similar addresses in the vicinity (G.A. Nicoll, 1974).
4. Length and depths of caissons and anchors were not determined as part of this investigation.
Af
Tm Tm
QtQt
PLPL
TD 5’
TD 15’Anchor
2.5:1 line
TD 4.3’ELEVATION, feetN48°W
A A’
70
100
40 ELEVATION, feet70
100
130 130
40
1010
0 30 feet
IDEALIZED PROFILE
CL
Galaxy
Drive
?
??
?????
HA-6
(projected
44’ SE)
HA-5
(projected
28’ NW)
HA-1
(projected 20’ SE)
HA-3
(projected 47’ SE)
TD 12.5’
?
?
Oblique (apparent) bedding
True dip is north (out of page) 20 to 30 degrees
Proposed Outdoor Covered Logia
New Deck
Approximate Deadman,
Inferred from Construction
Photos
Figure 3: Geotechnical Cross-Section B-B’
1424 Galaxy Drive
Newport Beach, CA
File: 8444-10 July 2021
Estimated location of exploratory boring
Af Articial ll
Qt Terrace deposits
Tm Bedrock (Monterey Formation)
Contact between geologic units
EXPLANATION
Af
Tm
Tm
QtQt
PL
ELEVATION, feetN48°W
B B’
70
100
40 ELEVATION, feet70
100
130 130
40
1010
0 30 feet
IDEALIZED PROFILE
CL
Galaxy
Drive
HA-6
(projected 10’ NW)
TD 5’
HA-4
(projected 9’ SE)
TD 8’
HA-2
(projected 5’ SE)
TD 12’HA-3
(proj. 9’ NW)
TD 12.5’
??
?
Proposed remodelexpansion
PL Existing structure
Notes:
1. All elevations estimated; gure is idealized.
2. Actual proles may vary signicantly; based on topographic and geologic interpretation.
3. As built repair plans were not available from the City of Newport Beach. The idealized repair
as shown is based upon a written description of the proposed repair for the property by
Moran (1978) and repair plans for similar addresses in the vicinity (G.A. Nicoll, 1974).
4. Length and depths of caissons and anchors were not determined as part of this investigation.
2.5:1 line
Oblique (apparent) bedding
True dip is north (out of page)20 to 30 degrees
Approximate Deadman,
Inferred from Construction
Photos
?
Anchor
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
0 833417
FIGURE 4 - LOCATION MAPFILE NO: 8444-10 JULY 2021
SITE:
1424 Galaxy
Drive
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
0 400200
FILE NO: 8444-10 JULY 2021 FIGURE 5 - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP
SITE:
1424 Galaxy
Drive
Landslide
Hazard Zone
Liquefaction
Hazard Zone
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the
data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its
employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or
relating to any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
11/2/2020
0 200100
FILE NO: 8444-10 JULY 2021 FIGURE 6 - AERIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD MAP
SITE
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
1. Apex Surveying Inc., Topographic Map, 1424 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 APN:117-
671-14, Scale: 1” = 8’, Job No. 20057, June 25, 2020, Sheet 1 of 1.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2019, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool,
https://asce7hazardtool.online/
3. Boyle Engineering, 1962, “Construction Specifications for Sheet Pile Bulkhead for Tract No. 4224,
Macco Corporation and Harbor Investment Co., Orange County, California,” May.
4. California Building Code, 2019 Edition.
5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport Beach
Quadrangle.”
6. California Divisions of Mines and Geology, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
7. City of Newport Beach, Building Department, 1970, “Soil Conditions in Tract 4224 (Dover Shores),” May 22. 8. City of Newport Beach, Department of Community Development, 1978, “Landslide at 1424 Galaxy
Drive,” March 16.
9. City of Newport Beach, Building Department, 1978, “Application for Grading Permit,” Nov 22.
10. City of Newport Beach, Department of Community Development, 1979, “Listing of Bluff Failures-
Dover Shores,” January 25.
11. Converse, Davis and Associates, 1976, Summary - Boring No. 1, 1454 Galaxy Drive, Newport
Beach, California (1/2/1976).
12. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command.
13. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1978, “…Stability Calculation,” associated with Landslide Damage, Lots
77, 78 and 79 of Tract 4220, 1430, 1424 and 1418 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach, California, Calc
Sheets 1-3/3 and Direct Shear Test Results, 1 page, Job No.: 78-10, October 25.
14. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1978, “Landslide Damage, Lots 77, 78 and 79 of Tract 4220, 1430, 1424 and 1418 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach, California,” Job No.: 78-10, June 23. 15. Douglas E. Moran/Brittain Poteet, Undated, Excerpted Construction Plan to Stabilize 1424 and
1430 Galaxy Drive After Landsliding in the 1977-78 Rain Season, Newport Beach, California.
16. Evans, Goffman & McCormick, 1973, “Inspection of Landslide at Rear of 1958 Galaxy Drive,
Newport Beach, California,” 73-162, January 3.
17. G. A. Nicholl and Associates, Inc., 1974, Specification and Plans, Lot 16, Tract 4224, Dover
Shores, Newport Beach, California,” Project 1143-1, May 31.
18. G. A. Nicholl and Associates, Inc., 1974, “Supplemental Slope Stability Calculations, Lot 16, Tract
4224, Dover Shores, Newport Beach, California,” Project 1272, October 1.
19. G. A. Nicholl and Associates, Inc., 1974, “Response to Engineering and Geologic Review Sheet
Rear of Lot 16, Tract 4224, Newport Beach, California,” Project 1272, October 15.
20. G. A. Nicholl and Associates, Inc., 1975, Specifications, Plans and Slope Stability Investigation,
Lots 11 through 15, Tract 4224, Dover Shores, Newport Beach, California,” Project 1359, July 31. 21. Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California Division of Mines and Geology”, Special Publication 42 (Interim Supplements and Revisions 1999, 2003, and 2007). 22. Jennings, Charles W., et al., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,”
California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6.
23. Kenneth G. Osborne & Associates, 1975, “Engineering Evaluation for Stabilization and Repair of
Residences on Lots 96-100, Tract 4224, Newport Beach, California,” Job No. 74-1208-6, March 6.
24. Leroy Crandell & Associates, 1961, Log of Boring 5 (12/1/1961), Log of Boring 7 (12/17/1961),
Log of Boring 29 (1/24/1962).
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
25. Martin, G. R. and Lew, M., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special
Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” SCEC,
March.
26. Morton and Miller, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204.
27. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Evans, J. R., 1976, “Environmental Geology of Orange County,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology,” Open File Report 79-8 LA.
28. Morton, Douglas M., and Miller, Fred K., Compilers, 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino
and Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangles, California,” U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-
1217.
29. Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,” Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706.
30. Philip J. Nielsen Design & Drafting, 2020, “A Remodel and Addition for: Eddie Chen, 1424 Galaxy
Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, Sheet A-3, July 9.
31. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., 2021, “Response to City Review, Geotechnical Report Review
Checklist, 2nd Review (4/29/21), Tract 4224, Lot 78, 1424 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach,
California,” Plan Check No: 0411-2021, File No. 8444-00, Report No. R3-8444, dated May 24.
32. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., 2021, “Response to City Review, Geotechnical Report Review
Checklist, 1st Review (2/27/21), Tract 4224, Lot 78, 1424 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach,
California,” Plan Check No: 0411-2021,” File No. 8444-00, Report No. R2-8444, dated April 5.
33. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., 2020, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential
Construction for Remodel, Tract 4424, Lot 78, 1424 Galaxy Drive, Newport Beach, California, APN: 117-671-14,” File No. 8444-00, Report No. R1-8444, dated November 4. 34. Strata-Tech, Inc., 2009, “Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Distressed Rear Yard Planter Boxes, 1401 Dolphin Terrace, Corona Del Mar, California,” W.O. 260809, December 9. 35. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2019, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps,
https://seismicmaps.org/
36. Tan, Siang, S., and Edgington, William J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geology of the Laguna
Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 127.
37. Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Schoellhamer, J. E., 1957, Geologic Map of the San Joaquin
Hills-San Juan Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, U. S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas
Investigations Map OM-193.
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION
APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
General
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling and sampling six hand auger borings on August
20, 25, and 26, 2020. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 4.3 to 15 feet. The
approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. A Key
to Logs is included as Figure B-1. Boring Logs are included as Figures B-2 through B-7.
Excavation of the borings was observed by our Field Geologist who logged the soils and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing.
Exploratory excavations were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their
locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were
determined by interpolation between points on the Topographic Map provided by Apex
Surveying Inc. (Reference 1).
Sample Program
1. Hand Augers - Relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained by utilizing a sampler
lined on the inside with brass rings, each 1-inch long and 2.5-inches outside diameter. The sample was typically driven for a total length of about 6-inches. The number of
blows per 6-inches of driving were recorded on the boring logs. The slide hammer used
to drive the samples has a weight of 10.3 pounds with effort. The slide hammer drop
height was 18-inches. The hammer weight alone was not sufficient to drive the sample;
additional energy was applied by the drilling operator by thrust force on the hammer
from the topmost position.* The brass rings were removed from the sampler and
transferred into a plastic tube and sealed.
2. Bulk samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the
excavations and sealed in plastic bags.
Summary
The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in
accordance with ASTM D2487 (the Unified Soil Classification System). Collected samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. No groundwater was encountered in the borings.
* Note: Based on correlations on similar sites the blow counts with the slide hammer are generally about 1/3 of the blow count energy of the SPT test; and 1/2 of the blow count of the Cal Sampler. Sample blow counts can be used
as an indicator of soil density. Blow counts may be affected by various additional factors including soil type, moisture
content and/or presence of rocks at the sample level.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
CLEANGRAVELS
GRAVELWITHFINES
CLEANSANDS
SANDSWITHFINES
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
GROUPSYMBOLS SYMBOLMAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS:
Liquid Limit 50% or less
SILTS AND CLAYS:
Liquid Limit greater
than 50%
Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little orno fines
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, littleor no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well graded sands and gravelly sand, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or nofines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandsor silts, elastic clays
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils
KEY TO LOGS
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS:
more than 50% retained on
No. 200 sieve (based on the
material passing the 3-inch
[75mm] sieve)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS:
50% or more passes
No. 200 sieve*
GRAVELS:
50% or more of
coarse fraction
retained
on No. 4 sieve
SANDS:more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieve
Water level
SYMBOL
Figure B-1:
Unied Soil Classication
Chart / Key To Logs
NOTATION SAMPLER TYPE
C Core barrel
CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter
D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using
2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube
O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch
outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube
PTB Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube
S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler
with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter
SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch
outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter
ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter,
thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic
pressure
NR No Recovery
Modified California Sampler (3" O.D.)
Modified California Sampler, no recovery
Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D 1586
Standard Penetration Test, no recovery
Thin-walled tube sample using Pitcher barrel
Thin-walled tube sample, pushed or used Osterberg sampler
Disaggregated (bulk) sample
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 107'
BORING NO: HA-1
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-2
BY: SPC
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af):
Dark brown silty CLAY, moist, soft, mottled
Total Depth: 4.3 feet (Refusal on obstruction - rock or concrete)No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveBackyard planter
Gray brown clayey SILT, very moist, firm/compacted,
diatomaceous
Red brown clayey SAND, moist, medium dense/compacted
Gray-brn silty CLAY, moist, firm/compacted, obstruction at 4.3'
DATE: 8/20/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
14___6”
CH
ML
SC
CH
65.0 56
Max Dry Density (97 pcf, 20.0%) Expansion Index
(EI = 79) Atterberg Limits (LL = 55, PI = 26) Grain Size (28.0% passing #200)
Chemical Tests
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 103'
BORING NO: HA-2
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-3
BY: GM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Medium brown sandy SILT, moist,
sloft to firm, planter soil, roots upper 6"
D1 at 3’: Medium brown sandy SILT, moist, firm/compacted,
mottled with gray brown silt, abundant root fragments
D2 at 7’: Red brown sandy SILT, moist, firm/compacted,
mottled, diatomaceous, mixed root fragments
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):
At 9’: Tan brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, abundant
shell fragments, medium to coarse grained, uniform material
D3 at 11’: White-gray SILT, moist, dense, layered,
diatomaceous, possible siltstone bedrock contact
Total Depth: 12 feet (refusal in dense silt)
No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveRear lawn NWCDATE: 8/25/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
30___6”
ML
20___6”ML
50___6”
18.2 103
16.5 104
52.9 80
SM
ML
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 107'
BORING NO: HA-3
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-4
BY: GM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Medium brown sandy SILT, planter soil,
soft to firm, moist, roots to 6"
@ 6" Red brown silty SAND, moist, compacted
D1 at 4’: Red brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense/compacted, mottled with gray silt, abundant carbonate deposits
D2 at 8’: Yellow brown SAND, moist, medium dense, fine
grained, abundant mica, uniform
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Red brown silty SAND, moist,
medium dense, uniform
White-gray SILT, moist, medium dense to dense, layered
(attempted to sample, sampler unable to penetrate
rock), possible siltstone contact
Total Depth: 12.5 feet (refusal)
No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveRear yard - middleDATE: 8/25/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
25___6”
SM
20___6”SM
11.8 103
7.1 98
ML
ML
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 107'
BORING NO: HA-4
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-5
BY: GM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Medium brown SILT, moist, soft to firm,
roots
@6" Medium brown silty SAND, moist, compacted
D1 at 2’: Medium brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, mottled with gray silt, shell fragments
D2 at 7’: Tan brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, fine grained, lots of binder
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):
Total Depth: 8 feet (refusal on dense terrace deposits)
No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveRear yard near north corner of houseDATE: 8/26/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
18___6”SM
50___4”
SM
14.7 104
9.5 83
ML
Tan-brown silty SAND, moist
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 107'
BORING NO: HA-5
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-6
BY: GM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Pale gray sandy SILT, moist, firm
Pale gray sandy SILT, moist, medium dense/compacted,
mottled with red brown silty SAND
Red brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense/compacted, scattered rock fragments, mottled gray silt
D2 at 10’: Yellow brown SAND, moist, medium dense, fine grained, less binder
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):
D1 at 6’: Red brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, fine
to medium grained, strong binder in sections
D3 at 14’: Gray-white SILT, moist, medium dense, layered
Total Depth: 15 feet (refusal)
No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveRear yard near east corner of houseDATE: 8/26/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
50___4”SM
36___6”SM
40___4”
12.7 87
6.9 105
37.9 75
ML
SM
ML
DEPTHUSCSBLOW COUNTIN-PLACE SAMPLEBAG SAMPLEMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES DEPTHLOG OF BORING
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
EQUIPMENT: Hand auger
SURFACE ELEVATION: +/- 106'
BORING NO: HA-6
FILE NO: 8444-00 FIGURE B-7
BY: GM
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af): Medium brown SILT, planter soil, moist,
firm, roots to 6"
D1 at 2’: Pale gray SILT, moist, firm to stiff/compacted, mottled with silty sand, diatoms
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):
D2 at 4’: Medium brown silty SAND, moist/wet, medium
dense, fine to medium grained
Total Depth: 5 feet
No groundwater
SITE LOCATION: 1424 Galaxy DriveFront entrance DATE: 8/26/20
“At x’:” always at front.
Only cap first letter of sentence.
Color, fineness SOIL TYPE, material classification, moisture, density, other
ML 25___6”
25___6”SM
42.1 76
11.4 109
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
The laboratory testing program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was
limited to testing the soil samples collected during the on-site exploration. The test program was
performed by our laboratory and HDR Inc.
Soils were classified visually and per the results of laboratory testing according to ASTM D2487,
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field moisture content and dry densities of the
soils encountered were determined by performing laboratory tests on the collected samples. The
results of the moisture tests, density determinations and soil classifications are shown on the
Boring Logs in Appendix B.
Maximum Density
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationships were determined for
representative samples of the on-site soil. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D1557. The
test results are presented below in Table C-1 and on Figure C-1.
TABLE C-1
RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D1557
Expansion Index Test
Expansion index tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D4829. The results are summarized below in Table C-2.
TABLE C-2
RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX
ASTM D4829
Test Location Soil Classification Soil Description Maximum Dry Density pcf
Optimum
Moisture
Content %
HA-1 @ 0-3’ SC/CH Clayey Sand/Sandy
Clay 97 20.0
Test
Location
Soil
Classification
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
Moisture
Content %
Saturation
%
HA-1 @ 0-3’ SC/CH 79 Medium 21.1 Initial
38.2 Final
59 Initial
93 Final
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits tests consisting of Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit determinations (ASTM D4318)
were done to evaluate the clay fraction characteristics of the materials encountered. A wide variety
of soil engineering properties have been correlated to the Atterberg Limits tests and they are also
used for soil classification. Results performed on samples tested for Atterberg limits are tabulated
below in Table C-3 and presented on Figures C-2 and C-3.
TABLE C-3 RESULTS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS
ASTM D4318
Sulfate Test
Sulfate test results indicated moderate soluble sulfates as shown below in Table C-4.
TABLE C-4
RESULTS OF SULFATE TESTS
ASTM D4327
Test
Location Soil
Classification
Soluble Sulfates
(mg/kg)
ASTM D4327 Sulfate Exposure
HA-1 @ 0-3’ SC/CH 380 Low
Chemical Testing
A series of chemical tests were performed on the sample HA-1 @ 0-3 feet. The test results are presented below in Table C-5.
Test Location Soil
Classification
Liquid Limit
LL
Plastic Limit
PL
Plasticity Index
PI
HA-1 @ 0-3’ CH 55 29 26
HA-4 @ 2’ CL 38 18 20
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
TABLE C-5
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL TESTS
Test
Location Soil
Classification pH
Soluble Sulfates
(mg/kg)
ASTM D4327
Soluble
Chlorides (mg/kg)
ASTM D4327
Min. Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
ASTM G187
HA-1 @ 0-3’ SC/CH 6.9 380 40 1,080
Particle Size Analysis
Determinations of the particle size distribution of the soils were made using sieve and hydrometer
analyses (ASTM D1140, C136, and D422) to aid in classifying the soils. The results are presented
graphically herein on Figures C-4 and C-5.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples which were saturated under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. Samples were
remolded to dry densities at moisture contents indicative of design conditions. The apparatus used
is in conformance with the requirements outlined in ASTM D3080. The test specimens,
approximately 2.5-inches in diameter and 1-inch in height, were subjected to simple shear along a
plane at mid-height after allowing time for pore pressure dissipation prior to application of shearing
force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for
each normal load. The samples were sheared at a constant rate of strain of 0.005-inches per minute. Shearing of the specimens was continued until the shear stress became essentially
constant or until a deformation of approximately 10 percent of the original diameter was reached.
The peak and ultimate shear stress values were plotted versus applied normal stress, and a best-fit
straight line through the plotted points was determined to arrive at the cohesion and the angle of
internal friction parameters of the soil samples. The direct shear test results are presented in
Figure C-6.
Date:C-1
Sample Identification HA-1 @ 0-3'
MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
File No.: 8444-00 October - 2020 Figure:
Sample Description Grey Brown Sandy CLAY/Clayey Sand
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)97.0
Optimum Moisture Content (%)20.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%)
2.60
2.65
2.70
C-2
55
Date:October 2020 Figure No.:
PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT USCS
CH
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
LOCATION DEPTH (FT)
HA-1 0-3' 26
ATTERBERG LIMITS
File No.: 8444-00
45
50
55
60
65
1 10 100Moisture Content (%)Number of Blows
Flow Curve
MH or OH
ML or OLCL-ML
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 102030405060708090100Plasticity Index (PI)Liquid Limit (LL)
C-3
38
Date:October 2020 Figure No.:
PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT USCS
CL
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
LOCATION DEPTH (FT)
HA-4 2'20
ATTERBERG LIMITS
File No.: 8444-00
30
35
40
45
50
1 10 100Moisture Content (%)Number of Blows
Flow Curve
MH or OH
ML or OLCL-ML
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 102030405060708090100Plasticity Index (PI)Liquid Limit (LL)
Brown Clayey SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATIONC-4Figure No.:1600.0 4.5October 2020HA-1 0-3'CCSCMediumPARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8444-00 Date:CLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)28.0FineCUUSCSDEPTH (FT) COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTSOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
Brown Clayey SANDSAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONLOCATIONC-5Figure No.:700.0 8.0October 2020HA-4 2'CCSCMediumPARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS COMPARISONFile No.: 8444-00 Date:CLAYPASSING NO. 200 (%)29.4FineCUUSCSDEPTH (FT) COBBLEGRAVELSANDSILTSOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse01020304050607080901000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT PASSINGPARTICLE SIZE (MILLILMETERS)PARTICLE SIZE (INCHES OR SIEVE NO.)3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
Rate of Shear 0.005 in/min Sample Type Undisturbed
Date:8444-00
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
File No.:C-6Figure No.:October - 2020
Sample Identification
Shear Strength
Angle of Friction -
degrees (Peak)
Cohesion - psf
(Ultimate)125
29.0
Angle of Friction -
degrees
(Ultimate)
28.0113.1
Moisture Content
(%) 20.0
HA-3 @ 8'
Characteristics
Cohesion - psf
(Peak)150
Dry Density (pcf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000Shearing Stress (psf)Normal Stress (psf)
DATE:
ATTENTION: Rob McCarthy
TO:
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS:
James T. Keegan, MD
Corrosion and Lab Services Section Manager
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1424 Galaxy Dr.
Enclosed are the results for the subject project.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
Laboratory Test Data
Newport Beach, CA 92660
September 4, 2020
Your #8444-00, HDR Lab #20-0557LAB
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316
Sample ID
HA-1 @ 0-3'
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 2,280
saturated ohm-cm 1,080
pH 6.9
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.40
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+mg/kg 184
magnesium Mg2+mg/kg 8.6
sodium Na1+mg/kg 137
potassium K1+mg/kg 62
Anions
carbonate CO32-mg/kg ND
bicarbonate HCO31-mg/kg 393
fluoride F1-mg/kg 17
chloride Cl1-mg/kg 40
sulfate SO42-mg/kg 380
phosphate PO43-mg/kg ND
Other Tests
ammonium NH41+mg/kg 32
nitrate NO31-mg/kg 17
sulfide S2-qual na
Redox mV na
Resistivity per ASTM G187, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B.
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
1424 Galaxy Dr.
Your #8444-00, HDR Lab #20-0557LAB
4-Sep-20
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
APPENDIX D
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES
APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
GENERAL
These Guidelines present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed
by R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., (RMC), or its designated representative. No deviation from
these guidelines will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report
signed by a registered geotechnical engineer.
The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance
with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the Geotechnical
Engineer or any person or persons employed by the licensed Geotechnical Engineer signing the
soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the Geotechnical Engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be
shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be
discussed in the final report issued by the Geotechnical Engineer.
SITE PREPARATION
All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable
material.
Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable
for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as
part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6-inches until the surface
is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment
used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by
the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture
content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12-
inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6-inches.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner
prescribed by the Geotechnical Engineer.
MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials previously approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Fill materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved
sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from
organic (vegetation) materials and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall
contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6-inches in size and shall contain at least 50
percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4-inches in size shall be
APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be
permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be
used in the fill soils.
Representative samples of materials to be utilized, as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the
laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their 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 Geotechnical Engineer in a timely manner.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL
Soil materials shall be uniformly and evenly processed, spread, watered, and compacted in thin
lifts not to exceed 6-inches in thickness. Achievement of a uniformly dense and uniformly
moisture conditioned compacted soil layer should be the objective of the equipment operators
performing the work for the Owner and Contractor.
When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as
specified. Moisture levels should generally be at optimum moisture content or greater.
When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading, mixing, or other
satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near the specified level.
After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted
to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D1557 (five layers).
Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel
pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be
of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall
be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the
desired density uniformly.
A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will
be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in
increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction.
GRADING OBSERVATIONS
The Geotechnical Engineer shall observe the fill placement during the course of the grading
process and will prepare a written report upon completion of grading. The compaction report
shall make a statement as to compliance with these guidelines.
As a minimum, one density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or 1 for
each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests; however, testing
should not be limited based on these guidelines and more testing is generally preferable.
APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Processed ground to receive fill, including removal areas such as canyon or swale cleanouts,
must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist prior to fill
placement. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer when these areas are ready
for observation.
UTILITY LINE BACKFILL
Utility line backfill beneath and adjacent to structures; beneath pavements; adjacent and
parallel to the toe of a slope; and in sloping surfaces steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical (10:1), shall be compacted and tested in accordance with the criteria given in the text of this
report. Alternately, relatively self-compacting material may be used. The material specification
and method of placement shall be recommended and observed by the Soil Engineer, and
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and Building Official before use and prior to backfilling.
Utility line backfill in areas other than those stated above are generally subject to similar
compaction standards and will require approval by the Soil Engineer.
The final utility line backfill report from the Project Soil Engineer shall include an approval
statement that the backfill is suitable for the intended use.
PROTECTION OF WORK
During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage
controls, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide good drainage and prevent
ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site.
After the Geotechnical Engineer has finished observations of the completed grading, no further
excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer.
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone 949-629-2539
APPENDIX E
SEISMICITY DATA
ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Address:
1424 Galaxy Dr
Newport Beach, California
92660
Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-16
Risk Category:II
Soil Class:D - Default (see
Section 11.4.3)
Elevation:107.21 ft (NAVD 88)
Latitude:
Longitude:
33.628595
-117.890841
Page 1 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Thu Sep 03 2020
SS : 1.35
S1 : 0.481
Fa : 1.2
Fv : N/A
SMS : 1.621
SM1 : N/A
SDS : 1.08
SD1 : N/A
TL : 8
PGA : 0.587
PGA M : 0.704
FPGA : 1.2
Ie : 1
Cv : 1.37
Seismic
Site Soil Class:
Results:
Data Accessed:
Date Source:
D - Default (see Section 11.4.3)
USGS Seismic Design Maps
Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8.
Thu Sep 03 2020
Page 2 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Thu Sep 03 2020
Additional Calculations:
SM1 =(FV)(S1)
Fv = 1.819 for S1 = 0.481 g per Table 1613A.2.3(2)
Therefore, SM1 = (1.819)(.481) = 0.875 g
SD1 = (2/3)(SM1) = (2/3)(0.875) = 0.583 g
The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of
any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers;
or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from
reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability,
currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement,
affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE.
ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent
professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such
professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard.
In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors,
employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential
damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by
law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data
provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool.
Page 3 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Thu Sep 03 2020
APPENDIX F
HILLSIDE MAINTENANCE
APPENDIX F SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR MAINTENANCE OF HILLSIDE PROPERTY
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Slopes and Slope Drainage Devices
Maintenance of slopes and drainage devices is important to their long term performance. The
following is a list of suggested procedures provided as a guide for slope maintenance.
1.Drainage Devices Associated with Hillsides
•Graded berms, swales, area drains, and slopes are designed to carry surface water from
pad areas and should not be blocked or destroyed. Water should not be allowed to
pond in pad areas, or overtop and flow onto graded or natural slopes.
•Sources of uncontrolled water, such as leaky water pipes or drains, should be repaired ifidentified.
•Devices constructed to drain and protect slopes, including brow ditches, berms, terrace
drains and down drains should be maintained regularly, and in particular, should not be
allowed to clog such that water can flow unchecked over slope faces.
•Subdrain outlets should be maintained to prevent burial or other blockage.
2.Slopes
•Slopes in the southern California area should be planted with appropriate drought-
resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect.
•Rodent activity should be controlled on the slope and within yard areas along the top of
the slope as burrowing may introduce paths for transfer of water into the subsurface
soils and out to the slope face.
Lot and Building Pad Drainage
1.Roof drains should collect water into a tight-lined drainage system of area drains. When
area drain systems are not feasible, roof drain water should be diverted by swales and
sloping ground to approved outlet areas. Where planters or unimproved ground are
located next to building foundations or slab-on-grade construction, roof drain outlets
should be extended at least 3 feet away from the structure. Outlets and infiltration of
roof water next to structures is not acceptable and should be eliminated by drainage
devices.
2.Area drain inlet grates should be properly installed and maintained. The inlets need to
be properly located at lower grade collection points around yard areas. The grate
should be installed low enough to quickly transfer collecting water into the area drain
pipe system. It should also be installed high enough to not be easily buried, silted over
or choked out by vegetation.
3.Drainage inlet grates should be regularly inspected and cleaned/replaced as necessary
to allow free flow of water into the drain system while effectively blocking larger detritusfrom entering risers and flow pipes.
4.Area drain pipes should be periodically checked for blockage and cleaned as necessary.
5.Landscape grades should be maintained or improved to allow efficient drainage to
approved surface water outlets and into the storm drain system. Modifications to
designed or existing drainage grades should be made as necessary when ponds of
APPENDIX F SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR MAINTENANCE OF HILLSIDE PROPERTY
(1424 Galaxy Drive)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
excess water, standing water, low flows, etc. are noticed. An experienced landscape
contractor or landscape architect should be consulted if necessary to provide
recommendations for drainage improvements.
6. As yard improvements are made to existing residential properties, it is common for
unlicensed landscape contractors, laborers or the homeowner to alter the flow patterns
that were designed for site drainage. Such actions however can be harmful to the
property. Adverse infiltration and surface flows may cause damage to foundations, slabs, concrete hardscape, slopes, neighboring properties, etc. and result in large repair
costs or litigation.
Water Use
1. Irrigation of on-site vegetation should be properly controlled. Excessive watering should be avoided not only to save water, but also to protect property.
2. Water leaks should be repaired quickly when identified.
3. Broken sprinkler heads, broken pipes, leaks at joints, or other breaches should be immediately repaired when identified.