Soil, Foundation, & Geotechnical Engineers

SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
WITH BASEMENT
595 MOREY DRIVE,
MENLO PARK, CA 94025

Prepared for
3D Design
2451 AUTUMNVALE DR,
SAN JOSE, CA 95131

March 2024
File No. 24-5710-S
Soil, Foundation, and Geotechnical Engineers
1141 Ringwood Court, Suite 130, San Jose, CA 95131
408-559-6400 • www.americansoiltesting.com

File No. 24-5710-S March 21, 2024

3D Design
2451 AUTUMNVALE DR,
SAN JOSE, CA 95131

SUBJECT: SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT
595 MOREY DRIVE,
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
APN: 071322100

Dear 3D Design,

Per your request and authorization, our firm has performed a Soil and Foundation Investigation for the above
mentioned project. The site is located at 595 Morey Drive, Menlo Park, California. Our findings indicated that
the proposed single-family residence with the basement might be constructed on the above property, provided
the recommendations in this report are carefully followed and implemented during construction. This report
presents our findings on investigating surface and subsurface soil, laboratory test results, and field and office
studies.

We are pleased to have served you in this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact our office at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
American Soil Testing and Engineering, Inc.

Bruce Emam, P.E.

R.C.E. # C47256

California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5, 400-476 Article 1. General Provisions 411. Seal and Signature. (Partial) (e) The Seal shall be capable of leaving an
electronically generated representation on the documents. The signature may be applied to the documents electronically. Please contact us if Authenticity is
questionable: (408) 559-6400

2
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOIL INVESTIGATION 4
Introduction 4
Site Description and Location of Project 4
Field Investigation 4
Laboratory Testing Parameters 4
Subsurface Conditions 5
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA 6
Potential Geologic and Geotechnical Hazards 7
Seismic Shaking 7
Lurching 7
Liquefaction 8
Lateral Spreading 8
Groundwater 8
Earthquake Probability Map 8
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 11
Compaction Requirements 12
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA 13
Pier & Grade Beam 13
Lateral Loads 14
Settlements 14
CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION 15
RETAINING WALLS 16
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 17
Site Drainage 17
Sub-drain 17
PLAN REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS 19
Plan Review 19
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING 20
CONCLUSIONS 21
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 22
APPENDIX A: Physiography 23
Figure 1 24
Figure 2 24
Figure 3 25
APPENDIX B: Subsurface Data 26
Figure 1 27
Figure 2 28
Figure 3 30-31
Figure 4 32

3
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 SOIL INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The soil investigation aimed to gather sufficient data to provide recommendations for foundation
engineering. This report explains how we conducted that investigation, the testing program results, our
conclusions based on their results, and our recommendations for earthwork and foundation design that best suit
the proposed development to the existing natural conditions.

Site Description and Location of Project

The site is located at 595 Morey Drive, Menlo Park, California. APN: 071322100
At the time of our investigation, the subject property was an existing one-story single-family dwelling
with an attached two-car garage. The structure was built in 1944. The lot was approximately 8,000 sq. ft., an
irregular-shaped parcel of land. The site is in a residential area bounded by Morey Drive to the East, Little
House Activity Center to the South, and residences to the West and North. The site is relatively level. The site is
flat and slightly higher than the street level. The proposed structure will be constructed at a designated pad,
which will be located later. During our site visit, the property was accessed through Morey Drive.

Field Investigation
After considering the nature of the proposed development, reviewing available data on the area, and
discussing it with the client, a field investigation was conducted at the project site. It included a surface site
reconnaissance to detect unusual surface features and to drill two bores on March 8, 2024, to determine
subsurface soil characteristics. Soil samples were collected during drilling using a 3-inch OD ‘California’ spoon
sampler with 2½-in. Diameter brass liners or a 2-inch OD SPT sampler, driven by the standard 140-pound
hammer, lifted by rope-and-cathead by the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM standard method D1586). The
approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix A, Figure 2. The soil encountered was logged in the field.
In Figures 3 and 4 (Appendix B), the boring log represents the soil profile, showing the samples' depths.

Laboratory Testing Parameters

Samples and field logs were reviewed to determine which would be analyzed further. Those chosen for
laboratory analysis were considered representative of soil exposed and used during grading and deemed to be
within the influence of the proposed structure.
Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of soil, ASTM D
4318. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or field examination. Maximum density was
performed to estimate the moisture-density relationship of typical soil materials. The tests were performed by
ASTM designation D 1557-12.

4
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM,
D2487) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2011. Standard classification of soils for
engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487.
The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material.
Soils are classified according to the particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and
according to plasticity index, Liquid Limit, and organic matter content. Silty and clayey soils as CL Two groups
can have a dual classification, for example, ML-CL. The results of laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix
B.

Subsurface Conditions
After reviewing the laboratory test data, boring logs, and examination of the soil samples collected in
different depths, the subsurface soils underlying the project site appear to be uniform throughout the area. The
upper silty clay has a low to moderate expansion potential. The surface and near-surface soils consist of very
stiff dark brown silty clay over brown silty clay at a lower depth.

5
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
The subject site is in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region; therefore, any Structure within
this area will most likely be subjected to strong ground shaking sometime during its lifetime. Major faults like
San Andreas, Calaveras, and Hayward faults have produced large-magnitude earthquakes and can be expected
to do so within the next 50 years. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed building will be subjected to at
least one moderate to severe earthquake during the 50 years following construction. During such an earthquake,
severe ground shaking will occur at the site.
We understand that the project's structural design will be based on the 2022 California Building Code
(CBC), which provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings. The “Seismic Coefficients” used to design
buildings are established based on tables and figures addressing different site factors and mapping spectral
acceleration parameters based on the distance to the controlling seismic source/fault system. Based on our
borings and review of local geology, we have classified the site as Soil Classification D.

Coefficient Classification Design Value

Site Class D-Stiff Soil

Design Code Reference Document ASCE 7/SEI 7-16

Site Latitude 37.449255

Site Longitude -122.180457

Ss MCEr ground motion (for 0.2 second period) 1.748

S1 MCEr ground motion (for 0.1s period) 0.667

Fa Site amplification factor at 0.2 second 1

Fv Site amplification factor at 1.0-second N/A

Sms The site-modified spectral acceleration value 1.748

Sm1 The site-modified spectral acceleration value N/A

SDS Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 seconds SA 1.165

SD1 Numeric seismic design value at 0.1 second SA N/A

TL Long-period transaction period 12

The structure Engineer for this project should evaluate the applicability of the seismic design
criteria presented in the CBC, 2022.
Consideration should also be given to anchoring or otherwise stabilizing freestanding appliances or
home furnishings, which may be prone to toppling during seismic vibrations.

6
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Potential Geologic and Geotechnical Hazards
Secondary effects of seismic activity are typically considered potential hazards to the site, including
several types of ground failure. Ground failures might occur due to ground-shaking events, including land
sliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, and liquefaction. The probability of
occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the earthquake's severity, distance from faults,
topography, subsurface conditions, groundwater elevation, and other factors.

Seismic Shaking
Ground shaking is a hazard common to all properties in California. Mitigate by proper structural design
and by following the recommendations presented in our Soil and Foundation Investigation Report.
The site is in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. Several major earthquakes, produced by movement
on one of the principal active faults, affected the region during historic times. These include the 1868
earthquake on the Hayward Fault, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
which originated at the San Andreas Fault.
Considering the region's past seismic history, the site will be affected by strong seismic shaking during
the expected lifetime of the proposed building. The site's distance determines the intensity of shaking to the
seismic source and the material's properties along the path of the transmitted energy.
To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures should be designed using engineering judgment, the latest building
code requirements, and the latest standards of practice design methods.
Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum forces applied
statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. The code-prescribed lateral
forces are generally considered substantially smaller than those associated with a major earthquake. Therefore,
structures should be able: (1) Resist minor earthquakes without damage. (2) Resist moderate earthquakes
without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without
collapse but with some structural and nonstructural damage. Conformance to building code recommendations
does not guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude
earthquake. However, it is reasonable to assume that well-designed and well-constructed structures will not
collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake.

Lurching
Ground lurching results from the rolling imparted to the ground during energy released by an
earthquake. Such rolling motion causes ground cracks to form. The potential for forming these cracks is greater
at the contact between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at other locations in the Bay
Area, but based on the site location, we believe the offset is expected to be nil.

7
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated sandy soils experience a temporary total loss of shear strength
during earthquake shaking. Ground settlement often accompanies liquefaction. Soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are saturated, loose, sandy silts, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands. Since loose sands and
other soils prone to liquefaction were not encountered during our investigation, the likelihood of liquefaction
occurring within the depth of our exploration is low. The soil material encountered in the borings drilled
consists of stiff, silty clay. The clayey material encountered has no potential for liquefaction.

Lateral Spreading
Such seismically generated movements are induced in areas with weak soils near open cuts or slopes or
in areas of moderate to high liquefaction potential. The subject site is level ground at the building pad.
Exploratory borings on the property encountered well-consolidated soil at shallow depths. The potential for
ground failure from liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other seismically activated ground failure appears low.

Groundwater
Groundwater or seepage was encountered in our borings during the investigation. Based on the general
topography of the area, the groundwater level may fluctuate because of variations in seasonal rainfalls, amount
of irrigation, and other unknown factors. Perched groundwater may be present during pier drilling due to
surface water infiltration into the permeable soils. If ground or perched water is encountered during drilling,
dewatering is required.

8
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 Earthquake Probability Map
Figure 1 - The threat of earthquakes extends across the entire San Francisco Bay region, and a major
quake is likely before 2030. Knowing this will help people make informed decisions as they prepare for future
quakes.

9
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
California Department of Conservation

10
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. The placement of fill and control of any grading operations at the site shall be done by the
recommendations of this report prepared by American Soil Testing and Engineering Inc. These
recommendations set forth the minimum standards to satisfy all requirements of this report.
2. All existing surface and subsurface structures not incorporated in the final development shall be
removed before grading operations. These objects shall be accurately located on the grading plans
(prepared by the project civil engineer) to assist the Field Engineer in establishing proper control over
their removal. This includes but is not limited to, basements, utility lines, underground tanks, and other
improvements. An American Soil Testing and Engineering Inc. representative shall be present during
demolition.
3. All organic surface material and debris, including organically rich topsoil estimated to be 2-4 inches
deep, shall be stripped before other grading operations and transported away from all areas to receive
improvements or structural fill. These organically contaminated soils may be stockpiled for later use in
landscaping areas, but they are not suitable for use as structural fill. In addition, any trees that are not
included in the final development must be removed. This removal includes a thorough cleaning of all
underground roots.
4. The depressions left by removing any surface and subsurface structures shall be cleaned of all debris and
backfilled with clean, native, on-site soil. This backfill shall be compacted to not less than 90% relative
compaction by ASTM test procedure D1557- 12. ASTM D1557-12 Standard Test Methods for
Laboratory Compaction.
5. Following the stripping operations, the exposed surface shall be scarified to a depth of not less than 12
inches, conditioned as necessary (3 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content), and compacted to
90% relative compaction according to ASTM test procedure D1557- 12. At this point, the pad area will
be in condition to receive compacted fill. The Soil Engineer may provide additional field
recommendations based on exposed field conditions if necessary.
6. All structural fill, whether imported or native soil, shall be placed in uniform horizontal lifts of not more
than 6 to 8 inches in uncomplicated thickness and compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction
using the STM test procedure D1557-12. Five feet around the entire perimeter of the building pad shall
also be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction using the method mentioned above. Before
compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by
either 1) Aeration of the material if it is too wet or 2) spraying it with water if it is too dry. Each lift shall
be thoroughly mixed before compaction to distribute uniform water content. When fill material includes
rocks, rock nesting will not be permitted. All voids shall be carefully filled and properly compacted; no
rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter shall be used to construct the building pad.
7. The Soil Engineer shall be notified at least 48 hours before the commencement of any grading

11
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 operations so that he may coordinate the work in the field with the Grading Contractor.
8. All imported borrow must be sampled, tested, and approved by the Soil Engineer before being
brought to the site. Import soil must have a plasticity index no greater than (12) and an "R" value
greater than (25).
9. A Soil Engineer from American Soil Testing and Engineering Inc. shall observe and approve all grading
work.
10. If any unusual condition not covered by the special provisions is encountered during the grading
operations, the Soil Engineer shall be immediately notified for further recommendation.

Trench and over-excavation area backfill

Utility, pipeline trenches, and over-excavation areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
If on-site soil is used, the material should be placed in lifts that do not exceed 8 inches in uncompacted
thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means only. Imported sand
may also be used for backfilling trenches, provided the sand is compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction. In all building pad areas and pavements, the upper 3 feet of trench backfill should be compacted to
at least 95 percent relative compaction where imported sand backfill is used. In addition, the upper 8 inches of
all trench backfill in the pavement area should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM
D1557-12).

Basement Excavation
If the bottom surface of the basement excavation is more than 5 feet below the existing ground surface,
shoring is required, or the excavation should be sloped at a minimum of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).
Excavation of the basement should not exceed 10 feet, excluding the retaining wall footing depth.

Site Drainage
Positive surface drainage should prevent water from seeping through basement walls or beneath
footings. To accomplish this, it is recommended that the site be graded to provide for the positive removal of
surface water and to prevent ponding, both during and after construction.
The proposed basement retaining walls should be fully back-drained. The back drain should
consist of 4 4-inch diameter, rigid perforated pipe "bedded" on a minimum of 4 inches of drain rock and
should be encapsulated in filter fabric at the bottom of the trench to mitigate the migration of soil fines
into the filter material. The pipe should be sloped to drain to outlets by gravity.
Drain rock should consist of ¾ inch clean crushed rock or drain rock. The rock should be wrapped in
filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. The drain rock or gravel should extend within 24 inches of the
surface. The upper 24 inches should be backfilled with the compacted native soil to exclude surface water.

12
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Backfill
We recommend that the basement retaining walls be backfilled before constructing the first floor. Backfill
placed behind the walls should be compacted in accordance with this report's grading recommendation and
specifications using light compaction equipment. The ground surface behind retaining walls should be sloped to
drain. As an alternative, Miradrain 6000 may be used.
All pipes should carry water to a suitable discharge point, such as a sump pump system.
We highly recommend constructing the sump pump facility outside the basement retaining walls.
Where area drains are required, such as in depressed planter beds adjacent to the foundation or the edges
of slabs, they can be connected to a solid pipe. Under no circumstance should any solid pipe contribute water to
a perforated pipe.

Under-slab drains
A slab drain under the basement floor should be provided to reduce the potential for adverse
drainage or surfacing of subsurface water in the basement.
4” diameter, perforated pipes( schedule 40 or better) encapsulated in filter fabric should be installed
under the drain rocks 10 feet away from the basement walls connected to a pipe located at the center of the slab
toward the sump to mitigate the potential for surfacing of underground water. The pipes should be sloped to
drain to outlets by gravity. All pipes should carry water to a suitable discharge point, such as a sump pump
system. The subsurface drains should have a minimum slope of 1 to 1.5 percent. All drainage facilities should
be maintained and operated during the structure's life. A regular maintenance program is recommended to
ensure this.
The top 24 inches of the basement retaining walls should be backfilled with on-site soil and compacted
to at least 90% relative compaction. Our firm must be notified at least 48 hours before the commencement of
any backfill operations so that the soil engineer may observe and approve the placement of the drain rock and
coordinate the work in the field with your contractor.
Upon satisfactory completion of work, a letter of compliance will be issued.

Basement slab and retaining walls

The retaining walls should be waterproofed to avoid moisture migration through the basement walls.
The basement slab and retaining walls should be moisture-proof against water intrusion. A layer of
paraseal or similar material should be used. Paraseal or equivalent.
The basement walls and concrete slab may be treated against condensation with concrete additives such
as Xypex or SINAK sealant.

13
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 The basement slab should be underlain by at least 18 inches of compacted, non-expansive soil. The
subgrade should be rolled to produce a dense, uniform surface. Our firm representative should inspect
and perform field density testing for the basement subgrade before the crushed rock is placed under the
slab.
The slabs should be underlain with a capillary moisture break consisting of at least 6 inches of clean
crushed rock, at least 1/2 inch, and no larger than 3/4 inch in size.
Slabs should be at least 12 inches thick and reinforced to reduce cracking.
A representative of American Soil Testing Inc. should be present during the basement
construction, installation of the sub-drain system, and waterproofing to ensure our recommendations are
carried out.

Testing and Inspections

American Soil Testing should be retained to perform testing and inspections during the following stage
of construction for the project mentioned above:
1. Testing and inspection during grading operations
2. Inspection during foundation excavation (before the forms are installed)
3. Inspection during basement excavation.
4. Inspection during aggregate base material placement and waterproofing installation under the basement floor
and basement retaining walls.
5. Inspection during installation of the sub-drains system behind the retaining walls.
6. Inspect Miradrain, Filter Fabric, and Permeable aggregate material behind the retaining
walls
7. Testing and observation during backfilling operation behind the basement walls and over
the excavated area and utility trenches.
8. Final inspection after completion of the project

14
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
The proposed basement retaining walls may be supported on continuous perimeter footings, mat
foundation or piers, and grade beam type of foundation.
1. All continuous perimeter and isolated interior spread footings shall be found at least 18 inches below the
adjacent basement subgrade. The footings may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1800 p.s.f for
the above conditions. This is for both continuous strip footing and isolated interior spread footings. This
bearing value is for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third to include short-term seismic
and wind effects. All footings adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an
imaginary 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. All continuous
footing should have adequate top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and permit local
irregularities' spanning. The final design of the foundations and reinforcing required shall be determined by
the project Structural Engineer responsible for the foundation design. It is suggested that American Soil
Testing and Engineering Inc. review the foundation design before construction.
2. 2. The portion of the structure attached to the basement which is not supported over the basement
retaining walls and detached structures, should be supported on piers and grade beam foundations. The
piers should be at least 16 inches in diameter and penetrate at least 12 feet below the bottom of the grade
beams. The piers shall be designed based on skin friction between the soil and the piers using the design
friction value of 350 p.s.f. for dead plus live loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 and a passive pressure
equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 250 pounds per cubic foot starting below two piers diameter from the
adjacent grade can be used. The footings should be poured directly against undisturbed materials to ensure
that passive resistance is developed.
The upper 24 inches of pier depth should be ignored when computing skin friction due to seasonal moisture
changes in the top layer. The depth and spacing of friction piers will depend upon the structure loads
transmitted to the piers and based on the surface friction value. All piers should be reinforced with a
minimum of four #4 bars for their full length, with the reinforcement of the pier tied at least 12 inches to the
top reinforcement of the grade beam. This recommendation is not a substitute for the structural design of the
friction piers; therefore, the structural engineer responsible for foundation design shall determine the final
design of the foundations and reinforcing required.
3. The grade beam should be found at least 12 inches below the adjacent pad grade and reinforced with a
minimum of four # 4 bars, two near the top and two near the bottom. The steel from the piers should extend
a sufficient distance into the grade beams to develop its full strength in bond.
4. If the grade beam is to be cast directly on the compacted pad, grade beams should be constructed on a firm,
moist subgrade, and all drying cracks must be closed by sprinkling, flooding, or other methods.
5. Our firm representative should inspect all pier holes to ascertain that proper penetration has been
achieved, and the supporting soils should not be allowed to dry before the hole is filled with concrete.

15
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 The piers should have a minimum spacing of three pier diameters.
6. Should unusual or unexpected soil conditions be encountered, the AST Project Engineer may alter the depth
of the piers at the time of the construction.
7. When concrete is placed for the pier foundation, the pier tops should not be allowed to mushroom out
or have spillage at the side of the grade beams. The excess concrete should be trimmed to the design
size. The bottoms of the pier should be dry and reasonably free of loose soil before installing reinforcing
steel and placing concrete. The grade beam should be kept to the minimum width (preferably 8-10 inches)
to minimize the effect of uplift pressures created by the expansion of the soil beneath the beams.
8. It is recommended that the structural engineer appropriately reinforce the building to meet the minimum
requirements of the local uniform building code and applicable seismic code for earthquake resistance.

Lateral Loads
Flat friction between the bottom of the footings, the mat foundation, and the supporting subgrade may
resist lateral loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be assumed for design. Lateral resistance may also be
provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing excavations or
backfilled with properly compacted structural fill. Where appropriate, we recommend assuming an equivalent
fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot for passive soil resistance. The upper 2 feet of passive soil resistance
should be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing is not covered with a slab or pavement.

Settlements
Since all foundations will be extended into competent materials, total and differential settlements are
expected to be within tolerable limits. Thirty-year differential settlement due to static loads is expected to be 1
inch across the proposed addition and associated site improvement, provided the foundations are designed and
constructed as recommended.

16
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
We recommend the following for all slab-on-grade construction:
All slab-on-grade shall be supported on a minimum of 12 inches thick capillary break material, such as
3/4" clean crushed rock or permeable aggregate. For all interior slabs, 2 inches of sand should be used between
the finished Subgrade and concrete slab, along with a minimum of 10 mils thick polyethylene or its equivalent
vapor membrane placed between the crushed rock and the sand.
The minimum reinforcement should consist of at least a #4 rebar, 18 inches on the center, for shrinkage
control to minimize the impact of expansion. However, slab reinforcing could exceed the minimum
requirements depending on the anticipated usage and loading conditions. Proper expansion and contraction
joints shall be provided in the slab to minimize the cracks in the slab.
Concrete slabs around the landscaping area should be protected from water seepage. The water seepage
from these areas usually creates over-saturation of the base rock and the subgrade, causing unstable conditions.
Henceforth, we recommend the following:
Along with the landscaping areas, provide a vertical cut-off or a deep vertical curb section. The vertical
cut-off should extend through the base rock and a minimum of six inches into the subgrade. This will limit
water seepage into the adjacent concrete slabs.
Positive surface drainage (minimum 2%) shall always be provided adjacent to the building to direct
water away from the foundations and slabs to a suitable discharge facility during and after the project's
construction phase. If deemed necessary by the Soil Engineer, before placing the vapor membrane or pouring
concrete, the subgrade shall be moistened with water to reduce the swell potential. The subgrade soils under the
area of the slab should be water conditioned to raise the water content; spraying the water at least a day before
the concrete is poured can do this. Minor cracking of the concrete slabs on the grade should be anticipated due
to long-term differential movement of any underlying fill or natural soil. The project Structural Engineer should
determine the exact thickness and reinforcements based on the design live load and dead load.
For garage slab construction, the slab should be underlain by a minimum 12-inch layer of
permeable aggregate base or 3/4" clean crushed rock. It should be poured structurally independent of the
foundations or any fixed members. Expansion joints shall be constructed in the slab at least 10 feet from
the interior face of the walls.
If deemed necessary by the Soil Engineer, the subgrade shall be moistened with water before pouring
concrete to reduce the swell potential. The subgrade soils under the slab area should be water conditioned to
raise the water content, spraying the water at least a day before the concrete is poured. Minor cracking of the
concrete slabs on the grade should be anticipated due to long-term differential movement of any underlying fill
or natural soil. The project structural engineer should determine the exact thickness and reinforcements
based on the design's live and dead loads.

17
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 RETAINING WALLS
1. Exterior retaining walls (if any) should be designed for a lateral earth pressure (active) of 50 pounds
equivalent fluid pressure, plus surcharge loads for sloping surfaces flatter than 4:1. If the retaining walls
are restrained from free movement at both ends or have a 3:1 back slope, they shall be designed for the
earth pressure resulting from 65 pounds equivalent fluid pressure, to which shall be added any surcharge
loads.
2. The effects of earthquakes may be simulated by applying a horizontal line load surcharge to the stem of
the wall at a rate of 18x H² lb/ horizontal foot of the wall, where H is the height of the surface of the
backfill above the base of the wall. This surcharge should be applied at a height of 0.6 H above the base
of the wall.
3. A coefficient of "friction" of 0.30 may be used to calculate the ultimate resistance to horizontal sliding
of the wall base over the ground beneath the base.
4. An equivalent fluid pressure of 250 psf/ft may be used to calculate the ultimate passive resistance to
lateral movement of the ground in front of the wall's toe and front of any "key" beneath the toe or stem
of the wall. It is recommended that upslope retaining walls have a freeboard to provide catchments for
debris flows and minimize the potential for overtopping the wall surface slough.

The Gradient of the Unrestrained Equivalent Fluid Pressure Passive Resistance Coefficient of Friction
Backslope (p.c.f.)

Flat to 4:1 50 250 0.30

3:1 or Restrained 65 250 0.30

5. The above values assume a drained condition and moisture content compatible with those encountered
during our investigation. To promote proper drainage, a layer of at least 12 inches of ¾" clean crushed
rock or drain rock up to ¾ of the height of the wall should be placed between the facility and the
retained material. The design shall include a minimum of 4-inch (schedule 40 or better) perforated pipes
(perforation down) to conduct excess water from behind the retaining structure.
6. All retaining walls shall be swale-protected with at least a concrete lining. Surface waters shall not be
allowed to flow into the retaining wall sub-drain, approach the foundation, or approach the crests.
7. Before the fill is placed, the sub-drain placed behind the retaining walls should be approved and
inspected by an American Soil Testing and Engineering Inc. representative.
8. The retaining wall foundations should be designed according to the recommendations presented
previously under the Foundation Design criteria.
9. We should have the opportunity to review all designs about facilities retaining a soil mass prepared for
this project.

18
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
1. Where utility lines cross under or through perimeter footings, and sand is used as backfill material, the
trench shall be completely sealed by at least a 3' concrete plug to prevent moisture intrusion into the
areas under the slabs and/or by compacting soil material for 5 feet on both sides of the exterior footings.
2. Rainwater discharge at downspouts must be directed into a solid pipe to carry away the excess water and
prevent water from collecting in the soil adjacent to the foundation. The connection could be in a closed
conduit that discharges at an approved location away from the structure.
3. Suppose utility trenches are parallel to the sides of the building. In that case, they should not extend
below a line sloping down and away at a 2 to 1(horizontal to vertical) slope from the bottom outside
edge of all footings.
4. All trenches may be backfilled with native material provided they are free of organic material and rocks
over 4 inches in diameter or approved imported granular material, with the soil compacted to a 95%
minimum relative compaction in paved areas and 90% in other areas.

Site Drainage
Positive surface drainage should always be provided to prevent water from seeping beneath the
footings. To accomplish this, the site should be graded to provide for surface water's positive removal and
prevent ponding during and after construction. Where area drains are required, such as in depressed planter beds
adjacent to the foundation or the edges of slabs, the area drains can be connected to a solid pipe.

Sub-drain
Extensive landscaping may seriously alter the surface drainage pattern. When landscaping, homeowners
should avoid disrupting flow patterns created when the property was originally graded.
Suppose the building pad will be sub-excavated to create the crawl space beneath the structure. In that
case, we recommend that the sub-drain be provided and connected to the catch basin or the nearest appropriate
receptacle. The sub-drain shall have a 36-inch deep and 12-inch-wide trench. A continuous minimum 4-inch
diameter perforated plastic pipe (perforations down) shall be graded such that the water will flow toward the
catch basin. The pipe should be encapsulated in filter fabric over a minimum of 4 inches of bedding. The trench
should be backfilled using a maximum 1-inch diameter concrete aggregate or drain rock up to 18 inches; the top
portion should be backfilled by on-site soil and compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction. Figure A
schematically shows the installation of the recommended sub-drain. A proper outlet should be provided at the
lower end of each segment of the sub-drain.

19
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 The outlet should consist of an unperforated pipe of the same diameter, connected to the perforated
pipe, and extended to a protected outlet at a lower elevation on a continuous gradient of at least one percent. A
cleanout pipe should be provided at the high point of the pipe. A representative of our firm should be present
during the sub-drain installation; at this time, additional recommendations based on exposed field conditions
and other grading adjustments may be given as deemed necessary by the Soil Engineer.

20
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 PLAN REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS
Plan Review
American Soil Testing and Engineering, Inc. should review the completed grading and foundation
plans for conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. The plans should be provided
to us as soon as possible upon completion to limit potential delays in the permitting process that might
otherwise be attributed to our review process.
It should be noted that many of the local building and planning departments now require “clean”
geotechnical plan review letters before the acceptance of plans for their final review. Since our plan reviews
usually result in recommendations for modification of the plans, our “clean” review letter often requires two
additions. At a minimum, we recommend that the following note be added to the plans:
“Earthwork, foundation construction, pier drilling, car stacker pit retaining wall backfilling, slab
subgrade and non-expansive fill preparation, utility trench backfill, pavement construction, and site drainage
should be performed by the geotechnical report prepared by American Soil Testing and Engineering, Inc., dated
Month Day, Year. American Soil Testing and Engineering should be notified at least 48 hours before any
earthwork and observed and tested during earthwork and foundation construction as recommended in the
geotechnical report.” American Soil Testing and Engineering should be notified at least 5 days before
earthwork, trench backfill, and subgrade preparation work to allow time to sample on-site soil and laboratory
compaction curve testing before on-site compaction density testing.”

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

The earthwork and foundation phases of construction should be observed and tested by us to 1) confirm
that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) observe compliance
with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and 3) allow design changes if subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations presented in this report are based on limited
subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until
construction. If variations are exposed during construction, we must reevaluate our recommendations.
Our firm should be retained to provide testing and inspection services during the work's grading
and foundation installation portion and allow design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated. The recommendations presented in this report are based on limited subsurface exploration.
The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations
are exposed during construction, we must reevaluate our recommendations.

American Soil Testing and Engineering Inc. is not responsible for

compliance with design recommendations for grading or foundation plans
controlled, inspected, and approved by others.
21
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 CONCLUSIONS
1. The Site covered by this investigation is suitable for the proposed new single-family residence, provided
the recommendations outlined in this report are incorporated into the design considerations, project
plans, and specifications.
2. The native soils are not suitable for engineered fill. The organically contaminated soil may be used for
landscaping only.
3. The native surface and near-surface soil at the project site have been found to have a moderate to high
expansion potential when subjected to fluctuations in moisture.
4. Based on our experience during this investigation, trenches to 5 feet below the existing ground surface
do not need shoring. Shoring will be required below 5 feet.

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the soil conditions revealed by our test
borings and evaluated for the proposed construction planned.
If any unusual soil conditions are encountered during the construction or if the proposed construction
will differ from that planned, American Soil Testing, Inc. should be notified immediately of the
supplemental recommendations.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative
to ensure that the recommendations and information contained herein are called to the attention of the
Architect, Structural Engineer, and civil engineer for the project and are incorporated into the project
Plans and Specifications. Also, the necessary steps are to ensure that the contractors carry out the
recommendations of this report in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present time. However, the passing of time will change the
conditions of the existing property due to natural processes or human work. In addition, legislation or
the broadening of knowledge may require other recommendations. Accordingly, the findings of this
report may be invalid, wholly or partly, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is
subject to review and should not be relied upon after three years.
4. This report is not a recommendation to purchase or not to buy the property. It shall be for the exclusive
use of the client whose name appears above.
5. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are professional opinions derived from the
current standards of professional practice, and no warranty is intended, expressed, or implied.

22
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 APPENDIX A: Physiography

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2 Street View

Figure 3 Boring Location

23
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 1

Figure 2

24
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 3

25
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 APPENDIX B: Subsurface Data

Figure 1 Plasticity Index

Figure 2 Moisture/Density

Figure 3 Logs of Test Borings

Figure 4 Key to Exploratory Boring Logs

26
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 1

27
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 1

28
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 2

29
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 30
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Figure 3

31
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.
 Unified Soil Class System
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP Soil Description
SYMBOLS

COURSE GRAINED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixture; little or fines

More than Half material is larger More than 50% material larger Less than 5% fines GP Poorly graded gravel, gravel sand mixture; little or no
than #200 sieve than #4 sieve fines

GRAVEL GM Silty gravel, gravel-sand-silt mixture; non-plastic fines

More than 12% fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixture; plastic fines

Sands CLEAN SAND SW Well graded sand, gravely sand; little or no fines

More than 50% material smaller Less than 5% fines SP Poorly graded sand, gravelly sand; little or no fines
than #4 sieve
SAND SM Salty sand, sand-silt mixture; non-plastic fines

More than 12% fines SC Clayey sand, sand-clay mixture; no fines

FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS & GRAVELS ML Inorganic silt, sandy or clayey silt; low to medium
plasticity
Liquid limit is less than 50%
CL Inorganinic clay, sandy or silty clay; low to medium
plasticity

OL Organic silt or silty clay; low to medium plasticity

SILTS & GRAVELS MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous or micaceous; fine sand or

silty soil
Liquid limitr is greater than 50%
CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity, fat clay

OH Orangic clay of medium to high plasticity, organic silt

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat or other highly organic soil

Particle Size Limits

(Sieve Openings in mm) 0 .074, 0.425, 2.00 4.17, 19.0, 75.0, 300.0

SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL COBBLES/

BOULDERS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE

Relative Density Consistency

Blows/ft* Strength +

SANDS, GRAVELS, & NON-PLASTIC SILTS Very Loose: 0-4

Loose: 4-10
Medium Dense: 10-30
Dense: 30-50
Very Dense: 50+

CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS Very soft: 0-2 0-¼

Soft: 2-4 ¼-½
Firm: 4-8 ½-1
Stiff: 8-16 1-2
Very Stiff: 16-32 2-4
Hard: 32+ 4+

*Numbers of blows of 140lb hammer falling 30” to drive a 2” O.D. (1-⅜” I.D.). +Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq ft as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the
Standard Penetration test (ASTM D - 1586), pocket pentrometer, torvane or visual observation.
Figure 4

THE END

32
File No. 24-5710-S American Soil Testing & Engineering, Inc.