The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-9077 G �c CZty Of NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 16, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Yazdani, Babak 2476 Oxford Avenue Grading Permit 9077 -G Planning Case 02 -161 APN 261- 112 -16 Final release of security Permit 9077 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has approved grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the 25% security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 8260569218, in the amount of $2,892.25, has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sin ,71y, X Deb a raGe!art J L bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Babak Yazdani Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 AID: recycled paper t City O fNGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Eminitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 16, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Yazdani, Babak 2476 Oxford Avenue Grading Permit 9077 -G APN 261 - 112 -16 Final release of security Permit 9077 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the 75% security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 8260569200, in the amount of $8,676.75, has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincer y, • Debra Geish Oinance Bach Engineering Technician Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Babak Yazdani Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 � recycled paper Geotechnical 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A ,�a� Vista, CA 92081 -8505 Environmental (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Materials EK, INC. February 17, 2004 Project No. 2035SD3 Mr. Bob Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Report of Testing and Observation Services During Earthwork Construction Single Family Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California References: (1) Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Single- Family Residence, 2476 Oxford Avenue, Cardiff, California, by GeoTek Insite, Inc., dated January 25, 2001. (2) Grading Plan, Yazdani Residence, 2476 Oxford Avenue, by Robert O. Sukup, dated 6/28/04. (3) Foundation Details, General Note, Yazdani Residence, Cardiff, California, by ESI/FME Structural Engineers, dated 6/3/04. (4) Architectural Drawings, Yazdani Residence, Cardiff, California, by James, A. Chinn, Architect, untitled, undated. Dear Mr. Yazdani: As requested by Mr. Mike Gebel of GeDco Construction, we are providing this letter to confirm that GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) has provided compaction testing and observation services during earthwork construction for the subject residence. Our services were performed on on -call basis during the months of September and October 2004. The scope of our services included performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction characteristics of the soil conditions encountered and /or used for fill. In our opinion, the building pad has been prepared in general confornlance with the referenced soils engineering report. FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Based on our field observations and testing we note the following: • The upper 1 to 2.5 feet of earth materials below existing site grades were removed within the subgrade of the proposed lower and upper pads and retaining walls. Removals were generally extended into dense formational materials. A shallow septic tank was removed in a portion_ of the lower pad area and the excavation properly backfilled. ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA MR. BOB YAZDANI February 17, 2004 Report of Testing and Observation Services Project No. 2035SD3 Residence at 2476 Oxford Avenue Page 2 of 2 • Footing excavations were observed for the lower building pad. The foundation excavations observed extended into formational materials. • Onsite soils were utilized as compacted fill to achieve finish grade elevations for the subject residence. Based on our field density and laboratory test results, fill materials were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). The field density test results are included in Table 1 attached. • Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compaction efforts by the contractor. Based on our observations, the test results presented herein should be considered representative of the level of compaction achieved during overall subgrade preparation. • Visual classification of the soil in the field, compared to soil descriptions from laboratory testing was the basis for determining the maximum dry density value and optimum moisture content applied to each density test. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS It is our opinion that the test results presented herein should be considered representative of the level of compaction achieved during overall subgrade preparation. The foundation recommendations included in the soils report remain applicable. Our services were performed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices for this locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GeoTek accepts neither responsibility nor liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, Ng1NEER/�y r GeoTek, Inc. P .'r Na. EG 2248 Exp.10 /31/05 J ' �Hrey P. Blake � �Q' Sime(n I. Saiid EG 2248, Exp. 10/31/05 �oFeAt�F�� GE 2641, Exp. 9/30/05 Geotechnical Department Manager Senior Engineer Enclosures: Table 1 & 2 — Summary of Field Density Tests for Grading & Wall Backfill Distribution: (3) Addressee (1) Fax copy to Mike Gebel at (760) 728 6336 G:Trojects'Projects 2000 to 2999Trojects 2000 thru 2449 Folders \Projects 2000 to 20492035 -SD3 YazdaniA2035_T&O rpt.doc 4C BABAK YAZDANI GeoTek, Inc. 12117104 Yazdani Residence Project No.: 2035 -SD3 Cardiff California Page 1 of 1 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS GRADING Moisture Dry Maximum Relative DATE Test Location Elevi Content Density Soil Density Test Compaction No. Depth (o) (cf) Type (cf) Type (o) 9/8/04 1 Lower pad, SE area 92.3 12.8 112.3 A 114.5 N 98 2 Lower pad middle of pad area 92.3 13.2 111.8 A 114.5 N 98 3 Lower pad N half area 92.3 11.9 113.2 A 114.5 N 99 4 Lower pad storage tank pit area 92.3 12.1 106.3 A 114.5 N 93 9/9/04 5 Upper pad garage area 100.3 12.4 105.1 A 114.5 N 93 6 Upper pad garage area 101.3 13.6 106.9 A 114.5 N 93 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS WALL Test Elev/ Moisture Dry Maximum Relative DATE No Location Content Density Soil Density Test Compaction Depth (o) c Type (cf) Type (o) 10/13/04 1 East side of wall, north half acre 95.0 12.7 107.7 A 114.5 N 94 2 East side of wall, middle area 96.0 14.6 105.0 A 114.5 N 92 3 East side of wall, south half acre 96.0 13.1 1 110.4 A 114.5 N 96 10/14/04 4 East side of wall, South side 98.0 12.7 109.2 A 114.5 N 95 5 East side of wall, North side 98.0 10.2 106.7 A 114.5 N 93 10/15/04 6 East side north half of wall 1 101.0 13.6 104.2 A 114.5 N 91 7 JEast side south half of wall 1 101.0 13.1 103.1 A 114.5 N 90 Soil A is described as silty fine to coarse sand with clay with an optimum moisture content of 15 percent as per ASTM D1557. Note: N = Nuclear Gauge Test FG = Finished Grade Test All elevations are approximate GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / WORK IN PROGRESS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( )STREET. SG B AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) S IDEWA LK: SG B (••) WALL O FOUNDATI O THER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION s TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEV/ MOISTURE DRY SOIL MAX D TEST REL COMP NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE TYPE BY: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME C '" IES T0: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET _ OF _ . GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: I J LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / YILOBIS IN PRO RFCS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( ) STREET: SG - B- AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B (.) WALL ( ) FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT COMMENTS / DISCUSSION i I i TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEV/ MOISTURE DRY SOIL TEST NO. DEPTH CONTENT OENSRY TYPE MAX D TYPE REL COMP BY: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME COPIES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET _ OF _ - "' GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / WORK IN PROGRESS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( )STREET- SG B AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B ( ) WALL ( ) FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEW MOISTURE DRY SOIL TEST NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE MAX D TYPE REL COMP BY: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME COPIES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET _ OF _ . IRON MOUNTAIN LAND SURVEYS 4220 St.James PI. San Diego,CA 92103 ph. (619) 295 -1665 BUILDING PAD CERTIFICATION LOTS 21- 22,BLK.10, CARDIFF MAP 1298 APN #261- 112 -16 2476 OXFORD AVE. THE ABOVE SITE WAS FIELD CHECKED ON SEPT.9,2004 AND DETERMINED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLAN. PAD ELEVATIONS ARE 92.3 AND 101.3 DAvlo usEKQERG ' No. 5845 Q SEP 9 2 04 GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / W RK IN PROGRESS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B/F: S W JT SD OTHER ( ) STREET. SG B AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B ( ) WALL ( ) FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEVI MOISTURE DRY SOIL TEST NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE MAX D TYPE REL COMP BY: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME COPIES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET OF GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T w TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / WORK IN PROGRESS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( ) STREET. SG B AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B ( ) WALL () FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEY! MOISTURE DRY SOIL TEST NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE MAX D TYPE REL COMP i i BY. SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME COPIES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET _ OF _ . GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: 1 / LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / WORK IN PROGRESS ( ;:) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( )STREET. SG B AC _ ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B ( ) WALL () FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION TEST RESULTS TEST W LOCATION ELE MOISTURE DRY SOIL TEST NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE MAX D TYPE REL COMP BY: SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME COPIES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET OF i i 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Geotechnical Environmental INSIT . Materials Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single - Family Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California 4 PREPARED FOR Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani ® � }' AUG 3 0 2004 i PREPARED BY 477 5 GEOTEK INSITE, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 Project: 2035 -SD3 January 25, 2001 ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVAnn 1. 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Geotechnical Environmental K9 I NSITE NC. Materials January 25, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani Project: 2035 -SD3 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single Family Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California In accordance with your request and authorization Ge preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the 2476 Oxford ek Insite, Inc. has performed a The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing geotechnical conditions that may affect Avenue in Cardiff, California. I the proposed site development. Proposed site develo ment geotechnical viewpoint. This report presents the results p appears feasible from a findings, conclusions, and provides geotechnical recommends b ur study, discussion of our ons for site development. The Opportunity to be of service is sincerely a questions, please do not hesitate to call our office, PPreciated. If you should have any We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this pro If questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. You should have any Respectfully submitted GeoTek Insite Inc., s�F-IoN `' oE Nr, INEEg W AYNEANDERSON g :� 4 No. C26820 Exp. 3 -31 -2001 CIVIL B n Wayne Anderson, R.C.E. �OFCAL!FO°`�; J Exp. V�' 2 - ' sl ,k roject Engineer Ti Y fe, CEG 114 Distribution: (4) Addressee Wf3) Principa eologist �F CAL Enclosures: Site Plan Appendix A Logs Of Field Exploration & Laboratory Test Results ARIZONA CALIFORNIA Klr 1A - ' / ' � TABLE OF CONTENTS ' INIENT—...—''-'.—_.---'_—.-----------'—'~—'—''---~—' ! SCOPE OF WORK—.._.----------.--.------.-.--------~—..'---'~-''-'~'--''------1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ________,__._______~ � S%TDD�S�%��TIOl�^~~.--..-'---._~--.'-..--_—~_--._..___.____, '--'~---------'--'-'-1 PROPERTY LOCATION —______________..____ --'~^~~~^'~'^—^~^—~^~-`.....-.% FIELD '------------' AND Lx TESTING SUMMARY 8 %DMMARYOF GEQT8CHNICAL --~------ � 8nEGEOLOGY -----'—. - ~^-'-^~~---'------..---'--_----- NEAR SURFACE CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------- ^`x^""'Fm---__ _ Terrace ____________ De posits ----------------------------------------------�� 2�rr�v FAULTING AND 3 woc ------------- -------------- ----- - ------------ -'� Sun�xCG�mmGno0vD' ------------------' ----------j . vvxTsK ----------' -- ---' -------- 3 � xwrfuceWater -------� --------------- GrnundWater ---' ----------- --------'--� , EXpaNS/vESOILS ---- --------------------------------------------'�� ' L»NoSLDDING__-------------- ...... --_---_________ -----------4 LABOB��TORY --- — -------__---________-------------�4 l}�ec�J&eur —-------' -----'---- 4 Expans Index ------ 4 Ju/(aoe Content -------------------------------------------------� ------------__________� ----------v CONCLUSIONS AND ----- ------------- ' J �--~~-.--,________ E~^"""too Characte '---5 '""Pv/urY Excavations ----------------- REMOVALS ------ -- - ------------- -------------- -- - --------------5 Slab on{ruue_____ -----------------_---______ ----------�j 0wyx -- � ----------- ------------- ---- - ----------- ---' 5 STRUCTURAL DE% Seismic Desi n - - ' ~~------ -------------- ----- - ----------- --- 5 FOUNDATION DE ^o ---------------------- ----------�0 CONSTRUCTION SLAB Ow GRADE ______ RECOMM ------ -------------________ ----------d RETAINING WALL DESIGN --�--------------------______� 6 �ouodudonJ� Cantilevered Wall --- ----------- --'« � Wall �b --' 99 Cement Type Concrete Flatwol-k 10 Concrete Cracking 10 FOUNDATION OBSERVATION OTHER CnITEx---- CRITERIA Plan Review ond -------------------__---_____ -----------l� �ub��u/ ----_.' - ---------' ----------. LIMITATIONS ------------------' ................ --~-''''--'''~~-l% Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani f 2476 Oxford Avenue January 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 1 INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the described project. Implementation of the advice presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" l section of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction ro'ects. P J The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our investigation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the plan. The scope is based on the proposed development plans and standards no site used on similar projects in similar areas. site SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general overall geotechnical conditions the site as they relate to the proposed development. The following tasks were com leted during our study: p Visual site reconnaissance Review of published geologic maps; Geologic mapping; • Subsurface exploration and sampling of near surface soil Laboratory testing; s ' • Analysis of the data gathered; • Compilation of a geotechnical report, summarizing our findings and recommendations regarding the proposed site development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development is planned for the constriction of a 2-story sin le- residence with basement areas and paved drive areas. The building is ant t g family primarily retaining wall system foundations with typical building loads. 1 The buuildin e will be situated on the central portion of the property. It is anticipated that excavations for the walls and associated backfill will be necessary. i 4 ti K, INS Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION Property location The subject property is currently located at 2476 Oxford Avenue in Cardiff Ca liforn i a. The site is bordered to the south and west by residences, northeast by Ox Avenue and to the southwest by an alleyway. Interstate 5 is located to the east. ford Avenue An existing two -story single- family residence with a detached ara e curren the property. The structures will be razed prior to construction. g g t occupies The natural slope gradients range from gently sloping in the eastern portion to moderately sloping areas in the western portion of the site. Site elevations range f approximately 89.5 feet (MSL) near the southwestern portion of the site to 100.7 feet (MSL) in the northwestern portion of the site. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of t small exploratory borings utilizing a limited access drill rig. The borings ere drilled near the proposed construction in landscaped areas. The borings were drilled to a maximum de th of approximately 9.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were p sampled by a geologist from our firm. A Iog is presented in Appendix A. Representative and bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered were collected a transported to our laboratory for possible testing. nd Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples. Results are in Appendix A, herein. presented SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Site Geology Pleistocene -aged sedimentary bedrock materials underlie the site of the ro construction. The bedrock materials are generally dense. P posed Near Stirface Conditions A relatively thin veneer of materials considered to be fill and topsoil comp rises the surface materials. P near `• LQ �I EK, Ip Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 3 Topsoil /Fill Topsoil /fill materials are present in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Topsoil /fill materials generally consist of brown, silty fine- grained sand. We anticipate these soils to be on the order of one foot thick in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Actual thickness in some areas could vary. These granular soils are very low expansive and are not considered suitable for support of foundations or additional fill in their present condition. Refer to recommendation section herein. Terrace Deposits Pleistocene -aged Terrace Deposits underlie the site. As encountered, these sedimentary bedrock materials primarily consist of orange- brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, silty, fine to medium grained sand. These granular materials should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures. Torrey Sandstone Materials that appear to be Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone underlie the Terrace Deposits on the site. As encountered at three feet in Boring B -1, these sedimentary materials primarily consist of light yellow to off - white, dense, fine to medium grained sand. These granular materials should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures. Faulting and Seismicity The site is in a seismically active region. There are no known active or potentially active faults within 1 /4 mile of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 3 miles west of the site, is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking. The maximum credible ground accelerations from a 6.9 magnitude event on the Rose Canyon would be approximately 0.54g while the maximum probable event of 5.7 magnitude would produce accelerations of approximately 0.328. The acceleration would be no greater than for other nearby properties. The site is not situated within a Special Studies Zone (Earthquake Fault Zone). Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes (Uniform Building Code) have been developed to minimize structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area. Risks associated with secondary seismic hazards of liquefaction, tsunami and seiche are considered negligible 'A- elm .. EK, IH Mr. and Mrs. Vazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 4 Surface and Ground Water i . Surface Water Overall site drains to the west. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed project civil engineer. gned by the I Ground Water We do not anticipate any shallow ground water to be present. No natural rou , water condition is known to be present which would impact site development. The actual ground water table is likely in excess of 25 feet below the ground surface of t he pad. However, localized seepage due to irrigation or heavy rainfall may occur fluctuations in the level of groundwater can occur due to variations in rainfall temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements we reported herein. re made and i Expansive Soils i Based on our physical observations, experience with similar soils, and testin the on soils possess a very low expansion potential. g, site ( Landsliding No evidence or indications of mass landslide conditions were observed at the are these conditions anticipated. site, nor LABORATORY TESTING Direct Shear Testing Shear testing was performed in a direc of deformation is approximately O.OSin inches per c minute. The tram control type. The rate varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear stren th eared under sh angle of internal friction and cohesion. The test was performed on a ring psam leers, mat collected during our subsurface exploration. The e shear test results are rep in Appendix A. presented i Expansion Index Representative onsite soils were tested for Expansion potential in acc ance ASTM D4829. Test results indicated an Expansion Index (EI) was less than 10. with i I �K 1H� Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 i Page 5 Sulfate Content Sulfate testing as g performed on a representative sample of near surface soils in accordance with California test Method 417. Sulfate testing provided results of 0.009 percent by weight. Based upon the test results, type II cement or an equivalent may be used. I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. There are no known conditions on the site that are considered to 'be a significant constraint or cause unusual concerns to development as proposed, provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The recommended bearing material can be reached with standard foundations based upon the preliminary plans provided to us. Excavation Characteristics i Our study was not a detailed evaluation of Excavations in these materials are anticipated moderate to be d excavation rt utilizing heavy-duty I equipment. o heavy -duty Temporary Excavations I All temporary excavations or backcuts for removals, walls, and utilities should be constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the I onsite materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for short duration during construction. r Removals Slab on Grade The existing near surface materials contains fill and topsoils. As encountered, these materials are loose and approximately three feet thick. If not removed by excavations, these soils should be removed and recompacted in areas of proposed fill,, i improvements or strictures. The. area underlying the proposed garage slab area will need removal and recompaction of these materials prior to foundation construction. i q EK, 1HT.i I Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -03 Page 6 Structural Design Parameters Seismic Design Factors For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 4 km from the site may be used. Shown in the Table below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Division IV & V, Chapter 16.' i Parameter Soil Profile T e C CV Na Nv Seismic Source Source T e Table 163 16 Q 16R 16S 16T 16U Value S 0.40N, 0.56N, 1.1 1.3 B Foundation Design and Construction r Recommendations for both slab on grade and retaining wall foundation systems are based upon the conditions encountered and considering the standard foundation design parameters used by a structural engineer in a wall design for wall construction to 10 feet i high. Modified or revised parameters may be warranted if proposed construction changes. Foundation Recommendations Slab on Grade Presented below are generalized foundation design parameters in keeping criteria presented in the 1997 Uniform Building Code Chapter 18. For this project we recommend that drawings be prepared for soil conditions with an Expansion Index of less than 20. The following parameters maybe used for design purposes. All foundations should be designed following the criteria in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). General guidelines for the design and constriction of foundations are presented below typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design s hruct chiare engi b neer. Y the ral The following recommendations are presented for conventional foundations story wood frame residential buildings constructed at or near grade.Structt Structural loads anticipated to be on the order of 2 kips per lineal foot for continuous footings, and up to 30 kips for column footings. i i I EK INS i Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 7 RW Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam depth (inches below lowest One Story -12 ad'acent grade or Two story -18 Foundation Width (Inches) One Story - 12:6: Two story -15 <° Maximum Beam Spacing (feet) NA (Cantilevered length as soil function) NA Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 Minimum slab Reinforcing with No 3 reinforcing bars @ 18 inch centers Footing Reinforcement Two No. 4 reinforcing Bars, one top one bottom Presaturation of subgrade soil Subgrade to be well wetted Percent of 0 timumlDepth in inches before pouring concrete i Foundation Design: L Bearing Capacity: l An allowable bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live loads, may be utilized for continuous footings. system should be stem founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches and bottomed on dense formational materials or compacted fill. Minimum depth is determined by the lowest adjacent finished grade. The allowable bearing may be increased by one -third when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 2. Lateral Resistance: Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a de nsity of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. I A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. I When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive ressure component should be reduced by one - third. p I I r� �� -EK INfi I Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction Recommendations below may be applied to typical masonry or concrete. vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of ten (10) feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. Additional recommendations should also be requested for design of gravity wall systems, as the recommendations offered below are not applicable to such systems. Recommendations were developed assuming that wall backfill placed within a 1 to 1 projection behind any wall is comprised of onsite soils, which are properly compacted (90% relative compaction at optimum moisture or higher). Use of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The following criteria may be applied to retaining wall design. Foundation Design: I Bearing Capacity: An allowable bearing capacity of 2500 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live loads, may be utilized for continuous footings. Foundation systems should be i founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and bottomed on dense formational materials or compacted fill. Minimum depth is determined by the lowest adjacent finished grade. The allowable bearing may be increased by one -third when considerin short -term liv loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). g e 4. Lateral Resistance: Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. p ! A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load ad When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. i i t Q p i I WEK, IHfi i r Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 9 Foundation Set Backs a) The outside bottom edge of all footings for settlement sensitive structures should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of an descending slope. The setback should be at least seven (7) feet and need not exceed 15 feet. b) The bottom of all footings for structures near existing retaining walls should deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. g C) Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be sub' movements and/or differential settlements. y sect to lateral Cantilevered Walls: Active earth pressures may be used for design of cantilevered walls. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of retained material. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT FLUID RETAINED MATERIALS PRESSURE (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) (PCF) LEVEL 30 2 TO 1 45 These equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loadin g condition such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismi geologic conditions. c conditions or adverse Restrained Retaining Walls: Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant corners, should be designed for at -rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner t O Q FIEK, 1N7 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 10 Wall Drainage: Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4) inch diameter perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to. l inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. A minimum of two outlets should be provided for each drain section. On longer drain runs, efforts should be made to provide outlets at 50 feet maximum intervals. As an alternate to the collector pipe, weep holes at 10 to 15 feet O.C. could be provided. Walls from two (2) to four (4) feet high may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at ten- (10) feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Backdrainage can be eliminated behind retaining walls less than four (4) feet high. Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. Concrete Construction Concrete Placement The concrete contractor should follow UBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide testing of the concrete during construction. This testing would be provided as requested. Cement Type Results of sulfate testing indicated sulfate content to be less than 0.01 percent. This is a low sulfate content per the UBC. Type II Cement can be utilized. Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They often receive the least level of quality control, being considered "non - structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. � K, IK� i Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 11 r Concrete Cracking Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticed to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long -term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete while seemingly a stable material also is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to I control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two direction spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. r Foundation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to check for compliance with the recommendations while equipment and manpower are available to deepen the foundation if necessary and prior to the placement of reinforcement. I i Other Criteria Plan Review and Construction Observations Prior to site constriction, this office should review site grading and foundation plans for I conformance to our recommendations presented herein. We should be not in advance of any site constriction, including site grading, additional fill placement, i regrading of the site, or trench and retaining wall backfilling after rough grading has been completed. We should be contacted to verify that utility trenches are compacted with testing provided as considered necessary. Footing trenches should be observed by our representativ for proper width and depth. A second observtion should be pri requested prior to g t o po I g c �O �' I INS Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 12 concrete. The local building department in some jurisdictions may provide these observations. When recommended, the presoaking of under slab areas should be checked within 48 hours prior to pouring concrete. Efforts will be made to accommodate all requests for field observations in a timel manner and can usually be accommodated with 24 -hour notice. However, at least two (2) full working day advanced notice may be required to schedule our personnel for any field observations, five (5) day advanced notice is needed for full time services. Failure to provide adequate notice may result in our personnel not being available and dela s to the job progress. Y Additional Grading Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations shou be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the I site. i LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek Insite, Inc. assumes no responsibility o liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others or failure to comply with our recommendations. i Our opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. Recommendations presented are based on the scope of work performed; they are Professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. �EEK, IHA - L Ul 7 _ X C/O L ' h C NIL LL] Nil cn s' i � N _ 1 c •0 I � r i APPENDIX A LOGS OF FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS i 2476 Oxford Avenue 2 035 -SD3 f I I i i GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2035 -SD3 BORING NO: 1 LOCATION: See plan LOGGED BY: LG CLIENT: Yazdani Residence SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLED BY: South Coast Drilling SAMPLE METHOD: CAUSPT DATE: 1/4/01 SAMPLES M D 0 E B - ` DRY s N P U Qc/) UNIT T T T L Z o WT U E s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS K F R N H m E T g (FT) (Pco %) 0 -8 ": Brown, moist, loose, silty fine grained sand --- -- -- - - -- 68 for 11' -- - -- -- -- 11Q 6.3 I SM @ 8 ": Orange- brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium grained sand with 5 1 coarse grains: micaceous Grades to yellow- brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine 46 for 11' 11 grained sand Rocky at 1 foot �� sM @1.5': Orange- brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine grained sand a - - H 43 Torrrey S_ a U - - ---- - -- 10 sw @ 3'3 ": Off- white, light gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand micaceous; iron oxide staining SE @ 5.5': Off - white, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand; micaceous; iron oxide staining 15 sw @ 8': Light yellow, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand; micaceous @ 9.5': Light gray, moist, very dense, fine grained sand Total Depth= 9.5 Feet No Groundwater Encountered 20 Backfilled 1/04/01 25 30 35 40 i GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2035 -SD3 BORING NO: 2 LOGGED BY: LG LOCATION: See plan SHEET 1 CLIENT: OF 1 DRILLED BY: South Coast Drilling Yazdani Residence SAMPLE METHOD: CAUSPT DATE: 114/01 SAMPLES M D 0C o E P B F- DRY s N U U u)�5 UNIT T T S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS T L Z o WT u E C H K Fr —' R N Co E T S (FT) (PC N Eill sM 0 -8 ": Brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine grained sand; with gravel sM @8 ": Brown, moist, silty, fine to medium grained sand; with coarse grains and abundance of gravel; piece of coke can 5 @12 "':Layer of gravel Total Depth= 15 Inches No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/04/01 10 i 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue January 14, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2035 -SD3 Page 2 Laboratory Testing Classificatio Soils were classified visually according to the United Soil Classification S classifications are shown on the exploration logs. ystem. The soil Moisture Density — (In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight) When taken, the field moisture content and dry unit weight is determined for e undisturbed soil samples (ASTM D- 2216). The information is useful ch of the Picture of the soil consistency in between excavations and any local variations. rovid ing a gross weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is dete dry unit as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these are presented on the bornn d logs.. tests res g Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative near - surface sa mple. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4829. The Expansion Index 6. This is a very low potential for expansion. (EI) was Siclfate Content Analysis to determine the water - soluble sulfate content was performed b y Clarkson Laboratory and supply Inc. in accordance with California Test No. 417. testing indicated 0.009% Sulfate which is considered to be low sulfate content r sulfate UBC. ent per the Direct Shear Testing Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain -co of deformation is approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The sample of type. The rate varying confining loads in order to determi anle of ne the coulomb sheaf streas sheared under ngth g internal f riction and cohesion. The test was performed on a rin parameters, materials collected during our subsurface exploration. in Appendix A. The shear test results are presented CO 4. EK IRS , DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRA SAMPLE IN SITU RING SAMPLE B -1 @ 5' Project 2035 -SD3 DATE 1/8/2001 C = 0.25 ksf 0 = 29 DEGREES q 3.75 i I I 3.5 I I 3.25 3 I 2.75. I 2.5., I I i 2._5 � W 1.75 1.5 1.25 I I i I I I LEGEND 0.75 I I 0.5 ♦ i SHEAR STRENGTH Unear !SHEAR STRENGTH) 1 0.25 i 0 I I r o 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 i 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 q CONFINING PRESSURE (ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 I 1.0 2 0 SHEAR STRENGTH 4 0 0.58 1.73 2.36 j Geotechnical 0 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A Vista, CA 92081 -8505 Environmental (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Materials EK, INC., I ' July 14, 2004 Project Nd. 2035SD3 Mr. Bob Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue -- Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Update Report and Plan Review Yazdani Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California References: (1) Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 2476 Oxford Avenue, Cardiff, California, by GeoTek Insite, Inc., dated January 25, 2001. (2) Residential Grading Plan, Sheets 1 & 2, Yazdani Residence, 2476 Oxford Avenue, Cardiff, California by Sea Bright Company, dated 6/28/04. (3) Foundation Plan, Sheet, 13, Yazdani Residence, Cardiff, California, by James A. Chinn Architect, undated. (4) Structural Notes and Details, Sheets SGN & FD1, Yazdani Residence, Cardiff, California, by ESI/FME, Inc. dated 6/03/04. Dear Mr. Yazdani: In accordance with your request and a letter of transmittal by James A. Chinn, Architect dated 7/2/04, we have performed a geotechnical plan review and concluded that the above - referenced grading/foundation/structural plans are in conformance with the intentions of the findings and recommendations contained in the soils report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. OQ ROPES3 /p Respectfully submi 1. NEERIIUp GeoTek, Inc. o �� P e Fo No. 2641 m tci �Q L Qf. p W Exp. 09/30/05 EG 224 —' CHN��'P�\ # q� pb Je r P. Blake * EXa. 'NIT S' on aiid Of CAL� G 2248, Exp. ��o� CE 375, Exp. 9/30/05 Geotechnical De pa ager Senior Engineer Distribution: (3) Addressee (1) Fax copy to Jim Chinn at (858) 755 5863 (1) Fax copy to Bob Sukup at (760) 720 0098 G:\DATA\D300 \0 FINISHED JOBS \0 Project # 2000 - 2350\2035 Yazdani 2467\plan review.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA the Sea Bright 'c o m P an August 3, 2004 HYDROLOGY DISCUSSI N - �� YAZDANI GRADING PL 2476 OXFORD AVENUE APN261 - 112 -16 The above project has an existing house on the property. The front yard of the house flows easterly towards Oxford Avenue. The west/lower portion of the lot flows westerly to the alley. The proposed new house will just about "sit" on top of the existing house. The existing house and garage will be removed. The new drainage will basically be the same as exists today with some minor upgrades. The front or eastern drainage of the lot will continue to flow to Oxford. More defined swales have been shown and gravel swales have been introduced to assist in pollution control. The portion of the new driveway in the public R/W has been designed as large irregular shaped stepping stones with gravel joints in between. This will assist in the cleansing and absorption of rainfall run off. The rear slope of the lot has to be pulled back to get it off the alley. At present it appears the existing backyard flows over the existing slope. I have introduced several area drains in the rear yard to properly drain the water to the street. Gravel swales are shown on each side of the yard catch basins to assist in pollution control. Pavement was added in the rear yard to accommodate 2 parking stalls. The parking lot and drain pipe both drain into a 2' x 14' long "gravel structure ". The proposed new house, driveway and parking lot will add a little bit of non pervious surface from what exists today. The total increase is only about 954 S.F. and is almost split equally between the upper eastern flows and the lower western flows. This has no real measurable affect on drainage quantities and no affect on direction of flow. yazdhyd2 ,w No. c a ! CIVIL P��P Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone /FAX 760 - 720 -0098 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Environmental Materials 1K q INSITE NC. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single - Family Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California PREPARED FOR Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani PREPARED BY GEOTEK INSITE, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE i VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 (D, E i Project: 203 -SD3 , L I J January 25, 2001 Ci' '_f ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Y Environmental K I NSITE Materials 9 NC. January 25, 2001 Project: 2035 -SD3 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single Family Residence 2476 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoTek Insite, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the 2476 Oxford Avenue in Cardiff, California. The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing geotechnical conditions that may affect the proposed site development. Proposed site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. This report presents the results of our study, discussion of our findings, conclusions, and provides geotechnical recommendations for site development. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you should have any I questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. rr Respectfully submitted, <.�- a` "w'° '��'��; �NGMEEgiyc /. \• i GeoTek Insite, Inc., 9 °�cN ��`� o�� E Mf �Fo i INAYNE ANDERSON Igo. C26820 Exp. 3 -31 -2001 *k CIVIL u N o. O EzA. B n Wayne Anderson, R.C.E. 26$20 Ti y fe, CEG 114 OF CAUF o roject Engineer Principa_ eologist Distribution: (4) Addressee Enclosures: Site Plan Appendix A Logs Of Field Exploration & Laboratory Test Results ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH TABLE OF CONTENTS INTENT........................................................................................................................................ ............................... 1 SCOPEOF NVORIi ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 1 PROPOSEDDEVELOPIIENT ................................................................................................. ............................... 1 SITEDESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 PROPERTYLOCATION .............................................:.................................................................. ............................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................... ............................... 2 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................... ............................... 2 SITEGEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 NEARSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... ............................... 2 Topsoil / Fill .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 TerraceDeposits ................................................................................................................. ............................... 3 TorreySandstone ................................................................................................................. ............................... 3 FAULTINGAND SEISMICITY ....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 SURFACEAND GROUND WATER ................................................................................................ ............................... 4 SurfaceWater ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 4 GroundWater ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 4 EXPANSIVESOILS ...............:...................................................................................................... ............................... 4 LAN DSLIDING............................................................................................................................ ............................... 4 LABORATORYTESTING ..................................................................................................... ............................... 4 DirectShear Testing ............................................................................................................ ............................... 4 ExpansionIndex .................................................................................................................. ............................... 4 SulfateContent .................................................................................................................... ............................... S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... ............................... 5 ExcavationCharacteristics ................................................................................................. ............................... 5 TemporaryExcavations ....................................................................................................... ............................... 5 REMOVALS............................ .................................................................................................... ............................... 5 Slabon Grade ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 STRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................................................... ............................... 6 SeismicDesign Factors ....................................................................................................... ............................... 6 FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. ............................... 6 FOUNDATIONRECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... ............................... 6 SLABON GRADE ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... ............................... 8 FoundationSet Backs ..................................................... ............................... 9 ............ ............................... Cantilevered Walls: 9 RESTRAINED RETAINING WALLS: 9 WallDrainage: ......................................................................... CONCRETECONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... ............................... 10 ConcretePlacement .......................................................................................................... ............................... 10 CementType ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 10 ConcreteFlatw ork ............................................................................................................. ............................... 10 ConcreteCracking ............................................................................................................ ............................... 1 I FOUNDATION OBSERVATION ........................................... ............................... 11 OTHERCRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 1 1 Plan Review and Construction Observations .................................................................... ............................... I ! AdditionalGrading ............................................................................................................ ............................... 12 LIMITATIONS ...... .................................................................................................................... ............................... 12 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 16, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 1 INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the described project. Implementation of the advice presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our investigation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the site plan. The scope is based on the proposed development plans and standards normally used on similar projects in similar areas. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general overall geotechnical conditions on the site as they relate to the proposed development. The following tasks were completed during our study: ♦ Visual site reconnaissance ♦ Review of published geologic maps; ♦ Geologic mapping; ♦ Subsurface exploration and sampling of near surface soils; ♦ Laboratory testing; ♦ Analysis of the data gathered; ♦ Compilation of a geotechnical report, summarizing our findings and recommendations regarding the proposed site development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development is planned for the constriction of a 2 -story single - family residence with basement areas and paved drive areas. The building is anticipated to be primarily retaining wall system foundations with typical building loads. The building will be situated on the central portion of the property. It is anticipated that excavations for the walls and associated backfill will be necessary. i i t EK, IH,, Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani JanuarN 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 203 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION Property location The subject property is currently located at 2476 Oxford Avenue in Cardiff, California. The site is bordered to the south and west by residences, northeast by Oxford Avenue and to the southwest by an alleyway. Interstate 5 is located to the east. An existing two -story single - family residence with a detached garage currently occupies the property. The structures will be razed prior to construction. f- The natural slope gradients range from gently sloping in the eastern portion to moderately sloping areas in the western portion of the site. Site elevations range from approximately 89.5 feet (MSL) near the southwestern portion of the site to 100.7 feet (MSL) in the northwestern portion of the site. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of two small diameter exploratory borings utilizing a limited access drill rig. The borings were drilled near the proposed construction in landscaped areas. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 9.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were logged and sampled by a geologist from our firm. A log is presented in Appendix A. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered were collected and transported to our laboratory for possible testing. Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples. Results are presented in Appendix A, herein. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Site Geology Pleistocene -aged sedimentary bedrock materials underlie the site of the proposed construction. The bedrock materials are generally dense. Near Surface Conditions A relatively thin veneer of materials considered to be fill and topsoil comprises the near surface materials. I T lEK, I��c Mr. and Mfrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 3 Topsoil /Fill Topsoil/fill materials are present in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Topsoil /fill materials generally consist of brown, silty fine - grained sand. We anticipate these soils to be on the order of one foot thick in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Actual thickness in some areas could vary. These granular soils are very low expansive and are not considered suitable for support of foundations or additional fill in their present condition. Refer to recommendation section herein. Terrace Deposits Pleistocene -aged Terrace Deposits underlie the site. As encountered, these sedimentary bedrock materials primarily consist of orange- brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, silty, fine to medium grained sand. These granular materials should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures. Torrey Sandstone Materials that appear to be Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone underlie the Terrace Deposits on the site. As encountered at three feet in Boring B -1, these sedimentary materials primarily consist of light yellow to off - white, dense, fine to medium grained sand. These granular materials should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed strictures. Faulting and Seismicity The site is in a seismically active region. There are no known active or potentially active faults within 1 /4 mile of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 3 miles west of the site, is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking. The maximum credible ground accelerations from a 6.9 magnitude event on the Rose Canyon would be approximately 0.54g while the maximum probable event of 5.7 magnitude would produce accelerations of approximately 0.32g. The acceleration would be no greater than for other nearby properties. The site is not situated within a Special Studies Zone (Earthquake Fault Zone). 4 Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances i should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes (Uniform Building Code) have been developed to minimize structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area. Risks associated with secondary seismic hazards of liquefaction, tsunami and seiche are considered negligible 1 - r' t - 1 r' �1EK, IN,- Mr. and INIrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Paae 4 Surface and Ground Water Surface Water Overall site drains to the west. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. Ground Water We do not anticipate any shallow ground water to be present. No natural ground water condition is known to be present which would impact site development. The actual ground water table is likely in excess of 25 feet below the ground surface of the pad. However, localized seepage due to irrigation or heavy rainfall may occur and fluctuations in the level of groundwater can occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Expansive Soils Based on our physical observations, experience with similar soils, and testing, the onsite soils possess a very low expansion potential. Landsliding No evidence or indications of mass landslide conditions were observed at the site, nor are these conditions anticipated. LABORATORY TESTING Direct Shear Testing Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain - control type. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to .determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The test was performed on a ring sample of materials collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear test results are presented in Appendix A. Expansion Index i Representative onsite soils were tested for Expansion potential in accordance with ASTM D4829. Test results indicated an Expansion Index (EI) was less than 10. Q O Q `' EK,1 00 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani JanuarN 14. '_'001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 203 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation page 5 Sulfate Content Sulfate testing was performed on a representative sample of near surface soils in accordance with California test Method 417. Sulfate testing provided results of 0.009 percent by weight. Based upon the test results, type II cement or an equivalent may be used. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. There are no known ,conditions on the site that are considered to be a significant constraint or cause unusual concerns to development as proposed, provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The recommended bearing material can be reached with standard foundations based upon the preliminary plans provided to us. Excavation Characteristics Our study was not a detailed evaluation of material excavation characteristics. Excavations in these materials are anticipated to be moderate utilizing heavy -duty equipment. Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations or backcuts for removals, walls, and utilities should be constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the onsite materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for short duration during construction. Removals r Slab on Grade The existing near surface materials contains fill and topsoils. As encountered, these materials are loose and approximately three feet thick. If not removed by planned excavations, these soils should be removed and recompacted in areas of proposed fill, improvements or structures. The. area underlying the proposed garage slab area will need removal and recompaction of these materials prior to foundation construction. i - r - E �� EK, INS Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 6 Structural Design Parameters Seismic Design Factors For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 4 km from the site may be used. Shown in the Table below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Division IV & V, Chapter 16. Soil Profile C Seismic Source Parameter T e a Cv Na NV Type Source 163 16Q 16R 16S 16T 16U Table Value S, 0.40N, 0.56N,, 1.1 1.3 B Foundation Design and Construction Recommendations for both slab on grade and retaining wall foundation systems are based upon the conditions encountered and considering the standard foundation design parameters used by a structural engineer in a wall design for wall construction to 10 feet high. Modified or revised parameters may be warranted if proposed constriction changes. i Foundation Recommendations f Slab on Grade Presented below are generalized foundation design parameters in keeping with the criteria presented in the 1997 Uniform Building Code Chapter 18. For this project we recommend that drawings be prepared for soil conditions with an Expansion Index of less than 20. The following parameters maybe used for design purposes. All foundations should be designed following the criteria in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). General guidelines for the design and constriction of foundations are presented below. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. The following recommendations are presented for conventional foundations for multi- story wood frame residential buildings constricted at or near grade. Structural loads are anticipated to be on the order of 2 kips per lineal foot for continuous footings, and up to 30 kips for column footings. i r- O -E K, INF i Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 7 SOIL COYDI�ION,�� Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter L One Story — 123` Beam depth (inches below lowest adjacent grade or Two story —18 Foundation Width (Inches) One Story — 12 Two story —15 k'! Maximum Beam Spacing (feet) NA ` NA (Cantilevered length as soil function) Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 r Minimum slab Reinforcing with No 3 reinforcing bars @ 18 inch centers Two No. 4 reinforcing Footing Reinforcement Bars, one top one 16 bottom Presaturation ofsubgrade so il Subgradetobewellwetted (Percent of Optimum/Depth in inches) before pouring concrete Foundation Design: 1. Bearing Capacity: An allowable bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live loads, may be utilized for continuous footings. Foundation systems should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches and bottomed on dense formational materials or compacted fill. Minimum depth is determined by the lowest adjacent finished grade. The allowable bearing may be increased by one -third when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 2. Lateral Resistance: Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. L co .I EK, INS Mr. and llrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 203 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction Recommendations below may be applied to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of ten (10) feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. Additional recommendations should also be requested for design of gravity wall systems, as the recommendations offered below are not applicable to such systems. Recommendations were developed assuming that wall backfill placed within a 1 to 1 projection behind any wall is comprised of onsite soils, which are properly compacted (90% relative compaction at optimum moisture or higher). Use of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The following criteria may be applied to retaining wall design. Foundation Design: 3. Bearing Capacity: An allowable bearing capacity of 2500 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live loads, may be utilized for continuous footings. Foundation systems should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and bottomed on dense formational materials or compacted fill. Minimum depth is determined by the lowest adjacent finished grade. The allowable bearing may be increased by one -third when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 4. Lateral Resistance: Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 9 Foundation Set Backs a) The outside bottom edge of all footings for settlement sensitive structures should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least seven (7) feet and need not exceed 15 feet. b) The bottom of all footings for structures near existing retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. c) Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements. Cantilevered Walls: Active earth pressures may be used for design of cantilevered walls. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of retained material. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT FLUID RETAINED MATERIALS PRESSURE (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) (PCF) LEVEL 30 2 TO 1 45 These equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions I such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions. i Restrained Retaining Walls: Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfull or walls that have male or reentrant corners, should be designed for at -rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner t. �' EK, IP Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani Januar%l 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 203 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 10 Wall Drainage: Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4) inch diameter perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to 1 inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. A minimum of two outlets should be provided for each drain section. On longer drain runs, efforts should be made to provide outlets at 50 feet maximum intervals. As an alternate to the collector pipe, weep holes at 10 to 15 feet O.C. could be provided. Walls from two (2) to four (4) feet high may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at ten- (10) feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Backdrainage can be eliminated behind retaining walls less than four (4) feet high. Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. Concrete Constritction Concrete Placement The concrete contractor should follow UBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide testing of the concrete during construction. This testing would be provided as requested. Cement Type Results of sulfate testing indicated sulfate content to be less than 0.01 percent. This is a low sulfate content per the UBC. Type II Cement can be utilized. Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They often receive the least level of quality control, being considered "non - structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. I %EK, IHC°'. Mr. and NIrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 11 Concrete Cracking Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticed to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long -term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete while seemingly a stable material also is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two direction spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. Foundation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to check for compliance with the recommendations while equipment and manpower are available to deepen the foundation if necessary and prior to the placement of reinforcement. Other Criteria Plan Review and Construction Observations Prior to site constriction, this office should review site grading and foundation plans for conformance to our recommendations presented herein. We should be notified in advance of any site construction, including site grading, additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench and retaining wall backfilling after rough grading has been completed. We should be contacted to verify that utility trenches are compacted with testing provided as considered necessary. Footing trenches should be observed by our representative prior to placing steel to check for proper width and depth. A second observation should be requested prior to pouring \10 EK, INR Nlr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 12 concrete. The local building department in some jurisdictions may provide these observations. When recommended, the presoaking of under slab areas should be checked within 48 hours prior to pouring concrete. Efforts will be made to accommodate all requests for field observations in a timely manner and can usually be accommodated with 24 -hour notice. However, at least two (2) full working day advanced notice may be required to schedule our personnel for any field observations, five (5) day advanced notice is needed for full time services. Failure to provide adequate notice may result in our personnel not being available and delays to the job progress. Additional Grading Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. i LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek Insite, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others, or failure to comply with our recommendations. i Our opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. Recommendations presented are based on the scope of work performed; they are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. i i EK, IHT •J 2� UL �A • �n� coo -�xo -_ I >, U L x CN �� _ •. •- N ... .. O eta � • L .� L CZ z �.) C N/ T1 z N \1 d L:] m Z _ —__ = a -- -7 - tj -------- - - s� d L i r- � � M FQ N 1 x � - - - - - -- — O `" c> c CZ >-'NUC7 I i APPENDIX A r LOGS OF FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS i 2476 Oxford Avenue 2035 -SD3 I i i EK, IHC GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2035 -SD3 BORING NO 1 LOGGED BY: LG LOCATION. See plan SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLED BY South Coast Drilling CLIENT: Yazdani Residence SAMPLE METHOD. CALIS DATE 1/4101 SAMPLES m D 0 E B r LL DRY ' o $ N P U'Q 0 UNIT T T MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS U E s T L z 0 R N ° H K it Co E T s (FT) (Pc� Topsoil/ Fill 2-.-P-13": Brown, moist, loose, silty fine grained sand --------------------------------------------------------- 88 for n' Terrace Deposits -- -- 11Q.9- 6.3 sM @ 8 ": Orange- brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium grained sand; with `% coarse grains; micaceous Grades to yellow- brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine 5 as for 11* �t grained sand 95.2 9.� Rocky at 1 foot SM @15: Orange- brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine grained sand -- --------------------------------------------------------- N 43 10 Iorrrey Sandstone sw @ 3'3 ": Off- white, light gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand; micaceous; iron oxide staining SE @ 55: Off - white, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand; micaceous; iron oxide staining 15 sw @ 8': Light yellow, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained sand; micaceous @ 95: Light gray, moist, very dense, fine grained sand Total Depth= 9.5 Feet No Groundwater Encountered 20 Backfilled 1104/01 25 30 35 I ! 40 GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2035 -SD3 BORING NO. 2 LOGGED BY: LG LOCATION: See plan SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLED BY South Coast Dri lling CLIENT, Yazdani Residence SAMPLE METHOD: CAL/SPT DATE 114/01 SAMPLES M D 0 E B LL DRY 5 N U P U ao in UNIT T T S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS T u E L Z 0 VV1. R N C H K it m E T $ I (PT) (Pco N Fill sM 0 -8 ": Brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine grained sand; with gravel sM @8 ": Brown, moist, silty, fine to medium grained sand; with coarse grains and abundance of gravel; piece of coke can 5 @12 :Layer of gravel Total Depth= 15 Inches No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/04/01 10 1s 20 25 30 35 a0 Mr. and Mrs. Yazdani January 14, 2001 2476 Oxford Avenue Project: 2035 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 2 Laboratory Testing Classification Soils were classified visually according to the United Soil Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the exploration logs. Moisture Density — (In Sitit Moisture and Unit Weight) When taken, the field moisture content and dry unit weight is determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples (ASTM D- 2216). The information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency between excavations and any local variations. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs.. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative near - surface sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4829. The Expansion Index (EI) was 6. This is a very low potential for expansion. Sulfate Content Analysis to determine the water - soluble sulfate content was performed by Clarkson Laboratory and supply Inc. in accordance with California Test No. 417. Results of sulfate testing indicated 0.009% Sulfate which is considered to be low sulfate content per the UBC. Direct Shear Testing Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain - control type. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The test was performed on a ring sample of materials collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear test results are presented in Appendix A. O � EK, IRS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE Project 2035 -SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 1/8,'2001 B -1 @ 5' C = 0.25 ksf 0 = 29 DEGRE a 3.75 i I 3.5 ( I 3.25 I � I 3 2.75 I j I I ' I I 2.5 2.25 v, 2 I I Lu i 1.75 I i 1.25 LEGEND 1 i i I i I I 0.75 • I ; j ♦ SHEAR STRENL7H 0.5 ' I U n ea r ( S TR E N G TH ) 0.25 I o � I 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 Q CONFINING PRESSURE (ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 I 1 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.58 1.73 2.36 I 1 PLATE SK-1 GeoTek, Inc. Field Observation Report CLIENT: SUPERINTENDENT: WO: PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: FOREMAN: DAY: M T W TH F S S CONTRACTOR: HOURS: / WORK IN PROGRESS ( ) GRADING ( ) UTILITY B /F: S W JT SD OTHER ( )STREET. SG B AC ( ) CURB & GUTTER: SG B ( ) SIDEWALK: SG B (;) WALL ( ) FOUNDATION OTHER EQUIPMENT: COMMENTS / DISCUSSION TEST RESULTS TEST LOCATION ELEV/ MOISTURE DRY SOIL MAX D TEST REL COMP NO. DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY TYPE TYPE 1 BY SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME C( 'IES TO: OFFICE CLIENT /REP AGENCY CONTRACTOR FIELD FILE (WHITE) (YELLOW) (PINK) (GOLDENROD) (GREEN) ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED. THIS IS SHEET _ OF _ .