The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-7952 G D2� O NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT cit y 0 Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering January 3, 2006 Attn: Bank of America 30162 Crown Valley Parkway Laguna Niguel, California 92697 RE: Khorvzash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford APN 260 - 403 -17 Grading Permit 7952 -GI Final release of security Permit 7952 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 10227 -01764 in the amount of $5,440.75. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc ly, Debra Geishart y L bach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Khorvash Sefidvash Debra Geishart File Enc. AD TEL 760- 633 -2600 l FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 recycled paper D2 oD� it��of ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT C: F"ci IZtas Capital hnprovement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 24, 2005 Attn: Bank of America 30162 Crown Valley Parkway Laguna Niguel, California 92697 RE: Khorvzash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford APN 260 - 403 -17 Grading Permit 7952 -GI Partial release of security Permit 7952 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 10227 -01836 in the amount of $ 16,322.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin rely, Q- Debra Geishart Aay Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Khorvash Sefidvash Debra Geishart File fEL'f,0- 63 > -2C00 AX GO G>> -'G'' Sum V'ulcui Avcnuc, fncinirati. alilomi >� - bu -63; -3011 recycled paper 1384 Poinsettia Ave. Suite A Vista CA 92081 -8505 ' Geotechn - aI (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Environmental K , INC. Materials January 14, 2004 MR. KHORVASH SEFIDVASH Project No.: 2034SD3 28866 Via de Luna Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Subject: Geotechnical Update 2128 Oxford Avenue s Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Single- Family Residence, 2128 Oxford Avenue, Encinitas, California" by GeoTek Insite, Inc. dated 02/16/01, (PN 2034SD3). Dear Mr. Sefidvash: In accordance with your request, we have performed a site reconnaissance on January 13, 2003 for the subject residential lot and found that the existing site conditions are generally the same as those described in the above - referenced soils report. Therefore, it is our opinion that the findings and recommendations presented in the said report remain valid and applicable to the proposed site development. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, p o S GeoTek, Inc, � \NEERIIy�C Ep. 09/;3() M 0 2248 s CIVIL a - Je re P. Blake ` I. aiid q " �� y �4`�` Simon , EG 2248, Exp. 10 RCE 62375, Exp. 09/30/05 Geotechnical Department Manager Senior Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Mr. Bob Sukup, Sea Bright Company, one via Fax at (760) 720 0098 ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA 4 a 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 b Environmental NS1TE Materials K, INC. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single - Family Residence 2128 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California J PREPARED FOR Mr. Korvash Sefidvash i PREPARED BY GEOTEK INSITE, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 Project: 2034 -SD3 February 16, 2001 ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 Environmental Materials I NSITE NC. February 16, 2001 Project: 2034 -SD3 Mr. Korvash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Single Family Residence 2128 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, California In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoTek Insite, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the 2128 Oxford Avenue in Cardiff, California. The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing geotechnical conditions that may affect 1 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. i The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have questions, please do not hesitate to c 11 ou office. ERIN0 oQ PpFES � V E. M Respectfully submitted, GeoTek Insite ' Inc., �' RoN D E ANDERSON Z N0. 1 .142 No. C26820 Up.3- 31-2001 Exp. L CIVIL OF CALIf� yron Wayne Anderson, R.C.E. 2 886()Fnq �im y G 1142 Project Engineer Principal eologist J Distribution: (4) Addressee Enclosures: Site Plan Appendix A Logs Of Field Exploration & Laboratory Test Results i ARIZONA CALIFORNIA 1K, IM. NEVADA UTAH TABLE OF CONTENTS INTENT ................................. ............................... i .......................... SCOPE OF WORK ....... ............................... PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .. ............................... SITE DESCRIPTION ............................ PROPERTY LOCATION ................... FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........... ............................... 2 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............. ............................... SITE GEOLOGY ........ ............................... NEAR SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................... ............................... Topsoil/ Fill Terrace Deposits ............... 2 Torrey Sandstone ........................... .............................................. .. ................................................. ............................... 3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ..... .............................. .......................................................... ....................... ... ..... 3 ..................... ............................ ... -, SURFACE AND GROUND WATER ..................... .............. ........................................................ ............................... .................................................. ............................... i Surface Water .............. ............................... Ground Water ..................... ...................... ............................... XPANSIVE SOILS .................................................................................................. ............................... 4 LANDSLIDING .............................................. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Excavation Characteristics .. ............................... S Temporary Excavations ........... ............................... _ Site Clearing ........... ............................... - REMOVALS . ............................... Slab on Grade... STRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................. ............................... ............ 6 Seismic Design Factors ....... ............................... FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .................... FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... Foundation design: Slab on Grade .......................... ............................... ........... 6 ......... G Foundation Design: Conventional Retaining Wall Design and Construction ............................. Foundation Set Backs .......... ............................... 7 Cantilevered Walls, ..................................................... ...... s Restrained Retaining Walls :.. ............................... 9 Wall Drainage: ....... ............................... ........... ..................................... ............................... CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION ......................... ............................... Concrete Placement ............. ....... ............................... 10 .................................................. ............................... /0 Cement Type ............................ ...................... ............................... Concrete Fl an.• or• k ....... ............................... /0 ................................................................. .................... /0 Concrete CrCracking . . . . ....... ........ ............................... ................... /0 FOUNDATION OBSERVATION ............ ............................... 1 OTHER CRITERIA . ............................... ................. 1 .................... ............................... ............................... 1 1 Platt Review and Construction Observations ... ............................... _........... i Additional Grading .............. ............................._. ... ............................... ................. LI MITATIONS ........................................... ............................... `J EK, IN. Mr. Korvash Setidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2034 -SD3 Page 1 INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the described pro ect. 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 oil 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; Limited 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 construction of a 2 -story duplex, with a basement. A paved concrete drive area is also planned. The anticipated residence building is anticipated to be primarily a retaining wall system foundation with typical building loads. The buildings will be situated on the central portion of the property. It is anticipated that excavations for the walls and associated backfill will be necessary. Mr. Korvash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February' 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SI)3 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION Property location The subject property is currently located as 2128 Oxford Avenue in Cardiff, California. The site is bordered to the north, and south by residences, east by Oxford Avenue and to the west by an alleyway. Interstate 5 is located further to the east. An existing two -story residential building with a detached carport currently occupies the property. The structures will be razed prior to construction The natural slope gradients range from steeply sloping in the northern portion to moderately sloping areas in the southern portion of the site. Site elevations range from approximately 104 feet (MSL) near the northeast portion of the site to approximately 80 feet (MSL) in the southwest corner of the site. FIELD EXPLORATION AND L ABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of two small diameter exploratory borings utilizing a limited access drill rig. The borings were drilled in accessible locations in landscaped areas. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately seven 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 Sttrface Conditions A relatively thin veneer of fill comprises the near surface materials. Topsoil /Fill Topsoil /fill materials are present in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Topsoil /till materials generally consist of brown, moist, silty fine- grained sand. We anticipate these soils to be on the order of 3 feet thick in the vicinity of the proposed construction. These y LC 7L. EK, INt°�. Mr. Korvash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February 1(>, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 Page 3 granular soils are very low expansive and should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structure. Terrace Deposits Pleistocene -aged Terrace Deposits underlie the site. As encountered, these sedimentary bedrock materials primarily consist of orange -brown and yellow - brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium sand. Torrey Sandstone Materials that appear to be Tertiary -aged Torrey Sandstone underlie the Terrace Deposits on the site. As encountered at 4.5 feet in Boring B -1, these sedimentary materials primarily consist of light yellow to off - white, dense, silty fine to medium grained sand. Fatclting and Seismicity The site is in a seismically active region. There are no known active or potentially active faults within ' / 4 mile of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 2.5 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 0.55g while the maximum probable event of 5.7 magnitude would produce accelerations of approximately 0.33g. 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 Stirface and Ground Water Surface Water Overall site drains to the west. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. 7 EK, IAg Mr. Korvash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February l6, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 Page 4 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 However, localized seepage due to irrigation -or heavy rainfall nfall occur and fluctuations in the level of groundwater can occur due to variations in rainfall, g 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. - r O EK, INt if Mr. Korvash Selldvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 I Page 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development of the site appears feasible from There are no known conditions on the site that are conside g d t to 1 bet a l viewpoint. constraint or cause unusual concerns to development as proposed sig'1'f cant following recommendations are incorporated into the design and const tiroded that the phases of development. The recommended bearing material can be reached with foundations based upon the preliminary plans provided to us. standard Excavation Characteristics Our study was not a detailed evaluation - of material excavation characte Excavations in these materials are anticipated to be moderate utilizin equipment. g heavy-du y -du duty y Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations or backcuts for removals, walls, and utilities should constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the onsrte materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for short duration during construc for excavations up to 10 feet. Excavations higher than 10 feet would need to be then evaluated for stability. further Site Clearing In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be clear - o f veg and debris, and properly disposed of offsite. Any holes resulting from de molition elation operations, site clearing, tree removal, or the exploratory holes excavated during l investigation, should be replaced with properly compacted low expansive fill Ia this materials. Removals Slab on Grade The existing near surface materials contains fill and topsoils. As of Pr oposed encoun materials are loose and approximately three feet thick. If not removednb ' these excavations, these soils should be removed and recompacted in areas y11ned improvements or strictures. Some areas will need p ose d fill' removal and reeas p materials prior to foundation construction paction of these � l r , � 'rEK Ik7 Mr. Korvash Selidvash February 16, 2001 2128 Oxford Avenue Project: 2036 -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 Seismic Source Parameter C Cv Na NV Type Type Source Table 163 16Q 16R 16S 16T 16U Value S, 0.40N 0.56N,, 1.1 1.3 B Foundation Design and Construction Recommendations for the retaining wall foundation and slab on grade systems are based upon the conditions encountered and considering the standard foundation design parameters used by a structural engineer in a conventional slab on grade system or wall design for wall construction to 10 feet high. Modified or revised parameters may be warranted if proposed constriction changes. 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 construction of foundations are presented below. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Foundation Recommendations Foundation design: Slab on Grade The following recommendations are presented for conventional foundations for multi- story wood frame residential buildings constructed 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. Bearing Capacity: An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live loads, may be utilized for continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 18 i - _, . '4 `co EK, IAT Mr. Korvash Sefidvash February 16, 2001 2128 Oxford Avenue Project: 2036 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 7 inches and bottomed on compacted fill. Minimurn depth is determined by the lowest adjacent finished grade. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pound per square foot may be utilized if foundations are bottomed on dense formational materials. The allowable bearing may be increased by one -third when considering shoe - t -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. r SOIL CONDITION Ex. '< 20 k Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam depth (inches below lowest 18 adjacent grade or Foundation Width (Inches) 15 Maximum Beam Spacing (feet) NA /C (Cantilevered length as soil function) NA i Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 Minimum slab Reinforcing with No 3 reinforcing bars @ 18 inch centers Two No. 4 reinforcing Footing Reinforcement Bars, one top one bottom Subgrade to be well Presaturation of subgrade soil wetted before pouring (Percent of Optimum /Depth in inches) concrete Foundation Design: Conventional 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. TIE K, 1KZ Mr. Korvash Sefidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue February 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 Page 8 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. 1. Bearing Capacity: An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 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. If founded in compacted fill, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot should be utilized. 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 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. 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 fi 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. , . -, EK, INi. Mr. Korvash Selidvash February 16, 2001 2128 Oxford Avenue Project: 2036 -SD3 Ceotechnical Evaluation Page 9 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) (PCI -) LEVEL 30 2 TO 1 - 45 These equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions. 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 pef, 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 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. — r '0 1 M, 1.- Mr. Korvash Setidvash l 2128 Oxford Avenue February 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 Page 10 Concrete Construction Concrete Placement The concrete contractor should follow UBC and AC1 guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide testing of the concret during construction. This testing would be provided as requested. e 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. 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 points 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 joi centers nts at 8 feet ). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. O + EK, Iru°�. Mr. Korvash Seficivash 2128 Oxford Avenue February 16, 2001 I Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SD3 1 Page 11 F 01111 dation ObServation All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to for compliance with the recommendations of this report and to assure that check conditions are consistent with the findings of this report. This observation should performed while equipment and manpower are available to deepen the foundation perform remedial work if necessary and prior to the placement of reinforcement or Other Criteria Plan Review and Construction Observations Prior to site construction, 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 regrading of the site, or trench and retaining wall backfi ling rou h grading has been completed. We should be contacted to verify that utility trenches are com ac ed with testing provided as considered necessary. p Footing trenches should be observed by our representative prior to p lacing steel for proper width and depth. A second observation should be requested prior to Pourin concrete. The local building department in some jurisdictions may provide these observations. When recommended, the presoaking of under slab areas should be chec hours prior to pouring concrete. ked within 48 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 frill working day advanced notice may be required to schedule our personnel fo ) field observations, five (5) day advanced notice is needed for full time sei-vices. F r, any to provide adequate notice may result in our personnel not ersol be' ` s i to the job progress. g available and delays Additional Grading Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compact' of 90 percent if not removed from the i L 1 EK, 1 HqtA Mr. Korvash Selldvash February 16, 2001 2128 Oxford Avenue Project: 2036 -SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation Page 12 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. 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. ,Q10 c E , INS CL 00 x cn O o � �:. o a_t a a� _4 v ` z G 4 p Q ai tA 4 8 i Y L� o ' - 7 s 1 o_ _ n _ �g M °O .. o 'v N � � � N U r APPENDIX A LOGS OF FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 2128 Oxford Avenue 2034 -SD3 '4 I 1��R GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2034 -SD3 BORING NO: 1 LOCATION: See plan LOGGED BY: LG SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLED BY: South Coast Drilling CLIENT: Sefidvash Residence SAMPLE METHOD: CAUSPT DATE: 1/4/01 SAMPLES M c D 0 0 E B DRY I N U a _ P U Q UNIT T E S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS T L Z WT. u N C H K Er m R E T S (FT) C Topsoil u 0 -8 ": Brown, moist, loose, clayey, fine to medium grained sand to sandy clay 17 a @ 2': Brown, moist, stiff, sandy Gay; tighter with depth 110.1 16.3 5 -- -- - -- A No --------- 107 .2 -- - ____ v Sandstone ---- -- - - -- 40 ':Yellow- brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium grained sand; s to: Yellow- brown, gray - green,, off- white, moist, silty, fine to medium grained with coarse sand grains; micaceous; calcium carbonate; root hairs 10 ': Off -white to gray - green, moist, silty, fine to medium grained sand; iron oxide g; micaceous; calcium carbonate Depth= 7 Feet oundwater Encountered 15 Backfilled 1/04/01 20 25 30 35 40 GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2034 -SD3 BORING NO: 2 LOGGED BY: LG LOCATION: See plan SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLED BY: South Coast Drilling CLIENT: Sefidvash Residence SAMPLE METHOD: CAUSPT DATE 1/4/ SAMPLES M D 0c E B r- DRY s N U P U N g LL UNIT T T S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS T L z 0 WT. a N C H K it Co E T S (FT) (PCD Topsoil sc 0 -2'3": Brown, moist, sandy clay; with seashells; root hairs ----------------------------------------------------- 102.0 3.7 Terrace De o its - -- - - ' 53 SC-CL @2'3 ": Yellow- brown, moist, sandy clay to clayey sand; with calcium carbonate; root 5 �� hairs Li oxide sta in ringsamples?l_____________________ Torrey Sandstone @3.5': Yellow- brown, moist, dense, fine grained sand; (fractures in ring samples) Total Depth= 4 Feet 10 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/04/01 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mr. Korvash Setidvash 2128 Oxford Avenue .February 16, 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Project: 2036 -SU3 Page 2 Laboratory Testing Classi fi cation Soils were classified visually according to the United Soil Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the exploration logs. Moisture Density — (In Situ 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) ranged from 0 to 8. 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 0.001% 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, 1� ,. DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE Project 2034 -SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 1/812001 B -2 @ 4' C = 0.1 ksf 36 D EGREES 4 -- - - -- — - -- — -- - - -- i I 3.75 i I I i I 35 i 3.25 I I I A 3 I j I I I I I I 2.75 I � I I � I I I 1; i I I i 25 I I , 2.2s i I I I I I uJ y I I 1.75 I I I i I I I 1 1.5 I I I i i 1.25 I I I 1 LEGEND A 0.75 i I I I 1 ♦ SHEAR STRENGTH I 0.5 ! �� L If1 B2r ISH S � I 0.25 - - -- 0 -- - - - - -- -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ___ _ ___ 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 4 CONFINING PRESSURE (ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 ------ - - - - -� SHEAR STRENGTH 0.97 1.19 3.08 PLATE SH -1 1384 Poinset._,t Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92081-850,- Geotechnical (760) 599 -0509 FAX (760) 599 -0593 -- - -- Environmental Materials K , I NC. ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS January 14, 2004 Project No.: 2034SD3 MR. KHORVASH SEFIDVASH 28866 Via de Luna Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Subject: Geotechnical Update 2128 Oxford Avenue s Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 2128 Oxford Avenue, Encinitas, California" by GeoTek Insite, Inc. dated 02/16/01, (PN 2034SD3). Dear Mr. Sefidvash: In accordance with your request, we have performed a site reconnaissance on January 13, 2003 for the subject residential lot and found that the existing site conditions are generally the same as those described in the above - referenced soils report. Therefore, it is our opinion that the findings and recommendations presented in the said report remain valid and applicable to the proposed site development. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. � O N 1 Respectfully submitted o � G�p1EERl�yO w No.62375 m GeoTek, Inc. �� ,q kQEY P. 8 , -0 Exp. 09 /30/05 X No, EG 2248 -W4 sT q CIVIL �P 8x P.10 /31 /0 7k r n rFOFCAUF0 J frey P. Blake, OF CnttF�Q Si on 1. aiid, CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31 RCE 62375, Exp. 09/30/05 Geotechnical Department Manager Senior Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Mr. Bob Sukup, Sea Bright Company, one via Fax at (760) 720 0098 ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA