The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 03-36; NASSAR RESIDENCE; PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION; 2004-07-26I I I I I. I I I I I :1 ,I' I I I ,1 I I I 'I ii I 'I REPORT PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California for Mr. Sarni Nassar 518 Barsoddi Madera, California 93637 Project No. HA-5183-1 July 26, 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HU ASSOCIATES, INCo GEOTECHNICAL / ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 11955 RIVERA ROAD • SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670-2209 • TELEPHONE (562) 696-6062 (562) 693-6114 FAX (562) 698-5771 July 26, 2004 HA-5183-1 Mr. Sarni Nassar 518 Barsoddi Madera, Califomiaa 93637 · SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Nassar: PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California In accordance with our proposal of July 7, 2004, we have conducted a preliminary soil investigation for the proposed single-family residence to be located at 3217 Garfield Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. Based on the findings and observations of this investigation, it is concluded that the proposed development of the subject property for the ·intended use is feasible from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided the specific recommendations set forth herein are followed. The proposed structure may_ be supported by conventional spread footings rested on undisturbed natural soils. The accompanying report represents relevant conclusions and recommendations for the preliminary planning and foundation designs. We thank you for entrusting us to undertake this investigation and look forward to future association. If any questions arise concerning the interpretation of the report, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, HU ASSOCIATES, INC. ich . Hu, Ph.D. President REH/ps . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REPORT PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3217 GARFIELD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. SAMI NASSAR INTRODUCTION The following report presents the results of a preliminary'soil investigation conducted on the property located at 3217 Garfield Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. The location of the site relative to surrounding streets and landmarks is shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain the geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils at the subject site on which to base conclusions and recommendations for foundations support and other geotechnical matters pertinent to the proposed construction. Implementation of the recommendations made in this report is intended to reduce certain risks associated wi.th construction projects. The scope of this investigation does not include the work related in any way to identify asbestos and/or hazardous waste material. This report has been prepared for use in design of the described project. It may not contain · sufficient information for other purposes. Our professional services have been performed in · accordance with generally accepted engineering procedures under.similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied,. is made as to the professional advice included in this report. HU AS SOCIA TES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !I I I I I -2- July 26, 2004 . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is understood that the subject property will be utilized for the development of a single-family residence at the location shown on the Plot Plah, Plate 2. The proposed structure will be two- story in height, constructed of wood frame and stucco with slab on grade. The finish grade of the project is expected to be at or near the existing ground surface. Thus, only minor grading other than removal and recompaction of the existing fill and unsuitable surface soils will be required to develop the building pads and to provide proper site drainage. No detailed gradin9 plan. and design loads are available at the time of this investigation. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING . : Field explorations were performed to establish the geotechnical conditions of the site. Two test borings were excavated at the locations shown on Plate 2. The explorations were logged by our field engineer and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained for laboratory testing and . inspection. A detailed description of the exploration procedures and the logs of test borings are presented in the Appendix. · Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate static soil properties. A description of the test · procedures ano the test results are also presented in the Appendix. SITE CONDITIONS The .subject property is located on the west side of Garfield Street, between Pine Avenue and Walnut Avenue in the City of Carlsbad,. County of San Diego, California. The site is bordered by one-story houses on the north and south, and by a ~hree-story hotel on the west. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I :I I I I I I I I I -3- · July 26, 2004 The site consists of a relatively level, rectangular-shaped residential lot approximately 40 feet wide by 88 feet deep in plan dimensions. The lot slopes slightly from west to east with difference in elevation ·over the property of approximately 4 feet. At the time of this investigation, the site was occupied by a one .. story single-family house on the front portion of the tot. Surface vegetation at the site consisted of common landscaping fe~tures with sparse growth of grass and trees. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions In general, the natural soils disclosed in the test borings consist of dense, very fine to fine, silty sand to a depth of 6 feet underlain by dense fine t0 medium silty sand to the depth explored of 1 o to 15 feet. .. Minor fill was also encountered in both test borings. It consists of medium dense, fine to · medium, silty sand with few roots to a depth of six inches below the existing ground surface. Groundwater No groundwater or seepage was observed.in any of the test borings, penetrated to a maximum . depth of 15 feet. Groundwater is not anticipated within depths pertinent to future development. It must be noted that fluctuations ·in· the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors riot evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. ,, HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I July 26, 2004 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS Seismicity The subject property lies withiri the seismically active southern California region. As with all sites in southern California, the property will probably experience gr:ound shaking from both near r,:1nd distant earthquake sources during the life of the proposed structure. The type and magnitude of seismic hazard affecting the site are dependent on the distance of causative faults and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. Surface Rupture -4- The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known faults, active or potentially active, c1re known to exist within the site. The probability of surface rupture at the site is, therefore, considered very low. Ground Shaking Base on "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada" .by California Department of Conservation, the closest fault zone to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located at approximately 7.2 km to the west of the site. It is our opinion that the intensity of future ground shaking at the site is not expected to be greater than any other sites in the immediate vicinity. The proposed structure shall be designed in accordance with the minimum Earthquake Regulations of the Uniform Building Code and shown on the other section of this report. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1: I I I I ' .. ,..' !--5- July 26, 2004 Seismically induced Settlement Dynamic compaction of dry and loose sands may occur during a major earthquake. Typically · : settlements occur in thick beds of such soils. bue to the dense and silty nature of the site soils, exces$ive dynamic settlements are not expected subsequent to the remedial grading as recommended. Soil Liquefaction Evaluation Earthquake-ind1.:1ced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose to medium dense saturated cohesionless soils undergo extreme losses in shear strength due to earthquake shaking. The liquefaction potential is directly related to the groundwater conditions at the site as well as to the characteristics of the underlying soil deposits. Loose to medium dense sands below · groundwater level are generally considered to be susceptible to liquefaction under strong ground shaking conditions. The site is not located in the area as delineated by the State Geologist to have potential of soil liquefaction during strong earthquakes. As no shallow groundwater was encountered in the test borings to a maximum depth of 15 feet, it is our 9pinion that potential of soil liquefaction at the site is considered very low owing to the absence of near surface groundwater. Earthquake-Induced Flooding This is floe.ding caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures up gradient of the site as a. re~ult of an earthquake. Review of the area adjacent to the s.ite-indicates that there are no significant up-gradient lakes or reservoirs with the potential. of flooding the site. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I 1· I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I -6- July 26, 2004 Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement below the ocean. The site is located at approximately 0.125 mile from Pacific Ocean but is situated at a relatively higher elevation above mean sea level. Hence, potential effects from tsunamis waves to the subject property is relatively low. Sei<:hes are large waves generated ih enclosed 'bodies of water in response to ground shaking. · No m~jor water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. The risk of flooding from a seismically induced $eiche is considerec:I to be remote. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING HAZARDS Expansive Soil The onsite soil consists primarily of silty sand and this material is considered non-expansive. No special considerations required for design of footings, slabs, or any other structures in · contact with these materials· other than those given in the following sections of this report. Hydroconsolidation Based on the results of consolidation tests as shown on Plates·A-4 and A-5, the potential hydroconsolidation of the underlying natural soil is negligible. Thus, it should have no significant impact to the foundation of the proposed structure. Landslides The .topography of the subject property and surrounding areas are relatively flat. No landslides are expected. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -7- July 26, 2004 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on an evaluation of the site conditions and findings of this investigation, it is concluded that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into design criteria and project specifications· and are implemented during construction. · Conventional spread footings rested on undisturbed natural soil will provide adeqoate support for the .proposed structure. Site Preparation General Precautions should be taken during the performance of all work under the following sections, · especially if construction is performed during the rainy season of approximately October 15 to · . April 15. Protection should be provided to the work site, particularly excavated areas, from flooding, ponding, and inundation due to poor or improper temporary surface drainage. During periods of impending i.nclement weather; temporary provisions should be made to adequately direct surface drainage, from all sources, away from and off the work site and to provide adequate pumps and sumps to handle any flow into the excavations. Site Clearing Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be . graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. ------------------------------~----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -8- July 26, 2004 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed of off-site. During site grading, laborers should clear any roots, tree branches, and other deleterioas materials· missed during clearing and grubbing operations from all areas to receive fill. The depths of excavation should be reviewed by the Soils Engineer during actual cons_truction. · Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material, encountered during grading . · should be brought immediately to the attention of the S0ils Engineer for proper exposure, removal or processing as directed. No underground obstructions or facilities should remain in · any structural areas. Trees and Surface Vegetation Removal of designated trees and shrubs in areas of proposed construction should include rootballs. Resultant cavities should be cleansed of loose soils and roots and rolled to a firm unyielc;iing surface prior to backfilling. Grass and weed growth in areas of future construction should be stripped and disposed of off site. Stripping should penetrate three to six incnes into surface soils. Any soils sufficiently contaminated with organic matter (such as root systems or stripping mixed into the soils) so as to .. prevent proper compaction shall be disposed of off site or set aside for future use in landscape areas, Subgrade Preparation · It is recommended that all of the existing onsite fiU. and loose or disturbed surface natural soils within the proposed construction areas be removed to,underlying competent natural soil and replaced with properly compacted fill for slab and pavement support. HU ASSOClATES, INC. I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I July 26, 2004 -9- The exposed bottom surface in each removal area should first be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, processed, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then compacted in-place to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density .. · Based on the results of this investigation, the depth of fill encountered in the test borings is approximately 6 inches. Locally, some areas exposing soft or loose soils may require somewhat deeper removal than indicated above. Actual depth of over-excavation will have to be determined in the field at the time of grading. Fill Placement All new fill shall be brought to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches thick, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory · density. C~mpaction characteristics of all fill soils shall be determined by ASTM D-1557-00 standard. The field density and degree of compaction shall be determined by ASTM D-1556, or by other ASTM standard methods that are acceptable to the governing public agency. Seismic Design Parameters Based on the results of this preliminary soil investigation and in accordance with Chapter 16, Division IV of the 1-997 Uniform Buildin~ Code, the following seismic data are applicable to the subject site. Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile Type Seismic Source Type Near-Source Factor, Na Near-Source Factor, Nv Seismic Coefficient, Ca $eismic Coefficient, Cv HU ASSOCIATES, INC. 0.4 So B 1.00 1.11 0.44 0.71 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -10- · July 2!{ 2004 Foundation Recommendations Allowabie Bearing Value · Allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot is recommended for spread footings of at least 15 inches in width placed at a depth of at least 1.5 feet below the lowest adjacent final grade, rested on undisturbed natural soils. The bearing value is for dead plus live load and may be increased by one-third for momentary wind or seismic loads. Footing Settlement Maximum.ultimate settlement of footings up to 3 feet wide continuous and 4 feet square under the recommended bearing pressure is not expected to exceed 3/4 an inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is not expected to exceed 1 /4 of an inch within a span of · 40 feet. Settlement will be approximately in direct proportion to the width .of the footings and . actual applied load. Footing Reinforcement Continuous footings should be reinforced with at least two No. ·4 bars, one near the top and one near the bottom of the footings. Reinforcement of isolated footings shall be utilized as deemed ne¢essary by the Structural Engineer for the project. Isolated pad footings shall be tied with grade beams in both directions. This reinforcement is ·bc;3sed on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,11- .July 26, 2004 Footing Inspections All foundation excavations should be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed and moisture softened materrals should be removed prior to · the placement of concrete. Footings should be located below a lin~ measured upward at a 45-degree angle from the bottom of the adjacent footings or utility trench, unless .review and approved by the Soils Engineer. Materials from footings excavations should not be spread in slab-on-grade areas unless they are compact~d and tested. Lateral Design An allowable lateral bearing value against the sides of footings of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot, may be used provided there is positive contact between the vertical bearing surface and undisturbed natural soil. Friction between the base of the footings and/or floor slabs and the underlying material may be assumed to be 0.4 times the dead load. When combining passive pressure and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. Slabs On Grade Floor Slabs Slabs on grade should be cast over properly prepared subgrade soils. Any loosened or over- excavated soils should be wasted from the site or properly compacted in-place. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I '1· I' I -12-- July 26, 2004 The subgrade soil beneath the slab areas should be rechecked for disturbance resulting from footing and utility trench excavation prior to concrete pour. All fill soils. should be moisture- conditioned to obtain near optimum water content c1nd then compacted to at least 90 percent of the mc!ximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1:557-00 compaction test method. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs due to shrinkage during curing or .redistribution of stresses and thus, some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily indicative of excessive vertical movements. Slab Reinforcement Floor slabs constructed on-grade should be a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers., both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth. The above criteria are recommended to minimize potential distress to floor slabs related to the effects of subgrade soil conditions. The Structural Engineer for the project may need to address other factors that m·ay require modification of the above recommendations. · Moisture Barrier A moisture barrier beneath slabs-on-grade, consisting of a waterproof vapor barrier, such as a plastic membrane of at l~ast 10 mils in ~hickness, is recommended in areas where slab moisture would be detrimental. The membrane should be overlain by a minimum of 2 inches of clean sar-ids to provide a working surface and aid in concrete curing. . It is important that the soil subgrade, which will support. the concrete slab, is maintained at the ".as-graded" or has a soil water content at near the optimum water content. Prior to slab construction, the water content of the soil subgrade should be measured to verify that the subgrade has not (:lried out significantly. It is suggested that slab areas be thoroughly moistened prior to placing of moisture barrier and pouring of concrete. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -13- July 26, 2004 Excavation · Excavation should .be in accordance with all applicable requirements of the State of California Construction and General Industry Safety Order, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Construction Safety Act, and all other public agencies have jurisdiction. Construction specifications should clearly establish the .responsibilities of the contractor for construction safety ·in accordance with CAUOSHA requirements. No excavation shall be made during unfavorable weather. It is recommended that the excavated banks be entirely covered with plastic sheets when threatened by rains. When the excavation is . interrupted by rain, operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that conditions will permit satisfactory results. Post Grading Considerations Site Drainage The provision and maintenance of adequate sit~ drainage and moisture protection of supporting . soil is an important design consideration. Foundation recommendations presented herein : assume proper site drainage will be established and maintained. To enhance future site performance, positive drainage devices·such as sloping sidewalks, graded swales, and/or area drains should be provided around the building to collect and direct all water away from the structure. Neither rain nor excess itrigation water should be allowed to collect or pond on the property. Where slabs or pavement are not feasible adjacent to the buildings, the ground surface should be proviqed with a minimum gradient of about one percent away from the structures. All. drainage should ultimately b~ directed to street or other designated area. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r , . -, -14- July 26, 2004 Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devices or unobstructed swales. Unpaved drainage swales should hav~ c1 gradient of at least one percent. Swales or drainage paths through lawn areas should be provided with a gradient of at least one percent. Where necessary·, drainage paths could be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Planters adjacent to buildings should be avoided insofar as possible. Planting areas at grade · should be provided with good positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be .above adjacent paved grades. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as· catch basins and pipe drains are made. Adequate drainage gradient, devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planting areas. Consideration should be given to irrigation methods that will promote uniformity of rnoi~ture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete "flat-work". Over-watering and under-watering of landscape areas must be avoided. All roof and wall surface drainage should be collected and conducted by a non-erosive device to the streets or to a designc:1ted area. Trench Backfill It is our opinion that utility trench and/or strnctural backfill consisting of the on-site material types could be best placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer, or his representative, to verify proper compaction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use .compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, we would r~commend the utilization of lightweight mechanical equipment and/or bedding of conduit with clean granular material prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate as approved by the project geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. ·1 I ·I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -15- July 26, 2004 . Where utility trenches are proposed parallel. to building footings (interior and/or exterior trenches), the bottorn of the trench should not extend below a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical plane project downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition occurs, the adjacent footing should be deepened. Plan Review In order to prevent misinterpretation of this report by other consultants it is recommended that . the Soils Engineer be provided the opportunity to review the final grading and foundation plans. The Soils Engineer will also determine whether any change in concept may have had any effect on the validity of the Soils Engineer's recommendations, and whether those recommendations · have, in fact, been implemented in the design and specifications. If the Soils Engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation or misapplication of his recommendations or for heir validity in the event changes have been made in the original design concept without this prior review. Geotechnical Inspection All rough grading of the property must be. performed under engineering supervision of the · geotechnical consultants. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to, site preparation, cleaning, over-excavation, and fill placement. The geotechnical consultant should inspect all foundation excavations. Inspections should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and reinforcing steel to verify or modify, if necessary, conclusions· and recommendations in this report. Inspections of the finish grading, utility or other trench backfill; retaining wall backfill, or other earthwork completed for the subject project should also be performed by the geotechnical · consultant. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I· I I I I :\I I I I I I I -16- July 26, 2004 If any of these inspections to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by the geotechnicaLconsultant, liability for the safety and stability of the project is limited only to the ·actual portions of the project approved by the geotechnical consultant. It should be understood that the contractor shall supervise and direct the work and he shall be 'responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures. The c0ntr:actor will be solely -~nd completely responsible for conditions at the job site, including safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work. Periodic or continuous inspection by Hu Associates, ·Inc. is not intended to include verification of dimensions or review of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures in, ·on or near the construction site. GRADING SPECIFICATIONS The following guidelines may be used in preparation of the grading plan and job specifications. 1) All site grading operations should conform to the local building and safety codes and to the rules and regulations of those governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the subject construction. 2) The grading contractor is responsible to notify governmental agencies, as required, and the Soils Engineer priorto initiating grading or:,erations and any time grading is resumed aft~r an interruption. 3) A diligent search for septic tanks, cesspools or underground lines should be performed during grading operations. Any abandoned water or oil wells encountered should be properly capped and treated in accordance with best accepted practices. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 1 I -17- July 26, 2004 4) It is recommended that all of the existing onsite fill and loose or disturbed surface natural soils within the proposed construction are~s be removed to underlying competent natural soil and replaced with properly compacted fill for slab and pavement support. The exposed bottom surface in each removal area should first be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, processed, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and theh compacteq in-place to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density. 5) The on-sHe soils are suitable for use in compacted fills provided all trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials ate removed prior to placement. 6) Where import materials are required for use on site, the Soils Engineer should be notified at least 48 hours in advance of importing in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use on site without prior sampling and testing by the Soils Engineer. 7) No rock over 3 incf:Jes in greatest dimension shall. be used in fill unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. ·: 8) All new fill shall consist of approved clean on-site· or similar earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious material and shall be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods. 9) No fill materials shou·ld be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy _rains, fill operations should not be resumed until the field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. 10) No jetting or water tamping of fill soils shall be permitted . HU ASSOCIATES, me. ------------------------------------------------::-=--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I -18- July 26, 2004 11) Unless otherwise specified, all other fills and backfills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum laboratory density. 12) The compaction characteristics of all fill soils shall be determined by ASTM D-1557-00 standard. The field density and degree of compaction shall be determined by ASTM D- 1556, or by other ASTM standard methods that are acceptable to the governing public agency. 13) Observation and testing of all compaction shall be under the direction of the Soils Engineer. The Soils Engineer shall advise the owner and grading contractor immediately if any unsatisfactory soils related conditions exist and shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground until such time as corrective measures necessary are taken to comply with the specifications. 14) The Soils Engineer should be notified at least 2 days in advance of the start of grading. A joint meeting between a representative of the.client, the contractor, and the Soils Engineer is recommended prior to grading to discuss specific procedures and scheduling. INVESTIGATION LIMITA"FIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report·are based on the data obtained from the _test borings at the dates and locations indicated in the logs and the site plan. It is assumed that the soil conditions at the other areas do not deviate significantly from those disclosed in the test borings. If any variations, ot undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, this office should be notified so as to cor:1sider the need for modifications. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -19- July 26, 2004 No responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations is assumed unless an on-site. review by a representative of this office is performed during the course of construction that pertains to the. specific areas covered by the recommendations contained herein. This report has been compiled for the exclusive use of Mr. Sarni Nassar, or his authorized agent. It sh.all not be transferred to any other party or to any other project without the consent and/or thorough review of this office. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date.-However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of. man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or · appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge .. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by · changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year without such a review. This report is issued .with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or the proper representative thereof, to insure that the information and recommendations contained · herein are called to the attention of all parties interested in the project and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Final approval of plans and reports by all consultants, and issuance of any building and grading permits, rests with the controlling agencies. As the circumstances that control the decision process are clearly beyond the control of this facility, we cannot assume any responsibility for the success of obtaining proper authorizations, nor for.the costs involved. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I -20- July 26, 2004 All ·exploratory-borings used for subsurface exploration were backfilled with reasonable effort to restore the areas to their original condition. As with any backfill, some consolidation and su.bsidence of the backfill soils may result in time, causing some depression of the boring area and possibly a potentially hazardous condition. The client and/or owner of the property are advised to periodically examine the boring areas, and if necessary, backfill any resulting depressions. Hu Associates, Inc. shall not be liable for any resulting injury or damage. . The report is subject to review by controlling public agencies having jurisdiction. ichar . Hu, Ph.D. CE 29285, RGE 2240 Expiration Date 3-31.-07 HU ASSOCIATES, lNC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I ·-----' -----~---···-----~ ______ ..J_ .,._ . .SCALE: 0.7"=1 mite VICINITY MAP E,!57 Evans Pomr ,. Proposed Single-Family Residence 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. ·Geotechnical Engineering Consultants PROJECT No. HA-5183-1 PLATE 1 I I I I . I I I I I ,I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c--1 , ---~ tv 88.00' J_ -------- I 4.50 + : t' .... , . ' ' :, :, . ' --;-1 ~-5 .00 + :,-. ;,t 1:25'-0'' ---------------20'-0" ~ -~~=-=---r~-~'=:,~,,~,~~~'=,-~-'~-=--~,~--~-:,~,=--=-~-,=-~,=·-~·=---~-~--~-,~~~-~- PARKING SP. ' a ' ~-1 m ( ?< ,;I G) -0 -0 m ftl I ')> iU() (\ -u I A} =<~ 71 U\ l;J I -..;> rn 9-o ' r ~ I I \) g (\ :c ' I I U) I --1 I . I I I mm ~; .rn..; ()Z 71 (J) -0 (\ )>C <:;u rn OJ ::r ~ rn ~~ -, -;· rn ~ :~ rr-e;-s-~-o·-®---;;;- 11 ~ ~RP~:::::., ,,., ,,,w:,dP z / ~--~-:--·~·-··,:,. .. ' '.,-.:_,·,·,·,,, J ,n."' G ~/ t'~~------~,;<.~~:,,· :.-.:;-~--~\>,:·S·· ~()-0 .' , .. ,-.<~ -.~ '-... ,, . ,....._,,-, M ± ,.... '"""2::==:::;;::=:::;~':;::':::::"':;::'·.=····'::::'·.~·-.,,:_,,,_-,,~_.,,,·,:, v() I . " , ~ . . .. . ~ '·, ·,:-... :,', .. -.. ~--~ J rn + Bonnn () ~"'-~"·-\..'-...'-~'0--'-;~,---:-~->,-..::,;-J ZU\ ~ ~ r i--.., --~ ,:---::::,::: ,_::,~ ,:...._,, ·,,' ' •• -.... ,, C\ m 1 5E No. 2 · l~~~:~~~,~~-~:~~}~~~~~~~~~-j . rnl;J -----~--:--:--.,,,,,.,,,·,·,'-.··,'-.'~''-.','j ",·-.. ,_,, ... ,· .. '-0 '0">-'<':-0'0..'> ,,, ,'-.'·'-,,'<,.0. ·-.:·...--.. ',''0 '·'·· ,::--:_ ...... , ··0>-::-....'-::.'·'' ----: . ~~;-~~' -~ ,.; i ~~' ~---' 1 Ji'i!ATER : -~~-~--_,_,_===---I / L+hO.. L. \ ----------------=----=-=---=-' I I . l I + .so -ft} ,s•-o•i,s11011it 16'-o" · ~ a . ~() rn -71 X OQ ~ 71m z ft}(\ (J) ()A () )>. U\ 71· -~ U rn rn > ~ r A / rJ a ~l ,- i-1 () t'.:t' ;_ \-'. (J) : I ::t: ;i (\ ( C :/i ::r No.II I ~l ~ I tl F --,0'--b'-V '.[oilll i 11' · ~ d' D. .,,tY ·; 5.00 ~ . :::-:=--..;.\'1-=,;r=---~-.. 2.50 + z ~ rn I I ; ~z I -....:..m m~ ?<:;u ~.rn ()-; ()> Qz z 71(!) ~~ (\)> mr ()r: < m 7J REFERENCE: "Site. Plan" Armentrout, dated 6/2004. PLOT PLAN AND BORING LOCATION HU ASSOCIATES, INC. Geot~cl-z_~f cal I Environmental Engineering Consultants SCALE 1" = 10 1 :PROJECT' NO. HA-5183-1 DATE 7/19/04 PLATE 2 1 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HA-5183-1 July 26, 2004 APPENDIX FIELD.EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS -1a- The subsurface conditions in the area ·Of the proposed construction were explored by excavating two test borings at the locations shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 2 adopted from the "Site Plan" prepared by Terry Armentrout, dated June 2004. The test borings were excavated by means of ar, 8-inch diam·eter hand auger to depths of 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. . The approximate locations of the test borings wer$ determined by tape measurements from the . property boundaries. The location of .the test borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The soils encountered during excavation were logged by the field engineer. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classificati<m System described on Plate A-1. Undisturbed samples of on-site material were extracted at selected ·intervals from the test borings in a barrel sampler with tapered cutting shoe. The undisturbeq soil retained in 2.5-inch diameter by one-inch rings within the sampler were secured in moisture resistant bags and plastic sample cans as soon as taken to minimize the loss of fi';!ld moisture while being transported to the laboratory for testing. The relative.sampler penetration resistance exhibited by the soil, types encountered is tabulated in th.e Blow per Foot column of the Log of Boring. Detailed log of test borings are pres~nted on Plate A-2, Log of Test Boring. The line designating the interface between soil materials on the logs of test boring represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. HU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HA-5183-1 July 26, 2004 LABO RA TORY TESTING Moisture-Density -2a- The field moisture content and dry density of the materials encountered were determined by performing tests on selected undisturbed samples to aid in the classification and correlation of the so.ii to obtain qualitative information relative to their strengths and compressibility. The results of the tests are shown on the Log. of Test Boring, Plate A-2. Direct Shear .Tests Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples of the natural soil to evaluate shear strength and .supporting capacity of the foundation materials. Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine of the displacement control type at a displacement rate of approximately 0'.005 inches per minute. The samples were soaked in water for at least 24 hours to approximately saturated moisture condition and then sheared under various normal stresses. The ultimate shear strength values determined from the tests are presented on Plate A-3, Direct Shear test. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed Ori representative undisturbed samples of the natural soils to evaluate the volume changes of soil subjected to increased loads. Deformations of the · specimen are recorded at selected intervals. The results of pressure consolidation curves, which are used to estimate the probable magnitude and rate of settlement of the tested soil under applied loads, are presented on Plates A-4 and A-5, Consolidation Test. fiU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I COARSE GRAINED. SOILS (More lhan 50% of material is LARGER than N,o. 200 sieve size) FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of matertal is SMALLER than No. 200 sieve size)· MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVELS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is LARGER than No. 4 sieve size) SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (~ittle or no fines) GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable Amount of fines) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) SANDS WITH FINES. (Appreciable Amount of fines) SIL TS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) SIL TS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES GW Well graded gravels and gravel • sand mixtures, little or no fines Gp Poorly graded gravels and gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels, gravel • sand • silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand • clay mixtures SW Well graded sands and gravelly sands. little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fine,s SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand • clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, ML silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, CL gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays . OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat. muck and other highly organic soils BOUNDARY CLfoSSIFICATIONS: Solis possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. Reference: The Unified· Soil Class1ficatlon System, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3 • 357, Vol 1, March, 1953 (Revised Aprtl;. 1960) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Proposed Single-Family Residence 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, .California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants , PROJECT No. HA-5183-1 PLATE A-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NOTE: The data presented on this log is simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applied only at the location of this boring and the date of excavation. It is not warranted to be representative of suj,surface conditions at other locations and times. 0 25 3.3 103.2 25 3.1 105.9 5 32 5.4 105.3 10 50 5.7 103.8 15 50 6,6 104.5 0 30 3.0 103.9 35 6.9 108.2 5 40 8.0 . 107.2 10 30 5 .. 5 103.4 Date Excavated: Equipment: Driving Weight: Water Depth: FILL(6") fme to medium, silty, few roots SAND very fme to.fme, silty fme to medium, silty End of Test Boring@ 15' ''.) fuj.e to meqium, sHty, f~wroots 7113104 8~inch qiameter hand auger 50 lbs @ 30-inch drop not encountered very fme to fine, silty fine to medium, silty End of Test Boring@ 10' BORING NO. BORING NO. Elevation: NIA It brn brown It gry brn dry slightly moist slightly moist to moist Elevation: NI A ltbrn brown It grybrn dry slightly moist to moist 1 mdense dense 2 mdense dense LOG OF TEST BORING Proposed Single-Family Residence 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. · Geotechnical Engineering Consultants PROJECT No. HA-5183-1 PLATE A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 4.5 ... 0 4.0 0 It,., e! C'CS ::::, 3.5 C" U) i.. (1) C. 3.0 U) C. :i: i (1) 4.5 (.) C CU' _.,.--:: -2.0 U) V 'iii ~ ~ C,, 1.5 C ~· 'i: ~ ns (1) .c 1.0 ti) ~ V 0.5 .... -'I ~ : 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Normal Pressure -kips per square foot Samples·were tested under saturated and drained conditions. Initial Final Dry Angle of Boring Depth Water Content Water Content Pensity Cohesion Friction No. (feet) UC (% of dry wt.) (% of dry wt.) (lbs / cu.ft.) (lbs / sq. ft.) (degrees) • 1 7 SM 5.4 21.0 , 105.3 240 31 A 2 4 SM 6;9 19.1 108.2 310 32 Pr9posed Single-Family Residence DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants PROJECT No. HA-5183-1 PLATE A-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - Normal L. o ad -k i p·s per square f O O t 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 2 3 4 s 10 20 30 0 """--..... --.L""\. 1 ' '-.: 2 "' ' i'-~ 3 -... ~ ,.. ~ ... C: 4 0 ·-.... ClS "C 5 ·--0 II) C: 0 6 (.) ,, : .... C: Q) 7 u ... Q) 0. 8 9 10 11, 12 ,-,., Boring No. 1 @ 7.0 0 Water Permitted to Contact Sample Proposed Single-Family Residence CONSOLIDATION TEST 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants PROJE(:TNo. HA-5183-1 PLATE A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Norm al toad -kips per square fa O t 0.1 0.2 0.3 1 2 3 4 s 10 20 30 0 -,-... '"""' --..... ... .-. ' -,,) 1 ~, ~. 2 ~ " ·" . - 3 ·' ~ ·-r\ .. C 4 ---~ 0 -· '-. ·-.... Ill "C s ·-· -0 II) C 0 6 CJ .... C a.,. 7 c., i.. a., a., 8 9 10 11 12 ~ - Boring No. 2 @4.0 0 Water Permitted to Contact Sample Proposed Single-Family Residence CONSOLIDATION TEST 3217 Garfield Avenue Carlsbad, California HU ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Cons.ultants-PROJECT No. HA-5183-1 PLATE A-5