The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 01-06; CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2004-08-04REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING • CALAVERA HILLS, VILLAGE X BUILDING LOTS 1 THROUGH 115 AND RECREATION LOTS 116 AND 117 CARLSBAD TRACT 01-06, DRAWING 405-4A CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA S FOR CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC 2727 HOOVER, AVENUE S .•, NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 91950 •.: W 0 3459-B1-SC AUGUST 4, 2004 F Geotechnical Geologic Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 August 4, 2004 W.O. 3459-B1-SC / - • . I Calavera Hills II, LLC 2727 Hoover Avenue . .•• . . . National City, California 91950 . Attention Mr. Don Mitchell Subject: Report of Rough Grading, Calavera Hills, Village X, Building Lots 1 through 115, and Recreation Lots 116 and 117, Carlsbad Tract 01-06,: Drawing 405-4A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Dear Mr. Mitchell This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of development at the subject site. Earthwork commenced in January 2003, and was generally completed in April 2004. This report does not include utility and pavement construction testing and observations. A report of observation, and testing services for such work will be provided under separate cover, when requested. A compaction report ' for the pump station, located within Village X, will also be provided under separate cover. PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading Was to prepare relatively level pads for the construction of 115 residential structures, two recreation lots, and access roadways. Cut-and-fill grading and drill-and-shoot blasting techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded configurations. Cut lots and the cut portion of transition lots were overexcavated in order to provide for more uniform foundation support. Existing topsoils and colluvium were removed to suitable bedrock material and recompacted. The grading plan for this portion of Calavera Hills II, Village X, prepared by O'Day Consultants, dated December 5, 2002, ' is included with this report as Plates 1 through 4. - EARTH MATERIALS Subsurface geologic conditions exposed during the process of rough grading were observed by a representative of GSI Earth materials onsite generally consist of dense granitic/metavolcanic rock with a thin, discontinuous surficial veneer of topsoil/colluvium. Dense surficial outcrops of granitic/volcanic bedrock were noted throughout the area. GROUNDWATER Naturally occurring groundwater was not encountered during rough grading of the building pads and should not affect the proposed building construction, provided that the recommendations contained in this report, and/or provided by GSI, are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Based on the fractured and dense nature of the granitic/metavolcanic bedrock, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, homeowner altered drainage., or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations' of perched conditions (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. A discussion of near surface slope subdrainage is presented in our referenced report on toe drains (GSl, 2004b), and is considered applicable with respect to this site. A discussion of other subdrainage is presented in a later section of this report. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION Earthwork operations have been completed in general accordance with the City grading ordinance and the guidelines provided in the field by this office. Observations during grading included removals, overexcavation, and subdrain construction along withgeneral grading procedures and placement of compacted fills by the contractor. Rough Grading Preparation of Existing Ground Deleterious material, such as concentrated organic matter and miscellaneous debris, were stripped from the surface and disposed of beyond the limits of grading for the subject area, prior to placing any fill. Loose surficial materials (i.e., existing topsoils and colluvium) were removed to expose competent bedrock in all areas to receive fill. In order to provide for more uniform support of structures, the cut portion of transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below pad grade, then brought to grade with compacted fill. Cut lots exposing dense granitic/volcanic rock were overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet below pad grade in order to facilitate Calavera Hills II, LLC ' , W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. foundation and utility construction. Generally, an attempt was made to slope the overexcavated bottom toward the street area. Thus, subdrainage of these areas does not appear warranted at this time, based on the available data. In areas where conventional cut and fill grading techniques were not feasible due to rock hardness, drill-and-shoot blasting techniques were utilized. These techniques were used where dense, non-rippable rock occurred within a minimum of 3 feet of finished pad grade, and above local street elevations equivalent to approximately 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. Blasting operations occurred throughout the project. Subsequent to completing removals, areas to receive compacted fill were scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and then compacted to attain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. These areas were then brought to grade with fill compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1 and 2, was observed by a representative of GSI. Fill Placement Fill consisted of onsite and import materials which were placed in thin lifts, approximately 4 to 8 inches in thickness, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to attain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction test results of fills are presented in the attached Table 1. Approximate as-built fill thicknesses are presented in the attached Table 2. The preparation of some of these fill materials, included processing of shot rock and oversize rock through a rock crusher. This process generally produced "4 to 5-inch minus" (in one direction) material, in general accordance with guidelines presented in GSI (2002b and 2003c). Rock fills were placed in the vicinity of Lots 16 through 29, Lots 46 through 48, the slope area east of Lots 51 through 53, Lot 116, and Lot 118, and routinely no closer than about 10 feet from finish grade. Fill materials generated onsite, or within the larger Calavera Hills development, from either raw excavation or produced at the crusher site, have been placed in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2002b). An additional criteria, developed for this project during grading, has included gradation testing (in general accordance with ASTM D-422) of stockpiled materials produced from the rock crusher (GSI, 2003c). This testing has been performed in order to evaluate the percentage of "fines" included in the stockpile material. For this project, "fines" are considered to be earth materials that are 3/4 inch in diameter, or finer. Suitable soil fills are considered to consist of earth materials generally with at least ±40 percent finer than 3/4 of an inch (GSI, 2002b and 2003c). Based on our testing and observation, a suitable material gradation appears to have been produced and utilized onsite. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Canyon Subdrains Prior to placement of fill, a canyon subdrain, consisting of 6-inch diameter (Schedule 40) PVC pipe, was placed within canyon/natural drainage areas located in the general vicinity of Lots 13 through 23, 25, and 26. A subdrain located beneath a fill slope, east of Lots 51 through 53, is part of a larger drain system which extends offsite beneath College Boulevard and Village W, to a outlet on the east side of Village W. Subdrain construction was performed in general accordance with GSI guidelines. The approximate locations of all subdrains are shown on Plates 1 through 4. Toe. Drains Toe drains were constructed onsite in general accordance with GSI (2004d). The approximate location of toe drains are shown on Plates 1 through 4. Slopes Planned Slopes In general, graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report should perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surficial stability, provided that these slopes are properly maintained, and are subject to the prevailing semi-arid climatic conditions. Fill slopes, constructed under the purview of this report, were provided with a keyway excavated into suitable bedrock material in general accordance with GSI recommendations. Cut slopes were constructed using cut and fill grading techniques and/or blasting, and exposed dense igneous and/or metavolcanic rock. Temporary Slopes Temporary construction slopes may generally be constructed at a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]), or flatter, in compacted fill, and 1/2:1 (h:v) in suitable bedrock material (provided adverse geologic structures are not present, as evaluated by GSI prior to workers entering trenches). Utility trenches may be excavated in accordance with guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation, Trenches, and Earthwork, with respect to Type B soil (compacted fill) and stable rock (bedrock). Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within 5 feet from the top of any temporary slope. Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary slopes. Natural Slopes Natural slopes should generally perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surficial stability, provided they are subject to the prevailing semi-arid climatic conditions. An Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. analysis of natural slope stability has been completed under separate cover (GSI, 1998b and 1998c). Field Testing Field density tests were performed using the sand cone method (ASTM D-1 556) and nuclear method (ASTM D-2922). Tests taken for the entire Calavera Hills project were taken in consecutive numerical order. Only the test results for Village X are presented in Table 1 at the end of this report. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the Field Density Test Location Maps, Plates 1 through 4, which utilize the 40-scale grading plans (sheets 3 through 6), prepared by O'Day Consultants (2003), as a base map. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based on the operations observed, test results presented herein are considered representative of the fills observed under the purview of this report. Visual classification of the soils in the field, as well as random laboratory testing, was the basis for determining which maximum dry density value to use for a given density test. Rock fills were periodically inspected using dozer pits in order to verify adequate moisture content and relative compaction. Testing and observations were performed on a full-time basis. LABORATORY TESTING Moisture-Density Relations The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major soil type was determined according to test method ASTM D-1 557. The following table presents the test results: MAXIMUM DRY OPTlMUMMOlSTURE .........SOIL.PE j ... ....- .•.:. ENIT.cf). : A - Dark Brown, Silty SAND 120.5 13.0 B - Light Brown, Silty SAND 128.0 10.0 C - Light Brown, Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O.3459-B1 -SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 5 GeoSouls, Inc. 14' • - ' -' T- "••""• - $Q1Y - -. - •:NJi.jc.• D - Light Gray, Silty SAND - . , 125.5 " 10.5 E - Dark Brown, Silty GRAVEL - 130.0 ' . 11.0 F - Brown, Sandy GRAVEL (processed material) 126.5 - , 10.5 G - Brownish Gray, Gravelly SILT 131.0 • 10.0 i- Brown, Silty SAND w/Gravel (processed material) 134.0 8.5 - - - -, - - 4 Expansive Soils Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for the site Representative samples of soil near pad grade were, recovered for classification and expansion testing.-Expansion Index (E.l.) testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 1 8-2 of the 'Uniform Building Code ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [iCBO], 1997).' ' Representative expansion indices indicate that site soils near pad grade, within the subject lots, are very low expansive (E.I. <20). A summary of soil expansion resu Its are. presented ' in the attached Table 2 ' /4 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. ii Soil sulfate testing indicates that the sulfate exposure to .concrete is negligible, i' accordance with Table 19-A of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Site soils are considered corrosive to ferrous materials when wet or saturated. While it is our understanding that standard , concrete cover is sufficient mitigation, alternative methods 'and additional comments should be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer. ' ' "• . . Sieve Analysis Sample gradation for Various representative samples was determined 'in, general'' accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. Test results generally indicated thth at least 40 percent of each sample was finer than the 3/4-inch sieve in accordance with GSI .(2902b and 2003c) 4 ' ••' .' .-. -. •, V , • - . I. , 4, c , ' ' ,") •.. I,. - ' 4 Caiavera Hills ii, LLC. . •; '-' ,; • ' ' W.O. 3459B1 -SC Calavera Hills Ii Village X '- August 4 2004, File e \wp9\3400\3459b1 x ror Page46 GeoSoils, Inc. 4 F RECOMMENDATIONS -FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Minimum recommendations for conventional or post-tension (PT) foundation systems are provided in the following sections. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the UBC (lCBO, 1997). All footing designs should be reviewed and approved by the project structural engineer/foundation designer. Based on soil expansion potential and the as-built fill thicknesses (i.e., differential fill thickness exceeding 3:1, maximum to minimum, across the lot), conventional or PT foundations may be constructed. Conventional Foundation Design Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed residential structures provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or other competent bearing material (i.e., bedrock). Footings should not simultaneously bear directly on bedrock and fill soils. Analyses indicate that an allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous footings per Table 3, and for design of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep into properly compacted fill or bedrock. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth, to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.4 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Footings should maintain a horizontal distance or setback between any adjacent slope face and the bottom outer edge of the footing. The horizontal distance may be calculated by using h/3 (where h is the height of the slope). The horizontal setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet (per code). The setback may be maintained by simply deepening the footings. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-131-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. Flatwork, utilities, or other improvements, within a zone of h13 from the top of slope, may be subject to lateral distortion. Footings, flatwork, and utility setbacks should be constructed in accordance with distances indicated in this section, and/or the approved plans. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 11/2 inches and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 3/4 inch between similar elements in a 40-foot span. Conventional Foundation/Concrete Slab Construction The following construction récomméndations are based on generally very low to low expansive bearing soils and maximum fill thicknesses of less than approximately 30'feet. Conventional continuous footings should be constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in Table 3, and in accordance with UBC (lCBO, 1997) guidelines. All footings should be reinforced per Table 3. Detached isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface and tied to the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. Reinforcement should be properly designed by the project structural engineer. A grade beam, reinforced as above and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across the garage entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as base of the adjoining footings. The residential floor and garage slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, in accordance with Table 3. Concrete used in floor slab construction should have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of sand. In addition, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 10-mil, polyvinyl-chloride membrane with all laps sealed per the U BC/California Building Code (CBC), should be provided at the mid-point of the sand layer. The slab subgrade should be free of loose and uncompacted material prior to placing concrete. Concrete floor slabs (residence and garage) should be reinforced per Table 3. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-Sc Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. Presaturation is not considered necessary for these soil conditions; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to, or greater than, optimum moisture to a depth of 12 to 18 inches (depending on footing embedment) below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas, and verified by this office within 72 hours of the vapor barrier placement. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. Proposed pools and other appurtenant structures should consider that excavation difficulties will likely be encountered in some lots at depths greater than approximately 3 feet below existing building pad grades due to the presence of dense granitic rock. Please refer to Table 2 for a listing of lots with relatively shallow (i.e., <10 feet) fills. As an alternative, an engineered PT foundation system may be used. Recommendations for PT slab design are presented in the following section. PT Slab Foundation Systems PT slabs may be utilized for construction of typical one- and two- story residential structures onsite. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with PT slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress of structures using PT slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil presaturation (if necessary, or after the project has been dormant for a period of time) and construction of a perimeter "cut off" wall grade beam may be employed. For very low to low (E.l. 0 through 50) expansive soils, perimeter and mid span beams should be a minimum 12 inches deep below the lowest adjacent pad grade. The perimeter foundations may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab. The perimeter beams should be a minimum of 12 inches in width. A vapor barrier should be utilized and be of sufficient thickness to provide an adequate separation of foundation from soils (10 mil thick). The vapor barrier should be adequately sealed per the UBC/CBC to provide a continuous Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. water-resistant barrier under the entire slab. The vapor barrier should be sandwiched between two 2-inch thick layers of sand (SE >30) for a total of 4 inches of sand. Isolated piers should be incorporated into the PT slab system. Specific soil presaturation for slabs is not required for very low expansive soils; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at or above the soils' optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 to 18 inches below grade, depending on the footing embedment. PT slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (PTI), local, and/or national code criteria and the recommendations of a structural or civil engineer qualified in PT slab design. Alternatives to PTI methodology may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion parameters, and settlements noted for this project. If alternatives to P11 are suggested by the designer or structural consultant, consideration should be given for additional review by a qualified structural PT designer. Soil related parameters for PT slab design, are presented on the following: Perimeter Footing. Embedment** CATEGORY I (PT)* CATEGORY II (PT) 12 inches 12 inches** Allowable Bearing Value 1,000 psf*** . 1,000 psf*** Modules of subgrade reaction 100 psi/inch 75 psi/inch Coefficient of Friction 0.35 0.35 Passive Pressure 225 pcf 225 pcf Soil Suction (Pf) 3.6 3.6 Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet 5 feet Thornthwaite Moisture -20.0 -20.0 em Edge 2.5 2.7 em Center 5.0 5.5 Yedge . 0.35 0.5 Ym Center 1.1 2.0 Minimum Slab Thickness 5 inches 5 inches * Foundation design using the spanability method may also be used for Category I conditions. ** Lab data indicates E.I. 0-50 for this site. Bearing for slab-on-grade only, bearing value for interior or perimeter beams should be in accordance 11 with parameters provided for conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. Provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum total settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 1½ inches and Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 3/4 of an inch between similar elements, in a 40-foot span. Designers of PT slabs should review the parameters provided for PT slabs, and compare using a span distance of 5 feet, using a modules of subgrade reaction of 125 psi in their evaluation. 8. In accordance with guidelines presented in the UBC, improvements and/or footings should maintain a horizontal distance, X, between any adjacent descending slope face and the bottom outer edge of the improvement and/or footing. The horizontal distance, X, may be calculated by using X = h/3. X should not be less than' 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. X may be maintained by deepening the footings. Improvements constructed within a distance of h13 from the top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion. Foundations 'for' 'any adjacent structures, including 'retaining' walls, should be deepened (as necessary) to below a 1:1 projection upward and away from any proposed lower foundation system. This recommendation may not be considered ,valid if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation on the lower foundation has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation. Additional setbacks, not discussed orsuperceded herein, and presented in the UBC are considered valid. EXTERIOR FLATWORK Exterior driveways, walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab-on-grade construction, should be designed and constructed in accordance' with the following criteria: Driveway slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness; all other exterior slabs may be a nominal 4 inches in thickness; however, such nominal slabs will be at increased risk for distress. A thickened edge should be considered for all flatwork adjacent to landscape areas. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at, or above, the soils optimum moisture content. 'The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement are: 1) add a sufficient amount of properly placed reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab such as 6x6, Wi .4xW1 .4); and/or, 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to• accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills Il, Village X ' ' August 4, 2004 FiIe:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1.x.ror ' Page 11 GeoSouls, Inc. that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5- to 8-foot centers, or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping should be graded to drain into the street/parking area, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS/WALLS General Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the Design section of Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the County and/or City guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and seismic resistance stability per the UBC. The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used above a 1:1 projection, up and away from the bottom of any wall. The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel, earthstone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be greater than those provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce wall cracking due to settlement, walls should be internally grouted and/or reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material, or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade should be Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1.x.ror Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. SIJRACE SLthE OF Eb1JIVALEN1 ftIiTb RETAINED-MATERIAL WEIGHT P.C.F. HPRlZONrA.L TbEFTAL .xpäiisiveSojI). Level . . . 35 . 2tol 45 . I .. • water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on thedegree of moisture protection desired. Refer to the following section for preliminary recommendations from surcharge loads. Cantilevered Walls These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 15 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material These do not .' include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions -. . ,' - •'• E - i I •' - . - 'fl . The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 60 pcf for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum lateral distance of 2H on 'either side of the corner. Traffic loads within a 1:1 projection up from the wall heel, due to light trucks and cars, should be considered as a load of 100 psf per foot in the . upper.5 feet of wall in uniform pressure. For preliminary design purposes,. footing loads . within a 11 backfill zone behind wall will be added to the walls as 1/3 of the bearing F pressure for one footing width, along the wall alignment * Sound Walls/Top-of-Slope Walls Sound wall plans have been reviewed for this project (GSI, 2003a) and weie determined to be in general conformation with the intent of the referenced reports .7 4 Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe back drain and Outlet system to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures, and be designed in accordance .4 , with the minimum standards presented herein. Retaining wall drainage and otitlet systems' should be reviewed by the project design civil engineer, and incorporated into project plans. Pipe should consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. Gravel used in the back H drain systems should be-a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal foot of /8- to 1½-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) additional gravel may be warranted depending on wall height and the nature of the wall backcut Perforations 1 ' .' 'I , . 0 0 - ' - fl,., f -s. , .0000.0. 0 '• , 0. . fi - . - - Caiavera Hills ii, LLC 1 W 0 3459 Bi SC Calavera Hills II village X August 4 2004 File e \wp9\3400\3459b1 x ror Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. in pipe should face down. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement, or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. As an alternative to gravel back drains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturers' guidelines. Regardless of the back drain used, walls should be water-proofed where they would impact living areas, or where staining would be objectionable. PUBLIC STREET PAVEMENTS Pavement design for streets has been completed by this office, with design and construction recommendations presented in GSI (2004c). Concrete driveway pavements. outside the public right of way may be constructed per the exterior concrete slab recommendations presented in the following section. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Deformation General Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications, should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension (LFE). Slope Creep Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e., separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal distance of approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside) edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone affected is generally dependant upon: 1) the height of the slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone. Calavera Hills II, LLC . 0 W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and deepening of foundations. Per Section 1806.5.3 of the UBC, a horizontal setback (measured from the slope face to the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3 is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet and H/3 need not be greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration of the discussion presented above, site conditions and Section 1806.5.6 of the UBC, H/3 generally need not be greater than 20 feet for the Calavera Hills II development. As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the adjacent slope is greater than 45 feet in height and the building/footing is within 20 feet from the slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the design of that portion of the structure(s). Any settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., walls ,spas, flatwork, etc.) should consider the above. Proper disclosure to homeowners and/or homeowners associations is recommended. Lateral Fill Extension (LFE) LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils, the potential component of slope deformation due to LFE is considered minor, but may not be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content. During grading of the site, GSI observed fill soil moisture contents during fill placement and compaction. Our observations indicate that the moisture content of the fill is generally above the soils optimum moisture content, in accordance with our recommendations. Summary It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LFE. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; stiffening; and, deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills. The ramifications of the above conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner and/or any homeowners association. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, away from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-Bi -SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting, or other fibrous covers, may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc. to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner; Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure (GSI, 2003d). We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of 3 feet from structures (GSI, 2003d) or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4,2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork construction are provided in Table 3 of this report. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall• backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at.that time. 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. Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill All interior utility trench baOkfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. All trench excavations should conform.to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the foOting or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through thefooting or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: During grading/recertification. After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaki n g/presatu ration of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.). During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. During slope construction/repair. When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be. provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc. should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate these recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office, prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These 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. GSl assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this project. Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any ?stions, please do not hesitate to call our office. spectfully submitt GN oSoils, Inc. NO. 1340 CC.- rtd - in P. Franklin ineering Geologist, 40 AO- David W. Skell Civil Engineer, /DWS/jk chments: Table 1 - Field Density••Test Results Table 2 - Lot Characteristics Table 3 - Foundation Construction Recommendations. Appendix - References Plates 1 through 4 - Field Density Test Location Maps tribution: (4) Addressee (1) Jobsite, Attention: Mr. Tom LaMarca Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 4, 2004 File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. TEST . NO. DATE TEST LOCATION VILLAGE ELEV OR DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE CONTFNT (% DRY DFMIT'Y ) REL COMP (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 111 12/6/02 Canyon Dr 6+00 Village 169.0 14.1 111.5 92.5 ND A 112 12/6/02 Canyon Dr 6+'00 ' Village 166.0 13.8 111.0 92.1 ND A 286 1/16/03 Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 171.0 14.5 113.9 94.5 ND A 287 1/16/03 Slope Rear Lot 25 Village 175.0 13.2 112.9 93.7 ND A 288 1/16/03 Slope Rear Lot 25 'VillageX 176.0 14.4 119.2 98.9 ND. A 390 1/27/03 Lot 25 ' Village 182.0 12.2 116.1 90.7 ND B 391 1/27/03 ' Toe Slope Lot 24 Village 158.0 11.0 115.5 90.2 ND B .- 392 1/27/03 Slope 'Area Lot 23 Village 178.0 14.9 112.2 . 93.1 ND A 0. 393 1/27/03 Slope Area Lot 25 ' Village X 178.0 13.2 09.4 - 90.8 ND A 394 1/27/03 . ' Lot 26 Village 190.0 13.9 09.8 - 91.1 ND A 395 1/27/03 Slope Area Lot 24. Village 180.0 10.6 16.0 - 90.6 ND B 396 1/27/03 Toe Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 163.0 10.5 116.9 . 91.3 SC . B 397 1/27/03 Toe Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 166.0 11.6 16.4 - 90.9 ND . B 1 398 1/27/03 Toe Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 169.0 11.2 16.2 90.8 ND 'B 399 1/27/03 Slope Area Rear Lot 23 Village 175.0 10.1 17.5 ' - 91.8 ND B 400 1 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 178.0 12.1 115.7 91.8 'ND C 401 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 26 ' Village X 184.0 11.6• 116.2 92.2 ND C 402 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 24 Village 184.0 13.2 116.1 90.7 ND B 403. 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 23 Village 82.0 - 10.9 116.9_. 91.3 ND B 404 1/28/03 . Slope Rear Lot 25 Village X 186.0 11.8 15.5 - 90.2 ' ND B 405 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 23 Village X 186.0 11.9 115.7 90.4 ND B' 406 1/28/03 Slope Rear Lot 22 Village X 188.0 11.1. 116.5 91.0 SC . B 407 1/29/03 Lot 24 Village =188.0 10.6 117.4 91.7 ND B 408 1/29/03 Rear Lot 23 Village 90.0 - 11.4 116.7 91.2 ND B 409* 1/29/03 Rear Lot 26 Village 188.0 8.4 111.2 86.9 ND B 409A 1/29/03 Rear Lot 26 Village 188.0 10.5 116.4 ' 90.5 ND B 410 1/29/03 Lot 24 Village 191.0 12.2 118.3 92.4 ND B 417 1/30/03 Slope Area Rear Lot 25 Village X 292.0 11.1 '118.9 90.8 Sc G 418 . 1/30/03 Slope Area Rear Lot 24 Village 293.0 12.2 119.1 90.9 ND 'G 419 1/30/03 Slope Area Rear Lot 22-23 Village 293.0 10.9 120.3 91.8 ND,. G 420 1/31/03 Lot 23 Village . 195.0 11.9 115.7 90.4 ND B. 421 1/31/03 . Slope Area Lot 27 Village 194.0 12.2 121.6 92.8 ND G j 422 1/31/03 Slope Area Lot 22 Village 197.0 10.9 121.0 92.4 ..ND' G 423 1/31/03 Lot 21 (Canyon) Village 197.0 14.8 109.2 90.6' _,ND A 500 2/7/03 Key Rear Lot 43 Village X 164.0 ' 14.2 108.5 . 90.0 ND A 501 2/7/03 Key RearLot41 ' Village 190.0 13.6 109.4 90.8 ND A. 502 2/7/03 ' Key Rear Lot 38 Village 204.0 13.4 108.7 ' 90.2 ND ' A. 505 2/7/03 Key Rear Lot 31 Village 203.0 13.6 109.5 90.9 SC A' 506 2/7/03 Key Rear ....ot 29 Village X 198.0 13.9 110.4' 91.6 ND '. A 622 3/6/03 Lot 43 Village 167.0 10.6 114.5 90.9 ND C 623 3/6/03 Lot 36 ' Village 206.0 11.7 114.3 90.7 Sc .0 624 3/6/03 Lot 43 Village 169.0 11.9 115.3 91.5 ND C 625 3/6/03 Lot 40 ' Village 200.8 10.5 114.5. 90.9 ND C .637 3/10/03 1 .Slope Area Lot 43 Village 170.0 11.8 118.2 93.8 ND C 638 3/10/03 ' Lot 41 Village 192.0 13.5 116.6 92.5 ND C Calavera Hills II, LLC W 0 3459 B1 SC Calavera Hills II, Village x ' . - ' ' . August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\3lo0tbl.xls ' ' GeoSoils, Inc. ' ' . ' ' Page 1 Tablet FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION VILLAGE ELEV OR DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pcf) REL COMP (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 3/10/03 Slope Area Lot 43 VillageX 180.0 12.2 114.8 91.1 ND C V641 639 3/10/03 Lot 43 VillageX 175.0 11.9 117.4 93.2 ND C 3/10/03 . Lot 39 Village 199.0 11.8 114.4 90.8 ND . C 642 3/10/03 Lot 43 Village 184.0 12.2 114.3 90.7 ND . C Lot 42 Village X 194.0 12.7 118.7 94.2 SC C F400 64L3~3/10/03 3/13/03 Lot 26 Village 203.0 11.5 122.3 95.5 ND . B' 701 3/13/03 Lot 23 Village 207.0 12.6 120.7 95.8 ND C 702 3/14/03 Lot 24 Village 210.0 11.6 119.8 93.6 ND B Lot21 VillageX 212.0 12.1 115.4 91.6 ND C 3/17/03 Lot 25 VillageX 210.0 14.1 124.1 95.5 ND E r733/14/03 3/17/03 Lot 22 VillageX 214.0 13.4 125.5 96.5 ND E 3/19/03 . Lot 23 Village 212.0 12.1 119.8 92.2 ND E 709 3/19/03 Lot 21 . Village 1 216.0 11.6 121.3 93.3 ND E 710 3/20/03 Lot 21 Village 214.0 11.2 122.3 94.1 ND E, 711 3/20/03 Lot 19 Village 216.0 12.1 121.7 93.6 ND. E 740 4/1/03 " Lot 19 Village 218.0 14.1 . 111.3 92.4 ND A, 741 4/1/03 Lot 20 Village 220.0 13.8 112.3 93.2 ND A 744 4/2/03 . Lot 43 Village 186.0 11.2 120,3 .92.5 ND E 745 4/2/03 Lot 43 . Village 188.0 itS 119.4 91.8 ND E 746 4/3/03 ' Lot 44 Village 186.0 11.1, 120.5 92.7 ND E 747 4/3/03 Lot 44 Village 190.0 11.4 119.9 92.2 ND E 748 4/3/03 . Lot 19 Village 222.0 11.6 119.2 91.7 ND E 749 '4/3/03 Lot 18 Village 224.0 12.1 118.7 91.3 ND E 814 4/5/03 Lot 20 Village 227.0 12.2 113.3 90.3 ND D 815 4/5/03 Lot 19 Village 229.0 13.1 113.1 90.1 ND . D 816 4/5/03 Lot 18 Village 229.0 11.6 114.0 90.8 ND D 817 4/5/03 Lot 18 Village 233.0 11.9 114;1 90.9 SC D 4/8/03 Lot 77 Village X 233.0 11.2 121.1. 93.2 ND E 4/7/03 Lot 16 Village 226.0 122 119.5 . 91.9 ND E r87 4/7/03 Lot 17 Village X 228.0 11.6 120.6 92.8 ND ' E . 4/8/03 Lot 76 Village X 233.0 11.2 121.1 93.2 ND E 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 59 Village X 233.0 14.8 109.3 90.7 ND . Outer Slope Lot 57 Village A 4/17/03 226.0 13.1 111.0 92.1 ND A 889 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 55 Village X 220.0 13.6 108.8 90.3 ND 'A 890 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 58 Village 232.0 13.9 109.8 ' 91.1 ND A 891 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 53 Village 214.0 14.2 110.1 91.4 ND .. A 892 4/17/03 Outer Slope ...0t56 Village 229.0 12.9 109.4 90.5 ND A 893 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 52 Village X 205.0 13.4 111.5 " 92.5 . ND A 894 4/17/03 Outer Slope Lot 59 Village 237.0 13.9. '110.7 91.9. ND A 909 4/18/03 Rear Lots 16-17 ' Village 232.0 10.9 116.1' 90.7 ND 'B 910 4/18/03 Rear Lot 14 Village 239.0 11.0 118.3 92.4 ND B 1270 6/25/03 Basin Rd Village X 258.0 8.6 120.5 92.0 ND 'H 1271 6/25/03 Basin Rd Village X 253.0 8.8 123.1 . 94.0 ND H' 1272, 1 6/25/03 Basin Rd Village 252.0 8.7 119.2 91.0 ND H' 1340 7/1/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 20+50 1 Village X 1 259.0 8.0 - 122.0 Calavera Hills II, LLC . CalavéraHills II, Village X iIe:C:\exl\bIes31oOtbIxIs GeoSoils, Inc. ' 91.0 ND . I W.O. 3459-B1-SC August 2004 'Page2 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS :1;:E.Sif. NO ... :ViII.GE ELEV OR DEPTH (ft) JIC..!3.1:LJ.R.E: CONTENT (%) DENSITY {pct) COMF METHOC SC.IL tYPE 1341 7/1/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 20+50 Village 267.0 8.1 124.6 93.0 ND 1342 1 7/1/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 19+50 Village 268.0 8.3 122.0 91.0 ND - - 1343 7/1/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 10+50 . Village 262.0 8.3 122.0 91.0 ND - - 1344 7/1/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 11+50 Village 253.0 8.2 123.3 92.0 ND - - 1386 7/15/03 Lot 2 Village X 267.0 10.6 125.3 93.5 ND I - - 1387 7/15/03 Lot Village 271.0 9.8 123.0 91.8 ND - - 138B 7/15/03 Lot 62 Village X 269.0 9.2 124.2 92.7 ND - - 1389 7/15/03 Lot 66 Village X 268.0 10.5 123.4 92.1 ND 1390 7/15/03 Lot 10 Village X 268.0 11.2 125.8 93.9 ND = p1401 7/22/03 Lot 8 . Village X 269.0 9.7 . 126.1 94.1 . ND - 1402 7/22/03 Lot 68 .. Village X 267.0 92 124.2 92.7 ND - - 1403 7/22/03 Basin Rd 13+50 Village 253.0 10.8 122.1 91.1 1 ND - - 1404 7/22/03 Basin Rd 12+50 Village 254.0 9.6 125.7 93.8 ND - - 1405 7/22/03 Basin Rd 13+30 Village 256.0 9.2 122.7 91.6 ND - - 1406 7/22/03 Basin Rd 12+00 Village 258.0 8.9 123.1 91.9 ND - - 1416 7/24/03 Basin Rd Village X 259.0 10.6 123.3 92.0 ND 1 - 1417 7/24/03 Basin Rd Village 258.0 10.9 124.6 93.0 ND - - 1452 8/8/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 13+00 Village X 232.0 9.2 125.8 93.9 ND I - - f 145 8/8/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 14+50 Village X 240.0 8.6 124.2 92.7 I - - 1462 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr East 12+80 Village 234.0 9.6 122.7 91.6 ND - - 1463 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 15+20 Village 246.0 10.4 126.2 94.2 ND - - 1464 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 13+40 Village 240.0 10.1 127.4 95.1 ND - 1465 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 11 +80 .Village X 226.0 11.7 127.0 94.8 ND I - - 1466 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr East 14+50 Village 244.0 12.2 123.3 92.0 ND - - 1467 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 12+30 Village X 233.0 9.5 122.1 91.1 ND - - 1468 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr Front Lot 73 Village X 246.0 9.1 123.1 91.9 ND - - 1469 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr 15+50 Village 252.0 8.7 124.2 92.7 ND F 1470 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr Lot 72 Village 254.0 9.9 122.7 91.6 ND 1471 8/14/03 Pleasant Vale Dr Lot 74 Village 245.0 10.3 121.7 90.8 ND 1479 8/19/03 Lot 72 Village 253.0 9.9 124.1 92.6 ND =1= 1480 8/19/03 Lot 13 Village X 255.0 9.6 125.7 93.8 ND 1- 1481 8/19/03 Lot 15 Village X 247.0 10.2 123.4 92.1 ND - - 1482 8/19/03 Lot 17 Village 239.0 -9.0 123.7 92.3 ND - - 1483 8/19/03 Lot 18 Village 237.0 10.1 126.6 94.5 ND - - 1484 8/19/03 Lot 15 Village 251.0 9.3 122.9 91.7 ND - - 1485 8/19/03 Lot 16 Village 246.0 8.8 122.2 91.2 ND 1486 8/19/03 Lot 14 Village X 253.0 8.9 124.0 92.5 ND l 1493 8/20/03 Rear Lot 22 Village 200,0 11.8 120.3 91.8 ND G 1494 8/20/03 Rear Lot 23 Village 194.0 10.2 119.3 91.1 ND G 1495 8/20/03 Rear Lots 23-24 Village 188.0 12.4 118.4 90.4 ND G 1496 8/20/03 Rear Lot 22 Village 205.0 11.1 121.2 92.5 ND G 1497 8/20/03 Rear Lot 23 Village 199.0 10.6 119.2 91.0 ND C 1498 8/20/03 Rear Lots 23-24 Village 193.0 1 10.9 1 118.2 90.2 ND [1508 8/25/03 Lot 69 Village X 266.0 8.8 126.2 94.2 1 ND p1509 8/25/03 Lot 71 Village 258.0 1 9.3 128.4 95.8 1 ND I Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B 1 -SC Calavera Hills II, Village, August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\3100tbLxIs GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 W.O.3459-B1-SC 'August 2004. - 'Page 4 : .4 - Calavera Hills II, LLC Calàvera Hills II, Villge X File: C:\exceMables\3lOotbl.xls. 4. rile", Table 1. FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS .. NO T. OCAT .f-1lIJ.Li.GE OR DEPTH (ft 1J1OisiIJRE CONTENT (%) DENSITY (pcf) COMP (%) METHOD TYPE 1510 8/25/03 Lot 73 Village X 250.0 9.5 26.0 - 94.0 ND 1511 8/25/03 Lot 75 Village 242.0 9.2 1256 93.7 ND - - 1512 8/25/03 Rear Lot 76 Village 235.0 9.3 121.8 90.9 ND - - 1513 8/25/03 Rear Lot 77 Village 231.0 10.6 121.9 91.0 ND - - 1514 8/25/03 Lot 78 . Village X 230.0 8.7 24.4 - 92.8 ND 1515 8/25/03 Front Lot 79 Village X 222.0 8,9 21.5 - 90.7 ND - - 1516 1 8/25/03 Lots 77-78 Village X 228.0 10.3 20.9 - 90.2 ND - 1517 8/25/03 . Lot 79 Village X 226.0 9.1 125.3 93.5 ND 1518 8/25/03 Lot 77 Village X 234.0 9.0 124.5 .92.9 ND 1519 8/27/03 Front Lot 15 Village 239.0 9.4 124.4 92.8 ND -. 1520 8/27/03 Front Lot .19 Village X 224.0 10.2 125.2 93.4 - ND - - 1521 F 8/27/03 Front Lots 16-17 Village 241.0 8.7 122.1 91.1 ND - 1522 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 79 Village 219.0 9.9 122.2 91.2 ND - - .1523 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 79 Village 225.0 10.4 121.8 90.9 ND - - 1524 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 78 Village X 229.0 9.8 25.4 - 93.6 ND - - 1525 8/27/03 . Terrace Lot 77 Village X 233.0 8.6 127.0 94.8 ND - 1526 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 76 Village X 238.0 8.9 123.4 92.1 ND - - 1527 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 75 Village X 241.0 9.0 124.2 92.7 ND T- 1528 8/27/03 Terrace Lot 74 . Village X 245.0 8.7 121.4 90.6 ND - - 1529 8/27/03 . . Terrace Lot 73 Village X 249.0 8.8 120.5- 90.2 ND I - 1530.: 9/2/03 ' Ravine Dr 16+30 Village 228.0 . 9.6 122.6 91.5 ND - - 1531 9/2/03 . Ravine Dr 4+50 Village X 222.0 9.1 122.2 91.2 ND. - - 1532 9/2/03 Ravine Dr 2+90 Village 210.0 . 9.4 126.6 94.5 iND .11 1533. 9/2/03 . Ravine Dr 11+20 Village 200.0 8.7 126.0 94.0 ND ' - 1534 .9/2/03 RavineDr16+90 VillageX 231.0 8.8 122.2 91.2 ND - - 1535 9/2/03 Ravine Dr15+20 . VillageX 1 229.0 9.3 125.6 93.7 ND - - 1536 9/2/03 RavineDr13+50 VillageX 217.0 9.9 121.7 90.8 ND - 1537 9/2/03 RavineDr12+00 VillageX 207.0 9.8 122.1 91.1 ND I - 1538 9/3/03 FrontLot13 Village X 250.0 9.6 127.4 95.1 ND - - 1539: 9/3/03 FrontLot16 VillageX 244.0 -9.9 125.6 93.7 ND - - 1540 9/3/03 FrontLot18 VillageX 234.0 9.2 125.8 93.9 ND - 1541 9/3/03 .Front Lot 13 Village 256.0 8.8 123.0 91.8 ND l 1542 9/3/03 .Front Lot 15 __. VillageX 248.0 9.5 124.1 92.6 ND - - - 1543 . 9/3/03 --. _Front Lot 17 ____- VillageX 239.0 .92 123.7 92.3 ND. I - - 1544 9/3/03 ''Front Lot 19. _. . VillageX 231.0 8.9 125.8 93.9 .ND I - 1545 9/3/03 Lot 74 _. VillageX 247.0 .10.8 126.2 94.2 ND. 1546 9/3/03 ..-Lot 73 Village 251.0 9.6 125.7 93.8 ND 1547. 9/3/03 . _Lot 72 '. VillageX 256.0 .11.2 124.9 93.2 ND 1548 9/3/03 Lot 71 Village 260.0 10.4 125.7 93.8 ND 1549 9/3/03 Lot 70 Village 264.0 10.0 126,8 94.6 I. 1555. 9/5/03 . Lot 19 Village .234.0 9.6 124.4 92.8 l 1556 9/5/03 Lot 18 Village 239.0 .9.1 125.4 93.6 I ENbD 1557 9/5/03 'Lot17 -VillageX 243.0 9.0 126.6 94.5 .1558 9/5/03 - Lot16 Village 1 247.0 8.8 122.1 91.1 ND 1559. 9/5/03 Lot 15 VillageX 252.0 . 9.9 120.9 . 90.2 ND - Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS .TEST::: NO :: dEtEV % OR DEPTH (It) CONTENT (°h) DENSLTY (pci) COMP (%) :.JES.iL METHOD TYPE 1560 9/5/03 Lot 14 Village 255.0 10.2 121.7 90.8 ND I 1561 1 9/5/03 Lot 13 Village 258.0 9.1 122.1 91.1 ND I 1562 9/5/03 Lot 13 Village X 260.0 9.8 . 121.8 90.9 Sc I 1572 9/8/03 Front Lot 95 Village 234.0 8.6 124.4 92.8 ND I 1573 9/8/03 Front Lot 90 Village X 230.0 9.2 124.2 92,7 ND 1574 9/8/03 Front Lot 87 Village X 222.0 9.9 126.4 94.3 ND 1575 1 9/8/03 Front Lot 85 Village X 217.0 9.1 124.8 93.1 ND 1592 9/12/03 . Rear Lot 25 Village 182.0 10.1 119.1 90.9 ND C 1593 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 172.0 10 121.3 92.6 ND C 1594* 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 1 186.0 113 _111.1 84.8 ND G 1594A 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 186.0 11.5 118.7 90.6 ND C 1595 9/12/03 Rear Lot 25 Village 190.0 12.2 122.5 93.5 ND C 1596 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 196.0 12.0 120.8 92.2 ND C 1597 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 199.0 11.1 123.8 94.5 ND C 1598 9/12/03 Rear Lot 25 Village 201.0 10.6 119,3 91.1 ND C 1599 9/12/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 209.0 10.1 118.8 90.7 ND C 1600 9/12/03 Lot 80 Village 212.0 10.8 122.3 91.3 Sc 1601 9/12/03 Lot 83 Village X 209.0 9.1 125.8 93.9 ND l 1602 9/12/03 Lot 85 Village X 1 218.0 8.6 124.8 93.1 ND 1603 9/12/03 Lot 81-82 Village 212.0 9.9 124.4 92.8 ND 1616* 9/16/03 Lot 86 Village 221.0 6.7 114.2 85.2 Sc J 1616A 9/16/03 Lot 86 Village 221.0 9,3 122.1 91.1 Sc J 1617 9/16/03 Lot 87 Village 223.0 8.7 121.8 90.9 ND J 1618 9/16/03 Lot 88 Village 1 227.0 8.8 122.2 91.2 ND J 1619 9/16/03 Lot 87 Village 225.0 9.5 125.8 93.9 ND J 1620 9/16/03 Lot 90 Village 233.0 9.3 121.5 90.7 . ND J 1625 9/18/03 Lot 19 Village X 235.0 9.3 122.9 91.7 Sc J 1626 9/18/03 Lot 92 Village 236.0 8.7 124.4 92.8 Sc J 1627 9/18/03 Lot 93-94 Village 237.0 9.9 124.0 92.5 Sc J 1628 9/18/03 Lot 95 Village 239.0 9.3 125.3 93.5 SC. J 1629 9/18/03 Rear Lot 24 Village 210.0 9.9 121.4 92.7 ND G 1630 9/19/03 Lot 76 Village FG 9.4 126.8 94.6 ND J 1631 9/19/03 Lot 75 Village FG 9.9 27.6 - 95.2 ND J 1632 9/19/03 Lot 74 Village FG 8.6 26.1 - 94.1 ND J 1633 9/19/03 Lot 73 Village X FG 8.2 . 126.2 94.2 ND J 1634 9/19/03 Lot 72 Village X FG 10.4 123.4 92.1 ND 1635 9/19/03 Lot 71 Village X FG 9.3 125:7 93.8 ND J 1636 9/19/03 Lot 17 Village X FG 8.7 127.2 94.9 ND J .1637 9/19/03 . Lot 16 Village X FG 8.6 122.2 91.2 ND J 1638 9/19/03 Lot 15 Village FG 8.0 122.1 91.1 ND J 1639 9/19/03 Lot 14 Village X FG 9.2 125.4 93.6 ND J 1640 9/19/03 Lot 13 Village X FG 8.4 123.3 92.0 ND J 1641 9/22/03 Lot 22 Village 210.0 8.9 124.5 92.9 ND J 1642 9/22/03 Lot 21 Village 232.0 10.6 122.1 91.1 ND j- 1643 9/22/03 Lot 24 Village 212.0 8.7 125.6. 1 93.7 ND J Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:\exceF\tables\3100tb1.xls GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS No .................. lEST LOC4TlON'' YIUI\GE :ELEV OR DEPTH (ft) CONTENT (%) DENSITY (pcf) COMP (%) METhOD SOIL TYPE 1644 9/22/03 Lot 22 Village 217.0 9.3 121.4 90.6 ND J 1645 9/22/03 Lot 23 Village 216.0 9.9 122.1 91.1 ND J 1646 9/22/03 Lot 25 Village 216.0 9.7 123.5 92.2 ND J 1647 9/22/03 Lot 24 Village 215.0 8.9 120.9 90.2 ND J 1648 9/22/03 Rear Lot 21 Village 205.0 8.2 124.6 93.0 ND J 1649 9/22/03 Rear Lot 20 Village X 220.0 8.1 122.7 91.6 ND J 1650 9/22/03 Rear Lot 19 Village 227.0 9.3 21.9 - 91.0 ND .J 1651 9/22/03 Rear Lot 18-19 Village 213.0 9.6 124.4 92.8 ND J 1652 9/22/03 Rear Lot 18 Village 230.0 8.7 127.8 95.4 ND J 1653 9/22/03 ' Rear Lot 16 Village 240.0 8.0 122.3 91.3 ND J 1654 '9/22/03 : Rear Lot 17 Village X 225.0 8.5 122.9 91.7 ND J 1666 9/23/03 ' Rear Lot 22 Village 200.0 8.0 120.9 90.2 ND J 1667 9/23/03 Rear Lot 23 Village 210.0 8.2 120.7 90.1 ND J 1668 9/23/03 Rear Lot 23 Village 204.0 8.3 120.7 90.1 ND J - 669 9/24/03 ' Rear Lot 14 Village 251.0 9.2 122.7 91.6 ND J - 670 9/24/03 Rear Lot 15 Village X 245.0 8.6 124.0 92.5 ND J 671 9/24/03 Rear Lot 117 Recreation Lot, Village 145.0 11.3 115.6 90.3 ND B 1672 9/24/03 Rear Lot i 17 Recreation Lot Village X 162.0 10.5 -' 116.4 90.9 ND B 1673 9/24/03 Rear Lot 117 Recreation Lot Village 150.0 13.6 111.7 92.7 ND A 1674 9/24/03 Rear Lot 117 Recreation Lot Village 172.0 10.9 117.1 91.5 ND B 1707 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 24 Village X 193.0 8.7 125.6 93.7 ND J 1708 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 25 Village X 203.0 8.2 122.5 91.4 ND J 1709 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 25 Village 210.0 9.3 123.1 91.9 ND J 1710 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 26 Village 195.0 9.9 124.0. 92.5 ND J 1711 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 27 Village 205.0 10.2 121.7 90.8 ND J 1712 9/29/03 ' Slope Rear Lot 28 Village 202.0 9.8 121.8 90.9 ND J 1713 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 77 Village X 230.0 10.2 122.1 91.1 ND J 1714 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 76 Village X 233.0 9.0 122.7 91.6 ND J 1715 9/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 75 Village X 239.0 8.6 121.8 90.9 ND J 1725 10/6/03 , Lot 19 Village X 235.0 9.8 124.2 92.7 ND J 1726 10/6/03 Lot 21 Village X 225.0 10.2 123.0 91.8 ND J 1727 10/6/03 Lot 23 Village 219.0 9.1 124.9 93.2 ND J 1728 0/6/03 Lot 24 Village 217.0 8.6 121.3 90.5 ND J 1729 0/6/03 Lot 20 Village X 230.0 ' 8.2 122.1 91.1 ND J 1730 10/6/03 Lot 22 Village 222.0 9.5 121.5 90.7 ND J 1731 10/6/03 Lot 24 Village 219.0 9.9 121.8 90.9 ND J 1732 10/6/03 Lot 25 Village 217.0 9.4 125.2 93.4 ND J 1733 - 0/6/03 Lot 26 Village 212.0 10.0 120.7 90.1 ND T- 1734 10/8/03 Lot 77 Village X FG 9.6 125.4 93.6 ND J 1735 10/8/03 Lot 18 ' Village X FG 8.2 126.2 94.2 ND J 1736 10/8/03 Lot 19 Village FG 8.8 128.0 95.5 ND J 1737 10/8/03 Lot 95 Village X FG 9.9 126.2 94.2 ND J 1738 .10/8/03 Lot 94 Village X FG 9.4 '127.0 94.8 ND J 1739 10/8/03 Lot 93 Village FG 10.6 122.3 '91.3 ND J 1740 10/8/03 Lot 92 ' VillageX FG 10.1 125.3 93.5 ND J Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:1kexcel\tables\31001b1.xls GeoSoils, Inc. Page 6 Table FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS 0 10 . All C DEPI l(ft lIEQI$rtJRE CONTENT (°h) DENSIfl (pcf) cc (l SJ:: ME rHoc rYPE 1741 10/8/03 Lot 22 Village 212.0 8.1 22.1 - 91.1 ND J 1742 10/8/03 Lot 24 Village 211.0 8.3 21.7 - 90.8 ND .. J 1743 10/9/03 Lot 91 Village X FG 9.0 24.5 - 92.9 ND ' J 1744 10/9/03 Lot 90 . Village X FG 8.7 125.7 93.8 ND J 1745 10/9/03 Lot 89 Village FG 8.8 125.4 93.6 ND J 1746 10/9/03 , Lot 88 Village FG 8.9 127.8 95.4 ND ' J 1747 10/9/03 . . Lot 87 Village X FG 10.3 126.9 94.7' ND J .1748 10/9/03. ' Lot 86 Village X FG 9.6 128.5 95.9 ND 'J 1749 10/9/03 Lot 85 Village X FG 9.0 124,6 93.0 ND J 1750,, 10/9/03 :' Lot 84 Village X FG 8.3 123.5 92.2 ND J 1751 10/9/03 Lot 83 Village X FG 8.1' 128.1 95.6 ND J :1752 10/9/03 Lot 82 ' Village X FG 8.0 126.2 94.2 ND J- 1753 10/13/03 Lot 55' ' Village 238.0 10.8 127.0 94.8 ND J 1754 10/13/03 Lot 55 , Village 240.0 9.9 124.6 93.0 ND J - 755 10/13/03 ' Lot 56 Village 244.0 9.6 ' 124.1 . 92.6 , ND J - 756 10/13/03 Lot 56 Village X 1 245.0 10.8 124.9 93.2 ' ND ' ' -J - 757 10/13/03 - ' Lot 57 Village 247.0 11.3 127,0 94.8 758 10/13/03 Lot 58 Village 253.0 ' 9.6 126.8 94.6 ND . 1759 10/13/03 Lot 57 Village 249.0 8.7' 128.5 95.9 ND . J 1760 10/13/03 ,. Lot 58 Village 253.0 9.3 125.8 93.9 ND J 1761 '10/13/03 . Lot 59 Village 57.0 9.8 124.8 93.1 ND J 1762 10/13/03 Lot 59 _. Village 259.0 9.1 124,1 92.6 ND J 1763 10/13/03 Lot 60 ' Village 261.0 10.0 123.4 92.1 ND. J 1793 10/20/03 Lot 20 . Village FG '9.8 122.7 91.6 ' ND J 1794 10/20/03 Lot 21 ' Village I FG ' 9.1 124.9 93.2 ND ' J 1795 10/20/03 ' Lot 22 . Village FG 10.0 126.0 94.0 ' ND J 1796 10/20/03 Lot 23 Village FG 9.7 122.1 91.1 ND . J 1797 10/20/03 Lot 24 Village FG 9.4 123.0 91.8 ND J 1798 10/20/03 Lot 25 Village FG 9.9 124.5 .92.9' Sc 1799 10/21/03 Lot 54 Village 235.0 9.6 124.9 93.2 ND, 1800 10/21/03 . Lot 52 Village 225.0 9.1 - 122.7 91.6 ND J 1801 .10/21/03 Lot 64 Village 262.0 9.0 124.0 92.5 ND 1802 10/21/03 Lot 60 Village 262.0 10.4 124.1 ' 92.6 ND. J' 1803, 10/21/b3 Lot 64 Village X 264.0 10.2 125.8 93.9 ND J 1804 '10/21/03 . Lot 51 Village 222.0 .10.9 120.9 90.2 ND '1805 10/21/03 Slope Fill to Rear Lot 51 Village 204.0 '9.0 122.7 91.6 ND ' J- 1806 10/21/03 Slope Fill to Rear Lot 50 Village X 206.0 9.9 120.7 . 90.1 ND . J. 1807 10/21/03 ' Slope Fill to Rear Lot 51 Village 210.0 9.4 26.9 - 94.7 ND' J 1808 10/21/03 Slope Fill to Rear Lot 51 Village 213.0 10.8 128.0 95.5 ND '' 1809 10/21/03 Slope Fill to Rear Lot 50 Village 215.0 ' 10.6 21.8' 90.9 'ND J .1810 10/21/03 Slope Fill to Rear Lot 52 Village X 219.0 ' 9.4 124.4 92.8 ND J 1811 10/22/03 ., Lot 50 , Village 218.0 10.1 123.5 92.2 ' ND J 1812 10/22/03 ' Lot 48 ' . Village 215.0 9.1 122.5 91.4 ' ND 1813 10/22/03 Lot 53 . VillageX 231.0 9.3 122.6 1 91.5 ND J 1814 10/22/03 , . ' .' Lot 52, . Village X 227.0 9.0 125.7 1 93.8 ND . J 'Calavera Hills.11, LLC Calavera Hills II, Village X File: C:\excel\tables\3100tbtxls W.O. 3459-131. August 2.004 Page 7 0' ' ' Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS NO V. OR DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD Sil TYPE 1815 10/22/03 Lot 54 Village 236.0 10.8 124.0 92.5 ND J FS-1843 11/3/03 Rear Lot 60 Village 254.0 9.1 122.1 91.1 1 ND J FS-1844 11/3/03 Rear Lot 59-60 Village 259.0 8.4 127.0 94.8 ND J FS-1 845 11/3/03 Rear Lot 59-60 Village 248.0 8.9 126.9 94.7 ND J FS-1 846 11/3/03 Rear Lot 58 Village 250.0 8.8 123.7 92.3 ND J FS-1847 11/3/03 Rear Lot 57 Village 236.0 9.3 124.6 93.0 ND J FS-1 848 11/3/03 Rear Lot 56 Village 240.0 9.9 129.6 96.7 ND J FS-I 849 11/3/03 Rear Lot 54-55 Village X 226.0 8.4 122.6 91.5 ND J FS-1850 11/3/03 Rear Lot 53 Village 227.0 8.9 123.0 91.8 ND J FS-1851 11/3/03 Rear Lot 52 Village 219.0 8.3 124.0 92.5 ND J 1903 11/21/03 Lot 98 Village 236.0 8.0 127.2 94.9 ND J 1904 11/21/03 Lot 101 Village 231.0 8.2 125.6 93.7 1 ND J 1905 11/21/03 Lot 103 Village 224:0 8.4 124.5 93.2 ND J 1910 11/26/03 Lot 105 Village 215.0 8.2 122.7 91.6 ND J 1911 11/26/03 Lot 107 Village 211.0 9.1 124.5 92.9 ND J 1912 11/26/03 Lot 99 Village 238.0 9.2 125.2 93.4 ND J 1913 1 11/26/03 Lot 102 Village 229.0 9.6 122.1 91.1 ND J 1914 11/26/03 Lot 104 Village 219.0 9.4 121.7 90.8 ND J 1915 11/26/03 Lot 106 Village 213.0 9.0 122.6 91.5 ND J 1916 12/1/03 Lot 100 Village 235.0 8.2 126.2 94.2 ND J 1917 12/1/03 Lot 101 Village 234.0 8.9 122.7 91.6 ND J 1918 12/1/03 Lot 103 Village 226.0 9.6 124.2 92.7 ND J 1919 12/1/03 Lot 107 Village 213.0 9.1 124.6 93.0 ND J 1920 12/1/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 12+90 Village 249.0 8.2 123.8 92.4 ND J 1920' 12/1/03 Lot 105 Village 216.0 9.1 122.2 91.2 ND J 1921 12/1/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 14+50 Village 234.0 8.7 129.3 96.5 ND J 1922 12/1/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 16+50 Village 221.0 8.1 127.0 94.8 ND J 1922' 12/1/03 Crater Rim Rd Village 206.0 9.2 125.7 93.8 ND J 1923 12/1/03 Lot 50 Village 214.0 8.2 127.4 95.1 ND J 1924 12/3/03 Crater Rim Rd 13+75 Village X 206.0 9.2 123.4 92.1 ND J - 1925 12/3/03 Crater Rim Rd 11+60 Village 209.0 8.7 129.3 96.5 ND 1926 12/3/03 Crater Rim Rd 12+90 Village 210.0 10.3 124.6 93.0 ND J 1927 12/3/03 Crater Rim Rd 15-1-00 Village X 205.0 9.1 124.0 92.5 ND J 1928 12/3/03 Crater Rim Rd 16+00 Village 204.0 9.8 122.1 91.1 ND J 1929 12/3/03 Between Lots 45&46 Village 194.0 8.9 125.7 93.8 ND J 1940 12/16/03 Lot 115 Village 220.0 8.5 121.7 90.8 ND J 1941 12/16/03 Lot 113 Village 214.0 9.6 122.5 91.4 ND J 1942 12/16/03 Lot 111 Village 210.0 9.1 122.2 91.2 ND J 1943 12/16/03 Lot 109 Village 208.0 9.0 121.4 90.6 ND J 1944 12/16/03 Lot 109 Village 207.0 8.7 120.7 90.1 ND J 1945 12/16/03 Lot 110 Village 210.0 9.9 121.8 90.9 ND J 1946 12/16/03 Lot 112 Village 212.0 10.2 124.0 92.5 ND J 1947 12/16/03 Lot 115 Village 223.0 8.5 126.9 94.7 ND J 1948 12/16/03 1 12/16/03,Lot Lot 115 Village 226.0 8.2 125.4 1 93.6 ND J 1949 114 Village 219.0 9.4 121.3 1 90.5 ND J Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\3100tbLxls GeoSouls, Inc. Page 8 F Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS NO GE OR DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY (pct) PT R9 .;$'QII COMF (%) METHOt ______ TYPE - 1950 12/16/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 16+00 Village 225.0 8.1 124.8 93.1 ND J- 1951 12/16/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 19+00 Village 209.0 8.0 124.2 92.7 ND I J 1952 12/16/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 20+30 Village 205.0 8.6 123.5 92.2 ND J 1953 12/18/03 Pump Station Village 201.0 8.4 125.7 93.8 ND -j- 1954 12/18/03 Recreation Lot 117 Village X 197.0 9.9 124.2 92.7 ND 1955 12/18/03 Pump Station Village 203.0 10.2 126.6 .94.5 ND J 1956 12/18/03 Recreation Lot 117 Village 200.0 9.8 128.9 96.2 1 ND J 1957 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 13+00 Village 190.0 11.3 122.1 91.1 ND J 1958 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 11+00 Village 194.0 8.7 121.3 90.5 ND J 1959 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 11+50 Village 1096.0 9.6 125.2 93.4 ND J 1960 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 10+50 Village 199.0 9.9 1.24.2 92.7 ND J 1961' 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 11+75 Village 200.0 9.8 . 128.6 .96.0 ND J 1962 12/18/03 Choker Rift Rd 10+75 Village 204.0 8.9 127.4 95.1 ND. J 1963 12/18/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 19+50 Village X 206.0 8.4 26.5 - 94.4 ND J 1964 12/19/03 Lot 45 Village 195.0 9.3 22.7 - 91.6 ND J 1965 12/19/03 Lot 43 Village 192.0 9.2 24.9 - 93.2 ND J 1966 12/19/03 Lot 42 Village 196.0 8.7 122.1 91.1 ND J 1967 12/19/03 Lot 45 Village 196.0 10.4 122.5 91.4 ND J 1968 12/19/03 Lot 44 Village X ' 195,0 9.9 129.6 96.7 ND J 1969 12/19/03 Lot 43 Village 195.0 8.4 130.7 97.5 ND J 1970 12/19/03 . Lot 41 Village 196.0 9.6 127.6 95.2 ND J 1971 12/19/03 Recreation Lot 116 Village 204,0 9.1 127.0 94.8 1 .ND J 1972 12/19/03 Lot 46 Village 199.0 8.5 131.6 98.2 ND J 1973 2/19/03 Lot 47 Village 203.0 8.1 128.8 96.1 . ND J 1974 12/19/03 Lot 46 . Village 201.0 8.2 124.2 92.7 . ND J 1975 2/19/03 Recreation Lot 116 Village X 208.0 9.6 122.6 91.5 ND J 1976 12/19/03 Lot 48 Village 206.0 8,8 124.8 93.1 ND j- 1977 12/19/03 Lot 47 Village 204.0 8.9 123.5 92.2 ND J 1978 12/19/03 Recreation Lot 116 Village 211.0 10.0 127.4 95.1 ND J 1979 12/22/03 Rift Rd 13+00 Village X 190.0 8.2 124.2 92.7 ND . J 1980 12/22/03 Rift Rd 11+20 Village 203.0 9.7 . 123.7 92.3 ND J 1981 12/22/03 Rift Rd 12+60 Village 193.0 9.9 127.0 94.8 ND J 1982 . 12/22/03 Rift Rd 10+50 Village 205.0 8.4 122.1 91.1 ND J 1983 12/22/03 Side Lot 45 Village 195.0 8.7 121.4 90.6 ND J 1984 12/22/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 17+50 Village 213.0 8.2 129.2 96.4 ND J 1985 12/23/03 Crater Rim Rd 17+50 Village 201.0 8.9 123.3 92.0 ND J 1986 12/23/03 Crater Rim Rd 18+60 Village 194.0 9.7 123.7 92.3 ND 1987 12/23/03 Crater Rim Rd End Cul de Sac Village X 191.0 9.2 122.9 91.7 ND J 1988 12/23/03 Crater Rim Rd 18+50 Village X 196.0 10.4 129.2 96.4 ND J 1989 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 12+50 Village X 251.0 8.5 126.1 94,1 ND J 1990 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 14+00 Village 236.0 8.1 125.3 93.5 ND S 1991 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 15+50 Village 228.0 9.3 121.5 90.7 1 ND J 1992 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 13+30 Village X 246.0 8.7 121.4 90.6 ND J 1993 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 15+00 Village 235.0 8.8 122.1 91.1 ND 1994 12/23/03 Gentle Knoll Rd 13+50 Village 244.0 9.0 124.0 92.5 ND LI Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\3100tb1.xls GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS :!1ES1' NO VtLiGE OR DEPTH (if) ........................... CONTENT (%) DENSITY pcf) ::REL COMP (%) METHOD :SclI. TYPE 2015 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 71-72 Village 237.0 8.8 122.1 91.1 ND J 2016* 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 70 Village X 240.0 9.7 117.9 88.0 ND J 2016A 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 70 Village 240.0 9.4 121.8 90.9 ND J 2017 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 71 Village . 241.0 9.2 124.9 93.2 ND J 2018 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 68-69 Village 244.0 9.6 122.6 91.5 ND J 2019 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 70 Village X 246.0 8.8 120.7 90.1 ND J 2020 12/29/03 Slope Rear Lot 67 Village X 260.0 8.2 122.9 91.7 ND J 2029 12/30/04 Lot 96 Village 256.0 9.8 124.9 93.2 ND , 2030 12/30/04 Lot 96 Village 258.0 9.6 121.8 90.9 ND J 2031 12/30/04 Lot 100 Village X FG 8.2 128.5 95.9 ND J 2032 12/30/04 Lot 101 Village X FG 8.4 129.0 96.3 ND J 2033 12/30/04 Lot 102 . Village X FG 8.2 128.4 95.8 ND J 2034 12/30/04 Lot 103 Village X FG 8.1 130.4 97.3 ND J 2035 1/2/04 Lot 78 Village FG 8,4 125.8 93.9 ND J 2036 1/2/04 Lot 79 Village FG 9.6 122.9 91.7 ND J 2037 1/2/04 Lot 80 Village X FG 8.7 129.2 96.4 ND J 2038 1/2/04 Lot 81 Village X FG 8.2 124.0 92.5 ND J 2039 1/2/04 Lot 60 Village FG 8.0 122.1 91.1 ND J 2040 1/2/04 - Lot 59 Village X FG 7.8 125.6 93.7 ND J 2041 1/2/04 Lot 58 Village FG 8.9 125.2 93.4 1 ND J 2042 1/2/04 Lot 57 Village FG 9.3 125.7 93.8 ND J 2043 1/2/04 Lot 56 Village FG 9.11 127.8 95.4 ND J 2044 1/2/04 Lot 55 Village FG 8.4 126.9 94.7 ND 'J .2045 1/2/04 Lot 54 Village FG 9.1 127.3 95.0 ND ' J'. 2046 1/2/04 Lot 53 ' Village X FG 8.0 126.1 94,1 ND J 2047 1/2/04 Lot 52 Village FG 8.8 26.9 - 94.7 ND J 2048 1/2/04 Lot 98 Village FG 8.2 129.6 , 96.7 ND J 2049 1/2/04 Lot 99 Village X FG 8.9 30.5 - 97.4 ND J 2050 1/2/04 Lot 51 - Village FG 8.2 . 24.9 93.2 ND J 2051 1/2/04 Lot 50 ' Village FG 8.3 25.2 ' - 93.4 ND J 2052. 1/2/04 Lot 49 Village FG 8.7 26.8 - 94,6 ND J 2053 1/2/04 Lot 104 Village X FG 8.5 ' 28.5 - . 95.9 ND J 2063 1/7/04 _' ' _Lot 27 Village 212.0 8.2 127.5 .93.4 ND 'N. 2064 1/7/04 Lot 29 Village 210.0 8.9 126.7 92.8 ND 2065 1/7/04 Lot 31 . Village 210.0 9.6 - 26.8 92.9 ND . N 2066 1/7/04 Lot 33 . Village 209.0 9.2 25.2 - 91.7 ND N 2067 1/7/04 Lot 26 Village 214.0 8.4 126.4i - 92.6 . ND N 2068 1/7/04 Lot 28 Village 212.0 8.9 . 29.0 94.5 ND N 2069 1/7/04 Lot 30 - . Village 211.0 9.9 127.5 93.4 ND N 2070 1/7/04 Lot 32 ' Village 210.0 9.3 23.7 - 90.6 ND N 2071 1/7/04 Lot 34 Village 209.0 9.7 24.4, - 91.1 ND N 2075 1/8/04 Lot 42 Village . FG 9.3 23.0 - 91.8 ND J 2076 1/8/04 . Lot 43 ' Village X FG 8.6 128.9 96.2 ND ' J 2077 1/8/04 Lot 44 Village FG . 8.2 126.1 94.1 ND J 2078 1/8/04 . . Lot 45 Village FG 8.9 126.4 94.3 ND J Calavera Hills II, LLC - W.O.3459-B1-SC , Calavera Hills II, Village X ,,.August 2004- H File: C:\excel\tables\3100tbl.xls , , . . GeoSoils, Inc. Page 10 Table FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS NO D'E OR DEPTH (ft) CONTENT (%) DENSITY COMP METHOD 'ScI:il TYPE 2079 1/8/04 Lot 46 Village FG 9.4 124.5 92.9 ND J 2080 1/8/04 Lot 47 Village FG ' 8.7 125.6 93.7 ND J 2081 "1/8/04 Lot 48 Village X FG 8.2 125.2 93.4 ND J 2082 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 116 Village X FG 8.5 129.6 96.7 ND J 2083 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 117 Village X FG 9.9 126.6 94.5 ND J 2084 1/8/04 ' Recreation Lot 105 Village X FG 8.1 126.9 93.3 ND N 2085 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 106 Village X FG 8.0 134.2 98.7 ND N 2086 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 107 Village FG 7.9 130.6 96.0 ND N 2087 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 108 Village X FG , 8.3 129.7 95.4 ND N 2088 1/8/04 Recreation Lot 115 Village X FG 8.5 128.2 94.3 ND N 2098 1/12/04 Lot 114 Village FG 7.9 126.1 92.7 ND N 2099' 1/12/04 Lot 113 Village FG 8.2 126.8 93.2 .ND R- 2100 1/12/04 Lot 112 Village X FG 8.4 131.2 96.5 ND N 2101 1/12/04 Lot 111 Village FG 8.3 128.1 94.2 ND N 2102 1/12/04 Lot 110 Village FG 8.1 123.5 90.8 ND N 2103 1/12/04 Lot 109 Village FG 80.0 125.0 91.9 ND N 2104 1/12/04 , Lot 34 Village ' FG 8.6 123.2 90.6 ND N 2105 1/12/04 Lot 33 Village FG 8.7 131.5 96.7 ND N 2106 1/12/04 ' Lot 32 Village FG 8.0 123.6 90.9 ND N 2107 1/12/04 ' Lot 31 Village FG 8.5 128.4 94.4 ND N 2108 1/12/04 Lot 30 Village FG ' 7.9 127.7 93.9 ND N 2109 1/12/04 ' Lot 29 , Village FG 8.4 123.4 90.7 ND N 2110 1/12/04 Lot 28 Village FG 8.3 126.1 92.7 ND ,N 2111 1/12/04 Lot 27 Village FG 8.9 126.3 '92.9 ND N 2112 1/12/04 Lot 26 Village FG 8.4 125.5 ' 92.3 ND N 2137 1/21/04 ' , Lot 35 Village FG 8.8 126.2 92.8 ND N 2138 1/21/04 ' Lot 38 Village 205.0 9.6 , 126.3 92.9 'ND N 2139 1/21/04 Lot 37 Village X . 207.0 9.9 130.2 95.7 ND N 2140 1/21/04 Lot 41 Village FG 8.2 , 131.4 96.6 ND N 2141 1/21/04 , Lot 36 Village FG 8.0' 129.6 95.3 ND , 'N 2142 1/21/04 . Lot 37 Village FG 8.9 • 133.6 , 98.2 ND N 2143 1 1/21/04 ' Lot 38 ' Village FG , 9.7 124.4 91.5 ND N 2144 '1/21/04 Lot 39 ' Village FG , 9.0 128.2 94.3 ' ND N 2145 '1/21/04 . Lot40 Village FG 8.8 129.2 95.0 ND N 2146 1/22/04 Lot 66 Village 269.0 8.9 ' 128.0 94.8 ND N 2396 3/17/04 Lot 8 Village X FG 8.2 123.9 92.4 ND J 2397 3/17/04 Lot 9 Village X FG 8.6 124.2 92.6 ND J 2398 3/17/04 Lot 10 VillageX FG 8.4 125.0 93.2 ND J 2399 3/17/04 Lot 11 ' Village FG 8.8 , 123.1 91.8 ND J. 2402 3/18/04 Lot 65 Village 268.0 -8.2 126.4 94.3 ND J 2403 '3/22/04 Lot 61 VillageX FG 8.1 126.4 94.3 ND - J 2404 3/22/04 Lot 62 Village FG 8.0 124.4 92.8 ND J 2405 3/22/04 Lot 63 Village FG 8.8 124.1 92.6 ND J 2406 3/22/04 ''Lot 64 Village FG 8.6 123.1 91.9. ND J 2407 3/22/04 Lot 65 Village FG 8.2 126.0 94.0 ND J Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\31oOtbl.xls GeoSouls, Inc. Page 1,1 'ri Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS NO OR DEPTH (ftj CONTENT (%) DENSITY (pct) COMP METHOI%) TYPE 2408 3/22/04 Lot 66 Village X FG 9.0 129.6 96.7 ND J 2409 1 3/22/04 Lot 67 Village X FG 9.1 123.5 92.2 1 ND J 2410 3/22/04 Lot 68 Village X. FG 8.7 125.3 93.5 ND J 2411 3/22/04 Lot 69 Village X FG 9.3 132.1 98.6 ND J 2412 3/22/04 Lot 70 Village X FG 9.2 127.8 95.4 ND J 2413 3/22/04 Lot 96 Village X FG 8.0 125.6 93.7 ND J 2414 1 3/22/04 Lot 97 Village X FG 8.2 124.9 93.2 ND J 2415 3/23/04 Lot 12 Village X FG 8.8 126.2 92.8 ND N 2416 3/23/04 Lot Village FG 8.1 128.7 94.6 ND N 2417 3/23/04 Lot 6 Village X FG 8.9 129.5 95.2 ND N 2418 3/23/04 Lot 5 Village X FG 8.2 126.3 92.9 ND N 2419 3/23/04 Lot Village X FG 8.0 125.7 92.4 ND N 2435 3/25/04 Lot 1 Village X FG 8.9 128.9 94.8 ND N 2436 3/25/04 Lot 2 Village X FG 9.2 126.8 93.2 ND N 2437 3/25/04 Lot 3 Village X FG 9.1 125.3 92.1 ND N 2438 3/25/04 Rear Lot 79 (At Rear Wall) Village X 216.0 10.1 123.9 91.1 ND N 2439 3/25/04 Rear Lot 79 (At Rear Wall) Village 219.0 9.6 124.8 91.8 ND N LEGEND: '= Indicates Repeated Test Number * = Indicates Failed Test A = Indicates Retest FG = Finish Grade FS = ND = Nuclear Densometer SC = Sand Cone Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-Bi -SC Calavera Hills II, Village X August 2004 File: C:\excel\tables\3100th1.xls GeoSoits, Inc. Page 12 I GeoSoils, Inc. LOT INDEX (per UBC Stànda)'6 2) EXPANSION eOTENT'iAL SOLUBLE SULFATE WelghL,e) i - SULFATE EXOSU 2L OF FILL (Range In J FOUtATION CEdbRY 1 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 :1 or l(PT) 2 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4, I or l(PT) 3 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 4 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 5 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3 4 I or I(PT) 6 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 7 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4 . I or l(PT) 8 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-8 I or I(PT) 9 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 4-10 I or l(PT) 10 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 6-17 II or I(PT) 11 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible B-20 Il or I(PT) 12 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 820 II or I(PT) 13 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 12-25 II or l(PT) 14 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 14-26 I or l(PT) 15 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 22-26 I or l(PT) 16 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 18-26 I or I(PT) 17 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 20-31 II or I(PT) 18 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 2031 II or l(PT) 19 <20 Very low <010 Negligible 3324 II or I(PT) 20 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible .23-42-1 II or l(PT) 21 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 27-37. II or I(PT) 22 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 25 42 II or I(PT) 23 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 29-39 Il or l(PT) 24 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 30-41.1 II or I(PT) 25 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 32-43 II or (PT) 26 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 27-38 II or I(PT) 27 <20 Very low <010 Negligible 1424 I or, l(PT) 28 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 6-17 I or I (PT) 29 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 5 14 I or l(PT) 30 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 3 8 I or I( F0 • PT" • INDEX (per UBC SLndad 1 ;2) EXPANSION OTENtjlAL' SOLUBLE It, SULfATE (Welght%), SULFATE EXQJE 2 DEPTH OF FILL (Range inEt.) FL1NbMlON CATEc,ORMQ1' 31 <20 Very low <0.10 Negligible 3-8 I or l(PT) 32 <20 Very low. <0.10 Negligible 3-8 I or, l(PT) 33 <20 Very low,' <0.10 Negligible 3-5 lorl(PT) 34 • <20 Very low <0.10 Negligible 3-5 I or l(PT) 35 <20 Very low <0.10 Negligible . 3-8 I or I(PT) 36 <20 Very low <0.10 Negligible 4-8 br l(PT) 37 <20 Very low <0.10 Negligible - 3-8 , I or l(PT) .. 38 • <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-6 br l(PT) 39 .- <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-8 'I or l(PT) 40 . <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible -3-8 . .lor l(PT) 41 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-9 • I or l(PT) 42 . <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-20 * II(PT) 43 • <20 . Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-17 . II(PT) 44 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-16 II(PT) 45 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible . 4-9 I or l(PT) 46 •• <20 VeryLow <0.10 Negligible 14-19 • lorl(PT) .47 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 12-17 I Or l(PT) 48 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 10-16 l.orl(PT) - 49 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 477 . '. I or b(PT) 50 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 7-20 . II or l(PT) 51 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible' 9-25 1 o l(PT) - 52 <20 Very Low • <0.10 Negligible 15-36 II or l(P1) 53 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 22-37 - II or l(PT). . 54 • • • <20 • Very Low < 0.10 Negligible 20-38 .. II or I(PT) - •. ' <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 20-43' II or l(PT) 56 . <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 22-40 . I or l(PT) 57 .. •' <20 ' Very Low <0.10 Negligible 17-41 llorl(PT)' - 58 <20 • - Very Low <0.10 Negligible • 15-35 , II or l(PT) 59 <20 Very Low - <0.10 Negligible . 10-31 •. AI(PT) 60 •: <20 • Very Low <0.10 Negligible 7-28 - II(PT) 61 - <20 Very Low .< CIM10 Negligible - - 41 . borl(PT) 62 <20 • Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 1r l(PT). LOJ INDEX (per UBC Standard2)j k EXPANSLON "PO1ENTIL,; EXPANSION,DEITH - SOLUBLE SULFATE (Wélht.%),. - SULFATE EXPSUBE OF FlLL (Range IEt.) 4 OU,RA1lON I 63 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 64 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 5-15 I or l(PT) 65 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 66 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 67 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 68 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 69 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or (PT) 70 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-8 I or I(PT) 71, <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-10 I or I(PT) 72 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 6-14 I or l(PT) 73 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 6-12 I or I(PT) 74 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 12-16 I or l(PT) 75 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 11-17 I or l(PT) 76 - <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 13-14 I or l(PT) 77 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 10-14 I or l(PT) 78 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 8-23 II or l(PT) 79 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 10-21 II or l(PT) 80 <20 Very Low <0.10' Negligible 4-16 1l(PT) 81 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 82 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 83 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 84 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 85 - <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 86 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 87 <20 - Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 88 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 89 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 90 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 91 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 92 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or I(PT) 93 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 94 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) Calavera Hills II, LLC Table 2 File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Ox INDEX (prUBC Standard 182) EPION rENiljlALY SOLUBLE SULFATE (Weigh °), PS.iJREt( OFFILL (Range inFL) . , - EGQRY1V .95 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or l(PT) 96 , <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or (PT) 97 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 For l(PT) 98 ' <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 I or (PT) 99 . <20. Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 . I or l(PT) 100 <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 : I or l(PT) -.1 , 01 , <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 I or l(PT) 102.•. . <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 1 or l(PT) .103 <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 I or 104 <20 Very Low in progress in progress 341 IorI(PT). 105 ' <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 .. .1 or I(PT) 106 ' <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 . I or I(PT) 107, <20 Very Low in progress in progress 3-4 I or l(PT) 108 , <20 - Very Low <0.10 Negligible ', 45 . , lorl(PT) 109 ' <20 - Very Low <0.10 Negligible 5-6 I or l(PT) 110 . . . <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 5-7 . . l or l(PT) 11,1 <20 ' VeryLow '<0.10 Negligible 5-6 . lorl(PT) 112 . <20 VeryLow <0.10 ' Negligible - 3-5 , ., lorl(PT) 113 • <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-5 , I or l(PT) 114 <20 Very Low <0.10 Negligible 4-6 - I or l(PT) 115 <20 , VeryLow ' <0.10 Negligible . 10-12 ' Ior,I(PT) 116 <20 Very Low . (recreation lot) <0.10 Negligible 13-24 ' Ilorl(PT) 117 (recreation lot) <20 Very Low . <0.10 . . Negligible ' . . ' 3-7 ' . l or l(PT) - 118 ' <20 - '(reclaimed water pump station) Very Low . <0.10 Negligible 8-20. II or l(PT) Per Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) Per Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) Foundations Ishould be constructed in accordance with recommendations for the specific categories noted above and prsented in the text of this report (PT recommendations) and Table 3. . I I TABLE3 NVENTIONALPERIMETER.FooTINGs, SLABS, AND ERIOR FLATWORK FOR CALAVERA HILLS, VILLAGE X MINIMUM INTERIOR INTERIOR UNDER- GARAGE IEXTERIOR FOL1DTJON FOOTING S1AB REINFORCING 4S LAB LAB SLA,B FITWORK -SIZE THIcKEss .STEL RE F- EME F9C1ENT 6R Q74 CING 12" Wide . 4' Thick #4 Bar Top and #3 Bars @ 2" Sand Over 6" x 6" None X Bottom 24" o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl (10/10) 12" Deep ' i-Both Directions Membrane Over WWF - - 2" Sand Base II 12" Wide 4" Thick -, #4 Bars Top and - #3 Bars @ 2" Sand Over 6" x 6" ; 6' x 6" - x - Bottom 18" o.c. - 10-Mil Polyvinyl ' (6/6) . (10/10) - 18" Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF WWF • - - - - 2" Sand Base Ill 12" Wide 4" Thick 2- #5 Bars Top and #3 Bars @ 2" Sand Over - - Same as . 6" x 6" - x Bottom 18" o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl Interior Slab (6/6) 24" Deep . Both Directions Membrane Over -. WWF - 2" Sand Base Category Criteria - Category I: • - Max: Fill Thickness is less than 20 and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50 and Differential Fill Thickness is less than 10 (see note 1). . Category II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 50 and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20 (see note 1). -' Category Ill Max Fill Thickness exceeds 50 Expansion Index exceeds 90 but is less than 130 Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20 (see note 1) Notes: 1.. Post tension (PT) foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 50', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1.- Consideration should be given to using post tension foundations where the expansion index exceeds 90 and/or fill thickness exceeds 30 - - - 2. -' Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. - - - ' 3. Allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 PSF. 4. -.- Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,000 PSI (2,500 PSI for exterior flatwork), or adopted UBC mm., at 28 days, using 5 sacks - of cement Maximum Slump shall be 5 - 5 Visqueen vapor barrier not required under garage slab However, consideration should be given to future uses of the slab area such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture sensitive materials 6 Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer s recommendations (see report).'. * . 7.. Sand used for base under slabs shall be very low expansive and have SE > 30 8. - Exterior flatwork should be placed over properly compacted subgráde: The sub-grade should be pre-wetted in accordance with redommendations for typical floor slabs, as presented in the text of this report. Additional flatwork recommendations could be provided upon your request. - • • • 7. All slabs should beprovided with weakened plane joints to control cracking. Joint spacing should be in accordance with corre. ct industry, standards and reviewed by . - - - the project structural engineer. - . - ' .; ,. , , . .- - - - • - ' - - . - • • • •- - •. • APPENDIX REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission, 2001, California building code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, Adopted November 1, 2002. GeoSoils, Inc., 2004a, Development criteria for Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-B1-SC, dated March 29. 2004b, Geotechnical review of documents, Village X of Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-131 -SC dated January 7. 2004c, Revised pavement design report, Calavera Hills II, Village X, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-E-SC, dated May 3. 2004d, Revised toe drain recommendations, Calavera Hills II, Village X, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-131-SC, dated March 5. 2003a, Geotechnical plan review, Wall construction plans for Calavera Hills II, Village X, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-Bi -SC, dated December 23. 2003b, Supplemental evaluation of allowable bearing value, Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-131-SC, dated July 1. 2003c, Memorandum: general discussion of fill quality, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3459-132-8C, dated May 20. 2003d, Recommendations regarding sideyard drainage swales, Villages E-1, H, K, L-2, U, W, X, V and Z, Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-B1-SC, dated June 18. 2002a, Preliminary segmental retaining wall soil parameters and wall design criteria, Calavera Hills Il, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-B1-SC, dated November 27 2002b, Review of grading and trench backfill recommendations, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad tract 00-02, Drawing 390-90, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, August 16. 1999, Update of geotechnical report, Calavera Hills, Village X, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2751-A-SC, dated October 22. GeoSoits, Inc. 1998a, Lack of paleontological resources, Carlsbad tract nos. 83-19, PUD 56, and 83-32, PUD 62, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated January 21. 1998b, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and Ill, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. 1998c, Review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "1," City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated June 24. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code. O'Day Consultants, 2003, Grading plans for: Calavera Hills II, Village X, Carlsbad Tract C.T. 01-06, Job No. 9820, Drawing No. 405-4A, print date August 22. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., 1990, Interim report of geotechnical investigation, Calavera Heights, Village W-X-Y, Tamarack Avenue and College Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 9021049, dated May 15. 1984, Summary of geotechnical investigation for Lake Calavera Hills, Villages E-1, E-2, H, K, L-2, L-3, Q, R, 5, T, U and W-X, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 14112, report no. 6., dated August 6. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., 1992, Interim report of as built geology field observations and relative compaction tests, proposed College Boulevard improvements and Village El, Carlsbad, California, SCS&T 9121081 1988, Supplemental soil investigation, Calavera Hills Village Q and T, College Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, Job no. 8821142, Report no.1, dated October 6. 1984, Summary of geotechnical investigation for Lake Calavera Hills, Villages E-1, E-2, H, K, L-2, L-3, 0, R, 5, T, U, and W-X, Carlsbad, California," W.O. 14112, Report No. 6., dated August 6. 1983, Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Calavera Hills areas El, E2, H, I, K, and P through Z2, Carlsbad, Job no. 14112, Report no.1, dated July 29. Calavera Hills II, LLC Appendix Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1.x.ror Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc.