Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-03; CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGES E-1; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2003-06-095, I Geotechnucal *Geologic* Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad California 92008 • (760)'438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 June 9, 2003 W.0. 3459-B-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 Attention Mr Don Mitchell Subject Report of Rough Grading, Calavera Hills, Village E-1, Lots 1 through 28, Carlsbad Tract 0103, City of 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 February, .2003, and was generally completed in May; 2003. ' 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 a separate cover. PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading was to prepare relatively level pads for the construction of 28 residential structures and access roadways. Cut-and-fill grading and drill-and-shoot blasting techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded configurations. Existing .topsoils and colluvium were removed to suitable bedrock material and recompaôted; Cut lots and the cut portion of transition lots were overexcavated in order to provide for more uniform foundation support and/orto facilitate construction Additionally, street areas were overexcavated to at least .1 foot 'below lowest utility . import elevation to facilitate 'imprOvement construction The grading plans for this portion of Calavera Hills,'Villàge E-1, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Inc., San Diego, dated February 13,2003, are 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 surlicial 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 GSl 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 C onditions and provide mitigative recommendations as necessary A discussion of near surface slope subdrainage is presented in our referenced report on the drains (GSl, 1998d) 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 of Carlsbad grading ordinance and the guidelines provided in the field by this office Observations during grading included removals, overexcavation and subdrain construction along with general grading procedures and placement of compacted fills by the contractor. Rough Grading Preparation of Existing Ground 1 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 2 Loose surflcial materials (i.e.,* existing topsoils, previously-placed fills, colluvium, older alluvium and near surface paleosols) were removed to expose competent bedrock in all areas to receive fill 3 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 CáiaveraHiiis ii, LLC ' . 0 , ..''. W.O. 3495-B-SC Calavera Hills Viiiage E-1 June 91' 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. foundation and utility construction Where possible, an attempt was made to-'lope the overexcavated bottom toward the street area Subdrainage of these areas does not appear necessary at this time 4 In order to facilitate utility construction, street areas exposing dense bedrock material were overexcavated to at least 1 foot below lowest utility insert 5 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 finish pad grade, and above local street elevations equivalent to approximately -1 .foot below the lowest utility invert elevation Blasting operations occurred within the street area in the general vicinity of Lots 1 through 9 6 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 6f,90 percent These areas were then brought to grade with fill compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction 6 All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1 through 4, 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 on 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 materials including processing of shot rock and oversize rock through a rock crusher. This process generally produced "6-inch minus" material, in accordance with guidelines presented in GSI (2002) Rock fills were not placed within this site 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 (2002) 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..This testing has been performed in order to determine 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 with at least 40 percent finer than 3/4 inch (GSl, 2003b) . •' . Caiavera Hills Ii, LLC •. • • . 1 . . . . . . . .. . . ••. . W.O. 3495BS0 • Calavera Hills, Village E-1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Slopes Planned Slopes In general, graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report should perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surficial stability, under normal conditions of irrigation (discussed later), and rainfall, provided that these slopes are properly maintained Fill slopes constructed under the purview of this report were provided with a keyway excavated into suitable bedrock material in general accordance with recommendations presented in Southern California Soils and Testing, Inc (SCSI, 1988) and as provided in 'the'field by this office. Cut slopes were constructed using cutand fill grading techniques and/or blasting, and exposed dense igneous and/or metavolcanic rock A detailed analysis Q slope stability has been completed under separate cover (GSl, 1998c) Temporary Slopes Temporary construction slopes may generally be constructed at a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal'. to vertical) or flatter in compacted fill, and 1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) in suitable bedrock. '. material (provided adverse geologic structures are not present). Utility trenches may be constructed 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 ,,'. . and stable rock (bedrock). Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within 5feetfrom 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 perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surficial stability, under normal conditions of irrigation and rainfall Field Testing . 1. .. Field density tests were performed using the sand cone method ASTM D-1556) 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 E-1 are presented in Table 1 at the end of this report The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the Compaction'. Test Location .Map, Plates .1 through 4, which utilize the 40 scale grading plans (sheets 4 through 7), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, San Diego, Inc, as a base map .2. 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 Calavera Hills ii, LLC. ': ' . ... ' . . '.. . . W.O. 3495-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village E-1 . '. . June 9, 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. :;:MA)clMljM:DRy: SOIL TYPE DENSITY (pcf) CONTENT (%) G Grayish Brown, Gravelly SAND 131.0 10.0 H Grayish Brown Gravelly. SAND (processed) 131.0 90 I Grayish Brown Gravelly Sand (processed) 134.0 85 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 I ) testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the UBC Representative expansion indices indicate that site soils near pad grade, within the subject lots, are very low to low expansive (E.1 <50) A summary of soil expansion results are presented in the attached Table 2 Soil Sulfate/Corrosion Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential Soil sulfate testing indicates that the sulfate exposure to concrete is negligible, in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the UBC (1997) Corrosion testing indicates moderately corrosive conditions for buried metal pipe in contact with soil for saturated conditions Test results are included in Appendix B Alternative methods and additional comments may be obtained from 'a. qualified corrosion engineer. Caiavera Hills ii, LLC W 0 3495 B SC Calavera Hills Village E-1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. Sieve Analysis Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422 Test results are presented as Plates B-i through B-5 in Appendix B RECOMMENDATIONS -FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI'.. Recommendations' for ", ' ' conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections. Thefoundàtion ':'. ' ' ' 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 All footing designs should be reviewed by the project structural engineer Based on the as-built fill thicknesses differential fill thickness exceeding 31, maximum to minimum, across the lot) and soil" expansion potential, post-tension foundations are not required for the lOts under the purview' ' of 'this, report. Post-tOhsion (PD, or` conventional' foundations may be used. Recommendations for each type of foundation system are presented in the following sections Conventional Foundation Design Conventional spread and continuous footings maybe 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 2. , Analyses indicate that an allowable ' bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot'. • (psf) may be used for design of continuous footings per the attaähed.Table 3, and for ' design of isolated pad,footings 24 inches square ànd'18' inches deep into 'properly .', compacted fill or bedrock. The bearing value may be increased by Va for seismic or other temporary loads This value may be Jncreased 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 3 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.'' 4. '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. Caiavera Hills ii, LLC . : .' ' . ' . W.O. 3495-B-SC ' 'Calavera Hills, Village E-1 ' ,' . . ' . ' ' ' . . ' June9, 2003 ' File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. 5 When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third 6 Footings should maintain a horizontal distance or setback between any adjacent slope face and thebottom outer edge of the footing. The horizontal distance maybe*:' calculated by using h13, where (h) is the height of the slope The horizontal setback should not be less than 7 feet, or need not be greater than 40 feet (per code) The setback may be maintained by simply deepening the footings Flatwork, utilities or other improvements within a zone of h/3 from the top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion Footings, flatwork, and utilities setbacks should be constructed in accordance with distances indicated in this section, and/or the approved plans 7 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 1/2-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed ¼-inch between similar elements, in a 20 foot span Conventional Foundation/Concrete Slab Construction The following construction recommendations are based on generally very low to low 1 . expansive bearing soils and maximum fill thicknesses of less than approximately 30 feet 1 Conventional continuous footings should be constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in Table 3, and in accordance with UBC (1997) All footings should be reinforced per Table 3 2 Detached isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a Minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surfaceandtied 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 4 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 5 Concrete slabs should be underlain with 'a minimum of 4 inches of sand In addition, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of lO-mil, polyvinyl-chloride membrane, with all laps sealed, should be provided at the mid-point of the sand layer. The slab iCaiavera Hills ii, LLC ,.:' •:':',. •. • • • • W.O. 3495-B-SC " S • Caiavera Hills Village E-.1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. subgrade should be free of loose and uncompacted material prior to placing concrete 6 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 7 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 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas, and verified by this office within 72 hours of the vapor barrier placement 8 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 W 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 9 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 10 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 1 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 2 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 presatu ration (if necessary, or after the project has been dormant W a period of time) and construction of a perimeter "cut off' wall grade beam may be employed Caiavera Hills ii,LLC • • • • •' • W.O. 3495-B-SC. • • Calavera Hills Village E 1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. 3 For very low to low. (E I = 0 through 50) expansive soils, perimeter and mid span beams should be a minimum 12 inches deep below 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 (1 Omil thick). The vapor barriérshould •i••• be lapped and adequately sealed to provide a continuous 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 4 Isolated piers should be incorporated into the PT slab system 5 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 18 inches below grade, depending on the footing embedment B. PT slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (PTI), local and/ national code criteria and the recommendations of a structural or civil engineer qualified in PT slab design. Alternatives to P11 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 PTI are suggested by the. 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* . : 12" • Allowable bearing value : • 1 000psf** Modules of subgrade reaction 125 psi/inch Coefficient of friction. . . . . • . . 0.35 . Passive pressure .• . . 275 pcf Soil Suction (Pt) . . • 3.6 Depth to Constant Soil Suction. : . 5 feet Thornthwaite moisture •.. . ., . . . -20.0 . em edge . ... . 2.5 em center .. . .. .. .. . • . • • 5.0 . my edge 025 center •. •.••• :. • . . . :1.00 . • iinimum Slab Thickness :. • .. .... 5-inches * 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 with parameters provided for conventional continuous and isolated spread footings • • .: .• . . -•••i •--.---- ---..-- .. . . .. .. .. 7 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 1/2-inch, and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed ¼-inch between similar elements, in "a 20 foot span Designers of PT slabs should review the parameters provided for PT slabs, and cornpae using 'a span distance of 5 feet, using a module of sUbgrade reaction of 125 psi in their evaluation 8... In accordance with guidelines presented in the UBC, improvements and/orfootings 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, where h is the height of the slope 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 h/3 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 foundátibn on the lower foundation has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation Additional setbacks, not discussed or superceded 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 1. Driveway slabs should bea minimum 4 inches in thickness; all other exterior slabs may be a nominal 4 inches in thickness A thickened edge should be considered for all flatwork adjacent to landscape areas 2 Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content 3 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 reinforcing steel, . ... Caiavera Hills ii, LLC . . . . . . ... .. S S. . W.O. 3495-B-SC . Calavera Hills Village E-1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. increasing tensile strength of the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5 to '8 foot centers or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least 4 No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength .- ..5.--.. 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 6 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 the FOundatiOn. Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the County of San Diego and/or City of Carlsbad guidelines..All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and seismic resistance stability, per the U BC.. " •. ....., ., . .. . . ., . ... The design parameters provided assume that select onsite or equivalent very low expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls, from a -11 (horizontal to vertical) projection upward and away from the heel fo the footing 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 reoornmehdations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, lbffel, earth stone, 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 .Caiavera Hills ii, LLC '. . ..., . .. . . , . .. 3495-13-SC . Calavera Hills Village E-1 June 9, 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. 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 water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on-the degree 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 maybe used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wällis 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 ':.EQUIVALENT FLU,'ID.;WEiGHr.i.;I RETAINED MATERIAL P C F .; ,.• , '::.. HORIZONTAL'TO VERTiCAL:.. •': .:'.": : (Vér" Low Expaflsivë'Soifl Level'.35 2to1 . ' . ' .45 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 (two. .' times the wall height) 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'lOO psf. ' per foot in the upper 5 feet of wall in uniform pressure For preliminary design purposes, footing loads within a 1:1. backfill zone behind the wall will be added to the walls as 1/3 of the bearing pressure for one footing width, along the wall alignment Sound Walls.: ' , , , , ,, ' ': "' ,' '. '' , • . ' Foundations for top of slope sound walls, using concrete block construction, may be 'constructed in'accordance with conventional foundation recommendations presented in k ' ' this report. Foundations should maintain a minimum lateral distance of 7 feCt from the: ' I •'• outside bottom edge of the wall footing to the face of any adjacent slope. . . "• 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 with minimum standards presented herein Retaining wall drainage and outlet systems Caiavera Hiiis Ii, LLC' , " •. • • ' ' • . s, " . • .' • W.O. 3495-B-SC" • ' Caiavera Hills Village E-1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. p 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 drain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/8-to 1½-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) Perforations 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 Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be supported on footings designed in accordance with the .recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition fro ñi bedrock to fill. If this: condition is present the civil designer may specify either A minimum of a 2-foot, overexcavation and recompaction of bedrock materials, as measured for a distance of 21-1 from the transition in the direction of the wall Overexcavations should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the footing, measured perpendicular to the wall Increase the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for .a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible grout Embed the footings entirely into native formational material If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment PAVEMENTS Pavement design for streets has not been performed to date Concrete driveway pavements outside the public right of way may be constructed per the exterior concrete slab recommendations presented in this report Based on the type of earth materials encountered, minimum pavement sections (per City standards) may be anticipated Final pavement design will be provided upon completion of underground improvements and "R"-value testing Calavera Hills ii, LLC- -, - -. . S .- :- - . . W.0. 3495-B-SC Calavera Hills Village E71 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Graded SIoDe Maintenance and Plantin 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 graded 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 adversely affect site improvements Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing on site materials would be erosive Eroded debris maybe minimized and surficial slope.stabiiity enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soori' after construction:. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would terid'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. If plants are selected other than those recommended above, the potential for perched Water conditions to develop will increase Recommended plant selection and irrigation practices should be provided to each individual homeowner, as described above and below: LandscaDe Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over. Watering the landscape areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements, and will. increase the potential for perched water to develop. The 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) Froni 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 Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times, and should be incorporated into. homeowner improvements. 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. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof guttersand down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of 3 feet from proposed structures and/or in accordance with the'recommendations of thedesign civil engineer. We would recommendthat any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative1 closed bottom type planters. could. be. utilized An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage Caiavera Hills 11,11-C . ., ... '; . : ' I . ... W.O. 3495-13-SC' Calávera Hills, Village E-1 ' , . . S , . .. . . . June 9, .2003 Fiie:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rrg , . . '.: . . S ' S ' Page 14 . GèoSoils, ItIC. away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork Owing to the nature of site materials, the potential for perched groundwater, as a result of contrasting permeabilities of fill and/or bedrock, may not be precluded Accordingly, perched water conditions should be anticipated subsequent to grading Should such conditions develop, this office should be contacted to provide mitigative recommendations 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 All excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes 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 Additional Site Improvements lf,'inthe future, any additional improvements are planned .for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design'. and construction of said improvements 'could 'be provided upon request; Proposed pools or other appurtenant 0 ' structures should consider that excavation difficulties Will likely be encountered in some lots (see Table 2),at depths greater than 3,feet below existing building pad grade. SUbdrainage should be provided for spa and pool homeowner improvements Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of, any additional fill placement, regrading of the:, site, or trench .backfilling after rough' grading'. has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaini,ng wall backfills. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes Utility Trench Backfill 1 All interior utility trench backfill 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 30 'or greater-may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and.;'•. testing should be provided to verify the desired results Hills ii LLC., ' :' . ' . ': ' ' ' . W.O. 3495BSC' Calavera Hills, Village E-1'7. June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. 2 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 3 All trench excavations should conform to-CAL-OSHA and local safety codes PLAN REVIEW Final foundation and improvement plans, including homeowner improvement plans (as described below), should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein.'In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction performed on the site should ,be observed, and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time 'SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by the geotechnical consultant 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 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 After presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other fl atwork subgrade, prior r to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete During slope construction/repair When any unusual soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report I ,.Caiavera Hills ii, LLC... ' ' '. ' ' ' " " ' '' W.O.'3495-13-SC Calavera Hills Village E-1 June 9 2003 File e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. When homeowner improvements, including flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc, are constructed REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Removals, processing of original ground cuts, and fills have been observed and compaction testing performed under the purview of this report have been completed using the selective testing and observations services of GSI Earthwork was found to be in compliance with the Grading Code of the City of Carlsbad, California Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further Warranty, is implied nor made. This report "1 is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project GeoSoils, Inc should not be held responsible nor liable forwork, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office ..Respectfully submitted, GeoSoills, Inc. Reviewed by IOZ Robert'G. Crisman David W. Skelly 01- C Project Geologist,' CEG 1 3, ..Civil Engineer, RCE 4.7857 . RGC/DWS/JPF/jk Attachments Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Table 2 - Lot Characteristics Table 3 - Foundation Construction Recommendations Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results Plates 1 through 4 - Field Density Test Location Maps Distribution (4) Addressee Caiavera Hills Ii, LLC , '• ' ' ' W.O. 3495-B-SC Calavera Hills Village E-1 June 9 2003 FHe e \wp9\3400\3459b rrg Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT NO. ELEV OR MOISTURE CONTENT DEPTH DRY DENSITY REL COMP TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 514 2/19/03 Lot 23 Village E-1 367.0 10.4 1200 916 ND G 515 2/19/03 Lot 23 Village E-1 365.0 109 121.2 92.5 ND G 516 2/19/03 Lot 23 Village E-1 368.0 10.2 119.3 91.1. ND G 517 2/19/03 Lot 28 Village E-1 362.0 9.9 120.3 91.8 ND G 518 2/19/03 Lot 16 ViliageE-1 362.0 10.2 118.4 90.4 ND G 668 3/10/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 374.0 10.3 126.8 91.2 ND .H 670 3/10/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 376.0 9.9 126.5 91.0 ND H 672 '3/10/03 Bldg 11 Village E-1 373.0 10.1 126.4 90.9 ND H 674 3/10/03 Bldg 12 Village E-1 372.0 10.5 126.9 91.2 ND H 676 3/11/03 Bldg 10 Village E-1 374.0 10.2 126.4 909 ND H 677 3/11/03 Bldg 11 Village E-1 374.0 , 10.3 126.1 90.7 ND H 678 3/11/03 Bldg 11 Village E-1 375.0 10.5 126.9 91.2 ND H 695 3/17/03 Lot 10 Village E-1 375.0 10.6 120.1 91.7 ND H 696 3/17/03 Lot 10 Village E-1 374.0 11.2 120.9 92.3 ND H 697 3/17/03 Lot 10 Village E-1 376.0 9.9 121.6 92.8 ND H 698 3/17/03 ' Lot 10 ' Village E-1 376.0 10.5 119.5 91.2 ND H 699 3/17/03 Lot 24 Village E-1 367.0 10.1 118.9 90.8 ND H 706 3/18/03 Rec Lot Village E-1 368.5 9.4 120.3 91.8 ND _H 707 3/18/03 Rec Lot Village E-1 370.5 9.1 120.8 92.2 ND H - 750 3/18/03 Lot 22 Village E-1 369.0 9.5 118.2 90.2 ND ' H 751 3/18/03 Lot 24 'VillageE-1 371.0 10.1 120.9 92.3 ND H 752 3/18/03 Lot 22 Village E-1 370.0 9.6 122.5 93.5 ND . H 767 3/24/03 Lot Village E-1 375.0 10.2 119.6 91.3 ND H 768 3/24/03 Lot 9 Village E-1 376.0 11.1 118.8 90.7 ND H - - 769 3/24/03 Lot 24 ' Village E-1 371.0 9.2 121.2 92.5 ND H 770 3/24/03 Lot 22 Village E-1 373.0 9.9 ' 119.3 91.1 ND H - - 771 , 3/24/03 Lot 26 Village E-1 370.0 ' 10.4 119.7 91.4 ND H - - 772 3/24/03 Lot 27 Village E-1 367.0 9.6 121.7 92.9 Sc H 773 3/25/03 Lot 23 Village E-1 364.0 10.2 118.9 90.8 ND H 774 3/25/03 Lot 24 Village E-1 369.0 11.8 119.5 91.2 ND H 775 ' 3/25/03 Lot 27 Village E-1 366.0 11.1 119.2 91.0 ND H 776 3/25/03 Lot 27 Village E-1 - 368.0 11.4 122.4 93.4 ND H - - 777 3/26/03 Lot 28 Village E-1 360.0 12.2 121.6 92.8 ND H 778 3/26/03 Lot 28 Village E-1 355.0 11.9 120.0 91.6 ND H 779 3/26/03 Lot 28 Village E-1 361.0 11.2 119.3 91.1 ND H 780 3/26/03 Lot 27 Village E-1 - 368.0 10.4 121.2 92.5 ND H 781 3/26/03 Lot 25-26 ' Village E-1 - 372.0 11.1 119.6 91.3 ND H 782 3/26/03 Lot 15 Village E-1 359.0 12.0 118.7 90.6 ND H 789 4/1/03 Private Drive Lot Village E-1 355.0 '10.2 121.7 92.5 ND H 790 4/1/03 Lot 14 Village E-1 356.0 11.9 124.8 ' 95.3 ND H 791* 4/1/03 Lot 14 Village E-1 360.0 4.8 112.1 85.6 ND H 791A 4/1/03 Lot 14 Village E-.1 360.0 9.2 112.7 90.6 ND H 792 4/1/03 ' Lot 14 Village E-1 363.0 11.0 118.9 90.8 ND H 793 4/1/03 , Lot 14 Village E-1 361.0 10.9 123.3 94.1 ' ND H 794 4/1/03 Lot Village E-1 362.0 11.6 120.1 91.7 ND H 795 4/1/03 Lot Village E-1 362.0 10.3 120.8 92.2 ND H 796 4/1/03 , Lot 1 Village E-1 363.0 9.1 118.9 90.8 ND H 797 4/1/03 Lot Village E-1 364.0 9.4 120.0 91.6 ND H Calavera Hills II, LLC Calavera Hills, Village E-1 File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459b.E1 W.O. 3459-B-SC June 2003 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 1 TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT NO.- ELEV OR MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY REL COMP (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 798 4/1/03 Front Lot 15 Village E-1 363.0 10.1 118.3 90.3 ND H 824 3/31/03 Lot 18 - Village E-1 369.0 10.2 119.8 91.5 ND H 825 3/31/03 Lot 19 - Village E-1 371.0 9.8 121.3 92.6 ND H 826 3/31/03 Private Drive Lot Village E-1 350.0 9.3 122.3 93.4 ND H 827 4/4/03 Lot 14 : Village E-1 355.0 9.9 120.3 91.8 ND H 828 4/4/03 Lot 20 Village E-1 375.0 10.3 121.3 92.6 ND H 829 4/4/03 Lot Village E-1 372.0 10.4 123.7 94.4 ND H 830 - 4/4/03 Lot 19 Village E-1 373.0 9.6 121.7 92.9 ND H - - 838 4/8/03 Lot 17 Village E-1 368.0 10.8 121.4 92.7 ND H - 839 4/8/03 Lot 17 Village E-1 370.0 11.2 123.4 942 ND H 840 - 4/8/03 Lot 25 Village E-1, 370.0 11.1 123.8 945 ND - H 841 4/8/03 -- Lot 25 Village E-1 372.0 10.5 123.1 94.0 ND H 867 4/11/03 Private Dr B Village E-1 363.0 9.1 122.1 91.1 ND 868 4/11/03 Private Dr Village E-1 367.0 8.9 122.6 91.5 ND 869 4/11/03 Lot Village El 351.0 9.6 123.4 92.1 ND 870 4/11/03 Lot - Village El 356.0 9.3 123.9 925 ND 884- 4/16/03 Lot Slope Face Village E-1 362.0 14.2 109.6 90.9 ND A 885 4/16/03 Lot Slope Face Village E-1 360.0 14.5 109.2 90.6 ND A 886 4/16/03 - Lot Slope Face Village E-1 363.0 14.4 109.4 907 ND A 895 - 4/17/03 Lots 3-4 (Sewer Easm) Village E-1 -362.0 9.6 124.5 92.9 ND l 896 4/17/03 Drive B 27+50 -Village E-1 354.0 9.1 125.7 93.8 ND l 897. 4/18/03 12+50 Private Drive B Village E-1 354.0 9.8 121.9 90.9 ND - - 898 4/18/03 11+40 Village E-1 356.0 9.5 - 122.2 91.1 ND - 899 4/18/03 10+20 - Village E-1 .356.0 9.3 121.7 90.8 ND - -. 900 4/18/03 Lot 3 Village E-1 366.0 9.1 121.8 90.8 ND - - 922 4/23/03 - Lot 5 - Village E-1 - -369.0 9.3 126.9 94.7 Sc - - 923 4/23/03 Lot 4 Village E-1 - 368.0 8.6 127.6 95.2 ND - - - 924 .4/23/03 Lot 3 Village E-1 - 366.0 8.2 124.9 93.2 ND - - - 933 4/24/03 Private Dr U 14+00 Village E-1 - 370.0 9.3 127.2 94.9 Sc - 934 4/24/03 Private Dr B 12+50 Village E-1 - 363.0 10.1 125.4 93.6 ND - I 935 1 4/24/03 Private Dr 11+30 Village E-1 360.0 9.6 127.8 95.4 ND - 936 4/24/03 Private Dr B 13+50 Village E-1 369.0 8.4 124.4 92.8 ND- - - 937 4/24/03 Private Dr 11+90 Village ET 364.0 9.8 123.0 91.8 ND - - 943 4/25/03 Private Dr B 14+90 Village E-1 370.0 - 9.7 127.0 94.8 ND - 944 4/25/03 Private Dr B 19+50 Village E-1 360.0 10.5 - 122.9 91.7 ND = = 945* 4/25/03 - Private DrB21 +00 Village E-1 359.0 12.9 - 116.4 869 ND - 945A .4/25/03 Private Dr B 21+00 Village E-1 359.0 10.8 125.6 93.7 ND - - 946 4/25/03 Private Dr B 22+50 Village E-1 358.0 9.9 123.5 92.2 Sc = = 947 4/25/03 Private Dr B20+00 Village E-1 364.0 11.5 128.4 95.8 - ND - - - 948 4/25/03 Private DrB21 +00 Village E-1 361.0 10.9 124.9 - 93.2 -ND - - 955 4/29/03 Private Dr B 17+30 Village E-1 365.0 9.3 122.3 91.3 ND - - 956* 4/29/03 Front Lot 23 Village E-1 366.0 10.2 119.5 88.4 -ND - 956A -4/29/03 Front Lot 22 Village E-1 366.0 9.7 125.4 93.6- ND = 957 4/29/03 -Front Lot 23 Village E-1 367.0 10.0 121.8 90.9 ND 958 4/29/03 -Front Lot 23 - - Village E-1 369.0 9.1 126.1 94.1 ND - - - -959 4/29/03 -End Lot 14 Village E.1 360.0 8.6 126.1 94.1 ND - - 960 4/29/03 End Lot 14 - Village E-1 363.0 8.8 127.3 95.0 ND - - 961 4/29/03 Private Dr B 23+50 Village E-1 357.0 9.1 - 124.2 1 92.7 ND = = Calavera Hills II, LLC - Calavera Hills, Village E-1- - - File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459b.E1 - - GeoSosis, Inc. - - W.O. 3459-B-SC June 2003 - Page Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT NO. ELEV OR MOISTURE CONTENT. DRY DENSITY COMP REL::TEST::::::SOIL METHOD TYPE 962 4/29/03 Private DrB25+50 Village E-1 3550 9.0 123.1 91.9 ND FG-965 5/1/03 Bldg 27 Village El FG 9.6 .129.2 96.4 ND - FG-966 5/1/03 Bldg 26 Village El FG 8.7 127.7 95.3 ND - FG-967 5/1/03 Bldg 24 VillagéE-1 . FG 8.6 127.6 95.2 ND - - FG-968 . 5/1/03 . Bldg 8 Village E-1 FG 9.0 126.8 94.6 ND - FG-970 5/1/03 Bldg 7 Village E-1 FG 8.2 125.8 93.9 ND - - FG-971 5/1/03: Bldg 6 Village E-1 FG . 8.9 126.9 94.7 ND - FG-1007 5/9/03 Lot Village E-1 FG 10.3 128.4 95.8 ND - FG-1008 5/9/03 Lot . Village E-1 FG 10.1 128.9 96.2 ND - - FG-1009 5/9/03 . Lot 5 Village E-1 FG . 9.6 126.1. 94.1 ND - - FG-1010 5/9/03 Lot 18 Village E1 - FG 9.9 125.3 93.5 ND - - FG-1011 5/9/03 Lot 19 Village E- - FG 10.5 121.7 90.8 ND - - FG-1012 5/9/03 Lot 20 Village E- - FG 11.0 126.0 940 . ND - - FG-1013 5/9/03 Lot Village El . FG 10.1 129.3 96.5 ND - - FG-1014 5/9/03 Lot 10 Village El FG 9.0 124.8 93.1 ND -. - FG-1015 5/12/03 Lot 28 Village E4 FG . 9.1 126.4 . 94.3 ND - - FG-1016 5/12/03 . Lot 15 . Village E-1 FG 8.6 122.7 91.6 ND - - FG-1017 5/12/03 Lot 16 Village E-1 FG 8.5 124.9 93.2 .ND - - FG-1018 5/12/03 Lot 17 . Village E-1 FG 8.9 124.6 93.0 ND - - FG-1019 5/12/03 Lot 25 Village E-1 FG 9.6 124.2 92.7 ND - - 1027 5/13/03 Private Dr C 10+80 Village E-1 362.0. 10.0 121.9 91.0 ND - .1028 5/13/03 Private Dr C 11+80 . Village E-1 364.0 10.2 . 121.8 90.9 ND - FG-1033 5/14/03 .Bldg 11 Village E-1 FG 8.6 . 124.4 92.8 ND - - FG-1034 5/14/03 Bldg 12 Village E-1 FG . 9.2 125.8 93.9 ND - - FG-1 035 5/14/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 FG 8.5 .128.1 95.6 ND - - FG-1036 5/14/03. Bldg 23 .Village El - FG 8.4 123.8 92.4 .ND - FG-1037 5/14/03 Bldg 14 Village E-1 wFG 9.2 127.0 948 ND - FG-1038 5/14/03 .Bldg 1 . Village E-1 - FG 91.1 126.1 94.1 ND - FG-1039 5/14/03 Bldg 2 Village E-1 - FG 9.3 124.9 93.2 .ND - 1063 5/20/03 Lot 13 Village E-1 - 370.0 .9.8 124.9 93.2 ND - 1064 5/20/03 Lot 13 Village E-1 - 371.0 8.8 126.1 . 94.1 ND - 1065 5/20/03 Private DrB23+00 Village E-l_ 361.0 9.1 121.4 90.6 ND - - 1066 5/20/03 Private Dr B 21+20 Village E-1 364.0 10.3 123.3 92.0 ND - 1067 5/20/03 Private Dr 19+80 Village E-1 366.0 .10.1 122.1 91.1 ND - 1097 5/27/03 Pvt Dr B 16+50 Village E-1 367.0. 9.8 121.9 91.0 ND - 1098 5/27/03 Pvt Dr B 16+75 Village E-1 370.0 .8.7 125.4 93.6 ND - - 1099 5/27/03 Pvt Dr B 16+25 Village E-1 370.0 9.3 123.4 92.1 ND - - 1100 1 5/27/03 Bldg 21 1 Village E-1 1 374.0 9.9 . 122.5 91.4 ND - - FG-1 101 1 5/27/03 .Bldg 22 Village E-1 FG 8.6 127.2 94.9 ND - - FG-1102 1 5/27/03 .. Bldg 13. Village E-1 FG 8.5 127.6 95.2 ND = = Legend * = Indicates Failed Test A = Indicates Re-Test ND= Nuclear Densometer SC = Sand Cone FG = Finish Grade Calavera Hills II, LLC . Calavera Hills, Village E-1 File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459b.E1 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3459-B-SC June 2003 Page LOT (per UBC Standard 18-2) EXPANSION POTENTIAL' E.I.'SOLUBLE'. SULFATE (weight percent) SULFATE , EXPOSURE 2 DEPTH (Range in FLY, OF FILL-;,'FOUNDATION CATEGORY 1 0 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 2-4 I 2 : . 0 Very Low.0.0064 Negligible 3-4 3 0 Very Low. 0.0064 ; Negligible 3 I 4 0. Very Low 0.0064 Negligible . 3-10 I 5 . 0 . Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-5 . I 6.. : 0 . Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-5 I 7 : 0 Very Low . 0.0064 Negligible 3-4 . I 8 . 0 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3 I 9 . 0 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-4 I 10 . O Very Low : 0.0064 Negligible 3-6 I 11 . . 0 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-5 I 12 . 0 Very Low S .. 0.0088 Negligible 3-6 I 13 . Very Low . 0.0088 Negligible . 3-4. I 14 . 0 . Very Low .. 0.0088 .. Negligible 3-6 I 15 . Very Low 0.0088 . Negligible . 34 I 16 1: Very Low .. 0.0088 Negligible 3-4 I 17 1 . .. . Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-4 I 18 1 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 5 I 19 . 1 . Very Low 0.0088 . . Negligible 3-5 I 20 1 . Very Low .. 0.0088 .. Negligible 4-5 I 21 . i : Very Low .. 0.0088 1 Negligible . S 4.5 I 22 2 Very Low . 0.0055 Negligible 3-8 I 23 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible . 4-6 . I ___ 2 . . Very Low .• . 0.0055.j '. Negligible . .4-7 E I SOLUBLE DEPTH :(per UBC .. EXPANSION'.. SULFATE - SULFATE..:. OF FILL FOUNDATION LOT Standard 18 2) POTENTIA0 (weight EXPOSURE( (Range In Ft) CATEGORY (3) - - percent) - -:. •..:;' ':. .: '-s,.:... - . .- -. 25 :' 2 -.' : " Very Low -0.0055 - " Negligible ,: " 5 " . 'I- - 26 ':5 2 : '- 5 VeryL '. - 0.0055 Negligible - '.5-6 27 - - .- 2. -'-' -' Very Low -..' . 0.0055 ," - Negligible - - 5-7 I- 28 .2 " . Very Low - '. 0.0055 - '' Negligible .. '' 1 3- Per Table 18 I B of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) (2) Per Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) Foundations should be constructed in accordance with recommendations for the specific categories noted above and presented in Table 3.- GeóSoils1 - Inc. Category Criteria Category I Max Fill Thickness is less than 20 and E lis 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 El 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 E I exceeds 90 but is less than 130 Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20 (see Note 1) Notes 1 PT foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 50 the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1. Consideration should be given to using PT foundations where the E I exceeds 90 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 minimum 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 engineers recommendations (see report) 7 Sand used for base under slabs shall be very low expansive and have SE > 30 8 Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report 9 All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints to control cracking Joint spacing should be in accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer. I - 1• I ,5 4 5 •54 - 4 5,- - .. ' '5 -• '• -'- - - 4 . ' -, APPENDIXA 4 I REFERENCES .44 I 4, . ..,, •. :- .., -. -. '' -- --. -. I 4 .4 4 1 1 -• ' 4_ J5 . 4;'" S -. I C ¶ I 4, 4. 4 1.' <5,• 4 4. 4 1 ,4 APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc.; 2003a, Memorandum "review of grading and trench backfill recommendations, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390790, city of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W 0 2863A-SC, dated August 16, 2002, W.0. 3459-B2-SC, May 20 2003b, Memorandum general discussion of fill quality, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W 0 3459-132-SC, dated May 20 2003c, Revised geotechnical update, Village E-1 of Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, WO. 3459-B-SC, May 12 2003d, Geotechnical update, Village E-1 of Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.0. 3459-B-SC, February 17 2002, 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.0. 2863-A-SC, August 16 2000, Update of geotechnical report, Calavera Hills, Village E-1, City of Carlsbad, California, W 0 2789-A-SC, August 28 1 998a, Lack of Paleontological Resources, Carlsbad Tract Nos 83-19, PUD 56, and 83-32, PUD 62, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W 0 2393-B-SC, dated January21 1998b, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "T", City of Carlsbad, California, W 0 2393-B-SC, dated February 16 1998c; Review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "T," City of Carlsbad, California, W.0. 2393-B-SC, dated June 24 1998d, Toe Drain Recommendations, Calavera Hills, Village T, City of Carlsbad, California, W.0. 2393-B-SC, dated September 30 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc., 1997b, Plans for the grading of Calavera Hills Village "Q", Carlsbad Tract 83-32, Sheets 1-8, Drawing No 303-2A, Project No 2 8933, dated November 17 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 n6.1,- dated October 6 GeoSoils, Inc. GeoSous, Inc. 4 4 5.. I. 4 r J J S S -4' 4 4 - I • - - ' - : . ;- " - -- ' 4 1 .-• 4. - - ". 5. 4'- S .. '4. -4 4 APPENDIX B & .5 BORATORY TEST RESULTS M. J.:Schiff&Associates,Inc. . .. . ., Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 6260967 Fax: (909) 626-3316 .• . 431 W. Baseline Road . . •. ... i••• . . . E-mail lalxmjschiff Corn Claremont, CA 91.711 website mjsc/uff corn Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples - Calavera Hills . Your #3459-B-SC, MJS&A #03-0625LAB 30-May-03 Village E 1 Sample ID Village E 1 Village E 1 Lots 22-28, Lots l'-6 14 Lots 15-21 Rec. FG. FG:. Resistivity Units . . asreceived . ohm cm 170,000. 48,000 . 35,000 : saturated • ohm-cm 2,200 1,600 3,300 . S pH 65 73 67 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.18., 0.20 .0 .13 Chemical Analyses Cations. . S. . . . . . . . . - 2+ . calcium Ca mg/kg . S. 40 . 12 .• 16 . magnesium Mg2 mg/kg . NI) 10 . ND sodium Na mg/kg 75 126 77 Anions carbonate . CO 2, mg/kg :. . ND . ND bicarbonate HCO3' mg/kg 67 76 37 chloride . ci: mg/kg • -100 135 .: 85 : • sulfate • S0 4 2-mg/kg .- • 64 88 55 . •• . Other Tests • . • 5 • • - ammonium NH4 mg/kg • - na •. • na • na • nitrate NO3 mg/kg • na. . . • na,. na. •. sulfide . qual S2 na na na Redox my . • na na • • na ISN ;1•'- i-L . -. Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1 5 soil to-water extract mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. . • • • Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND =not detected . •. . . . . . - . 5. na = not analyzed Page 1 of 1 S . . . S • .5 5 5 . Figure B-i LANS FOR: Plato .1 of 4' '- 5' " \, '\ 1 ' 5/ \ \/' \\\ \ \ -:3 . . - '- .. . - GRADING CALAVERA 'HILLS ''ORANGE CO. Gco S RIVERSIDE CO. ___ _____________________ VILLAGE E-1 J' L SAN DIEGO CO \ \\ 2! \ APPROVED LLO B HUBBS g: ~o FIELD DENSITY TEST 1 \\ \\ / \ \ / / \ \ / CITY ENGINEERGINEER RCE_2IUL EXPi2/31T05 DATE LOCATION IV A P OWN By._______ PROJECT NO DRAWING NO I " - on: INITIAL -- ' . . . DATE INL DATE IN/flAL cHko e• -- . ' PLATE 1 SEE S-H EET / ENcINEER OF WOR REV/S/ON DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL Cli)' APPROVAL RNO CT 01-03 405-6 A W.O.3459-131-SC DATE 6/03 SCALE r:20 - - 5- - - - - , - - - . - . . - . . - - . - WO NO 553-163 •'-, .- r ,'4n7r?' ,_--.-.., -_ ,, ..,_-,,. 'r' - . '-'.----. --S'---. •"-' -'-"-'s-'-"'. '- - -r-- - --- '- "---'-- ,-'-'--'----' - --s--', - -'r' -'- .'-' - '---s- -- -r r'-r's-'.-'" ''''- -' 'r-'--.--'."-'-- -' '-----'' - -_ ---'---t-e ' -' -"' ''-'- - "c - '-"---7'--,'. -- -. ------.- ,s-n'-- ,,- -' '.'-',-'- - ".'--' 'vt','.: --- - ----,,-- . - - -'- - '-. 5' , -.- ' - -...,. . -'- --s... '.- - .- .. - s- 's- ----'-'s'.--'. --'-"-5'-- "'" -'' - 5"s-","'. r',-"r' ''."'-" "7-" "''''1'"' - •'-ti'' ,-c"v- -"' - ' "F"'- '-fl'''''"" , ' '' " '.' '"fl" 1''" " 'W''"'@-r'-7 - vvV •iv I IN - - - - - --V. - - - -- - - .- .------.. - -------- -,-- --- - - - -----r-z------ -. --r- - --. - Li- \A, . - - , -• --- / \_ - . \ - - \ HUNSAKER - G & ASSOCIATES TIO SAW DltcO INC t PLANNING ENGINEERING 10179 Klenn4e.ns 5trect - DATE OWN BY. PROJECT NO. DRAW/NC NO, CHKD BY . CT 01-03 405- 6A DATE INITIAL - DATE 1N1fl4L San Dl(,go, Ca 92121 REVISION DESCRIPTION S E E S HE ET 7 URVENC POO(8558i14 ENGINEER OF WORI OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RWD 7 U Fvw j'4 .JJ*./ I w..-' IN - ---- - - - .- .-- --- - ________ - -- - ,-,--.-----,-.----- - -"-- Wv- -.---. -.-- - -,---- - - - --,-- - -. ,'-..----- ..----.----- '- - -.-- -S-- .- -.- T 'r ------- ------ -- - -----. -- '--- 'c - - ----'- - --' - - - ----- ----- -. - - -, - -' - - PLANNNG 10179 Huem4ens Street Dwm BY. PROJECT NO. DRA WING NO. LOCATION T& AP PLATE 4 'DATE \\\\\ \\ \ \ / rNGINECRIN(' , San Diego, Ca'92121 DATE IN177AL DATE INITIAL CHKD.BY-- SURVEYING OO(858)558 1414 I ENEOWOR REV//S/ON DESCRIPTION .07HER APPROVAL CflY APPROVAL CT 01-03 w.o.9-6l-sc DATE 6/03 SCALE V:20 BIN