HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-03; CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGES E-1; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2003-12-02t 7
-i---
:.'..
4 *
4
7 1 7
7 1
"7 4
- I
'•,,.I4•.4 - 7''. '' -, -. '- -
7 4 1
4 1 -
:Jron GeochniaI . Geologic. mental'
I
.1 fr
T p
.Geotechnical • Geologic Environmental •
-
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
4
'
• Revised December 2,2003 ' .5
's W.O. 34597B-SC'5
- .•• - ' .- '
-,çalavèra'Hills II, LLC.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 91950
Attention Mr. Don Mitchell
- - - •- .' ''.','
5-
. '-••
' Subject: Report of Rough Grading, Calavera Hills, Village' E-1, Pads I through. 28,
Carlsbad Tract 01-03,City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California •
Dear Mr Mitchell
.This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services - 'I
provided by GeoSoils, Inc. .5(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. • . '...
S
PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK
- : . , .' - . •., -S.
The purpose of grading was to prpáre relatively level. pa'ds .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 recompacted Cut
pads and the cut portion of transition pads were overexavated in order to provide for more
I uniform foundation support and/or to 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 potion of Calavera Hills, Village 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 cóñditions 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 athin, 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 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
conditions and provide mitigative recommendations as necessary A discussion of near
surface slope subdrainage is presented in our referenced report on toe 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 surficial 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 pads were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below pad grade,
then brought to grade with compacted fill Cut pads exposing dense
Calavera Hills ii, LLC ' • • • • • WO. 3495-B-SC • Calavera Hills, Village E-1 • '' • ' ' '• •
• Revised December 2, 2003 '.
File e \wp9\3400\3459b rror Page 2
GeoSoits, Inc.
granitic/volcanic rock were overexcavated a minimumof 3 feet below pad grade in
order to facilitate foundation and utility construction. Where possible, an attempt
was made to slope 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-rippablerock 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 Pads 1 through 9.
6. Subsequent to completing removals, areas to receive compacted fill were scarified
toa 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
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
toattain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. CàmpactiOn 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. •
0
•
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 cieneral 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 áonsidered 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 (GSI, 2003b)
Caiavera Hills Ii, LLC W.O. 3495-13-SC • Calavera Hills, Village E-1 Revised December 2, 2003
FiIe:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror 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. (SCST, 1988) and as provided in
the field by this office. Cut slopes were constructed using cut and fill grading techniques
and/or blasting, and exposed dense igneous and/or metavolcanic rock A detailed
analysis of 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 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 perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surlicial stability,
under normal conditions of irrigation and rainfall
Field Testing
1. 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 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 abase 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
• Calavera Hills ii, LLC • .. • . • W.G.3495-B-SC •
Calavera Hills Village E-1 Revised December 2 2003
File e \wp9\3400\3459b rror Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
observed, test results presented herein are considered representative of the fills
observed under the purview of this report
3 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
4.'. Testing was 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 ASTM Test Method D-1557-91. The following table
presents the test results
arx
MAXiMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE Z.
SOIL TYPE. :.. DENSITY cONTENT(%) .. .
G -Grayish Brown, Gravelly SAND . 131.0 10.0
H -Grayish Brown, Gravelly SAND (processed) 131.0 . . ...
I -Grayish Brown, GravellySAND (processed) 134.0 . 8.5
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. '1
(E I ) testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC)
.1 Representative expansion indices indicate that site soils near pad grade, within the subject
pads, are very low to low expansive (E.l <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 1997 UBC Corrosion testing indicates moderately
Caiavera Hills ii, LLC : . .. W.O. 3495B5C
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 .. . . .
. Revised December 2, 2003 .
File e \wp9\3400\3459b rror Page 5
GeoSolls, Inc.
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. .
Sieve Analysis
Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general
accordance. with 'A'STM Test Method 0-422. 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 GSl. Recommendations 'for
conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections. The foundation . ' .'..
systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in.
4. 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 (i.e., differential fill thickness exceeding 3:1, maximum to minimum, across the
pad) and soil expansion potential, post-tension foundations are not required for the pads..
under the purview of this report. Post-tension (PT) or conventional foundations may be
used. Recommendations for each type of foundation system arepresentedin the following
sections
Conventional Foundation Design
1. . Conventional spread and continuous footings maybe Used to support the proposed U...
residential structures provided .they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill '
or other competent, bearing 'material (i.e., bedroOk). .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..
(W 'may be used for design of continuous footings per the attached 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 .
?° percent for each additional 12 inches in depth, to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No •
increase, in bearing, for footing width is recommended
Calavera Hills ii, LLC ' . . ' . ., ' . . . W.O. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E71 ....... . . . .' . ' ' Revised December 2, 2003
Fiie:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror . . . ,. .. '
.
'
' . . ' ' ' . ' .
•' Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
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.
. 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 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.
. 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.jflCh 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
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 the 1997 UBC. All. ..
footings should be reinforced per Table 3
Detached isolated interior .or exterior piers and coluñins should be founded at a
minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacentground 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. . .
Calavera Hills ii, LLC .. . . . . W.O. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 . . Revised December 2, 2003
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror . . • • . Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc. . .. • .
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.
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, 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.
7. Presaturation is not considered nécessaryforthese 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.
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 pads at depths greater than
approximately 3 feet below existing building pad grades due to the presence of
dense granitic rock. Pjease refer to Table 2 for a listing of pads 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.
Càlavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3495-5 SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 • • • Revised December 2, 2003
• FiIe:e:\wp93400\3459b.rror • • •
•
• • Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
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 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
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 (10 mil thick). The vapor barrier
should 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
6 PT slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in
accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (P11), local and/or 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 P11 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
Caiavera Hills ii, LLC. . . . . . .. W.O. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 . .. . . . Revised December 2, 2003
File e \wp9\3400\3459b rror Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
. . . -. '. -... . ._-• ..- .
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 (Pf)' ' . . . 3.6 .•
Depth.to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet
Thornthwaite moisture . . S . . -20.0 . .
em edge . . . . .. s : 2.5 . . .
em center . . . 5.0 .
my ed . . . .0.25 .
my center . .. . . . . 1.00
Minimum Slab Thickness 5 inches
* Lab data indicates E.I. 0-50 for this site. '• . .. . . :
**B.I g 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. .. . . .
.
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 ½ inch, and should
occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated
.to -exceed 1%-inch between similar elements, in a 20-foot span. ..
Designers of PT slabs should reviewthe parameters provided for PT slabs, and
compare 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/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
b. distance, X, may be calculated by using X = h/3, wher 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, sho.uld be
d.eepened (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: . ..
Calavera Hills II, LLC . . . W.O. 3495-B-SC
. Calavera Hills, Village E-1 . ' . .
•
. Revised December 2, 2003
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc. .'
.. .• ..
S.. • •. .. ,. S I L . :, • , . S ........ .• ...
''.r . _'.•.'f'"' .. . - -
Additional setbacks, not discussed or superceded herein,- and presented in the
1997 .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. A thickened edge 'Shouldbe 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 reinforcing steel,
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
N. 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...
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 byaqualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and seismic
resistance stability per the 1997 UBC
Caiavera Hills II, LLC - . ' ' . ' . ' ' - W.O. 3495-B-SC
- Calavera Hills Village E-i '. . . . Revised December 2, 2003
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror. . .. , ' '
,
Page 11 .
GeoSoils, Inc.' ' • • ' '
'
- assume that select onsite or equivalent very low
expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls, from a 1:1 (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 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 priorto 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
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 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.
SURFACE SLOPE EQUIVALENT.
OF RETAINED.MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT PCF
(HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) LOWEXPANSIVE SOIL) (VERY
Level 35
2tol 45
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 S Revised December 2, 2003
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror Page 12
GeoSoils, Inc.
-'','.,'-'F'_.• '''"' -
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 wa!l 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 one-third 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, maybe
constructed in accordance with conventional foundation recommendations presented in
this report. Foundations should maintain a minimum lateral distance of 7 feet from the
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
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 %- to 11/2-inch clean'
crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforations ,in pipe.
,should facedown. 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' (Mirädrain 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 from bedrock to fill. If this '
condition' is present the civil designer may specify either:
a) 'A minimum of a 2-foot, overexcavation and 'recompaction of bedrock.
materials, as; measured for .a distance. of 2H 'from the transition in the. •' "
direction of the wall. Overéxcavations should, be completed for a minimum
lateral. distance of ,2 feet beyond the footing, measured perpendicular to the
wall.
Caiavera Hills Ii, LLC
- ' ' - ' ' ' ' ' W.O. 3495-B-SC'
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 ' ' , ' ' Revised December 2, 2003
-- File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror ' ' ' , - -
,
. •' '
'
' Page 13 - ' •
-' ' '' -' . •; GeoSoils, Inc. ' •• -
•'•
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 but to fill transect the, wall footing alignment at an angle of less than.
45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a"
Ii '(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
.A-value testing. ,: .. '. .• '
bEVELOPMENTCRITERIA
Graded 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 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 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. 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. ' '. : '.'
• '. . . • ' . S ' •,
Landscape 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
, • Caiavera Hills ii, LLC • • : . . . • W.O. 3495-B-SC •
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 ' '. • • ' • . • Revised December 2, 2003.
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror '' . '
S
' • . . Page 14 ,
I GeàSoIls, Inc. •, • .' . • . . '
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). .
From a géotechnical standpoint, leaching is. not recommended for establishing
: landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments,
they should be recompacted t090 percent minimum relative compaction.,
Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times, and should be incorporated into . .
homeowner improvements. Drainage should not flowuncontrolled 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 gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof
drainage. Downspouts should outlet a minimum of3 feet from proposed structures and/or
in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. We would
recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be
eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet As an alternative, closed bottom type
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. Owing to the
nature of site materials, the potential for perched groundwateri as a result of contrasting
permeabilitiesof fill and/orbedrock, 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 Driorto concrete. form and reinforcement plaóement. 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 . 2
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 trenchexcavations shOuld
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the
site
Caiavera Hills ii, LLC . . . W.O. 3495-B-Sc
Calavera Hills Village E-1 Revised December 2 2003
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror
.
. . . . . . . . Page 15
GeoSoits, Inc.
1... . 2.•• ... - ... . . ..
Additional Site Improvements
If, in.the future, any additional improvements are planhed 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
structures should consider that excavation difficulties will likely be encountered in some .'.
pads (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 plaäement, regrading of the
site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any
'grading, utility trench, and retaining 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.'
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
thelaboratory 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
ecommeidations presented herein In addition,' foundation excavations and earthwork'
construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office If.
L conditions 'are,' found to differ, substantially from those . stated, appropriate.
' 'rè'c'dih'méndations would be. offered at that time. • • • . : . ' ' • ..' '•
CalaveraHills II, LLC . • • . ' . • W.O. 34957E SC '
çalave,'ra'HilIs, Village E-i ' • ' . .
, Revised December 2, 2003
Fie: e:\wp9\34OO\3459b.rror . ' ' , , Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
:, . ... . : :. . •.•
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
. Afterpresoaking/presaturation of building 'pads and other flatwork subgrade, prior
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
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.Cárlsbad, 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 is subject. to review by the controlling authorities for this project. .GeoSoils, Inc. • ..'
should not be held responsible nor liable for work, testing, or recommendations performed
or provided by others
Calavera Hills II, LLC ' • • ,. ' • • • W.O. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 • ' • ' • - • . • Revised December 2, 2003 '
• ' File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror ' ..• • • • • : •
•
' .. ,
- • • •
• Page 171.
GeoSoils, Inc.
.. . . ....
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. .
.
,Respectfully submitted4'
GeoSoils, Inc 'I \ Reviewed by , -
t
34 1
Robert G. Cri man Skelly
Project Geologist, CEG f 934: ---" Civil Engineer, ACE 47857
AGC/DWS/J PF/j k/Jh
Attachments: Table 1 -Field Density Test Results' . . . .
Table 2 Pad 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 .
.
. .. . . ..
.
. .. .
'1
Caiavera Hills Ii, LLC . . . . . . ,.
WO. 3495-B-SC
Calavera Hills, Village E-1 . . . . . Revised December 2, 2003
FiIe:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rror : . . . . - Page 18
GeOSoils, Inc.,. . . . . . .
F'.i,' ,' '.P" ,
NO NO OR
DEPTH (ft)
:llIOIsrJ.JRE
CONTENT
(%)
DRY'
DENSITY COMP
(%)
METHOD
S.OIl.
TYPE
514 2/19/03 Pad 23 : Village E-1 367.0 10.4 120.0 91.6 NO .
515 2/19/03 Pad 23 Village E-1 365.0 10.9 1212 92:5 . ND G
516 2/19/03 ' Pad 23 Village E-1 368.0 10.2 119.3 91.1 NO G
517 2/19/03 ' Pad-28 Village E-1 362.0 9.9 120.3 91.8 NO G
518 .. 2/19/03 Pad 16 Village E-1 362.0 10,2 .' 118.4 90,4 NO G
668 3/10/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 374.0 10.3 .126.8 91.2 NO LI
670 3/10/03 . . Bldg 21 . Village E-1 376.0 9.9 126.5 91.0. NO H
672 3/10/03 Bldg 11 Village E-1 373.0 10.1 126.4 90.9 NO ' H -
674 3/10/03 .Bldg 12. Village E-1 372.0 , 10.5 126.9 91.2 NO. H
.,676 3/11/03 Bldg 10 : ' Village E-1 374.0 10.2 126.4 90.9' NO H
677 3/11/03 Bldg 11 Village E-1 374:0 10.3 126.1 90.7 NO H
:678 3/11/03 . Bldg 11 , Village E-1 375.0 10.5 . 126.9 91.2 NO H
695 3/17/03 Pad 10 ' Village E- •. 375.0 10.6 120.1 91.7 NO. H
696 3/17/03 . Pad 10. Village E-1 374.0 11.2 .120.9 92.3 NO H
.697 3/17/03 ' Pad 10 , Village E-1 376.0 - 9.9 121.6 92.8 NO .
.698 3/17/03 . Pad 10 . Village E-1 376.0 10.5' 119.5 91.2 NO H
'699 ' 3/17/03 Pad 24 . Village.E-1 367.0 , 10.1 118.9 . 90.8 NO
706 3/18/03 . . ' ' Rec Pad . Village E-1 368.5 9,4 . '.120.3 91.8 NO H.'
707 3/18/03 ' Rec Pad Village E-1 370,5 9.1 120.8 '92.2 NO .
750 '3/18/03 .Pad 22 ' Village E-1 .369.0 9.5 ' 118.2 90.2 ND Li
1751 3/18/03. . Pad 24 Villaqe:E-1 371.0 10.1 ' 120.9 92:3 NO _H_ 752 3/18/03 Pad 22 'Village E-1 370.0 . 9.6 ' 122.5 93.5 NO H
767. 3/24/03 Pad 8 Village E-1 375.0 10.2 119.6 . 91.3 NO ' _H_.
768 3/24/03 . Pad 9 . Village E-1 376.0 .11,1 118.8. 90.7 . NO _H'
1769 3/24/03. Pad24 Village__ E- 371.0 .. '9.2 121.2 92.5 NO. _H_ 770 3/24/03 Pad 22 Village E-1 373.0 9.9 _. .119.3 91.1 ND, H.
'.771 3/24/03 Pad26 __... Village E-1 .370:0 10:4 .- .119.7 91.4 NO H•
772 3/24/03 Pad27 Village E-1 367.0 . .9,6 121.7 - 92.9 SC _. H
773 3/25/03 Pad 93- _. Village E- . 364:0 ' ' 1.0.2'. 118.9 90.8 NO , H
774 3/25/03. ' Pad 24 Village E-1: 369.0 11.8 .119.5 91.2 ' NO H•
.775 3/25/03 Pad 27 '' VillageE-1 366.0.. 11.1 _' 119.2. 91.0 NO 'i-I
.776' . 3/25/03' . Pad 27 VillageE-1 .368.0 .11.4 , 122.4 93.4 NO L
J77 3/26/03' Pad28 Village E-1 '360.0' . 12.2 121.6 92.8 NO _. ' H..
778 . 3/26/03 'Pad 28 Village E-1 :355:0 11.9 120:0 .91.6 . NO H.
779 3/26/03 Pad 28 _. Village E-1 ' 361.0 ..11.2 _. 119.3 91.1 . NO H
1780 3/26/03. ' Pad27 _. Village E-1 368.0 10,4 ' 121.2 92,5 . NO . H'
781' 3/26/03 Pad 25-26 Village E-I . 372.0 11.1. 119.6.. 9.1.3 NO H
782 .3/26/03 .Pad 15 _' Village E-1 359.0 , 12.0 1187 90.6 - ND ' : H
789 4/1/03 PrivateDrivePadA Village E-1 . 355.0 10.2 121.7 92.5 NO .
790 4/1/03 - _..Pad 14.' Village E-1 356.0. 11.9 124.8 95.3 NO H
791*._' 4/1/03 Pad14 Village E-1 360.0 4.8 112.1 85.6 ' NO. H
791A 4/1/03 Pad 14 Village E-1 .360.0 9.2 _112.7 90.6 ND H
"792 4/1/03 . -Pad 14 __. Village E- 363:0 11.0 1189 90.8 NO H.
793 4/1/03 - _Pad 14_' Village E-1 361.0 ' 10.9 ' 123.3 94.1 1 NO
794 4/1/03 ..Pad 1 Village E-1 362.0 .11.6 120.1 91.7 .ND ' H.
795 4/1/03 . _Pad 2____. .Village-E-1 362.0 10.3 1203 92.2- . NO. . H
796 4/1/03 Pad Village '363.0 . . .9.1 118:9 90.8 . NO H,
797 4/1/03 . -Pad 2 . Village E- .364.0 9.4. 1 ,120.0_. 91.6 ND H.
TEST
NO.
DATE TEST LOCATIOX.N TRACT
NO.
_____
ELEV
OR
DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE
CONTFNT
- -
DRY
DENSITY
!L
REL
COMP
(%)
TEST
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
- 798 4/1/03 Front Pad 15 Village E- 363.0 10.1
-
18.3 - 90.3 ND H
824 3/31/03 Pad 18 Village E-1 369.0 102 119.8 91.5 ND H
-
825 3/31/03 Pad 19 Village E-1 371.0 9.8 121.3 92.6 ND H
-. 826 3/31/03 Private Drive Pad A Village E-1 350.0 9.3 122.3 93.4 ND H
827 4/4/03 Pad 14 Village E-1 355.0 9.9 120.3 91.8 ND H
828 4/4/03 Pad 20' Village E-1 375.0 10.3 121.3 92.6 ND H
829 4/4/03 Pad 7 Village E- 372.0 10.4 123.7 94.4 ND H
830 4/4/03 Pad 19 Village E-1 373.0 _9L_ 121.7 92.9 ND H
838 4/8/03 Pad 17 Village E-1 368.0 108 121.4 92.7 ND H
839 4/8/03 Pad 17 Village E-1 370.0 _112 123.4 94.2 ND H
840 4/8/03 Pad 25 Village E-1 370.0 11.1 123.8 94.5 ND H
841 4/8/03 Pad 25 Village E-1 372.0 _105 123.1 94.0 ND H
867 4/1/03 Private Drive B Village E- 363.0 9.1 122.1 91.1 ND
868 4/11/03 Private Drive B Village E-1 367.0 8.9 122.6 91.5 ND I
- - 869 4/11/03 Pad Village E- 351.0 9.6 123.4 92.1 ND
- - 870 4/11/03 Pad 3 Village E-1.356.0 9.3 123.9 92.5 ND
- - 884 4/16/03 Pad 3 Slope Face Village E-1 362.0 14.2 109.6 90.9 ND _A_ 885 4/16/03 Pad 3 Slope Face Village E-1 360.0 14.5 109.2 90.6 ND _A
886 4/16/03 Pad 3 Slope Face Village E-1 363.0 14.4. 109.4 90.7 ND A
895 4/17/03 Pads 3-4 (Sewer Easement) Village E- 362.0 9.6 _124.5 92.9 ND
- - 896 4/17/03 Drive B 27+50 . Village E-1 354.0 9.1 25.7 - 93.8 ND
- - 897 4/18/03 12+50 Private Drive Village E-1 354.0 9.8 _121.9_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 Pad 3 Village &1 366.0 9.1 121.8 90.8 ND - - 922 4/23/03 Pad 5 Village E- 369.0 9.3 126.9 94.7 SC
- - 923 4/23/03 Pad 4 Village E-1 368.0 8.6 127.6 95.2 ND
- - 924 4/23/03 Pad 3 Village E-1 366.0 8.2 124.9 93.2 ND - - 933 4/24/03 Private Dr B 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
- - 935 4/24/03 Private Dr B 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-I 369.0 8.4 124.4 92.8 ND
- - 937 4/24/03 Private DrBll+90 Village E-1 364.0 9.8 123.0 91.8 ND
- - 943 4/25/03 Private Dr B 14+90 Village E-1 370.0 _97 127.0 94.8 ND - - 944 4/25/03 Private Dr B 19+50 Village E-1 360.0 _10 12-2.9'.91.7 ND
- - 945* 4/25/03 Private Dr B 21+00 Village E-1 359.0 129 116.4 86.9 ND - - 945A 4/25/03 Private Dr B 21+00 Village E-1 359.0 _10 125.6 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 B 20+00 Village E-1 364.0 11.5 128.4 95.8 ND - - 948 4/25/03 Private Dr B 21 +00 Village E71 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 Pad 23 Village E- i 366.0 10.2 119.5 88.4 ND - -•
956A 4/29/03 Front Pad 22 Village E-1 366.0 9.7 125.4 93.6 ND
- - _957 4/29/03 Front Pad 23 Village E-1 367.0 10.0 121.8 90.9 ND
958 4/29/03 Front Pad 23 Village E-1 369.0 9.1 126.1 94.1 ND
- - 959 4/29/03 End Pad 14 Village E-1 360.0 8.6.*126.1 94.1 ND
- 960 4/29/03 End Pad 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 92.7 ND - -
...- .•
TEST
NO.
......DE TEST LOCATION TRACT
NO.
ELEV
OR
MOISTURE
CONTENT
DRY
DENSITY
REL
COMP
TEST
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE:
1962 4/29/03 Private Dr B 25+50 Village E-1 355.0 9.0 123.1 91.9 ND - - FG-965 5/1/03 Bldg 27 Village E-1 FG 9.6 129.2 96.4 ND
- - FG-966 5/1/03 Bldg 26 Village E-1 FG 8.7 127.7 95.3 ND I-
FG-967 5/1/03 Bldg 24 Village E-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 Pad 3 Village E-1 FG 103 128.4 r 95.8 ND
- - FG-1008 5/9/03 Pad 4 Village E-1 FG . 10.1 128.9 96.2 ND - FG-1009 .5/9/03 Pad 5 Village El FG 9.6 126.1 94.1 ND
- - FG-1010 5/9/03 Pad 18 Village E-1 FG 9.9 125.3 93.5 ND - - FG.1011 5/9/03 Pad 19 Village E-1 . FG 10.5 121.7 90.81 ND
- - FG-1012 5/9/03 Pad 20 . Village E-1 FG. . 11.0 126.0 94.0 ND I-
FG-1013 5/9/03 Pad 9 Village E-1 FG 10.1 129.3 96.5 ND
- FG-1014 .5/9/03 .Pad 10 . Village E-1 FG 9.0 124.8 . 93.1 ND
- FG-1015 5/12/03 Pad 28 . Village E-1 FG 9.1 126.4 94.3 ND _l
FG-1016 5/12/03 Pad 15 • Village E-1_ FG 8.6 122.7 .91.6 ND I
FG-1017 5/12/03 Pad 16 . Village E-i .FG .8.5 . .124.9 93.2 ND
- - FG-1018 5/12/03 .Pad 17 . Village, E-1 FG .8.9 124.6 93.0 ND - - FG-1019 5/12/03 Pad 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 11+80 Village E-1 364,0 10.2 121.8 90.9 ND - - FG-1033 5/14/03 Bldg 11 • Village El FG 8.6 124.4 92.8 ND - - FG-1034 .5/14/03 .Bldg 12 VillageE-1 FG. 9.2 125.8 93.9 ND 1
FG-1035 5/14/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 FG 8.5 128.1 95.6 ND
- - FG-1036 5/14/03 Bldg 23 Village E-1 .• FG 8.4 123.8 .92.4 ND. I
FG-1037 5/14/03 Bldg 14 . Village E-1 FG 9.2 127.0 94.8 ND = FG-1038 5/14/03 .Bldg 1 Village E-1 .FG 91.1 126.1 94,1 ND
-
FG-1039 5114/03. . Bldg 2 . . . Village E-1 FG 9,3•• 124.9 93.2 ND I
1063 5/20/03 . Pad 13 . Village E-1 370.0 9:8 124.9 93,2 ND I
1064 5/20/03 Pad 13 Village El 371.0 . 8.8 .126.1: 94.1 ND = 1065 5/20/03 :Private Dr B 23+00 Village E-1 361.0 . 9.1 121.4 90,6 ND I - - 1066 5/20/03 7 Private Dr B 21+20. Village E-1 364.0 10.3 123.3 92.0 ND
- 1067 5/20/03 Private Dr B 19+80 Village E-1 366.0.. .10,1 122.1 .91.1 ND I
1097 5/27/03 .Pvt Dr B 16+50 rVillage 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 1. 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 5/27/03 Bldg 21 Village E-1 374.0, 9.9 1225 91.4 ND
- FG-1101 5/27/03 Bldg 22 • Village E-1 .FG 8.6 . 127.2 94.9 ND - - FG-1102 5/27/03 ... Bldg 13 ... Village E-1' FG 8.5 . 127.6 95.2 ND I- -
TABLE 2.
PAD CHARACTERISTICS
PAD
E.I. .
(per UBC..
Standard 18-2)
:
EXPANSION.
POTENTIAL'
SOLUBLE.
SULFATE:
(weight
percent)•
, SULFATE .
EXPOSURE 2
. .
DEPTH
. . OF FILL
(Range in Ft.)
FOUNDATION
CATEGORY (3)
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 :
4 0 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-10
5 0 Very Low . 0.0064 Negligible 3-5 I
6 0 . Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-5
7 . 0 . Very Low 0.0064 Negligible . 3-4
8 0 Very Low 0,0064 Negligible 3 . .
9 0 Very Low . 0.0064 Negligible 3-4
10 0 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 3-6
11 0 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible . 3-5 I
12 0 . Very Low . 0.0088 Negligible . . 3-6 I
13 0 Very Low .0.0088 Negligible 3-4 I
14 0 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-6 . I
15 1 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-4 I
16 1 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-4 I
17 1 Very Low 0.0088 Negligible 3-4
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 1 Very Low 0.0088 . Negligible 4-5 I
22 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible 3-8
23 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible. 4-6 . I
24 2 Very Low . .0.0055 . Negligible 4-7 I.
25 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible . . 5 . I
26 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible 5-6 I
Calavera Hills II, LLC Table 2
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b.rrg Page 1
GeoSoils, Inc.
SOLUBLE
El SULFATE DEPTH
(per UBC EXPANSION (weight SULFATE OF FILL FOUNDATION
PAD .Ständard18-2) POTENTIAL' percent) .'EXPOSURE 2> (Range in Ft.) CATEGORY (3)
27 2 Very Low 0.0055J Negligible 57 I
28 2 Very Low 0.0055 Negligible 3
(1) Per Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBG.
(2)*Per Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC.
Foundations should be constructed in accordance with recommendations for the specific categories noted
above and presented in Table 3.
MINIMUM INTERIOR EXTERIOR
FOUNDATION FOOTING SLAB REINFORCING INTERIOR! LAB UNDER-SLAB GARAGESLAB. FLATWORK
CATEGORY SIZE THICKNESS STEEL REINFORCEMENT TREATMENT REINFORCEMENT REINFORCING
I 12 Wide 4 Thick 1- #4 Bar Top #3 Bars @ 2 Sand Over 6 x 6 None
x and Bottom 24" o.c. .10-Mil Polyvinyl (10/10)
12 Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF
2 Sand Base
II 12 Wide 4 Thick 2-,#4 Bars Top #3 Bars @ 2 Sand Over 6 x 6 6 X.61"
x and Bottom 18 o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl (6/6) (10/10)
18 Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF WWF
2 Sand Base
III 12" Wide. 4" Thick 2-#5 Bars Top #3Bars@ 2SandOver Same as 6x6
x and Bottom 18 o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl Interior Slab (6/6)
24 Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF
2 Sand Base
p
Category Criteria
Category I Max Fill Thickness is less than 20 and E I 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 E I 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)
1 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 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 engineer's 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
- APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
S
-
S
r
/ I
p
-I
/ I
I
r I
/
I -
1 S
S 4
S I
S
REFERENCES
GeoSoils, Inc., 2003a, Memorandum "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, dated August 16, 2002,
W.0. 3459-132-SC, May 20
2003b, Memorandum: general discussion of fill quality, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-132-SC, dated May 20.
2003c, Revised geotechnical update, Village E-1 of Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California, W.0. 3459-B-SC, May 12
2003d,Geotechnical. update, Village E-1 of Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego.
County, California, W.O. 34597B-SC,' February 17. S
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.O. 2863-A-SC, August 16. ' '•
2000, Update of geotechnical report, Calavera Hills, Village E-i, City of Carlsbad,
California, W.0. 2789-A-SC, August 28
1998a, Lack of Paleontological Resources, Carlsbad Tract Nos 83-19, PUD 56, and
83-321 PUD 62, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.0. 2393-B-SC, dated
January 21.
, / '• '•
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 "1," City of
Carlsbad, California, W.O 2393-B-SC, dated June 24.
1998d, Toe Drain Recommendations, Calavera Hills, Village 1, 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 28933, dated November 17
Southern California.Soil and Testing, Inc.. 1992,.lnterim 'report of as built geology.field S '
observations and relative compaction tests, proposed College Boulevard
Improvements and Village El, Carlsbad, California, SCS&T 9121081 , S
1988, Supplemental soil investigation, Calavera Hills Village 0 and T, College
Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, job no. 8821142, report no.1,' dated October 6.
GeoSoils, Inc.
GeoSoils, Inc.
,'44•• . ,. .. ..
4.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORYTEST RESULTS
1
-.
4 .4
4 '4
'.4
I 4.
-.4
4.4
1 -1
.4 -4
-.4
.4
.4
.4.
M J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316
431 W. Baseline Road . E-mail laI4mjschzff con:
Claremont, CA 91711 . website: rnjsch:ff 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 2228,
Lots 1-6, 14 Lots 15-21 Rec.
FG FG FG'
Resistivity ' ,Units
as-received ' ohm-cm 170,000 ' 48,000 35,000
saturated ohm-cm 2,200 . 1,600 3,300'
p} . ' . 6.5 7.3 . 6.7
Electrical
Conductivity MS/cm 0.18 ' 0.20 0.13
Chemical 'Analyses
Cations
' calcium Ca2+ mg/kg ' 40 , 12 16
magnesium" Mg2" ' mg/kg, ND 10
,
ND
,sodium Na mg/kg 75' . 126 77
Anions ' .
carbonate CO3 2-mg/kg ' ND ' ND '
- ND
bicarbonate HCO3 'mg/kg 67 ' 76 ' 37
. chloride , Cl mg/kg , 100 . 135 85
sulfate •SO4 mg/kg . 64 , 88 55
Other Tests
ammonium N}14 mg/kg na na , ' na
nitrate NO3 mg/kg na . na na
sulfide S2 qual ' na ' na ,na
Redox mv na na . na
;'1 1, 11. 44 , '' ' " ' •.'.',.41f
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 • ' ' '
I • ' • ND = not detected • • '
na = not analyzed : • '
' Page lofl
•
• ' . ' • , , . Figure B-i
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
0
iii 60
5
rIf
50
LL 45 z Di 040 cx: Lii o35
30
25
6.
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
4 11 2 ic 1 3 6 10 1A16 30 A, 50 1001A(200
u11111111JI III I1!IIUIRIIIIIIII_11111111 III IOUlII'lIIlHII 11111111 11111111 1111111 ___
Ill_llIIlUIIIHIHhI_llllllll_111111111_11111111 Ill UOIhilI•llllllll 11111111 11011111 11111111 iii ioiiuui•iiiinii_11111111_IIIIIII_11111111 III ll0IIIlhi'llllHll 11111111 11011111 11111111 III_IIlIil1iIIiiIll_11111111_IAIIiII_11111111
III ll0IlIlliNIHIl 11111111 11011111 11111111 III_lllhIlIlIlliiHlI_11111111_11111111_11111111 iii uoiiuuiiuuii lull. 11011111 1111111 III_IllhlUlIUl0IflhIlUIlIII_111111111_11111111 ii uoiiiuu-iiuuiunuuiu 11011111 0111111 UI_IlHIIIIII•IOIHII_Hi!iIIl_1011111_11111111 Ill IlllhIIIIIIIIIII IIIIi!U 11011111 11111111 III_IIHIIUIIRIIIIHII_IIIIIIIIROOIIUI_11111111 Ill lillllllilllilli 11111111 IblillI 11111111 Ill IlHIIUuIUIIIIHIU 11111111 IIHIIIIIROIIIUI
100 10 1 0.1 - 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES F GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
. coarse Ifine Icoarse.1 medium fine
Sample Depth Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu
.1 El Lot 0.0 1.34 359.62
Sample Depth DIOO D60 D30 DID %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
E-1 Lot 0.0 305 26.735 1.63 39.9 31.2 10.0
GeoSolls, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008 -i' Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Project: MCMILLIN
Number: 3459-B1-SC
Date: May 2003 Figure B-I
S • • S IS SI
uuiuiiuiaoioiiu__IHIlIlIRIlIlUIl 111IIUI • IIIl1llIIIII.—HIIIIIIiiiiiuimiiiiiuiaiiiiiuia
M1111:=IIIIHhI__ :1111 iiiiiiimmiilillom111111 • iii oiuiaoiuuiu H111111 iiiiui iuiuuu III IUIIUIUHIIIIII liiiinmiiiiiimmii I III III liiiinmiiiii lm iuuiuiiuuaiiiiniu :. 1111111 11111111 11111111 III liismiiiiiilmmiiiiiilmmiiiiii 11 11111111 UI iiiiiiiuiiiiiiuiui 1111111 11111111 ill IIIlIIIiIIIIUuI 11111111_11011111 11111111 III Ills 0111111IlII 11111111 IiHiIIiI_11111111 NNE IIIlIIllmmiiiiiiimmiiiiiiimMillillismillillin_
liiiiinmiiiiii 1HHIIIII11111111 III iiiiUui•oiuuu'iiuuiiu 11011111 11111111 UI I mmiiiiiiimmiiiiiilm III II0IlIlIHhIUiI10ilIIU 11011111_11111111
I IIHIIIIIUHIIHII_IHIiii 11111111 11111111 Ill_lI0IIIII'HIIIIII_IHIlIIIiiC1IlII_11111111 III IIIIIlIIIIIlIIHII 11111111 IiHiIIiI 11111111
II I I II III
I
-
I :1
S S . GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Project: MCMILLIN _I •
5741 y
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3459-Bl-SC
-- .1 •Figure B-4
L
COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND I
SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium - fine
I I&A 2/13/03 -. . . WO-. NO 553- 163
. -:
WONO553.-163
BIN
- -; Tr.-,- - -. --Th- ----- ------ - -T -r--r-- - -V-? - •*çy- T--½. - -
60
C
1liA21'13/0$ - --- :-:
-
WONO-55J163
- ---- - - --- --- ---
- -I-__-__ - - - -