HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-04; CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE U; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2004-09-151
) .4.
4. .- ..
- 2 -
- -•
-S
.4
)
-
I
44- 4
•. - . .4 . .- t 4 •, • . .4 4 4, .4 -4 - .4. _ -
,
Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental
7 4-
4
- •••• .4 4 4. . 4. - - 4. . 4
-
: c-r
Geotechnical Geologic Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915-
x
September 15, 2004
W.0. 3459-B 1-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
2727 HooverAvenue -
National City, California 91950
Attention Mr. Don Mitchell -
Subject: Report of Rough Grading, Calaverá Hills, Village U;Building Lots 29 through
-.54, and Active Recreation Area, Carlsbadjract 01-04, Drawing 407-6A,'
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Mitchell
This report presents a summary of ihe geotechnical testing and ob's&rvation services
provided by GeoSoils, Inc (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of
development at the subject site. Earthwork commenced in January 2003, and was
generally completed in. April 2004. This- report does not include utility and pavement
construction testing and observations A report of observation and testing services for
such work will be provided under separate cover, when requested
PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK
The purpose of grading was to prepare relatively level pads for the constrtJtion of 26 multi-
. family residential structures, recreation lot, and access roadways Cut-and-fill grading arid
drill-and-shoot blasting techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded
configurations. Cut lots and the cut portion of transitidn lots were overexcavated in order
to provide for more uniform foundation support. Existing topsoilsànd colluvium were
removed to suitable bedrock material and recompacted. The grading plan for thisportio.n
of CalaveraHills II, Village U, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates ,.San Diego, Inc. (H&A) .'
dated December 16, 2003, is included with this report as Plates 1 and 2
7 . . .. -.- . .. 7 -
-
EARTH MATERIALS
--
Subsurface geologic ôohditions exposed during the process of 'rough, grading were.
observed by a representative of GSI Earth materials onsite generally consist oft dense
- .. - - .. 4] .. ..,
p .
r. • js• 4]_
granitic/metavolcanic rock with a thin, discontinuous surficial veneer of topsoil/colluvium.
Dense surficial outcrops of granitic/metavolcanic bedrock were noted throughout the area.
GROUNDWATER
Naturally occurring groundwaterwas not encountered during rough grading of the building
pads and should not affect the proposed building construction, provided that the
recommendations contained in this report, and/or provided by GSI, are incorporated into
final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices
are incorporated into the construction plans.
Based on the fractured and dense nature of the granitic/metavolcanic bedrock, perched
groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, homeowner
altered drainage, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations
of perched conditions (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the
conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. A discussion of other
subdrainage is presented in a later section of this report.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Earthwork operations have been completed in general accordance with the City grading
ordinance and the guidelines provided in the field by this office. Observations during
grading included removals, overexcavation, and subdrain construction álong.with general
grading procedures and placement of compacted fills by the contractor.
Rough Grading
Preparation of Existing Ground
Deleterious material, such as concentrated organic matter and miscellaneous
debris, were stripped from the surface and disposed of beyond the limits of grading
for the subject area, prior to placing any fill.
Loose surficial materials (i.e., existing topsoils and colluvium) were removed to
expose competent bedrock in all areas to receive fill.
In order to provide for more uniform support of structures, the cut portion of
transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below pad grade,
then broughtto 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
foundation and utility construction. Generally, an attempt was made to slope the
overexcavated bottom toward the Street area. Thus, subdrainage of these areas
does not appear warranted at this time, based on the available data.
Calavera Hills II, LLC •W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b 1.u.ror Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc.
In areas where conventional cut and fill grading techniques were not feasible due
to rock hardness, drill-and-shoot blasting techniques were utilized. These
techniques were used where dense, non-rippable rock occurred within a minimum
of 3 feet of finished pad grade, and above local street elevations equivalent to
approximately 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. Blasting operations
occurred throughout the project.
Subsequent to completing removals, areas to receive compacted fill were scarified
to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content, and then compacted to attain a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent. These areas were then brought to grade with fill compacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction.
All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1 and 2,
was observed by a representative of GSI.
Fill Placement
Fill consisted of onsite and import materials which were placed in thin lifts, approximately
4 to 8 inches in thickness, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted
to attain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction test results of fills are
presented in the attached Table 1. Approximate as-built fill thicknesses are presented in
the attached Table 2. The preparation of some of these fill materials, included processing
of shot rock and oversize rock through a rock crusher. This process generally produced
"4 to 5-inch minus" (in one direction) material, in general accordance with guidelines
presented in GSI (2002b and 20030. Rock fills were placed in the vicinity of Building Lots 4
through 8, 16, 17, and 23, and routinely no closer than about 10 feet from finish grade.
Fill materials generated onsite, or within the larger Calavera Hills development, from either
raw excavation or produced at the crusher site, have been placed in general accordance
with recommendations presented in GSI (2002b). An additional criteria, developed for this
project during grading, has included gradation testing (in general accordance with
ASTM D-422) of stockpiled materials produced from the rock crusher (GSI, 20030. This
testing has been performed in order to evaluate the percentage of "fines" included in the
stockpile material. For this project, "fines" are considered to be earth materials that are
3/4 inch in diameter, or finer. Suitable soil fills are considered to consist of earth materials
generally with at least ±40 percent finer than 3/4 of an inch (GSI, 2002b and 20030. Based
on our testing and observation, a suitable material gradation appears to have been
produced and utilized onsite.
Canyon Subdrains
Prior to placement of fill, canyon subdrains, consisting of 6-inch diameter (Schedule 40)
PVC pipe, were placed within canyon/natural drainage areas located in the general vicinity
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
of Building Lots 4, 5, 9, 10, 23 and 26. Subdrain construction was performed in general
accordance with GSI guidelines. The approximate locations of all subdrains are shown on
Plates 1 and 2.
Slopes
Planned Slopes
In general, graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report should perform
satisfactorily with respect to gross and surficial stability, provided that these slopes are
properly maintained, and are subject to the prevailing semi-arid climatic conditions. Fill
slopes, constructed under the purview of this report, were provided with a keyway
excavated into suitable bedrock material in general accordance with GSI
recommendations.' Cut slopes were constructed by excavation and/or blasting, and
exposed dense igneous and/or metavolcanic rock.
Temporary Slopes
Temporary construction slopes may generally be constructed at a gradient of
1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]), or flatter, in compacted fill, and 1/2:1 (h:v) in suitable bedrock
material (provided adverse geologic structures are not present, as evaluated by GSI prior
to workers entering trenches). Utility trenches may be excavated in accordance with
guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation,
Trenches, and Earthwork, with respect to Type B soil (compacted fill) and stable rock
(bedrock). Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within 5 feet
from the top of any temporary slope. Temporary/permanent provisions should be made
to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary slopes.
Natural Slopes
Natural slopes should generally perform satisfactorily with respect to.gross and surficial
stability, provided they are subject to the prevailing semi-arid climatic conditions. An
analysis of natural slope stability has been completed under separate cover (GSI, 1998b
and 1998c).
Field Testing
Field density tests were performed using the sand cone method (ASTM D-1 556) and
nuclear method (ASTM D-2922). Tests taken for the entire Calavera Hills project
were taken in consecutive numerical order. Only the test results for Village U are
presented in Table 1 at the end of this report. The approximate locations of field
density tests are shown on the Field Density Test Location Maps, Plates 1 and 2,
which utilize the 40-scale grading plans (sheets 4 and 5), prepared by H&A (2003),
as a base map.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B 1 -Sc
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
•..:
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.
Visual classification of the' soils in the field, as well as random laboratory testing,
was the basis for determining which maximum dry density value touse for a given
density test
Rock-fills were periodically inspected using dozer pits inordertoverify adequate
moisture content and relative compaction
-Testing and, observations were performed on a full-time basis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Ri
Moisture-Density Relations
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture contentfor each major soil
type was determined according to test methodASTM D-1 557. The following table presents
the test results
MAMUMETR
E&SIY (off,
1 6IMUMMö1StU1E I k (!)
A - Dark Brown, Silty SAND .- 120.5 - 13.0
B_- Light Brown, Silty _SAND, _•.• 128.0, 10.0
C -LightBrown,Silty SAND ____. . 126.0
D_- LightGray,SiltySAND ___- : 125.5 • ,10.5
E -DarkBrown,SiltyGRAVEL ___. -'• ,_130.0 .- ,11.0 1
F -Brown,SandyGRAVEL(processedmaterial) 126.5 10.5
G_- BrownishGray,GravellySILT ______• ''131.0 _- ' _, _'10.0 -
H _- BrownishGray,GravellySILT w/SAND '- - 131.0 • '9.0
I. Brown; Silty SAND w/Gravel(processedmaterial) 134.0 • 8.5
J -Brownish_Gray,GravellySAND_w/SILT 1340 ,'--40
N -BrownishGray,GravellySANDw/SILT __•' - 136.0- - 8.0
0 -BrownishGrayGravellySAND _-• 139.0 -. 7.5
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
(E.I.) testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform
Building Code ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997).
Representative expansion indices indicate that site soils near pad grade, within the subject
lots, are very low expansive (E.l. <20). A summary of soil-expansion results are presented
in the attached Table 2.
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing
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 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Site soils are considered corrosive
to ferrous materials when wet or saturated. While it is our understanding that standard
concrete cover is sufficient mitigation, alternative methods and additional comments
should be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer.
Sieve Analysis
Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422. Test results generally indicated that at least
40 percent of each sample was finer than the 3/4-inch sieve in accordance with GSI (2002b
and 2003c).
RECOMMENDATIONS -FOUNDATIONS
General
The foundation design and construction,recommendations are based on laboratory testing
and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Minimum recommendations for
conventional or post-tension (PT) foundation systems are provided in the following
sections. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures,
provided they are founded in competent bearing material. The proposed foundation
systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained
in the UBC (ICBO, 1997). All footing designs,should be reviewed and approved by the
project structural engineer/foundation designer Based on soil expansion potential and the
as-built fill thicknesses (i.e., differential fill thickness exceeding 3:1, maximum to minimum,
across the lot and deep fills), conventional, post tension, or structural mat foundations may
be constructed.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W. 0. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror 0 Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
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.
Analyses indicate that an allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf) may be used for design of continuous footings per Table 3, and for design of
isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep into properly
compacted fill or bedrock. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for
seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for
each additional 12 inches in depth, to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No increase in
bearing for footing width is recommended.
For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.4 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Footings should maintain a horizontal distance or setback between any adjacent
slope face and the bottom outer edge of the footing. The horizontal distance may
be calculated by using h/3 (where h is the height of the slope). The horizontal
setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet (per
code). The setback may be maintained by simply deepening the footings.
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 utility setbacks should
be constructed in accordance with distances indicated in this section, and/or the
approved plans. Based on the proximity of the planned buildings to the top of
slope, and recommended setbacks per the UBC, deepened perimeter footings
and/or more onerous foundation design parameters are required for Buildings 31,
32,33,36, 37, and 38 per the discussion on setbacks, slope deformation and slope
creep presented in the "development Criteria" section of this report.
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. For
Building Lots 29, 30, 32 through 36, 40, 42, 45 through 53, and the Rec Lot,
maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 11/2 inches and
should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
anticipated to exceed 1 inch between similar elements in a 40-foot span for building
pads for these lots. For the remaining building lots, maximum settlement is not
expected to exceed approximately 3 inches and should occur below the heaviest
loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 11/3 inches
between similar elements in a 40-foot span for building pads. The increased
differential settlement for these areas is due primarily to fill differentials exceeding
3:1 and the presence of deep fills.
Conventional Foundation/Concrete Slab Construction (See Tables 2 and 31
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 UBC (ICBO, 1997)
guidelines. All footings should be reinforced per Table 3.
Detached isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a
minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface and tied to
the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. Reinforcement
should be properly designed by the project structural engineer.
A grade beam, reinforced as above and at least 12 inches square, should be
provided across the garage entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam
should be at the same elevation as base of the adjoining footings.
The residential floor and garage slabs should have a minimum thickness of
4 inches, in accordance with Table 3. Concrete used in floor slab construction
should have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi.
Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of sand. In
addition, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 10-mil, polyvinyl-chloride
membrane with all laps sealed per the UBC/California Building Code (CBC), should
be provided at the mid-point of the sand layer. The slab subgrade should be free
of loose and uncompacted material prior to placing concrete.
Concrete floor slabs (residence and garage) should be reinforced per Table 3. All
slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height
positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an
acceptable method of positioning.
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 to 18 inches (depending on footing embedment) below
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror . Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
the adjacent. ground grade in the slab areas, and verified by this office within
72 hours of the vapor barrier placement.
Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted
to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether
it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas.
This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away
from the structural areas and toward the street.
Proposed pools and other appurtenant structures should consider that excavation
difficulties will likely be encountered in some lots at depths greater than
approximately 3 feet below existing building pad grades due to the presence of
dense granitic rock. Please refer to Table 2 for a listing of lots with relatively shallow
(i.e., <10 feet) fills.
As an alternative, an engineered PT foundation system may be used.
Recommendations for PT slab design are presented in the following section.
PT Slab Foundation Systems (See Tables 2 and 3)
PT slabs may be utilized for construction of typical one- and two- story residential
structures onsite. The information and recommendations presented in this section
are not meant to supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil
engineer familiar with PT slab design or corrosion engineering consultant.
From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to
distress of structures using PT slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture
content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center,
causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon,
a combination of soil presaturation (if necessary, or after the project has been
dormant for a period of time) and construction of a perimeter "cut off" wall grade
beam may be, employed.
For very low to low (E.l. 0 through 50) expansive soils, perimeter and mid span
beams should be a minimum 12 inches deep below the lowest-adjacent pad grade.
The perimeter foundations may be integrated into the slab design or independent
of the slab. The perimeter beams should be a minimum of 12 inches in width.
A vapor barrier should be utilized and be of sufficient thickness to provide an
adequate separation of foundation from soils (10 mil thick). The vapor barrier
should be adequately sealed, per the UBC/CBC to provide a continuous
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.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
Isolated piers should be incorporated into the PT slab system.
Specific soil presaturation for slabs is not required for very low expansive soils;
however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at or above the soils'
optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 to 18 inches below grade,
depending on the footing embedment.
PT slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in
accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (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 PTI are suggested by the
designer or structural consultant, consideration should be given for additional
review by a qualified structural PT designer. Soil related parameters for PT slab
design, are presented on the following:
Perimeter Footing Embedment**
CATEGORY I(PT)* CATEGORY II(PT)
12 inches 12 inches**
Allowable Bearing Value 1,000 psf*** 1,000 psf***
Modules of subgrade reaction 100 psi/inch 75 psi/inch
Coefficient of Friction 0.35 0.35
Passive Pressure 225 pcf 225 pcf
Soil Suction (Pt) 3.6 3.6
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet 5 feet
Thornthwaite Moisture -20.0 -20.0
em Edge 2.5 2.7
em Center 5.0 5.5
Yedge 0.35 0.5
Ym C1tef 1.1 2.0
Minimum Slab Thickness 5 inches 5 inches
* Foundation design using the spanability method may also be used for Category I conditions.
** Lab data indicates E.I. 0-50 for this site.
Bearing for slab-on-grade only, bearing value for interior or perimeter beams should be in accordance
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. For
Building Lots 29, 30, 32 through 36, 40, 42, 45 through 53, and the Rec Lot,
maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 11/2 inches and
should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not
anticipated to exceed 1 inch between similar elements in a 40-foot span for building
pads for these lots. For the remaining building lots, maximum settlement is not
Calavera Hills II, LLC W. 0. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II; Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
expected to exceed approximately 3 inches and should occur below the heaviest
loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 11/3 inches
between similar elements in a 40-foot span for building pads. The increased
differential settlement for these areas is due primarily to fill differentials exceeding
3:1 and the presence of deep fills. Designers of PT slabs should review the
parameters provided for PT slabs, and compare using a span distance of 5 feet,
using a modules of subgrade reaction of 125 psi in their evaluation.
8. In accordance with guidelines presented in the UBC, improvements and/or footings
should maintain a horizontal distance, X, between any adjacent descending slope
face and the bottom outer edge of the improvement and/or footing. The horizontal
distance, X; may be calculated by using X = h/3. X should not be less than 7 feet,
nor need not be greater than 40 feet. X may be maintained by deepening the
footings. Improvements constructed within a distance 'of h/3 from the top of slope
may be subject to lateral distortion. Based on the proximity of the planned buildings
to the top of slope, and recommended setbacks per the UBC, deepened perimeter
footings and/or more onerous foundation design parameters are required for
Buildings 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, and 38 per the discussion on setbacks, slope
deformation and slope creep presented in the "development Criteria" section of this
report.
Foundations for any adjacent structures, including retaining walls, should be
deepened (as necessary) to below a 1:1 projection upward and away from any
proposed lower foundation system. This recommendation may not be considered
valid if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation on the lower
foundation has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation.
Additional setbacks, not discussed or superceded herein, and presented in the UBC
are considered valid.
Structural Mat Foundations (See Tables 2 and 3)
Foundation design and construction may be performed in accordance with geotechnical
recommendation presented in GSI (2004b, 2003b, 2003d, 2003e, and 1999). Plans for
foundation construction have been developed by Davidson Reinforcing, Inc (DRI, 2002),
using a mat slab design, and have been reviewed by this office. Based on our review of
the plans and soil conditions onsite, foundation systems may be designed for "Category I"
expansive soil conditions, per Table A, shown on Sheet CVR.
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. For Building Lots 29, 30,
32 through 36, 40, 42, 48 through 53, and the Rec Lot, maximum settlement is not
expected to exceed approximately 1 1/3 inches and should occur below the heaviest loaded
columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 1 inch between similar
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, VillageU September 15, 2004
Flle:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
elements in a 40-foot span for building pads on the lots. For the remaining building lots,
maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 3 inches and should occur
below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed
11/2 inches between similar elements in a 40-foot span for building pads. The increased
differential settlement for these areas is due primarily to fill differentials exceeding 3:1 and
the presence of deep fills. Based on the proximity of the planned buildings to the top of
slope, and recommended setbacks per the UBC, deepened perimeter footings and/or
more onerous foundation design parameters may be required for Buildings 31, 32,33,36,
37, and 38 per the discussion on setbacks, slope deformation and slope creep presented
in the "development Criteria" section of this report.
EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior driveways, walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab-on-grade
construction, should' be designed and constructed in accordance with the following
criteria:
Driveway slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness; all other exterior slabs
may be a nominal 4 inches in thickness; however, such nominal slabs will be at
increased risk for distress. A thickened edge should be considered for all flatwork
adjacent to landscape areas.
Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction
and moisture conditioned to at, or above, the soils optimum moisture content.
The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best
ways to control this movement are: 1) add a sufficient amount of properly placed
reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab such as 6x6, Wi .4xW1 .4);
and/or, 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to
accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest
that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5- to 8-foot centers, or the
smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least.
No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength.
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping
should be graded to drain into the street/parking area, or other approved area. All
surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage.
Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
Ca!avera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1.u.ror Page 12
GeoSoits, Inc.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS/WALLS
General
Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the Design section of
Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the
County and/or City guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural
engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and seismic resistance stability per the UBC.
The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are
used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls
within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for
retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used above a
1:1 projection, up and away from the bottom of any wall.
The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribWalls, loffel,
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
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.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-Bi -SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1.u.ror Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
.4
RFA E5F Eduiv F1thD
RETAlNEDATElAL WEIGHT P C F
H-QfII_Z,,Q,N_jTA_.L_ 150 R' (SI,qçtVeow,Expansvve Soil)
IF Level 35
-
2tol 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 on either side of the corner. Traffic loads within a 1:1 projection up from the well heel,
due to light trucks and cars, shOuld be considered as a load of 100 psf per foot in the,
upper 5 feet of wall in uniform pressure. For preliminary design purposes, footing bade -'
within a 1:1. backfill zone behind wall, will be added to the walls as 1/d,-6f the, bearing •
pressure for one footing width, along the wall alignment:
Sound Walls/Top-of-Slope Walls 4'
Sound wall plans havebeenreviewed for this project (GSI, 2003a) and were determined
to be in general conformation with the intent of the referenced reports.
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 the 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 1 cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8-,to 11/2-inch clean
crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) additional gravel may
be warranted depending on wall height and the nature of the wall backcut. Perforations
: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, Tensàr,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
4
,
4
Calavera Hills ii, LLC "W .O. 3459 Bi SC
L . Calavera Hills I!, Village U. September 15, 2004
File e \wp9\3400\3459b1 u ror Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc. L
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Slope Deformation
General
Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial
stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications, should be
expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination with
differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This
post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension
(LFE).
Slope Creep
Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow
downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of
the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e.,
separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal
distance of approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside)
edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone affected is
generally dependant upon: 1) the height of the slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the
slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement
generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the
creep zone.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation
typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or
CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening
and deepening of foundations. Per Section 1806.5.3 of the UBC, a horizontal setback
(measured from the slope face to the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3
is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet and H/3 need not be
greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration of the discussion presented above, site
conditions and Section 1806.5.6 of the UBC, H/3 generally need not be greater than 20 feet
for the Calavera Hills II development. As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the
adjacent slope is greater than 45 feet in height and the building/footing is within 20 feet
from the slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the
design of that portion of the structure(s). Any settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., walls
,spas, flatwork, etc.) should consider the above. Proper disclosure to homeowners and/or
homeowners associations is recommended.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
Lateral Fill Extension (LFE)
LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of
expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils,
the potential component of slope deformation due to LFE is considered minor, but may not
be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement
from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the
slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content. During grading of the site, GSI
observed fill soil moisture contents during fill placement and compaction. Our
observations indicate that the moisture content of the fill is generally above the soils
optimum moisture content, in accordance with our recommendations.
Summary
It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminateihe effects of either slope creep or LFE.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include:
setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or CBC); positive
structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; stiffening; and, deepening of
foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and
improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills. The ramifications of the above
conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner
and/or any homeowners association.
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, away
from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain
plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can
adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is. established. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting, or other fibrous covers, may
aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc. to
develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented.
Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These
recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be
provided to each homeowner. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during
building construction activities and landscaping.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 16
GeoSouls, Inc.
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and
tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during
fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that
future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions.
Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained
at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water
should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the
ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the
structure (GSl, 2003d). We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a
minimum gradient ofi percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible,
should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding
construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage
should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a
geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be
utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a
minimum of 3 feet from structures (GSl, 2003d) or into a subsurface drainage system.
Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be
anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop,
recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request.
Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains
Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for
some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or
contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial
in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be
utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows:
Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to
saturation of soil at the base of the slope?
Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the
slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills,
etc.)?
Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be
overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could
accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less
evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently
prevailing seasonal storm tracks.. -
What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in
excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems due to storm runoff
and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height.
Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water
may adversely impact its proposed use?
Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered by the
design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls in slopes, descending to the
rear of such lots. Following are Detail 1 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 2
(Subdrain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen
conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructed
during grading, including subdrains, the locations/elevations of such drains should be
surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is
recommended that the above be disclosed to all interested parties, including homeowners
and any homeowners association.
Erosion Control
Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth
materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to
providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We
recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures
be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type
raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be
installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised
box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter
should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into
the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the
planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope
areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given
to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e.,
some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems).
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 18
GeoSoils, Inc.
DETAILS
N.T.S.
SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL
Drain May Be Constructed into,
or at, the Toe of Slope
Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative
Compaction.
Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in
Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or Equivalent).
4-Inch Diameter Perforated Pipe (SDR 35 or
Equivalent) with Perforations Down.
Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1 Percent Fall.
Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided at Transition
to Solid Outlet Pipe.
Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to Approved Area.
Cleanouts are Recommended at Each Property
Line.
C) SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL
èoi1Js,,Inc. DETAIL 1
Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental
TOP OF
RETAINING
I FINISHED GRAI
WALL FOOl
DETAILS
N.T.S.
ILL WITH COMPACTED NOTES:
SOILS
Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent
Relative Compaction.
Permeable Material May Be Gravel
Wrapped in Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N
or Equivalent).
4-Inch Diameter Perforated Pipe
(SDR-35 of Equivalent) with
140 FILTER FABRIC Perforations Down.
JAL
Pipe to Maintain a Minimum I
Percent Fall.
USHED GRAVEL
Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided
at Transition to Solid Outlet Pipe.
Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to
Approved Area.
Cleanouts are Recommended at
N Each Property Line.
Compacted Effort Should Be Applied
to Drain Rock.
SIJBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL
DETAIL 21
Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental
From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing
landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments,
they should be recompacted to .90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided the
recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting
permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation,
poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should
perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and
provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater
conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall,
or other factors.
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. The tile installer should consider
installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl
crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile Council of
America/Ceramic Tile Institute.
Site Improvements
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork construction are provided in Table 3 of
this report. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., walls, pools, spas, etc.) are
planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects
of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. All
designers should consider the differential settlement values provided for each lot
previously, when designing additional improvements. This office should be notified in
advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading
has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills.
Additional Grading
This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of
the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes
completion of grading in the Street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall
backfills.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 21
GeoSoils, Inc.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the
observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose
or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or
removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time.
Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the
site.
Trenching
Considering the nature of.the onsité soils, itshould be anticipated that caving or stoughing.
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the
trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and
should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives
and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utility Trench Backfill
All interior utility trench 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.
Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath
hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should
not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along
with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the
structural engineer.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B 1 -Sc
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
Fi1e:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 22
GeoSoils, Inc.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:.
During grading/recertification.
After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building
pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing
steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen,
etc.).
During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement.
During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill.
During slope construction/repair.
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,
walls, etc., are constructed.
A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the
conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear
documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements.
GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners
associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions
outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners
maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape
architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein,
incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 23
GeoSoils, Inc.
reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum
design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable
to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs
by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze
actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as heeded, bearing, expansive soil influence,
and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements
in orderto develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible
that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer
should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses
by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein
as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely
that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has
any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise
transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or
improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that
the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential
settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein.
PLAN REVIEW
Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office,
prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations of this report.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is
expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes
no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or
work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this project.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
FiIe:e:\wp9\34003459b1.u.ror S Page 24
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 submitted! ,.4j OZ
3.
GeoSoils, Inc. f' ,'•
Robert G. Crisman \
Engineering Geologist,
I David W.Skelly
Civil Engineer, RCE 4
Jo. RC 47ED7 I
*
Op
RGC/J PF/D WS/j k
Attachments: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results
Table 2 - Lot Characteristics
Table 3 - Foundation Construction Recommendations
Appendix - References
Plates 1 and 2 - Field Density Test Location Maps
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(6) Brookfield Homes, Attention: Mr. Dale Gleed
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 15, 2004
File: e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .u.ror Page 25
GeoSouls, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
1VlOI$iJRE 1DRi REI:
NO OR CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE
41* 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 253.0 15.1 103.9 86.2 ND A
41A 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 253.0 14.9 109.8 91.1 ND A
42 1/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 256.0 15.7 111.5 92.5 ND A
43 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 257.0 16.3 110.5 91.7 ND A
44 1 11/25/02 70+oo Canyon East College Village 259.0 11.2 109.8 91.1 ND A
45 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 262.0 14.1 108.7 90.2 ND A
46 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 263.0 13.9 109.2 90.6 ND A
47 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 266.0 13.0 110.7 91.9 Sc A
48 11/25/02 70+00 Canyon East College Village U 270.0 13.7 110.9 92.0 ND A
97 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 200.0 14.7 111.3 92.4 ND A
98 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 203.0 13.2 109.8 91.1 ND A
99 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 205.0 13.9 109.4 90.8 ND A
100 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village 207.0 14.5 110.5 91.7 ND A
101 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 210.0 13.6 111.2 92.3 SC A
102 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 208.0 11.2 116.6 91.1 ND B
103 12/5/02 3+00 Cannon Rd Village U 212.0 11.9 116.1 90.7 ND B
123 12/10/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4-5 Village U 269.0 14.8 111.8 92.8 ND A
124 12/10/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4-5 Village 268.0 13.9 110.4 91.6 ND A
125 12/10/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4-5 Village U 271.0 14.2 108.7 90.2 ND A
126 12/10/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4-5 Village U 273.0 13.6 110.7 91.9 ND A
127 12/10/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4-5 Village U 273.0 14.3 110.0 91.3 Sc A
128 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 277.0 12.4 116.6 92.5 ND C
129 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 5 Village 279.0 11.8 114.7 91.0 ND C
130 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 280.0 12.2 115.7 91.8 ND C
131 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 5 Village U 283.0 12.9 114.8 91.1 ND C
132* 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 287.0 7.9 104.0 82.5 ND C
132A 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 287.0 11.4 113.8 90.3 ND C
133 12/12/02 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village U 285.0 11.7 114.2 90.6 SC C
134 12/16/02 Toe Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village U 309.0 11.4 116.4 90.9 ND B
135 12/16/02 Toe Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 300.0 10.6 117.1 91.5 ND B
136 12/16/02 Toe Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 309.0 10.2 117.5 91.8 ND B
137 12/16/02 Toe Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 305.0 10.9 116.0 90.6 ND B
138 12/16/02 Rear Slope Bldg 5 Village 296.0 11.3 118.4 92.5 ND B
139 12/16/02 Rear Slope Bldg 4 Village U 299.0 11.0 120.1 93.8 ND B
140 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 7 Village 280.0 14.9 110.3 91.5 ND A
141 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 6 Village U 290.0 13.7 108.8 90.3 ND A
142 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 7 Village U 274.0 12.0 116.9 92.8 ND C
143 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 7 Village U 282.0 11.8 116.2 92.2 ND C
144 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 8 Village U 261.0 11.9 116.6 92.5 ND C
145 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 8 Village U 263.0 13.0 115.0 91.3 ND C
146 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 8 Village U 265.0 11.7 114.3 90.7 SC C
147 12/17/02 Toe Slope Rear Lot Bldg 7 Village U 282.0 12.0 114.5 90.9 ND C
148 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg 10 Village U 220.0 11.8 117.6 91.9 ND B
149 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg lo Village 218.0 10.6 115.6 90.3 ND B
150 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg 9 Village U 260.0 10.2 116.1 90.7 ND B
Calavera Hills II, LLC
Calavera Hills II, Village U
File: C:\exceRtables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 3459-B1-SC
September 2004
Page 1
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
1ESt
NO
:V:lItGE
OR
DEPTH (ft)
IlOiS1J.RE
CONTENT
(%)
]ENSITY
(pct)
EOMF
(%)
METHOD
:SOI Li.:
TYPE
151 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg 9 Village U 262.0 11.5 118.3 92.4 ND B
152 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg 9 Village 264.0 12.0 116.5 91.0 ND B
153 12/19/02 Slope Rear Bldg 10 Village U 223.0 10.4 115.5 90.2 ND B
154 12/23/02 Bldg Area 23 Village U 300.0 12.4 118.2 90.9 ND E
155 12/23/02 10+20 Drive C Village 301.0 13.2 118.8 91.4 ND E
156 12/23/02 Drive C 10+50 Village U 303.0 12.1 125.2 96.3 ND E
157 12/23/02 Drive A21+00 Village 300.0 11.0 118.6 91.2 ND E
158* 12/23/02 Slope Area Bldg 4 Village U 303.0 9.2 114.1 87.8 ND E
158A 12/23/02 Slope Area Bldg 4 Village 303.0 10.9 118.2 90.9 ND E
159 12/23/02 Bldg 23 Village 304.0 11.6 119.0 91.5 ND E
160 12/23/02 22+20 Drive A Village 302.0 11.9 118.8 91.4 ND E
161 12/23/02 Slope Area Bldg 6 Village 294.0 13.6 121,2 93.2 SC E
162 12/23/02 Slope Area Bldg 7 Village 286.0 12.2 126.9 97.6 ND E
163 12/24/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 4 Village 307.0 11.8 120.1 92.4 ND E
164 12/24/02 Bldg 4 Village U 303.0 13.6 120.0 92.3 ND E
165 12/24/02 Bldg Village 300.0 10.2 117.2 91.6 ND B
166 12/24/02 Bldg 4 Village U 305.0 10.9 115.8 90.5 ND B
167 12/24/02 Bldg Village 308.0 11.0 120.2 93.9 ND B
168 12/24/02 21+50 Drive A Village 303.0 11.1 121.9 95.2 ND B
169 12/24/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 7 Village U 292.0 12.9 122.3 94.1 ND E
170 12/24/02 Bldg Village 310.0 12.2 119.3 91.8 ND E
171 12/24/02 20+80 Drive A Village 304.0 10.5 116.7 91,2 SC B
172 12/24/02 Bldg 7 Village U 295.0 11.2 117.9 90.7 ND E
173 12/26/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 219.0 10.8 125.3 96.4 ND E
174 12/26/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 222.0 11.3 119.2 91.7 ND E
175* 12/26/02 Bldg 22 Village U 299.0 6.2 115.3 88.7 ND E
175A 12/26/02 Bldg 22 Village U 299.0 12.2 119,9 92.2 ND E
176 12/26/02 Bldg 7 Village U 288.0 11.1 122.9 94.5 SC E
177 12/26/02 Bldg 6 Village U 299.0 12.2 1.21.3 93.3 ND E
178 12/26/02 Bldg 7 Village U 292.0 13.6 124.8 96.0 ND E
179 12/26/02 23+90 Drive A Village U 294.0 13.9 127.7 98.2 ND E
180 12/26/02 23+00 Drive A Village U 298.0 12.0 119.0 91.5 ND E
181 12/26/02 Bldg 23 Village 306.0 11.8 117.4 90.3 ND E
182 12/26/02 Bldg Village 304.0 11.2 120.6 92.8 ND E
183 12/27/02 21+50 Drive A Village 305.0 12.2 120.8 92.9 ND E
184 12/27/02 Bldg 23 Village 309.0 11.4 123.1 94.7 ND E
185 12/27/02 23+00 Drive A Village U 302.0 11.9 123.2 94.8 ND E
186 12/27/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 226.0 11.8 125.6 96.6 ND E
187* 12/27/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 228.0 9.1 112.6 86.6 ND E
187A 12/27/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 228.0 10.8 1184 91.1 ND E
188 12/27/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 230.0 11.8 122.2 94.0 ND E
189 12/27/02 Bldg Village 304.0 11.1 119.7 92,1 SC E
190 12/27/02 Bldg 4-5 Village U 307.0 12.2 120.6 92.8 ND E
191 12/27/02 Bldg 22 . Village 300.0 12.0 121.6 93.5 ND E
192 12/27/02 Bldg VillageU 300.0 11.9 119.1 91.6 ND E
193 12/27/02 Slope Area Rear Bldg 8 Village 272.0 11.4 117.5 90.4 ND E
Catavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSosis, Inc. Page 2
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO
DATE TEST LOCATION VILLAGE ELEV
OR
DEPTH (ft}
MOISTURE
CONTENT
1%)
DRY
DENSITY
(ocf)
REL
COMP
(%)
TEST
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
211 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 234.0 11.4 114.1 90.9 ND D
212 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 235.0 11.2 113.7 90.6 ND 0
213 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 236.0, 10.8 118.2 94.2 ND D
214 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 238.0 10.9 119.4 95.1 ND D
215 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 240.0 12.4 _114.6 91.3 ND D
216 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 242.0 12.3 116.5 92.8 ND D
217 1/2/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 9-10 Village U 248.0 13.1 113.6 90.5 ND D
218 1/3/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 248.0 14.9 110.0 91.3 ND A
219 1/3/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 250.0 13.2 109.7 91.0 ND A
220 1/3/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 10 Village U 250.0 13.9 112.8 93.6 ND A
221 1/3/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 9 Village U 252.0 13.6 109.1 90.5 ND A
222 1/3/03 10+00 Drive C Village U 305.0 13.9 108.7 90.2 ND A
223* 1/6/03 Slope Rear Bldg 9 Village U 256.0 6.9 106.2 84.3 ND C
223A 1/6/03 Slope Rear Bldg 9 Village 256.0 11.2 114.0 90.5 ND C
224 1/6/03 Slope Rear Bldg 10 Village U 258.0 12.5 114.4 90.8 ND C
225 1/6/03 Slope Rear Bldg lo Village 257.0 11.4 116.4 92.4 ND C
226 1/6/03 Bldg 10 Village U 254.0 14.6 109.8 91.1 ND A
227 1/6/03 Bldg 9 Village U 264.0 .13.2 109.4 90.8 ND A
228 1/7/03 Slope Area Bldg 9 Village 260.0 ' 12.2 115.8 91.9 ND C
229 1/7/03 Slope Area Bldg lo Village 260.0 13.1 116.9 92.8 ND C
230 1/7/03 Slope Area Bldg lo Village 261.0 11.8 117.7. 93.4 ND C
231 1/7/03 Slope Area Bldg 9 Village 265.0 11.7 116.2 92.2 SC C.
232 1/8/03 Bldg9 VillageU 266.0 13.9 113.4 94.1 ND A
233 1/8/03 Slope AreaBldg9 VillageU 267.0 13.6 110.9 92.0 ND . A
234 1/8/03 Slope AreaBldg11 VillageU 262.0 12.2 114.2, 90.6 ND C
235 1/8/03 Slope AreaBldg10 VillageU 265.0 11.7 114.7 91.0 SC C
236 1/8/03 Bldg9 VillageU 270.0 11.8 118.2 93.8 ND C
237 1/8/03 Slope AreaRearBldg11 VillageU 269.0 11.1 113.7 90.2 ND C
238 1/8/03 16+50DriveC VillageU 273.0 14.4 109.5 90.9 ND A
239 1/9/03 12+65 Drive A VillageU 345.0 12.9 110.6 91.8 ND A
240 1/9/03 12+50Drive A VillageU 347.0 14.6 109.2 90.6 ND A
241 1/9/03 12+800riveA VillageU 351.0 13.2 109.5 90.9 ND A
242 1/9/03 Bldg26 VillageU 355.0 13.1 112.9 93.7 ND A
243 1/9/03 Bldg26 VillageU 358.0 14.3 110.9 92.0 Sc A
244 1/10/03 SlopeRearBldg3 VillageU 310.0 12.5 116.2 90.8 ND B
245 1/10/03 SlopeRearBldg3 VillageU 312.0 11.8 117.9 92.1 'ND B
253 1/13/03 '74+70 College Blvd VillageU 307.0 11.2 120.1 92.4 ND E
254 1/13/03 75+30CollegeBlvd VillageU 311.0 10.9 121.8 93.7 ND E-
255 1/13/03 74+90CollegeBlvd VillageU 309.0 10.6 125.6 96.6 ND E
256 1/13/03 Bldg11 VillageU 270.0 12.4 119.0 .91.5 ND .E
257 1/13/03 SlopeBldg10 VillageU 268.0 11.8 119.3 91.8 ND E
258 1/13/03 SlopeBldg9 VillageU 269.0 12.4 120.3 92.5 SC E
259 1/13/03 SlopeBldg9 VillageU 270.0 11.9 119.5 91.9 ND E
266 1/14/03 76+80CollegeBlvd VillageU 309.0 12.2 123.2 94.8 ND E
267 1/14/03 76+90 College Blvd.VillageU 311.0 11.9 121.7 93.6 ND E
268 1/14/03 79+00CollegeBlvd VillageU 314.0 11.8 122.3 94.1 ND E
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\exceRtables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSosis, Inc. Page 3
'I
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
NO
1EST .... -- ........... - ...... - ...... ......... ... .....
X.
OR
DEPTH (ft)
.1 )IS1LJRE
CONTENT
(%)
DENSITY
(pcf}
COMP
(4%)
1ES1.:
METHOD TYPE
269 1/14/03 75+50 College Blvd Village U 317.0 12.0 120.3 92.5 ND E
274 1/15/03 74+00 College Blvd Village U 309.0 109 121.6 92.8 ND G
275 1/15/03 73+50 College Blvd Village U 313.0 118 122.7 93.7 ND G
276 1/15/03 74+30 College Blvd Village U 316.0 11.2 125.0 95.4 ND G
277 1/15/03 74+10 College Blvd Village U 320.0 12.4 121.3 92.6 ND G
278 1/15/03 76+30 College Blvd Village U 312.0 12.2 122.0 93.1 ND G
279 1/15/03 76+00 College Blvd Village U 313.0 12.8 120.8 92.2 ND G
280 1/15/03 76+00 College Blvd Village U 316.0 11.8 120.6 92.0 ND G
281 1/16/03 Slope S Village 272.0 12.5 117.1 92.9 ND C
282 1/16/03 Slope 10 Village U 273.0 11.6 119.2 94.6 ND C
283 .1/16/03 Slope 11 Village U 272.0 11.9 117.4 93.2 SC C
284 1/16/03 Slope 10 Village U 276.0 12.4 114.0 90.5 ND C
285 1/16/03 Slope Village 275.0 12.2 114.0 90.5 ND C
350 1/20/03 Slope Area 8-9 Village U 267.0 11.1 119.1 90.9 ND G
351 1/20/03 Slope Area lO Village 278.0 10.2 124.1 94.7 ND G
352* 1/20/03 Slope Area 9-10 Village U 277.0 8.6 113.2 86.4 ND G
352A 1/20/03 Slope Area 9-10 Village U 277.0 10.2 119.1 90.9 ND G
353 1/20/03 Slope Area 9 Village U 280.0 11.5 120.7 92.1 ND G
354 1/20/03 Slope Area lO Village 280.0 1.0.8 121.3 92.6 ND G
355 1/20/03 Slope Area 9 Village U 275.0 11.1 122.5 93.5 SC G-
356 1/20/03 Slope Area ll Village 275.0 14.6 109.4 90.8 ND A
411 1/30/03 Slope Area Bldg 8 Village 274.0 12.4 116.5 92.8 ND D
412 1/30/03 Slope Area Bldg 8 Village 277.0 11.6 117.0 93.2 ND D
413 1/30/03 Slope Area Bldg 8-9 Village U 277.0 11.9 113.7 90.6 ND D
414 1/30/03 Slope Area Bldg 8 Village U 280.0 10.4 115.3 91.9 ND,
415 1/30/03 26i-l0 Private Drive B Village 281.0 14.8 110.9 92.0 ND A
416 1/30/03 Bldg 8 Village U 284.0 13.7 112.9 93.7 ND A
424 2/3/03 Bldg 11 Village U 282.0 11.2 117.0 93.2 ND D
425 2/3/03 Bldg Village 283.0 12.0 113.5 90.4 ND 0
426 2/3/03 Bldg 11 Village U 281.0 11.9 115.0 91.6 SC 0
427 2/3/03 Bldg 8 Village U 284.0 10.8 116.6 92.9 ND D
428 2/3/03 Bldg 9 Village U 285.0 10.9 114.0 90.8 ND D
429 2/3/03 Bldg 8 Village U 286.0 .11.6 113.6 90.5 ND D
430 2/3/03 Bldg 8 Village U 288.0 10.4 113.1 90.1 ND D
431 2/4/03 Slope Area Bldg 8-9 Village U 289.0 11.8 117.7 93.8 ND D
432 2/4/03 Slope Area Bldg 8 Village 290.0 12.2 115.0 91.6 ND D
433 2/4/03 Slope Area Bldg 8 Village U 291.0 .10.6 114.2 91.0 ND D
434 2/4/03 Slope Area Bldg 12 Village U 286.0 10.8 113.2 90.2 ND D
435 2/4/03 14+45 Drive C Village U 287.0 11.1 114.8 91.5 . SC D
439 2/5/03 73+20 College Blvd Village U 321.0 14.6 110.5 91.7 ND .A
443 2/5/03 . Bldg 10 Village U 285.0 11.2 123.4 94.2. ND 7-
444 2/5/03 14+00 Drive B Village U 292.0 11.5 121.3 92.6 ND G
445 2/5/03 Bldg 8 Village U 295.0 10.4 120.4 91.9 ND G
446 2/5/03 Bldg 11 Village U 284.0 10.5 119.5 . 91.2 SC G
507 2/19/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 3 Village U 332.0 11.4 118.4 90.4 ND G
508 2/19/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 3 Village 1 315.0 1 11.9 1 119.5 91.2 ND G
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
::::; .ilLi .GE:
C
DEl (ft)
IV1OtS1IJRE:
CO I NT Dl 'i
I
C MP
X)
REi:
ME lOC TYPE
50 2/19/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 3 Village 315.0 10.7 119.1 90.9 ND G
510 2/19/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 3 Village 320.0 11.2 121.2 92.5 ND G
511 2/19/03 Slope Area Rear Bldg 3 Village 321.0 10.4 119.6 91.3 ND G
560 2/21/03 Lot Village U 298.0 10.2 125.2 90.0 ND 0
561 2/21/03 11+50 Private Drive B Village U 304.0 10.5 126.5 91.0 ND 0
562 2/24/03 Bldg 22 Village 304.0 10.2 126.4 90.9 ND 0
563 2/24/03 Bldg 17 Village U 305.0 10.5 126.9 91.2 ND 0
564 2/24/03 Bldg 23 Village 304.0 9.9 126.5 91.0 ND 0
565 2/24/03 11+50 Private Drive C Village U 296.0 10.3 127.2 91.5 ND 0
566 2/24/03 12+50 Private Drive C Village 298.0 10.0 127.4 91.6 ND 0
567 2/24/03 13+50 Private Drive C Village U 300.0 9.8 126.8 91.2 ND 0
568 2/25/03 13+20 Private Drive C Village U 298.0 10.2 126.2 90.7 ND 0
569 2/25/03 11 +20 Private Drive C Village U 301.0 10.5 125.8 90.5 ND 0
570 2/25/03 12+50 Private Drive C Village U 303.0 10.1 126.4 90.9 ND 0
571 2/25/03 Bldg 19 Village U 298.0 9.8 126.1 90.7 ND 0
572 2/25/03 Bldg 18 Village U 302.0 9.5 126.5 91.0 ND 0
573 2/25/03 Bldg 20 Village U 296.0 10.3 125.7 90.4 ND 0
574 2/25/03 Bldg 21 Village U 298.0 10.5 125.9 90.5 ND 0
575 2/26/03 13+00 Drive B Village U 289.0 10.8 115.2 91.0 ND F
576 2/26/03 14+00 Drive B Village U 290.0 10.5 114.8 90.7 ND F
577 2/26/03 25+00 Drive B Village U 292.0 10.2 126.3 90.8 ND 0
578 2/26/03 24+00 Drive B Village 294.0 9.8 126.5 91.0 ND 0
579 2/26/03 23+00 Drive B Village U 297.0 10.1 125.8 90.5 ND 0
580 2/26/03 22+00 Drive B Village U 303.0 10.3 125.9 90.5 ND 0
581 2/27/03 11 +30 Private Drive B Village U 305.0 10.8 114.2 90.9 ND D
582 2/27/03 Bldg 12 Village U 288.0 11.5 117.3 90.2 ND E
583 2/27/03 Bldg 12 Village U 290.0 11.8 117.8 90.6 ND E
584 2/27/03 Bldg Village 287.0 12.2 117.1 90.0 ND E
585 2/27/03 Bldg Village 289.0 11.7 117.5 90.3 ND E
586. 2/27/03 Bldg 22 Village 305.0 12.0 117.9 90.6 ND E
587 2/28/03 Bldg 23 Village U 307.0 10.2 126.8 91.2 ND 0
588 2/28/03 Bldg 16 Village U 309,0 9.9 126.9 91.3 ND 0
589 2/28/03 Bldg 23 Village U 310.0 10.1 126.5 91.0 ND 0
590 2/28/03 Bldg 21 Village 300.0 10.5 126.8 91.2 ND 0
591 2/28/03 Bldg 22 Village U 304.0 9.8 126.4 90.9 ND 0
592 2/28/03 Bldg 18 Village U 303.0 10.0 . 126.8 91.2 ND 0
593 2/28/03 Bldg 17 Village U 302.0 10.2 125.9 90.5 ND 0
594 3/3/03 Bldg 18 Village U 305.0 10.2 125.9 90.5 ND 0
595 3/3/03 Bldg 5 Village U 306.0 10.5 126.3 90.8 ND 0
596 3/3/03 Bldg Village 305.0 11.3 115.2 91.0 ND F
597 3/3/03 20+50 Private Drive A Village U 301.0 11:5 115.7 91.4 ND F
598 3/3/03 Bldg Village 310.0 9.8 126.8 91.2 ND 0
599 3/3/03 Bldg 13 Village U 296.0 10,0 126.5 91.0 ND 0
644 3/11/03 Bldg 21 Village U 302.0 10,4 120,0 91.6 ND H
645 3/11/03 Bldg 22 Village U 307.0 9.6 119.5 91.2 ND H
646 3/11/03 Bldg 8 Village U 306,0 9.8 121.7 1 92.9 ND H
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459b1.u.ror GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST DATE TEST LOCATION VILLAGE ELEV
(ft
MOISTURE
T
(%)
DRY
DENSITY
REL
COMP
fflND
647 3/11/03 Bldg21 VillageU 305.0 9,1 122.4 93.4 H
648 3/11/03 Bldg 7 Village U 307.0 10.5 121.6 92.8 H
649 3/11/03 Bldg 20 Village U 302.0 10.2 122.5 93.5 ND H
650 3/4/03 Bldg 18 Village U 307.0 10.2 126.3 90.8 ND 0
651 3/4/03 Bldg 19 Village U 301.0 10.3 125.8 90.5 ND 0
652 3/4/03 Berm at S. Side Bldg 10 Village U 294.0 10.9 116.1 91.8 ND F
653 3/4/03 Berm at S. Side Bldg 11 Village U 296.0 11.3 115.7 91.4 ND F
654 3/4/03 Bldg 18 Village U 308.0 10.5 126.7 91.1 ND 0
655 3/4/03 Bldg 19 Village U 305.0 9.8 126.1 90.7 ND 0
656 3/5/03 Bldg 8 Village U 296.0 11.2 114.8 90.7 ND F
657 3/5/03 Bldg Village 300.0 10.9 115.2 91.0 ND F
658 3/5/03 Bldg 6 Village U 299.0 11.0 115.5 91.3 ND F
659 3/5/03 Bldg 8 Village U 302.0 10.8 114.6 90.5 ND F
660 3/5/03 Bldg Village 302.0 11.1 115.3 91.1 ND F
661 3/5/03 Bldg Village 303.0 11.5 114.9 90.8 ND F
662 3/6/03 Bldg Village 304.0 11.3 114.9 90.8 ND F
663 3/6/03 Bldg 8 Village U 304.0 11.5 115.3 91.1 ND F
664 3/6/03 Bldg 7 Village U 304.0 10.9 114.7 90.6 ND F
665 3/6/03 Bldg Village 294.0 10.8 115.5 91.3 ND F
666 3/6/03 Bldg 9 Village U 296.0 10.9 114.8 90.7 ND F
667 3/10/03 Bldg Village 296.0 11.8 117.3 90.2 ND E
669 3/10/03 Bldg 10 Village U 294.0 11.7 117.9 90.6 ND E
671 3/10/03 15+00 Private Drive C Village U 294.0 12.2 117.5 90.3 ND E
673 3/10/03 16+00 Private Drive C Village U 296.0 12.5 118.1 90.8 ND E
675 3/10/03 Bldg 10 Village 296.0 12.8 118.5 91.1 ND E
679 3/12/03 Choker 26+00 Drive A Village U 297.0 10.5 1184 90.4 SC H
680 3/12/03 Choker 14+00 Drive B Village 299.0 9.6 119.2 91.0 ND H
686 3/13/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 322.0 11.3 117.2 91.6 1 ND B
687 3/13/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 325.0 10.6 115.5 90.2 1 ND B
688 3/13/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village U 330.0 10.9 120.4 91.9 ND G
689 3/13/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village U 336.0 11.9 119.7 91.4 ND G
690 3/13/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 329.0 12.4 121.2 92.5 ND G
691 3/14/03 Bldg 3 Village U 326.0 10.2 122.5 93.5 ND G
692 3/14/03 Bldg Village 330.0 11.6 121.2 92.5 ND
693 3/14/03 Bldg 3 Village U 335.0 10.1 120.8 92.2 ND G
694 3/14/03 Bldg 3 Village U 1 335.0 9.9 123.3 94.1 ND G
742 4/1/03 Lot 24 Village 353.0 9.4 122.5 93.5 ND H
743 4/1/03 Lot Village U 357.0 9.2 119.8 91.5 ND H
850 4/4/03 Lot 1 Village U 356.0 9.2 119.6 91.3 ND H
851 4/4/03 Lot Village U 353.0 9.6 119.2 91.0 ND H
852 4/4/03 Private Drive A Village U 349.0 9.4 119.8 91.5 1 ND H
854 4/9/03 Private Drive A Village U 349.0 9.6 120.8 92.2 1 ND H
855 4/9/03 Private Drive A Village U 345.0 10.1 119.6 91.3 ND H
856 4/9/03 Private Drive Village U 341.0 10.6 119.2 91.0 ND H
863 4/9/03 Lot Village U 353.0 10.2 123.5 92.2 ND i
864 4/9/03 Lot Village U 350.0 9.6 122.5 91.4 ND
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\exceRtables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSoils, inc. Page 6
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
VI
OR
DEPTH (ft)
O.iSTIiJRE
CONTENT
(%)
DENSITY
(pcf)
COMP
(%)
METHOD TYPE
865 4/9/03 Lot 25 Village U 354.0 8.7 121.7 90.8 ND I
866 4/9/03 . Lot 24 Village U 350.0 9.3 122.3 91.3 ND I-
871 4/10/03 Front Bldg 24 Village ' 354.0 9.2 121.7 90.8 ND
- - 872 4/10/03 Front Bldg 25 Village U 357.0 10.3 125.3 93.5 ND
- 873 4/10/03 Front Bldg 3 Village U" 354.0 9.6 122.1 91.1 ND
- - 874 4/10/03 Front Bldg 2 Village 358.0 9.5 127.0 94.8 ND
- - 903 4/18/03 Bldg 2 Village U FG 9.3 127.2 94.9 ND
- - 904 4/18/03 Bldg 2 Village U FG 10.6 128.9 96.2 ND
- - 905 4/18/03 Bldg 25 Village FG 11.2 125.8 93.9 ND
- - 906 4/18/03 Bldg 25 Village FG 10.9 126.2 94.2 ND
- - 907 4/18/03 15+30 Drive A Village U 350.0 11.9 123.0 91.8 ND
- - 908 4/18/03 . 14+00 Drive A Village 352.0 10.3 124.0 92.5 ND
- 973 5/2/03 ' . Bldg 12 Village U 299.0 9.0 123.0 91.8 ND L 974* 5/2/03 Bldg 12 Village U 300.0 7.4 119.7 89.3 ND
974A 5/2/03 Bldg 12 Village U 300.0 8.6 123.5 92.2' ND I
975 5/2/03 Bldg 12 Village U 301.0 8.7 126.6 94.5 ND I
976 5/2/03 Front Bldg 12 Village 302.0 9.3 121.4 90.6 ND I
977 5/5/03 Bldg 9/10 Village 300.0 10.2 122.3 91.3 ND i
978 5/5/03 Bldg Village 292.0 9.1 124.5. 92.9 ND l
979 5/5/03 Bldg 9 Village U 295.0 9.7 122.1 91.1 ND
980* 5/5/03 Bldg 9 Village U 299.0 9.8 116.2 86.7 ND
980A 5/5/03 Bldg Village 299.0 10.1 121.8 90.9 ND
981 5/5/03 Bldg 9 Village U 301.0 11.2 121.1 90.4 ND
982 5/5/03 Bldg 9 Village U 303.0 10.0 124.4 92.8 ND
996 5/8/03 Bldg 11 Village U 294.0 9.4 121.4 90.6 ND I
997 5/8/03 Bldg 12 ' Village U 297.0 9.2 121.5 90.7 ND
998 5/8/03 Bldg 11 Village U 297.0 9.0 120.9 90.2 ND i
999 5/8/03 Bldg 11 Village U 300.0 9.9 122.1 91.1 ND
1000 5/8/03 Bldg 10/11 Village U 301.0 10.3 125.7 93.8 ND I
1001 5/8/03 Bldg 11 Village U 302.0 10.0 123.4' 92.1 ND l
1002 5/8/03 Bldg 12 Village U 303.0, 9.6 122.6 91.5 ND I
1026 5/13/03 Lot 26 Village U 362.0 9.6 125.4 93.6 ND I- 1040 5/15/03 11 +80 Private Drive A Village 358.0 9.8 122.7 91.6 ND I
1041 5/15/03 11+00 Private Drive A Village U 365:0 10.2 123.5 92.2 ND l
1042 5/15/03 11+50 Private Drive A Village U 362.0 9.1 125.8 93.9 ND
1043 5/15/03 Bldg 26 Village 361.0 9.8 120.4 91.9 ND H
1044 5/15/03 11+00 Private Drive Village U 370.0 9.3 118.2 90.2 SC H
1045 5/15/03 12+05 Private Drive Village U 360.0 10.3 119.3 91.1 ND H
1046 5/15/03 19+80 Private Drive Village U 308.0 10.5 124.2 94.8 ND H
1047 5/15/03 18+10 Private Drive A Village U 327.0 10,2 122.0. 93.1 sc H
1048* 5/16/03 ' 17+50 Private Drive A Village U 338.0 10.3 114.8 87.6 ND H
1048A 5/16/03 19+20 Private Drive A VillageU 317.0 9.7 118.2 90.2 ND H
1049 1 5/16/03 17+50 Private Drive A VillageU 338.0 9.1 118.9 90.8 ND H
1050 5/16/03 18+75 Private Drive A Village 327.0 9.2 125.8 93.9 ND
1051
1
5/16/03 17+90 Private Drive A Village 335.0 10.5 123.4 92.1 ND
1076 5/21/03 Bldg9 VillageU FG 9.4 129.4 96.6 ND
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:\excel\tables\3400\3459b1.u.ror GeoSosis, inc. Page 7
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
NO OR
DEPTH (ft)
iii.'ir•iJRE:
CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD
SO:FL
TYPE
1077 5/21/03 Bldg 10 Village U FG 9.0 127.8 95.4 ND
1078 5/21/03 Bldg 12 Village U FG 9.0 125.8 93.9 ND
1306 6/30/03 Toe Slope E 64+50 College Blvd Village 362.0 12.3 113.8 90.3 ND C
1307 6/30/03 Toe Slope E63+90 College Blvd Village 361.0 12.6 114.7 91.0 ND C
1308 6/30/03 Toe Slope E64+oO College Blvd Village 365.0 ' 13.0 114.4 90.8 Sc C
1489 8/19/03 11+00 Drive B Village U 308.0 10.4. 125.8 93.9 ND
- - 1491 8/19/03 11 +20 Drive B Village U 305.0 11.2 127.6 95.2 ND '
- - 1492 8/19/03 11+50 Drive B Village U 307.0 11.0 127.0 94.8 ND
- - 1499 8/22/03 Bldg 1 Village U FG 8.7 129.6 96.7 ND
- - 1500 8/22/03 Bldg Village FG 9.0 131.6 98.2 ND
- - 1501 8/22/03 Bldg. 3 Village U FG 9.2 127.8 95.4 ND
- - 1502 8/22/03 Bldg. 24 Village FG 8.5 125.6 93.7 ND 1-
1503 8/22/03 Bldg. 26 Village U FG 8.6 124.5 92.9 ND
- 1504 8/22/03 Bldg. 26 Village U FG 9.1 125.2 93.4 ND
1505 8/22/03 21 +10 Private Drive A Village U 307.0 10.2 122.2 91.2 ND I
1506 8/22/03 .20+00 Private Drive A Village U 312.0 9.3 . 123.3 92.0 ND I
1507 8/22/03 Bldg 24 Village U FG 9.0 126.8 94.6 ND l
1563 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village U 347.0 10.2 118.7 92.7 ND B
1564 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 330.0 11.0 118.0 92.2' ND B
1565 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 310.0 10.8 115.7 90.4 ND B
1566 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 3 Village 340.0 10.2 121.3 94.8 ND B
1567 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 300.0 11.5 118.0 90.1 ND G
1568 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 280.0 11.1 126.0 96.2 ND G
1569 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 4 Village 293.0 11.8 123.1 94.0 ND G
1570 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 5 Village U 280.0 13.7 108.5 90.0 ND A
1571 9/8/03 Slope Rear Bldg 5 Village 300.0 10.0 121.2 92.5 ND G
1579 9/10/03 Slope Rear Bldg 6 Village 287.0 10.2 120.0 91.6 ND G
1580 9/10/03 Slope Rear Bldg 7 Village U 300.0 10.0 121.2 92.5 ' ND G
1581 9/10/03 Slope Rear Bldg 7 Village 290.0 11.4 119.7. 91.4 ND G
1582 9/10/03 Slope Rear Bldg 7 Village U 280.0 10.9 118.8 90.7 ND G
1583 9/10/03 Slope Rear Bldg 7 Village U 302.0 10.1 122.5 93.5 ND G
1584 9/11/03 , West Private Drive C Village U 328.0 11.4 , 116.9 92.4 ND F
1585 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 322.0 11.5 117.3 92.7 'ND F
1586 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 324.0 11.2 117.0 92.5 ND F
1587 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 324.0 11.1 116.8 92.3 ND F
1588 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 316.0 11.6 116.5 92.1 ND F
1589 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 316.0 11.3 115.9 91.6 ND F
1590 9/11/03 West Private Drive C Village U 315.0 11.7 115.5 91.3 ND F
1591 9/11/03 West Private Drive C ' Village U 310.0 11.9 115.2 91.1 ND F
1604 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 8 Village 300.0 11.3 118.2 90.2 ND G
1605 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 8 Village U 290.0 10.2 119.1 90.9 ND G
1606 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 8 Village 290.0 10.8 118.0 90.1 ND G
1607 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 8-9 Village 292.0 10.9 117.1 91.5 ND B
1608 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 8-9 Village 277.0 12.3 116.6 91.1 ND B
1609 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 9 Village 290.0 10.1 118.7 90.6 ND G
1610 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 9 Village 275.0 11.3 118.2 90.2 ND G
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U September 2004
File: C:exceI\tables\3400\3459b1.u.ror
' GeoSoils, Inc. Page 8
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
NO OR
DEPTH (ft)
Itc1I.SiILJR:E
CONTENT
f%)
DENSITY
(ocf}
COMP
(%)
METHOD TYPE
1611 9/15/03 Rear Bldg 9 Village U 260.0 11.9 _115,3 90.1 ND B
1621 9/16/03 Rear Bldg 10 Village U 285.0 10.6 115.5 90.2 ND B
1622 9/16/03. Rear Bldg 10 Village U 255.0 10.1 115.3 90.1 ND B
1623 9/16/03 Rear Bldg 10 Village U 245.0 110 114.0 90.8 ND D
1624 9/16/03 Rear Bldg lo Village 225.0 11.1 113.1 90.1 ND D
1890 11/18/03 Bldg 13 Village U 304.0 9.0 121.8 90.9 ND J
1891 11/18/03 Bldg 14 Village U 306.0 8.2 127.6 95.2 ND J
1892 11/18/03 Bldg 15 Village U 305.0 8.4 126.1 94.1 ND J
1893 11/18/03 Bldg 13 Village U 306.0 9.6 126.8 94.6 ND J
1894 11/18/03 Bldg 14 Village U 308.0 10.2 128.9 96.2 ND J
1895 11/18/03 Bldg 15 Village U 308.0 . 8.7 124.8 93.1 ND J
2161 1/23/04 Bldg 4 Village U FG 8.2 124.0 92.5 ND J
2162 1/23/04 Bldg 5 Village U FG 8.0 124.9 93.2 ND J
2163 1/23/04 Bldg 6 Village U FG 8.0 129.7 96.8 ND J
2164 1/23/04 Bldg 8 Village U FG 8.4 130.7 97.5 ND J
2165 1/23/04 Bldg 13 Village U FG 8.6 122.5 91.4 ND J
2166 1/23/04 Bldg 14 Village U FG 8.1 127.2 93.5 ND N
2167 1/23/04 Bldg 15 Village U FG 8.9 125.4 92.2 ND N
2168 1/23/04 Bldg 18 Village U FG 8.0 126.1 92.7 ND N
2169 1/23/04 Bldg 19 Village U FG 8.5 124.4 91.5 ND N
2170 1/23/04 Bldg 20 Village FG 9.2 127.0 93.4 ND N
2171 1/23/04 Bldg 20 . Village U FG 8.7 131.5 96.7 ND N
2172 1/23/04 Bldg 21 Village FG 8.8. 133.8 98.4 ND N
2173 1/23/04 Bldg 22 Village U FG 8.0 130.8 96.2 ND N
2174 1/23/04 Bldg 17 ge U FG 8.5 126.5 93.0 ND N
2175 1/23/04 Bldg 16 ge U
tVillage
FG 8.2 124.4 91.5 ND N
2176 1/23/04 Bldg 23 U FG 8.0 127.8 94.0 ND N
Legend:
* = Indicates Failed Test
A = Indicates Retest
FG = Finish Grade
ND = Nuclear Densometer
SC = Sand Cone
Note:
Buildings identified in Table 1 are from the original Hunsaker & Associates maps,
dated December 6, 2002, and do not correspond with the current lot numbers on the
Hunsaker & Associates maps dated December 16, 2003
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 3459-B1-SC
Calavera Hills II, Village U . September 2004
File: C:\exceRtables\3400\3459bl.u.ror GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9
I.
LOT
E (per UBC
Sindard iB 2)
EXIANSION
dI1ENTIAL'"
J1FE
(Weight %)
SULFATE
EXPOSURE''
1F FtL
(Rangejn FV)
FQJ)NOAT)ON
CAtEGORY 'L1
29 <20 .Very Low <0.10 Negligible 3-4 I or.l (PT)
30 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 3-8 I or I (PT)
31 <20 Very low <010 Negligible 3-12 I (PT)
32 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 15 48 II or II (PT)
33 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 35 48 II or II (PT)
34 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 25-31,; II or It (PT)
35 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 18-25 Il or II (P1)
36 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 20-26 II or U (PT)
37 <20 Very low <0 10 Negligible 34-51 II or II (PT)
38 <20 Very Low <010 Negligible 40-62 II (PT)
39 <20 •- Very Low <0.10 Negligible 30-51 II (PT)
40 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 18-30 , II or II (PT)
41 <20 Very Low <0.1.0 Negligible 5-16 II (PT)
42 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-6 I or I (PT)
43 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 6-27 III (PT)
44 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 4-29 II (PT)
45 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 10-23 II or II (PT)
46 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-9 I or I (PT)
47 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 6-30 1 III (PT)
48 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 1830 II or II (PT)
49 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 824 II or II (PT) '
50 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 10-17 I or I (PT)
51 <20 Very Low <010 Negligible 2532 II or II (PT)
52 <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 2-4 I or I (PT)
53 <20-.Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-4, I or I (PT)
54 <20 Very Low, <0 10 Negligible 3 14 I (PT)
Recreation Lot <20 Very Low <0 10 Negligible 3-6 1 I or I (PT)
Per Table 18-1-B of the UBC (ICBO 1997 ed.)
(2) Per Table 19-A-4 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997 ed.)
. • Foundations should be constructed in accordance with recommendations for the specific categories noted above and presented
in the text of this report (PT recommendations) and Table 3 Mat foundations may be used for all lots in consideration of the design parameters presented in the report 4
TABLE 3
f's
CONVENTIONAL PERIMETER FOOTINGS, SLABS, AND
EXTERIOR FLATWORK FOR CALAVERA HILLS, VILLAGE U
MINIMUM INTERIOR 1NTERlOR UNDER GARAGE EXTERIOR FOUNDATION FOOTING SLAB REINFORCING SLAB SLAB SLAB FLATWORK
CATEGORY SIZE THICKNESS STEEL REINFORCEMENT TREATMENT REINFORCEMENT REINFORCING
I 12" Wide 4" Thick 1 - #4 Bar #3 Bars @ 2" Sand Over 6" x 6" None
X Top 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 #3 Bars @ 2' Sand Over 6" x 6" 6' x 6
X Top and Bottom 18" o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl (6/6) (10/10) 18" Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF WWF
2' Sand Base
Ill 12' Wide 4" Thick 2- #5 Bars #3 Bars @ 2" Sand Over Same as 6' x 6"
x Top and Bottom 18" o.c. 10-Mil Polyvinyl Interior Slab (6/6)
24' Deep Both Directions Membrane Over WWF
2" Sand Base
Category Criteria
Category I: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 20' and 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', or E.I. exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20' (see Note 1).
Notes: 1. Post-tension or mat foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 50', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1.
Consideration should be given to using post-tension or mat foundations where the E.I. exceeds 90, and/or fill thickness exceeds 30'.
Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
Allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 psf.
Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,000 psi (2,500 psi for exterior flatwork), or adopted UBC mm., at 28 days, using 5 sacks
of cement. Maximum slump shall be 5".
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.
Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommendations (see report).
Sand used for base under slabs shall be very low expansive and have SE >30.
Exterior flatwork should be placed over properly compacted subgrade. The subgrade should be pre-wetted in accordance with recommendations for typical floor slabs,
as presented in the text of this report. Additional flatwork recommendations could be provided upon your request.
7. All slabs should 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. -
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission, 2001, California building code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, Adopted November 1, 2002.
Davidson Reinforcing Company, 2002, Post tension slab foundation plans for: Calavera
Hills E-1, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 1391, dated May 29 (last revision
November 23, 2003).
GeoSoils, Inc., 2004a, Development. criteria for Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-Bi -SC, dated March 29.
2004b, Second geotechnical review of mat foundation plans, Village E-1, Calavera
Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3902C-SC, dated January 5.
2003a, Second geotechnical plan review, Wall construction plans for Calavera
Hills II, Village U, city of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated
December 23.
2003b, Geotechnical review of mat foundation plans, Village E-1, Calavera Hills II,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3902-C-SC, dated December 16.
2003c, Geotechnical plan review, Wall construction plans for Calavera Hills II,
Village U, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated November 19.
2003d, Geotechnical update and grading plan review, Calavera Hills, Village U,
Carlsbad tract 01-02, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 3459-Bi -SC, dated September 29.
2003e, Supplemental evaluation of allowable bearing value, Calavera Hills II, City
of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-Bi -SC, dated July 1.
2003f, Recommendations regarding sideyard drainage swales, Villages El, H, K,
L-2, U, W, X, Y and Z, Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 3459-131-SC, dated June 18.
2003g, Memorandum: General discussion of fill quality, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad,
California, W.O. 3459-132-SC, dated May 20.
2002a, Preliminary segmental retaining wall soil parameters and wall design criteria,
Calavera Hills II, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-131-SC,
dated November 27.
GeoSoils,. Inc.
'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-ASC, August 16.
1999, Update of geotechnical report, Calavera Hills, Village U, City of Carlsbad,
California, W.O. 2749-A-SC, dated October 20.
1998a, Lack of paleontological resources, Carlsbad tract nos. 83-19, PUD 56, and
83-32, PUD 62, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,'W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated
January 21.
1998b, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and
"1", City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16.
1998c, Review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "T," City of
Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated June 24.
Hunsaker and Associates, San Diego, Inc., 2003, Grading Plans for Calavera Hills Village
U, Carlsbad Tract 01-03, Drawing No. 407-06, J.N. Dated
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code.
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
1983, Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Calavera Hills areas
El, E2, H, I, K, and P through Z2, Carlsbad, Job no. 14112, Report no.1, dated
July 29.
Calavera Hills II, LLC Appendix
FiIe:e:\wp9\3400\3459b1 .x.ror Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.