The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 83-19; CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE T; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING BUILDING LOTS 163-343 AND OPEN SPACE LOTS 163-363; 1999-01-14REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING, CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE "T" NORTH, BUILDING LOTS 163 THROUGH 343 AND OPEN SPACE LOTS 344 THROUGH 361 and 363 CARLSBAD TRACT 83-19, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FOR • CYPRESS VALLEY LLC • •' 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 91,950 W.o.2393-B-SC JANUARY 14, 1999 S9 0 Geotechnical .Geologic. Environmental I 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 .• (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 January 14, 1999 -. I W.0. 2393-B-SC Cypress Valley LLC . I 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 I Attention Mr. Thom Fuller and Mr. Don Mitchell I Subject: Report of Rough Grading, Calavera Hills, Village "T" North, Building Lots 163 through 343, and Open Space Lots 344 through 361 and 363, Carlsbad Tract • * . .83-19, City of Carlsbad, California Gentlemen I This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of development at the subject site, including Tamarack Avenue Stations 10+00 to 35+60. I . Earthwork commenced on February 2, 1998 and was generally completed on November 28, 1998. 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 I under a separate cover, and is therefore also not included under the purview of this report. I 'PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading was to prepare relatively level pads for the construction of 181 I residential. structures including underground utility and Street improvements. Cut and fill grading techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded configurations. Cut lots I . exposing hetrogeneous bearing material and the cut portion of transition lots were overexcavated in order to provide for more uniform foundation support. Existing topsoils, colluvium and alluvium were removed to suitable bedrock material and recompacted. The I .grading plans for this portion of Calavera Hills, Village 1, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Inc., San Diego, dated November 17, 1997,.are included with this report as Plates I through 5. . . . .. .• . .. I I - I .. • .*._ . . .• . ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Earth Materials Subsurface geologic conditions exposed during the process of rough grading were observed by a representative of GSI. Earth materials onsite generally consist of dense sedimentary bedrock (predominantly sandstones) belonging to the Eocene-age Santiago Formation, and lesser amounts of Cretaceous-age granitic bedk located along the southern edge of Village T North. These bedrock materials arq"mantled with relatively thin, discontinuous surficial deposits of topsoil/colluvium and older alluvium. All colluvial and alluvial soils were removed and recompacted, or exported from the site during rough grading. Structure Sedimentary bedrock was observed to be relatively massive to weakly bedded. Field mapping indicates that bedding planes generally dip gently eastward on the order of 2 to 10 degrees. The granitic bedrock was observed to be fractured. Field mapping indicates that the majority of fractures are relatively steeply dipping (<60 degrees), trending to the northwest and northeast. Granitic bedrock was observed to be in fault contact with Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock in the vicinity of Lots 168, 255 through 267, 324 through 326, and 332°through 334. Based on a general lack of geomorphic expression characteristic of active faulting, this structure is not considered active. The approximate location of the fault is shown on Plates 1 through 5. GROUNDWATER Subsurface water was encountered during removal of older alluvial sediments in the general vicinity of Lots 278, 279 and 337 through 340. Subsurface water 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 and/or dense nature of sedimentary bedrock, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, homeowner altered drainage or damaged utilities. Should manifestations of perched conditions (i.e., seepage) develop in the future,this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations as necessary. A discussion of near surface slope subdrainage is presented in our referenced report on toe drains (GSI, 1998d). A discussion of other subdrainage is presented in a later section of this report. I Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 I File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION I Earthwork operations have been completed in general accordance with the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance and the guidelines provided in the field by this office. Observations during grading included removals, overexcavation and subdrain construction I along with general grading procedures and placement of compacted fills by the contractor. Rough Grading I Preparation of Existing Ground I 1. Deleterious material such as concentrated organic matter and miscellaneous debris were stripped from the surface and disposed of beyond the limits of grading for the subject area, prior to placing any fill. .2. Loose surficial materials (i.e., existing topsoils, colluvium and older alluvium were I removed to expose competent bedrock in all areas to receive fill. 3. In order to provide for more uniform support of structures, the cut portion of I transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below pad grade, then brought to grade with compacted fill. Cut lots exposing the fault contact between granitic and sedimentary bedrock were also overexcavated a minimum of I 3 feet below pad grade in order to provide uniform support of structures. Where possible, an attempt was made to slope the overexcavated bottom toward the Street area. Subdrainage of these areas does not appear necessary at this time. 'I . Blasting operations were not performed within Village T. I5. 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 I .90 percent. These areas were then brought to grade with fill compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. 6. All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1 through 5, was observed by a representative of GSI. Fill Placement Fill consisted of onsite and import materials which were placed in thin lifts, approximately four to eight inches in thickness, brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to attain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction test results on fills are presented in the attached Table 1. Approximate as-built fill thicknesses are I Cypress Valley LLC . . W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera.HUls, Village T North January 14, 1999 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 3 I . . GeoSoils, Inc. Li I . presented in the attached Table 2. Import materials primarily consisted of soil and rock fill from Villages 0 and I South. I Shot rock generated from the blasting operations within both Village T SoUth and the adjacent Village 0 was exported to rock fill areas within Village T North in the vicinity of Lots 180-186, 189 through 192, 278, 279, and 316 through 342. Rock fills were generally I placed no closer than 5 feet from pad grade and generally no closer than 15 feet to the face of fill slopes. I Canyon Subdrains . . .• Prior to placement of fill, canyon subdrains, consisting of 6-inch diameter (Schedule 40) I perforated PVC pipe, embedded in crushed rock and wrapped in filter fabric, was placed within natural drainage courses and buried drainages encountered during grading. These drains are located in the general vicinity of Lots 184, 185, 253, 256, 168, open space Lot 358 below Lot 184, open space Lot 359 below Lot 256, open space Lot 363 below Lot 168, Lots 279, 322 through 324, 339, open space Lot 360 below Lot 324, Knollwood Drive I stations 20+30, College Boulevard, station 32+20 to 34+00, Tamarack Avenue, station 32+90, Stoneridge Road, station 12+40, Levee Drive, station 10+75, and Rockfield Court (east cul de sac). Construction and placement of the subdrains was observed by a I representative of this office and is in accordance with GSI recommendations. The locations of all subdrains constructed within "T North" are shown on the enclosed Plates 1 through 5. Fill slope subdrainage was also constructed onsite. A discussion of slope 1 subdrainage is presented in the following section. Slopes Planned Slopes In general, graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report should perform satisfactorily with respect to gross and surfcial stability, provided that these slopes are properly maintained. Fill slopes constructed under the purview of this report were provided with a keyway excavated into suitable bedrock material in accordance with recommendations presented in Southern California Soils and Testing, Inc. (SCST, 1988) I . and as provided in the field by this office. Cut slopes were constructed using cut and fill grading techniques, and expose dense igneous and/or metavolcanic rock. A detailed analysis of slope stability.has been completed under separate cover (GSI, 1998c). I Temporary Slopes ' Temporary construction slopes may generally be constructed at a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter in compacted fill, and 1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) in suitable bedrock material (provided adverse geologic structures are not present). Utility trenches I, may be constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation, Trenches and Earthwork with respect to Type B soil I I Cypress Valley LLC Calavera Hills, Village T North File: e:\wp7\23OO.2393b(n.ror GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2393-B-SC January 14, 1999 Page 4 1] I (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. I Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary slopes. I Natural Slopes - Natural slopes should perform satisfactorily with respect of gross and surficial stability. A I detailed analysis of slope stability has been completed under separate cover (GSI, 1998c). Slope Subdrainage U Subdrains, consisting of perforated plastic pipe (Schedule 40) embedded in %- to 1 1/2-inch gravel, wrapped in filter fabric, were placed in perimeter fill slope keys supporting Lots 190 through 192 and a stabilization fill slope west of Lots 226 and 227. Approximate drain locations and drain outlets are shown on Plates 1 through 5. As discussed in the groundwater section of this report, perched groundwater conditions may develop due to future irrigation, rainfall, homeowner altered site drainage or other conditions. Subdrain systems are recommended for all walls constructed below soil grades. While wall drains and key drains should perform adequately, the need for additional subdrainage onsite may not be precluded. I Desilting Basins and Balance Areas I .Desilting basins were constructed within Lots 177 through 179 and 322, and balance areas, constructed to approximately 3 feet below grade, were prepared within Lots 186 and 189 through 192. It is our understanding that these basins and balance areas will be filled I at a later date with suitable spoil material generated from utility and/or foundation construction operations onsite. Any material used as fill should have a very low to low' expansion potential (recommended E.I. <30), and should be placed as compacted fill. In addition to the desilting basins, it is anticipated that spillways will be constructed from the basin and down existing slopes. Backlil$ of these spillway cuts should be observed and I . tested by a representative of this bflice. Field Testing Field density tests were performed using the sand cone method (ASTM D-1 556-90) and nuclear method (ASTM D-2922). Test results are attached as Table 1 atthe.end of this report. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the Compaction Test Location Maps, Plates 1 through 5, which utilize the 1 "=40' scale grading plans (sheets 3 through 6 and 8), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, San Diego, Inc., as a base map. Cypress Valley LLC . W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village I North , . January 14, 1999 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 5 I GeoSoils, Inc. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based on the operations observed, test results presented herein are considered representative of the fills observed under the purview of this report. Visual classification of the soils in the field as well as random laboratory testing was the basis for determining which maximum dry density value to use for a given density test. Testing was performed on a full time basis. LABORATORY TESTING Moisture-Density Relations The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major soil type was determined according to test method ASTM D-1557-91. The following table presents the test results: . ................................................................ .... . ........... X ......................... : ..... ............. X. SOIL 1YPE ..................... ............. ..... ... MAXIMUM DRY DENSI1Y .......................... OPTIMUM MOISTURE (PCF) CONTENT (%) A - Dark Brown Silty Sand (Topsoil) 123.0 12.0 B - Yellow Brown Sandy Clay 109.5 19.5. C - Gray Brown Silty Sand 126.0 11.5 D- Brown Sandy Clay 118.0 14.5 E - Gray Brown Silty Sand w/Gravel 130.5 10.0 F - Gray Brown Silty Sand w/Gravel 135.0 8.0 G - GraySiltySandw/Clay 125.0 11.5 H -White Silty Sand 113.0 15.0 r1- Pale Yellow Clayey Sand 121.5 13.5 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. Cypress Valley LLC W.0 2393-B-SC Calaverà Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. 1 j Representative expansion indices indicate that site soils near pad grade, within the subject lots, are very low to low expansive (El <50). A summary of soil expansion results are I presented in the attached Table 2. Soils used to fill existing desilting basins and balance areas will need to be evaluated for expansion potential. Soil Sulfate The soluble sulfate content of site soils was evaluated. The results of this testing are presented in the attached Table 2. Based on the testing performed, special treatment, and/or materials resulting from sulfate exposure are not required. Soils used to fill existing desilting basins and balance areas will need to be evaluated for sulfate content. RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS General . I The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Recommendations for I .conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures,, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Uniform Building Code. - All footing designs should be reviewed by the project structural engineer. Based on the as-built fill thicknesses (i.e., differential fill thickness exceeding 3:1, maximum to minimum', I across the lot), post-tension foundations are recommended for Lots 168, 175, 176, 187, 188, 192, 250 through 255, 259, 260, 278, 279, 312, 313, 322 through 328 and 338. Post tension foundations are also recommended for Lots 242 and 243, where a sewer easement is located along the shared lot line. Conventional or post-tension foundations may be used for all other subject lots. . 1 Conventional Foundation Design E 1. Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed residential structures provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or other competent bearing material (i.e., bedrock). Footings should not simultaneously bear directly on bedrock and fill soils. 2. Analyses indicate that an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot I . 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 I seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for I I Cypress Valley LLC Calavera Hills, Village T North File: e:\wp7\23OO2393btn.ror GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2393-B-SC January 14, 1999 Page 7 I I each additional 12 inches in depth, to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot. 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 with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. 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 h13, where (h) is the height of the slope. The horizontal setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet (per code). The setback may be maintained by simply deepening the footings. Flatwork, utilities or other improvements within a zone of h/3 from the top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion. Footings, flatwork, and utilities setbacks should be constructed in accordance with distances indicated in this section, and/or the approved plans. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report areJ ncorpo rated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately ½-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed ¼-inch between similar elements, in a 20 foot span. Conventional Foundation/Concrete Slab Construction The following construction recommendations are based on generally very low to low expansive bearing soils and maximum fill thicknesses of less than approximately 30 feet. Conventional continuous footings should be constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in Table 3, and in accordance with Uniform Building Code guidelines (1997 ed.). 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. Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-8-SC Calavera Hills, Village I North January 14, 1999 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. V I Li I I I I I 1 3. 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 I should be at the same elevation as base of the adjoining footings. 4. The residential floor and garage slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, in accordance with Table 3. Concrete used in floor slab construction should have a minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi. ' 5. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of. 4 inches of sand. In addition, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 10-mu, polyvinyl-chloride membrane, with all laps sealed, should be provided at the mid-point of the sand .I 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. Presaturation is not considered necessary for these soil conditions; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas, and verified by this office within 72 hours of the vapor barrier placement. 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 I 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 1 (i.e., <10 feet) fills. I 10. As an alternative, an engineered post-tension foundation system may be used. Recommendations for post-tensioned slab design are presented in the following Section. - Li I Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North . January14, 1999 FiIe:e:\wp7\23OO2393btn.ror Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. I I Post-Tensioned Slab Foundation Systems (Required on Lots 168, 175, 176. 187, 1$ 192 250 through 255, 259, 260, 278, 279, 312, 313, 322 through 328, 242 and 243). 1 1. Post-tensioned (PT) slabs may be utilized for construction of typical.one (1) and two (2) story residential structures onsite. The information and recommendations I presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab design or I corrosion engineering consultant. 2. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the I 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 I 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. 1 3. 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 lowest adjacent pad grade. I 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. I A vapor barrier should be utilized and be of sufficient thickness to provide an - adequate separation of foundation from soils (10-mu thick). The vapor barrier should be lapped and adequately sealed to provide a continuous water-resistant I barrier under the entire slab. The vapor barrier should be sandwiched between two 2-inch thick layers of sand (SE>30) for a total of 4 inches of sand. Isolated piers should be incorporated into the post tension slab system. Specific soil presaturation for slabs is not required for very low expansive soils; 1 however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at or above the soils' optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches below grade I depending on the footing embedment. Post-tensioned slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be I in accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (PTI), local and/or national code criteria and the recommendations of a structural or civil engineer qualified in post- tension slab design. Alternatives to PTI methodology may be used if equivalent I systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion parameters, and settlements noted for this project. If alternatives to PTI are suggested by the structural consultant, consideration should be given for additional I review by a qualified structural PT-designer. Soil related parameters for post- tensioned slab design, are presented on the following: I Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-6-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 FiIe:e:\wp7\2300\2393b1n.ror Page 1 0 I GeoSoils, Inc. Perimeter Footing Embedment* 12' Allowable bearing value 1000psf** Modules of subgrade reaction 125 psi/inch Coefficient of friction 0.35 Passive pressure 275 pcf Soil Suction (Pt) 3.6 Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Thornthwaite moisture -20.0 em edge . .2.5 em center . . 5.0 my ec1ge . 0.25. my center . . 1.00 Minimum Slab Thickness . 5 inches * Lab data indicates E.I. 0-50 for this site. **Bearing for slab on grade only, bearing value for interior or perimeter beams should be in accordance with parameters provided for conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. 7. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. . Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 1-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to. exceed 3/4-inch between similar elements, in a 30-foot span. Designers of PT slabs should review the parameters provided for post-tensioned 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 Uniform Building Code, I improvements and/or footings should maintain a horizontal distance, X, between any adjacent descending slope face and the bottom outer edge of the improvement I . and/or footing. The horizontal distance, X, may be calculated by using x = h/3, where h is the height of the slope. X should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. X may be maintained by deepening the footings. I Improvements constructed within a distance of h/3 from the top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion. I 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 I valid, if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation on the lower foundation has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation. I Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 File: e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 11 I • GeoSoils, Inc. I 1 F: U F: I 1 Additional setbacks, not discussed or superseded herein, and presented in the UBC are considered valid. I EXTERIOR FLATWORK I Exterior driveways, walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab on grade I construction should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria: Driveway slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness; all other exterior slabs may be a nominal 4 inches in thickness. A thickened edge should be considered I 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. I .3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement is; 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, I increasing tensile strength of the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be I .placed on 5 to afoot centers or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. I 4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. 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. RETAINING WALLS/WALLS General I Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the 'Design" section of Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the County of San Diego and/or City of Carlsbad guidelines. All wall designs should be .I reviewed by a qualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and seismic resistance stability per the UBC. I Cypress Valley LLC . . W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North . January 14, 1999 FiIe:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 12 I S GeoSoils, Inc. S I I I I Ii I W.O. 2393-8-SC January 14, 1999 Page 13 GeoSolls, Inc. Cypress Valley LLC Calavera Hills, Village T North File: e:\wp7\23OO2393btn.ror The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used above a 1:1 projection up and away from the bottom of any wall. The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel, earthstone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be greater than those provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce wall cracking due to settlement, walls should be internally grouted and/or reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall 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 fifteen (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. I 1 I I I I I I [1 1 [Ii I 1 1 The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 60 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum I . lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner. Traffic loads within a 1:1 projection up from the wall heel, due to light trucks and cars should be considered as a load of 100 psf per foot in the upper 5 feet of wall in uniform pressure. For I preliminary design purposes, footing loads within a 1:1 backfill zone behind wall will be added to the walls as /3 of the bearing pressure for one footing width, along the wall . alignment. . . . . . •, I Sound Walls . I Foundations for top of slope sound walls, using concrete block construction, may be constructed in accordance with conventional foundation recommendations presented in this report. Foundations should maintain a minimum lateral distance of 7 feet from the I outside bottom edge of the wall footing to the face of any adjacent slope. 1 Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe back drain and I outlet system to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures, and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. Retaining wall drainage and outlet systems should be reviewed by the project design civil engineer, and incorporated into project ' plans. Pipe should consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC.pipe. Gravel used in the back drain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of % to 1½-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforations in pipe I . • 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 I .drainage should also be provided. As an alternative to gravel back drains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturers guidelines. Regardless of the I . back drain used, walls should be water proofed where they would impact living areas or where staining would be objectionable. Wall Footing Transitions I Site walls are anticipated to be supported on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from bedrock to fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: I a) A minimum of a 2-foot, overexcavation and recompaction of bedrock materials, as measured for a distance of two times the height of the wall from the transition in the direction of the wall. Overexcavations should be I Cypress Valley LLC • • W.O. 23938SC Calavera Hills, Village I North • January 14, 1999 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 14 I • GeoSouls, Inc. completed for a minimum lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the footing, measured perpendicular to the wall. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible grout. ' c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material. If transitions from cut to fill transect the waif footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" 1 (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90degrees to the wall alignment. I PAVEMENTS 1 Pavement design for streets within Village I North has been prepared under separate cover. Concrete driveway pavements outside the public right of way may be constructed per the exterior concrete slab recommendations presented in this report. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Graded Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away I . from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over watering should be avoided ' as. it can adversely affect site improvements. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon I 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 i prevailing climate. I Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. The I 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 I Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-6-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 1iIe:e:1wp7123002393b1n.ror . . Page 15 I . GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I improvements (i.e. some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments theyrshoJld be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Drainage Positive site drainage should be 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. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of three feet from proposed structures and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the. design civil engineer. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction; If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. All excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. Additional Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Proposed pools or other appurtenant structures should consider that excavation difficulties will likely be encountered in some lots (see Table 2) at depths greater than 3 feet below existing building pad grade. Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-8-SC Calavera Hills, village T North January 14, 1999 I FiIe:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror GeoSoils, Inc. Page 16 I I I I I I I I ~'l I I I I I I Additional Grading I .This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfihling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills. All excavations should be observed by one of our representative's and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. I Utility Trench Backfill . . . . . 1: All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least two percent above I 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 I or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to verify the desired results. I .2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of I . the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along I with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. PLAN REVIEW I Final foundation and improvement plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the I plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Removals, processing of original ground, cuts and fills have been observed and I compaction testing performed under the purview of this report have been completed using the selective testing and observations services of GeoSoils, Inc. Earthwork was found to be in compliance with the Grading Code of the City of -Carlsbad, California. Our findings I were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied nor made. This I Cypress Valley LLC . . . . . W.O. 2393-B-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North . January 14, 1999 Fie:e:\wp7\23OO2393btn.ror . . Page 17 I • GeoSoils, Inc. report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GeoSoils, Inc. should not be held responsible nor liable for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. 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, GeoSoils, Inc. G 7 .///• 7/1//fl Robert G. Crisman Project Geologist, CEG 1 9hn P. Franklin £ngineering Geologist, CE MMG/RGC/DWS/JPF/mo )David W. Skelly - Civil Engineer, RCE 4 NO. 1340 Cri4 / Attachments: Appendix References - Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Table 2 - Lot Characteristics Table 3 - Foundation Construction Recommendations Plates 1 through 5 - As Graded Geotechnical Maps Distribution: (4) Addressee Cypress Valley LLC W.O. 2393-8-SC Calavera Hills, Village T North January 14, 1999 Fi1e:e:\wp7\2300\2393btnror Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. I. APPENDIX REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc., 1998a, Lack of Paleontological Resources, Carlsbad Tract Nos. 83-19, PUD .I 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 "0" and "1", City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. I , 1998c, Review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "0" and "1," City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated June 24. I , 1998d, Toe Drain Recommendations, Calavera Hills, Village T, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated September 30. I Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc., 1997b, Plans for the grading of Calavera Hills Village "0", Carlsbad Tract 83-32, Sheets 1-8, Drawing No. 303-2A, Project No. 2.89.33, dated November 17. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., 1988, Supplemental soil investigation, Calavera I Hills Village 0 and T, College Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, job no. 8821142, report no.1, dated October 6. - I , 1984, Report of geotechnical investigation for Village 0, Calavera Hills subdivision, Carlsbad, job no. 14112, report no.4, dated January 10. I , 1983a, Report of geotechnical investigation for Village 0, Calavera Hills subdivision, Carlsbad, job no. 14112, report no.4, dated January 10. 1983b, 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 I 29. I I I I .1 . GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION'..ELEVATION : OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pcf) RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE ME; ymt-g 619 07/15/98 12+35 STONERIDGE 271.0 12.2 111.7 90.8 NO A 620 07/15/98 11+90 STONERIDGE 273.0 13.0 110.9 90.2 ND A 828 07/28/98 L01326 279.0 13.5 111.2 90.4 NO A 829 07/28/98 14+90 STONERIDGE RD. 289.0 15.6 108.4 91.9 ND D- 830 07/28/98 L01337 287.0 14.2 111.9 91.0 ND A 831 07/28/98 LOT 278 292.0 14.9 106.3 90.1 ND 0 840 07/29/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 33+OOTAMARACK 247.0 16.9 107.9 91.4 ND D 841 07/29/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 33+90 TAMARACK 245.0 15.8 107.1 90.8 ND D 842 07/29/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 33+1OTAMARACK 249.0 14.7 106.3 90.1 NO 0 934 08/07/98 LOT 168 ' 254.0 14.9 107.1 90.8 NO D 935 08/07/98 33 + 10 TAMARACK 259. - 15.3 108.1 91.6 NO D 936 08/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING L01256 265.0 14.7 108.4 91.9 NO D 937 08/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING L01256 268.0 14.2 114.3 91.4 NO G 938 08/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 168 259.0 16.3 107.0 90.7 NO D 939 08/07/98 LOT 168 265.0 13.2 112.1 91.1 NO A 940 08/07/98 LOT 256 274.0 15.9 106.6 90.3 NO D 941 08/10/98 LOT 257 272.0 12.2 113.4 90.7 NO G 942 08/10/98 14+40 ROCKFIELD COURT 274.0 12.4 113.6 90.9 NO G 943 08/10/98 33+20 TAMARACK 264.0 13.1 112.3 91.3 NO A 944 08/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 256 272.0 11.9 114.0 91.2 NO G 945 08/10/98 LOT 257 277.0 14.9 106.9 90.6 NO D 946 08/10/98 LOT 255 278.0 11.7 113.4 90.7 NO G 947 08/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 255 279.0 12.5 110.7 90.0 NO A 948 08/10/98 LOT 258 280.0 12.9 110.9 90.2 NO A 949 08/10/98 13+80 ROCKFIELD COURT 284.0 19.7 98.7 90.1 NO B 958 08/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 256 283.0 13.5 109.5 90.1 NO 959 08/11/98 LOT 169 268.0 14.9 107.5 91.1 ND D 960 08/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 171 266.0 1 12.0 110.7 90.0 NO A 961 08/11/98 LOT 171 267.0 14.9 108.2 91.7 NO D 962 08/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 173 268.0 12.1 111.1 90.3 NO A 964 08/11/98 L01256 284.0 15.7 103.3 91.4 NO H 965 08/11/98 LOT 255 278.0 11.6 113.8 91.0 NO G 966 08/11/98 LOT 256 285.0 14.9 106.6 90.3 NO 0 967 08/12/98 LOT 256 286.0 12.1 111.3 90.5 NO A- 968 08/12/98 LOT 255 284.0 111 109.4 90.0 1 ND 969 08/12/98 LOT 255 285.0 12.9 109.7 90.3 ND 974 08/12/98 13+85 ROCKFIELD CT. 287.0 12.6 112.8 91.7 NO A- 975 08/12/98 LOT 256 284.0 16.9 106.7 90.4 ND D 976 08/12/98 LOT 257 283.0 17.0 106.3 90.1 NO D 08/13/98 LOT 279 306.0 14.2 110.1 93.3. ND D t83 08/13/98 L01341 309.0 15.1 108.3 91.8 NO 0 Cypress Valley, LLC Village I North Fib: 0:\e,ce,ub2300b.2393b.8 W.O. 2393-8-SC Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO DATE TEST:.LocATON: ELEVATION. OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) . .. DRY:. . DENSITY (pc COMPACTION RELATIVE'.`SOIL METHOD TYPE 998 08/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 182 249.0 12.1 110.9 90.2 NO A 999 08/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 179 251.0 14.2 109.7 93.0 NO D 1000 08/14/98 . SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 177 253.0 14.2 111.6 90.7 ND A 1001 08/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 176 258.0 12.1 110.7 90.0 NO A 1002 08/17/98 LOT 181 252.0 14.6 107.6 91.2 ND D 1003 08/17/98 LOT 178 255.0 15.1 107.4 91.0 NO 0 1004 08/17/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING OPEN SPACE LOT 347 262.0 11.9 111.4 90.6 ND A 1005 08/17/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 180 256.0 15.7 108.3 91.8 ND D 1006 08/17/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 183. 255.0 13.1 112.5 91.5 NO A 1007 08/17/98 LOT 182 257.0 11.2 114.8 91.1 ND C 1008 08/17/98 LOT 347 258.0 11.9 113.7 92.4 NO A 1041 08/20/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 263.0 1 15.3 101.9 90.2 ND H 1044 08/20/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING OPEN SPACE LOT 36O 258.0 14.9 108.7 92.1 NO 0 1062 08/21/98 OPEN SPACE 360 SLOPE SUPPORTING 323 266.0 15.0 102.9 91.1 NO H 1071 08/24/98 OPEN SPACE 36O SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 325 282.0 14.5 105.3 93.2 NO H 1071.1 08/24/98 OPEN SPACE 36O SUPPORTING LOT 323 269.0 14.8 103.8 91.9 ND H 1077 08/25/98 OPEN SPACE 360 SLOPE SUPPORTING 323 272.0 10.8 115.5 92.4 NO G 1078 08/25/98 OPEN SPACE 360 SLOPE SUPPORTING 323 278.0 10.7 117.6 94.1 ND G 1081 08/25/98 OPEN SPACE 36O SLOPE SUPPORTING 323 279.0 11.0 116.3 93.0 ND G 1082 08/26/98 LOT 326 291.0 10.8 112.5 90.0 ND G 1083* 08/26/98 OPEN SPACE 360 SLOPE SUPPORTING 322 275.0 9.5 109.5 *87.6 NO G 1083A 08/26/98 OPEN SPACE 36O SLOPE SUPPORTING 322 275.0 10.9 1 114.3 91.4 ND G 1084 08/26/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING L01324 287.0 11.1 112.9 90.3 ND G 1085 08/26/98 L01323 281.0 11.2 113.4 90.7 ND G 1086* 08/26/98 LOT 325 294.0 8.8 110.6 *885 NO G 1086A 08/26/98 L01325 294.0 11.4 113.5 90.8 NO G 1100 09/01/98 10+50 STONERIDGE 306.0 11.9 113.0 90.4 NO G 1101 09/01/98 LOT 336 305.0 14.2 106.3 90.1 ND D 1102 09/01/98 LOT 323 301.0 14.4 108.1 91.6 NO D 1103 09/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 322 302.0 13.7 112.1 92.3 ND I 1104 09/01/98 LOT 320 303.0 13.5 110.6 91.0 NO 1105 09/01/98 13+25 STONERIDGE 303.0 16.1 102.5 90.7 ND H 1106 09/01/98 L01325 305.0 10.9 112.9 90.3 NO G 1107 09/01/98 L01327 307.0 11.5 114.4 91.5 NO G 1108 09/01/98 L01330 310.0 11.8 114.5 91.6 NO G 1109 09/01/98 LOT 331 315.0 11.9 113.1 90.5 ND G 1112 09/01/98 L0T322 306.0 11.6 114.0 91.2 ND G 1113 09/01/98 LOT 337 307.0 12.1 113.3 90.6 ND G 1114 09/01/98 LOT 328 311.0 11.9 112.6 90.1 NO G 1144 09/08/98 LOT 319 306.0 10.8 114.3 91.4 NO G 1145 09/08/98 . LOT 317 308.0 10.9 114.1 91.3 ND G Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\eecelll230O2393b.8 - GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 2 I Table 1 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 3 Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\excoU\230O\2393b.8 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO.... . DATE . TEST LOCATION . . .. ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT:.. .(%) •..: DRY DENSITY (pcf) RELATIVE. COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1146 09/08/98 LOT 334 308.0 10.9 112.9 90.3 NO G- 1147 09/08/98 LOT 341 310.0 17.9 106.3 90.1 NO D 1148 09/08/98 L01339 310.0 10.8 114.5 91.6 NO G 1149 09/08/98 LOT 315 310.0 11.6 114.8 91.8 ND G 1150 09/08/98 L01279 311.0 12.4 114.9 91.9 ND G 1151 09/08/98 LOT 318 310.0 14.6 109.6 92.9 ND D 1152 09/08/98 LOT 342 310.0 12.8 113.9 91.1 NO G 1153 09/08/98 LOT 316 312.0 11.1 113.3 90.6 NO G 1154 09/08/98 LOT 335 312.0 10.8 114.6 91.7 NO G 1155 09/09/98 LOT 336 311.0 12.2 113.5 90.8 NO G 1156 09/09/98 LOT 327 313.0 13.1 113.9 91.1 NO G 1157 09/09/98 LOT 323 306.0 10.8 1 113.8 91.0 NO G 1158 09/09/98 LOT 333 . 314.0 11.4 115.8 92.6 NO G 1159 09/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 329 314.0 13.2 114.0 91.2 NO G 1160 09/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 319 311.0 10.9 116.1 92.9 ND G 1168 09/09/98 LOT 330 316.0 10.6 114.3 1 91.4 ND G 1169 09/09/98 . LOT 322 309.0 12.3 114.0 91.2 NO G 1170 09/09/98 LOT 326 314.0 10.7 113.3 90.6 ND G 1171 09/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 321 310.0 11.9 112.6 90.1 ND G 1172 09/09/98 LOT 332 317.0 11.7 116.5 93.2 ND G 1173 09/09/98 LOT 328 317.0 12.3 113.3 90.6 ND G 1174 09/09/98 LOT 323 313.0 12.4 113.6 90.9 ND G 1175 09/10/98 LOT 331 319.0 10.9 113.3 ND G 1176 09/10/98 LOT 324 315.0 11.3 113.5 90.8 ND G 1177 09/10/98 LOT 322 314.0 11.1 115.6 92.5 ND G 1178 09/10/98 LOT 317 314.0 11.8 114.9 ND G 1179 09/10/98 LOT 320 312.0 13.3 114.8 91.8 ND G 1180 09/10/98 LOT 319 313.0 12.9 113.8 91.0. NO G- 1181 09/10/98 LOT 316 314.0 13.1 114.4 91.5 ND G 1182 09/10/98 LOT 334 315.0 11.6 113.5 90.8 NO G 1183 09110/98 LOT 338 310.0 14.5 111.4 91.7 NO - - 1184 09/10/98 LOT 341 311.0 14.8 110.7 91.1 ND - - 1185 09/10/98 LOT 277 311.0 10.9 112.9 90.3 NO G 1186 09/10/98 LOT 279 313.0 11.3 113.6 90.9 NO G 1187 09/10/98 LOT 340 313.0 15.1 111.1 91.4 NO I 1188 09/11/98 LOT 343 312.0 14.6 110.9 91.3 NO 1189 09/11/98 LOT 340 315.0 14.8 1 110.3 90.8 ND 1190 09/11/98 LOT 278 313.0 13.8 110.4 90.9 ND I 1191 09/11/98 16+30STONERIDGE 315.0 10.6 115.0 92.0 ND 0 1192 09/11/98 LOT 314 316.0 14.2 110.1 90.6 NO I 1193 09/11/98 LOT 338 312.0 13.9 110.0 90.5 ND I 1194 09/11/98 LOT 335 314.0 14.4 110.8 91.2 ND I 1195 09/11/98 LOT 332 319.0 10.5 112.5 90.0 ND 0 1196 09/11/98 10T288 313.0 11.3 113.0 90.4 ND G 1197 09/11/98 LOT 279 315.0 11.6 114.1 91.3 NO G 1198 09/11/98 LOT 280 316.0 10.6 114.0 91.2 NO 0 1203 09/11/98 LOT 318 315.0 12.3 114.3 91.4 NO G 1204 09/11/98 LOT 344 317.0 11.5 114.5 91.6 NO G I GeoSoils, Inc. I [1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I L] Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO DATE .. . TEST LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pci) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) . . TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1205 09/11/98 LOT 319 316.0 10.8 113.0 90.4 t NO G- 1206 09/11/98 LOT 314 319.0 11.4 113.0 90.4 NO G 1207 09/14/98 LOT 321 314.0 8.9 108.0 86.4 NO G 1207A 09/14/98 LOT 321 314.0 10.8 112.8 90.2 NO G 1206 09/14/98 LOT 317 318.0 11.3 113.0 90.4 ND G 1209 09/14/98 LOT 313 320.0 11.5 113.5 90.8 NO G 1210 09/14/98 . LOT 277 315.0 11.1 112.6 90.1 NO G 1211 09/14/98 LOT 313 323.0. 12.4 114.0 91.2 ND 1212 09/14/98 LOT 279 318.0 10.8 113.3 90.6 NO G 1229 09/15/98 159+00 TAMARACK 253.0 11.9 112.5 90.0 ND 0 1230 09/15/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 161 +00 TAMARACK 249.0 11.8 116.4 93.1 ND G 1231 09/15/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 162 +50 TAMARACK 254.0 12.1 115.5 92.4 NO G 1232 09/15/98 160 +00 TAMARACK 257.0 11.0 114.8 91.8 NO G 1233 09/16/98 158+25 TAMARACK 258.0 10.1 121.9 93.4 ND E 1234 09/16/98 161+OOTAMARACK 251.0 11.9 111.3 90.5 NO A 1235 09/16/98 LOT 257 287.0 10.8 112.6 90.1 ND 0 1236 09/16/98 LOT 260 290.0 . 12.2 113.5 90.8 ND G 1237 09/16/98 LOT 259 288.0 11.1 112.9 90.3 ND 0 1238 09/16/98 LOT 256 290.0 11.5 113.1 90.5 ND G 1239 09/16/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 160 +00 TAMARACK 258.0 14.6 109.3 92.6 NO D 1240 09/16/98 161+90 TAMARACK 255.0 15.1 110.3 93.5 ND D 1241 09/16/98 LOT 351 OPEN SPACE 298.0 12.4 113.8 91.0 ND G 1242 09/16/98 LOT 266 306.0 12.1 113.0 90.4 ND 0 1243 09/16/98 LOT 263 302.0 11.8 112.6 90.1 ND 0 1244 09/16/98 LOT 267 306.0 11.5 113.3 90.6 ND 0 1245 09/16/98 LOT 262 301.0 11.8 113.0 90.4 ND G 1246 09/16/98 LOT 280 320.0 11.2 114.0 91.2 ND G 1248 09/17/98 LOT 280 322.0 11.6 113.5 90.8 ND G 1249 09/17/98 LOT 288 316.0 11.1 114.3 91.4 ND 0 1250 09/17/98 LOT 278 316.0 11.4 113.6 90.9 ND G 1251 09/17/98 LOT 252 294.0 12.5 114.3 91.4 NO G 1252 09/17/98 LOT 254 292.0 15.5 110.1 90.6 NO - - 1253 09/17/98 LOT 250 295.0 14.9 111.2 91.6 ND - - 1254 09/17/98 LOT253 293.0 15.1 109.8 90.4 NO - - 1255 09/17/98 LOT 251 299.0 14.6 110.2 90.7 NO - - 1256 09/17/98 LOT 258 291.0 11.4 116.0 92.8 ND G 1257 09/17/98 LOT 251 299.0 15.0 110.4 90.9 NO 1258 09/17/98 LOT 260 295.0 10.9 116.3 93.0 ND G 1324 09/22/98 SEWER ACCESS ROAD 275.0 14.1 109.5 90.1 NO I 1325 09/22/98 SEWER ACCESS ROAD 250.0 1 13.7 109.4 90.0 NO I 1326 09/22/98 SEWER ACCESS ROAD 255.0 13.6 110.3 90.8 ND I 1327 09/22/98 LOT 188 267.0 14.9 106.9 90.6 NO 0 1328 09/22/98 LOT 186 260.0 14.7 107.6 91.2 ND 0 1329 09/22/98 10 + 85 MIRA MONTE DRIVE 271.0 14.2 107.1 90.8 NO D 1444 10/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 160+00 TAMARACK 255.0 12.6 111.7 91.9 NO I 1445 10/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 160+30 TAMARACK 258.0 13.2 112.1 92.3 NO I Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\excell\2300\2393D.8 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT ON DRY DENSITY (pct) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1446 10/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 161 +00 TAMARACK 252.0 13.1 111.9 92.1 NO I 1447 10/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 162+00 TAMARACK 259.0 14.4 110.3 90.8 ND I 1448 10/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 35+00 TAMARACK 256.0 14.1 110.7 91.1 ND I 1449 10/05/98 LOT 168 267.0 14.1 112.5 90.0 ND G 1450 10/05/98 LOT 168 270.0 13.6 113.3 90.6 NO G 1451 10/05/98 35+OOE.TAMARACK 258.0 15.7 108.3 91.8 NO D 1452 10/05/98 160+50 E. TAMARACK 260.0 14.6 106.6 90.3 ND D 1453 10/05/98 160+30 W. TAMARACK 258.0 14.0 112.6 92.7 NO I 1454 10/05/98 35+50 W. TAMARACK 260.0 14.7 107.9 91.4 NO D 1455 10/05/98 158+60 E. TAMARACK 263.0 13.8 110.7 91.1 ND I 1456 10/05/98 158 +00W. TAMARACK 268.0 13.5 111.5 91.8 ND I 1457 10/05/98 159+50 E. TAMARACK 261.0 14.9 107.0 90.7 ND D 1458 10/05/98 161 + 50 TAMARACK 257.0 15.4 107.1 90.8 ND D- 1459 10/06/98 LOT 340 317.0 10.9 113.5 90.8 ND G 1460 10/06/98 LOT 343 315.0 11.2 115.4 92.3 NO G 1461 10/06/98 LOT 336 316.0 11.8 114.5 91.6 NO G 1462 10/06/98 LOT 338 314.0 11.1 114.8 91.8 NO G 1463 10/06/98 LOT 342 317.0 11.6 113.4 90.7 NO G 1464 10/06/98 LOT 333 317.0 10.9 112.8 90.2 NO G 1465 10/06/98 LOT 332 319.0 10.2 117.1 92.9 NO C 1466 10/06/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 343 . 317.0 11.3 115.5 91.7 NO I 1487 10/07/98 LOT 251 299.0 10.3 115.5 92.4 NO G 1488 10/07/98 LOT 250 300.0 10.9 113.3 90.6 ND G 1489 10/07/98 LOT 252 297.0 12.9 114.1 91.3 NO G 1490 10/07/98 LOT 171 271.0 13.7 110.3 90.8 ND I 1491 10/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 220 275.0 12.1 114.0 91.2 ND G 1492 10/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 221 278.0 11.8 113.4 90.7 ND G 1493 10/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 220 280.0 1 11.4 114.8 91.8 ND G 1501 10/08/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 221 282.0 13.1 112.5 90.0 NO G 1502 10/08/98 LOT 249 302.0 10.9 114.8 91.8 ND G 1503 10/08/98 LOT 248 307.0 11.6 114.0 91.2 NO G 1504 10/08/98 LOT 249 304.0 11.2 114.3 91.4 ND G 1505 10/08/98 LOT 297 279.0 14.5 109.5 90:1 NO I 1506 10/08/98 LOT 296 276.0 14.1 109.7 90.3 NO I 1515 10/09/98 LOT 276 273.0 14.2 109.5 90.1 NO 1516 10/09/98 LOT 296 279.0 14.9 107.1 90.8 ND 0 1517 10/09/98 LOT 276 - 275.0 13.0 113.0 90.4 NO G 1518 10/09/98 20+80KNOLLWOOD 267.0 11.7 114.4 93.0 NO A 1519 10/09/98 19+00KNOLLWOOD 261.0 11.9 114.1 92.8 NO A 1520 10/09/98 18+50 KNOLLWOOD 265.0 12.2 112.5 91.5 NO A 1521 10/09/98 16+60 FOOTHILL 273.0 14.1 111.5 91.8 - NO 1522 10/09/98 LOT 298 285.0 12.9 113.3 90.6 NO G 1523 10/09/98 LOT 276 278.0 13.6 1165 93.2 ND G 1524 10/09/98 LOT 297 282.0 1 13.8 1 1138 91.0 ND G 1525 10/12/98 11+00 TAMARACK 305.0 13.9 1116 90.7 NO A 1526 10/12/98 13+00 TAMARACK 307.0 12.8 110.9 90.2 NO A 1527 10/12/98 13+50 TAMARACK - 310.0 14.1 111.6 90.7 NO A Cypress Valley, LLC Village 7 North Fate: a:\exced23002393b.8 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 6 Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\excell\2300\2393b.8 Thhle 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO .. DATE TEST.LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY (pci) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1528 10/12/98 11+OOTAMARACK 308.0 13.2 111.1 90.3 NO A 1529 10/12/98 12+25 TAMARACK 311.0 13.8 112.9 91.8 NO A 1530 10/12/98 10+90 TAMARACK 309.0 14.0 112.2 91.2 NO A 1531 10/12/98 12+15 TAMARACK 313.0 13.6 112.3 91.3 NO A 1532 10/12/98 14+00 TAMARACK 313.0 12.8 111.8 90.9 NO A 1533 10/12/98 LOT 298 287.0 12.9 114.5 91.6 NO 6 1534 10/12/98 101296 282.0 13.8 114.0 91.2 NO G 1535 10/13/98 LOT 294 286.0 14.1 110.8 90.1 NO A 1536 10/13/98 LOT 348 283.0 13.6 111.9 91.0 ND A 1537 10/13/98 LOT 203 272.0 13.2 111.7 90.8 NO A 1538 10/13/98 LOT 293 289.0 12.1 111.4 90.6 NO A 1539 10/13/98 LOT 206 266.0 13.9 112.4 91.4 NO A 1540 10/1/98 LOT 203 273.0 14.0 111.6 90.7 NO A 1541 10/13/98 101175 266.0 14.9 106.4 90.2 NO D 1542 10/13/98 LOT 174 267.0 15.2 108.3 91.8 NO D 1543 10/13/98 LOT 172 269.0 13.7 111.7 90.8 NO A 1544 10/14/98 LOT 293 292.0 12.6 111.4 90.6 NO A 1545 10/14/98 LOT 201 278.0 13.4 110.8 90.1 NO A 1546 10/14/98 LOT 206 269.0 13.2 111.1 90.3 NO A 1547 10/14/98 LOT 202 277.0 11.2 118.5 90.8 NO E 1548 10/14/98 101295 286.0 10.9 117.6 90.1 NO E 1549 10/14/98 101207 271.0 13.8 110.7 90.0 NO A 1550 10/14/98 LOT 200 282.0 11.9 113.4 90.7 ND G 1551 10/14/98 LOT 176 268.0 15.4 106.9 90.6 ND 0 1552 10/14/98 CHOKER LOT 177 266.0 14.6 106.4 90.2 ND D 1553 10/14/98 CHOKER LOT 179 262.0 13.9 111.1 90.3 ND A 1554 10/14/98 LOT 174 269.0 11.7 117.5 90.0 ND E 1555 10/14/98 LOT 347 269.0 16.1 106.3 90.1 ND D 1556 10/15/98 14+30 TAMARACK 311.0 11.8 112.6 90.1 ND G 1557 10/15/98 12+30 TAMARACK 310.0 12.7 111.1 90.3 NO A 1558 10/15/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 179 265.0 12.1 112.7 91.6 NO A 1559 10/15/98 LOT 177 269.0 9.6 120.7 92.5 NO E 1569 10/16/98 LOT 175 269.0 11.7 115.2 91.4 NO C 1570 10/16/98 LOT 173 270.0 11.2 116.6 92.5 NO I C 1571 10/19/98 LOT 296 281.0 9.1 119.0 91.2 NO E 1572 10/19/98 10T298 284.0 11.5 114.4 91.5 ND G 1573 10/19/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 184 253.0 14.5 110.4 90.9 ND I 1574 10/19/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 184 259.0 15.0 112.5 92.6 NO 1575 10/19/98 LOT 206 270.0 12.1 113.0 90.4 NO 6 1576 10/20/98 LOT 205 270.0 11.8 113.4 90.7 NO 6 1577 10/20/98 LOT 176 269.0 15.1 110.9 91.3 NO 1578 10/20/09 101173 271.0 14.4 110.6 91.0 NO 1579 10/20/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 181 260.0 14.8 109.6 90.2 NO I - 1580 10/20/98 LOT 174 272.0 16.1 111.9 92.1 NO I 1581 10/21/98 LOT 176 271.0 15.6 112.4 92.5 ND I = 1582 10/21/98 OPEN SPACE 347 265.0 14.9 113.7 93.6 NO - - 1583 10/21/98 LOT 347 269.0 13.2 111.7 91.9 NO 1 - 1584 10/21/98 LOT 180 268.0 15.8 111.5 91.8 NO - 1585 10/21/98 LOT 178 270.0 13.5 113.0 1 93.0 NO I= GeoSoils, Inc. I I LI I 1 I I I I I r-1 I I 1 11 I I I W.O. 2393-8-SC Page 7 Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North Fite: e:\exceCI\23002393b.8 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pci) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE. 1586 10/21/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 184 262.0 15.9 111.1 91.4 NO I 1587 10/21/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING D413LOT 183 266.0 15.4 110.1 90.6 NO I 1588 10/21/98 .LOT 185 268.0 14.3 110.3 90.8 NO I 1589 10/21/98 LOT 205 272.0 12.2 114.0 91.2 NO G 1590 10/21/98 LOT 206 272.0 11.9 113.6 90.9 NO G 1591 10/23/98 LOT 312FG 325.0 10.2 114.3 91.4 NO G 1592 10/23/98 LOT 313 FG 324.0 11.0 113.3 90.6 NO G 1593 10/23/98 LOT 314FG 323.0 11.3 112.9 90.3 NO G 1594 10/23/98 . LOT 315 FG 322.0 11.1 115.6 92.5 NO G 1595 10/23/98 LOT 316 FG 321.0 11.9 114.1 91.3 NO G 1596 10/23/98 OPEN SPACE 344FG 320.0 10.8 114.8 91.8 NO G 1597 10/23/98 LOT 317 FG 319.0 11.7 114.0 . 91.2 Sc G 1598 10/23/98 LOT 318 FG 318.0 10.8 113.0 90.4 Sc G 1599 10/23/98 LOT 319 FG 317.0 10.5 112.9 90.3 Sc G 1600 10/23/98 LOT 320 FG 316.0 11.4 113.5 90.8 SC G 1601 10/23/98 LOT321 FG 315.0 11.7 116.9 93.5 Sc G 1602 10/23/98 LOT 323 FG 315.0 11.7 114.6 91.7 Sc G 1603 10/23/98 LOT 324 FG 315.0 10.7 115.6 92.5 NO G 1604 10/23/98 LOT 325 FG 316.0 11.2 115.0 92.0 NO G 1605 10/23/98 LOT 326 FG 317.0 9.9 114.4 91.5 NO G 1606 10/23/98 LOT 327 FG 318.0 11.3 114.0 91.2 NO G 1607 10/23/98 LOT 328 FG 319.0 10.2 112.8 90.2 NO G 1608 10/23/98 LOT 329 FG 320.0 10.8 113.5 90.8 NO G 1609 10/23/98 LOT 330 FG 320.0 10.7 113.6 90.9 NO G 1610 10/23/98 LOT 331 FG 320.0 11.5 116.9 93.5 NO G 1611 10/23/98 LOT 332 FG 320.0 11.6 115.9 . 92.7 NO G 1612 10/23/98 LOT 333 FG 320.0 11.9 115.9 92.7 NO G 1613 10/23/98 LOT 334FG 319.0 11.4 114.1 91.3 NO G 1614 10/23/98 LOT 335 FG 318.0 13.2 110.2 90.7 NO 1615 10/23/98 LOT 336FG 317.0 12.9 110.0 90.5 NO I 1616 10/23/98 LOT 337FG 316.0 13.8 110.3 90.8 NO 1617 10/23/98 LOT 338FG 315.0 12.0 109.4 90.0 NO 1618 10/23/98 10+00STONERIDGE 317.0 10.2 112.9 90.3 NO G 1619 10/26/98 12+ 10 STONERIDGE 313.0 11.9 114.3 94.1 NO I 1620 10/26/98 13+80STONERIDGE 312.0 12.0 112.5 92.6 NO I 1621 10/26/98 15+50STONERIDGE 315.0 12.1 112.8 92.8 NO I 1622 10/26/98 LOT 343 FG 318.0 12.0 113.8 91.0 NO G 1623 10/26/98 LOT 342 FG 318.0 11.0 113.6 90.9 NO G 1624 10/26/98 LOT 341 FG 318.0 11.2 112.8 90.2 ND G 1625 10/26/98 LOT 340 FG 318.0 10.6 113.4 90.7 NO G 1626 10/26/98 LOT 339 FG 319.0 10.9 112.8 90.2 NO G 1627 10/26/98 LOT279FG 319.0 11.2 113.3 90.6 NO G 1628 10/26/98 LOT 278 FG 318.0 11.8 114.1 91.3 NO G 1629 10/26/98 . LOT 277FG 318.0 11.5 114.8 91.8 NO G 1630 10/26/98 LOT 288 FG 318.0 11.2 114.5 91.6 NO G 1631 10/26/98 LOT 280 FG 324.0 12.1 113.0 90.4 NO G 1632 10/26/98 LOT 281 FG 325.0 10.9 113.6 90.9 NO G 1633 11/03/98 LOT 248 FG 308.0 10.6 113.4 90.7 NO G 1634 11/03/98 LOT 249 FG 305.0 11.9 112.6 90.1 NO G 1635 11/03/98 LOT 250 FG 303.0 1 11.2 115.6 1 92.5 NO G GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I fl I I I I I 1 I I I I Li W.O. 2393-6-SC Page 8 Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\exCe1l\2300\2393b.8 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST DATE NO*OR TEST LOCATION.: ELEVATION DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%). DRY DENSITY .(pc. RELATIVE. COMPACTION TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1636 11/03/98 LOT 251 FG 301.0 10.5 116.4 93.1 NO G 1637 11/03/98 LOT 260 FG 297.0 12.9 110.3 90.6 NO I 1638 11/03/98 LOT 261 FG 299.0 10.7 113.0 90.4 NO G 1639 11/03/98 OPEN SPACE 351 FG 300.0 11.2 114.5 91.6 NO G 1640 11/03/98 LOT 262FG 302.0 11.5 112.8 90.2 NO G 1641 11/03/98 LOT 263 FG 303.0 10.4 114.9 91.9 NO G 1642 11/03/98 LOT 264FG 305.0 11.3 112.6 90.1 NO G 1643 11/03/98 LOT 265 FG . 306.0 11.5 114.1 91.3 NO G 1644 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 332 318.0 13.2 113.5 90.8 NO G 1645 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 33O 320.0 12.4 115.6 92.5 NO G 1646 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 330 315.0 11.9 115.0 92.0 NO G 1647 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 329 310.0 11.8 115.4 92.3 ND G 1648 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 329 319.0 11.6 114.3 91.4 NO G 1649 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 329 311.0 12.3 114.4 91.5 NO G 1650 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 327 300.0 12.9 113.3 90.6 NO G 1651 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 325 315.0 11.7 113.6 90.9 NO G 1652 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 324 304.0 11.2 114.4 91.5 NO G 1653 11/09/98 . SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 298.0 11.9 115.0 92.0 NO G 1654 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 285.0 13.5 114.1 91.3 NO G 1655 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 300.0 13.8 113.1 90.5 ND G 1656 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 280.0 12.9 112.8 90.2 NO G 1657 11/09/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 322 305.0 12.4 113.9 91.1 NO G 1658 11/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING D451 LOT 221 284.0 11.9 112.9 90.3 NO G 1659 11/10/98 LOT 221 285.0 11.6 112.8 90.2 NO G 1660 11/10/98 LOT 221 287.0 11.7 113.5 90.8 NO G 1661 .11/12/98 LOT 207 273.0 10.9 112.6 90.1 ND G 1662 11/12/98 LOT 206 FG 274.0 11.2 112.9 90.3 NO G 1663 11/12/98 LOT 204 275.0 11.3 114.0 91.2 NO G 1664 11/12/98 LOT 208 276.0 11.0 113.0 90.4 NO G 1665 11/12/98 LOT 203 275.0 10.6 113.3 90.6 NO G 1666 11/12/98 LOT 209 FG 277.0 11.1 112.9 90.3 NO G 1667 11/13/98 LOT 201 281.0 10.9 112.5 90.0 NO G 1668 11/13/98 LOT 202 278.0 15.9 105.3 93.2 NO H 1669 11/13/98 LOT 200 283.0 11.1 113.5 90.8 NO G 1670 11/13/98 LOT 295 287.0 12.2 114.0 91.2 NO G 1671 11/13/98 LOT 294 289.0 10.8 113.3 90.6 NO G 1672 11/13/98 LOT 292 296.0 10.9 113.6 90.9 ND G 1673 11/13/98 LOT 199 273.0 10.5 113.3 90.6 NO G 1674 11/13/98 LOT 198 274.0 11.2 112.8 90.2 NO G 1675 11/13/98 LOT 225 270.0 11.6 114.3 91.4 NO G 1676 11/16/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 254 289.0 10.1 112.6 90.1 NO G 1677 11/16/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING D503LOT 255 291.0 10.5 113.3 90.6 NO G 1678 11/16/98 LOT 255 293.0 10.4 113.9 91.1 NO G 1679 11/16/98 LOT 225 272.0 14.1 112.9 90.3 NO G 1680 11/16/98 LOT 224 277.0 13.8 113.6 90.9 NO G 1681 11/17/98 LOT 184 . 266.0 15.8 104.0 92.4 NO H 1682 11/17/98 LOT 180 264.0 15.1 103.4 91.5 NO H 1683 11/17/98 LOT 182 266.0 14.0 112.8 90.2 NO G 1684 11/17/98 LOT 186 264.0 15.3 103.7 91.8 NO H 1685 11/17/98 LOT 183 270.0 1 14.6 1 103.3 1 91.4 NO H GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO DATE TEST LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pcf) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1686 11/17/98 LOT 180 267.0 14.7 104.6 92.6 ND H 1687 11/18/98 LOT 224FG 278.0 10.6 112.8 90.2 NO 0 1688 1 11/18/98 LOT 226 FG 272.0 11.1 113.3 90.6 ND G 1689 11/18/98 LOT 299FG 289.0 10.5 114.9 91.9 ND G 1690 11/18/98 LOT 298 FG 288.0 10.5 115.3 92.2 ND 0 1691 11/18/98 LOT 297FG 286.0 11.7 113.8 91.0 ND G 1692 11/18/98 LOT 296FG 284.0 11.4 114.5 91.6 ND G 1693 11/18/98 LOT 276FG 281.0 11.9 113.6 90.9 ND G 1694 11/19/98 LOT 170 274.0 10.6 114.5 91.6 ND G 1695 11/19/98 LOT 169 273.0 11.2 115.0 92.0 ND G 1696 11/19/98 32+00 TAMARACK 270.0 11.1 114.1 91.3 ND 0 1697 11/19/98 30+70TAMARACK 276.0 11.9 113.1 90.5 ND 0 1698 11/19/98 28+30 TAMARACK 285.0 14.8 101.8 90.1 NO H 1699 11/19/98 27+90TAMARACK 287.0 15.3 102.6 90.8 ND H 1700 11/19/98 63+2O COLLEGE AVE 366.0 9.9 118.8 91.0 NO E 1701 11/19/98 63+2O COLLEGE AVE 368.0 11.8 119.0 91.2 NO E 1702 11/19/98 63+21 COLLEGE AVE 369.0 11.3 118.6 90.9 ND E 1703 11/20/98 LOT 252 FG 296.0 10.3 117.8 93.5 ND C 1704 11/20/98 LOT 253 FG 294.0 10.8 116.8 92.7 NO C 1705 11/20/98 LOT 254 FG 294.0 11.3 115.2 91.4 ND C 1706 11/20/98 L01255 FG 294.0 11.8 115.8 91.9 ND C 1707 11/20/98 LOT 2S6FG 294.0 11.1 115.0 92.0 NO 0 1708 11/20/98 LOT 257 FG 294.0 11.7 115.0 92.0 NO G 1709 11/20/98 LOT 258 FG 294.0 11.7 113.3 90.6 NO 0 1710 11/20/98 LOT 259 FG 296.0 11.1 113.5 90.8 ND 0 1711 11/20/98 LOT 266 FG 307.0 14.0 114.0 93.8 ND 1712 11/20/98 LOT 267 FG 307.0 12.7 114.9 91.9 ND 0 1714 11/24/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING 33+SO TAMARACK WEST 287.0 13.1 113.9 92.6 ND A 1715 11/24/98 33+25 TAMARACK WEST 274.0 16.2 108.0 91.5 ND 0 1716 11/24/98 32+30 TAMARACK WEST 289.0 12.8 116.0 92.8 ND 0 1717 11/24/98 32+3O TAMARACK WEST 279.0 12.1 113.3 90.6 ND G 1718 11/24/98 34+OO TAMARACK EAST 260.0 15.9 108.4 91.9 ND D 1719 11/24/98 . 34+SO TAMARACK EAST 250.0 14.7 107.3 90.9 ND D 1720 11/24/98 35+5O TAMARACK EAST 251.0 12.5 110.9 90.2 ND A 1721 11/24/98 162+OO TAMARACK EAST 249.0 14.9 107.4 91.0 ND D 1722 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 172 272.0 15.2 110.7 91.1 ND I 1723 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 173 268.0 1 13.9 110.1 90.6 ND I 1724 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 174 270.0 14.6 110.3 90.8 ND I _!! 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 17S 269.0 14.2 113.6 93.5 NO I 1726 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 176 260.0 16.5 109.3 92.6 ND D 1727 12/01/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 176 264.0 16.7 108.2 91.7 NO D 1728 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 221 283.0 10.9 112.9 90.3 NO 0 1729 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 221 280.0 12.4 113.6 90.9 NO 0 1730 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 220 276.0 12.9 114.5 91.6 NO 0 1731 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 347 257.0 16.4 109.6 92.9 ND D 1732 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 177 265.0 13.0 1 112.2 91.2 NO A 1733 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 178 265.0 13.1 110.8 90.1 ND A 1734 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 178 255.0 12.8 112.4 91.4 ND A 1735 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 179 262.0 14.5 112.9 91.8 NO A Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\excel12300\2393b.8 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO DATE. . . TEST LOCATION •.. .. '. ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE ..CONTENT.-.DENSITY (%) '. DRY (pci) RELATIVE. COMPACTION . TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1736 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 180 264.0 12.9 112.7 91.6 NO A- 1737 12/02/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 180 258.0 13.0 110.7 90.0 ND A 1738 12/04/98 LOT 292FG 297.0 12.6 114.5 91.6 NO G 1739 12/04/98 LOT 293 FG 296.0 11.2 114.0 91.2 NO G 1740 12/04/98 LOT 294FG 292.0 11.9 114.3 91.4 ND G 1741 12/04/98 LOT 295 FG 288.0 11.3 113.6 90.9 NO G 1742 12/04/98 OPEN SPACE LOT 348 FG 285.0 11.7 112.9 90.3 SC G 1743 12/04/98 LOT 200 FG 284.0 11.7 113.0 90..4 SC G 1744 12/04/98 LOT 201 FG 282.0 10.5 113.5 90.8 SC G 1745 12/04/98 LOT 202 FG 279.0 10.5 113.3 90.6 SC G 1746 12/04/98 LOT 203 FG 277.0 11.1 112.6 90.1 SC G 1747 12/04/98 LOT 204 FG 276.0 12.0 112.9 90.3 ND G 1748 12104/98 LOT 2O5FG 275.0 11.8 . 116.0 92.8 ND G 1749 12/04/98 15+50FOOTHILLAVENUE 278.0 12.9 116.9 93.5 NO G 1750 12/04/98 17+00 FOOTHILL AVENUE 273.0 13.8 111.5 91.8 NO 1751 12/04/98 11+6OMIRAMONTEDRIVE 273.0 14.2 111.3 91.6 NO I 1752 12/07/98 LOT 206 FG 274.0 12.9 113.0 90.4 NO G 1753 12/07/98 LOT 207 FG 275.0 12.6 113.3 90.6 NO G 1754 12/07/98 LOT 208 FG 277.0 11.9 114.9 91.9 NO G 1755 12/07/98 LOT 209 FG 278.0 12.4 112.9 90.3 ND G 1756 12/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 294 288.0 13.1 113.0 90.4 ND G 1757 12/07/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 292 294.0 12.3 112.8 90.2 ND G 1758 12/07/98 LOT 181 270.0 13.6 118.1 93.7 ND C 1759 12/07/98 LOT 183 272.0 13.7 116.2 92.2 ND C 1760 12/08/98 LOT 225 FG 274.0 11.6 115.1 92.1 ND G 1761 12/08/98 LOT 224 FG 278.0 13.4 113.8 91.0 NO G 1762 12108/98 LOT 226 FG . 272.0 12.2 114.1 91.3 ND G 1763 12/08/98 LOT 221 FG 287.0 11.9 113.3 90.6 NO G 1764 12/08/98 LOT 199 FG 275.0 12.9 113.1 90.5 ND G 1765 12/08/98 LOT 198 275.0 13.1 113.3 90.6 NO G 1766 12/08/98 LOT 181 272.0 13.9 115.9 92.7 NO G 1767 12/08/98 12+5O GORGE PLACE 268.0 11.6 114.4 91.5 NO G 1768 12/08/98 13+90 PLATEAU PLACE 270.0 13.9 116.3 93.0 ND G 1769 12/08/98 15+80 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE 268.0 13.2 115.5 92.4 ND G 1770 12/09/98 LOT 168 FG 272.0 15.6 109.0 92.4 ND D 1771 12/09/98 LOT 169 FG 274.0 16.2 108.9 92.3 ND 0 1772 12/09/98 LOT 170 FG 275.0 14.8 109.3 92.6 ND D 1773 12/09/98 LOT 171 FG 274.0 15.9 112.1 95.0 ND D 1774 12/09/98 LOT 172 FG 273.0 15.3 108.3 91.8 NO D 1775 12/09/98 LOT 173 FG 273.0 14.8 109.4 92.7 NO D 1776 12/09/98 LOT 174 FG 272.0 15.9 109.3 92.6 NO 0 1777 12/09/98 LOT 175 FG 272.0 16.0 108.9 92.3 ND 0 1778 12/09/98 LOT 176 FG 272.0 15.7 1 108.4 91.9 ND D 1779 12/09/98 LOT 180 FG 272.0 11.7 113.0 90.4 SC G 1780 12/09/98 LOT 181 FG 273.0 11.7 113.4 90.7 SC G 1781 12/09/98 LOT 182 FG 273.0 13.0 113.6 90.9 SC I G 1782 12/09/98 LOT 183 FG 273.0 13.0 113.3 90.6 SC G 1783 12/09/98 LOT 184 FG 274.0 13.6 113.8 1 91.0. SC G 1790 12/10/98 LOT 186 269.0 13.1 116.5 93.2 NO G Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e1eecelrO300\2393b.8 W.O. 2393-8-SC Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEVATION OR DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (pcf) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) TEST METHOD SOIL TYPE 1791 12/10/98 LOT 185 271.0 12.9 115.9 92.7 NO G 1792 12/10/98 LOT 178 270.0 13.7 114.4 91.5 NO G 1793 12/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 181 260.0 14.8 106.6 90.3 NO - D 1794 1 12/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 182 265.0 15.0 107.0 90.7 NO D 1795 12110/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 183 256.0 12.8 110.7 90.0 NO A 1796 12/10/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 184 270.0 13.0 111.2 90.4 NO A 1797 12/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 185 268.0 13.6 111.6 90.7 NO A 1798 12/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 184 259.0 12.8 111.7 90.8 NO A 1799 12/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 185 262.0 12.9 112.3 91.3 NO A 1800 12/11/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 186 266.0 13.5 111.9 91.0 NO A 1805 12/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 317 315.0 10.4 113.0 90.4 NO G 1806 12/14/98 LOT 320 305.0 11.6 113.6 90.9 NO G 1807 12/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 296 282.0 11.9 112.6 90.1 ND G 1808 12/14/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 298 285.0 11.3 112.9 90.3 NO G 1809 01/08/99 LOT 191 264.0 10.7 119.4 91.0 NO E 1810 01/08/99 LOT 190 263.0 11.0 120.7 92.0 NO E 1811 01/11/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 190 265.0 10.8 119.9 91.0 NO E 1812 01/11/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 191 267.0 11.0 120.0 92.0 NO E 1813* 01/14/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 191 372.0 8.4 110.6 87.5 NO C 1813A 01/14/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 191 372.0 11.9 115.5 91.3 NO C 1814 01/14/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 190 371.0 8.0 109.9 86.9 NO C 1814A 01/14/99 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 19O 371.0 12.2 114.6 90.6 NO C 2009 08/26/98 LOT 326 FG 15.4 106.6 90.3 NO D 2010 08/26/98 LOT 326 293.0 11.4 112.5 90.0 ND G 2021 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 322 280.0 10.9 112.8 90.2 NO G 2022 08/28/98 LOT 327 299.0 12.4 112.6 90.1 NO G 2023 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 326 301.0 11.4 113.4 90.7 NO G 2024 08/28/98 12+80 STONERIDGE 296.0 12.1 113.8 91.0 NO G 2025 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 283.0 10.8 112.5 90.0 NO G 2026 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 321 286.0 11.3 113.6 90.9 NO 2027* 08/28/98 LOT 322 289.0 10.1 109.0 87.2 NO G 2027A 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 322 289.0 1 10.9 116.5 93.2 NO G 2028 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 323 292.0 10.8 114.1 91.3 NO G 2029 08/28/98 10+65 STONERIDGE 304.0 11.2 115.6 92.5 NO G 2030 08/28/98 LOT 320 295.0 11.3 113.4 90.7 NO G 2031 08/28/98 LOT 338 299.0 11.1 114.0 91.2 NO G 2032 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 331 307.0 10.8 1 113.8 91.0 NO G 2033 08/28/98 LOT 330 309.0 10.5 114.5 91.6 NO 6 2034 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 328 306.0 10.8 113.3 90.6 NO 6 2035 08/28/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 330 312.0 13.2 114.3 91.4 NO G 2036 08/31/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 331 314.0 13.9 112.6 1 90.1 NO 6 2037 08/31/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 33O 313.0 12.3 113.0 90.4 NO G 2038 08/31/98 SLOPE SUPPORTING LOT 328 310.0 12.2 112.5 90.0 NO 6 2039 08/31/98 LOT 330 316.0 15.4 108.4 91.9 NO D 2040 08/31/98 LOT 323 298.0 12.6 112.8 90.2 NO G 2041 08/31/98 LOT 321 300.0 11.8 114.5 91.6 NO G 2042 1 08/31/98 11+50 STONERIDGE 303.0 11.2 1 116.9 F 93.5 NO G Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:\exce1r12300'2393b.8 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. II TEST DATE*TEST LOCATION : EL NO. DE 2043 08/31/98 LOT 329 2044 08/31/98 LOT 331 I - LEGEND: NO -NUCLEAR DENSOMETER SC - SAND CONE FG - FINISH GRADE I * - FAILING TEST ARETEST .1 p I, I: I: I Cypress Valley, LLC Village T North File: e:1eec01r1230012393b.8 W.O. 2393-B-SC Page 12 Tab] FIELD DENSITY GeoSoils, Inc. - TABLE I 163 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut I 164 6 Very Low 56 Negligible . cut 165 6 Very Low 56 Negligible cut 166 6 Very Low 56 Negilgble cut 167 6 Very Low 56 Negilgible cut 168 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 5-18 I PT 169 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 3-8 170 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 3-7 171 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 3-9 . 172 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 3-10 I .173 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 4-12 174 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 4-12 175 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 4-15 I PT 176 ; 35 Very Low 54 Negligible 7-23 II PT 177 ., . 12-21 II 178 12-21 II 179 . 13-21 . II 180 16 Very Low 93 Negligible 14-22 II 181 16 Very Low 93 Negligible 15-27 II 182 16 Very Low 93 Negligible 17-26 II 183 16 Very Low 93 Negligible 17-24 II 184 16 Very Low 93 Negligible 17-28 II 185 21 Low . 90 Negligible 17-21 II 186 15-26 U 187 21 . Low 90 Negligible 4-15 I PT 188 . 21 Low 90° Negligible • 4-16 I PT 189° V 12-25° II 12-26 II GeoSoils, Inc.. V LOT CHARACTERISTICS S LOT # EXPANSION INDEX (per UBC standard EXPANSION POTENTIAL' SOLUBLE SULFATE (ppm) SULFATE EXPOSURE2 DEPTH OF FILL (RANGE INFT) FOUNDATION CATEGORY 191> 10-25 II 192> 4-21 II PT 193 21 Low 100 Negligible cut 194 21 Low 100 Negligible cut 195 21 Low 100 Negligible cut 196 21 Low 100 Negligible cut 197 21 Low 150 Negligible cut 198 31 Low 150 Negligible 3-4 199 31 Low 150 Negligible 3-5 200 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 3-8 201 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 5-7 202 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 5-11 I 203 3 Very Low - 37 Negligible 8-12 204 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 8-10 205 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 4-11 206 9 Very Low 1 Negligible 9-14 I 207 9 Very Low 1 Negligible 6-10 I 208 9 Very Low 1 Negligible 3-4 209 9 Very Low 1 Negligible 3-4 210 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut I 211 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut I 212 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 213 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 214 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 215 20 Very Low 65 Negligible, cut 216 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 217 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut Cypress Valley LLC Table 2 Fi1e:e:\wp7\2300'2393btn.ror Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT # EXPANSION INDEX (per UBC standard EXPANSION POTENTIAL1 SOLUBLE SULFATE (ppm) SULFATE EX POSURE 2 DEPTH OF FILL (RANGE INFT) FOUNDATION CATEGORY (3) 218 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut I 219 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut I 220 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 221 31 Low 65 Negligible 3-4 I 222 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut 223 20 Very Low 65 Negligible cut I 224 31 Low 65 Negligible 3-4 I 225 31 Low 65 Negligible 3-4 226 31 Low 65 Negligible 3-4 227 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut 228 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut 229 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut 230 6 Very Low 32 - Negligible cut 231 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut 232 6 Very Low 32 Negligible cut I 234 21 Low 12 Negligible cut 235 21 Low 12 Negligible cut 236 21 Low 12 Negligible cut I 237 21 Low 12 Negligible cut I 238 21 Low 12 Negligible cut 239 21 Low 12 Negligible cut 240 21 Low 12 Negligible cut I 241 21 Low 12 Negligible cut I 242 1 Very Low 12 Negligible cut I PT 243 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I PT 244 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 245 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I Cypress Valley LLC Table 2 File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. .1 :. LOT CHARACTERISTIS # LOT::.EXPANSION INDEX (per UBC standard EXPANSION POTENTIAL t1 SOLUBLE SULFATE (ppm) 182) SULFATE EXPOSURE 2> DEPTH OF FILL (RANGE INFT) 4. FOUNDATION CATEGORY 246 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I 247 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I 248 25 Low 17 Negligible 3-5 I 249 25 Low 17 Negligible 3-7 I 250 25 Low 17 Negligible 4-15 1 PT 251 25 Low 17 Negligible 4-13 I PT 252 33 . Low 17 Negligible 3-17 I PT 253 33 Low 17 Negligible 3-17 I PT 254 33 Low 17 Negligible 3-15 I PT 255 33 Low 17 Negligible 5-30 III PT 256 8 Very Low 11 Negligible 31-37 II 257 8 Very Low 11 Negligible 27-38 II 258 8 Very Low 11 Negligible 16-23 II 259 3 Very Low 11 Negligible 4-18 I PT 260 32 Low 17 Negligible 4-18 I PT 261 32 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 I 262 32 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 263 32 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 264 32 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 265 32 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 I 266 33 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 I 267 33 Low 17 Negligible 3-4 I 268 3 Very Low . 10 Negligible cut 269 3 Very Low 10 Negligible cut • 270 3 Very Low 10 Negligible cut' I 271 3 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 272. 3 Very Low 10 Negligible cut Cypress Valley LLC Table 2 FiIe:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. — I Cypress Valley LLC File:e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Table 2 Page 5 LOT CHARACTERISTICS ::. . ...... ..: . LOT # EXPANSION INDEX (per standard EXPANSION POTENTIAL 1> SOLUBLE SULFATE (ppm) SULFATE EXPOSUREt FILL (RANGE IN FT) DEPTH OF_.FOUNDATION CATEGORY (3) 273 3 Very Low 11 Negligible cut 274 3 Very Low 11 Negligible cut I 275 3 Very Low 11 .. Negligible cut 276 1 Very Low 11 Negligible 9-14 277 20 Very Low 50 Negligible 10-24 II 278 20 Very Low 50 . Negligible 25-29 III PT 279 20 Very Low 50 Negligible 10-35 .111 PT 280 20 Very Low 50 Negligible 10-15 I 281 20 Very Low 50 Negligible 3-5 I 282 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I 283 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I 284 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 285 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 286 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 287 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut 288 20 Very Low 25 Negligible 7-15 289 1 Very Low 10 Negligible cut I 290 1 Very Low 5 Negligible cut I 291 1 Very Low 5 Negligible cut 292 3 Very low 37 Negligible 3-4 293 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 3-9 294 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 4-10 295 3 Very Low 37 Negligible 4-10 I 296 1 Very Low 11 Negligible 10-14 I 297 1 Very Low 11 Negligible 8-15 I 298 1 Very Low 11 Negligible 3-9 299 . 1 Very Low 11 Negligible 3-4 I GeoSoils, Inc. I I I 1 I I 1~ I I I F~ I Li I I I LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT # EXPANSION INDEX (per UBC standard EXPANSION POTENTIAL 1 SOLUBLE (ppm) SULFATE::':EXPOSURE(2)FILL SULFATE DEPTh OF (RANGE IN FT) FOUNDATION CATEGORY 300 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 301 1 Very low 1 Negligible cut 302 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 303 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut I 304 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 305 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 306 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 307 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut I 308 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 309 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut I 310 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 311 1 Very Low 1 Negligible cut 312 22 Low 25 Negligible 3-10 I PT 313 22 Low 25 Negligible 3-14 I PT 314 22 Low 25 Negligible 11-14 I 315 22 Low 25 Negligible 13-16 316 22 Low 25 Negligible 20-28 II 317 22 Low 25 Negligible 23-32 II 318 22 Low 25 Negligible 22-32 II 319 22 Low 25 Negligible 29-31 II 320 22 Low 25 Negligible 28-35 II 321 22 Low 25 Negligible 26-44 II 322 47-58 III PT 323 2 Very Low 5 Negligible 58-64 Ill PT 324 2 Very Low 5 Negligible 55-69 Ill PT Cypress Valley LLC Table 2 File: e:\wp7\2300\2393btn.ror Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. a I I ii. I . I I I I I . I I . 1 I. I I I .1 LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT # EXPANSION INDEX (perx, UBC ':::'standard 18-2) EXPANSION POTENTIAL"),,.SULFATE aa (ppm) SOLUBLE-.SULFATE EXPOSURE> DEPTH OF FILL (RANGE IN F) FOUNDATION CATEGORY 325 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 58-65 III PT 326 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 52-59 III PT 327 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 48-52 Ill PT 328 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 52-54 III PT 329 2 Very Low. 10 Negligible 47-49 Il 330 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 43-47 II 331 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 31-37 II 332 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 21-37 II 333 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 18-30 Il 334 2 Very Low 10 Negligible 18-34 II 335 40 Low 140 Negligible 33-38 II 336 40 Low 140 Negligible 30-42 II 337 40 Low 140 Negligible 32-42 II 338 40 Low 140 Negligible 44-52 Ill PT 339 22 Low 80 Negligible 44-48 II 340 22 Low 80 Negligible 38-43 II 341 22 Low 80 Negligible 33-40 II 342 22 Low 80 Negligible 20-24 lI 343 22 Low 80 Negligible 18-21 II Per Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) Per Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.) Foundations should be constructed in accordance with recommendations for the specific categories noted above and presented in Table 3. Lots 177-179 and 322 contain desilting basins. Depth of fill based on plan finish grade. These lots are within 3 feet of finish grade. Cypress Valley LLC Table 2 File: e:\wp7\2300\2393bri.ror Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. TABLE 3 Conventional Perimeter Footings, Slabs, and Exterior Flatwork for Calavera Hills, Village I FOUNDATION MINIMUM INTERIOR REINFORCING INTERIOR SLAB UNDER-SLAB GARAGE SLAB EXTERIOR CATEGORY FOOTING SLAB STEEL REINFORCEMENT TREATMENT REINFORCEMENT FLAT WORK SIZE THICKNESS REINFORCING I 12" Wide 4 " Thick 1- #4 Bar Top #3 Bars 2' Sand Over 10- 6' x 6" none x and Bottom @ Mil Polyvinyl (10/10) 12' Deep 24" o.c. Membrane Over WWF Both Directions 2" Sand Base II 12" Wide 4 "Thick 2- #4 Bars Top #3' Bars 2" Sand Over 10- 6" x 6" 6" x 6" x and Bottom @ Mil Polyvinyl (6/6) (10/10) 18" Deep 18" o.c. Membrane Over WWF WWF Both Directions 2" Sand Base III 12" Wide 4' Thick 2- #5 Bars Top #3 Bars 2" Sand Over 10- Same as 6" x 6" x and Bottom 9 Mil Polyvinyl Interior Slab (6/6) 24" Deep 18" o.c. Membrane Over WWF Both Directions 2" Sand Base Category Criteria Category I: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 20 and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50 and Differential Fill Thickness is less than 10 (see note 1). Category II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 50 and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90 Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20 (see note 1). Category III: Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 50, or Expansion Index exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20 (see note 1). Notes: 1. Post tension (PT) foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 50', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1. Consideration should be given to using post tension foundations where the expansion index exceeds 90. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. Allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 PSF. Concrete for slabs and footings shalt 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. Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report. 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.