HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-13; Tabata Property; Final Report of Testing and Observation; 2003-02-11lisrcoRi'ORkTED:
(i^EpjTE
torsiku
HNICAI.
TAMTS
I i !
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND
OBSERVATION SERVICES
PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
AVIARA POINTE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
AVIARA POINTE, LLC
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
RECEIVED
OCT 0 7 2003
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 06143-52-04
February 11, 2003
Aviara Pointe, LLC
3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230
San Diego, Califomia 92123
Attention: Mr. Roger Bhatia
Subject: AVIARA POINTE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated November 6, 2002 (LG-02525), we have
provided compaction testing services during grading of the property. Our services were performed
during the period of November 14, 2002 and February 6, 2003. The scope of our services included
the following:
• Observing the grading operations including the removal and/or processing of topsoil and
alluvium, the undercutting of cut/fill transition lots, and the placement of compacted fill soils.
• Perfonning in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site.
• Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating maximum dry densitj' and optimum moisture
content and shear strength of the compacted fill soils. Additionally, laboratory tests were
performed on samples of soil present at finish grade to evaluate expansion characteristics and
water-soluble sulfate content.
• Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map.
• Preparing this final report of grading.
GENERAL
Aviara Pointe is located east of Black Rail Road, south of the Corte Orchidia and southwest of Cabela
Road in Carlsbad, Califomia. The grading contractor for the project was Astleford Constmction
Incorporated. Grading plans for the project were prepared by Civcom & Associates and are entitled
Grading & Erosion Control Plans For: Aviara Pointe, Carlsbad Tract CT 99-10, with City of
Carlsbad approval date of October 24, 2002. The project soils report is entitled Update Geotechnical
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159
Investigation (for) Buerger Property, Carlsbad, Califomia, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated
May 23, 2001 (Project No. 06143-52-03).
References to elevations and locations presented herein were based on the surveyor's or grade
checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced grading plans. Geocon
Incorporated does not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the
accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans
or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
Grading of Aviara Pointe began with removing and exporting bmsh and vegetation from the area to
be graded. Topsoil, alluvium, and undocumented fill were then removed to expose formational
material. Within areas to receive fill, the exposed formational soil was then scarified, moisture
conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils derived from on-site excavations and import soils were then
placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. The formational portion of
those lots that possessed a cut/fill transition was overexcavated approximately 3 feet and replaced
with compacted fill soil. In general, the on-site fill materials consisted of clayey to silty sands.
During the grading operations, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill soils. The in-place density tests
were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 2922-96 (nuclear). The results
of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In general, the in-
place density test results indicate that the fill soils have a dry density of at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content at the locations
tested.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate moisture-density relationships,
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557-00), expansion characteristics
(ASTM D 4829-95), shear strength (ASTM D 3080-98), and water-soluble sulfate content (Califomia
Test 417). The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Tables II through V.
Slopes
Cut and fill slopes were constmcted at design inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter, with
maximum heights of approximately 20 feet. All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to
reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover.
Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slopes.
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 2 - February 11, 2003
Finish Grade Soli Conditions
(Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within 3 feet of
finish grade on the subject lots have an Expansion Index of 50 or less and are classified as having a
"very low" to "low" expansion potential as defined by Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 Table
18-I-B. Table VI presents a Summary Of Finish Grade Expansion Index Test Results of the prevailing
subgrade soil conditions for each lot.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical report. Compacted fill soil (Qcf) was placed in fill areas and
undercut lots (Que) to achieve finish grade. Table VU presents a Summary of As-Graded Building
Pad Conditions for each lot. The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Map depicts the general geologic
conditions observed. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading which would
preclude the continued development of the property as planned.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
grading to which this report pertains has been performed in substantial conformance with
the recommendations of the referenced update geotechnical report dated May 23, 2001.
Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated
by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant
modification to the recommendations of the geotechnical report, they have been described
herein.
2.0 Future Grading
2.1 Any additional grading and backfill performed at the site should be accomplished in
conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated
should review grading plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. All trench and wall
backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This office should
be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing any additional grading or backfilling
operations.
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 3 - February 11, 2003
3.0 Corrosion Potential
3.1 Laboratory tests were performed on samples of the site soils to determine the percentage of
water-soluble sulfate. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests are presented
in Table V and indicate that the soils tested possess a "negligible" sulfate exposure as
defined by UBC Table 19-A-4.
3.2 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is reconunended that
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed.
4.0 Seismic Design Criteria
4.1 Table 4 summarizes seismic design parameters obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table 16-J for Soil Profile Type Sc which is prevalent on this project. Table 4
presents a summary of Seismic Design Parameters for each lot. The values Hsted in Table 4
are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a Type B fault and is more dominant
than the nearest Type A fault due to its proximity to the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is
located approximately 5 miles west of the site. Table VIII presents a Summary of Soil
Profile Type for each lot.
TABLE 4
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
UBC Parameter UBC Reference Soil Profile Type (Sc)
Seismic Zone Factor Table 16-1 0.4
Seismic Coefficient, Ca Table I6-Q 0.40
Seismic Coefficient, Cy Table 16-R 0.63
Near-Source Factor, Na Table 16-S 1.0
Near Source Factor, Ny Table 16-T 1.1
Seismic Source Type Table 16-U B
5.0 Foundations
5.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the
underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a
particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior
concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on Table 5.1. Table IX presents
a Summary of Recommended Foundation Category for each lot.
Project No. 06143-52-04 February 11,2003
TABLE 5.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation
Category
Minimum
Footing Depth
(inches)
Continuous Footing
Reinforcement
Interior Slab
Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top and
one bottom
6 X 6 -10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top and
two bottom
No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
center, both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars, two top and
two bottom
No. 3 bars at 18 inches on
center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 50.
Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories I and II
and 5 inches thick for Category III.
All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for 5-inch slabs) of
clean sand or crushed rock.
All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the
clean sand recommended in No. 4 above.
5.2 Foundations for Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live loads). This bearing pressure
may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
5.3 Isolated footings located beyond the perimeter of the building and supporting structural
elements connected to the building are not recommended for Category III. Where this
condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building
foundation system with steel-reinforced grade beams.
5.4 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening
beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition.
Project No. 06143-52-04 Febmary 11, 2003
consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs that exceed 5 feet in width to the
building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
5.5 No speciai subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be moistened as necessary to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
5.6 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontahvertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
• Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance
should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of
the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut)
slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the
fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would
be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and
slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of
these altematives can be provided once the building location and fill slope
geometry has been determined.
• For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori-
zontal: vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at
least 7 feet horizontally inside the face of the slope, regardless of slope height.
• If swimming pools are planned Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a
review of specific site conditions.
• Although other relatively rigid or brittle improvements such as concrete flatwork
or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it
is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however,
to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement
without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for
specific recommendations.
5.7 As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, post-tensioned
concrete slab and foundation systems may be used for the support of the proposed
structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer
experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning
Institute (UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils,
it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill
settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 6 - February 11, 2003
presented on the following table entitied Post-Tensioned Foundation System Design
Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated.
TABLE 5.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Design Parameters
Foundation Category Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Design Parameters I II m
1. Thomthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 041 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 53 ft
10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in.
5.8 UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. Ifthe
Stmctural Engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC
Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation
Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for
Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion hdex for a particular building pad exceeds
50 but is 90 or less, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it
exceeds 90 but is 130 or less, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches.
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the Structural Engineer.
5.9 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit areas, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the sti-ucture's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project
stmctural engineer.
5.10 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
ProjectNo. 06143-52-04 February 11,2003
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Then-
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack conti-ol joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab comers occur.
6.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.1 Retaining walls not resttained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclmed no steeper than 2:1
(horizontahvertical), an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures
assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane
extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less. For
those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where
backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
6.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The soil immediately adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be
composed of free draining material completely wrapped in Mu-afi 140 (or equivalent) filter
fabric for a lateral distance of 1 foot for the bottom 2/3 of the height of the retaining wall.
The upper 1/3 should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water
infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not
recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular (EI of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
6.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided tiie soil within 3 feet
below the base of tiie wall has an Expansion Index of 50 or less. The proximity of the
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 8 - Febmary 11, 2003
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
6.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the
design for lateral resistance. A friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to
sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the
allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.0 Slope Maintenance
7.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontahvertical) may, under conditions that are difficult
to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The
instabihty is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually
does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The
occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded
by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage.
The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth,
soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a signifi-
cant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the
maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or
properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to
eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be
periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the
above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will
not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a
portion of the project's slopes in the future.
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 9 - Febmary 11, 2003
8.0 Drainage
8.1 Adequate drainage provisions are critical to future performance of the project. Under no
circumstances should water Lallowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads
should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so
that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and
slope tops to controlled drainage devices.
8.2 All underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be
repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate
the soil for a prolonged period of time.
8.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Surface
drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures, or impervious
above-grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned
adjacent to the pavement, a cutoff wall should be provided along the edge of the pavement
and should extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to the
grading of the site and represents conditions at the date of our final observation dated February 6,
2003. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing
services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the
work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to
whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations,
experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such
conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our
services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time
and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
unconfrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 06143-52-04 - 10 - Febmary 11, 2003
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very tiuly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
STotefHoobs
' CEG 1524
JH:SW:dmc
(6/del) Addressee
Shawn Weedon
RCE 61803
Project No. 06143-52-04 11 February 11, 2003
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REStlLTS
Elev.
or
Plus
3/4"
Max.
Dry
Opt.
Moist.
Field
Dry
Field
Moist.
Field
Rel.
Req'd
Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens . Cont. Dens . Cont. Comp. Coi
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%
1 11/14/02 LOT 1 338 2 0 126 1 11 2 113 9 12 8 90 90
2 11/14/02 LOT 1 341 2 0 126 1 11 2 113 2 13 4 90 90
3 11/14/02 LOT 1 343 2 0 126 1 11 2 114 7 12 3 91 90
4 11/15/02 LOT 1 340 2 0 126 1 11 2 115 6 11 8 92 90
5 11/15/02 LOT 1 344 2 0 126 1 11 2 114 5 12 7 91 90
6 11/15/02 LOT 1 343 2 0 126 1 11 2 113 0 12 1 90 90
7 11/18/02 LOT 2 348 2 0 126 1 11 2 115 8 10 6 92 90
8 11/18/02 LOT 2 349 2 0 126 1 11 2 117 1 12 3 93 90
9 11/18/02 LOT 2 351 2 0 126 1 11 2 116 3 11 7 92 90
10 11/18/02 LOT 2 351 3 0 132 0 8 6 118 8 10 4 90 90
11 11/19/02 LOT 2 352 3 0 132 0 8 6 118 6 11 9 90 90
12 11/19/02 LOT 2 353 2 0 126 1 11 2 116 9 12 4 93 90
13 11/19/02 LOT 2 352 2 0 126 1 11 2 116 2 13 7 92 90
14 11/19/02 LOT 2 353 3 0 132 0 8 6 118 6 11 8 90 90
15 11/21/02 LOT 1 345 3 0 132 0 8 6 120 3 10 4 91 90
16 11/21/02 LOT 2 354 3 0 132 0 8 6 118 9 11 8 90 90
17 11/25/02 LOT 3 357 2 0 126 1 11 2 115 0 12 4 91 90
18 11/25/02 LOT 10 339 3 0 132 0 8 6 119 0 10 7 90 90
19 11/25/02 LOT 10 345 3 0 132 0 8 6 118 2 11 2 90 90
20 11/26/02 LOT 10 346 2 0 126 1 11 2 116 9 11 8 93 90
21 11/26/02 LOT 10 347 2 0 126 1 11 2 111 8 9 1 89 90
21A 11/26/02 LOT 10 347 2 0 126 1 11 2 114 3 12 4 91 90
22 11/26/02 LOT 10 349 2 0 126 1 11 2 110 2 8 4 87 90
22A 11/26/02 LOT 10 349 2 0 126 1 11 2 118 6 10 9 94 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
Test
No. Date Test Location
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
(ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
23
24
25
26
11/26/02
11/27/02
11/27/02
12/03/02
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 4
345
347
348
359
126 .1
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
11.2
8.6
8.6
8 . 6
115.5
119 . 8
121.4
121. 9
11. 9
10 . 6
9.7
7 . 9
92
91
92
92
90
90
90
90
27 12/03/02 LOT 3
28 12/03/02 LOT 10
29 12/03/02 LOT 10
30 12/04/02 LOT 4
31 12/04/02 LOT 3
32 12/05/02 LOT 12
33 12/05/02 LOT 10
34 12/05/02 LOT 11
35 12/05/02 LOT 12
36 12/05/02 LOT 11
37 12/05/02 StTRF CREST ST 0-(-20
38 12/05/02 L0T9
39 12/05/02 LOT 9
39A 12/05/02 LOT 9
40 12/06/02 LOT 9
41 12/06/02 LOT 10
42 12/06/02 LOT 9
43 12/06/02 LOT 9
44 12/06/02 LOT 10
45 12/06/02 LOT 9
360
351
349
361
362
355
350
356
356
357
354
339
342
342
356
354
347
349
356
354
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
132.0
132 . 0
132 . 0
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.2
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8 . 6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8 . 6
118 . 7
115.8
117 . 8
116.2
119. 0
119 . 7
118 . 9
122 . 6
124 . 3
121.9
120.2
123 . 7
115 .4
120.3
119.2
119.8
120.4
121.3
118 . 8
119.0
14 . 1
12 . 8
14 . 7
13 . 7
12 . 8
10.3
11.6
9.4
10 . 9
10 . 5
9 . 8
11.2
11. 7
10 .1
10.0
11.4
11.1
9.7
10 . 2
9.1
94
92
93
92
94
91
90
93
94
92
91
94
87
91
90
91
91
92
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
Test
No. Date Test Location
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
(ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
6 OA
61
62
63
63A
64
65
66
67
12/09/02
12/09/02
12/09/02
12/09/02
12/09/02
12/09/02
12/10/02
12/10/02
12/10/02
12/10/02
12/11/02
12/11/02
12/11/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/12/02
12/13/02
12/13/02
12/13/02
LOT 12
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 11
LOT 9
LOT 11
LOT 12
LOT 11
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 11
LOT 11
LOT 11
LOT 11
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 4
357
360
357
359
358
358
357
359
358
352
360
358
361
362
363
363
364
362
365
365
363
362
365
366
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
132 . 0
132 . 0
126 .1
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
126 .1
132 . 0
132 . 0
132 . 0
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126 .1
126.1
126 .1
126.1
11.2
11.2
11.2
8 . 6
8 . 6
11. 2
8 . 6
8 . 6
8 . 6
11.2
8 . 6
8 . 6
8 . 6
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
116.4
118.9
117 .2
123 . 9
122 . 5
115 . 9
122 .6
120 . 9
121.3
116.2
120.2
119 .1
118 . 7
115 . 9
110 . 7
116 .1
114 .2
113 .6
109.1
115.2
115.3
119.8
120 .4
117.1
12 . 8
13 .4
13 .1
12 . 8
9.6
12 .2
9 . 8
10.4
11.0
13 .6
12 . 7
10 . 3
11.4
12 . 9
13 .4
12 . 3
11.8
12 . 7
13 .6
12 .4
13 .1
11.2
10.3
13 .6
92
94
93
94
93
92
93
92
92
92
91
90
90
92
88
92
91
90
87
91
91
95
95
93
90
90
90
90
90
•10
90
90
90
90
SO
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
95
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev.
or
Plus
3/4"
Max.
Dry
Opt.
Moist.
Field
Dry
Field
Moist.
Field
Rel.
Req'd
Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens . Cont. Comp. Coi
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) ( (pcf) (%) (%) (%
68 12/13/02 LOT 3 363 2 0 126 1 11 .2 118 0 12 4 94 90
69 12/13/02 LOT 4 365 2 0 126 1 11 .2 116 3 11 7 92 90
70 12/16/02 LOT 6 372 2 0 126 1 11 .2 117 4 11 6 93 90
71 12/16/02 LOT 6 372 2 0 126 1 11 .2 119 8 12 3 95 90
72 12/16/02 LOT 6 373 2 0 126 1 11 .2 120 3 12 7 95 JQ
73 12/16/02 LOT 6 373 2 0 126 1 11 .2 115 7 11 8 92 90
74 12/17/02 LOT 10 359 2 0 126 1 11 .2 111 2 15 4 88 90
74A 12/27/02 LOT 10 359 2 0 126 1 11 .2 113 2 12 9 90 .•50
75 12/17/02 LOT 9 360 2 0 126 1 11 .2 112 4 15 7 89 90
75A 12/27/02 LOT 9 360 2 0 126 1 11 .2 115 1 13 4 91 90
76 12/27/02 LOT 9 361 3 0 132 0 8 .6 119 7 10 6 91 90
77 12/27/02 LOT 10 360 3 0 132 0 8 .6 118 8 9 4 90 90
78 01/03/03 LOT 8 358 2 0 126 1 11 .2 114 5 13 7 91 90
79 01/03/03 LOT 9 360 2 0 126 1 11 . 2 114 3 14 0 91 90
80 01/03/03 LOT 10 361 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 118 5 10 9 90 90
81 01/03/03 LOT 10 361 3 0 132 0 8 .6 119 0 10 5 90 90
82 01/08/03 LOT 9 361 2 0 126 1 11 . 2 116 3 14 3 92 90
83 01/08/03 LOT 8 360 2 0 126 1 11 .2 117 6 12 1 93 90
FG 84 01/08/03 LOT 11 365 1 0 119 8 13 . 7 112 0 14 6 93 90
FG 85 01/08/03 LOT 11 365 1 0 119 8 13 . 7 112 9 14 3 94 90
FG 86 01/08/03 LOT 1 347 2 0 126 1 11 .2 117 0 12 0 93 90
FG 87 01/08/03 LOT 1 347 2 0 126 1 11 .2 115 1 12 4 91 90
FG 88 01/09/03 LOT 6 374 2 0 126 1 11 .2 117 5 11 6 93 90
FG 89 01/09/03 LOT 6 374 2 0 126 1 11 .2 116 5 11 9 92 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
Elev.
or
Depth Curve
Plus
3/4"
Rock
Max.
Dry
Dens .
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
Field
Dry
Dens.
Field
Moist.
Cont.
Field
Rel.
Comp.
Req'd
Rel.
Comp.
No Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (% ) {%) (%
FG 90 01/09/03 LOT 5 368 2 0 126 1 11. 2 115 7 11. 7 92 90
FG 91 01/09/03 LOT 5 368 2 0 126 1 11. 2 114 1 12 . 9 90 90
FG 92 01/09/03 LOT 4 367 2 0 126 1 11. 2 118 0 11. 4 94 90
FG 93 01/09/03 LOT 4 367 2 0 126 1 11. 2 116 7 12 . 1 93 90
FG 94 01/09/03 LOT 3 364 2 0 126 1 11. 2 118 2 12 . 5 94 90
FG 95 01/09/03 LOT 3 364 2 0 126 1 11. 2 119 0 11. 2 94 90
FG 96 01/09/03 LOT 2 356 2 0 126 1 11. 2 116 8 12 . 9 93 90
FG 97 01/09/03 LOT 2 356 2 0 126 1 11. 2 117 2 11. 6 93 90
FG 98 01/09/03 LOT 12 358 2 0 126 1 11. 2 117 6 12 . 0 93 90
FG 99 01/09/03 LOT 12 358 2 0 126 1 11. 2 117 2 12 . 8 93 90
100 01/10/03 LOT 10 362 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 121 1 10 . 4 92 90
101 01/10/03 LOT 9 362 3 0 132 0 8. 6 119 2 11 . 6 90 90
102 01/10/03 LOT 8 362 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 118 9 11 . 6 90 90
103 01/10/03 OCEAN CREST AV 2+0 0 347 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 119 4 10 . 9 90 90
104 01/10/03 OCEAN CREST AV l-h0 0 339 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 118 2 11. 5 90 90
105 01/15/03 SURF CREST ST 2-t-2 0 371 3 0 132 0 8 . 6 122 0 10 . 7 92 90
106 01/15/03 SURF CREST ST 2-1-80 374 2 0 126 1 11. 2 115 0 11. 4 91 90
107 01/15/03 SURF CREST ST 2+40 372 2 0 126 1 11. 2 113 8 11. 8 90 90
108 01/15/03 SURF CREST ST 3+20 376 2 0 126 1 11. 2 114 0 12 . 0 90 90
109 01/17/03 OCEAN CREST AV 1-fOO 338 2 0 126 1 11. 2 119 3 10 . 9 95 90
110 01/17/03 OCEAN CREST AV 2+0 0 347 2 0 126 1 11. 2 117 5 11. 0 93 90
111 01/17/03 OCEAN CREST AV 3+00 356 2 0 126 1 11. 2 116 5 11. 7 92 90
112 01/17/03 OCEAN CREST AV 4+00 363 2 0 126 1 11. 2 115 9 11. 8 92 90
113 01/17/03 LOT 9 364 2 0 126 1 11. 2 116 5 12 . 7 92 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens . Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) ( (%) (%)
114 01/22/03 LOT 9 365 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 9 10 . 9 93 90
115 01/22/03 LOT 8 365 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 117 . 8 11 . 3 95 90
116 01/23/03 LOT 9 366 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 0 11 . 7 93 90
117 01/23/03 LOT 8 366 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 113 . 9 11 . 7 92 90
118 01/23/03 LOT 8 366 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 116 . 2 12 . 0 94 90
119 01/27/03 LOT 8 370 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 114 . 5 11 . 5 92 90
120 01/27/03 LOT 8 369 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 0 11 .4 93 90
121 01/28/03 LOT 8 371 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 112 . 6 11 . 8 91 90
122 01/28/03 LOT 8 369 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 113 . 8 11 . 7 92 90
123 01/29/03 LOT 7 375 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 113 . 9 11 .2 92 90
124 01/29/03 LOT 7 374 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 5 12 . 7 93 90
125 01/30/03 LOT 7 375 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 116. 1 12 . 3 94 90
126 01/30/03 LOT 7 375 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 1 11 . 1 93 90
127 01/30/03 LOT 8 371 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115 . 4 12 .2 93 90
128 01/30/03 LOT 8 371 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 114 . 8 12 . 1 93 90
129 01/31/03 LOT 9 366 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 115. 2 11 . 6 93 90
130 02/06/03 LOT 9 366 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 114 . 6 12 . 0 92 90
FG 131 02/06/03 LOT 7 377 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 117 . 6 11 . 7 95 90
FG 132 02/06/03 LOT 8 372 4 0 124 . 0 11 . 0 119. 0 11 . 5 96 90
FG 133 02/06/03 LOT 9 366 4 0 124. 0 11 . 0 117 . 9 11 .4 95 90
FG 134 02/06/03 LOT 10 362 2 0 126 . 1 11 .2 115 . 6 12 . 0 92 90
ST 135 02/06/03 E SIDE OF LOT 7 361 2 0 126. 1 11 .2 117 . 9 11 . 9 93 90
ST 136 02/06/03 E SIDE OF LOT 9 356 2 0 126 . 1 11 .2 118 . 0 12 . 0 94 90
ST 137 02/06/03 E SIDE OF LOT 10 355 2 0 126. 1 11 .2 117 . 4 11 . 7 93 90
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req' (
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
ST 138 02/06/03 S SIDE OF LOT 10 358 2 0 126 .1 11.2 120.0 11.4 95 90
ST 139 02/06/03 S SIDE OF LOT 11 360 2 0 126 .1 11.2 115 . 6 11.4 92 90
ST 140 02/06/03 W SIDE OF LOT 1 345 2 0 126 .1 11.2 120 .1 12 . 8 95 90
ST 141 02/06/03 N SIDE OF LOT 1 344 2 0 126 .1 11.2 118 . 7 11.9 94 90
ST 142 02/06/03 N SIDE OF LOT 2 353 2 0 126 .1 11.2 114 . 0 12 . 5 90 90
Project No. 06143-52-04 (G)
- TEST SUFFIX
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
A, B, C, . . . : Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning
and/or recompaction.
R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill soil.
PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
AD -- Area Drain JT -- Joint Trench ST -- Slope Test
B -- Base Test MT -• Moisture Test SW -- Sidewalk
CG -- Curb & Gutter RW -• Retaining Wall SZ -- Slope Zone
CW -- Crib Wall SD -• Storm Drain UT -- Utility Trench
DW -- Driveway SG -- Subgrade WB -- Wall Backfill
FG -- Finish Grade SL -- Sewer Lateral WL -- Water Lateral
IT -- Irrigation Trench SM -- Sewer Main WM -- Water Main
CURVE NO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory
maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples
encountered during testing and observation.
ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values.
TYPE OF TEST
SC
NU
DC
Sand Cone Test
Nuclear Density Test
Drive Cylinder Test
ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-00
Sample
No. Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% dry weight)
1 Orange-brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 119.8 13.7
2 Reddish-brown, Silty, fme to medium SAND 126.1 11.2
3 Reddish-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND witii
trace silt 132.0 8.6
4 Grayish-brown, Clayey, fme to medium SAND 124.0 11.0
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion
No. Before Test (%) After Test(%) (pcf) Index
EI-1 8.0 19.0 119.5 6
EI-2 8.1 15.4 117.2 7
EI-3 8.4 21.5 117.1 8
EI-4 9.7 22.4 112.1 44
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-98
Sample
No.
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture Content
(%)
Unit Cohesion
(psf)
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
3 119.0 8.5 480 35
Soil sample remolded to approximately 90 percent maximum dry density near optimum moisture content
(ASTM D 1557).
Project No. 06143-52-04 Febmary 11,2003
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Exposure
EI-1 0.051 Negligible
EI-2 0.031 Negligible
EI-3 0.029 Negligible
EI-4 0.032 Negligible
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12: AVIARA POINTE
Lot Numbers Sample No. Expansion Index UBC Classification
1 through 3 EI-1 6 Very Low
4 through 6 EI-2 7 Very Low
7 through 9 EI-4 44 Low
10 through 12 EI-3 8 Very Low
TABLE Vll
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12; AVIARA POINTE
Lot
No.
Pad
Condition Remarks
Approx.
Depth of
Undercut
(ft.)
Approx.
Depth of Fill
Differential
(ft.)
Approx.
Max. Depth
of Fill (ft.)
1 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 7 10
2 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 3 10
3 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 5 8
4 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 8 11
5 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 0 3
Project No. 06143-52-04 Febmary 11,2003
TABLE Vll (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12; AVIARA POINTE
Lot
No.
Pad
Condition Remarks
Approx.
Depth of
Undercut
(ft.)
Approx.
Depth of Fill
Differential
(ft.)
Approx.
Max. Depth
of Fill (ft.)
6 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 0 3
7 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 2 5
8 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 12 15
9 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 20 23
10 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 20 23
11 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 7 10
12 Undercut Undercut Due to
Cut/Fill Transition 3 I 4
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF SOIL PROFILE TYPE
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12; AVIARA POINTE
Lot Numbers Soil Profile Type
1 through 12 Sc
TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12; AVIARA POINTE
Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category
1 through 7 I
8 II
9 and 10 III
11 and 12 I
Project No. 06143-52-04 Febmary 11,2003