HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-17; BLACKSTONE RANCH; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING & OBSERVATION DURING GRADING; 2015-02-04a FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND
OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED
DURING GRADING OPERATIONS
'BLACKSTONE RANCH,
•LOTS..1 THROUGH 11
AND 15 THROUGH 52
CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CALIFORNIAWEST COMMUNITIES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 4, 2015
PROJECT NO. G1517-11-03
I.
4,
GEOT'ECHNICAI I. ENVIRONM.ENTALUMATERIA1S •
...
• Pr9jectN0G15.17=11-03
February 4, 2015 • •
• California West Cóminunities
•
5927 Priestly,Drive, Suite 110
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention Mr. Jack Hepworth
• Subject: FINAL: REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES . : PERFORMED DURING GRADING OPERATIONS
BLACKSTONEpNCH
LOTS I THROUGH 11 AND 15 THROUGH 52
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
• Dear Mr; Hepworth:
S
'summarize In accordance with your request, we have prepared this final report of grading to our
testing and observation sen'ices and to provide recommendations for the continued development of
• Blackstone Ranch located in Carlsbad, California. The grading of Lots I through 11. and 15 through
• 52 have been completed and is the subject Of this report. We performed our services- during the period
• of December. 26, 2013 through January 28, 2015. The scope of our services included:
S
•
Observingthe grading operationsincluding the removal of surficial soils within the limits of
grading.
Observing the excavation of cut slopes, undercutting of cut lots and subsequent replacement
with compacted fill, and the installation of canyon subdrãins.
5 . Performing in-place density and moisture content: tests in fill placed and compacted at the site
during grading:Operations.
Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the maximum dry density and optimum
•
moisture content and shear strength of the compacted , fill. Additionally; we performed
laboratory tests on samples of soil present at finish grade to evaluate expansion
characteristics, water-soluble sulfate and water-soluble chloride ion content:
• Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map.
• . •
Preparing this final report of grading for the referenced lots only.
5 6960 Flanders Drive U San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
S
• 'S
The purpose of this final report is to document that the grading for the referenced, residential
subdivision at Blackstone Ranch has been completed in conformance with the recommendations of
the project geotechnical report The fill materials have been properly placed and compacted in
accordance with the project geotechnical report and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance
GENERAL
Blackstone Ranch is located in the southeastern portion. 'of the City of Carlsbad. The site is accessed
by the southeastern terminus of Camino Junipero froth' Rancho Santa Fe Road. The lots were rough
graded for proposed construction of one to two-story, single-family residential structures Pennick
Incorporated of El Cajon, California performed the mass grading operations
Grading plans for the' project are entitled Grading Plans for. CT 02-17 Shelley Properly Fair Oaks
Valley prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated November 14, 2013 The project
geotechnical report is titled Update Geotechnical Investigation, Shelley Properly Carlsbad
Cdlfornia, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June* 26, 2006 (Project No 06721-52-02) and
Update Geoiechnical Letter, Fair Oaks/Shelley, Property, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, dated September 28, 2012 (Project No. G1517-1 1-01.).
References to elevations and locations presented herein were based on the surveyor's. or grade
checker's stakes 'in the field, surveyed bottom elevations, and/or interpolation from 'the referenced
grading plan. .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
plans or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
Grading consisted of removal of surficial topsoil, slopewash and alluvium to expose moderately
strong Metavolcanic Rock, installation of canyon subdrains, performing blasting of cuts and
undercuts of Metavolcanic Rock, and the placement and compaction of rock fills, soil-rock fills, and
soil fill materials to achieve finish grade elevations. Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface
was processed subsequent to removals, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted. Fill and rock
materials derived from on-site excavations were then placed and compacted in layers in accordance
with the project recjuir'ements until design finish grade elevations were obtained.
During the grading operations, we observed compaction procedures and performed in-place density
tests to evaluate the dry density and/or moisture content of the fill, soil-rock fill, and rock fill
materials We performed in-place density tests in general conformance with ASTM Test Method
D 6938 (nuclear). The results of the in-place dry density an4 moisture content'tests are summarized in
Table I. The approximate location of the in-place density tests are plotted on the As-Graded
Project'No G1517-11-03 -2- February 4, 2015
Geologic Map, Figures :1 through 3. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that fills and
soil rock fills 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. Where the fill contained particles
larger than 3/4 inch, we applied rock corrections to the laboratory maximum dry density and Optimum
moisture content using methods: suggested by ASTM: P4718 and others. In addition, test pits were
excavated within rock fills to check for adequate moisture content and proper placement
We tested laboratory samples used for fill to evaluate moisture density relationships, optimum
moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and shear strength (ASTM 3080) In
addition, we obtained soil samples at finish grade to evaluate expansion potential (ATM D 4829),
water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No 417) and water-soluble chloride ion content
(AASHTO Test No 2q 1). The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables II through VI
/
Slopes
Cut and fill slopes were constructed with maximum heights of approximately 37 feet at inclinations of
2:1 (horizontal to vertical), or flatter. Cut slopes are composed of slightly to moderately fractured,
moderately strong to strong Metavolcanic Rock 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 slope
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
The soil encountered during grading operations is considered to be 'non expansive and expansive
(Expansion Index [El] f 20 or less and grater than 20, respectively) as defined by 2010 California
Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table I presents soil classifications based on the expansion
index. Based on the laboratory test results, the finish grade soil 'enc,c,untered during grading possesses
a "very low to 'low' expansion potential (El of 50 or less) Table IV presents the results of the
laboratory expansion index tests, .
TABLE I
EXPANSIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index. (El) Expansive Soil Classification 2010 CBC
Expansion Classification
0-20 . . Very Low. . Non-Expansive
21-50 . Low
Expansive
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Greater Than 130'VeryHigh
Project No. G151'7-i 1-03 -3- . February 4, 2015
We also performed water-soluble sulfate testing on samples obtained for expansion index testing to
evaluate the amount of water-soluble sulfates within the finish-grade soil These test results are used
to evaluate the potential for sulfate attack on normal Portland cement concrete The test results
indicate sulfate contents that correspond to "not applicable or SO sulfate exposure to concrete
structures as defined by 2010 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. The results of the water-soluble
sulfate tests are summarized on Table V The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually
discernible characteristic therefore other soil samples from the site could yield different
concentrations Additionally, landscaping activities (i e, addition of fertilizers and other soil
nutrients) over time may affect the concentration We also performed laboratory water-soluble
chloride ioncoiitent testing of the finish grade soils. The results are provided on Table VI.
Geocon Incorporated does not practice corrosion engineering Therefore, further evaluation by a
corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned
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 (designated as Qcf and Quo on Figures 1
through 3) was placed over Metavolcanic Rock (Mzu) within the limits of grading Lots that exposed
Metavolcanic Rock were undercut at least 3 feet from finish pad grade and replaced with compacted
fill (Quc) Fill material within the upper 3 feet of finish pad grade generally consists of clayey sands
With gravel and cobble that has a. maximum rock size of 6-inches. However, some rock greater than
6-inches may exist with the upper 3 foot of each lot In addition, rock greater than 6 inches in
diameter will be: present within fill areas deeper than 3 feet from finish grade. The enclosed
As-Graded Geologic Map (Figures 1 through 3) depicts the general geologic conditions, bottom
elevations of the fill, approximate location and elevation of canyon subdrains and in-place density
test location performed during grading operations Due to the rock fill and the underlying
metavolcanic rock, excavations into the fill and rock may be difficult and possible refusal may be
encountered during future improvement installation.
We did not observe groundwater or significant seepage conditions during grading operations. We do
not expect groundwater to adversely impact the proposed project improvements. However, it is not .1
uncommon for groundwater or seepage cTonditions to develop where none previously existed.
Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other
factors, and vary as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the
project.
Project No. G1517-1 iO3 -.4- February 4, 2015
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General '
l:r Based on observations and. test results, it is our opini'Or that the soil engiriering and the
geologic engineering aspects of the grading to which this report pertains has been
performed in conformance with the recommendations of the previously referenced project
geotechnical report, the project grading plans, and the.City of Carlsbad grading ordinance.
Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading that differ from those expected by
the project soil report are not uncommon Where such conditions required a significant
modification to the recommendations of the project report, they have been described
herein.
1.2 We did not observe soil or geologic conditions during grading that would preclude the
continued development 'of the property as planned. Based on laboratory test results and
field observations, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the fill soil observed and
tested as part of the grading were generally compacted to a dry density of at least
90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture
content.
1.3 Mètavolcanic ROck (Mzu) underlies the compacted fill and is exposed at finish grade iñ'cut
slopes Excavations within Metavolcanic Rock present below fills and on cut slopes for
pools walls, and utilities will be very difficult and will require rock breaking equipment
and will generate oversize rock material. Refusal should be expected when Metavolcanic
Rock is encountered in addition, excavations within fill areas deeper than 3 feet will
encounter oversize-rock.-
2.0 Seismic Design Criteria
2.1 WO understand the proposed residential structures were approved using the 2010 CBC for
design. We. used the computer. program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard
Response Spectra, provided by the USGS to calculate the seismic design parameters
Table .2 summarizes design criteria obtained from the 2010 CBC (based on the, 2009
International Building Code [IBC]), Chapter. 16 Structural Design Section 1613
Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 02 second. The residential
structures can be designed using Site Class Cwhere there is less than 20 feet of fill and Site
Class. D where the fill thickness is 20 feet or greater. We evaluated the site class according
to 2010 CBC Section 1613.5.5. Table VII právides the site class for'each lot.
Project No. Gi5i7-i 1-03 -5- February 4, 2015
TABLE2
2010 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2010 CBC
Reference
Site Class •• C D Table 1613.5.2
Fill Thickness, T (feet) T<20 T20
Spectral Response - Class :13 (short), Ss 1.097g 1.097g, Figure 1.13.5(3)
Spectral Response: Class B (1 sec), S1 0.411g . 0.4119 Figure 1613.5(4.)
.1 Site Coefficient, FA . 1.00 1.061 Table 1613.5.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv . 1.389 1.589 Table 1613.5.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake
.:. 1.097g I.163g Section 16.1l..5.3
Spectral Response Acceleration (short),SMS (Eqn16-36)
Maximum Considered Earthquake . • 0.57 1 0.653g. Section 16 13.5.3
Spectral Response Acceleration—(1sec),SMI (Eqn16-37)
5% Damped Design 0.731g 0.776g Section 164 3.5.4
Spectral Response Acceleration (short),SDS . (Eqn16-38)
5% Damped Design 0.381g . 0.435g Section 16 13.5.4
Spectral Response Acceleration (1sec), SDI . . . (Eqn_16-39)
2.2 Conformance to the criteria in Table 2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if
a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid
all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
3.0 Post-Ténsiohed Foundation Recommendations
3.1. We understand that a post tensioned foundation system will be used to support the
residential structures The post tensioned system should be designed by a structural
engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and: design criteria of the Post.
Tensioning Institute (PTI) Third Edition as required by the 2010 California Building Code
(CBC Section 1808.6). Although this procedure was - developed for expansive soil
conditions it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to
differential fill settlement.
3.2 The post tensioned foundation recommendations presented herein are for theproposed one-
to two-story residential structures. We separated the foundation recommendations into
three categories based on either the maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion
Index. The foundation category criteria are presented in Table 3.1. Table IX provides the
foundation category for each lot.
Project No. Gi517-I 1-03 • -6 - February 4, 2015
TABLE 3.1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation Category Maximum Fill
Thickness, 1 (feet)
Differential Fill
Thickness, D (feet)
Expansion Index
(El)
I T<20 --. EI<50
II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<E1<90
Ill T>50 D>20 90<EI<130
3:3 The post-tersibned design should incorporate the gètechnical parameters presented on
Table 3.2 for the particular Foundation Category designated The parameters presented in
Table 3.2 are based on the guidelines presented in the PT! Third Edition design manual
The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer.
TABLE 3.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!)
Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
Thörnthwaite Index - -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction . .3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture. Variation Distance, em (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, YM (inches) . 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, e (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center. Lift,YM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
3.4 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than
the 2010 çBC:
The deflection criteria presented in Table 3.2 are still applicable.
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories 11 and 111
The width of the.perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches
and 24 inches for foundation categories 1 [1 and III respectively. The embedment
depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
3.5 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs can be susceptible to edge lift, regardless of
the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter
Project No: G I5I7-1103 - 7 - February 4, 2015
footings, and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential.. Because of the
placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after
tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift The structural engineer
should design and the contractor should properly construct the foundation system to reduce
the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures
16 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be
placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the
footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post tension foundation
system unless designed by the structural engineer. '
3.7 Category 1, II, or 111 foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of
.2 ,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load) This bearing pressure may be
increased by one third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces The estimated
maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures under the imposed
foundation loads is about V2-inch
Isolated footings located outside the building slab should have the minimum embedment
depth of at least 12 inches, 18 inches and 24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and Ill
Isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams:
3.9 For Foundation Category Ill consideration should be given to using interior stiffening
beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness..In addition
consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to
the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain'by a vapor retarder. The yaor retarder desigu should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACD Guide
for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
Addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture
The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the
type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity
controlled environment.
3.11 The' bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect andlo'r developer It is typical to have 3 inches of sand for 5-inch thick slabs in
the southern California area. 'The foundation design engineer 'should provide appropriate
Project No: Gi5i7-I 1-03 -8- S ' February 4,'2015
• ..
• .
I concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by . reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or stab curl We
suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper
I curing methods on the foundation plans It is critical that the foundation contractor
understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans
3.12 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
I the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as
necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in such concrete placement ., 3.13 Where buildings or other improvements, are planned near the top of.aslope steeper than 3:1
I (horizontal to vertical) special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur
Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at r.
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope
I . If swimming pools are planned Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to
S review the pool plans and the specific site conditions to provide additional
recommendations, if necessary.
I . Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of fill slopes are not
recommended Where such a condition cannot be avoided the portion of the
I that
swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face should be designed assuming
the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. • Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, 'such- as concrete I .
flatworkor 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,
I however, to Incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
'causing' movement without extensive disfres. GeQcon Incorporated should .be
I . consulted for specific recommendations.
. . ,
3.14 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
I ' slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement, of existing soil or soil with
I varying thicknesses However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions I may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage The occurrence of
I ' concrete 'shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting' soil characteristics. Their
I 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 control joints at periodic
I intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
S
I Project No. G1517-1 103 -9- February 4, 2015
3.15 Foundation excavations should be observed by the, geotechnical engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to check
that the exposed soil conditions, are similar to those expected and that they have been
extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If uñexpectéd soil conditiOns 'are encountered,
foundation modifications may be required.
.
.'
1. 3.16
3.17
3:18
3.19
Special subgrade presaturation is riOt deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil, should be moisturized to maintain a 'moist
'condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
The' foundation and concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support
characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural
requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads:
Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking;.The design of joints should consider criteria
of'the.American Concrete Institute'when establishing crack-control spacing..
Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular should be constructed in accordance.
With the recomthehdation's herein. Slab panels should 'be a minimum' of 4 inches thiCk and,
when in, excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 6 x 6 - W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6)
welded wire mesh or at least No 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches center to center in
both directions, in the middle of the, slab to reduce the .potential for cracking. In addition,
concrete flatwork should be provided with crack. 'control joints to reduce rind/or control
shrinkage cracking. Crack control' spacing should be determined by the project structural
engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage Criteria of the American
Concrete institute, (ACI) should be taken irito consideration when establishing crack control
spacing Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be
compacted to a dry 'density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density
near to slightly above optii'nuni moisture content. Subgrade soil should be tested prior to
placing concrete.
3.20 Even 'with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior
concrete flatwork has a likelihood of experiencing ,some movement due to swelling or
settlement; therefore, the steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to
reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be
structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce' the potential for offsets
between the curbs and the flatwork.
Project No. G1517-11-03 • - i0 - February 4, 2015
121 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the: exterjorslab should
be dowelled into the structure's foundation stem wall This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of Ahe flatwork Dowelling details should be designed by the project
structural engineers
3.22 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
4.0 Conventional Retaining Walls
4 1 Retaining walls not restrained 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 ou pnds per cubic foot (pcf) Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than
2:1 (horizontal to vertical) an active soil pressure of 50 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 El Of 50 or less.
4.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0,00 1 H (where H equals
the height of the retaining 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
addedtothe above active soil pressure.
4.3 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project If the
project possesses 'a seismic design category of D E or F the proposed retaining walls
should be designed with seismic lateral pressuie added to the active pressure. The seismic
load exerted on the wall should be a triangular distribution with a pressure of 17H (where
H is the height of the wall, in feet resulting in pounds per square foot [psf]) exerted at the
base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. We used a•peaksite acceleration of 0.29g
calculated from the modified design parameters (SDS/2 5) applying a pseudo static
coefficient of O.S.
4.4 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
condition or the active and seismic loading condition. Typically, it appears the design of
the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be adequate for the seismic design
of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure combined with the seismic design
load should be reviewed and also considered in the design of the retaining walls
Project No. G1517-1 1-03 February 4, 2015
4 5 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfihled and loading is applied The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls
should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined
by the structural, engineer.
4.6 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and 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 Miráfi 140 (or, equivalent) filter fabric for a lateral distance
of 1 foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining wall The upper one-third
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 recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular
(El of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load If conditions different than those described are expected or if specific
drainage details are desired,. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted . for additional
recOmmendations.
.4 .7 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The proximity of the 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 suëh.a condition is expeëted;
4.8 The recommendations presented herein 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, Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for additional recommendations
5.0 ,. Lateral 'Loading
5 1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of
400 pounds per cubic foot (pc should be used for the design of,footings or shear keys
poured neat in compacted fill. The passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending
at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is
greater.-The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor.slabs or pavement
should not be included in 'design for passive resistance.
Project No: Gl5i7-II-03 ' -12- ' February 4, 2015
5 2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads an allowable coefficient of friction between
soil and concrete of 0 4 should be used for design
6.0 Slope Maintenance
6.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertia1) may under conditions which are
both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope
instability. The instability 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 significant contributing factor to surficial instability It is, therefore recom-
mended 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 It should be
noted that 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
7.0 Site Drainage
7.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface .seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings Without the use of impermeable liners Or cutoff walls. The site should
be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in
accordance with 2010 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface
drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled
drainage devices Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry
runoff away from the proposed structure.
7.2 Undergro'und 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.
7.3 Storm water management devices should be properly constructed to prevent water
infiltration, a subdrain installed, and lined with an impermeable liner (e.g. High-density
Project No. Gl5i7-i 1-03 _13- February 4, 2015
polyethylene, .HDPE, with a thikness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride,
PVC liner) The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations The subdrain should be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of
Schedule 40 PVC pipe The subdrain should be properly waterproofed at the edges of the
I iner where the perforated pipe is connected to solid pipe. The subdrain should be
connected toa .proper outlet.
7.4 lf:tiøt properly constructed, there is apotential for distress to improvements and properties
located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices Factors such as the
amount 'of water to be detained, its residence,time, and soil permeability have an important
effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the
storm :water management features are not properly designed and constructed. Due to the
existence of compacted fill, infiltration should not be Used for the property. We have, not.
performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Down-gradient arid adjacent structures may be
subjected to seeps, movement of 'foundations and slabs, or other impacts' as a result of
water infiltration.
LIMITATIONS'
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
development, and represent conditions on the date of our final observation. Any subsequent
improvement should be done in conjunction with our obséi1vati'oii 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 se?vices 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 oftests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at
any time. We make no warranty, epress 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 subseqOeñt 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
uncontrolled action ofwater. The findings and recommendations of this report maybe 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. Gl5I7-IlO3 -'14- February 4, 2015
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev.. Plus Field Field Field . Réqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist Rel Ret
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont: Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location No (%) (pci) (%) (pci)
SZ .1 12/2603 Eof Paseo Encino 6+60 . S 408 . :, 2 10 126.5 .10.7. 114:8 11.8... 91 .': 90
SZ 2 12/26113 E of Paseo Encino 6+20 . . : 402 2 3' 133.0 8.4 120.6 11.0: 91 90
SZ 3 12/26113 E ofPaseoEncino 5+30' . . 398 . 2 30133.0 . .8.4 121,4. 10.2 91 .90
SZ 4. 12/26/13 E of Pasco- Encino 4+50 . . ' 392 2 30 133.0 .8:4 119:6 8.7 .90 90
SZ 5 12/27/13 Paseo Encino 5+60 403 2 30 1330 84 1205 129 91 90
SZ 6 12/27/13 Lot 1'5 405 2 10 1265 107 1147 147 91.90
SZ 7 12/27/13 E of Paseo Encino 6+30 . 409: 2 .30 133.0 8.4 H 121.9 .1 :1.0.9 '92' 90 :..
SZ 8 12/27/13 Paseo Cristall+30 410 2 30 1330 84 1202 137 90 90
9 12/30/13 Pasco:Encino7+65. 414 . I 10 117.9 .15.3 108.7, 19.1 92 90
10 12/30/13 Pasco Encino 6+90 412 I tO 1179 153 1099 187 93 90
II 12/30/13 Paseo Encino 7+50: . . :417 I' 10' 1179 153 1107, 19.8 : ' 94 '90
12 12/30/13 . Paseo Encino 6+00 414 1 0 1143 16.9 .103.2 19.8 90 90
13 12/30/13 Paseo Encino 7+30 ' 420 1 0 114.3 16.9 103.5 20.3 ' .91' 90
MT 14 ' 12/31/13 E of Pasco Encino 2+90 384: 2 50 140;2 ' 6.2 • ' '00 :10:7 O ' 0'
MT 15 12/31/13 .EofPaseoEncino.3+90 I . 387:. 2 ' '50 140.2 6.2 .1 '•.O.O ':1212 0 ' 0:
MT '16 12/31/13 Paseo E nci no 4+90 : ' ' '398 . . ' 2 ' 50 140.2 62' 0.0 8.7: 0 0
'MT 17 12/31/13 Lot IS • 394 . 2' 50 140.2 6:2 0:0' 9.3 ' 0 ' '0
MT 18 01/02/14 Lot 16 398 2 50 1402 62 00 9.1 0 0
MT . 19 01/02/14 Lot 1.5 . ' . 399 ' 2 50' 140.2 '6.2 .010 10.7' 0 ' '' 0
MT 20 01/02/14 Lot Il 391 2 50 1402 62 00 83 0 0
MT 21 01/02/14 Slope E of Paseo Encino 2+50 380 2 50 1402 62 00 10 8 0 0
22 01/03/14 Slope Eof Paseo Encino 2+25 383 1 0 1143 169 1031 189 90 90
23 01/03/14 Slope.E of Paseo Encino4+25 .'' . .393 .1 0 . 1,14.3 16.9' 105.6 18.4 92 . 90
.MT .24 01/03/14, Lot IS' . 402 2 50' 140.2 6.2. 60 8.7:
, . 0 0
MT 25 01/03/14 PaseoEncino 2+00 ' : 396 2 50 140.2 ' :6:2 0:0 7.9 0 .0
MT. 26 01/06/14 Paseo .Encino 3+50' S . 399 . 2 58 .143.4 '52 010 6.3 0 0
MT 27' 01/06/14 Camino Junipero 52+87 399 2 58 1414 5.2 .0.0 ' • 7.6 0 0
MT 28 01/06/14 Lot I'S 462' 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.9 0' 0
MT 29 .01/06/14 Pasco Encino 4+75 ' ' 402 2 58 1414' 5.2 0.0 ..6 .0 0
MT 30 01/07/14 Paseo Cristal' 1+40 . . . 411: • 2 '58 1414 5.2 0.0 87 0 0
MT 31 0,1/07/.14 Lot 15. •
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
405 . 2 58,. 143.4 ' 5.2 0.0 7.3 0 . 0
Project No. G 1517-11-03' .. . , S ' '' 'February 3;:2015
... •..••• S. •S••• 00•S••. ...s....s.ip 0,001.00.0 0466
TABLE .
SUMMARY OF FIELD: DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No Date Location
'Elev..
or
Depth Curve
No
P1u
3/4
Rock
(%)
Adj.
MDD
(pci)
Adj.
OMC
(%)
Field
Dry
Dens
(pci)
field
Moist
Cbnt.
(%)
Field
Rel.
Camp
(%)
Reqd.
Ret
Comp.
(%)
MT 32 01/07/14 Lot 15 . . .413 .2 58. . 143.4 :5.2: 00. : 9.2. 0 0
MT 33 01/07/14 Lot 20 417 2 58 1434 52 00 69 0 0
MT 34 01/07/14 Lot 15. . : . 410 .2 58 143.4 .5.2 OmQ 6.3 ..... 0
MT . 35 01/08/14 Lot 17 410 2 58 143.4 .52 0:0 ' 7.6 0 0
MT 36 01/08/14 Lot 16 406 2 58 1414 5.2 :0.0 7.0 0 0
MT 3.7 01/08114 Lot 17. . 413 2 58 143.4 . 5.2 0.0 6.9 0 0
MT 38 01/08114 Lot 16 . . . 409: 2 58 143:4 5.2 .0.0 .......0.
MT 39 01/09/14 Lot 15 412 2 58 1434 52 00 58 0 0
MT 40 01/09/14 Lot 16 411 2 58 143.4 5.2: 00 64 0 0
MT 41 01/09/14 Lot 16* 415 2 58 1434 52 00 90 0 0
MT 42 01/09/14 PaseoCristal 2+20 4:16 2 58 143.4 52 6.0 7.8 0 0.
MT . 43 01/09/14 Lot 17 416 . 2 58 143:4 5.2 0.0 8.2 0 : 0
MT 44 01/09/14 Lot 1.5 411 2 58 143,4 5.2 .0.0 8.5 0 . 0
45 01/10/14 .Pasco Encino6+40 0 415 2 . 20 12M. 9.5 . 120.7 :l1;9 , 93 . 90'
MT 46 01110/14 Lot 1.7 . 420 2 58 1414 5.2 .0.0 . 9.2 0 0
MT 47 01/10/14. Lot 16 418 2 58 143.4 .52 0.0 : 7.8 0 0
MT 48 01/10/14 Lot IS 417 2 58 143.4 .5.2 0.0 8.5 0 0
MT 49 01/13/14 Lot 17 422 2 58 143 4 5 2 00 65 0 0
MT 50 01/13/14 Lot 16 420 2 58 143.4 '5.2 00 7.6 0 0
MT 51 01/13/14 Lot 15. 417 2 58 1434 52 00 83 0 0
MT 52 01/13/14 Lot 18 421 2 58 1434 52 00 6 I 0 0
MT 53 01/13/14 Lot 19 425 2 58 1434 52 00 30 0 0
MT 53A 01/13/.14 Lot 19 . . . 425 .2 58. 143.4 :5,2 0:0 8.2. 0 : 0
MT :54 01/14/14 Lot 18 424 2 58 143.4 5.2. 00 . 7.2 0 0
MT 55 01/14/14 Lot 19 . . . :427 :2 58,-.- -143.4 : :52 00: 5.9 0 :0 ----
. -
MT 56 01/14/14 Lot 37 428 2 58 .143.4 :512 0:0 6.5 0 . 0
MT 57 01/14/14 Lot 19 426 2 58 1434 5.2 00 8.6 0 0
MT 58, 01/14/14 Lot 19 . 428 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.7. 0
MT 59 01/15/14 Lot 37 437 2 58 1434 52 00 85 0 0
MT 60 01/15/14 Lot 37 . , 434 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 . 58. 143:4 .5.2 00 ..66
MT 61 01/15/14 Camino Bello 2+25. 435 2 58 143,4 5.2 0.0 . 9.3 0 : 0
Project No: -G 1517-11-03 : . , . : . February 3,:2015
.-a...........a-............................. TABLE!
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No Date Location
or
Depth
(fi)
Curve
No
Plus
3/4"
. Roëk
(%)
Adj.
MDD
(pci)
Adj.
: OMC
(%)
Fi4ld
' Dry
Dens.
(pci)
Field
Moist.
Cbnt
(%)
Field
Rel.
Córn.
'Req'd.
Rel.
Comp.
MT 62 01/15/14 Lot 19 . .435 2 58' 143.4 . 5.2: 0:0 7.1 . 0 .. 0
63 01/16/14 Camino Minero2+20 . . 442 2 0° 123.5 11.8 1120 13.9 91 90
64 01/16/14 Camino Mtnero2+95 449 2 0 1235 118 1131 135 92 90
65: 01/16/14, Paseo.Cristal 1+55. . 417 2 0 123.5 .1L8. 1133 . 12.7. 92 '90
66 01/16/14 PaseoCristal 4+20 433 2 III 126:5 10.7 '116.9 10.. 92 90
MT 67 01/17/14 Lot 37 441 2 58 143.4 5.2 ' .0.0 '8.7 0 0
MT 68 01/17/14 Lot 19 . . 438 1' 2 .58 143:4 5,2 0.0 ':6:2 o
MT 69 01/17/14 Lot 19 437 2 58 143:4 5.2 0.0 '. 5:9 0 ,, 0
MT 70 01/17/14 Lot 19 . '437 2 58. 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.7 ' 0 0
MT 71 01/17/14 Lot 37- 448 2 58 1434 52 00 62 0 0
72 01/21/14 Lot 29'' . 449 I' 0 ' .114.3 .169 104:3 18.7 ' : 91 90
SZ 73 01/21/14 Lot 37 . 444 1 0 1143 16.9 100.6 :19.6 88 90
SZ 73 A 01/21/14 Lot'37 . . 444 1 0 114.3 16.9 .105.1 17.9 92 , 90
74. 01/21/14 Lot. 30 . , 457 . 2 10 126.5. 10.7 :1:16.8 II:! 92, ' 90,
75 01/21/14 Lot31 462 1 0 1143 169 1042 A69 91 90
76 01/22/14 Camino Minero4'FlO ' 458 '1 0 '' 1.14.3 16:9' 102.6 21.4 90 90
SZ 77 01/22/14 Lot 38 ' : 457 1 0 114.3 '16:9 105:0. 17.5 92 90
SZ 78 01/22/14 Lot 37 450 1 0 1143 169 1038 172 91 90
MT 79 01/22/14 Lot 21 424 2 40 1365 73 00 108 0 0
MT 80 01/23/14 Lot 37 449 2 58 1434 52 00 57 0 0
MT 81 01/23/14 Lot 38 456 2 58 1434 52 00 63 0 0
MT 82 01/23/14' Lot 38 . ' 460: . , 2 : 58 143:4 5.2 H 0.0 ' 8:3 ,0' 0
MT 83 01/23/14 Lot 37' . . , .453 .2 58 143.4 ''5.2 0:0 7.1 '. ' 0 ' 0
MT '84 01/23/14 Lot 17' . . . ': 426 ' .2 ' 58' 143.4 ' 5.2 0:0 . 8.6:. 0 0
85'' 01/24/14 Lot 37 ':458 '':2' 0" '''123.5 '11.8 111:8' 12.0, 91 90
86 01/27/14 PaseoEndno5+25 . ' ' . 417 I 10. 117.9 '153 . 1080' 16,3 ' 92 90
87 01/27/14 Lot 1'5 422' I 10 117:9 15.3 '106.1 15.1 90 90
88 01/27/14 Lot 15 425' 1 ' 0 114.3 16.9 .102.7 17.0 '90' 90
89 .01/27/14 Lot 16 . 428 I .0 114:a ' 16.9 ' 103.3 :19:0 90' 90.
90 01/28/14 Camino Bello 2+55 ' ' 446 2. 40 1365 7.3 123.8 1217 .91 90
MT .91 01/29/14 Lot 19. 441 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 10.3 . 0 0
Project No. 'G 1517-11-03 ' ' ' . ' . : February 3, :2015
........... TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev Plus Field Field Field Reqd
or 3/4" Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Depth Curve Rook MDD OM(- Dens. Cbnt Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location (ft): No (%) (pcf) (%) (pet) (%) (%) (%)
92 01/30/14 Lot 19'. .. . '' .446 2 10.. 126.5 .10.7 117:6 : 11.4 . 93 ' 90
93 01/30/l4. Camino Bello 2+60 . 450 . 2 0 123.5 '11.8. 112.9 12.7 .91 .90
SZ 94 01130/14. Lot 37 S 453 1 10 117.9 15.3 107.8 17.4 91 . 9O'
95. 01/31/14, Lot 38: 464 I 0: :114.3 169. l057 20.7 92 90
96 01/31/14 Lot 39 . 472 2 O 1215 11.8 109.6 12.2 89 90
96A 01/31/14 Lot 39 472 2 0' 123.5 11.8 113.5 13.8 92 90
97 02/03/14 Paseo Encino 3+70 404 4 10 146:4' 5.4 13 1. 1 :8.0 90 90
98 02/03/14 . Paseo Encino: 5+50 . . , 412 4. 40 146.4 5.4 132.3 7:1 90 90
99 02/03/14 Pasco:Encino6+85, . 418 . 4 30 . 143.3 6.2 129.7 6.4 91 90
MT 100 02/04/14 Carnino J unipero 52+10 399 2 58 1434 52 00 73 0 0
MT 101 02/64/14 Lot II: . 2 58 1434 '52 110 8.9 0 0
MT 102 02/04/14 Lot Fl . 387 2 58 1414 5.2 00 8.0 0 0
MT 103 02/05/14 Carninoiunipero 51+60 . 405 2 58 143.4 5.2 .0.0 7.3 0 0
MT 104 02/05/14 CarninoJuniper.o52+20, . . 403 '2 . 58 1414 5.2 . '00 . '8:5 0 0.
MT 105 02/05/14 Lot. l.l . 401:1 2 58 143:4 5.2 . .0.0 :10:7. .0 0.
106 02/06/14 CaminoJunipero48-i-00 . . '491 '2 0 ' 123.5 . 118 109.5 ' 14.1 89 90
106A 02/06/14 CarniñoJunipero48+00 ., 491 .2 0 " 123.5 11:8 III:!' . 13.9 . 90 90
107 02/07/14 PaseoCristal 2+85 425 4 50 1496 46 1389 57 93 90
108 02/07/14 Pasco Cristal4+70 437 4 50 1496 46 1356 67 91 90
109 02/07/14 Paseo Cristal, 3+75 . . . 431. 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.8 . .5.9 ' 92 90.
110 02/07/14 Paseo Encino 3+00 407 4 50 1496 46 1365 52 91 90
III 02/07/14 Paseo Encino 9+00 409 4 50 1496 46 1376 58 92 90
MT 1:12 ' 02/10/14 Lot 21 431 .2 58 143.4 '5.2 0:0. 7.7. ' 0 . 0
MT .113 . 02/10/14 Lot 23,, . . . ' 450 2 58 .. 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.3:' 0 0
MT .114 - 02/10/14 Lot 18 '436 .2 58 143.4 5:2 0:0 5.6. 0 . 0
1:15 02/12/14 . Lot 40:
. ' 478 4 50. :149.6 4.6 1343 ' 6.1 90 .90
116 02/12/14 Lot 41 . 486 4 50 1496 4.6 '137.2 ' 5.9 92 ' 90
117 '02/13/14 'Lot 36 459. 2 50 140.2 6.2 128.5 9.1 92 90'
118 '02/14/14 PaseoCristal.8+l0 468 3 0 12,0.8 13.8 :1.10.3 :141 91. 90'
SZ 1.19 02/14/14 Lot 23 . 458 2 10 126.5 , 10.7 1 15.8 , 11.3 92 ' ' 90
SZ 120 02/14/14 Lot 21 ' . ' . 446 , I 0 114.3 .16.9 107.1.., 18.4 94 90
Project No: Gl517ll03 . , . . ' February 3, 2015
.s.................... (.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
'Ele'i. Plus Field Field Field . Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rel. Rd.
Depth Curve Rook MDD OMC Dens. C'ont. Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location No (%) (pay (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
MT 121 02/18114. Lot .
, .. 397 .2: 58 . 143.4 :5.2 0:0. 6.3 . . 0 . 0
MT .122 02/18/14 Lot 10' 401 2 58 143.4 " 5.2 0:0 7.1 0 0
MT 1.23.02/19/14 Camino Junipero 51+90 410 2 58 1434 52 00 96 0 0
MT 124. 02/19/14 Carnino Junipero 5.1+00 . .. 411 2 58: .143.4 .5:2 0:0 7.3 . 0 '0
MT 125 02/19/14 Camino Junipero 51+45 414 2 , 58 143:4 5.2 :0.0 8.7 0 0
MT 126 02119/14 Camino Junipero 51+45 415 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 '6.9 0 0
SZ 127 02/20/14 Pa'seoEncinà7+15 . 420. 4 40 1464 5.4. '131.5 '75 '90' 90'''
SZ 128 02/20/14 PaseoEncino8+90 424 4 40 1464 54 1326 77 91 90
129 02/20/14 Paseo,Encitio 8+35 428 4 40 146.4 5T4 131.6 9.2. 90 90
130 02/20/14 Paseo Encino 9+40 429 4 40 1464 54 131:1 86 90 90
MT 131. 02/24/14 Camino Junipero 51+10 :421 2 58. .143.4 , ':5.2 0:Q. 7.6, . 0 0
MT 132 02/24/14 Camino Junipero 50+65 423 2 58 143:4 5.2 '0.0 .5.5 0 0
MT 133 02/24/14 Lot 1.6 ' 421' 2 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 8.3 0 0
MT 134 02/25/14' Lot. 17 ' , 428 , 2 58 143:4 5.2 ' '0.0 '6.7 0 ' - 0.
MT 135 02/25/14 Caminoiunipero'49+60 , ' 428. 2 .' 58 143:4.'. 5.2 .0.0.. 8:2 .0'' 0'
MT 136 02/25/14 Camino Junipero 48+65 433 2 58 143.4 5'.2: 00 102 0 0
137 02/26/14 Lot 41 '487 4' 40 146.4 5:4: 132.9 9.9' 91 90
138 02/26/14 Lot 40 ' .479 . .4 40. . 146.4 :5.4 13116 10.0'. ' 90 . :9
139 02/26/14 Lot 39 ' . 472 4 , , 50' '149.6 4.6 15:9 .. 7.0.' 91
,
: 90
140 02/27/14 .Lot 37 ' . 458 4 . 40 146.4 5.4 , 131.6 .. .8.0 .90 90
141 02/27/14 Lot 38 464 4 40 1464 54 1344 73 92 90
142 03/03114 Camino Junipero.49+35 ' . . . . 434 ' .' 4 ..' 40 '146:4 5.4 ' :132.8 ' '7:8 91' 90''
.143 03/03/14 Camino Junipero 48+40. . .436 . 4 50' 149.6 4.6. 135:6 , 7.1 .91 90
144 03/03/14 Camino.Junipero50+:30 ' 426 ' 4 50 149.6
,
'4.6 134.5 70: 90
,
90
145 03/03/14 Carnino'Junipero 51+30 ' . '422 ' '4 40 146.4 '5:4 133:3 6.2 ' ' 91 :'' 90 '
146 03/03/14 'Camino Junipero 52+30 ' 414 4 50 ' .149.6-' 416 136:1 6.6. .91 . 90
147 03/05/14 Lot 42 493 ' 5 50 15L5 4.3 137.8 '7.5 91 90
148 03/05/14 Lot 43 , 500. 5 50 151.5 4.3 '136.5 7.2 90' 90
MT 149 03/06/14 Detention Basin ' 370' 2 . 58 143:4 ' 5.2 0.0 .6.2 0 0
MT 150 03/06/14 Detention Basin . 372' 2 ' 58 1414 .5.2 ' 0.0 7:8 0 0
MT 151 03/06/14 Detention Basin .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
382 2 58'. 143.4 52 0.0 5.9 ' 0 . 0
Project No. a 1517-11-03' ' . , . '' . ' , . ,February 3, '2015
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD: DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rel Rel.
Depth Curve RoCk MDD OMC Dens. Cont: COrnp. Comp.
Test No Date Location No (%) (pet) (%) (pet) (%) (%) (%)
MT 152 03/06/14 Detention Basin . . 381 ..2 58. 143.4 .5.2 0.0 5.3 0 . 0
MT 153 03/06/14 Detention Basin 383 2 58 . . 143.4 5.2 0:0 6.2 0 0
154 03/07/14 Lot 20. 426 4 50 1496 46 1395 67 93 90
155 03/07/14 Lot 21 434 '5 50'. 151.5 43 1392 7.1 92 .90
156 03/07/14 Lot 22 . 442 5 50 151-.5 4.3 135.9 6.5 90 90
SZ 157 '03/11/14 'Lot 22 449 2 0 123.5 11.8 :11:0.8 12.3. 90 90
158 .03)11/14 Lot 23 452 4 ' 50 149:6' 4.6 :136.2 69 '91. 90.
159 03/11/14' Lot 36 .. 466 4 50 149:6 ' 4.6 134.1 6.4 go 90
160 03/11/14 Lot 15 426 4 50 1496 46 1386 73 93 90
161 03/11/14 Lot 16 428 4 50 1496 46 1339 56 90 90
162 03/11/14 Lot 17 . 433 4 50:149.64:6 135.0 6.4 90 . 90
SZ 163 03/12/14 S,Detention Basin - E . 387 1 0 114:3 16.9 102.4 19.6 90 90
SZ 164 03/12/14 SDetention Basin - E 385' I 0 11:4.3 16.9 .103.6 . 1.7.8 , .91: 90
MT 165 03/13/14 'S Detention Basin 381 ' I .50 , 135.2 8.7 ' '0.0 :12.3 0 ' 0
SZ 166 03/14/1.4 .S Detention Basin -S . . : 389 I .
-
'0 . 114:3' 16.9 ' '102.6 1711. 90 .'. '90
SZ 167 03/14/14 S Detention Basin E 384 3 10 123.0 12:5. 112.1 13.7 91 90
SZ 168 03/14/14: S Detention Basin -E. ' '389 '; .3 10. 123.0 '12:5 110:4: 12.7 ' 90 , 90
169 03/17/14 Caminoiunipero N Corner 49+75 438 1 0 1143 169 1076 168 94 90
170 03/17/14' CaminbJunipero - N Corner 48+45 , 444 ' 1' 0 : 114.3 '16.9 I045 ' 17.3 91 90
MT 171 .03/18/14 Lot 11 ' . 395 , 1 50 135.2 , 8.7 . 0.0 : 12.3 0 0
.
MT 172 03/18/14 Lot II 389 I 50 1352 87 00 119 0 0
MT 173 '03/20/14 Lot 10 ' ' 400 ' . 2 58 1434 5.2 0.0 , '6.7 :Q 0.
MT 1.74 03/20/14: Lot 10 . ' 407 :2. 58 . 143.4 :5.2 0.0 8.3. .. ' 0 . 0
MT 175, 03/20/14 Lot II . . . 403 ' 2 58 , 143.4 ' 5.2 0.0 7.1 . 0 . 0
MT 176 03/20/14 Lot II ' 407 , 2 58' 143.4 ' .5.2 0:0 6.3' ' 0 .
1:77 03/21/14' S Sewer Easement. . 395 ' 2 10' 126.5 '1017 113:7 15.1 90 . 90
178 03/21/14 Paseo Encino 1+50 - , ' 400 2 . 10 126.5 10.7 11:4.3 14.7 90 90
179 03/21/14 Corte Claro 1+30 399 I ' 10 117.9 15.3 '107.8 17.0 '91' 90.
MT 180 03/21/14 Lot II . . 409 . 2 - 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.7 0 0
FG181 03/21/14 Lot 39 . ' , 474 4 50 149.6 4.6 ' ' 134.1 5,0 90 . ..
FG 182 03/21/14 Lot 40+ , . 480 4 50. 149.6 .4.6 135.8 6.4. 91 90
Project No. 01.517-11-03 ' , . . , . . February 3, .2015
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
'Elev.. Plus Field Field Field 'Reqd..
or 3/4 Adj Adj. Dry Moist Ret Rel.
Depth Curve RoCk MDD OMC'. Dens. Cbnt Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location No (%) (pet) (%) (pet)
FO 183 03/21114 Lot 41 . .487 '' 4 50. 149.6 .4.6 1344, 6.3 . 90 90 . ..
MT 184 03/24/14 Lot I E 490 2 58 1434 52 00 7.1 0 0
MT 185 03/24/14 Lot E 388 2 58 1434 52 00 58 0 0
MT 186 03/24/14 Lot S '393 2 58 '143.4 .512 010 6.3. '' 0 '0
FG 187 03/24/14 Lot 42 495 4 50 14916 4.6 135.1 '5.3 90 90
MT 188 03/24/14 Lot 396 1 58 1392 74 00 105 0 0
SZ 189 .03/25/14 Lot2E ' . , . 3901. 2 . 10' 1265 10.7 " L15.8 11.6 '92: 90'H
SZ 190 03/25/14 Lot I E 391 2 10 1265 107 115 7 12.3 91 90
SZ 191 03/25/14 S Detention Basin -.S 390 ' 2 40 136.5 7.3 126.4 7.7 93 , 90
192 03/25/14 Lot 16 Rear 432 I 0 1143 169 1042 182 91 90
ST 193 03/25/14 Lot 39* 466 I 40 1304 103 1185 96 91 90
ST 194 03/25/14 Lot 38 458' 1 50 1352 : 8.7 122.3 .9.4 90 90:
MT 195 03/25/14 'Lot 1 398 2 58 143.4 5.2 .0.0 5.3 0 0
MT 196 03/25/14 Lot'2 397 2 58 1434 • 5.2 . 0.,0 .. 60 '0: 0..
MT 197 03/26/14 .Lo't.2 . , 4031 ''21. 58 ' 143A 5.2 . .0.0 75 :0 . 01
MT 198 03/26/14 Lot ' '' S 403 '2 58 143.4 '5.2 0.0 : 6.1 0 ' 0
ST 199 03/26/14, Lot 37 • 452 ' I 20.'.121.8 '136 I109 14.1 91 ' 90
FG 200 03/27114 Lot 37. , ' , , 4 . 20. . 140.4 .10 1293'l 7.4 ' . 92 . 90 • ,
FG 201 , 03/27/14 Lot 3,8' • • . ' 466 45 20' '140.4 ' 7.0 • 1266 7.8' ' 90 ' 90.
MT 202 03/27/14 Lot 1' 409 2 58 1434 52 00 lii 0 0
MT 203 03/27/14 Lot 409 2 58 1434 52 00 97 0 0
SZ 204 03/28/14 Lot I E 401 I 20 12 V.8 13.6 '110.1 16 8 90 90
SZ 205 03/28t14 Lot 2- E .. S , . ' .400 .1 tO. 1.17.9 '15.3' 108.1. 17.6 ' 92 90
206. 03/28/14 Lot 19 . ' •' '. : : 446 4.. 50' 149.6, 4.6 135;0 8.3 : .90 90.
207 03/28/14 Lot 18 439 4 50 1496 46 1364 63 91 90
208 03/28/14 Lot I ' 411 4 50 .149.6 416- 135:5' 7.7 . 91 90
209 03/28/14 Lot 412 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.1 7.4 ' 92 90
2-10 03/31/14 Lot ' 412 ' 4 50 149.6 4.6 '134.6 4.9 90 ' 90
211 .03/31/14 Lot 412 4 ' 50 149:6 4.6 36.0 ' 712 '91. 90 • •
212 '03/31/14 'Lot'3 ' 412' 4, 50 149.6 .4.6 ' 135.4 619 , 91 90
SZ 213 , 03/31/14 Lot 2-E , 408 2 0. 123.5 11.8 113.4 . 12.9 . 92 . 90
Project No 61517-11-03- Fcbruary3 2015
TABLE
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
'Elev., Plus' Field Field' Field 'Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist Ref Ref.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location (ft) No (%) (pci) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
MT 214 04/01114 Lot 24 , 432 .2 58 143.4 5.2 00. . 9.3 . . 0 0
MT :215 04/011.14 Lot 24 '' ' 439 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.1 0 0
FG 216 04101/14 Lot 16. 430 4 50 1496 46 1362 69 91 90
FG 217 04/01/14 Lot 15 . '427 '4 50. 149.6 4.6 135:3'S 6.6 90 90
MT 218 04/01/14 Lot 24 444 2 58 1434 52 00 97 0 0
MT 219 '04/01/14 Lot 25 . 450, ' 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 '6.3. 0 0
SZ 220 04/02/14 Lot 10 422 4 30 t43:3. 6.2 126 1 .7 .4 88 90
SZ 220 A 04/04/14 Lot 10 422 4 30 1433 62 131 5 86 92 90
FG 221 04/02/14 Lot 18 441 4 50 1496 46 1363 84 91 90
FG 222 04/02/14 Lot 19 447 4 50 1496 46 1349 63 90 90
223 04/03/14. Lot 28 , S '475 ,5:4 so: 149.6 :46 134:7:. 6.0 , ' 90 90
224 04/03/14 Lot 24 447 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.1' 7.2 92 90
FG 225 04/04/14 Lot 1.7 435 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.4 5.7 91 90
ST 226 04/08/14 Lot. 21 ' ' . 442' 4 ' 40 146.4 5.4 '131.4 ' 56 90 90,
FG 227 04/08/14 Lot. 20 428 4 50 1496 46 1385 72 93 90
228 04/08/14 Lot 10 . ' 412 '4 50 ' 149.6 '4:6 138.8 8.2 ' 93 . ' .90
229 04/08/14 Lot II' , . ' 411 ' ''4 .50: 149.6 ' 4:6 1373 ' 7.1 92 , :90
230' 04/09l.14 Lot 25 ' . .453 .. 4 5. .149.6 .46 13611'. 5.7 ' 91 '90
231 04/08/14 Lot 26 458 4 50 1496 46 1349 59 90 90
232 04/08/14 Lot 77 469 4 50 1496 46 1356 55 91 90
SZ 233 04/08/14 Lot! 410 4 40 1464 54 13! 3 72 90 90
FG 234 04/09/14 Lot 21 , S ' ' ' 436 4 '"50 149:6 4.6. 135.7.
,
6.3 . 91 . 90 '
FG .235 94/09/14 Lot 22 ..444 . .4' 50' 149.6 '4.6 1362. 5.9 ''91 '. 90
FG 236 04/09/14 Lot 23' , . '454 .4 50 149.6 4.6.'137.2 4.8' .92 ' 90
237 04/10/14 Lot 412 4 50 1496 46 1345 62 90 90
238 04/10/14 Lot ' , 412 4 50' 149.6 4.6. 136:1 4.8 .91 90
239 04/10/14 Lot 7 414 4 '50 149:6 4.6 ' ' '138.6 '6.3 93' ' 90
240 04110/14 Lot 413. 4 50 149.6 4.6 '' '135.7 6.6 '91 ' 9
FG 241 , 04/11/14 Lot 28 , 477. 4 50 1496 4.6 ' '133.9 5.3 90 '' 90
'FG 242 04/11/14 Lot 36. 467 4 '50.. 1496' 4.6 140.8 4:9 94 90
243 04/15/14 Camino Junipero 48+35 5 .445 . 2 20 . 129.7 9.5 120.1 11.6 . 93 90
Project No. '01517-11-03 , . , S , S , 1 '. , February 3, 2015
.s•••ii••••sà••.••••••i••••••s•s•••i••i••.
TABLE "I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
'Elev., Plus Field Field Field 'Rëqd.,
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist Rel. Rd
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont"Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location () No (%) (pcf) (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%)
FG 244 04/15/14 Lot 27. . - 471 4 50;' 149.6 4.6: 135:0 ' 5.1 90 90
FG 245 04/151.14 Lot 26 . 460 4 : 50' 149.6 ''4.6 l358 9.0: 91 ; 90
FG 246 04/15/14 Lot 25. 455 4 50 1496 46 1365 69 91 90
FG 247 04116/14 Lot 24' 449 4. 50."149.6 46 1422 7.0 . . 95 90
248 04/23/14 Lot 46 . ' 511 4 ''50 1496'4.6 '139.6 5.2 93 . 90
249 04/23/14 Lot 45 508 4 50 149.64.6 136.2 6.7 91' 90
250 04/23/14 Lot 44 : 505 4 ,: 50 1496 4.6 :138.0 159 92' 901
ST 251 04/24/14 Lot I' - E ' 402 1 40 130:4 10.3 120.9 ' 11:3 93 90'
ST 252 04/24/14 Lot E 463 I 40 1304 103 1175 121 90 90
253 04/25/14 Corte Claro 1+15 401 I 50 1352 87 1216 122 91 90
254 04/29/14 .CaminOJunipero48+'50 '442 2 50 140.2 62 1311 6.1 . 94 90-
255 04/29/14 Camino Junipero 49+80 436 2 50 140:2 6.2 ' 127.0 .9.3. 91, 90'
256 04/30/14 Lot 51 502 4 . 50 149.6 4.6 ; 135.2 :6.1 90 .90
257 05/05/14 Lot 16 (rear) 427 2 20 129 7 9.5 1202 :111* 93 90
258 05/06/14 .Paseo Encino 1+50 . 4031. 4 .: 50 149:6 4.6 '135.4 70 91 ' 90'
259 05/06/14 Paseo Encino 2+00 406 4 50 149.6 46 136 1 6.8 91 90
260 05/06/14. PaseoEhcino 1+75 ' 409 '4 50: 149.6 46 1369 6.2 ' 92 90
MT 261 05/07/14 Lot 52 468 2 58 1434 52 00 87 0 0
MT 262 05/07/14 Lot 52 479 2 58 1434 52 00 103 0 0
MT 263 05/07/14 Lot 52 479 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 .8 .1 0 0
MT 264 05/07/14 Lot 52 480 2 58 1434 52 00 68 0 0
MT 265 '05108/1 4 Lot. 52 • • . ' . 489. ' 2
, .58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 ''57 :0: 0,1
MT .266 05/08/14' Lot 52' . . 481 .2 58' 143.4 5.2 : ' 0:0. 1 7.5 : 0 0
MT 267 05/08/14 Lot 52 . • . 485 2 58' 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.9' 0 , . 0
MT
--
.268 05/09/14 Lot 52.' • , . ' 490 2 58 ' '143.4 ' 5.2 0:0'' 5.7; 0 ' 0
269 05/12/14 Pasco Encino 1+00 • 404 4 50. 149.6 4.6 1357 5.5 91 90
ST 270 05/12/14 Lot 430 2 20 129.7 9.5 114.3 10.0 88 90
Si' 270 A 05/14/14 Lot 8 430. 2 .20 129.7 9.5 ' :1119.0 9.1' 92 90'
ST 271 05/12/14 Lot, 9/IOPL 424 2 10. 126.5 10.7 : 1.10.3 10.2 87. ' 90
ST 271 A 05/14/14 Lot 9/10 PL 424 . 2 20 1297 .9.5 •' 116.3 ' 10:5 90 90
FG 272 05/13/14 Lot 1 . . .413 4 50. 149.6 ' 4.6 139.2 ' 6.2' 93 90
Project No. G 1517-11-03 . . • .' - . . ' . February 3, .2015
......................i.................... TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev: Plus Field Field Field Req'd.
or 3/4' Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rel. Ret
Depth Curve Rock M'DD OMC Dens. Cont COmp. Comp.
Test No Date Location (ft)No (%) (pci) (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%)
FG 273 05/13/14 Lot 414 4 50' 149.6 '4.6: 134:6 4.4. ', .90 90
FG 274 05/13/14 Lot 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 139:4 6.4. . .93 90
FG 275 05/13/14 Lot 41 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 134:8' 4.4: 90 . 90
276 05/14/14. Lot 52. . 493 4 50 149.6 4.6 138:5 6.6 '. 93 90
277 05/14/14 Lot 52 493 4 50 1496 46 1353 64 90 90
FG 278 05/15/14 'Lot5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.3 4.8 90 90
FG 279 05/15/14 Lot 414 4 50 1496 46 1368 49 91 90
FG 280 05/15/14 Lot 7 . . . 416 4 '50 149.6 4.6 136.7 5:0 . 91 90
FG 281 05/15/14 Lot 8 417 4 50, 149.6 4.6 134.8 6.4 90 90
FG 282 05/15/14 Lot . . 416 4 50 . 149.6 46 134:5 : 5.8 90 90
FG 283 05/15/14 Lot 10 414 .4 50: 149.6 '4:6 135:8 6.6 . 91 90
FG 284 05t15/14 Lot 11 413 4 50 149:6 4.6 135.1 4.9 90. . 90
ST 285 05/19/14 Paseo Encino 7+55 422 1 40 130.4 10.3 120.9 12.4 93 90
ST 286 05/19/14 Pasco Encino . 415 2 30 133:0 8.4 119.3 ''8:2 .90 90.
ST 287 05119/14 PaseoEncino4-125 . 408: 2 30 133:0 8.4 '120.8 ..:108 .91 90:
ST .288 05/19/14 Paseo'Encino 2+00 . 404 2 40 136.5 7:3 123.0 6.9 90 90
289 05/19/14 CorteClaro 3+50 . 410 . 4 50 149.6 4.6. 137.3 6.6 92 .90
290 05/19114 Sitio Conejo 2+00' .407 .4 56 149.6 46 135:0 7.5 : 90 90
291 05/23/14 Lot 50' 507 4 50 1496 46 1362 68 91 90
292 05/27/14 NSlopeon SBasinRcbuild 385 2 30 1330 84 1213 90 91 90
293 . 05/27/14 N Slope on S'Basin Rebuild 390 . 2 .40 136.5 7.3 . 124.4 8.6 91 90,
294 05/27/14 NSlope on SBãsin Rebuild: . . . . 394 ' 1 40 130:4 10.3 122.1 :I2:7 94 90:
295 05/27/14 N Slope on S Basin Rebuild 397 .4 50' 149.6 .4.6 136:0 ' 6.3 . 91 90
:296 05/27/14 N Slope:onS Basin:Rebuild . , 400 ' 4 50 . 149.6 '4.6 137:3 7.2. ' .92 ' 90
297 ' 05/27/I4 N Slope'on'S Basin'Rebuild . ' '402 4 50 149.6 '4:6 135:0' 5.9, 90 90
298 . 05/29/14 Lot 42Parkvay 4 91 4 50 149.6 '4 1381 6.4 92 .90
ST 299 06/02/14 Lot lIE ofOffsite Sewer ' 388 I 30 126.0 12.0 113.0 11.8 90 90
300 06/03/14 PaseoCristal 12+45 503' 4 50 149.6 4:6 139.5 5.6 93 90
301 06/03/14 Paseo Crista'l 10±25 489. 4 50 149:6 . 4.6 ' :137.2 .6 .1 92 90'
302 06/03/14 Lot 29-E 492 ' 4 '50 149.6 .4.6 137.1 53 92 90
303 06/03/14 Lot 34. . ' 476 . 4 50 149.6 4.6 ' 134.1. 6.0 90 . 90
Project No. 61517-11-03 .
'
. . . 'February3, 2015
...............................-...........O
TABLE . . . .
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
'Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd..
or 3/4" Adj. Adj. Dry MOist. Re!. Rel.
Depth Curve Roék MDD OMC Dens. Cont: Comp. Comp.
Test No Date Location (ft):,No (%) (%) (%) (%)
304 .06/03/14 Lot 35.. 480 4 50 . 149.6- :4.6 137.0. : 5.5 92 ... 90
ST 305 06/04/14 Lot 52 . 487 '4 50 149.6 4.6. 137.2 7.9 92 90
ST 306 06/04/14 Lot 52. •. 486 2 50. 140.2 6.2 1298 '93 90
307 06/06/14 Carnino Minero 5+50 471 1' 50' 135.2 87 1216 11.4 91 : 90
308 06/06/14 Camino Minero 6+50 475 1 30 1260 120 1151 127 91 90
309 06/09/14 Caniino'Minero4+25 . 463 1 ' 30 126.0 12.0 .116.1 I2.f 92 90
FG 310 06/09/14 Lot44 506 4 50 1496 46 1342 48 90 90
FG 311 06/09/14 Lot-43 . . 501' 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.5 5:5 90 ' 0
ST 312 06/09/14 Lot 52 S 486 2 30 1330 84 1204 92 91 90
313 06/11/14: Lot 32- 467 4 50 1496 46 1362 51 91 90
3.14 06/11/14 Lot 31 471 : 4 50 149.6 . 4:6 135:9 6.1 91 90
315 06/11/14 Camino Minero 2+30 447 2 50 140:2 6.2 .129.0 .8.2 92 90
316 06/12/14 Lot* 31 463 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.8 '5.2 .91' 90
317 ' 06/12/14 -Lot30 457 ' 4 .50 1496 4.6 ' 134.6 '4:4 90 . 90 '
318 06/12/14 Lot29-Rear . 449.' 4 .50 149:6. 4.6 . ' 135.3 . 5.0 90 90:
'•
'
319 06/12/14 Lot 29- Front '' . ., 449 ' 4. 50 149.6 ''4:6 130:1 ' 3.0 87 ' 90
319A 06/12/14 Lot 29-Front 449 4 50' 149.6 4.6. 136:6 5.7 91 90 '
FG 320 06/12/14 Lot 52..S ' . . ' .494 . '4' 50. 149.6 : 46 134.. 6.3' 90 1. 90 '
FG 321 06/12/14 Lot 52 N 494 4 50 1.49.6 46 1369 62 92 90
ST 322 06/13/14 Lot52 W 488 2 30 1330 84 1210 93 91 90
FG 323 06/17/14 Lot 35 482 4 50 1496 46 1352 58 90 90
FG 324 06/17/14 Lot. 34 477 4 50 1496 46 1356 48 91 90
FG 325 06/17/14 Lot 33 . .. 473 4 50 .149.6 ' '4.6. 138.2. 6.8',: 92 , . 90
FG 326 06/17/.14 'Lot 32 . ' 469 ' 4. 50 149.6 ' 4.6 134:1. 4.5' 90 , : 90 '
FG 327 06/17/14 Lot 31' ' ' 469 4 50 '149.6 4:6 135:0. ' 6.0' 90 ' 90
FG 328 06/17/14 Lot 30' . 459 4 50 . .149.6 4.6 134:2 6.1 ' 90 90
FG 329 06/17/14 Lot 29 451' 4 50 149:6 4.6 136.1 5.6 91 90
ST 330 06/27/14 Paseo Encino 9+00 430 I 10 117.9 15.3 :101.4 10.6 86' 90
ST 330A 06/30/14 Pasco Encino '9+00 . . 430' . I 1 20 121:8 13.6 i.11.6 .14.0 92 90 '
331 07/03/14 Lot 19- Rear . 449 2 50, 140.2 6.2 ' 126.3 7:3 90 90 r
332 07/09/14 Pressure Red Station Pad/Footing. 432 4 50 i 149.6 '. 4.6 135.3 8.7 90 90
Project No. G15 17-11-03 February 3,:2015 , . ': ' . . '
•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••.•••.•••••.
TABLE
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
.
Curve
No
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
Adj.
MDD
(pet)
Adj.
OMC
(%)
Field
Dry
Dens.
(pet)
Field
Moist.
Cont:
(%)
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
. Req'd..
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
333 08/21/14 Detention Basin E Slope: 390 2. 30 133.0 :8.4 120.4 9.2 91 ... 90
SZ 334 10101/14 Corner of Lots 20/24 Wall Footing : ' 431 2 40:: 136.5 7.3 126.0 9.6 .. 92 90
335 01/09/15 Lot 49 507 4 50 1496 46 1372 84 92 90
336, 01/09/15 Lot 49 . 508 .. 4. 50:- 149.6 .4.6 13710 8.1 92 . :90
337 01/09/15 Lot 49 . 509' 4 50 14916 4.6 '134.4 :7.2 90' 90''
338 .01112/15 Lot48 : 507 ', 4 50 149.6 4.6 :135.7 8.9 91 90
339 01/12/15 Lot 48 508 4 50 1496 46 A35.9 86 91 90
340 01/12/15 Lot 48 508 4 50 1496 46 1376 72 92 90
341 01/16/.15 Lot 47 ' 510 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.3, 8.3' ' 91 ' 90
342 01/16/15 Lot 47 511 4 50 1496 46 1361 81 91 90
343 01/16/15 Lot 47 511 4 50 1496 46 1380 72 92 90
344 01/16/15 Lot 47 ' 510 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.8 7.5 92 90
FG 345 01/19/15 Lot SI , 503' , 4 ' 50 149.6 4.6 139.9 :6.1 94 90
FG 346 .01/19/15 Lot 50 ' ' : ' 508: 4 50 149:6 4.6 :136.4 8:7 91 ' 90.
FG .347 01/19/I5 Lot 49 . : 510. 4.: 50 149:6 4.6 .' '139.4 813 93 . ' 90'
'
FG 348 01/19/I5 Lot 48 ' ' '509 4. 50 ' 149.6 ' 46 139:6 8.6 93 90 '
FG '349 01/19/15 Lot 47 512 4 50 ' 149.6 - 4:6 136:6 8.9 .91 ' 90
FG 350 01/19/15 Lot 46. 512 4 50 1496 46 1378 93 92 90
FG 35 F 01/19/15 Lot 45 509 4 50 1496 46 1423 66 95 90
FG 352 01/28/15 Lot 33 473 4 50 1496 46 1394 76 93 90
FG 353 01/28/15 Lot 34 477 4 50 1496 46 1402 81 94 90
FG 354 01/28/15 Lot 35 481 4 50 1496 46 1363 73 91 90
,FG 355 01/28/15 Lot 43. : 472 .4' 50 . 149.6 :4.6: 139.6 : 10.4 .93 . 90 '
Project No. G 1517-I1 -03 ' . . . .. . , . . ' . .. February 3",2015 -
..................................i....i..
1ABLEI.
:EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
TEST SUFFIX :• - :' :
A, B, C, Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction
-TRiKL-OiJT.
Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil
PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
FG FINISH GRADE MT - MOISTURE TEST
ST SLOPE TEST SZ -c-SLOPE ZONE
CURVE NO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content test results table 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 wef.e:adjuste& for rock content For tests with rock content equal to zero laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted
TYPE OF TEST
SC Sand Cone Test (ASTM D 1556)
NU: NuclearDensity-Test (ASTM U 6938 and D 2950)
OT Other
- ELEVATION/DEPTH.
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot
Project No. G1517-11-03 February 3' 2015
Maximum Optimum
Sample No Description , Dry Density Moisture Content
. (pc (% dry weight)
SI Olive Olivebrown, Silty CLAY with some fine to coarse gravel 114.3 16.9.
2 . :: Red brown, fine tocoarse Sandy CLAY . : ___.123.5 11.8
Grayish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND with gravel 120 8 13.8 and cobble . .
Dark reddish brown; fine to coarse Sandy GRAVEL with 1349 8.6
. .5 clay and cobble .
Dark yellowish brown Clayey, poorly graded GRAVEL5. 137 6 8 1 with some sand . . . . .
Dry Density Moisture Content (%) .. . Peak lUltimatel Peak [Ultimate]
.. Initial After Test
Sample No. . (pct) . . Cohesion (is.t) Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
5* 127.3 . . 7.6 . :14.8 820.[64 5] 26 [26]
• .. • .. •
•
TABLE 11
. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY . . S
AND.OPTIMUM MOISTURECONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
w . .. . -*Sample remolded to a dry density of approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near
optimum moisture content. • • •
S
S • • •
S
S •
.
Project No. G 1517-11-03 . February 4, 2015 •
.
Sample No.
Moisture Content (%)
. D Density : (j)cf)
Expansion
Index
Soil
. . Expansion
Classification
2010 CBC
Expansion
Classification
.
Before Test After Test
El -I 79 174 1172 29 Low Expansive
El-2 . 7.1 . 12.4 123.5. 8 Very Low Non-Expansive
El-3 6.7 13 3 121 8 2 Very Low Non Expansive
EI4 . .8.8 19.2 115.3 . .45 LOW Expansive
El -5 80 180 1171 34 Low Expansive
El-6 .6.Q .11.5.. 125.0 . .3 . . Very Low Non-Expansive
E1-7 .7.8 .15.9 .:, 119.0 .1 21.. Low Expansive
El-8 . 8.3 16.1 118.3 28 . Low Expansive1
El-9 .. . 7.2 14.0 1195 10 Very Low, Non-Expansive
El 10 82 161 1153 15 Very Low Non Expansive
El-I1 6.9 13.5 121.2 4 Very Low Non-Expansive
.EI42 . 8.1 16.3 117;4 . 19 Very Low Non'-Expansive
.El-13 . . 8.0 15.4. . . 116.8 . 12 Very Low Non-Expansive
El-14 . . 5.9 . 12.7 1.27.7 23 Low ExpanivC
EL-IS .. 8.1 . 17.5 116.4 37 Low Expansive
.El-16 96 192 1110 38 Low Expansive
Project No. 61517-I 1-03 February 4, 2015
TABLE
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST 417
Sample No Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Severity
El-i : . 0.026... .• I Not Applicable (SO)
El-2 0.016 Not Applicable (SO)
EI-3 . . . 0.005 Not Applicable (SO)
E14 . 0.021 . NotApplicable.(SO)
El-S •. . . 0.021 Not Applicable (SO)
El-6 0.033, Not Applicable (SO)
E1-7 0 027 Not Applicable (SO)
EI-8 .. 0.016 Not Applicable (SO)
E19 ... . .0.011 .. Not Applicable (SO)
0.006 . Not Applicable (SO)
El-11 0.013 . . .. Not Applicable (SO)
El-12 . 0.028 Not Applicable (SO)
El-13 . . 0.026; . . Not Applicable (SO)
El-14 0.014 Not Applicable (SO)
El-15 . 0.035 Not Applicable (SO)
'El-16 .0.031 ..Not Applicable (SO)
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION CONTENT TEST RESULTS.
AASHTO TEST NO. T 291
Sample No. . . Chloride Ion Content(%) . Chloride Ion content (ppm)
El-3 - 0.015 151
Project No. G 1517-11 -03 .
.
February 4, 2015
• •
Project No. G1517-I 1-03 February 4, 2015
-
( •
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSIO
BLACKSTONE. RANCH LOTS I THROUGH
Lot No. Sample at
Finish Grade .
Expansion Index
.
...
Expansion
Classification
2010 CBC Expansion
........... Classification.
1 and 2 ... .. -Et-9 . . 1.0 . . Very Low Non-Expansive
3. through 7 . .. .El-12 : •: :19 Ver' Low NóñExpansive
8 and 9. EI:14 23 . Low . Expansive
lOalid II , -1 . 12 VeryLd'v Non-Expansive
15 and 16 EI4 45 Low Expansive
17.and 18: EI-5. 34 . Low .1: Expansive
19 El-8' 28 Low Expansive
20: through 22 . . . . El-6 . . 3 : Very Low I Non-Expansive
23:. EI-8 . 21 : Low Expansive
.24 and 25 EI-10 . 15 Very. Low Non,-Expansive
26 and 27 . : : El-Il : :. 41 Very Ldw. . Non-Expansive
28 E110 : . 15 . . Very Low Non-expansive
29 through 35 : E115 : 37 Low Expansive
36 -El-7 21 Low Expansive
37 and 38 El-2 29 I.,• Low . Expansive
39 through 41 El-I 8 Very- Low Non-Expansive
42: through 44 . . :Ei-3 . 2 . . . Wry Low Non-Expansive
45 and 46: El. 14 . .. 23 . Low Expansive
47 through 50 EI-I6 :• 38 . Low' . . Expansive
51 .
: EI714 23 LOW . Expansive
52 El 15 37 Low Expansive
Project No. G1517-I 1-03 February 4, 2015
TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORIES
BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS I THROUGH 11 AND 15 THROUGH 52
Lot No; Pad Condition
Approximate
Maximum
. Depth of Fill
(feet)
Approximate
Maximum
. . Differential Fill
Thickness (feet)
Expansion
. Index
Recommended
Foundation
Category
1... Fill Pad 34 24 . 10 [11
2 Fill Pad 27. 14 . 10 11
3 Undercut Transition Lot 18 13 19 11
4 : Undercut Lot 5 . .. 2 w 19 I
5 lUndercut Lot :5 2 19 1
6 Undercut Transition Lot 6 . 3 19 . .1
7 .: Undercut Lot 6 : 3 . 19 1!
8 Undercut Lot 7. 0 4 . 23 1
9 Undercut Transition Lot 23 . 20 23 ILl.
Pad .27 . 22 12 . 111
II : Fill Pad 32 16. 12 . ii
15 .• . Fill Pad .. 39 . IS . :45 1•1
16 Fill Pad 39 20 45 111
17 : FilIPad 28 l0. 34 . II
18 Fill Pad 31 15 34 11
19 .. Fill Pad . . 32 . 21 28 111
20 : Fill Pad 18 . 10 3 . 11
21 Fill Pad 19 13 3 11
22 . Fill Pad . 17 12 . 11
23 Fill Pad 21 18 21 Il
24
lU ...Fill
Fill Pad 23 : II . IS II
.25 Fill Pad . 18 II .
0 15 11
26 Undercut Transition Lot 7 4 4 1
27 Undercut Transition Lot 6 . 3 . 4
28 - Undercut Transition Lot 4 I . 15 1
29 Undercut Transition Lot 4 I 37 1
30 Undercut Lot . 5 2 37 I
31 Undercut Lot 5 2 37
32 Undercut Lot 4 . I 37 1
33 Undercut Lot 4 1 .
34 Undercut Lot .
A.
. 1 37 - 1
35 0 Undercut Lot 4 1 . 37
Project No. GI5I7-I 1-03
S
,
February 4, 2015
. . S
TABLE IX (Concluded)
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORIES
BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS I THROUGH 11 AND 15 THROUGH 52
•
Lot No.
:.
. Pad Condition
Aprôximate
Maximum
. Depth of Fill
(feet)
Aiprxithate
Maximum \
. Differential Fill
Thickness (feet)
Expansion
. Index
Recommended
Foundation
Category,
36 .. Undercut Transition Lot .16 .13 21 U
37 : Fill Pad 32 1 24 29
38 Fill Pad 22 21 29 Ill
39 . Undercut Transition Lot 12 . 8 •• 8
40 Undercut Transition Lot 4 I 8
41 • Undercut Lot 4: A. 8 .
42 Undercut Lot • • 5 2 • 2 1
43 Undercut Lot 4 1 2
44 • Undercut, Lot . 5: .. 2 . 2 : I
45 Undercut Lot 4 1 23 1
46 • Undercut Lot • . 2 • • 23 1
.47 Undercut Lot : . :4 .. • 38 . I
48 Undercut Lot • : • • 38
49 Undercut Lo " .4 -I ... 38
50 Undercut Lot 5 2 38 1
SI • : 'Undercut Lot :
. . I : • 23 • I
52 Undercut Transition Lot 23 20 37 III
S
—
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALE
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 120' 160'
SCALE I"= 40'
GEOCON LEGEND
Mz u ........ METAVOLCANIC ROCK
(Dotted Where Buried)
....... FG-355. APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSITYIMOISTURE TEST
FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test
**.% .a ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN
A fi ....... APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN
7 ....... STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINTING
AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP
BLACKSTONE RANCH
I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I
SEE SHEET 2
PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 55E-6159 1 SHEET 1 OF 3
YWROJECTSUjl517-1103(8Bdrdms Rnch)lSHEETSG1517-l(.OJOeo Mq (UpdON4-2015)dup
SEE SHEET 7 lT\\T------- 1
SEE SHEET 3
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALE
SCALE I"= 40'
GEOCON LEGEND
Mz u ........ METAVOLCANIC ROCK
(Dotted Where Buried)
FG355. ....... APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSlTYlMOlSTURE TEST
FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test
\a ....... APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN
A ........ fi APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN
AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP
BLACKSTONE RANCH
I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I GEOCON &+ lW=40' IDATE02-04-2015
PHONE 858 5584900 -FAX 858 5584159 1 SHEET 2 OF 3
Y.-ECmGl517-1143 lJ~&?WaT5(0151T-ll~Oao Map opd 020M)lS~
I INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
6960 WS DRM - SAN DIEGO, CAWNIA 92121 - 2974
PROJECT NO. I G1517-11-03
3
SEE SHEET 2
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SEE SHEET 2
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
GRA PHlC SCALE
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 120' 160'
SCALE I"= 40'
GEOCON LEGEND
MZ u ........ METAVOLCAN'C ROCK
(Dotted Where Buried)
FG-355. APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSIWMOISTURE TEST ........
FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test
**\ **. -,- ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN
A fi ........ APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN
I AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP
BLACKSTONE RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
6960 RANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G1517-1.1-03 31
Y:WROJECTS\G1517-11-03 (Blackdons Ranch)\SnE~1517-l1-m3 Geo Map (Upd 02Ob2015)dyl