The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 02-17; BLACKSTONE RANCH; INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING & OBSERVATION DURING GRADING; 2014-08-25INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING GRADING OPERATIONS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS I THROUGH II, 15 THROUGH 44, AND 52 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA WEST COMMUNITIES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 25, 2014 PROJECT NO. G1517-11-03 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS PrójectNo. G1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 California West Communities 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Jack Hepworth Subject: INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING GRADING OPERATIONS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, 15 THROUGH 44, AND. 52 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Hepworth: In accordance with your request, we. have prepared this interim report of grading to summarize our testing and observation services and to provide recommendations for the continued development of Blackstone Ranch located in Carlsbad, California The grading of Lots 1 through 11, 15 through 44 and 52 have been completed and is the subject of this report The grading for Lots 45 through 51 is not yet completed. We performed our services during the period of December 26, 2013 through July 9, 2014 The scope of our services included Observing the grading operations including 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 subdrains 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 interim report of grading for the referenced lots only. 6960 Flanders Drive • Son Diego CaliFornia 92121 2974 U Telephone 858 558 6900 U Fax 858 558 6159 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 from Rancho Santa Fe Road. The lots were rough graded for proposed construction of one to two-story, single-family residential structures. Pennick IncoEporated of El Cajon, California performed the mass grading operations. Grading plans for the prOject are entitled Grading Plans for: CT 02-17 Shelley Property Fair Oaks Valley prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated November 14, 2013 The project geotechnical report is titled Update Geotechnical Investigation, Shelley Property, Carlsbad, California prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 26, 2006 (Project No 06721-52-02) and Update Geotéchnical Letter, Fair Oaks/Shelley Property, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 28, 2012 (Project No G1517-1 1-n0l) 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, soilrock 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 requirements 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 and 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; G 1517 11 03 2 August 25, 2014 Geologic Map (Figure 1). 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 D 4718 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 A) 1557) and shear strength (ASTM 3080). In addition, we obtained soil samples at fi5h grade to evaluate expansion potential (ASTM D 4829), water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417) and water-solUble chloride ion content (AASHTO Test No. 291). 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] of 20 or less and greater than 20, respectively) as defined by 2010 California Building Code (CBC) Section 19615.3. 3 Table 1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Based on the laboratory test results, the finish grade soil encountered 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 1, 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 , , Very High Project No. G1517-li-03 ' -3- ' August 25, 2014 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 ion content 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 susceptibleto 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 Quc on Figure 1) 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 (Figure 1) 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 uncommon for groundwater or seepage ôonditions 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 G1517-11-03 ' 4 August 25, 2014 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is our opinion that the soil engineering 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 diing 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 Metavolcanic Rock (Mzu) underlies the compacted fill and is exposed at finish grade in 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 We 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 0.2 second. The residential structures can be designed using Site Class C where 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 1.6 13.5.5. Table VII provides the site class for each lot. Project No;G1517-1I-03 . . . . August 25, 2014 TABLE 2 2010 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2010 CBC Reference Site Class C P Table 16 13.5.2 Fill Thickness, T (feet) T<20 T?L20 Spectral Response - Class B (short), Ss 1.097g 1.097g Figure 16 13.5(3) Spectral Response —ClassB(1 sec) S1 0411g 0411g Figure 1613 5(4) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 1.061 Table 1613.5.3(1) Site Coefficient, F I.. . 1.3.89 . 1.589 Table 1613.5.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake 1.097g . 1.163g Section 1613.5.3 Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS .. . (Eqn 16-36) Maximum Considered Earthquake 0.571g 0.653g Section 1613.5.3 Spectral Response Acceleration —(1 sec), SM, (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design 0. 731 g 0 776 g Section 1613.5.4 Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS . (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design 0381 g 0 435 g Section 1613.5.4 Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), S1 (Eqn 16739) 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. 3.6 Post Tensioned 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 Idesign 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 the proposed 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. G1517-11-03 6 August25, 2014 TABLE 3.1 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA Foundation Category Maximum Fill Thickness, T (feet) Differential Fill Thickness, D (feet) Expansion Index (El) I T<20 -- EI<50 II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90 III 1>50 D>20 90<EI<130 3.3 The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical 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 PTI, 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 i ii m Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 Equilibrium Suction 3.9 .3.9 .. 3.9 Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, e (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9 Edge Lift, YM (inches). . .0.61 1.10 1.58 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 . 9.0 . 9.0 Center Lift YM (inches) 1 0.30 0.47 0.66 3.4 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than the 2010 CBC: The deflection criteria presented in Table 3.2 are still applicable. Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III. 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 I, II, 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. G1517-11-03 7 . . August 25, 2014 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 ithe 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. 3.6 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 Categoiy I, II, Or III 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 in 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 ½-inch. 3.8 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 III Isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams 3.9 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, 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. 3.10 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used t store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufaturer'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, and/Or developer. It is typical to have 3 inches of sand for 54nch thick slabs in the southern California area. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate Project No. G1517-11-03 ', - August 25, 2014 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 slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations preséntéd on the foundation plans. 1-12 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, 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 .ar.e planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), speôial 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 least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the pool plans and the specific site conditions to provide additional recommendations, if necessary. 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 swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face should be designed assuming nt that the adj ace soil provides no lateral support. Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, 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. 3.14 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions 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. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slunp of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. Project No. G1517-ll-03 : August 2•5,2014 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 unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundätiôn modifications may be required. 3.16 Special subgrade presaturation is.not 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. 3.17 , 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. 3.18 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. 3.19 •Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations 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 Ipotential for cracking In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/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 into 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 optimum moisture content Subgrade soil should be tested pnor 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 NoiG15i711-O3 ' ' IO- ' . . August25,2014 3.21 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab 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 the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. 3.22 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 40 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 pounds 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 .ofthe wall possess an El of 50 or less. 4.2 Unrestrained Walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001 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 added to the 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 pressure 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 peak site acceleration of 0.29g calculated from the modified deign parameters (SDS/2.5) applying a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.5. 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. G1517-11-03 . - Il: . August 25, 2014 4 5 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied The amount of lateral deflection is dependant 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 iand 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 Mirafi 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 draiiiáge 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, all 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 such a condition is expected. 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 (pcf) 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 pressuie, 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. GI51741-03 , . ' -1-2- ' August'25, 2014 5.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowble coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 should be used for design. 60 Slope Maintenance 6.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (suficial) 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 fil.l 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 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. Detnmental 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. GI517-11-03 S 1:3: August 25, 2014 polyethylene, I-iDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil, or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC, liner). The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations The subdrarn 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 liner where the perforated pipe is connected to solid pipe The subdrain should be connected to a proper Outlet. 7.4 If not properly constructed, there is a potential 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 and 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 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 uncontrolled 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. G1517-il-03 14- August 25, 2014 a TABLE] SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No Date Location Elèv. or Depth f Curve No Plus 3/4" Rock (%) Adj. MDD (pcf) Adj-. OMC (%) Field Dry Dens. (pcf) Field Moist. Cont. (%) Field: Rel., Comp. (%) Reqd. Rel. Comp. (%) SZ 1 12/26/13 E of Paseo Encino 6+60 408 2 10 126.5 10.7 114.8 11.8 91 90 SZ 2 12/26/13 E of Paseo Encino 6+20 402 2 30 133.0 8.4 120.6 11.0 91 90 SZ 3 12/26/13 E of Paseo Encino 5+30 398 2 30 133.0 8.4 121.4 10.2 91 90 SZ 4 12/26/13 E of Paseo 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 30 133.0 8.4 120.5 12.9 91 90 SZ 6 12/27/13 Lot 15 405 2 10 126.5 10.7 114.7 14.7 91 90 SZ 7 12/27/13 E'ofPaseo Encino-6+30 409 2 30 133.0 8.4 121.9 10.9 92 90 SZ 8 12/27/13 Paseo Cristal 1+30 410 2 30 133.0 8.4 120.2 13.7 90 90 9 12/30/13 Paseo Encino 7+65 414 1 10 117.9 15.3 108.7 19.1 92 90 10- 12/30/13 Paseo Encino . 412 1 10 117.9 15.3 109.9 18.7 93 90 11 12/30/13 Paseo Encino 7+50 417 1 10 1179 153 1107 198 94 90 12 12/30/13 Paseo Encino 6+00 414 1 0 114.3 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 Paseo Encino 2+90 5 384 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 10.7 0 0 MT 15 12/31/13 E of Paseo Encino 3+90 5 387 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 12.2 0 0 MT 16 12/31/13 PaseoEnçino4+90 398 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 8.7 0 0 MT 17 12/31/13 Lot 15 394 2 50 1402 62 00 93 0 0 MT 18 01/02/14.S Lot 16 . 398 . . 2 50 140.2 . 6.2 0.0 9.1 0 . 0 MT 19 01/02/14 Lot 15 399 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 10.7 0 0 MT 20 01/02/14 Lot 11 5 391 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 8.3 0 0 MT 21 01/02/14 Slope E of Paseo Encino 2+50 380 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 10.8 0 0 22 01/03/14 Slope E of Paseo Encino 2+25 383 1 0 114.3 16.9 103.1 18.9 90 90 23 01/03/14 Slope E of Paseo Encino 4+25 393 1 0 114.3 16.9 105.6 18.4 92 90 MT 24 .01/03/14 Lot 15 402 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 8.7 0 0 MT 25 01/03/14 Paseo Encino 2+00 . 396 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 7.9 0 0 MT 26 01/06/14 Paseo Encino 3+50 399 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.3 0 0 MT 27 01/06/14 Camino Junipero 52+87 399 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.6 0 0 MT 28 01/06/14 Lot 15 462 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.9 0 0 MT 29 01/06/14 Paseo Encino 4+75 402 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.6 0 0 MT 30 01/07/14 Paseo Cristal 1+40 411 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.7 0 0 MT 31 01/07/14 Lot 15 405 2 58 143.4 5.2 .0.0 7.3 0 0 Project No. G1517-1 1-03 August 25, 2014 OO•SS•SISS•SSS•S•.••SS•••SO••IS••S•ISS• TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test -No. Date Location •. Elev. or Depth Curve . No. Plus 3/4" Rock (%) Adj: MDD (pcf) Adj OMC (%) Field Dry Dens. . (pcf) Field Moist. Cont. (%) Field:. Rel.. Comp. (%). Req'd. Rel. Comp- (%) MT 32 01/07/14 Lot 15 413 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.2 0 0 MT 33 01/07/14 Lot 20 . 417 2 58 143.4 . 5.2 0.0 6.9 . 0 0 MT 34 01/07/14 Lot 15 410 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.3; . 0 0 MT 35 01/08/14 Lot 17 . 410 2 58 143.4 5.2 .0.0 7.6 0 0 MT 36 01/08/14 Lot 16 406 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.0 0 0 MT 37 01/08/14 Lot 17 . 413 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.9 0 0 MT 38 01/08/14 Lot 16 409 2 ; 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 6.5 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 0.0 6.4 0 0 MT 41 01/09/14 Lot 16 . . 415 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.0 0 0 MT 42 01/09/14 PaseoCristal 2+20 . . . . .416 . 2 58 143.4 1 5.2 0.0 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 15 . . 411 .. 2 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 8.5 0 . 0 45 01/10/14 Paseo Encino 6+40 . 415. 2 - 20 129.7 9.5 . 120.7 :11.9 93 90 MT 46 01/10/14 Lot 17 420 2 58 1434 52 00 92 0 0 MT 47 01/10/14 Lot 16 . 418 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.8 0 0 MT 48 01/10/14 Lot 15 . 417 2 58 143.4 5.2 00 8.5 0 0 MT 49 01/13/14 -Lot 17 . . . 422 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.5 0 . 0 : MT 50 01/13/14 Lot 16 . 420 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.6 0 0 MT 5101/.13/14 Lot 15 417 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.3 0 0 MT 52 01/13/14 Lot 18 . 421 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.1 0 0 MT 53 01/13/14 Lot 19 . . 425 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 3.0 0 0 MT 53 A 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 0.0 7.2 0 . 0 MT 55 01/14/14 Lot 19 427 2 58 1434 52 00 59 0 0 MT 56 01/14/14 Lot 37 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 428 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.5 0 0 MT 57 01/14/14 Lot 19 . . . 426 2 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 . 8.6 0 0 MT 58 01/14/14 Lot 19 . . 428 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.7 0 0 MT 59 01/15/14 Lot 37 . . 437 2 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 8.5 0 0 MT 60 01/15/14 Lot 37 434 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.6 0 0 MT 61 01/15/14 Camino Bello 2+25 . 435 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.3 0 0 Project No. G1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 000S••S•lillàs'Ss•SS•I••OO•S••IS•I••1•ISO•S••• 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. Comp. Comp. Test -No. Date Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pc (%) (%) (%) 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 Minero 2+20 442 2 0 123.5 11.8 112.0 13.9 91 90 64 01/16/14 Camino Minero 2+95 S 449 2 0 123.5 11.8 113.1 13.5 92 . 90 65 01/16/14 PaseoCristal 1+55 417 2 0 123.5 11.8 113.3 12.7 92 90 66 01/16/14 Paseo Cristal 4+20 433 2 10 126.5 10.7 116.9 10.8 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 • . S 438 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.2 0 0 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 MT71 01/17/14 Lot 37 448 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.2 0 0 72 01/21/14 Lot 29 449 1 0 114.3 16.9 104.3 18.7 91 90 SZ 73 01/21/14 Lot 37 444 1 0 114.3 16.9 100.6 19.6 88 90 SZ 73A 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 • 116.8 11.1 92 90. 75 01/21/14 Lot 31 462 1 0 1143 169 1042 169 91 90 76 01/22/14 CaminoMinero4+10 458 1 0 114.3 16.9 102.6 21.4 90 90 SZ 77 01/22/14 Lot 38 5 457 1 0 114.3 16.9 105.0 17.5 92 90 SZ 78 01/22/14 :Lot 37 450 1 0 114.3 16.9 103.8 17.2 91 90 MT 79 01/22/14 Lot 21 424 2 40 136.5 7.3 0.0 10.8 0 0 MT80 01/23/14 Lot 37 449 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.7 0 0 MT 81 01/23/14 Lot 38 456 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.3 0 0 MT 82 01/23/14 Lot 38 460 2 58 143.4 5.2 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 Paseo Encino 5+25 417 1 10 117.9 15.3 108.0 16.3 92 90 87 01/27/14 Lot 15 422 1 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 1 0 114.3 16.9 103.3 19.0 90 90 90 01/28/14 Camino Bello 2+55 446 2 40 136.5 7.3 123.8 12.7 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 August 25, 2014 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS fev. Plus Field Field Field: Req'd. or 3/4" Adj.: Adj. Dry Moist. Rel, Rel.. Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. comp. Comp. Test No Date Locaflon (ft) No (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) 92 01/30/14 Lot 19 446 2 10 126.5 10.7 117.6 11.4 93 90 93 01/30/14 Camino Bello 2+60 450 2 0 123.5 11.8 112.9 12.7 91 90 SZ 94 01/30/14 Lot 37 453 1 10 117.9 15.3 107.8 17.4 91 90 95 01/31/14 Lot 38 . 464 1 0 114.3 16.9 105.7 20.7 92 . 90 96 01/31/14 Lot 472 2 0 123.5 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. 40 146.4 5.4 : 131.1 8.0 90 90 98 02/03/14 Pàseô Encino 5+50 412 4 40 146.4 5.4 132.3 7.1 90 90 99 02/03/14 Paseo Encino 6+85 418 4 30 1433 62 1297 64 91 90 MT 100 02/04/14 Camino Junipero 52+10 . 399 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.3 0 0 MT 101: 02/04/14 Lot 11 . 393 2 58 . 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.9 0 0 MT 102 02/04/14 Lot 11 387 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.0 0 0 MT 103 02/05/14 Camino Junipero 51+60 405 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.3 0 0 MT 104 02/05/14 Camino Junipero 52+20 . 403 2 58 143.4 5.2. 0.0 8.5 0 0 MT 105 02/05/14 Lot 11 401 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 10.7 0 0 106 02/06/14 Camino Junipero48+O0 491 2 0 123.5 111.8 109.5 14.1 89 90 106A 02/06/14 Camino Junipero 48+00 491 2 0 123.5 11.8 111.1 13.9 90 90 107 . 02/07/14 Paseo Cristal 2+85 425 4. 50 149.6 4.6 138.9 5.7 93 90 108 02/07/14 Paseo Cristal 4+70 . 437 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.6 6.7 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 50 149.6 4.6 136.5 5.2 91 90 111 02/07/14 . Paseo Encino 9+00 409 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.6 5.8 92 90 MT 112 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 ----------------------- 115 02/12/14 Lot 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 478 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.3 6.1 90 90 116 02/12/14 Lot 41 . . 486 4 50 149.6 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 Paseo Cristal 8+10 468 3 0 120.8 13.8 110.3 14.1 91 90 SZ 119 02/14/14 Lot 23 458 2 10 126.5 10.7 115.8 11.3 92 90 SZ 120 02/14/14 Lot 21 446 1 0 114.3 16.9 107.1 18.4 94 90 Project No. G1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 ôs•eó• •ààã... awe ._..... 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 :Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test-No. Date Location (ft) No. (°"°) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) MT 121 02/18/14 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 123 02/19/14 Camino Junipero 51+90 410 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.6 0 0 MT 124 02/19/14 Camino Junipero 5 1+00 411 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.3 0 0 MT 125 02/19/14 CaminoJunipero5I+45 414 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.7 0 0 MT 126 02/19/14 Camino Junipero 5l+45 415 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.9 0 0 SZ 127 02/20/14 Paseà Encino 7+15 420. 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.5 7.5 90 90 SZ 128 02/20/14 Paseo Encino 8+90 424 4 40 146.4 5.4 132.6 7.7 91 90 129 02/20/14 Paseo Encino 8+35 428 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.6 9.2 90 90 130 02/20/14 PaseoEncino9+40 429 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.1 8.6 90 90 MT 131 02/24/14 Camino Junipero 5l+10 421 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 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 16 421 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 CaminoJunipero49+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 0.0 10.2 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 5.4 131.6 10.0 90 . 90 139 02/26/14 Lot 39 . 472 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.9 7.0 91 90 140 02/27/14 Lot 458 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.6 8.0 90 90 141 02/27/14 Lot 38 464 4 40 146.4 5.4 134.4 7.3 92 90 142 03/03/14 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 Junipero 50+30 . 426 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.5 7.0 90 90 145 03/03/14 CaminoJuñipero51+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 4.6 136.1 6.6 91 90 147 03/05/14 Lot 42 493 5 50 151.5 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 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.8 0 0 MT 151 03/06/14 Detention Basin 382 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.9 0 0 Project No. G1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 .. ......• I TABLE] 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. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. . (%) (pcf). (%) (pct) (%) (%) (%) 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 50 149.6 4.6 139.5 6.7 93 90 155 03/07/14 Lot 21 434 5 50 151.5 4.3 139.2 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 11.8 110.8 12.3 90 90 18 03/11114 Lot 23 452 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 6.9 91 90 159 03/11/14 Lot 36 : 466 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.1 6.4 90 90 160 03/11/14 Lot 15 426 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.6 7.3 93 90 161 03/11/14 Lot 16 428 4 50 149.6 4.6 133.9 5.6 90 162 03/11/14 Lot 17 433 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.0 6.4 90 90 SZ 163 03/12/14 SDetention Basin - E 387 1 0 114.3 16.9 102.4 19.6 90 90 SZ 164 03/12/14 S Detention Basin - E 385 1 0 114.3 16.9 103.6 : 17.8 91 90 MT 165 03/13/14 S Detention Basin .. 381 1 50 135.2 8.7 0.0 12.3 0 0 SZ 166 03/14/14 S Detention Basin - S 389 1 0 114.3 16.9 102.6 17.1 90 90 SZ 167 03/14/14 SDetentionBasin - E 384 3 10 123.0 12.5 112.1 13.71. 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 Camino Junipero - N Corner 49+75 . 438 1 0 114.3 16.9 107.6 16.8 94 90 170 03/17/14 Camino Junipero - N Corner 48+45 .. 444 1 0 114.3 16.9 104.5 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 11 . 389 1 50 135.2 8.7 0.0 11.9 0 MT 173 03/20/14 Lot 10 . 400 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 .. 6.7 0 0 MT 174 03/20/14 Lot 10 407 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.3 0 0 MT 175. 03/20/14 Lot 11 . .. 403 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.1 0 0 MT 176 03/20/14 Lot 11 407 2 58 143.4 5.2 00 6.3 0 0 177 03/21/14 S Sewer Easement 395 2 10 126.5 10.7 113.7 15.1 90 90 178 03/21/14 Paseo Encino l+50 400 2 10 126.5 10.7 114.3 14.7 .90 90 179 03/21/14 Corte Claro 1+30 . 399 1 10 117.9 15.3 107.8 17.0 . 91 90 MT 180 03/21/14 Lot 11 409 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.7 0 0 FG - 181 03/21/14 Lot 39 474 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.1 5.0 90 90 FG 182 03/21/14 Lot 40 . 480 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.8 6.4 91 90 Project No. G1517-11-03 . August 25, 2014 ...........•...•••..........s••.s.... TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS E!ev. Plus . Field Field Field. Reqd. or 3/4" Adj. ' Adj: Dry Moist. Rel., Rel.' Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (ft) No. (4) (pef) (%) (pet) FG 183 03/21/14 Lot 41 487 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.4 6.3 90 90 MT 184 03/24/14 Lot I - E ' 490 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7,1 0 0 MT 185 03/24/14 Lot 2 - E 388 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.8 0 ' 0 MT 186 03/24/14 Lot 2 393 2 58 ' 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.3 0 0 FG 187 03/24/14 Lot 42 ' ' 495 4 50 ' 149.6 4.6 135.1 5.3 90 '90 MT 188 03/24/14 Lot 1------ 396 1 -- - -8 139.2 7.4 0.0 10.5 0 0 SZ 189 03/25/14 Lot 2'-E ' ' ' 390 2 ' '10 126.5 10.7 115.8 11.6 92 90 SZ 190 03/25/14 Lot 1-E ' 391 2 10 126.5 10.7 ' 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 1 0 114.3 16.9 104.2 18.2 91 90 ST 193 03/25/14 Lot 39 ' ' ' 466 1 40 130.4 . 10.3 118.5 9.6 91 90 ST 194 03/25/14 Lot 38 ' 458 1 50 135.2 8.7 122.3 9.4 90 90 MT 195 03/25/14 Lot I ' : ' 398 2 . 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 ', 5.3 . 0 ' , 0 MT 196 03/25/14 Lot ' ' 397 258 143.4 5.2 ' 0.0 '6.0 ''0' ''0 MT 197 03/26/14 Lot 2 403 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 1.5 0 0 MT 198 03/26/14 Lot I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 403 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.1 0 0 ST 199 03/26/14 Lot 37 452 1 20 121.8 13.6 110.9 14.1 91 90 FO 200 03/27/14 Lot 37 .459 4 20 140.4 7.0 129.3 7.4 92 90 FG 201 03/27/14 Lot 38 466 4 20 140.4 7.0 126.6 7.8 90 90 MT 202 03/27/14 Lot 1 409 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 11.1 0 0 MT 203 03/27/14 Lot 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 409 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.7 0 :0 SZ 204 03/28/14 Lot 1-E ' 401 1 20 121.8 13.6 110.1 ' 16.8 90 90 SZ 205 03/28/14 Lot 2-E 400 1 10 117.9 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 50 149.6 4.6 136.4 6.3 91 90 208 03/28/14 Lot 411 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.5 7.7 91 90 209 03/28/14 Lot 412 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.1 7.4 92 90 210 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 4.6 136.0 7.2 91 90 212 03/31/14 Lot 412 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.4 6.9 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. G15 17-11-03 August 25, 2014 I ............O.S..•.I..•.......O.......... 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 Rock MDD OMC' Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (ft) No. (%) (pci) (%) (pci) (%) (%). (%) MT 214 04/01/14 Lot 24 432 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.3 0 0 MT 215 04/01/14 Lot 24 439 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.1 0 0 FG 216 04/01/14 Lot 16 430 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 6.9 91 90 FG 217 04/01/14 Lot 15 . . 427 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.3 6.6 90 90 MT 218 04/01/14 Lot 24 444 2 .58 143.4 5.2 0.0 9.7 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 30 143.3 6.2 126.1 . 7.4 88 90 SZ 220A 04/04/14 Lot 10 422 4 30 143.3 6.2 131.5 8.6 92 90 FG 221 04/02/14 Lot 18 • 441 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.3 - 8.4 91 90 FG 222 04/02/14 Lot J9 447 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.9 6.3 90 90 223 04/03/14 Lot 28 . 475 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.7 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 17 435 . 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 5.6 '90 90 FG 227 04/08/14 Lot 20 . ' 428 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.5 ' 7.2 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 11 411 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.3 7.1 92 90 230 04/08/14 Lot 25 453 4 50 149.6 4.6 136:1 5.7 91 90 231 04/08/14 Lot 26 458 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.9 5.9 90 90 232 04/08/14 Lot 27 469 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.6 5.5 91 90 SZ 233 04/08/14 Lot I 410 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.3 7.2 90 90 FG 234 04/09/14 Lot 21 436 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.7 6.3 91 90 FG 235 04/09/14 Lot 22 444 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 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 50 149.6 4.6 134.5 6.2 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 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.6 6.3 93 90 240 04/10/14 Lot 413 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.7 6.6 91 90 FG 241 04/11/14 Lot 28 477 4 50 149.6 4.6 133.9 5.3 90 90 FG 242 04/11/14 Lot 36 467 4 50 149.6 4.6 140.8 4.9 94 90 243 04/15/14 Camino Junipero 48+35 . 445 2 20 129.7 9.5 120.1 11.6 93 90 Project No. G 1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No Date Location Elev. or Depth (ft) Curve No Plus 3/4" Rock (%) Adj. MDD (pet) Adj: OMC (%) Field Dry Dens. (pcf) Field Moist. Cont. (%) Field Rel. Comp. (%) Reqd. Rel. Comp. (%) FG 244 04/15/14 Lot 27 . 471 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.0 5.1 90 90 FG 245 04/15/14 Lot 26 460 4 50 149.6 . 4.6 135.8 9.0 91 90 FG 246 04/15/14 Lot 25 455 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.5 6.9 91 90 FG 247 04/16/14 Lot 24 449 4 50 149.6 4.6 142.2 7.0 95 90 248 04/23/14 Lot 46. 511 4 50 149.6 4.6 139.6 5.2 93 90 249 04/23/14 Lot 45 508 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 . 6.7 91 90 250 04/23/14 Lot 44 505 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.0 5.9 92 90 ST 251 04/24/14 Lot! -E 402 1 40 130.4 10.3 120.9 11.3 93 90 ST 252 04/24/14 Lot 2-E 463 1 40 130.4 10.3 117.5 12.1 90 90 253 04/25/14 Corte Clarol+15 . 401 1 50 135.2 8.7 123.6 12.2 91 90 254 04/29/14 Camino Junipero 48+50 442 .2 50 140.2 6.2 131.1 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 9.5 120.2 13.1 93 90 258 05/06/14 Paseo Encino 1+50 . 403 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.4 7.0 91 90 259 05/06/14 Paseo Encino 2+00 . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 406 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.1 6.8 91 90 260 05/06/14 Paseo Encino 1+75 409 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.9 6.2 92 90 MT 261 05/07/14 Lot 52 468 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.7 0 0 MT 262 05/07/14 Lot 52 479 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 10.3 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 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.8 0 0 MT 265 05/08/14 Lot 52 489 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.7 0 0 MT 266 05/08/14 Lot 52 . 481 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 7.5 0 0 MT 267 05/08/14 Lot 52 . 485 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 8.9. 0 . 0 MT268 05/09/14 Lot 52 . 490 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.7 0 0 269 05/12/14 Paseo Encino l+00 . 404 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.7 5.5 91 90 ST 270 05/12/14 Lot 8 . 430 2 20 129.7 9.5 114.3 10.0 88 90 ST 270 A 05/14/14 Lot 8 430 2 20 129.7 9.5 119.0 9.1 92 90 ST 271 05/12/14 Lot 9/lOPL 424 2 10 126.5 10.7 110.3 10.2 87 90 ST 271A05/14/14 Lot 9/10 PL 424 2 20 129.7 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. 01517-11-03 . August 25, 2014 ) ov wo 0 0 &04 0 0 04, 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. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (%) (PcO (%) (pci) FG 273 05/13/14 Lot 2 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.6 4.4 90 90 FG 274 05/13/14 Lot 3 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 139.4 6.4 93 ' 90 FG 275 05/13/14 Lot 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 50 149.6 4.6 135.3 6.4 90 90 FG 278 05/15/14 Lot 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.3 4.8 90 90 FG 279 05/15/14 Lot 6 414 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.8 4.9 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 9 416 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.5 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 '05/15/14 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 Paseo Encino 6+00 ' ' ' 415 2' 30 133.0 8.4 '' 119.3 ' 8.2 90 '90 ST 287 05/19/14 Paseo Encino 4+25 ' ' 408 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 30 133.0 8.4 ' 120.8 10.8 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 Corte Claro 3+50 • • 410 4 50 149.6 4.6 137.3 6.6 92 90 290 05/19/14 Sitio Conejo 2+00 407 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.0 7.5 90 90 291 05/23/14 Lot 50 507 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 6.8 91 90 292 05/27/14 N Slope on S Basin Rebuild 385 2 30 133.0 8.4 ' 121.3 9.0 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 N Slope on S Basin Rebuild 394 1 40 130.4 10.3 122.1 12.7 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 on S Basin Rebuild 400 4 - 50 149.6 4.6 137.3 7.2 92 90 297 05/27/14 N Slope on S Basin Rebuild 402 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.0 5.9 90 90 298 05/29/14 Lot 42 Parkway 491 4 50 149.6 4.6 138.1 6.4 92 90 ST 299 06/02/14 Lot 1/EofMite Sewer 388 1 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 PaseoCristal 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 5.3 92 90 303 06/03/14 Lot 34 • 476 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.1 6.0 90 90 Project No. G1517-11-03 August 25, 2014 .. . .•.... . 0••.'.•• I 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. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location . 't) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) - (%) (%) 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 6.2 129.8 9.0 93 90 307 06/06/14 Camino Minero 5+50 471 1 50 135.2 8.7 123.6 11.4 91 90 308 06/06/14 CaminoMinero6+50 475 1 30 126.0 12.0 115.1 12.7 91 90 309 06/09/14 Camino Minero 4+25 463 1 30 126.0 12.0 116.1 12.1 92 90 FG 310 06/09/14 Lot 44 506 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.2 4.8 90 90 FG 311 06/09/14 Lot 43 501 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.5 5.5 90 90 ST 312 06/09/14 Lot 52-S 486 2 30 133.0 8.4 120.4 9.2 91 90 313 06/11/14 Lot 32 467 . 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.2 5.1 91 90 314 06/11/14 Lot 33 471 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 Lot 30 . 57 4 50 149.6 4.6 134.6 4.4 90 90 318 06/12/14 Lot 29- 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 4.6 134.9 6.3 90 90 FG 321 06/12/14 Lot 52-N 494 4 50 149.6 4.6 136.9 6.2 92 90 ST 322 06/13/14 Lot 52-W 488 2 30 133.0 8.4 121.0 9.3 91 90 FG 323 06/17/14 Lot 35 482 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.2 5.8 90 90 FG 324 06/17/14 Lot 34 477 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.6 4.8 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 1 10 117.9 15.3 101.4 10.6 86 90 ST 330A 06/30/14 Paseo Encino 9+00 430 1 20 121.8 13.6 111.6 14.0 92 90 331 07/03/14 Lot 19- Rear 449 2 50 140.2 6.2 126.3 7.3 90 90 332 07/09/14 Pressure Red Station Pad/Footing 432 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.3 8.7 90 90 Project No. G15 17-11-03 August 25, 2014 Project No. G1517-1I-03 -- 00 TABLE I EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,. . . Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recOmpaction. - TRIT(E-OUT 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 - 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 were adjusted for rock content For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted. •• - TYPEOFTEST • SC Sand Cone Test (ASTM D 1556) NTJ: Nuclear DensityTest (ASTM D 6938 and D 2950) • • : OT: Other • - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot Project No. G1517-11-03 • August 25, 2014 . .1 .. . TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ____________ __________ ASTM D 3080 __________ Dry Density Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate] Peak [Ultimate] Initial . . . After Test mple Sa No (pci) . . Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 5* . 127.3 6 . i48.. . 820 [645] . .. 26 [26] • TABLE II SU MMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM PRY DENSITY . AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1,557 Maximum Optimum Sample No. Description Dry Density Moisture Content (pci) (% dry weight) 1 Olive brown Silty CLAY with some fine to coarse gravel 114.3 16.9 2 Red brown fine to coarse 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 134.9 8.6 clay and cobble Dark yellowish brown, Clayey, poorly graded GRAVEL 137 6 8 1 with some sand *Sample remolded to a dry density of approximately 90 percent Of the laboratory maximum dry density near S optimum moisture content. S S S . S • S S S S S S S Project No. G1517-11-03 . . . . August 25, 2014 • TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pct) . Expansion Index Soil Expansion Classification 2010 CBC Expansion Classification Before Test S After Test El -1 7 9 17.4 117.2 29 Low Expansive El -2 7.1 12.4 12.3 .5 8 Very Low Non Expansive EI-3 6.7 13.3 121.8 2 Very Low Non-Expansive E14 88 192 1153 45 Low. Expansive El-S 8.0 18.0 117.1 • 34 Low Expansive EI6 •,. 6.0 • • 11.5 125.0. 3 Very Low Non-Expansive El-7 7.8 15.9 119.0 21 Low . Expansive El-8 • 8.3 16.1 118.3 28 Low Expansive EI9 7.2 14.0 119.5 10 • Very Low Non-Expansive EI-10 8;2 16.1 115.3 15 Very Low Non-Expansive EI.11 . . 6.9 13.5 . 121.2 4 Very Low Non-Expansive EI42 8.1 1.6.3 .117.4 19 Very Low Non-Expansive El 13 8 0 15.4 116.8 12 Very Low Non Expansive El-14 . 5.9 . . 12.7 127.7 1 23 . Low Expansive El-iS 8.1 17.5 116.4 37 Low Expansive Project No. G1517-1 1-03 . 5 August 25, 2014 TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST 417 Sample No : Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Severity El-i 0.026 . ., Not Applicable (SO) El -2 0.016 Not Applicable (SO) El-3 ...., 0.005 Not Applicable (SO) E.174 0.021 . Not Applicable (SO).. EI-5. . . . 0.62 1 Not Applicable (SO) EI-6 . ... . 1. .I 0.033 II Not Applicable (SO) El-7 0.027 Not Applicable (SO). EI-8 . 0.016 . Not Applicable (SO) EI-9 . . .. 0.011 J .. Not Applicable (SO) EI1O 0.006 . Not Applicable (SO) 0.013 Not Applicable (SO) EI12 . . . 0.028 . . . Not Applicable (SO) El 13 0.026. Not Applicable (SO) EI-14 . . . 1 0.014 .. Not Applicable (SO) El-15 0.035 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) EI-3 -------------- 0.015. 151 Project No. G1517-11-03 .. . . August 25, 2014 August 251 2014 • • . TABLE VII SUMMARY OF SITE CLASS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS I THOUGH 11 AND 15 THROUGH 52 Lot No. Site Class l and 2 D 3 through 8 C 9 through 11 and 15 through 19 D 20 through 22 : C 23and24 D 25thr6ugh36 C 37 and 38 D 39 through 51 C 52 D TABLE VIII SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS I THROUGH 11 AND 15 THROUGH 52 Lot No. Sample at . Grade Finish . Expansion Index Expansion . . Classification 2010 CBC Expansion Classification 1 and 2 E19 10 . Very Low Non-Expansi.ve 3 through 7 El 12 19 Very Low Non Expansive 8 and 9 El-14 23 Low Expansive 10 and-1 I El-13 12 Very Low Non-Expàñsive 15, and l6 . EI4 . 45 Low . Expansive 17 and 18. E175 . . 34.. . . Low. . Expansive 19 El -8 28 Low Expansive 20 through 22 . .. El-6 3 Very Low . Non-Expansive 23 . . El-8 21 Low . . Expansive.. 24 and 25 El 10 15 Very Low Non Expansive 26 and 27 . El-i 1 . I4 Very Low Non-Expansive 28 . . EI10. . 15 . . . Very Low . Non-expansive 29 through 35 El 15 37 Low Expansive 36 . El-7 211 ... Low . Expansive 37 and 38 El-2 . 29 Low .. Expansive 39 through 41 El-1 8 Very Low Non Expansive 42 through 44 . EI73 . 2 .. . . Very Low Non-Expansive 45 and 46 El 14 23 Low Expansive 47 through 50 . Pending . Pending . . I Pending 51 . El- 14 23 LOW Expansive 52 El 15 37 Low Expansive Project No. G1517-11-03 . . August 25, 2014 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 III 2 Fill Pad 27 14 10 II 3 Undercut Transition Lot 18 1 13 19 II 4 Undercut Lot 5 2 19 I 5 Undercut Lot 5 2 19 I 6 Undercut Transition Lot 6 3 19 I 7 Undercut Lot 6 3 19 I 8 Undercut Lot 7 4..... 23 I 9 Undercut Transition Lot 23 20 23 III 10 . Fill Pad 27 . 22 12 III 11 Fill Pad 32 16 12 II 15 Fill Pad 39 15 45 II 16 Fill Pad 39 20 45 III 17 Fill Pad 28 10 34 II 18 Fill Pad 31 15 34 II 19 Fill Pad 32 21 28 III 20 Fill Pad 18 10 3 II 21 Fill Pad 19 . 13 . 3 . II 22 Fill Pad 17 12 3 II 23 Fill Pad 21 18 21 II 24 . .. 1 Fill Pad 23 11 15 II 25 FillPad 18 11 15 II 26 Undercut Transition Lot .7 4 4 I 27 Undercut Transition Lot 6 3 4 I 28 Undercut Transition Lot 4 1 15 1 29 Undercut Transition Lot 4 1 37 I 30 Undercut Lot 5 2 37 I 31 Undercut Lot 5 2. 37 I 32 Undercut Lot 4 1 37 I 33 Undercut Lot 4 1 37 I 34 Undercut Lot 4 . I . 37 . 35 Undercut Lot 4 1 37 I Project No. G1517-1 1-03 . August 25, 2014 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 Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill (feet) Approximate Maximum Differential Fill Thickness (feet) Expansion Index Recommended Foundation Category 36 Undercut Transition Lot 16 13 21 II 37 . Fill Pad . 32 . 24 29 III 38 Fill Pad 22 21 29 III 3. Undercut Transition Lot 12 . 8. 8 I 40 Undercut Transition Lot 4 . 1 8 I 41 Undercut Lot 4 1 8 j 42 Undercut Lot 5 2 .. 2 I 43 Undercut Lot 4 1 2 I 44 Undercut Lot 5 . 2 2 I 45 Undercut Lot . 4 1 23 I 46 Undercut Lot . 5 2 23 . I 47 Undercut Lot Pending Pending Pending I 48 Undercut Lot . Pending Pending Pending I 49 Undercut Lot Pending Pending Pending I 50 Undercut Lot 5 2 Pending I 51 Undercut Lot 4 1 . 23 1 52 Undercut Transition Lot T 23 20 37 III Project No. G1517-1 1-03 . August 25, 2014 . SEE SHEET 2 KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 1201' 160' SCALE I"= 40' GEOCON LEGEND Qcf. ...... .COMPACTED FILL QUC ........ COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA Mz U ........ METAVOLCANIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) ST-333. ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSIPIIMOISTURE TEST ... FG Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test (402 ........ APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL **+ ........ -*. \z APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN ........ A APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN 7 ........ STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINTING I AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP ( BLACKSTONE RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GJEOCON 08- 25-2014 INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL rn ENVIRONMENTAL m MATERIALS G1517-11-03 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 - - 1 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 55&6159 1 SHEET I OF SEE SHEET 7 SEE SHEET 3 KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE I "= 40' GEOCON LEGEND MZ U ....... .METAVOLCANIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) -J..... ... APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT ST-333 APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DEMSlTYlMOlSTURE TEST ........ FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test *".% *o ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN ........ A APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN I AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP I I BLACKSTONE RANCH I I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I SEE SHEET 2 KEY NOT TO MAP SCALE GRA PHlC SCALE 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 120' 160' SCALE 1 "= 40' GEOCON LEGEND MZ U. ...... .METAVOLCANIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) ST-333 ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSlTYlMOlSTURE TEST FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test ........ ("24) APPROX ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL **\ .*. ........ \* APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN ........ A APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN 7 ........ STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINTING AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP BLACKSTONE RANCH^ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOCOPJ <3>lscALE~11=~~ IDATE , 2l 08-25 -2014 INCORPORATED PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL . MATERIALS G1517-11-03 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CAlFWIA 92121 - 2974 I PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 55&6159 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 u - YWRCiJECTSXj1517-11.03 (Bhadcrtone Ranch)lSHERS\G1517-11.03 Geo Map hyl