The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 02-17; BLACKSTONE RANCH; REPORT OF TESTING & OBSERVATION DURING GRADING; 2014-04-02oç02. j'f REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING GRADING OPERATIONS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIAWEST COMMUNITIES • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2,2014 PROJECT NO. G1517-11-03 GEOCON INCORPORA:TED EO.TECHNICAL • ENvIRo:NMENTA.L in MATERIALS Project No. G1517-11-03 April 2,. 2014 California West Communities 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Jack Hepworth Subject: REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING GRADING OPERATIONS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 .. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Hepworth: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report of grading to summarize our testing and observation services and to provide recommendations for the continued development of Lots 37 through 42 within Blackstone Ranch located in Carlsbad, California. The grading for these lots has been . completed and is the subject of this report. We performed our services during the period of December 26; 2013 through March 28, 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 final report of grading for the referenced lots only. The purpose of this report is to document that the grading for the referenced lots at Blackstone Ranch has been completed in conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report and 6960 Flanders.Drive • San Digó, ColiForni692121-2974 .. TeIepbone858.558.6900 .• Fax 858.558.6159 that 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 southeasten 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. The mass grading was performed by Pennick Incorporated of El Cajon, California. 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 soils report is entitled Update Geotechnical Investigation, Shelley Properly, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 26, 2006 (Project No. 06721-52-02) and Update Geotechnical 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 requirements until design finish grade elevations were obtained. During the grading operations, we observed compaction procedures and performed ki-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 on Table I. 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 Project No. G1517-1 1-03 S -2- April2, 2014 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. The approximate location of the in-place density.tests are plotted on the As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1). 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 (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 throughVI. 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 1803.5.3. Table 1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. A majority of 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 I EXPANSIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (El) Expansive Soil Classification 2010 CEC Expansion Classification 0 -20 Very Low . Non-Expansive 21-50 Low Expansive Very High 51-90 Medium 91-130 . . . _ High Greater Than 130 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 Project No. G1517-11-03 -3 - April 2, 2014 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 ACT 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 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 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, it should be expected that 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. 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 conditions 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- April 2, 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 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 6n 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 incut 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 1613.5.5..Table VII provides the. site class for each lot. Project No. G1517-I1-03 . April 2, 2014 TABLE2 2010 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2010 CBC Reference Site Class C D Table 16 13.5.2 Fill Thickness, 1 (feet) T<20 T>20 -- Spectral Response - Class B (short), 5s 1.097g 1.097g Figure 1613.5(3) Spectral Response - Class B (I sec), S 0.411 g 0.411g Figure 1613.5(4) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 1.061 Table 16i3.5.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.389 1.589 Table 1613.5.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake 1.097g 1.163g Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16-36) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), Maximum Considered Earthquake 0.571g . 0.653g. Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16-37) Spectral Response Acceleration—(1 sec), SMI 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.731g 0.776g Section 1613.5.4 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (I sec), SDI 0.381g 0.435g Section 1613.5.4 (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 aildamage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 3.0 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 design and design criteria of the Post- Tensioning Institute (PTI), Third Edition, as required by the 2010 California Building Code (CBC Section1808.6). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distres 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- . April 2, 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<13<20 50<EI<90 III T>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 presentted 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 ii iii Thornthwaite Index -20 720 -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 1.10 158 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em. (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 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. I I! PA ProjectNo. G1517-11-03 April 2, 2014 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 footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, 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. 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. 3.7 Category 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 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 Y2-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 to 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 (AC! 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. Project,No. G1517-11-03 -8- April 2, 2014 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 5-inch thick slabs in the southern California area. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate 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 presented on the foundation plans. 3.12 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 are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (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 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 that the adjacent 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 slump of the concrete, proper Project No. G151711M3 -9- ' April 2, 2014 concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 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, foundation 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 equipment loading or vehicular or forklift traffic 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 potential 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 (ACT) 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 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 Project No. G1517-11-03 _10-' April 2, 2014 structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 3.21 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled intothe structure's foundation stern wall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or iminor 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. 4.0 Conventional Retaining Walls 4.1 Retainingwalis not restrained at thetop 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 of the wall possess an El of 50 or less. 4.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00IH (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 pràject. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, the proposed retaii1ing 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 17.H (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 design parameters (S 5/2.5) applying a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.5: 4.4 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 Project No. G1517-11-03 ' • •• -11-. ' • April 2, 2014 'I should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 4.5 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 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 backfihled 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. 4.6 In general, wall foundations haying 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. 4.7 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 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. 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. Project No. G1517-I 1-03 I - 12- April 2, 2014 6.0 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 (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 isdirected 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. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for a prolonged period of time. 7.3 We understand that a detention basin and other storm water management devices will be installed. Distress may be caused to planned improvements and properties located hydrologically downstream. .The distress depends on the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. Project No. G1517-1 1-03 - 13- April 2, 2014 GEOCON INCORPORATE n cobs EG 1524 JH:SFW:tmj (e-mail) Addressee p. Shawn Foy Weedon- GE 2714 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. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, Project No. G1517-11-03 -14- April 2, 2014 BLACKSTONIE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOCON LEGEND Qcf ........ COMPACTED FILL Quc ........ COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA Mu ........ METAVOLCANIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT 209.APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST FG ... Finish Grade ST ... Slope Test APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN A APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINTING 14, GEOCON INCORPORATED (0), 1 GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 PROJECT NO. G1517-11-03 FIGURE I AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP DATE 0022014 Ladnilono Y:\PROJECTSIG1517.11-03 (Blackstone anthl'.SIIEETS\01517-1 1-03 080 Map.dwg ••.ià..,.......................s..........ó°.. TABLE SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field: Reqd. or 3/4" Adj. Adj. rDry Moist. .Rel. Rel; Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No Date Location (fi) No (°) (pct) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 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 ofPaseo Encino 4+50 . 392 2 30 133.0 8.4 119.6 8.7 90 90 SZ 5 12/27/13 PaseoEncino5+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 84 121.9 109 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 Pasco Encino 6+90 : - 412 1 10 117.9 1.5.3 1 09. 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 . • 384 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 10.7 .0 0 MT 15 12/31/13 EofPaseo Encino 3+90 387 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 12.2 .0 0 MT 16 12/31/13 Paseo Encino 4+90 398 2 50 1402 62 00 87 0 0 MT 17 12/31/13 Lot 15 394 2 50 1402 62 00 93 0 0 MT 18 01/02/14 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 II • 391 2 50 140.2 6.2 0.0 8.3 0 - 0 MT 21 01/02/14 Slope E ofPaseo Encino 2+50 380 ' 2 50 140.2 6.2- 0.0 10.8 0 0 22 01/03/14 Slope E ofPaseo Encino 2+25 383 1 0 - 114.3 16.9 103.1 18.9 90 90 23 01/03/14 Slope E ofPaseo 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, Junipero52+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 PröjectNo. G1517-11-03 ' April 2, 2014 00000 0100 0* 0010 00 00 0 000 0 00009 0 0000 0000.00 000 00 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 MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No Date Location No (%) (pci) (%) (pci) 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 1434 52 00 69 0 0 MT 34 01/07/14 Lot 15 410 2 58 143.4 5.2 '00 6.3 0 0 MT 35 01/08/14 Lot 17 410 2 58 1434 52 00 76 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 MT 39 01/09/14 Lot 15 . ' . 412 2 .58 143.4 5.2 0.0 : 5.8 0 0 MT 40 01/09/14 Lot 16 411 2 58 1434 52 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 . 416 2 58 143.4 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 1'29.7 9.5 '120.7 '11.9 ' 93 90 MT 46 01/10/14 Lot 17 420 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 58 143.4 5.2 00 92 0 0 MT 47 01/10/14 Lot 16 418 2 58 1434 52 00 78 0 0 MT 48 01/10/14 Lot 15 417 2 58 1434 52 00 85 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 1434 52 00 76 0 0 MT ...01/13/14 Lot 15 . 417 2 58 143.4 ' 5.2 0.0 1 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 ---01/14/14 Lot 19 427 . 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.9 . 0 0 MT 56 01/14/14 Lot 37 ' . 428 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 6.5' 01 . - 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 01/15114 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 1434 52 00 66 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 . ' ' ' , . April 2, 2014 ...........................°.....i.......... TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS ° EI°ev: 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) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 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 1235 118 1120 139 91 90 64 01/16/14 Camino Minero2+95' 449 °' 2 0 123.5 11.8 113:1 13.5° 92 :: 90 65 01/16/14 PaseoCristal 1+55 417 2 0 1235 118 11.3.3 127 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 • 438 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 : 6.2 0 0 MT 69 01/17/14 Lot 19 437 2 58 1434 52 00 59 0 0 MT 70 01/17/14 Lot 19 437 2 58 1434 52 00 77 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 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 1 17.9 92 90 74 01/21/14 Lot 30 457 2 10 1265 107 1168 111 92 90 75 01/21/14 Lot 31 ° • . . - 462 1 0 114.3 16.9: .. 104.2 :16.9 91 90 76 01/22/14 Camino Minero 4+10 458 1 0 1143 169 1026 214 90 90 SZ 77 01/22/14 Lot 457 1 0 1143 169 1050 175 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 40 136.5 ° 7.3. 0.0 10.8 0 0, MT 80 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 71 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 1179 153 1080 163 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. G1517-11-03 April 2, 2014 . • 0 ..................................f........ TABLE] S SUMMARY OF FIELD.DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. ' Plus Field Field Field ' Req'd. or 3/4" Adj: Adj. Dry Moist. Rd. Rel:, Depth 'Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens.-Cont. Comp. Comp., Test No Date Location No / (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 92 01/30/14 Lot 19 :. , . , 446 2 ' 10 126.5 10.7 117.6 11.493 90 93 01/30/14 Camino Bello 2+60 450 2 0 1235 118 1129 1271. 91 90 SZ 94 01/30/14 Lot 37 453 1 10 1179 153 1078 174 91 90 95 01/31/14 Lot38 464 1 0 1143 169 1057 207 92 90 96 01/31/14 Lot 39 . . 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 1464 5.4- 131.1 80 90 90 98 02/03/14 Paseo Encino 5+50 412 4 40 1464 54 1323 71 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 1434 52 00 73 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 Junipero5i+60 . 405 2 58 143.4 5.2 . 0.0 7.3 0 0 MT 104 02/05/14 CaminoJunipero'52+20 . '. ' 403 2 58 143.4' 5.2:' 0.0 ., 8.5 0 0 MT 105 02/05/14 Lot II ' . . . .• 401 2 ' . 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 10.7 ' .0 ' 0 106 02/06/14 Camino Junipero 48+00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 491 2 0 1235 .11 .8 1095 14.1 89 90 106A 02/06/14 Camino Junipero 48+00 491 2 0 1235 118 111.1 139 90 90 107 02/07/14 Paseo CristaI2+85 425 4 50 1496 46 1389 57 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 1434 52 00 77 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 00 5.6 0 0 115 02/12/14 Lot 40 478 4 50 1496 46 1343 61 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. G 1517-11-03 . . . S ' . . '' April 2,2014 ............................•......àà....... 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 RQCk MDD: OMC Dens. . Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No Date Location No (%) (pcf) (%) (pCf) (%) (%) (%) MT 121 02/18/14 Lot . , '" . 397 2 58 143.4 5.21 0.0 6.3 -0 0 MT 122 02/18/14 Lot 10 401 2 58 1434 52 00 71 0 0 'MT 123 02/19/14 Camino Junipero5l+90 . 410 2 58 143.4 5.2 '0.0 9.6 . 0 0 MT 124 02/19/14 CaminoJunipero 51+00' 411 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 .7.3 0 0 MT 125 02/19/14 CaminoJunipero'51+45 , 414 : 2 58 143.4 5.2. ' 0.0 8.7 0. 0 MT 126 02/19/14 Camino Junipero 51+45 415 2 58 1434 52 00 69 0 0 SZ: 127 02/20/14 Paseo Encino 7+'15 . 420 4 40 146.4' 5.4 ' 131.5 7.5 90 90 SZ 128 02/20/14 'PaseOEncino 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 PaseoEricino.9+40 . ' 429 4 40 146.4 5.4 131.1 8.6 90 90 MT 131 02/24/14 Camino Junipero 51+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 Camino Junipero '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 0.0 10.2 0 0 137 02/26/14 Lot 41 487 4 40 1464 54 1329 99 91 90 138 02/26/14 Lot 40 479 4 40 1464 54 1316 100 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 37 458 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 1464 54 1328 78 91 90 143 03/03/14 Camino Junipero48+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 Camino 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 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 00 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 ' • • . . . April 2, 2014 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 No. .. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) '(%) (%) 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 90 158 03/11/14 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 P426 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....... • 162. 03/11/14 Lot 17 433 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.0 . 6.4 90 90 SZ 163 . 03/12/14 S Detention Basin - E 387 1 0 114.3 16.9 102.4 19., 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 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 Camino Junipero N Corner 49+75 438 1 0 1143 169 1076 168 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 lI 395 1 50 135.2 8.7 0.0 .12.? . ..9 _______________ MT 172 03/18/14 Lot 11 • • • . 389 1 50 135.2 8.7 ' 0.0 11.9 0 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 0.0 6.3 0 0 177 03/21/14 5 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 II 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 03/21114 Lot 40 ' 480 4 50 149.6 4.6 135.8 6.4 91 90 Project No. G15171103 . . . April 2, 2014, ....'...........................f........... 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 (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) 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 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 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 'l . ' 396' 1 ' 58 139.2 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 I 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 1264 7.7 93 90 192 03/25/14 Lot 16 Rear 432 1 0 1143 169 1042 182 91 90 ST 193 03/25/14 Lot 39 466 1 40 1304 103 1185 96 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! ' 398': 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 5.3 0 0 MT 196 03/25/14 Lot 397 2 58 1434 52 00 60 0 0 MT 197 03/26/14 Lot 2 : . . 403. 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 " 7.5. 0 0 - MT 198 03/26/14 Lot 1 403 2 58 143.4 5.2 0.0 . 6.1 0 0 ST 199 03/26/14 Lot37 452 1 20 1218 136 1109 141 91 90 FG 200 03/27/14 Lot 37 459 4 20 1404 70 1293 74 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 I ' ' 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 Lotl - E ' ' ;. . . 401 1 20 121.8 13.6 110.1 ' .16.8 ' 90 90 . :. SZ 205 03/28/14 Lot E 400 1 10 1179 153 1081 176 92 90 206 03/28/14 Lot 19 , . 446 4 50 149.6 :46 135.0 8.3 90 90 207 03/28/14 Lot 18 439 4 50 1496 46 1364 63 91 90 208 03/28/14 Lot! . ' 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 Project No. G1517-II-03 . . ' . ' . ' ' . '' April 2, 2014 ............................................ TABLEl EXPLANATION OF CODED:TERMS -TEST SUFFIX .. .. A, B, C, iRetest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction STIUKL-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: : - TYPE OF. TEST SC Sand Cone Test (ASTM D 1556) NU Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D 6938 and D 295 0) UT: Other . . . - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot Project No. G1517-11-03, . . . April 2, 2014. TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTMDI557 '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 3 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 clay and cobble Dark yellowish brown, Clayey, poorly graded GRAVEL 137.6 8.1 with some sand 1' TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS' ASTMD3OBO Dry' Density Moisture Content(%) Peak tUltimatel Peak lUltimatel , Initial I After Test Sample No. (pci) , Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 5* . 127.3 7.6 14.8 820[645] 26[28] *Sample remolded to a dry density of approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near optimum moisture content. V V TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS V ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pci) Expansion Index Soil Expansion Classification' 2010 CBC Expansion Classification Before Test After Test El-1 7.9 17.4. 117.2 ' 29 Low V V Expansive EI-2 ' 7.1 12.4 123.5 8 Very Low Non-Expansive El-3 6.7 V 13.3 121.8 2 Very Low Non-Expansive Project No. G 1517-11-03 V V April 2, 2014 TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST 417 Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure El-1 0.026 Not Applicable (SO) El-2 0.016 Not Applicable (SO) EI-3 0.005 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 TABLE VII SUMMARY OF SITE CLASS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 Lot No. Site Class 37 and 38 D 39 through 42 C TABLE VIII SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 Lot No. Sample at Finish Grade Expansion Index Expansion Classification 37 and 38 EL-2 29 Expansive 39 through 41 El-1 8 Non-Expansive 42 El-3 2 Non-Expansive Project No. G1517-11-03 April 2,2014 S. • • . TABLE IX SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS • AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORIES O BLACKSTONE RANCH LOTS 37 THROUGH 42 Approximate Approximate Recommended Lot No. Pad Condition Maximum Maximum Differential Expansion Foundation Depth of Fill Fill Thickness (feet) Index Category (feet) 37 . Fill Path 32 24 29 III 38 Fill Pad 22 21 29 III 39 Undercut Lot. 12 8, 8 1 40 . Undercut Lot 4 1 8 41 Undercut Lot 4 . 1 8 I 42 Undercut Lot 4 1 8 I a -,. . .,' _ •l. . • S. o • • S. .5 • .. • ( S • • 5 . .. S Project No. G1517-11-03 S. April 2, 2014