The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 04-26; ROBERSTON RANCH PA 16, 17, 18; COMPACTION REPORTS; 2014-06-18Geotechnical ° Geologic Coastal o Environmental 5741 Palmer Way' a Carlsbad, California 92010 ° (760) 438-3155 ° FAX (760) 931-0915 e www.geosoilsinc.com June 18, 2014 W.O. 5949-1317-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Jeff Rodgers and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 9, Lots 26, 27, 28; 80, 81, 82, and 83, Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-13- SC, dated May 18, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch, East'Village (Lots 1 through 43, 64 through 88, 100 through 116,141 through 159, and 190 through 194), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A., Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 30, 2008, by GeoSoils,. Inc. "Precise Grading Plans for: Palo Verde, Robertson Ranch PA 17" DWG. 453, Project No. C.T. 04-26, J.N. 011014, dated June 42, 2013, by O'DayConsultants. Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services. during mitigative grading within Phase 9, Lots 26, 27, 28, 80, 81, 82, and 83 of Planning Area 17, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference Nos. 1 and 2. For the subject, low expansive Lots, earthwork (per Reference Nos. 1 and 2) minimally consisted of processing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across each lot, compacting and moisture conditioning to at least 90 percent at, or above the soils optimum moisture content. Due to the presence of a former rock crusher site in thevicinity, some removals were locally completed below pad. grades. In these areas, the exposed bottoms were processed, moisture conditioned and compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, then brought to grade with compacted fill, at, or above the soils optimum moisture content. Where tested, reprocessed and/or fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at the recommended moisture contents per ASTM D 1557, in accordance with GSI recommendations (see Reference No. 1). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and are considered suitable for development from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture. content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test' method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: - i SOIL TYPE -. - MAXIMUM DENSIT'((PCF) -' MOISTURE CONTENT' I (PERCENT) 18 - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND I 114.0 I - 13.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests also indicate over optimum soil moisture content, in general accordance with GSl's reports (Reference Nós. 1 and 3). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference Nos. 1, and 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, All lots are categorized as foundation Category lPT. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Phase 9, Robertson Ranch June 18, 2014 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph9.cro Page 2 Based on a review of the precise grading plans (Reference No. , foundations for fireplace pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings may be impacted by the proximity to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subdrain trenches. In order to mitigate the potential for settlement, these footings may need to be deepened. In cross section, deepened footings should extend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below a 1:1 project extending up and away from the bottom outside edge of the .subdrain trench, whichever is deeper. Additional footing depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches (total footing embedment of 18 to 30 inches) should be anticipated locally. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the. user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please dot hesitate to contact any of the'undersigned. Respectfully su GeoSoils, Inc. A; Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geolo RGC/DWS/JPF/jh Z 11 C,. No. 1934 Certified Engineering t Geologist '. %sO' J c3IC1 ii No. RCE47857 U x Mth)XI David W. Skelly I Civil Engineer, ACE 47857 Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes - . W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17 Phase 9, Robertson Ranch June 18 2014 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph9.cro GeoSoHs, Inc.Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/11/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RE-CERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE LOT 83 -0.5 14.5% LOT82 -0.5 14.7% **DONOT TABLE1- CONTRACTOR REFERENCE _ONLY** [ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO C BSERVEE NRTHWORKANDPROVIDI CONTRACTOR WITHFEEDBACK ON MOISTURE. NC ADDITION LOBSERVA ION PERFOF MED. COMMENTS: GeoSolls, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT TRACT PA-17 CONTRACTOR W.O.#5949-Bi7-SC DATE: 06/12/14 NAME:TODD HOURS: 3.5 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SIVADGE CLIENT BROOKFIELD SUPER GREG EQUIP. LOT RE-CERT TEST No. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 134 LOT 79 -0.5 13.6% 102.7 90.1% ND B 135 LOT 80 -0.5 14.4% 103.4 90.7% ND B 136 LOT 81 -0.5 13.9% 102.6 90.0% ND B 137 LOT 82 -0.5 1 15.6% 103.1 90.4% ND B 138 LOT 83 -0.5 14.9% 103.0 90.4% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDIT )NING HA E BEEN PER =ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & MED. EXPAN 31VE SOIL CC NDITIONS PER GSI REPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: GRADING CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERED CRUSHER TAILINGS AND OTHER EARTH MATERIAL THAT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL WORK ON LOTS 75, 76, AND 77. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: 1424 PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.#5949-B17-SC DATE: 06/13/14 NAME:TODD HOURS: 2.5 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SIVADGE CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR EQUIP. LOT RE-CERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 139 LOT 78 -0.5 14.5% 103.6 90.9% ND B 140 LOT 77 -0.5 15.0% 103.3 90.6% ND B 141 LOT 76 -0.5 14.6% 104.2 91.4% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI DNING HAI 1E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & MED. EXPAN 31VE SOIL CC NIDITIONS P1- R GSI REPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: GeoSolls, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/16/14 NAME: TODD HOURS: 2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17. LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RE-CERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 142 LOT 26 -0.5 16.1% 102.9 90.3% ND B 143 LOT 27 -0.5 15.9% 102.7 90.1% ND B 144 LOT 28 -0.5 15.4% 103.3 90.6% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURECONDITI DNINGHA E BEEN PER =ORMEDPEI GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFORLOW &MED. EXPAN lIVE SOIL CC NDITIONSPE- GSIREPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. .1 P1 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:06/17/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:3.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RE-CERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 145FG LOT 26 FG 14.4% 103.3 90.6% ND B 146FG LOT 27 FG 14.9% 104.2 91.4% ND B 147FG. LOT 28 FG 14.3% 103.7 91.0% ND B 148FG LOT 80 FG 14.7% 103.1 90.4% ND B 149FG LOT 81 FG 15.2% 102.9 90.3% ND B I50FG LOT 82 FG 14.7% 102.8 90.2% ND B I51FG LOT 83 FG 14.5% 103.6 90.9% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI NING HAI 1E BEEN PER 7ORMEDPE GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & MID.EXPAN 31VE SOIL CONDITIONS PE R GSI REPORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Geotechnical Geologic e Coastal Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 ° www.geosoilsinc.com December 18, 2013 W.O. 5949-1317-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Jeff Rodgers and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 4 Lots 40 Through 43, and 64 Through 67, and Phase 5 Lots 35 through 39, and Lots 68, 69, Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-13- SC, dated May 18, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 1 through 43, 64 through 88, 100 through 116, 141 through 159, and 190 through 194), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 30, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Precise Grading Plans for: Palo Verde, Robertson Ranch PA 17," DWG. 453, Project No. C.T. 04-26, J. N. 011014, dated June 12, 2013, by O'Day Consultants. Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 4 Lots 40 Through 43, and 64 Through 67, and Phase 5 Lots 35 through 39, and Lots 68,69 of Planning Area 17, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference Nos. 1 and 2. For the subject, very low to low expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 0-20) Lots 35 through 43, earthwork consisted of processing (scarifying), moisture conditioning, and compacting the upper 12 inches of building pad subgrade. Where tested, reprocessed fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at optimum, or greater soil moisture content. For medium expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 51-90) Lots 64 through 69, earthwork consisted of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across the lots. Once removals were completed, the exposed bottoms were ¶ I processed, moisture conditioned and compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, then broughtto grade with compacted fill, such thatthe upper 24 inches has been reprocessed. Where tested, reprocessed and/or fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at 2 percent to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 1) per GSI recommendations. Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and are considered suitable for development from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: - - - - - - - SOIL-TYPE - MAiUMUM DENSITY(PCFI. OISTQREcbNtET (PERCENT) JB - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND - 1 114.0 13.0 IC - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 120.5 13.5 1 I E -DarkBrownSiltySANDw/clay 126.0 11.0 FEE -YellowbrownClayeySAND -117.5 13.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSl's reports (Reference Nos. 1 and 3). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additionalmoisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference Nos. 1, and 3). + Brookfield Homes PA-17, Phases 4 & 5, Robertson Ranch FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph4.5.cro GMSOM9 Inc. W.O. 5949-1317-SC December 18, 2013 Page 2 Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lot Nos. 35 through 38, and 43 are categorized as foundation Category IPT, based on low expansive soil conditions. Lots 39 through 42,64,65,68, and 69 are categorized as foundation Category lIPT, based on medium expansive soil conditions, and/or as-built fill depths (see Reference No. 3). Due to as-built fill depths (see Reference No. 3), Lots 66, and 67 are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on a review of the precise grading plans (Reference No. 4), foundations for fireplace pop outs, and,potentially some isolated exterior footings may be impacted by the proximity to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subdrain trenches. In order to mitigate the potential for settlement, these footings may need to be deepened. In cross section, deepened footings should extend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below a 1:1 project extending up and away from the bottom outside edge of the subdrain trench, whichever is deeper. Additional footing depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches (total footing embedment of 18 to 30 inches) should be anticipated locally. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-1317-SC PA-1 7, Phases 4 & 5, Robertson Ranch December 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph4.5.cro GeOSOUS9 Page 3 The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitte GeoSoils, Inc. No. 1934 Certifjec Engineering Geologist Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologis, RGC/DWS/JPF/jh c. David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 4 rzs C47J7 ll OF Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-617-SC PA-17, Phases 4 & 5, Robertson Ranch December 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph4.5.cro Goods, Inc. Page 4 FIELOTESTING REPORT • ... . • :. S W.Ô. DATE tZl('//i• NAME •. S. •• S.. HOURS CLIENT _____________________TRACT_4_- 17 LOCATION____________________ SUPT CONTRACTOR Yr L.— E,ttkLIe EQUIPMENT .LOCATION CONTENT - MOISTURE DRY DENSITY % P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION WlAl -- a !'- / COMMENTS: PAGE • OF Thisfield.report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firrñ, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm Will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. ._.._ - . S -_*•- . ,.'. -9 .- ..-.:-c'v',:.-. zr:',- .: r,v' 'I'' CLIETBR00KF/E4__. TkACT'PA'/7 S LOCATION'O d S... SUPT. _Ri9 CONTRACTOR 'EQUIPMENT. Lo4cJLR j F/OeE 1/4,/IA 3Z 4d TEST NO. ' LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY . P.C.F. ' % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST' TYPE SOIL TYPE A' /o11 /i..7 /o iv 13 . ,,,1.'." ., S. /,Z /6/,3 Al 13. 66 L'7. .. -/'O /±/,1 10 1-/, cf N 13 0 .9 ,v .R t' a. ' S.... /j 'o /41, h / 3. 59 3 . S SAl 5 COMMENTS: Ji/E As d. vd Co+Ro 6.cS_ RIp 147)/ 4oAidIf,o,V )7A7'RML Riof *0 ,DLi1,L/t /ivI oñ ,4C1/c'AJ {(o,'ti. 90,9 GeoSoils, Inc. '1.A 'A u 1,.1)R' C0A/#t, BY: /O S PAGE . .1 OF/ This field report presents a summary of obseryations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our.work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way 'for defects discovered in .his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT -13 w.o. S1 47 7 _________ DATE ///a/Zo 13 NAME. Oi2 S HOURS CLIENT TRACT_P4-17 LOCATION4R1- 734') SUPT. •' CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT d7_w 41.4)_I4O. '1M •gr'-, . TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % COMPACTION RELATIVE TYPE 0~3 o, . kTESOIL P7 C 70 Lci/ 7V CIL e. __ k; _ •• ______ ___ ___ COMMENTS: BY: PAGE _ •I OF)_5S. This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or directidn of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way:.. for defects discovered in his work It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project -I FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE: 12/12/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-LOADER,1-BLADE,1-SKID STEER, 1-DUMP TRUCK, 1-WATERHOSE PHASE 4 & 5 PAD RECERTS TEST NO. LOCATION ALANDER EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 74FG LOT 64[MED] 116.6 15.8% 110.4 91.6% ND C 75FG LOT 65[MED] 115.5 16.0% 109.3 90.7% ND C 76FG LOT 66[MED] 115.5 15.5% 108.7 90.2% ND C 77FG LOT 67[MED] 115.1 15.8% 109.2 90.6% ND C 78FG LOT 68[MED] 114.5 16.3% 108.6 90.1% ND C 79FG LOT 43 [LOW] 117.2 11.6% 115.7 91.8% ND E 80FG LOT 42 [LOW] 116.5 11.3% 116.4 92.4% ND E 81FG LOT 41[LOW] 116.0 12.0% 113.8 90.3% ND E 82FG LOT 4O[LOW] 116.0 11.5% 114.2 90.6% ND E 83FG LOT 39 [LOW] 115.0 11.7% 113.4 90.0% ND E ION SITE AT CLIENT'SREQUEST TOPERFORM I ESTING AND DBSERVATIC NOFSITE EARTHWORKINPHASE 4&5.CONT ACTOR IMPLETEDR MEDIAL EX(AVATIONON LOT 69.LOT 69REMAINS APPROXIM 4,TELYIF LOW ANDIS NOT COMPLETED. WORK PERFORMED INCLUDING REI OVALS AN IMOISTURE CONDITIONIP GHAVEBEEN PERFORMED PER GSI RECOMMEND)TIONSFO R LOW AND N IEDIUMEXP) ISIVESOIL CONDITIONSPEROURREPORT DAT D10/08/0 AND 09/30/0 COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:12/13/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DUMP TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE PHASE 4 & 5 PAD RECERTS TEST NO. LOCATION ALANDER EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 84FG LOT 38[LOW] 115.0 14.3% 105.7 92.7% ND B 85FG LOT 37 [LOW] 114.5 15.3% 103.2 90.5% ND B 86FG LOT 36[LOW] 114.0 15.1% 104.1 91.3% ND B 87FG LOT 35 [LOW] 114.0 15.8% 103.5 90.8% ND B ON SITE IN AM TO PERFORM FINISH rESTING C N PHASE 5 LOTS. TEST R SULTS MEET THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY GSI REGARDING OELATIVE CO APACTION AlD MOISTURE CONTENT. WORK PERFORMED INCLUDING REN OVALS AN:) MOISTURE CONDITIONIP G HAVE BEEN PERFORMED PER GSI RECOMMEND TIONS FO R LOW AND N EDIUM EXPI NSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS PER OUR REPORT DAT D 10/08/0 1 AND 09/30/0 1 COMMENTS: T 69 [MEDIUM] HAS NOT BEEN FINISHED AS OF 12/13/2013 1100 HRS AND MAINS APPROXIMATELY 1 FT BELOW DESIGN FINISH GRADE. GeoSolls, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 his field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision irection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc I' our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. HELD TESTING REPORT .. NAME / HOURS CLIENT _____________________TRACT _Pr LOCATION SUPT._•_•. CONTRACTOR SiJA JO EQUIPMENT 9-4 TEST NO. I £ . LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY . P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE __ ( _67J-,7//3o7/ /o rz 5C.__ ZE _?E,hi7T //3.ç_ , OD ___ 4247z J 6Z-4Q ,ifr 7 //J;L -#Ii).. le ht COMMENTS: _iiO _4J A47'4L _S 4 ,v2 yitE NOjT ,t/tJ (. _f_i iz,n 2 G n7L'S zvl 'E ;_ Geo5v!p PAGE (/. OF ( I This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. MODELS 100-104 (5) 105-108 (4) : PHASE 1 157-159, 190-192 (6) EIJ PHASE 2 154-156 194194 (5) PHASE 3 70-72, 151-153 (6) [J3JPHA SE4 40-4464-67 (8) JPHASE- 5 35-39,68,69 (7) PHASE 13-19 (7) J!JIPHA SE7 7-12 (6) JJ!PHASE8 1-6 EIJIPHASE 9 26-28, 60-83 PHASE 10 29-31, 77-79 (6) :I PHASE 11 32-34, 73-76 (7) 2J PHASE 12 84-88 Tj7J PHASE 13 20-25 L E: PHASE 14 114-116, 141-143 (6) PHASE 15 144-146, 111-113 (a) PHASE 16 109, 110, 147-150 (6) TOTAL LOTS 109 55 -.- -- 1 146 r NX ••i_'•. . 4214314 45 718915O 7ALA NDER (L) ' 6 - NO SCALE ik 15. 1114 ii21i1Oi1 DALO VERDE (\ GLEN A kE IA?_--- IZ In Brookfield NO 5 Ss /2865 POINT LEZ MAR. RE 200 DEL lIAR, CA. 92014 L c-ro4. L. Geotechnical 0 Geologic Coastal o Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com July 22, 2013 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 226,260, and 261 of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation. Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab SUbgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-BA, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 226,260, and 261, Planning Area 18 (Sycamore atthe Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 4). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference Nos. 2 and 3. Field Observation and Testing For Lots 226 and 261, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Thus, the upper 2 feet of the pads on Lots 226, and 261 were reprocessed during this recent grading effort. For Lot 260, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, for highly expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 4 to 5 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed,. the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 4 to 5 percent above the soils optimum moisturecontent, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Thus, the upper 2 feet of the pad on Lot 260 .was reprocessed during this recent grading effort. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938-10 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture contentforthe major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: -7-7, ;'I MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT :SOIL TYPES- . - bENSITPdF) . (PERCENT) J - GrayClayeySAND 121.0 12.5 L - Olive Brown Silty CLAY 111.0 18.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests completed for the removal bottom indicate over optimum soil moisture, per the GSl reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). As previously recommended, should a significant period of time elapse prior D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills) July 22, 2013 FiIè:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.226.260.261 Page 2 to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior to placement of the undersiab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 4, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lots 226, and 261 are Category II (medium expansive soils), while Lot 260 is Category Ill (highly expansive soils). Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSl is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills) July 22, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.226.260.261 Page 3 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSolls, Inc. W. '( o 5b. ricE 0,57 EngineerIng (P Geologist Robert G. Crisman David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, C JAN Civil Engineer, RCE 4 RCG/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills) July 22, 2013 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.226.260.261 Page 4 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:07/11/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PAlS LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKID STEER, 1-WATER HOSE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #NiA' #N/A #N/A ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO C BSERVE S TE EARTHWORK CONTR kCTOR HAS REI AOVED SOIL TO SPECIFIED DEPTHS ON THE MEDIUM L )TS AND HAc NOT COMPLETED REMEDIA GRADING ON LOT 260 LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIMI1 S AND ELE VATION CON FROL HAVE BEEN ESTABLIS IED BY CONTRACTOR. COMMENTS: Pad overexcavation was completed to at least 1 foot with the exposed bottom processed an additional 1 foot) and moisture conditioned to at least 2-3 percent above opt. compacted to at least 90 percent then brought to grade wi compacted fill at 90 percent or better and 2-3 percent overt optimum moisture, as recommended. C. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or iirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence f our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:07/12/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PAl 8 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKID STEER, 1-WATER HOSE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 130 LOT 261 83.0 15.3% 111.4 92.1% ND j 131 LOT 226 84.8 14.7% 109.6 90.6% ND J 132 L01226 , 86.5 15.0% 109.0 ' 90.1% ND J 133 LOT 261 84.5 15.7% 110.3 .91.2% ' , ND J ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO C BSERVE S TE EARTHWORK PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTED AND FOUND DENSIT 'AND MOl TURE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LOT 260 OX'D IN ACCORDANCE WITH URRECOMIPENDATIONS. LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIMPS AND ELEVATION CON ROL HAVE BEEN ESTABLIS ED BY CONTRACTOR. COMMENTS: Pads overexcavated to at least 1 foot, bottom processed moisture conditioned to at least 2-3 7 over opt. then compacted to at least 907 relative compaction. pads brought to grade with fill moisture conditioned to at least 2-37 over opt. moist. , then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as recommended. BY This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of'the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:07/15/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKID STEER, 1-WATER HOSE, 1-DUMP TRUCK TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 134 ' LOT 260 ' 81.0 22.8% 99.9 90.0% ND L 135 LOT 260 83.0 22.5% 100.5 90.5% ND L 136FG LOT 260 FG 22.9% 100.3 90.4% ND L 137FG L01226 FG 14.7% 109.5 90.5% ND j 138F6 LOT 261 FG 15.0% 109.2 90.2%' ND j ON SITE TO PERFORM TESTING OF ILL PLAC MENT. TEST RESULTS MEIET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIM11 S AND ELE VATION CON rROL HAVE E EEN ESTABLISI IED BY CONTRACTOR. COMMENTS: Padsoverexcavated to at least 1 foot, bottom processed moisture conditioned to at least 2-37 (Lots 226, 261) and 4-57 (Lot 260), then compacte to at least 90 7 relati compaction. Pads brought to grade with fill moisture conditioned to at least 2-37 (Lots 226, 261), or 4-57w (26 at 90 percent minimum relative compaction., as recommende BY: PAGE: 1 OF I This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision o direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. 5741 Palmer Way e Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 4.38-3155 ° FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosollsinc.com June 28, 2013 W.O.5949-B17-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Jeff Rodgers and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 1 Lots 157, 158, and 159, and Lots 190, 191, and 192, Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pie-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, city of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated May 18, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 1 through 43, 64 through 88, 100 through 116, 141 through 159, and 190 through 194), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 30, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Precise Grading Plans for: Palo Verde, Robertson Ranch PA 17," DWG. 453, Project No. C.T. 04-26, J. N. 011014, dated June 12, 2013, by O'Day Consultants. Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 1, Lots 157, 158, and 159, and lots 190, 191, and 192 of Planning Area 17, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. For the subject, very low expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 0-20) Lots 157, 158, and 159, earthwork consisted of processing (scarifying), moisture conditioning, and compacting the upper 12 inches of building pad subgrade. Where tested, reprocessed fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at optimum, or greater soil moisture content. For medium expansive (Expansion Index [E.I.] 51-90) Lots 190, 191, and 192, earthwork consisted of FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:06/18/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:6 CLIENT BROOKFIELO TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 20FG LOT 156 FG 11.9% 113.5 90.1% ND E 21FG LOT 157 FG 12.0% 114.2 90.6% ND E - 22FG LOT 158 FG 11.5% 113.7 90.2% ND E 23FG LOT 159 FG 11.7% 114.0 90.5% ND E 24 LOT 190 105.0 1 13.7% 114.8 91.1% ND E 25 LOT 191 103.5 1 14.2% 114.2 90.6% ND E 26 LOT 192 102.7 13.8% 114.6 91.0% ND E ONSITEIN AMTO OBSERVE REPROCESSING C NTHE ABOV REFERENC DLOTS. PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTE D AND FOUND MOISTU E AND RELA FIVECOMPACTION TOBEINCONFORMANCE WITHOUR RECOMM NDATIONS A LOCATIONE TESTED ONLY, PRIOR TO PLACING FILL, CONTR.AC IRPROCESSEDEXPO ED BOTTOM NACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN0 PRMEMO. COMMENTS: LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. removals, moisture conditioning and re-compaction performed per gsi recommendations for very low and medium expansive soil conditions per GSI reports dated 10-08-09, and 09-30-08. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: AV— PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across the lots. Once removals were completed, the exposed bottoms were processed, moisture conditioned and compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, then brought to grade with compacted fill, such that the upper24 inches has been reprocessed. Wheretested, reprocessed and/orfill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at 2 percent to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 4), and are considered suitable for development from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: - . MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT -- . SOIL W, &MOERCENT).: C --Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 120.5 13.5 I E - Dark Brown Silty SAND w/clay 126.0 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (Reference No. 2 and 4). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditionina and/or re-establishinci consistency, as well as Dad subcirade Droof testinci may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 2 and No. 4). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 4, Lots 159, 190, and 191 are categorized as foundation Category lIPT, based on medium expansive soil conditions, and/or as-built fill depths (see Reference No. Brookfield Homes W. 0. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Phase 1, Robertson Ranch June 28, 2013 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl .cro Page 2 4). Due to as-built fill depths (see Reference No. 4), Lots 157, 158, and 192 are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on a review of the current precise grading plans, foundations for fireplace pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings, will be impacted by the proximity to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subdrain trenches shown on Reference No. 5. In order to mitigate the potential for settlement, these footings will need to be deepened. In cross section, deepened footings should extend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below a 1:1 project extending up and away from the bottom outside edge of the subdrain trench, whichever is deeper. Additional footing depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches (total footing embedment of 18 to 30 inches) should be anticipated locally. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Phase 1, Robertson Ranch June 28, 2013 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl.cro eveosoik, Inc.Page 3 'N ftac(No. RCE4Th57J \* \Exp.4á&J * eNl David W. Skelly b Civil Engineer, RCE 4 The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted GeôSoils, Inc. ( ( No. 1934 Certified ) \ Engineering Geologist T / IN Robert G. Crisman or CA Engineering Geologist, &4982( RG C/D WS/J P F/jh Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-Sc PA-17, Phase 1, Robertson Ranch June 28, 2013 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17phl crc Geood, Ine. Page 4 W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/17/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:5 LOCATION CARLSBAD SIVADGE CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR____________ EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-0-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT. FIELD TESTING REPORT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 15 LOT 156 102.0 12.1% 114.8 91.1% ND E 16 LOT157 103.0 11.8% 114.2 90.6% ND E .17 LOT 158 103.5 1 13.0% 115.0 91.3% ND E 18 LOT 159 104.0 12.4% 114.7 91.0% ND E 19 LOT 190 104.2 15.7% 110.2 91.5% ND C ON SITE IN AM TO OBSERVE REPRO ESSING C N THE ABOVI REFERENC 0 LOTS. PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTE 0 AND FOI JND MOISTUF E AND RELA lyE COMPACT ON TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR RECOMM NDATIONS A LOCATIONS TESTED ONLY COMMENTS: LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. For very low expansive lots 157, 157, 158, and 159, pads were reprocessed, and moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per astm d1557 as recommended GeoSoi!s, Inc. for medium expansive lots 190-193 the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and the exposed bottom processed to a BY:_________________ depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2-3 above optimum,_c..oiirpacted to finish gride ii 91) peri-eni- or betterPAGE OF 1 This field report presents a-summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/19/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 27 LOT193 101.9 14.9% 113.9 90.4% ND E 28 LOT191 104.2 14.2% 115.3 91.5% ND E 29 LOT192 103.3 13.6% 114.6 91.0% ND E 30 LOT193 102.5 13.8% 114.9 91.2% SC E 31 LOT190 105.0 1 14.0% 116.2 92.2% ND E 32 LOT191 103.5 13.2% 115.1 91.3% ND E 33 LOT192 102.7 13.6% 114.2 90.6% ND E 34FG LOT190 FG 13.5% 115.3 91.5% SC E 35FG LOT191 FG 13.3% 114.3 90.7% ND E 36FG LOT192 FG 14.2% 116.0 92.1% ND E 37FG LOT193 FG 13.8% 114.7 91.0% ND E ONSITEIN AM TO OBSERVE REPROCESSING ( NTHE ABOVE: REFERENCIEDLOTS. PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTE D AND FOUND MOISTU E ANDRELA FIVE COMPACT ON TOBEINCONFORMANCE WITHOUR RECOMMENDATIONS A LOCATIONE TESTED ONLY PRIOR TO PLACING FILL, CONTRACT DR PROCE SSED EXPOS =-D BOTTOM N ACCORDANC WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS INOJRMEMO. reports i ated 10-()8-09 by GSL with respect to the treatment of buil ingpad ubgrade'or very loi and iedium expansive soil conditions. COMMENTS: AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. GeoSoils, Inc. BY:-- ~%*, L PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Geotechnucal. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 4383155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • wWw.geosóilsinô.com June 17, 2013 W.O. 5949-B17-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Jeff Rodgers and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Model Lots 100 Through 104, Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-CSC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Geotechnical update for Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated May 18, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch, East village (Lots 1 through 43, 64 through 88, 100 through 116, 141 through 159, and 190 through 194), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 30, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Precise Grading Plans for: Palo Verde, Robertson Ranch PA 17," DWG. 453, Project No. C.T. 04-26, J.N. 011014, dated June 12, 2013, by O'Day Consultants. - Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within the Model Phase, Lots 100 through 104 of Planning Area 17, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. For the subject, medium expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 51-90) lots, earthwork consisted of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across the lots. Once removals were completed, the exposed bottoms were processed, moisture conditioned and compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, then brought to grade with compacted fill, such that the upper 24 inches has been reprocessed. Where tested, reprocessed and/or fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at 2 percent to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 4), and are considered suitable for development from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method 06938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PC F) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) 1E Dark Brown Silty SAND w/clay. 'T 126.0 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSl's reports (Reference No. 2 and 4). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass priorto slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 2 and No. 4). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 4, all of the subject lots are medium expansive. Lots 103 and 104 are categorized as foundation Category IIPT, based on medium expansive soil Conditions. However, due to as-built fill depths, Lots 100, 101, and 102 are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Model Phase, Robertson Ranch June 17, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.mdl.cro GeOSoils, Inc. Page 2 Based on a review of the current precise grading plans, foundations for fireplace pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings, will be impacted by the proximity to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subdrain trenches shown on Reference No. 5. In order to mitigate the potential for settlement, these footings will need to be deepened. - In cross section, deepened footings should extend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below a 1:1 project extending up and away from the bottom outside edge of the subdrain trench, whichever is deeper. Additional footing depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches (total footing embedment of 24 to 36 inches) should be anticipated. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSl is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-Sc PA-17, Model Phase, Robertson Ranch June 17, 2013 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.mdl.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully su GeoSolls, Inc. ( G-30109i St EngineedIng Robert G. Crisman' o Engineering GeoIogistTtGi934 RGG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via mail and email) 1I U%U I 1cALIII Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17'SC PA17, Model Phase, Robertson Ranch June 17, 2013 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.mdl.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC. DATE: 06/10/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE t'. EQUIP. . TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE WORK SUMMARY: ONSITE ATCLIENTSREQUEST TO E VALUATE IOISTUREC NDITIONSC N LOTS 102,10 1, AND 104. CONTRACTOR HAD EXCA' ATED A TEST PIT ONEACH LOT AND WECHECKED HE MOISTURETHERE. MOISTURE CONDITIONSINTHEUPP R12INC ESISSATIS ACT-ORY, HC VVEVERBELO THAT LEVEL ITIS BELOW OPTIMUM, ONTI EORDER F2-4PERC NT. CLIENT AND CONTRACTOR HAS __NE RMEDUS THAT THEY VILL ABANDC NSATURATIOf AND REPROCESS USING CONVENTIONAL GRADING EQUIPMENT. COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT w.o.# 5949-B17-Sc DATE: 06/11/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 1 LOT103 87.0 8.5% 111.8 88.7% ND E 2 LOT104 87.5 9.6% 111.4 88.4% ND E 1A LOT103 87.0 13.6% 113.5 90.1% ND E 2A LOT104 87.5 14.0% 114.2 90.6% ND E WORK SUMMARY: ONSITE ATCLENT'SREQUESTTOC 3SERVEF RTHWORK F ELATEDTO AODELLOT RECERTIFICATION.CONTRACTOR IZEPROCEqSEDLOTST THEDEPTH 3 RECOMMENCED INOURREPORT.TESTSI& 2DIDN )T ACHIE E TARGETM ISTURECO JTENT. THE LOTS WEREREPROCESSED AND RETEST1111 IGINDICA TES THAT IF MOISTURE ISSUESHAVE PEEN CORRECTED. GRADING CON1 ROL FOR INES AND GRADES AND C URREFERENC WAS ESTABLISHEDBYOTHERS. COMMENTS: ERFORMED MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS FOR RETESTS IN THE LAB BY DIRECT EAT METHOD. Removals were performed to at least 12 inches below grade with the exposed bottom processed an additional 12 inches then moisture conditioned to at least 2-3h above the soils optimum moisture content, then compacted and brought to grade at a minimum relative compaction of 90h per astm d1557 GeoSolls, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.#5949-B17-SC DATE: 06/12/13 NAME:TODD HOURS: 4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 3 LOT 104 88.0 13.2% 114.0 90.5% ND E 4 LOT 103 88.0 13.5% 113.8 90.36% ND E 5 LOT 102 88.0 13.4% 114.0 90.5% SC E 6 LOT 101 86.0 14.2% 113.5 90.1% ND E WORK SUMMARY: ON SITE IN AM TO PERFORM TESTItNN G OF FILL PLACEMENT )N THE AFOI ZEMENTIONED .OTS. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMM NDATION 3 REGARDIN RELATIVE GOMPACTION A qD MOISTURE. COMMENTS: PERFORMED MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS FOR RETESTS IN THE LAB BY DIRECT HEAT METHOD. Removals were performed to at least 12 inches below grade with the exposed bottom processed an additional 12 inches then moisture conditioned to at least 2-37 above the soils optimum moisture content then compacted and brought to grade at a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per astm d1557 per GSI recommendations GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 rhis field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervisior r direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the resence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered n his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 5949-1317-SC DATE: 06/13/13 NAME: TODD HOURS: 4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-1 7 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 7 LOT100 85.0 13.2% 114.0 90.5% ND E 8FG LOT104 FG 13.2% 114.6 91.0% ND E 9FG LOT103 FG 14.1% 113.6 90.2% ND E 10 LOT100 86.0 14.2% 113.5 90.1% SC E 11 LOT101 87.0 13.3% 113.6 90.2% ND E WORK SUMMARY: ONSITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO OBSERVE AND TEST FILI. PLACEMEN FOR LOT REC RTS. [100-104]. CONTRACTOR PERFORM DEARTHWORK IN ACC DRDANCE W rHOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.PRIOR TO PLkCINGFIL COMMENTS: Removals were performed to at least 12 inches below pad with the exposed bottom processed an additional 12 inches the moisture conditioned to at least 2-37 above the soils optimum moisture content then compacted and brought to grad at a minumum relative compaction of 90 percent relative compaction per astm D1557, and per GSI recommendations. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision r direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered n his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/14/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY %RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 12FG LOT 102 . FG 13.2% 114.0 90.5% NO E I3FG LOTI01 .FG 13.2% 114.6 91.0% ND E 14FG LOT 100 FG 14.1% 113.6 90.2% ND E WORK SUMMARY: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO F ERFORM IjINISH GRADE TESTING 011 THE REFEREt CED LOTS. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RI COMMENDATIONS. PROVIDED CONTRACTOR WITH INF RMATION REGARDING PAOISTURE ON LOTS 159. COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Inc. BY: ,. PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervisior r direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the Dresence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discoverec n his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. C 09NS U L T A N T S Civil Engineering • Surveying June 18, 2013 J.N.: 08-1245 Mt Jeff Rodgers Brookfield HOmes 12865 Pointe del Mar Suite 200 Del Mar, CA 92014-3859 RE: Robertson Ranch PA 17, Grading Plan Dwg. No. 453-8D, Pad Certification Dear Jeff: We have written a letter to the City of Carlsbad that certifies the rough grading of the pads for Lots 100 through 104 of Grading Plan 45381) have been completed to the approved grading plan, the final elevations to be in tolerance of plus or minus 0 1 feet and the horizontal location is certified for approximate location. This letter is to inform you that there are areas within the building pads that are not within the 0.1 foot tolerance. Please see the enclosed exhibit. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Tim Carroll 6/1 Wt TC/ps Project Manager CARRM 33 End. N:08I245\1I306I8_PA 17 Pad Cert. Brookflelddocx O'Day Consultants Inc. E-ma?,: oday@odayconsuttarns.com 2710 Lok& Avenue West, &irte tOO Website: www.odayconsuftants.com Carlsbad. California 92010-6609 Tel; 760.931,7700 Fax: 760.931.8680 GeOtechnical • Geologice Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com August 20,2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger. Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 6 (Lots 241 Through 248) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated. September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Discussion of Building Slab SubgradePre-Weting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 6 (Lots 241 through 248), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surlicial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in. Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing For Lots 24.1 through 248, the upper 12 inches Of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Thus, the upper 2 feet of the subject pads, were reprocessed during this recent grading effort. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938-10 (Procedure A). The'test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our'"Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: . MOISTURE cONTENT - - SOIL ivpE;... .., I.. . DENSITY (PF) [_:. .. •. (PERCENT 0 - Yeflowish Gray silty SAND 127.0 , 11.0 M '- Yellowish Brown, Silty SAND w/clay . 123.0 . 13.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the. City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests completed for the removal bottom indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). However, due to warm weather conditions prevalent during grading, finish grade testing indicates that subgrade building pad moisture has dried out and will require additional moistening. As such, additional moisture conditioning is recommended and should be verified, by this office prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder. As previously recommended, should a significant period of time elapse prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). D.R. Horton , W.O. 6302-8-SC Phase 6 (Sycamore at the Foothills) ' August 20, 2012 FiIe:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph6 GwSoUsq Inc. , , ' Page 2 Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. .1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lots 241 through 248 are foundation Category II. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may. be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submteAL GeoSolls, Inc.Cc %f Robert G. Crisma Engineering Geologis, 934 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" eleuleurlruLw rnglneer, LI iu Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton . W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 6 (Sycamore at the Foothills) . . August 20, 2012 FiIe:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.ph6 Geoftift, Inc.Page 3 CLIENT og- TRACT LO ~6 CATION______________________ SUPT EQUII Ovo Cv. - r - - LOCATION ELEV. OR MOISTURE CONTENT ____ DRY DENSITY P.C. F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION SOIL ':TYPE RON 111OHNORMN-1 DEPTH % DIEM ._ F1_ I I J!II'1I I _ M OE ENNOM .•_ !!JI I 11TL1iIEEE_ ME I_ IVOU30 WIN COMMENTS: L7 O I i • M) /?7' (''OA) CbE eo ___ PAGE ________ OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work, it is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 6302-B-SC DATE:08/13/12 NAME: TODD HOURS: 3 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-FIRE HOSE, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 76 LOT 248 76.5 14.2% 116.7 91.9% ND a 77 LOT 248 77.7 13.1% 115.3 90.8% ND a LOT 241 76.5 14.1% MOISTURE VERIFICATION ONLY 17.0% LOT 242 78.0 14.7% LOT 243 79.0 16.8% 76.5 164: LOT 244 LOT 245 76.5 16.9% LOT 246 78.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A • #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A COMMENTS: observed removal of subgrade soils to approximately 12 inches below pad grade, scarification and moisture. conditioning of the exposed bottom to at least 2-37 above the soils optimum moisture contentto an additional depth 12 inches below the removal bottom. Performed density te of the recompacted bottom prior to filling. f ting BY his field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision o lirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc€ if our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT w.o.#. 6302-B-SC DATE: 08/14/12 NAME:TODD HOURS: 4 CLIENT DRHORTON TRACT PAI8 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN __CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-FIRE HOSE, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO.. LOCATION . EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% .DRV DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 78 LOT 247 78.0 14.2% 115.6 91.0% ND Q 79 LOT 246 79.0 16.7% 114.1 92.8% ND M 80 LOT 245 . 79.5 16.4%. 111.4 90.6% ND M 81 LOT 244 80.0 14.3% 114.6 90.2% ND Q 82 LOT 243 79.0 14.2% 109.5 86.2% . ND Q 82A L01243 79.0 14.5% 115.4 90.9% ND a ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO F ERFORM "ESTING. TE T RESULTS I AEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING R ILATIVE C )MPACTION kND MOISTU E COMMENTS: PRIOR TO PLACING FILL ON LOTS 243-248 BOTTOMS WERE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. Including the removal of subgrade soils to an approximate depth of 12 inches below grade scarification and moisture conditioning of the exposed bottom to a depth of 12 inches, recôinpaction of the exposed bottom t at least 90 percent and at 2-37 above the soils optimum moist r content. PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervisior or direction of the actual work of the contractPr, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither thE presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discoverec in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE NAME HOURS 7. CLIENT Oc I b TRACT (/) - LOCATION- SUPT. CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT (') :)ni Jfcr () JL TEST NO. LC ATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE LO I Ut) k3' fl Ll il ( - 7 -r_( Tii oS'i) 'nc I ' , - __( _f___ j ( ) (J- ___T ) / 1 ( COMMENTS: PAGE / OF' This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. Itis understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. J-s Geotechnical . Geologic. Coastal. Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 9201.0 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com August 6, 2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court ' San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 5 (Lots 238 Through 240, and Lots 249 Through 252) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. References: 1. "Geotéchnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc.' Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: . . GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 5 (Lots 238 through 240, and Lots 249 through 252), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the Cityof Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surticial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction' of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No..2).. Based on our Observations and testing,-the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this. office, (see Reference No. 2) and as provided in the •. field, .and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. 4 Field Observation and Testing For Lots 238 through 240, and Lots 249 through 252, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and the exposed bottom was scarified and presoaked to at least 2-3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D-155.7). Thus, the upper two (2) feet of the subject pads were reprocessed during this recent grading effort. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938-10 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content forthe major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PC F) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) L - Olive Brown, SlltyCLAY I 111.0 I 18.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM P 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). Should a significant period of time elapse prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior to placement of the undersiab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are foundation Category II PT. D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-13-SC Phase 5 (Sycamore at the Foothills) August 6, 2012 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph5 GeoSoHs, Inc. Page 2 Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this -report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place.. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you, should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully subm)UdAL GeoSoils, Inc. As CL No. 1934 CertIthd 1\ Engineering i Robert G. Engineering Geolot.e134 RCG/ATG/PLM/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" UI It',.,QI L.0 III UI Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 5 (Sycamoreat the Foothills) August 6, 2012 Fite:e:wp12\63O0\6302b.cro.ph5 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 -r A •8 CLIENT TRACTZV7 -Zr7_ LOCATION SUPT____________________ CONTRACTOR ScAl f <_ GeoSoils, Inc. BY: EpIforms/memosant.wpd PAGE OF / W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:08/01/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:3.5 FIELD TESTING REPORT CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. FR . MOISTURE VERIFICATION COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO OBSERVE GRADING. CONTRACTOR SPENT MOST OF THE DAY HEALING UP VERY MOIST SOIL. ONCE DRIED BACK WE WERE ABLE TO CHECK THE MOISTURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATIONS. MOISTURE LEVELS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. EXCAVATION BOTTOMS PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. Additional recommendations are presented in our field memo dated July 27, 2012. eo soil I; This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision o direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:- 08/02/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PAI8 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTS 1.IsI(i] . [.]lIiui1__9j_ ____________ 1SI1I! -441 COMMENTS: E 2 VISITS ONE IN THE MORNING AND ONE IN THE AFTERNOON.. TEST 68 DID ACHIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS DUE TO LOW MOISTURE CONTENT. TRACTOR SCARIFIED AND MOISTURE CONDITIONED THE AREA. RETEST All sitework, including bottom preparation and filling was j in accordance with GSI recommendations, including addition recommenddations presented in our field memo dated July 27 2012. PAGE: 1 OF I Ihis field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision oi Jirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence if our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. BY PAGE: 1 OF 1 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE: 08/03/12 NAME: TODD HOURS: _3 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PAI8 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE AS REQUIRED LOT RECERTS TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 69 LOT 250 75.5+- 22.6% 101.1 91.1% ND L 70 LOT 251 75.5+- 22.9% 100.7 90.7% ND L ONSITE AT CUENTSREQUEST TOC BSERVES TEGRADING CONTRACT DR WASNOT READY FOR TESTING IN THE MORNII G AS CO( RDINATED YESTERDAY AF IERNOON L.UMIVI'J I PERFORMED TESTING WHERE MOTED AND THE RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. Including additional recommendations presented in our fiel memo date July 27, 2012. 11 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:- 08/06/12 NAME TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE AS REQUIRED LOT RECERTS TEST NO. LOCATION . EL Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 71 LOT 252 75.5+- 22.1% 99.9 90.0% ND L 72FG LOT 249 FG 21.9% 100.2 90.3% ND L 73FG LOT 250 FG 22.5% 100.6 90.6% ND L 74FG LOT 251 FG 22.7% 99.9 90.0% ND L 75FG LOT 252 FG 22.5% 100.4 90.5% ND L COMMENTS: PERFORMED TESTING WHERE MOTED AND THE RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommendations for the processing of existingsoil in pla moisture conditioning, and fill, were observed to be in accordance with GSI recommendations, including additional recommendations presented in our field memo dated July 27, 2012. BY: bitt PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision o direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. croL2,f Geotechnical. Geologic Coastal. Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, Calif6rnia 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com June 5, 2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 4 (Lots 234 Through 237, and Lots 253 Through 255) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update-and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 4 (Lots 234 through 237, and Lots 253 through 255), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing suificiaI soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the. recommendations provided by.this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2: Field Observation and Testing For Lots 230 through 233, and Lots 253 through 255, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to .3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed t0 achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D-1 557). Thus, the upper two (2) feet of the subject pads were reprocessed during this recent grading effort. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938-10 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisturecontentfor the major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT . (PERCENT) I L - Olive Brown, Silty CLAY I . 111.0 I 18.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of. Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). Should a significant period of time elapse prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or .re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior to placement of the undersiab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of ROference No. 3, Lots 233 through 237, and 253 through 255 are foundation Category II. D.R. Horton . W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 4 (Sycamore at the Foothills) June 5, 2012 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph4 Geo$ods, Inc. Page 2 Closure The materials encountered on the project Site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrockmaterials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been' derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or.liàbility for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is 'not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our. office. Respectfully sub . . ' ' . 7IF'si. GeoSolls, In ((q' 0. No C ; rt l 934 Engineering C Geologist Robert G Cris OF ) &tell Engineering Geolo C 1934 Geotechnical Engineer GE 2320 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton Phase 4 (Sycamore at the Foothills) F1le:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.ph4 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6302-B-SC June 5, 2012 Page 3 W.O. DATE NAME &flO HOURS 1 CLIENT AE TRACT P9 m LOCATION SUPT______________________ CONTRACTOR I1 C& Si• ON 0 / TW 9 E:C_GM~27E~WWW IL906essl jja m6'qv 0A1\'SIv J 23Z31 ¶. Zs-2S3. 6S2 7wiiic Oiü-4S3c uqjd 5iB Co-7ci- R&r FLii fY10 gE-nG For- m vve'no ' • GeoS PAGE / -OF E:/wp/forms/memosant.wpd W.O. DATE NAME_________ HOURS MEMO CLIENT Wrl TRACT _______________ LOCATION SUPT______________________ CONTRACTOR S c,rr BY:'c, " WV EMp/forms/emosant.wpd PAGE _______________ OF SUPT EQUIPMENT HELD TESTING REPORT Pft CLIENT V? TRACT in LOCATION______________________ DEPTH DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION M-INNIN X F-011MMM. 1 11 imp FAMIM FORM A CM~N=Jff =,-A IBM M-1 101 PAGE '—OFt This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. HELD TESTING REPORT w. o. (d-) C)2,- DATE NAM E eüc. HOURS Z CLIENT'.i:y.IPJ1 SUPT. VMW CONTRACTOR 'SCr % DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION Fag________RUIEI!I ad~~= CONTENT Emm =MEN ~OWFQI mvrl~~ftli= WE W IT61 i9t W~ ubm ff, "M I I "Ai 199-11, T) W W I ='I W" M Ulm IMMIZA WWTM--gM6- SAW MA COMMENTS)OS _OU\_S?4& _(O\iETO BY- PAGE -. OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT 'ENTERED.. U 1 21-2 .._______ DATE J/3i lit NAME z1i-O C HOURS ? - CLIENT • TRACT_ LOCATION_C&Y{ SU DT. ___________________ CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT - .. . cipo c ' ELEV. OR DEPTH CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. RE~'T IVE COMPACTION] WITM MOVE mmmilgimm Ell ma- WM_ 0 STE - "t ~ Iff W7 MR mc M W um' Ti W, 6, i'll r MOA I M COMMENTS: & PAGE OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT ENTER a t _SI2Si1Z NAME tr3 HOURS____________ CLIENT _Di I)t1 TRACT I LOCATION_CPJ?ff) SUPT. /Pii1 CONTRACTOR cSCJ'y OR DEPTH CONTENT % -DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION LIM- rc "Mal IN ral,".51W 'N 01 HIS& "011 0, 1 IF, LAW COMMENTS: 731 UJE (C(EE ct) I C\c\AE (Vc[\oi) il:: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety-on this project. CLIENT_ o -TRACT- LOCATION SUPT. CONTRACTOF - OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE ~ COMPACTION U-O-W~~ "WOM mm~mLN1 M~m mom MIN 1 ma AN' NAME WIN. OW11101MIM-0 "NO "(.1*%WWV= M, niff -111", W'1 - fl -- WIN V- mm Jim COMMENTS: i5\ W IWE 'COIJ ! PAGE ______ OFI This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. I PAGE 1- FIELD TESTING REPORT PATE S/2-5 Tr ENTERED MAY 312012 NAME____________ HOURS______________ CLIENT DR ht.1Th1 TRACT FFIt LOCATION_cPfp-t-se)M) SUPT EQUII Pill rw~_ MEN OR DEPTH _____ V $ -1 U • CONTENT DENSITY 7. IVE thiii S gu -- ns v, i m , wam L Was = 17 10% WW J. 1~=- "LAZIM21 ~Wlkl lei k -- COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. CLIENT I#1 SUPT FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. DATE (' NAME HOURS /- M I Film 10 M Mo. . f, I I —E ELEV. DEPTH !MOISTURE % DRY P.C.F. % RELATIVE L -COMPACTION a 1'0 To M1 f W-1 rtsmg Im r-1 4 1TJJ k W .0 COMMENTS: BY: (/Y V1 LJflMMj 1/ PAGE • I .-OF/ This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for Job or site safety on this project. C 0 N S U L T A N T S Civil Engineering . Surveying June 7, 2012 J.N.: 09-1270-04 City of Carlsbad Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch PA 18, Grading Plan Drawing No. 453-8B Pad Certification Dear Sirs: Based on our field survey of June 6, 2012, the rough grading of the pads for Lots 234 through 237 and Lots 253 through 255 of Grading Plan 453-8B have been substantially completed in accordance with the approved grading plan to the approximate final elevation. The final elevations are certified to a tolerance of plus or minus 0.1 feet and the horizontal location is certified for approximate location. TC/ps cc: Kim Molina, D.R. Horton Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Tim Carroll bA Project Manager IkL LA Trum CMROLL No.7700 J \sPCA) N:091270\I120607_PadCert-PA18.doc O'Day Consultants Inc. E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com 2710 Loker Avenue West, SuIte 100 Webslte: www.oyconsultants.com Carlsbad. CalIfornia 92010-6609 Tel: 760.931.7700 Fax: 760.931.8880 Geotechnical . Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com May 7, 2012 W.O. 5949-13-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 51,52,53, and 54, Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 Through 63, 89 Through 99, 117 Through 140, and 160 Through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated February 16, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 51, 52, 53, and 54 of Planning Area 16, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 10 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for continued development from, a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copy of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) I P - Yellowish Brown, Clayey Sand I 124.5 I 10.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., 3 to 7 days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No.2 and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low expansive, and categorized as foundation Category la or 1 b. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-1 6, Lots 51, 52, 53 & 54, Robertson Ranch May 7, 2012 File:e:wp1259OO\5949b.cro.51_54 GcoSoi1s, Inc. Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submie&1 7 /o /\'• '1 sG . —24 Cern S.,. tJ t Robert G. Crisman 40FC/ Engineering Geologis, -1934 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Report" 0ESSfOA,4N (çc cc f / Andrew T. Guatelli Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (2) Brookfield Homes, Attention: Ms. Terri McHugh (via email and mail) Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 51, 52, 53 & 54, Robertson Ranch May 7, 2012 FiIe:e:wp12\59OO\5949b.cro.5154 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 SUPT EQUIF FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE -S NAME HOURS - CLIENT _______________________TRACT_ LOCATION________________ ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % % RELATIVE COMPACTION m_r "M III ONE IMMENSE 1~-- M§Nmmm IV! 01101 INS 01101 1101 1101 MEN 1101 1101010 Fail IN WE 42101 1101 low, W, ffm%hhi=l MiEffirs 1101 0100~ Alms—mmmism—m- 'Effm ImUll 01101 mm COMMENTS: PAGE OF '- - E:/wp/forms/fieldtst.wpd Cro4' 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 FAX (760) 931-0915 April 10, 2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, CA 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 3 (Lots 230 Through 233, and Lots 256 Through 259) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 3 (Lots 230 through 233, and Lots 256 through 259), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots th a t have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3 ) . Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, a n d placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent p e r ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations a n d testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considere d suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earth w o r k will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing For Lots 230 through 233, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions (i.e., bottom be ripped (approximately 8 to 12inches), moisture conditioned to at least 2-3% above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). For Lots 256 through 259, the up p e r 12 inches was removed, with.the exposed bottom scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 4-5% above the soils optimum moisture content and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The pad w a s then restored to planned pad grade with compacted liii moisture conditioned to at least 4 to 5percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D-1557). Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM t e s t method D 6938-10 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil t y p e Within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: ON W-14 VAR, ul IN it, IL- Olive Brown, Silty CLAY 111.0 18.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compac t i o n requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at l e a s t 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). Should a significant period o f time elapse prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry o u t , additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well a s p a d subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior to placement of the unclerslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid an d applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pa d s . If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnicaf update report may be necessary. Based on our review of D.R. Horton Phase 3 (Sycamore at the Foothills) e:e1wp12\6300\6302b.czo.ph3 W.O. 6302-B-SC April 10, 2012 Page 2 Respectfully submitted GeoSolls, inc. Robert G. risma Engineering' Geol Ol' N o 34 CerUfi 19 ed \ Engineering c,p\.. e9OiogiSt Andrew T. G Geotechniàal Engineer, GE 2320 Reference No. 3, Lots 230 through 233 are foundation Category U, and Lots 256 through 259 are Category lii. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity 'to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If. you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. RCGIATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton Phase 3 (Sycamore at the Foothills) Fde:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.pl3 Geo4Us, Inc. W.O. 6302-B-SC April 10, 2012 Page 3 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760)438-3155 FAX (760) 931-0915k www.geosoilsinc.com January 18, 2012 W.O. 5949-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 89, 90, and 91, Portion of Phase 10, Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion .f Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated Oôtober 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 Through 63,89 Through 99,117 Through 140, and 160 Through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated February 16, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 89, 90, and 91 of Planning Area 16, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 24 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copy of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: - " Is1UEoNtENT -,Sl SOIL TYPE _LnI DENSI(PF- (ERCENTi;t IC - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND I 120.5 I 13.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSl's reports (References .1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., 3 to 7 days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No.2 and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are highly expansive, and, categorized as foundation Category Ill. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may b.e necessary. CLOSURE The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 89, 90, and 91, Robertson Ranch January 18, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.phlO.1.cro Page 2 GeeSofls, Inc. GeoSoils, RCbf'G. Crisn Engineering G€ jNAL '\ \t) NO. 1934 )—I Crfled p \. \ Engineering 1A -.eO!O91St cal Engineer, GE 2320 Respectfully sub is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office: RCG/ATG/J PF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (1) Brookfield Homes, Attention: Ms. Terri McHugh (via email) Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 89, 90, and 91, Robertson Ranch January 18, 2012 Fi1e:e:\wp12\5900\5949b.phl0.1.cro Page 3 GeoSoigsq Inc. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.0.# 6302-B-SC DATE:01/05/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:3.5 CLIENT DRHORTON TRACT PAlS LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER DANNY CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE AS NEEDED LOT RECERT. PHASE 2 TEST NO. LOCATION EL Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A OBSERVATION SUMMARY: #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A ON SITE IN AM TO OBSERVE SITE GI EADING 0 I PHASE II L( IS #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A CONTRACTOR COMMENCED ON LOT 265 -REM VED 1 FT OF SOIL STOCKPILED ON LOT 266. #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A PM. SCARIFIES THE BOTTOM OF RE AOVEDAR AANDMOISTURE CONDITIONS SOIL. #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NO FILL PLACED OR COMPACTED. I 0 DENSIT TESTING #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A COMMENTS: o oil, S p Inc, BYf PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our finn will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. CLIENT SUPER EQUIP. LOT RECERTIFICATION FIELD TESTING REPORT. W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:01/09/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE Wf( RELATIVE COMPACTION 1'I MR LOT 266 1 FT REMOVED . ' COMMENTS:- - N SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING. EXCEPT TEST # 24, THEIRS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ELEVATION CONTROL SET BY DNTRACTOR BY This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils. Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC . DATE:01/10/12 NAME: TODD • HOURS:1 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. LOT RECERTIFICATION hIs'—U[SI IIILII[.i1L --- *1 R- ------ - Lz i-0-& . S - 5* -_-:- - - - - --- .- - ---' iRM M. -' '-a 44M no -: -: i;; L - - - - - _- ,.r - '- _______ .5 - - *—:Z .. - 1,, •*S. . _________ COMMENTS: BY1PJ// ------ .........J PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our.firrn, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE: O1//iI12 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT DR HORTON - TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR . SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE AS NEEDED LOT RECERT. PHASE 2 . LS LOCATION - . ELI]i'.__•_i 'i:1.UkYA 11)1 .I•'1,1C __________ '--- ______ COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING. RESULTS AND RETESTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ELEVATION CONTROL ESTABLISHED AND DTERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. dec/Soils. Inc. :jI II BY: PAGE:1 OF1 - This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shalt excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Geotechnical Geologic Coastal Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 'www.geosoilsinc.com January 17, 2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, CA 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 2 (Lots 265,266, 302, 303, and 304) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 1 (Lots 265, 266, 302, 303, and 304), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing Earthwork was observed to consist of surficial reprocessing of pad grade soils for Lots 302, 303, and 304 in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2 for low expansive soil conditions. For Lots 265 and 266, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: -M*'- "IT [ j~h TYPEI ¼ 2d SOIL i I?DENSITY (PCF) (PERCENT) Brown, Silty CLAY F13r 111.0 18.5 nish Gray, Gravelly SAND w/silt 131.5 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant period of time elapse prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary priorto placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 2 (Sycamore at the Foothills) January 17, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph2 Page 2 Geooils, Inc. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crism Engineering Geo RCG/ATG/JPF/jh ÔMAL G. \k. 1934 crned \ Enqr.eo;jng P \ Geologist . OF r&\0 /' Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) D.R. Horton Phase 2 (Sycamore at the Foothills) File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph2 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6302-B-SC January 17, 2012 Page 3