The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE PA 16, 17, 18; COMPACTION REPORTS OF BUILDING PAD RECERTIFICATIONS (2012-2014);Cf 0 If., , Geotechnical • Geologic o Coastal 9 Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com July. 21, 2014 W.O. 5949-B 1 7-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 12, Lots 84 Through 88, 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 12, 2013,, by O'Day Consultants. Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 12, Lots 84 through 88 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 84 through 88 (Phase 12), earthwork minimally consisted of processing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across, compacting and moisture conditioning to at least 90 percent 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 OSI 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: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) B - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND [ 114.0 13.0 C - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 120.5 13.5 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 also indicate over optimum soil moisture content, in general accordance with GSI's reports (Reference Nos. 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 subarade 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, Lot Nos. 87 and 88 are categorized as foundation Category IPT, based on low expansive soil conditions (Reference No. 3). Lots 84, 85, and 86 are categorized as foundation Category lIPT, based on the as-built fill thickness across each lot (Reference No. 3). 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 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-1317-SC PA-17 Phase 12, Robertson Ranch July 21, 2014 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl2.cro Geook, Inc. Page 2 pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings maybe 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 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. 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,..- GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geolo RGC/DWS/JPF/jh \O'hiL ( No. 1934 I- CertFfied J Engineering / () Geologist - "J~- AO David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, F r W. No. RCE 47857 Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17 Phase 12, Robertson Ranch July 21, 2014 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl2.cro Ge0i1 9 Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-1317-SC DATE: 06/27/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT______ PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 172 LOT 84 ,i.. -1.5 14.7% 102.9 90.3% ND B 173 LOT 84 __'i-. -1.0 13.5% 103.3 90.6% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURE CONDITIONING HA E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFORLOW &MED. EXPAN lyESOIL CC NDITIONSPt- GSI REPORTS DATED10-08-09 AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: EARTHWORK PROCEEDED ON LOT 84 SIGNIFICANT RODENT BURROWING AND )SION EMERGED REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK BEYOND OUR OMMENDATIONS. CONTRACTOR REMOVED AND REPLACED AN ADDITIONAL 18 24" OF MATERIAL. I 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. W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE: 06/30/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT/6 DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 174 LOT 84 _I l- -0.5 14.7% 102.9 90.3% SC B 175 LOT 85 gZ -1.0 13.5% 103.3 90.6% ND B 176 LOT 86 __k Ju -1.0 13.5% 102.9 90.3% ND B 177FG LOT 73 _ii FG 13.2% 104.3 91.5% SC B 178FG LOT 74 ,L_II F? 13.9% 102.8 90.2% ND B 179FG LOT 75 it FG 13.5% 103.6 90.9% ND B 180FG LOT 76 'j,Ii FG 15.2% 103.3 90.6% SC B 181 FG LOT 32 FG 13.7% 104.2 91.4% ND B 182FG LOT 33 _L FG 14.1% 104.0 91.2% ND B 183FG LOT 34 FG 13.3% 103.4 90.7% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURECONDITI DNING HATE BEENPER ORMEDPEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW&M D.EXPAN lyE SOIL CONDITIONS PE GSIREPORT DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: LOTS 85 AND 86-CONTRACTOR REMOVED +- 12" OF MATERIAL AND SCARIFIED MOISTURIZED THE BOTTOM PRIOR TO PLACING FILL. 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.# 5949-1317-SC DATE: 07/01/14 NAME:TODD/BRAD HOURS:11 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 184FG LOT 84 pkii_ FG 13.1% 102.7 90.1% SC B 185FG LOT 85 1?- FG 13.5% 103.4 90.7% ND B 186FG LOT 86 _jt- FG 13.3% 103.2 90.5% SC B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURE CONDITI DNINGHA E BEEN PER 7ORMEDPE GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW &M D.EXPAN IVE SOIL CC NDITIONSP1 GSIREPORT DATED10-08-09 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 finn, 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 10 DATE 7/2.// NAME --AC( HOURS -T CLIENT TRACT_ fl LOCATION_____________ SUPT._______________ CONTRACTOR_________________________________ EQUIPMENT 1 TEST NO. LoATIc ELEV. OR, DEPTH MOISTURE. CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 1 0-9 - 3i c&7 qZ..'l I .cT 7 /1, p h - S N. D14 ' _R 9_ c5T 7 . -C r i ((? 1\ ( Ct (Cf ( (?c L ( ---f ( (( COMMENTS: BY:'--If I PAGE 1 OF 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. W.0 5C DATE 7i3/! NAME_____________ HOURS 2- /E?df ' CLIENT ____________________TRACT______________ LOCATION_CWLPjT) SUPT. (i1Zkii CONTRACTOR VPtI EQUIPMENT.Ear I C SF 1a(( ( TEST NO. LOO1ON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE L(5-1_%3 PhiL. i h COMM ? CUS i\kJ I, BY: PAGE OF 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 thepresence 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. 4 ci-otf2o Geotechnical ó Geologic 9 Coastal 9 Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com July 2, 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 11, Lots 32, 33, 34, 73, 74, 75 and 76, 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 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 11, Lots 32, 33, 34, 73, 74, 75 and 76 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 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 the vicinity, 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: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY ( PC MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) I B - 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 at least optimum soil moisture content, in general accordance with GSI's reports (Reference Nos. 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 IPT. 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. 5949-1317-SC PA-17 Phase 11 Robertson Ranch July 2, 2014 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl icro Page 2 Based on a review of the precise grading plans (Reference No. 4), foundations for fireplace pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings maybe 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 shouldextend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below al :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 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. 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 subm GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geolo RGC/DWS/JPF!jh No. 1934 —' Certified Engineering p, Geologist .- _o*1 ~2 z&A David W. Skelly .1 Civil Engineer, RCE 4 No. ROE 47057 * Exp. CM ! OF CA Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-1317-SC PA-1 7, Phase 11, Robertson Ranch July 2, 2014 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phll .cro Page 3 V 78 MODELS 100-104 (5) EI Ma.a 105-108 (4) PHASE? 157-159, 190-192 (6) LI:] PHASE 2 154-156, 193,194 (5) PHASE 3 70-72, 151-153 (6) L1 PHASE 4 40-44 64-67 (8) . PHASE 5 35-39, 64 69 (7) EPHASE6 13-19 .J PHASE 7 7-12 (6) [ PHASE 8 1-6 (6) L PHASE 9 26-28, 80-83 (7) PHASE 10 PHASE 11 29-31, 77-79 (6) 32-34, 73-76 (7) PHASE 12 84-88 PHASE 13 20-25 - PHASE 14 114-116, 141-143 (6) I PHASE 15 144-146, 111-113 (6) PHASE 16 109, 110, 147-150 (6) TOTAL LOTS 109 I- FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.#. 5949-B17-SC DATE: 06113114 NAME:TODD HOURS: 2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-1 7 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. LOT RE-CERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 139 LOT 78 0 -0.5 14.5% 103.6 90.9% ND B 140 LOT 77 gO -0.5 15.0% 103.3 90.6%. ND B 141 LOT 76 gj -0.5 14.6% 104.2 91.4% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI DINING HA WE BEEN PER ORMED PEI GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & MED. EXPAN ;IVE SOIL CC IDITIONS PER 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:06/19/14 NAME: TODD HOURS: 4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE SLOPE NORTH CORNER OF LOT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 155 LOT 31 to -0.5 13.5% 104.2 91.4% ND B 156 LOT 30 so -0.5 13.3% 103.7 91.0% ND B 157 LOT 29 10 -0.5 14.1% 103.0 90.4% ND B 158 LOT 32 Il -0.5 102.8 90.2% ND B 158A LOT 32 fl -0.5 13.2% 103.5 90.8% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI DNING HAI tE BEEN PER ORMED PEI GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & M D. EXPAN 31VE SOIL CC NDITIONS PE R GSI REPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosolls, 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.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:06/25/14 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 RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 170 LOT 34 j -0.5 q.'i/ 104.3 91.5% ND B 171 LOT 33 Ji -0.5 .11 103.7 91.0% ND B 170A LOT 34 11 -0.5 14.5% 102.8 90.2% ND B 171A L0733 , -0.5 15.1% 103.1 90.4% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI DNING HA E BEEN PER zORMED PEI GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & MED. EXPANI31VE SOIL CCNDITIONS PER GSI REPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. (,UIVI 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.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:06/30/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 174 LOT84 01 -0.5 14.7% 102.9 90.3% SC B 175 LOT 85 ,s- -1.0 13.5% 103.3 90.6% ND B 176 LOT 86 j ji- -1.0 13.5% 102.9 90.3% ND B 177FG LOT 73 _II FG 13.2% 104.3 91.5% SC B 178FG LOT 74 _II FG 13.9% 102.8 90.2% ND B 179FG LOT 75 11 FG 13.5% 103.6 90.9% ND B 180FG LOT 76 Ii FG 15.2% 103.3 90.6% SC B 18IFG LOT32 A J I FG 13.7% 104.2 91.4% ND B 182FG LOT 33 _ FG 14.1% 104.0 91.2% ND B 183FG LOT 34 ,,i FG 13.3% 103.4 90.7% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURECONDITI )NINGHA EBEENPER zORMEDPE GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR LOW &MED. EXPAN IVESOIL CC NDITIONSP1 GSIREPORT DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: LOTS 85 AND 86-CONTRACTOR REMOVED +- 12' OF MATERIAL AND SCARIFIED D MOISTURIZED THE BOTTOM PRIOR TO PLACING FILL. 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. C 0 N S U L T A7N TB Civil Engineering & Surveying July 1, 2014 J.N.: 08-1245-04 City of Carlsbad Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch PA 17, Grading Plan Drawing No. 453-8D Pad Certification for Lots 32-34 and 73-76 Dear Sirs: Based on our field survey of July 1, 2014, the rough grading of the pads for Lots 32-34 and 73- 76 of Grading Plan 453-8D 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. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Tim Carroll Project Manager TC/ps 90L L4Ajs% f 11MOTHya\ *( CARRoLL U)' No.770 1* N:\081245'I140701_PadCert.PA17 -Lots 32-34 and 73-76.doc O'Day Consultants Inc. E-mail: oday@odayconsuftants.com 2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite IOU Website: ww.odaycorrsultants.com Carlsbad, California 92010-6609 Tel: 760.931.7700 Fax: 760.931.8680 Cf OLF-4D Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com February 18, 2014 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, Palo Verde Phase 6, Lots 13 Through 19, 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-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-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 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 6 Lots 13 through 19 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 highly expansive 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 4 percent to 5 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 1) per GSl 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 this laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: TYPE TSOIL DENSITY (PCF) MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) 1 13 - Dark Brown, clayey SAND F 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 indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (Reference Nos. 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 subg rade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the undersiab 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, the subject lots are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT, based on highly expansive soil conditions. 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 bythe 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 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Phase 6, Robertson Ranch February 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph6.cro GeOSoils, Inc. Page 2 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 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. 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 subm a \OHAL G. GeoSoils, Inc Certified Engineering Geologist 'T / 10 Robert G. Crisman OP CAO~ Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RG OlD WS/J P F/jh Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email so (o. RCE 47057 444' David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B 1 7-SC PA-17, Phase 6, Robertson Ranch February 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph6.cro GeOSoils, Inc. Page 3 Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760)931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com February 18, 2014 W.O. 5949-B 1 7-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, Palo Verde Phase 6, Lots 13 Through 19, 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-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-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 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 6 Lots 13 through 19 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 highly expansive 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 4 percent to 5 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 this laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: 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, 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, the subject lots are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT, based on highly expansive soil conditions. 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 bythe 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 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-sc PA-17, Phase 6, Robertson Ranch February 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph6.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 Respectfully s GeoSoils, Inc. rC &j0 No. 1934 I-i Certified Engineering f, Geologist •, Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RGC/DWS/J PF/j h 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 do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. RCE 47857 ' *\ExpjiLJ* 4e4 OFC David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, ROE 47857 Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B17-Sc PA-17, Phase 6, Robertson Ranch February 18, 2013 File: e:\wpl 2\5900\5949b 1 7.ph6.cro GeOSOi1s, Inc. Page 3 CT- 04i# Geotechnical ' Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way . Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com May 16, 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, Portion of Phase 11 (Lots 223, 224, and 225) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranóh (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. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within a portion of Phase 11 (Lots 223, 224, and 225), 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 minimum 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 Lots 223, 224, and 225 are low expansive (see Reference No. 3). However, the grading contractor elected to reprocess these lots in accordance with recommendations for medium expansive soil conditions. As such, the upper 12 inches of soil was also removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottom was ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottom was processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 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 223, 224, and 225 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: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) I - Yellow Gray Silty Sand I 127.0 I 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 completed for the removal bottom indicate at least optimum, or over optimum soil moisture, per the GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). 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). 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 D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 11 (Sycamore at the Foothills) May 16, 2013 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.crophll . GeoSods, Inc. Page 2 Civil Engineer, ACE 4 additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lot 223, 224, and 225 are Category I. 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 hesite.p contact our office. Respectfully submitted G. C& 0 o GeoSoils, Inc. I - No. 1934 Certified Engineering e>GaoroSi OF Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RGC/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 11 (Sycamore at the Foothills) May 16, 2013 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.phll GeøSods, Inc. Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:05/10/13 NAME: TODD 1-IOURS:2 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE L2"1 % RELATIVE COMPACTION (OMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING WHERE NOTED. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. 4.t I 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 a lirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc f 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. DATE .c!'fL NAME ( HOURS_______________ CLIENT_X jL TRACT l LOCATION_' t k \i \ . \ ( /_\7• SUPT._______________________ CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT l\ 1 TEST NO. LOCATION. . ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL - TYPE - I iL - .. -. J• .- 0 - COMMENTS: GeoS,oil's' Inc. BY / / PAGE ____________ OF 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. Geotechnical o Geologic a Coastal a Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 25, 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 Additional Grading, Portion of Planning Area 18, Lots 195 through 206, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Rear Yard Slope Above Lots 195 Through 206, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad tract 04-26, Drawing No, 453-8A, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated July 26, 2012, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Review of Remedial earthwork for Lot 195 Through 206, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad tract 04-26, Drawing No. 453-8A, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated July 9, 2012, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Reviewfor Planning Area 18 (Sycamore atthe 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-.0-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 Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during additional grading within a portion of Planning Area 18 (Lots 195 through 206), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of grading was to configure this previously sheet graded area to design grades per plan. 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 4, including processing of rear yard slope areas above some of the subject lots, as discussed in Reference No. 1. Based on our observations and testing, the building pads and slope appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 4), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undevelopedfor a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 4. Field Observation and Testin For pre-existing very low to low expansive fill Lots 195, 197, 201, 202, 205, and 206, the upper 8-12 inches from pad grade was scarified, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D-1 557. For medium expansive fill Lot 200, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 4, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottom was 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 bottom was processed, the pad was 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 pad on Lot 200 was reprocessed during this recent grading effort. For pre-existing cut lots 196, 198, 199, 203, and 204, these lots were undercut at least 3 feet below pad grade, with the undercut sloped to drain (not less than ½ percent) toward the street area. Once undercuts were completed, the exposed bottoms were scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-1557, then brought to grade with compacted fill prepared/placed in similar fashion. Soil moisture contents were at least optimum moisture content, with the exception of Lot 199, which was moisture conditioned to at least 2-3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content within 24 inches of pad grade, per Reference No. 4. Field density 'fests were performed using the 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 phase of grading was determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PC F) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) A -Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 C - Gray Brown Clayey SAND 120.5 13.0 F - Gray Brown Gravelly SAND 134.0 8.0 E - Dark Brown Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 A -Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENS.ITI:., (PG.F) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) I 202 - Light Yellow Gray Clayey SAND I 125.5 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 at soil moistures per GSI reports (see Reference No. 2 and 4). 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. 4). Foundation Desian/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, and Reference No. 5, 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. 5, and subsequent expansion testing of selected lots per ASTM D-4829 during grading, Lots 195 through 199, and Lots 201 through 206 are very low to low expansive, with a recommended foundation type of I PT. Lots 199 and 200 are medium expansive, as determined per ASTM D-4829, and are Category II PT. 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. 6302-B-SC Lots 195 Through 206, PA-18 (Robertson Ranch) October 25, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.195_206.pal8 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, GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RCG/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) 4 W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 Brookfield Homes W.O. 6302-B-SC Lots 195 Through 206, PA-18 (Robertson Ranch) October 25, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.195_206.palB Page 4 W.O. 595I q-t -sc DATE 7i2S/P NAME (i1( HOURS -7 - CLIENT —TRACT LOCATION________________ SUPT __ñee (S '11 VA CONTRACTOR _______QbG _____________________________ TEST NO. LoCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ___ W7 2o-/.. ?Z ,j.L.t j/7-7 /\)[) 2J Lot //5.•3 __ Ccc'E•S_gEc)r fd- c fHi' -D -rn -. c fr76J (o7xk a CL Bonum's • uO F- C• 151KIJ, 7-oi_ 7 T Pe coal n1(C)Jb(D d)iXJ?—J _ • S.. ____ S. __ 1 ' COMMENTS . ' S 1 \C (c1 -Zu Jo L& I 0 E t3 tul o .(D d M5v S.' Thc LL 1) BY: %4/ (w PAGE L OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils Inc personnel only where the tests were performed Our wo.rkc19es not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be 'uo?med that neither the presence of our field representative nor the observation and testing by our firm shall excuse him in any way for jiefects discovered in his work It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project TEST NO. (OWT ELEV. 'N . OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION• TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE -3 .L_oT / 9( ± ). c/ /orZ03_ ,i/'/. . ii/ _ 5 /oT_2o -f B3 j/o I VRn P\V-)~),A -n1'- () _Cf_'?An 2O _& v 'iW TF/(T ___ (iI/-CuT_77__7iz ne4fl rApTh ) Str\i?f//-1)_ i )(Q,(-/z)(o qtx ___ __ S HELD TESTNGREPORT s/.W&vc DATE 7/2(o/iZ.. NAME dLpa C. HOURS CLIENT TRACT ó LOCATION S SUPT. EE ( CONTRACTOR S!\/ O7E_,I(• EQUIPMENT cAO (o \zuc COMMENTS: BY: / PAGE t• 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 Si W.O. c DATE .-7./71/jz NAME _i( HOURS CLIENT _PHL1) TRACT P3 'B LOCATION____________________ SUPT (7/& (? 11 CONTRACTOR \(1{1 _TuiuC EQUIPMENT nad ( 9 ñ TEST NO. MQo)(, LdftIdN : ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT. DRY DENSITY C. F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE .7'7 -t Fo12 _SVi7o _) 1 o7S_/iL?J-1--. S tv t:ic AM() D i(J/ _1 C( )'{ __(V_AunW ( _flia COMMENTS: GeoSoiilI /Y 0S _____ 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. tv ill FIELD TESTING REPORT wo DATE '1fOiR NAME I.p(rr)C HOURS II- CLIENT TAACT___________ LOCATION_( SUPT. . CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT . .... TEST NO. i1J(. LOCTIdN ELEV. OR DEP.. MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 5- /Q' //Q C13 .iD• fl./? 9 1 '// WS cti EJ5T_ Fog _cSiñoi 11i-49 OT uF 1100-0 __( i ___ ji$ci _ YicrO)p<1.9i)-7It- ) o rr) at 176W COMMENTS: . .. BY: PAGE ____ OF/ This field report presehts 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 inhis work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. TEST. NO; /JicK. 1~OTION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE Ii 1-dr_1 9T.. 1i //8Y iuD 1-2' )C"q 79.ST i 3 Un _Xe(07_/1B Jos-'T ell /1)1 ic/S _____•C/((9± 71 I 'TE !'JD ZO • gLc .•° q •j. C.' / I -z w f-±_f _0 19 \-_7iO 2 Aa 13A oP?_(T/3 /OJ lOL- i,ri o-B jUj) / it/A S/OO io.? / i. AA _ _/O3 FIELD TESTING REPORT woc9M DATE ? I NAME I)C HOURS______________ CLIENT TRACT__________ LOCATION_(c( SD SUPT_______________ C6NTRACTOR Jlqmh L 7C EQUIPMENT IO(Q c7( 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 directiod 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 HELQTESTNG REPORT I W.O.sgJ9-?1J DATE I NAME. !3fl L HOURS ?-) Al ( iipLE3 (oc(cRD) CLIENT TRACT_ LOCATION supi ('JiZ(? Y)\ CONTRACTOR _f(i _n EQUIPMENT (i ( k zMd TEST NO. /4xJ/lQ( . '. . LOdflON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE . CONTENT % DRY. DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 2() (CT B ij) t-3t . . ,J 9(o, :J )/• q3'V.., 2Z JC/7 ... /2S .j3 .161~6 . ,. . / /'S 117 . _ I.. 2r 200 ___ ZO). ,ii° 1M'92-1 2b 2o2 .• /2 I 0 010 . 2o3 ___.. ..RY .1 2 ..\j/_2O • /1i 97. . b /1, 92.0 _ 4 Q\ _(( U ___ ____ . 0- I _ COMMENTS:— (Oct. CAW fl( 1H 1o' (iY . . 0 . BY: / ( PAGE ' OF! This field repdrt 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 representativei 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. NAME HOURS MEMO CLIENT TRACT_ —J LOCATION SUPT CONTRACTOR ,V4CL C cr O/IECdEJ-rS C37 rjJ J/Zc(?/1d 7Z QSt5jc'6 m 75c/ 6EOI c alno Dq Lf z 117D 2 y( (oT )1-, O i SI O1TC()SE2 gG1E/771u OF -TJJ A(-I /PJ /7Qw co9c-T) /e1-71 t Uii L,(Qj (pry) 9--1 6.~ S /(OW7)c- r liii a(5 (L /E \/'o DTI Th2 D io oE (o oL iS tj eY\1 c- T (L HELD TESTING REPORT W.O. -5-9v6[ (51c. DATE L/iOIl7_, NAME HOURS :s- CLIENT (- TRACT B LOCATION_ D .SUPT. (Eb . CONTRACTOR . EQUIPMENT ( \R \.qs70(0 TEST NO, LOtATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT . .% DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 3Q c-. .5o/b6nPr\ • JD'.. . :.Pi TZo2.z (6T° 2.O\ Cl0 __ ____________ bS 9' \V)• Cb.:3 ri 15-11 ( op 5'.. 13( 1Ze L1E__1uL/ k ± \ t_ WD F (oT\d13 I '2-5LX _) &UL\f f7 _\O ± iL qz._3 iD V . TS ____ COMMENTS: ç 7Q (SJ /%.)T hoLaV,5 D I 1_16_./.,)_S PAGE _(•O 7 e.v_)1 This field report presànts 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 JYFG TRACT LOCATION_____________________ SUPT._(Ei V2'l CONTRACTOR (i'v'r1j G EQUIPMENT PcT' -hgç TEST' NO. ELEV. OR DEPTH WA T ON MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ) l OT 2o5 'Fi .LI 13° __ ce ZO • (oN oF Loi2o ji- • -v f\k f-oe c- t Zo& 20(a • (L (::. çç O3 (i\1O [L) C1JV (Oy\O ? )\ Lufl a 1:tj I L ccr iCC E I 4. COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observationsand 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. TEST NO. 1J1 ELEV. LAT(ON OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE __ Lr2oc IE3c 8Z iD 7cft. SN~ I 3 11-10 Ci 7( •(1y .7O ____ S7LL ___ ___ üi f)CFJJJ @D L. t &fl ' (59 (IY-// 7P7—W (/F 90 7 ç& t4iY qq iz i// __ :fl FIELDTESTING..REPORT W.O.5C DATE 10)ZZftL.. 1 NAME1)1 C HOURS '7 0 - f~PW CLIENT• TRACT_ tB LOCATION________________ Cq SUPT.___ CONTRACTOR _(PrL WEST EQUIPMENT )2 COMMENTS: Ge • _____ PAGE •/• OFf This fled 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. ] •- Geotechnical e Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 a FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com March 26, 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, Portion of Phase 10 (Lots 220, 221, and 222) 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. 5353-131-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within a portion of Phase 10 (Lots 220, 221, and 222), 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 minimum 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 Lot 220, 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 bottom was 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 bottom was processed, the pad was 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 pad on Lot 220 was reprocessed during this recent grading effort. Lots 221 and 222 are low expansive (see Reference No. 3). However, the grading contractor elected to reprocess these lots in accordance with recommendations for medium expansive soil conditions. As such, the upper 12 inches of soil was also removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottom was ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottom was processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 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 221 and 222 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: Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appearto meet the minimum compaction D.R. Horton W.O.6302-B-SC Phase 10 (Sycamore at the Foothills) March 26, 2013 FiIe:e:\wp12\63OO63O2b.cro.ph1O Page 2 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 at least optimum, or over optimum soil moisture, per the GSI reports (see Reference No. 1 and 2). 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). 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, Lot 220 is Category II, and Lots 221 and 222 are Category I. 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. D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-13-SC Phase 10 (Sycamore at the Foothills) March 26 2013 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.phlO rVeOSOUS9 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 submitted, ItAAL 0,6, GeoSoils, Inc. 0 certified Engineering RGE 478 Geologist Robert G. Crisman David W. Skelly \\* \4Ø Engineering Geologist, CE c Civil Engineer, R RGC/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 10 (Sycamore at the Foothills) March 26, 2013 FiIe:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.phlO Geeftftq Inc.Page 4 CLIENT_Df TRACT PA -)O LOCATION-----(L4 k LI SUPT._______________________ CONTRACTOR _yt1 EQUIPMENT CO __,c k LJQ/,(O _i7' TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE t.-i -'z-(u) -1 / (I 7!.. 7_.- )Ø 4 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 W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE:03/20/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE (2"] TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 128 LOT 222 +-94 11.1% 120.1 94.6% ND A 129FG LOT 221 10.6% 117.9 92.8% ND A 130 LOT 220 +-90.5 21.6% 100.3 90.4% ND L 131FG LOT 222 +-94.6 1 10.5% 118.7 93.5% ND A 132FG L01220 4-91.2 21.0% 100.0 90.1% _ND L ONSITE AT CLIENTSREQUEST TO( BSERVEE kRTHWORK F ORLOT REC RTS.TEST RESULTSMEET OURRECOMMENDA riONS. COMMENTS: 220 MED, LOT 221 LOW, LOT 222 LOW -"Miall - -- y.-_ - This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosolis, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision 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. CONSULTA N T S CivilEngineering' Surveying April 1, 2013 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 Lots 198-200 and 220-222 Dear Sirs: Based on our field survey of March 29, 2013, the rough grading of the pads for Lots 198 through 200 and 220 through 222 of Grading Plan 453-813 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. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Tim Carroll TC/ps , Project Manag TOM" M er CARROLL N\091271130401PadCert-PA18 - Lots 198-200 and 220.222.doc O'Day Consultants Inc. E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com 2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100 Website: www.odayconsuItants.com Carlsbad, California 92010-6609 Tel: 760.931.7700 Fax: 760.931.8680 Geotechnical Geologic Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 25, 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 Additional Grading, Portion of Planning Area 18, Lots 195 through 206, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Rear Yard Slope Above Lots 195 Through 206, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad tract 04-26, Drawing No, 453-8A, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated July 26, 2012, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Review of Remedial earthwork for Lot 195 Through 206, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad tract 04-26, Drawing No. 453-8A, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated July 9, 2012, by GeoSoils, Inc. "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 Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during additional grading within a portion of Planning Area 18 (Lots 195 through 206), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of grading was to configure this previously sheet graded area to design grades per plan. 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 4, including processing of rear yard slope areas above some of the subject lots, as discussed in Reference No. 1. Based on our observations and testing, ,the building pads and slope appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 4), 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. 4. Field Observation and Testing For pre-existing very low to low expansive fill Lots 195, 197, 201, 202, 205, and 206, the upper 8-12 inches from pad grade was scarified, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D-1 557. For medium expansive fill Lot 200, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 4, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottom was 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 bottom was processed, the pad was 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 pad on Lot 200 was reprocessed during this recent grading effort. For pre-existing cut lots 196, 198, 199, 203, and 204, these lots were undercut at least 3 feet below pad grade, with the undercut sloped to drain (not less than ½ percent) toward the street area. Once undercuts were completed, the exposed bottoms were scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-1 557, then brought to grade with compacted fill prepared/placed in similar fashion. Soil moisture contents were at least optimum moisture content, with the exception of Lot 199, which was moisture conditioned to at least 2-3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content within 24 inches of pad grade, per Reference No. 4. Field density tests were performed using the 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 phase of grading was determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE DENSITY (PCF) (PERCENT) A -Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 C - Gray Brown Clayey SAND 120.5 13.0 F - Gray Brown Gravelly SAND 134.0 8.0 E - Dark Brown Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 A - Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 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 at soil moistures per GSI reports (see Reference No. 2 and 4). 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 priorto placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 4). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, and Reference No. 5, 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. 5, and subsequent expansion testing of selected lots per ASTM D-4829 during grading, Lots 195 through 199, and Lots 201 through 206 are very tow to low expansive, with a recommended foundation type of I PT. Lots 199 and 200 are medium expansive, as determined per ASTM D-4829, and are Category II PT. 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. 6305 Lots 195 Through 206, PA-18 (Robertson Ranch) October 25, 2012 FiIe:e:\wp12\5900\5949b.195206.pal8 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, GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crisman David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 RCG/DWSIJPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) Brookfield Homes W.O. 6302-B-SC Lots 195 Through 206, PA-18 (Robertson Ranch) October 25, 2012 F9Ie:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.195_206.pal8 Page 4 Y. DATE :7/2S/JR NAME(w)( HOURS -1 CLIENT_1c-d4 ,'D TRACT - LOCATION_____________________ SUPT.ñ&- '- '11 CONTRACTOR SiVPDl7! Zme, In Mom TEST NO. N~ATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE t07 20L/. /j j/-Z 3 9 NO 2J __ Loi__:/ _ ____ 1/5•' 9c). _ ____ __________ ct10-S_gEcj _c c ioiI 6TS_IS-2o a__T_o/l C 72\/1 ()JZf ML La TT5_.00_1:c.1cS. iCISidiCI (ornnl_Jrx0__üqThJ 0\1__1TE @ T0TJnPx_R_t_ <ç jEj \c\\ k1 ((C _ I?3TF COMMENTSC*_( __2('.(6ii_ (orA__ft11Co \C otL rS -2 CA Nq (J Ocj A-6i 1470 H d 3ciV :JAV/ /• PAGE • OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils Inc personnel only where the tests were performed Our workçloes not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be iipined that neither the presence of our field representative nor the observation and testing by our firm shall excuse him in any way for jefects discovered in his work It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for Job or site safety on this project CLIENT_ 1G -TRACT .1 th: LOCATION________________ SUPT. (7 CONTRACTOR S"m O1L_%I(• EQUIPMENT ( TucjC (1 2n i 11 TEST NO. (LVTIVN.. ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION• TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE j/ 3 .01/ 9(p 9 3± -,)J" r& 72.0 j/Q _Z03 c7/./ LoT_2o'-f_ B35 ' /I., c, ,','q_I çi() i_SI_U6 li1t CUT- 7D _7c_i'(-iirie&fl iffI)_ -Q rffJ1_ F _ k3ruble _z (o/ C AiLtT ()ig(Y&_LcIJHZC /ñt2Ii7'n. __ __ COMMENTS: GeoS, 11, R Y. 7/7' 1 We. OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc..persoririel 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: Itiuderstood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. 3 J W.O.___________ DATE .'-/7i/f?_ NAME_________ HOURS _5--- CLIENT_TRACT_________ LOCATIbN_____________ SUPT__(SiE t/ ' CONTRACTOR I \H-thcE Ti-iC EQUIPMENT ( 9O ñ (i h TEST NO. Ld(tIdN : ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT. % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE LOT .ZcB //9 17 (1' .. •. .q -± _ . __ Fo1z O77ol' 4 F,/- _________ ( 11L1 ____ /(i 7 i: )9j ac __ (c 1 '/2o32o1 ThI C- (Q- __ r j7o Pcd1) nih Q/(i iD iwCa-rin4 (Y vk 1)V; ((flO (_Adw OiH COMMENTS: eoS, in RY- - •. . 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 worl(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. tv FIELD TESTING REPORT NAME pgp c HOURS______________ CLIENT (LO .TAACT_2)- /5 LOCATION SUPT._ .E(2 (I') CONTRACTOR_r vb ThC EQUIPMENT I (crtuc\C TEST NO. LOqXN d ELEV. OR DEP. MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE \ LoT /98 - io ii y ND fl/a7' C7Z .9 10,J49 )I9 / (Y4iV1d (O7H: U(o F ro4, / n (o if O) _ <(—fl i7k V 7: 'ifHiur 1. COMMENTS: BY: PAGE / OF / This field report presets 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 wprk ltis understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. TEST NO: LF ,; ilON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ___ 1-or 1 c13 ç /18 Y g3 iiD /2' m °. 11/ II If ) )03 L S & 1'i 9((r± pç9 r8 c-:ao ,..)j;3 q.3 L C /7 2(D W-110 19 19 \L. 4O2 /3A ~OPE (oT / ? j or /0 -i— J) ri S/Oe /i7-t ./O3. 102 11 . :i4:. L(EH 1C&JT DiT Lzo le 5/ 5t 31 U w.o.?Y• DATE NAME •(1U C HOURS______________ Llxookl~-tn CLIENT _TRACT__________ LOCATION______________ 6076 SUPT________________ CONTRACTOR flC EQUIPMENT hem, 1'~' k c IDQ (ñO I( COMMENTS: O- ( C- (.•- 59')E 7*h Q .( I( vYiliivfl 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 lrepresentative, 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 RELQTESTNG REPORT ( - WO_______ DATE . NAME I3 C HOURS J0 R- (c iipL5 CoC(R14) CLIENT TRACT_ LOCATION- -CONTRACTOR- :Eli N EQUIPMENT ( OI C Lo ci c (J ISo TEST NO.' L69 PION ELEV OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT DRY. DENSITY P.C.F. %' RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 2() (OT is .12 .IZ:'B,..: 22 J7 j3. /Q•' 2S - 200 - N.1 /) (p' 93 zI ZO )/.• i)" 92 o2 •', )J( /M'•' 29 4.:;. :/0.. , 4 '92.0 0 (( L Z.ft COMMENTS: _(3 1DfL,(1TC i7O _7)/_kj/I'/tn(jPY'j _iii-OA? _q( o C i nS i___6 6f 51__fl ( O 6-3 1H r1I tCT S . _,:.... BY //%/%A1 PAGE OF 1 This field repdrtpresents 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 MEMO CLIENT TRACT_ 1 LOCATION SUPT CONTRACTOR 1V/JD/ flC - J\I *4 •1i fl!L i%? FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE _JlQ I tT. NAME HOURS . 2- CLIENT TRACT_?P\ (B LOCATION_ag'9fri .SUPT. (3REh . CONTRACTOR_ . EQUIPMENT (ñklo iA(- (i O Up)ciL GiS TEST NO. . LOO ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F.COMPACTION RELATIVE TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE pry (OT 2O 3 \ WE / 4)E ft (" q() I 'c1c;) -zoo --32- 'V 1E)Lo'. )5t 9' \T.' -rnop (8Iq9 -- B IZ*'c cf) )t1uL Jk ) L1 _ _____ 5OX 1 uuW p- )ç- ± I i 1 qz 3 WD CTS1wT COMMENTS: M (3'S \'\cr70(i, 1) (fcTn \i hwt-A/5 1O gc moli ç 1 PAGE ( OF ii / 5 This field report presents a summary of obseryations and testing byGeosoils, 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. -IELD TESTING REPORT w.o._______ DATE _L0117112-r NAME___________ HOURS2J - CLIENT ') TRACT LOCATION CpLPJI) suvr.___ CONTRACTOR_____________________________________ EQUIPMENT 117, 1 TO WIN PIL L %I TESTt NO. U20N ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE E5) (o T 205 1n t3.o ce cu• C2i 0u? (-On O- ___ E (Ov\O i LuW) -tRi i c ft-Ti lC(o 1ZE L\\ (a. p)J. B(44LAJ COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were permed. Our work does not Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contrac rfo tor 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. IC FIELD TESTINGPEPORT a w.O__________ DATE NAME C HOURS -7 -- CLIENT TRACT lb LOCATION___________________ SUPT. 1._. CONTRACTOR- EQUIPMENT TEST NO. L(AT1ON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY. P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE Lcsr2oc9 8Z q79 1 8 ft . 3 ft 7(. _ .7OE dyZ/frj. 71LL ('? Or-oe )S ro (oi iij1( Sjj (7?fl Of _J941 . iz 601I+JL -77 o qu ._I ti1YE_ / I (I COMMENTS: BY:"4M 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. D. SYCAMORE AT THE FOOTHILLS - CARLSBAD Tract #04-26 - Phase 10 7/27/2011 Revised 3/19/13 Foundation STYLE UNIT! LOT PLAN GARAGE L=Left R=Right COLOR SCHEME Enhanced Elevation BF PREPLOT ADDRESS Cony I Mission 198 2A L 2 None No 3714 Bergen Peak P1 Cony I California 199 3B L 4 None Yes Bed/Bath 4, Bed 5 3718 Bergen Peak P1 Cony I Italian Tusc 200 1C L 9 None No 3722 Bergen Peak P1 Cony II California 220 1xB R 6 None No 3729 Bergen Peak P1 Cony I Italian Tusc 221 3C R 8 None Yes Bed/Bath 4, Bed 5 3725 Bergen Peak P1 Cony I I California 222 2B A 5 None I Yes 3721 Bergen Peak P1 TOTAL UNITS 6 REVISIONS CHANGE DATE ITEM CHANGED 1 8/17/2011 Added Backflow Preventor collumn 2 8/30/2011 Added Color Schemes 3 9/19/2011 Name changed from Laurels to Sycamore 4 10/6/2011 Added Foundation Category 5 1/17/2012 6 1 3/16/2013 IChanged Foundation Category from CAT IA, CAT I & CAT 11to Cony I & Cony II per KM" jAdded preplots to lots 199 & 221 per Angela D PRODUCT MIX Plan 1 Plan lx Plan 2 Plan 3 1 1 2 2 RESOURCE Precise Grade Plan I I Date: (POP) APPROVED BY: Accounting Development/Planning Purchasing Construction DRE Sales c-roq-- 24 Geotechnicale Geologic • Coastal a Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com September 18, 2014 W.O. 5949-B 1 7-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 13, Lots 20 Through 25, 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 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 13, Lots 20 through 25 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, medium expansive (Expansion Index [El] 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 Nos. 1 and 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 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 MAXIMUM DENSFY(PCF) ' MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) B - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND 114.0 13.0 C - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 120.5 13.5 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 also indicate over optimum soil moisture content, in general accordance with 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, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the undersiab 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, Lot Nos. 20 through 25 are categorized as foundation Category IIPT, based on medium expansive soil conditions (Reference No. 3). 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 Brookfield Homes W. 0. 5949-B17-SC PA-17 Phase 13, Robertson Ranch September 18 2014 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl3.cro Geoftib,lnc.Page 2 to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subd rain 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 do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitte rr/O GeoSoils, Inc. ( L{ No. 1934.H I ,ttl,3d I Robert G. Crisman op Engineering Geologist, RGC/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email David W. Skelly \\crjt. J) . -.--. Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 '\op c\*-' Brookfield Homes PA-17, Phase 13, Robertson Ranch File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.phl3.cro Geood, Inc. W.O. 5949-Bi 7-SC September 18, 2014 Page 3 11 ( I FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:09/02/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:3.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 190 LOT 25 128.5 12.5% 102.7 85.2% SC C 190A LOT 25 128.5 16.7% 109.3 90.7% ND C 191 LOT 25 129.0 16.4% 108.7 90.2% SC C REMOVALS AND MOISTURECONDITI DNINGHATE BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR MED.EXP NNSIVE SCIIL CONDITIO IS PER GSIR PORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: NTRACTOR ENCOUNTERED OVERSIZE ROCK AT ABOUT -1 FT TO 1.5 FT BELOW ISH GRADE. VISIBLE ROCK THAT MAY CAUSE PROBLEMS DURING FUTURE AVATION WAS REMOVED FROM FILL MATERIAL. GeoSoils, Inc. BY:42 PAGE: 1 OF I 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:09/03/14 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 RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONJTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 192 LOT 24 130.0 16.6% 102.7 90.1% SC B 193 LOT 24 130.0 17.0% 103.6 86.0% ND C REMOVALS ANDMOISTURE CONDITI DNINGHA E SEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR MED.EXP NSIVE S( IL CONDITIOt ISPER GS_R PORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: OBSERVED SEVERAL AREAS OF ROCK CONGREGATION [+10 -12'1. CONTRACTOR REMOVED AS ENCOUNTERED. GeoSolls, Inc. BY: 49 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: 09/04/14 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 RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 194 LOT 23 131.7 16.0% 108.9 90.4% ND C 195 LOT 23 131.5 16.7% 108.7 90.2% ND C REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI)NINGHA E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR MED.EXP kNSIVES IL CONDITIOr ISPER GSIR PORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: CONTRACTOR SPENT ADDITIONAL EFFORT PROCESSING SOME UNDOCUMENTED FILL [BASE] NEAR THE FRONT ON LOT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE MATERIAL IS PROJECTING WEST INTO LOT 22. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: 9q_0 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. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:09/05/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 196 LOT 24 131.1 17.4% 108.6 90.1% ND C 197 LOT 23 132.6 17.0% 109.2 90.6% ND C 198 LOT 22 132.5 16.6% 109.4 90.8% ND C 199 LOT 22 132.5 16.5% 104.7 91.8% ND a REMOVALS ANDMOISTURE CONDITI )NINGHA EBEENPER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR MED.EXP NNSIVE SC IL CONDITIO IS PER GSIR EPORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: NTRACTOR SPENT ADDITIONAL EFFORT PROCESSING SOME UNDOCUMENTED L N LOT 22 O[BASE] NEAR THE FRONT ON LOT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE TERIAL IS EXTENDING WEST INTO LOT 21. 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. S •1 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:09/08/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 200 LOT 22 133.2 13.5% 103.9 91.1% Sc B 200A LOT 22 132.6 17.5% 103.0 90.4% ND B REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI DNING HAI 1E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MED. EXP NNSIVE SC IL CONDITIO S PER GSI R PORTS DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: 200 DID NOT ACHIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS DUE TO MOISTURE [<16%]. RACTOR RE-CONDITIONED LOT AND RETEST MEETS OUR MM ENDATIO N S. GeoSolls, Inc. BY: z42, IWO— 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. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-1317-SC DATE:09/09/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-1 7 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 201 LOT 21 132.2 17.2% 108.8 90.3% SC C 202 LOT 21 132.5 16.5% 109.4 90.8% ND C 203 LOT 20 132.5 17.1% 108.5 90.0% ND C REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI )NING HAI 1E BEEN PER =ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MED. EXP NSIVE SC IL CONDITIO S PER GSI R PORTs DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: AE ADDITIONAL WORK WAS PERFORMED AT THE FONT OF LOT 21 DOCUMENTED FILL] AND NEAR THE BACK OF THE LOT [OVERSIZED ROCK] LOT 20 HAD TWO AREAS OF OVERS lED ROCK AT THE FRONT AND BACK OF 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:09/11/14 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKID STEERE LOT RECERT. TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 204FG LOT 20 133.6 16.5% 109.2 90.6% ND C 205FG LOT 21 133.7 16.1% 108.7 90.2% ND C 206FG LOT 22 133.7 16.0% 108.8 90.3% ND C 207FG LOT 23 133.2 16.0% 103.9 91.1% ND B 208FG LOT 24 131.6 16.3% 108.7 90.2% ND C 209FG LOT 25 129.9 16.5% 104.2 91.4% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURE CONDITI DNINGHA E BEEN PER ORMEDPEE GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFOR MED.EXP NNSIVE SC IL CONDITIO IS PER GSIR PORTS DATED10-08-09AND09-30-08. 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.