Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH PA 16, 17 & 18; COMPACTION REPORT OF BUILDING PAD RE-CERTIFICATIONS; 2013-10-07crO4-2L' Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 7, 2013 W.O. 5949-1317-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Mr. Jeff Rodgers and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report Of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 2 Lots 154, 155, 156, 193, and 194, and Phase 3 Lots 70,71, 72,151,152, and 153, Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 17, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-13-SC, dated May 18, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 1 through 43, 64 through 88, 100 through 116, 141 through 159, and 190 through 194), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 30, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Precise Grading Plans for: Palo Verde, Robertson Ranch PA 17," DWG. 453, Project No. C.T. 04-26, J.N. 011014, dated June 12, 2013, by O'Day Consultants. Dear Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 2, Lots 154, 155, 156, 193, and 194, and Phase 3, Lots 70, 71, 72,151, 152, and 153 of Planning Area 17, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference Nos. 1 and 2. For the subject, very low to low expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 0-20) Lots 151 through 155, earthwork consisted of processing (scarifying), moisture conditioning, and compacting the upper 12 inches of building pad subgrade. Where tested, reprocessed fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at optimum, or greater soil moisture content. For medium expansive (Expansion Index [E.l.] 51-90) Lots 70, 71, 72, and 194, 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). Lots 156 and 193 were prepared during a previous phase of remedial grading completed in June 2013 and were moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content for Lot 156, and 2-3% above the soils optimum moisture content for Lot 193, 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 4), and are considered suitable for development from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D 6938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: MAXIMUM I MOISTURE CONTENT - - SOIL TYPE. J_DENSITY (PCF) (PERCENT) -. B - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND 1 114.0 13.0 C - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND }_120.5 13.5 [o - YellowBrownClayeySAND ] 119.5 11.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 4). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additionalmoisture conditionina and/or re-establishina consistency, as well as Dad subarade oroof testina may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference Nos. 1, 2, and 4). Brookfield Homes W. 0. 5949-B17-SC PA-17, Phases 2 & 3, Robertson Ranch October 7 2013 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph2.3.cro GeOSOM9 Inc.Page 2 Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 4, Lot No. 151 is categorizedas foundation Category IPT, based on low expansive soil conditions. Lots 71, 72, 152, 153, 154 and 194 are categorized as foundation Category IIPT, based on medium expansive soil conditions, and/or as-built fill depths (see Reference No. 4). Due to as-built fill depths (see Reference No. 4), Lots 70, 155, 156, and 193 are categorized as foundation Category IlIPT. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on a review of the precise grading plans (Reference No. 5), foundations for fireplace pop outs, and potentially some isolated exterior footings may be impacted by the proximity to planned side yard drainage swales and side yard subdrain trenches. In order to mitigate the potential for settlement, these footings may need to be deepened. In cross section, deepened footings should extend to a bearing depth of at least 6 inches below the bottom of the adjacent swale flow line elevation or deepened below a 1:1 project extending up and away from the bottom outside edge of the subdrain trench, whichever is deeper. Additional footing depths ranging from 6 to 12 inches (total footing embedment of 18 to 30 inches) should be anticipated locally. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. . Brookfield Homes W.0. 5949-B17-SC PA-17 Phases 2.& 3, Robertson Ranch October 7 2013 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b17.ph2.3.cro GeOSOMIS9 lime. Page 3 The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully sub GeoSoils, Inc. G. No. 1934 Certified ) \ Engineering J Robert G. Crism,Geol05tf1 Engineering Geolo'PE.(f3 David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, I RGC/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: Field Testing Reports Distribution: Addressee via Email Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-1317-SC PA-1 7, Phases 2 & 3, Robertson Ranch October 7, 2013 FiIe:e:\wp1259OO\5949b17.ph2.3.cro Geook, Inc. Page 4 FIELD TESTING REPORT w.o.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:06/18/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:6 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 20FG L0T156 FG 11.9% 113.5 90.1% ND E 21FG LOT 157 -'A? FG 12.0% 114.2 90.6% ND E 22FG LOT 158 FG 11.5% 113.7 90.2% ND E 23FG LOT 159 _ FG 11.7% 114.0 90.5% ND E 24 LOT 190 )A)? 105.0 13.7% 114.8 91.1% ND E 25 LOT 191 N./._ 103.5 14.2% 114.2 90.6% ND E 26 LOT192 N.A.F 102.7 13.8% 114.6 91.0% ND E ONSITE IN AM TO OBSERVE REPROCESSING C N THE ABOVE REFERENC DLOTS. PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTE D AND FOI ND MOISTLIF E AND RELA FIVE COMPACT ON TO BE INCONFORMANCE WITH OUR RECOMMI NDATIONS A LOGATIONr, TESTED ONLY PRIOR TO PLACING FILL, CONTRACT DR PROC1 SSED EXPOS ED BOTTOM N ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONSIN 0 JR MEMO. COMMENTS: LINES AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. removals, moisture conditioning and re-compaction performed per gsi recommendations for very low and medium expansive soil conditions per GSI reports dated 10-08-09,-and 09-30-08. GeoSolls, Inc. BY: 42 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: 06/19/13 NAME TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-D-6, 1-WATER HOSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 27 LOT193 101.9 14.9% 113.9 90.4% ND E 28 LOT 191 /J44.P- 104.2 14.2% 115.3 91.5% ND E 29 LOT 192 AJ A44 103.3 13.6% 114.6 91.0% ND E 30 L0T193 102.5 13.8% 114.9 91.2% Sc E 31 LOT190 1J.A. 105.0 14.0% 116.2 92.2% ND E 32 LOT191 103.5 13.2% - 115.1 91.3% ND E 33 LOT192 /1.jLY 102.7 13.6% 114.2 90.6% ND E 34FG LOT 190 NJ FG 13.5% 115.3 91.5% SC E 35FG LOT191 IJ,,4? FG 1 13.3% 114.3 90.7% ND E 36FG LOT 192 A) A.Y. FG 14.2% 116.0 92.1% ND E 37FG LOT 193 FG 13.8% 114.7 91.0% ND E ON SITE IN AM TO OBSERVE REPROCESSING C N THE ABOV REFERENC D LOTS. PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTE D AND FOI JNDMOISTU E AND RELA rIVE COMPACT ON 10BEIN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR RECOMM NDATIONS A - LOCATIONEE TESTED ONLY. PRIOR TOPLACING FILL, CONTRACT R PROCE SSED EXPOE ED BOTTOM N ACCORDANC WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS INO RMEMO. reports dated10- 8-09byCS:witi respect tothetreatment of bull ingpad ubgrade'or very 10 and medium expansive soil conditions COMMENTS: AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. P A GeoSoils, Inc. BY: Gl42mL. PAGE: 1 OF 1 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.# 5949-817-SC CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE DATE:09/16/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 LOCATION CARLSBAD SIVADGE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ONSITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO C BSERVES TE GRADING RELATED TC RE-CERT OFPHASE2& 3.AT THIS TIME CON RACTORI CLEANING I. P ALONG W IL ON THE EAST SIDEOFCASCADE. CONTRACTOR WILL START REMEDIA L EARTH\A ORKTOMOR ROW 9/17 COMMENTS: BY: IThis fieldreportpresentsasummary of observationandtestingbyGeosoils,Inc.personnel.Our workdoesnotincludesupervisionor Idirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence lof 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:09/17/13 NAME: TODD HOURS: .2 CLIENT •BROOKFIELD TRACT _PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. TEST NO. LOCATION • EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO C BSERVE S TE GRADING FOR THE PU RPOSE OF RE-GRADING PHASE 2 & 3 LOTS. UPON ARF IVAL CONTRACTOR INFOF MED GSI THAT THE LOTS ARE TOO WET. GRADING TER IlNATED UNTIL 06 IS ON S TE. NO TESTING PERFORMED TODAY. COMMENTS: BY IThis field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or Idirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence lof our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It isunderstood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:09/20/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-DOZER, 1-WATER ROSE PAD RECERT TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE LOT 72 -1.0 17.5% 106.6 88.5% ND C LOT156 -0.5 17.8% 105.3 87.4% NO c DO NOT TABLE I CONTRACTOR REFERENCE ONLY ON SITE INAMTO OBSERVE MOISTURE CONDI IONS AT THE REFERENCE DLOTS. MOISTURE CONDITIONS ARE ABOVE OPTIMUM IAT THIS TIMI- COMMENTS: BY I-'ALiE: 1 UI- 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 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.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:09/24/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-SKID STEERE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 38 LOT155 100.5 14.9% 113.9 94.5% SC C 39 LOT155 101.0 14.2% 115.3 95.7% ND c ON SITE INAMTO OBSERVE SITE E/ THWORI COLLECTE TWO SMALL BULK SAMPLE TO CHECK MOISTURE LEVELS INOU LABORA ORY. MOISTURE CONTENTS AT THIS TI IE ARE ON THE ORDER OF 2% - 3% ABC VEOPT. OISTURELE ELSON THE MEDIUM EXPANSIVE LOTS IS7%TO9%ABO\ OPTIMU . CONTRACTOR HASELI CTEDTOBEGI FINISHINGRE-GRADINGOFTHELO\ EXPANSI ELOTS.TE TINGINDICi TES THAT SOIL DENSITYIS ACHIEVABLE ON THE LO f EXPANS VELOTS. REMOVALSANDMOISTURECONDITI )NINGHA IE BEEN PER:OR MED PER GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFORLOW EXP NSIVE SOIL CONDITIOI S PER GSI RI: PORTSDATED 10-08-09 AND09-30-08. COMMENTS: AND GRADES USED FOR LIMITS AND OUR REFERENCE SET BY OTHERS. 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 c irection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc four 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 lbr job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.o.# 5949-1317-SC DATE: 09125113 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR _SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-SKID STEERE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 40 LOT 194 100.5 16.8% 107.6 90.0% ND o 41 LOT 70 102.5 17.2% 109.2 90.6% ND C ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO ( BSERVE C RADING FOR THE RECER1 OF PHASE 2 AND 3 LOTS. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIC NS. REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDIT1PANSIVE NING HA E BEEN PER ORMED PEI GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEDIUM SOIL CONDIT IONS PER Gr I REPORTS DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 5949-B17-SC DATE:09/26/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG .. CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-SKID STEERE TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 42 LOT 71 105.5 17.1% 107.6 90.0% ND 0 43 LOT194 101.5 16.0% 107.9 90.3% ND 0 REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI ININGHA 1E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW &M D.EXPAN IVE SOIL CC 3DITIONSP1- R GSI REPORTS DATED 10-08-09 AND09-30-08. (flMP,1tITS 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: 09/27/13 NAME:TODD HOURS: 4 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-DOZER, 1-SKID STEERE, 1-DUMP TRUCK PAD RECERT PHASE 2 & 3 TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 44 LOT155 101.0 14.7% 107.7 90.1% SC 0 45 LOT 154 100.0 15.5% 107.6 9300/Q ND 0 46 LOT153 100.0 14.6% 107.8 90.2% ND 0 47 LOT152 102.5 15.2% 108.0 90.4% ND 0 48 LOT151 101.5 16.0% 107.8 90.2% SC 0 CONTRACTORPERFORMEDREMEDI kL GRADIIN G ON A SEVERELY BIOTU BATED AREA BETWEEN LOTS 194 AND70. 49FG LOT151 FG 14.9% 108.5 90.8% ND 0 50FG LOT152 FG 15.2% 107.9 90.3% ND 0 5IFG LOT153 FG 15.0% 108.8 91.00/0 ND o 52FG LOT154 FG 14.3% 108.6 90.9% ND 0 53FG LOT155 FG 14.0% 109.0 91.2% ND 0 REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI NING HAI IE BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONSFORLOW & MI D.EXPAN 31VE SOIL CC JDITIONSPF R GSIREPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND09-30-08. BY 1 Lfl- 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:09/30/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:3 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG _CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. 1-SKID STEERE, 1-DUMP TRUCK PAD RECERT PHASE 2 & 3 TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 54 LOT 70 103.0 19.5% 102.8 90.2% ND B 55 LOT 71 106.0 19.0% 108.5 90.0% Sc C 56 LOT 72 108.5 20.0% 102.7 90.1% ND B 57 LOT 194 101.0 1 16.0% 108.7 91.0% ND 0 REMOVALS AND MOISTURE CONDITI INING HA E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW & M D. EXPAN 31VE SOIL CC JDITIONS PE R GSI REPORT DATED 10-08-09 AND 09-30-08. 1 COMMENTS: BY 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: 10/02113 - NAME: TODD - HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-17 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR SIVADGE EQUIP. I-DOZER, 1-SKID STEERE, 1-DUMP TRUCK PAD RECERT PHASE 2 & 3 TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 58FG LOT 70 FG 15.7% 109:5 91.6% SC 0 59FG LOT 71 FG 15.0% 108.9 91.1% NO 0 '60FG LOT 72 FG 14.7% 109.0 91.2% ND 0 6IFG LOT194 FG 18.5% 103.4 90.7% ND B REMOVALS ANDMOISTURECONDITI DNINGHA) E BEEN PER ORMED PEF GSI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW &M D.EXPAN FIVE SOIL CC 14DITIONSPF R GSI REPORT' DATED 10-08-09 AND 07-30-08. COMMENTS: Go #V , c~ , N BY: PAGE:1 OF I, This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision 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 o Geotechnical . Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 July 3, 2012 W.O. 5949-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh, and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 44 through 48, Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 Through 63,89Through99,ll7Through 140, and 160Through 189), Carlsbad Tract04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated February 16, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 44 through 48 of Planning Area 16, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. For Lots 44 through 47, earthwork consisted of processing pad grade to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioning to at least optimum moisture content, and compacting to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 and Reference No. 2. For Lot 48 (medium expansive), earthwork consisted of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across the lot. Once removals were completed, the exposed bottom was processed, moisture conditioned and compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, then brought to grade with compacted fill, such that the upper 24 inches has been reprocessed. Where tested, reprocessed and/or fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at 2 percent to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for the proposed residential development, from a geotechnical standpoint. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method 06938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM 0 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PC F) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) C - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 120.5 13.0 0- Yellow Brown, Silty SAND 119.5 11.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (Reference No. 1 and 2). 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 No.2 and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lots 44 through 47 are very low expansive, and categorized as foundation Category laor lb, while Lot 48 (medium expansive) is categorized as foundation Category II. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 44-48, Robertson Ranch July 3, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.44_48.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, 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 at-h—ep—itWe to contact our office. Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Respectfully su GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 cc No. 1934 Certified Engineering Geologist .a OF cM.#" RCG/ATG/JPF/Jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 44-48, Robertson Ranch July 3, 2012 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.44_48.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT Et{tERED iUt O1ZS CLIENT ________________________TRACT SUPT. CONTRACTOR C1L- 14 __________________________ EQUIPMENT _Ifl •ko 1so- (L- b LOCATION MOISTURE 1!1 CONTENT % --- DRY DENSITY P.C.F. --- % RELATIVE COMPACTION -- TES TYPE L— IN 1111? 1li ri W Zvi WOM W, COMMENTS: BY: PAGE 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. S. FIELD TESTING REPORT ENTER DATE NAME HOURS CLIENT ___________________TRACT________________ LOCATION_______________________ SUPT. (ç-th CONTRACTOR (ftt-k)t-T EQUIPMENT C') cYc\c') ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION SIM I M-2 EM =~uilvxrm NOMA., I romM Wall 0% 1 "At "firl COMMENTS: om swe PAOS. P, BY: _'-1 PAGE 1' 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. km FIELD TESTING REPORT .._________ RD0012412 DATE 5Jl IT NAME _-fO ( HOURS ? CLIENT ___________________-TRACT _2J I LOCATION_Cp!?u1 rD ~JT M RACTOR EQUIPMENT OG1) c -t-- oc IM-61406 S -- -ELEV. OR MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE UN nt Mo - A lip mm_ -W0 FOW 0"'011M mil,Effe-Le! IRMO ff, ma r! FA %W JW 'P COMMENTS: PAGE £ I OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. va- Geotechnlcal o Geologic a Coastal' Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 a (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915' www.geosoilsinc.com February 14, 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 Ae-Certification, Portion of Phase 9 (Lots 217, 218, and 219) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1'. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8,'2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area. 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within a portion of Phase 9 (Lots 217, 218, and 219), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at.the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading Was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant-period of time. after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing For Lots 217 through 219, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No: 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Thus, the 'upper 2 feet of the pads on Lots 217, 218, and 219 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 DENSITY (PCF) '.:.............MOIS.T(JREICQNTENT.... .PERcENT) - , L- Olive Brown Silty Clay 111.0 18.5 Q - Yellow Gray Silty Sand 127.0 - 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests completed for the removal bottom indicate 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 priorto placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically supérceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and appliôable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, Lots 217, 218, and 219 are Category II. D.R. Horton . W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 9 (Sycamore at the Foothills) ' February 14, 2013 FiIe:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.ph9 . . . Page 2 David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 4 Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite,.to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. - Respectfully su CC No. 1934\ CerlUied I \ Engineering Geologist / tp Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RCG/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 9 (Sycamore at the Foothills) February .14, 2013 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph9 Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. nc 47i OF FIELD TESTING REPORT WON 6302-B-SC DATE:02/05/13 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER RYAN CONTRACTOR. SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-FIRE HOSE RELATIVE COMPACTION I_!II!CIY I' 1 IIIIW _lP I_['IIX III.1V 1P COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING OF LOTS 217-219 RECERTS. MOISTURE AND DENSITY MEETS OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. observed removal of upper 1 foot of soil then processing of approximately 12 inches in place per GSI recs for medium expansive soil conditions. Minimum relative compaction of 90 percent and at least 2-3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content. Geo Soils, 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 c irection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc four 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 NAME t5-(YL- HOURS JS CLIENT er::_' --TRACT V LOCATION SUPT. _t'-IFil cr CONTRACTOR (51'fl EQUIPMENT U ) C ó1) e-czrs OR DEPTH CONTENT , % DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION1 Ty 11_wit ME IPA WORRIES -- COMMENTS; This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision ordirection 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. owl Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad California 92010 (760) 4383155 FAX (760) 931-0915 www geosoilsinc com .._\ January 15, 2013 W.O. 6302-B-SC, D.R.Horton :" -• -• .''-:,' - •'- 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 '. ', • . - -- -. f''•• '. .' . ' -' Attention -Ms.'1m Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger 4 - a- Subject: '.',Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 8 (Lots 207 'Through 213) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore. at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: . 11. . "Géotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at "the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, a . ., • 'California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19,2011, by GeoSoils, Inc.' 2. "Discussion of Building Slab Sübgrade Pre-Wetti, Planning Area 18 of Robertson ' Ranch, City of Carlsbad, 'California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by a • . .. 'GeoSoils, Inc. • . ' . - . - . . . , * - . • . I - ' - 'a 3. "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.0 5353-B1-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms Molicia and Mr. Jaeger-. - ' a GeoSoils, -Inc. (GSl) is"providing this summary of our observation and testing servicei during mitigative grading within Phase7 (Lots 204, 205,.206,214, 215; and 216),Planning Area•18 (Sycamore at the Foothills),'at the Robertson Ranch Subdiviion in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of. remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have , 'remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3) ' - Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a 'minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per 'ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the . recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their 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 "a -. • For Lots 207 through 213, the upper 12 inches Of soil as removed and reompated in • -. accordance with recommendations presented inReference No. 2, for medium expansive ' soil cOnditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bOttomsw'ere upped approximately 12 inches,- -- - . :• - • • - • . -a •,• "-'a' - ' ' . a- • , '. '- • . , • - -. -- - . -•c * . - •. a ,• , . ' • - a- - I 5. ,. .--. ,- 5 - - 0 __-S•_ - ., .. - + ;- moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent âbovè the soils optimum moisture content and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, anda minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). .Thus, the upper 2 feet of the pads on Lots 207 through 213 were reprocessed.. - - during this recent grading effort. . " , ,• 44 a • '4 . S - * -, . 4 5, 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 - withinthis reprocessing phase werel determined accOrdingto test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) M -Yellow, Brown Silty (clayey)SAND -- : 123.0 - 13.0 Q - Yellowish Gray Silty (clayey) SAND - .-127.0. . 11.0 . Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction :1 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 iñdicàte over optimum soil moisture per 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 moistt)re conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary prior torplacement of the undOrslab vapor. retarder (see Reference No. 1 and " No. 2). 4.6 Foundation Design/Construction 14 Unless specifically supercOded herein, thefindings, 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, all of the subject lots are foundation Category II for medium expansive • soils and fill conditions .44. - • .•. • - .. . • ,• • ' . '.5 -. - . -S •' " L •'•: 5.. - - ,-- A ' . •' 5•. .5 . .- ,. . - . . . ' . . • . •' D.R. Horton - . . . - - - - W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 8 (Sycamore at the Foothills) - ., . . - January .15,- 2013 ' 's G OSOil , Inc. File:e:\wpl2\6360\6302b.dro.ph8 ... -- i . - Page 2--'' a '• - ' • 55 - ., . ••.,• • . - . • .4 . . • 4' . - , S * 5. 5. . .5 .5 4 '.1 • a - - Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. 01o. 1934 Certified Engineering Engineering Geo RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 8 (Sycamore at the Foothills) January 15, 2012 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph8 GOSO11S, Inc. Page 3 S _ H CONSULTANTS CivilEngineering 'Surveying November 16, 2012 J.N. 09-1270-04 City of Carlsbad Building Department 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch PA 18 Form Certification Units 204-206 and 214-216, Grading. Plan Drawing No. 453-8B Dear Building Inspector: As per your request, we surveyed the referenced site on No'iember 14, 2012 to verify the location of the building foundation forms for the referenced project. The survey results indicate that the horizontal location of the building forms for the referenced lots are in substantial conformance with the limits delineated on the Robertson Ranch PA 18 Grading Plans, Dwg. 453-8B. The buildings for Units 204-206 and 214- 216 do not encroach into the setbacks. Should you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Very truly yours, S O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Tim Carroll . TCIbr • Project Manager CARROLL S • S No.7700 1* OPC C:Docuxnents and 5ettings\Jennifera\Local 5ettings\Tempory Internet Files\ContentOudook\QGOT9F2T'J120808JA18 Form Cent Units 204-206 214-216.doc O'Day Consultants Inc. E-maii oday@odayconsuftants.com 2710 Loker Avenue West. Suite 100 Website: www.odayconsultants.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 Reviewfor 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 GeoSolls, 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 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 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 8-1.2 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 1/2 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 (densométer) ASTM test method D 693810 (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 DI 557. The following table presents the results: SOILtYPE . .. MAXIMUM , ;DENSIT"f(PCF) .... MOISTURECONTENT (PERCENTh. A-Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 C 7dray Brown Clayey SAND 120.5 13.0 F - Gray Brown Gravelly SAND 134.0 8.0 El- Dark Brown Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 A - Brown Silty SAND 127.0 ' 10.0 ' 'r'd ' rAjMiiM 4 'JISClLTy,PE' ENsnykp :),,ER E 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 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 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 ' ' S W.O. 6302-B-SC Lots 195 Through 206, PA-lB (Robertson Ranch) • • "October 25, 2012 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.195_206. pal 5 S Page 3 The opportunity. to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have aty questions1 plOase do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. H :.. Robert G. Crisman : David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Civil Engineer, RCE 47.857 RCG/DWS/JPF/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 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.195206.pal8 . . . . Page 4 TEST NO. flflr' (). Lo.eATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE 0• SOIL TYPE ______ I L 072 O"1. I / i i_i_2. . _z3 -z LOT____// -i @_CLI&:FS_gEcj __ 1O-(6TS /cls-2o a. (T3j3 72\/ (QJ74ejrtV u0_7(f_ .1/5))i, f 2b1_.'T7 1T ge ofl'l(1JOJOL-Ud2qTh _ '.5.. __ T __ • __S....•_ _____ ______ ______ ___ ._ç J'. 6\-v A-(c4 '\'fl ( IMS W.O. DATE 7'PZS1/ NAME HOURS -5- CLIENT__1c0XF1 D TRACT LOCATION____________________ SUPT.6)0(-,6 . .. CONTRACTOR SiVpo7.S EQUIPMENT.: COMMENTS _L_cS_\ C\ '!_aok'._(b 'c -\_ rS 2O11JC C)(•d C-7(6)- oil eoSoZ PAGE'_1 OF tThis field report presents a surimary of observations and testing by Geooils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work.çloes not Include superviion or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. Contractor should be ipifp?med 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. FIELD TESTINGREPORT S •: DATE7/2('//. i••• NAME HOURS ..ç. CLIENT TRACT_? LOCATION________________ SUPT.. CONTRACTOR________________________________ EQUIPMENT cl3(jAO ( o H: S TEST NO.OR VN ELEV. DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 3 L oil 962 3± ..) 1... & /2 .. N '. F óT P Igo LOT 20-1 B3 SThJt) d U1I (V\O 2cX (J pa: -CUT T 7 'E((JYflE\iO(fl cpm SCr\i?IP/&9 &1) . fl(i71F (OH/77QJ (5n. 1)E(OK- it) (cni 1-C77dJ) £j (.a1i2c,C iW)311: • /fJ 7J_. ' -.n 57 - .-o( • (). Q(X L,u/.I-IZc ( J i• . ___ COMMENTS: . . -. . Ge coo S. •'•, ••••• S •• ____ S • 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 dr.dlrection 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 wörjc. Itis oderstood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this.project. J3T W.O. c DATE •-./?i/iZ- NAME 80 r I HOURS 3 CLIENT TRACT_ I B LOCATION_______________ SUPT._' . 1. CONTRACTOR N\( tC EQUIPMENT. 0 TEST NO. LdttION' : . . . . ELEV. . OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT. . % DRY . DENSITY . % - RELATIVE. COMPACTION TEST 'TYPE SOIL TYPE L cyr gq. .. ..q± S JI . q°•. ___ .• O , (e 4 LIL () jQj/ c •tI rOr—./7 /c<7( h CC ôU. (c,5 'jq 12 CPO 2c$( __ \L ij h gi -n rOKA-011 __ y(\'fl\f. (C 4flO3. C1- 'iP\/EOLAJft COMMENTS: . -. • . . ' . ' • ' ________________________ -..•-. /.fL' PAGE • OF This field report presents .a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were perforrned. 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 HELD TESTING REPORT WO DATE .'1/°iR.. NAME 1—PcC. HOURS CLIENT TAACT___________ LOCATIbN_O D SUPT. _.E (? CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT _(ño I 03O ( ?oUC TEST NO. (ELEV. LOqQ~]dN OR MOISTURE' CONTENT % 'DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE \f ,toT'/9B Pj- //)(P .q3Y .iiD fl/a7' S : C(S /fl3 ;/f.O .C7Z9 (±:/D 1/9 C' 4 Ej' f 5q-jj (i)i p 17 5 L/r 3VG (c 6 U)- J1( ,(//2EO, (c-( Viioi 4((((' 7W P ôV '7?7 I /(3 Yy1Cf d) <9-) i7ir 7ifd/ q 0 . r_1*jW - 1 / COMMENTS: S . BY: PAGE •.• OF / This field report presehts a.summary of observationsànd 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 prósence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him In any. way for defects discovered in his wor.k It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. TEST NO; ./I21Ø , L'TION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. %. RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL. TYPE II. . __•.. 93. .1)••i.... //8Y ç73.2 . iD ThT __ H 0 _••j /02 /1/ .. g1.'_\j ir./9'.. )03.1) /E.._-_..1 —._.• 7çc7 .. __ !.. . q :.;j I_..•..:f39._IF1 (O q... ..1.. 13A LOJO _/cT_/ 9 / Q3 '- 1) 7 . c 013* /14 .. _/O3. lOS?. /1s8 (..gih. FIELD TESTING REPORT w.o.St. DATE 7 NAME •PZ-pC HOURS_____________ 7R1) CLIENT —TRACT- TRACT LOCATION— SUPT. K 7 CONTRACTOR .-Ric EQUIPMENT COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or directiori 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 HELQTESTING REPORT W.O.s/9J DATE___________ , . NAME. !fl L 'HOURS ? . CLIENT TRACT_______________ LOCATION_2C 78 'O SUPT flR rfl CONTRACTOR Lo ______________________________ EQUIPMENT floi ( j hJ TEST NO. ' ' . ,LOdM1ON ' ' ELEV.- OR DEPTH MOISTURE ..,CONTENT % ' DRY. DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 2 •',B,. 2\ ''_'/9(•_H ,''a ' J )/'' Q3'' ___ ZZ'l './7.._ ' /2S j. /1.8 hT o 9'.1 qI i1 1 92.1 z '.'/2' 263 '' ''iu' ,jL 'q3.o, 20 ''' ://. ., S 910 S\ COMMENTS: BY: PAGE OF 1 This field repOit presents a summary of observations and testing'by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work' 0 oes not 'irclude 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. MEMO P149 W&6D. CLIENT _TRACT_____________ LOCATION SUPT vii CONTRACTOR 5ióc- iJC t-Zpc3r 213'j y m (/ (EOi L 1D Lf 7 7x7 fk- op xV( LOTS J o.C, pf PD Sr i ,'9vo OF PC WMK- SLUT- 7\) Ag- (}J/r/ c/1Qa7&5 o9c-T1) \/e1-71V17 /q).J3 cv'5 Uiii) jj v SY- /(Omin9a) 7b (O/7u 17I 5fLÔ 3E \/'D OuT W/ /Y . DD2Qa -D cc- fulli. WIN otEsM (o-D-Sod C fD 1i fl( HELD TES11NG'REPORT W.O.- DATE S NAME HOURS 2- CLIENT__.-a- OiEtL TRACT LOCATION____________________ -SUPT. _S CONTRACTOR _:'\Vc(T c_ __'• •. EQUIPMENT \ \'-7Q(ü . .5 5.•'• TEST ' NO. ' . LO WTI ON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT .. 'DRY • DENSITY . P.C.F. % RELATIVE' COMPACTION TEST TYPE S SOIL TYPE ID.. q8 :. :ZSZz __ bT 2.0 _____________ '' s__ '" • " . ".. S J/ u\2- fl .. . 'S. •• S -- 9 3j±'2l Tt. : qz 3 C (TS 1JY COMMENTS: CL S '-7Qo '-J_. 'Ec) (1'ffl' FIELD TESTI N G REPORT DATE LOI (7 /I2 0 ' 0' NAME /)L HOURS 2 CLIENT_ TRACT LOCATION______________________ SUPT. .1 CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT \-k2c sOc. TEST1 NO. T4 VA ON ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 2?)' I. OT. -2 g5± zo • _ (oN-_oF_Loi2o( ' (LJ _'T(:s:._ • ç)d _Ic iiô _-p_ ______ • _ ((cv\O? __• Lç\I((uDfl (Z: 44 ______ ___ ____ COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only-where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. tk- w.o._________ DATE 10/2ZIZ_. NAME _?ii C HOURS ;7 CLIENT_TRACT_____________ LOCATION__________________ SUPT. ii—CONTRACTOR (Pr _S7 EQUIPMENT t )—_(( TcE O2 TEST NO. 9--Tr'?'01 LN ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE I Lcr2oc )E5 _______ IJD 22ft • I_ :fti Cy3 Etc 3_• \J'_\'_ ___ I ' ' _______ ___ ____ __ .\s/ • _a _____ __ - ggu c: __ Q _('S_? )S r _(1 (oc —j .flc / /ZEt _ fl11} -77Lr .('C , (5.ô ___ __ _ 3dirnc 90 (-& .11 -ii Y ?r7P19 :72dAJ Q 71 __ (I COMMENTS: V, T'PAGE OF This fiId 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. • O. Geotechnical' Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad. California 92010 (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • wWw.geosoilsiflccom October 19, 2012 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Ms. Kim Molina, Mr. Ryan Jaeger Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 7 (Lots 204,205, 206, 214, 215, and 216) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, city of Carlsbad, San Diego county, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5954-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-Sc, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Molina and Mr. Jaeger: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 7 (Lots 204,205,206,214,215, and 216), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their continued development. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing For Lots 214 through 216, the upper 12 inches of soil was removed and recompacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2, for medium expansive soil conditions. Prior to filling, the exposed bottoms were ripped approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and reprocessed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Once the bottoms were processed, the pads were then restored to planned pad grade with compacted fill, moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soils optimum moisture content, and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). Thus, the upper 2 feet of the pads on Lots 214 through 216were reprocessed during this recent grading effort. For Lots 204, 205, and 206, pad grade was reprocessed to a depth of at least 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557) for low expansive soil conditions. 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: SOILT'(PE MAXIMUM .DENSITY'(PCF). MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT). A - Brown Silty SAND 127.0 10.0 E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND w/clay 126.0 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests completed for the removal bottom indicate over optimum soil moisture per 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. D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 7 (Sycamore at the Foothills) October 19, 2012 Fi1e:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.ph7 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 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 ol Reference No. 3, Lots 204,205, and 206 are foundation Category I, and Lots 214,215, and 216 are Category II. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be. onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this, report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully SI GeoSoils, Inc. Sj) M3 1C34 •'.-i Crtfj I I Robert G Crismàn' ' Engineering Geol RCG/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" 2 , i._, David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email and US mail) D.R. Horton . W.O. 6302-8-SC Phase 7 (Sycamore at the Foothills) October 19, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.ph7 GeooIls, Inc.Page 3 OFf FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE JO J(7 J(?- NAMEfJC HOURS 7 CLIENT -TRACT LOCATION CONTRACTOR I, EQUIP MENT I V ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % RELATIVE I COMPACTION E7i.,. - mikkov, MQXROW 61,010M RAW 6q 0- COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. St FIELD TESTING REPORT ..46 _______ DATE fi 177— NAME_____________ HOURS ,... __ CLIENT _______ _____________TRACT _______________ LOCATIbN CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT_(b €- TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE ,0 ___________ €3. j'3 jki q,.3 Mf; 2fr /o1 /,r$if i -a i Lei r o31 yW.1151 13,12 14 f. COMMENTS: 9r 'oi PAGE ''_(• OF________ - -J.' 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. --- DATE_____________ NAME_____________ HOURS CLIENT PR._TRACT_F4i LOCATION_____________________ SUPT._3'U CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT_(ii) Lt lb . -O toil. iD •iM' D ciLTL TEST NO. LOCATION t DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE c77 A;! • 13 ç ft5,5 O, Or I 2 /M/ ____ IY315 rzi 1/31 '7O, 114:7 -t 4 _____ _______ ri- z- 9& _____ COMMENTS: Ge PAGE fy 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.___________ DATE_____________ NAME_____________ HOURS CLIENT_ TRACT LOCATION SUPT._______________________ CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 2-1 COMMENTS: BY: PAGE ________ OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. CLIENT SUPT FIELD TESTING REPORT .._________ ENTERED pos o DATE I1iL NAME c_ HOURS_____________ C&J. Stfr(G cactai) XiYH GA TRACT A3 10 LOCATION_____________________ rfl CONTRACTOR vth EQUIPMENT 1VJflRJ&i OR DEPTH 'MOISTURE ENT RELATIVE COMPACTION .7. ANN _Ir wow EIrI Fl__1I__ I __ ANN __ AMIN Elm= __I1L1I__ __ EN FI_I 111106011 MINE - _ mm k am, MEMO lWQ 11110 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. PAGE FIELD TESTING 941 REPORT 0 gEO W.O. qy9-st DATE 7/21i,/(?_ NAME ftJ C HOURS CLIENT _'EF(G TRACT ?' 18 LOCATION______________________ SUPT. CONTRACTOR Si'vp,obi _,ZjC• EQUIPMENT _____ FrZ,dff Ed, ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. 0/0 RELATIVE COMPACTION MEN EMEM mm if All _____ COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. 5W9*SL DATE 0 IEW NAME R ko HOURS 7 CLIENT _________TRACT_211 LOCATION______________________ SUPT._5eESiS Wi CONTRACTOR 51Si601 EQUIPMENT b ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION 1111M ram, W WE 10 Nei-fikA"M AM - COMMENTSQ tiiI qS, ck%-zo1' C6 f-Tw-- (crQftt Loi 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. SYCAMORE AT THE FOOTHILLS - CARLSBAD Tract #04-26 - Phase 7 7/27/2011 Revised 9/14/12 Foundation STYLE UNIT! LOT N2C GARAGE LLeft R=Ruqht COLOR SCHEME Enhanced Elevation BF PREPLOT ADDRESS Cony I Italian Tusc 204 L 7 None No 3738 Bergen Peak P1 ConyI California 205 L 6 None No Bed 4/Bath 4, Bed 5 3742 Bergen Peak Pt PTI Mission 206 L 3 Right No 3746 Bergen Peak Pt PT II Italian Tusc. 214 3C L 7 None No Bed 5 3753 Bergen Peak P1 PT II California 215 lB L 5 None No 3749 Bergen Peak PP PT II Mission 216 2A L _2_ Right No 3745 Bergen Peak P1 TOTAL UNITS 6 REVISIONS CHANGE DATE ITEM CHANGED 1 8/9/2011 Added Enhanced Elevations to lots 206 and 216 2 8/17/2011 Added Backflow preventor collumn 3 8/30/2011 Added Color Schemes 4 9/19/2011 Name changed from Laurels to Sycamore 5 1 10/6/2011 jAdded Foundation Category 6 1 1/17/2012 IChanged Foundation Category from CAT IA & CAT 11to Cony I P11 & Pill per KM & BW 7 1 9/14/2012 ITL added pre-plots PRODUCT MIX _ Plan I Plan lx Plan 2 Plan 3 2 _ 22 APPROVED BY: Accounting Purchasing DRE EPE RESOURCE Grade Plan I I Date: Development/Planning Construction Sales CTS Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects C, www.rntarchitects.com 363 Fifth Ave I Ste 202 I San Diego CA 92101 P619.233.1023 I F619.233.0016 C . 0. 1) Architect's Supplemental Information Attention Shawn Fisher / Nick Steers ASi No 96 Firm Name Barnhart Balfour Beatty Job No 467 Project The High School at College Date 10/31/12 and Cannon The following information is hereby issued as a clarification or interpretation of the contract Documents. This is a clarification or interpretation only and not intended to change the scope of the work, the contract sum or the contract Time SUBJECT/REFERENCE Street Lighting Circuit - Cannon Road DESCRIPTION 1 Provide street lighting circuit design for the (4) light standards along Cannon Road as shown on attached exhibit ASI 96.1, which includes the fbllowing: New single phase transformer located east of the SDGE handhole at location 10. New hand holes conduits and wiring to the light standards Note Refer to the City of Carlsbad Street Improvement Plan sheets for additional information and light standard locations ID "AS BUILT" P.E. EXP. __________ DATE REVIEWED BY INSPECTOR DATE 13 TI CITY OF CARLSBAD IISHEETSI ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 13 rIMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR- STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CANNON AND COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL CANNON STREET LIGHT CIRCUIT APPROVED: GLEN A. VAN PESKI "ENIOR ElIot. ENGINEER PE 41204 EXPIRES 3/31/I1 DATE I OWN NT ITHKD BTI LRVWD BY: -II PROJECT NO. I PDO8-07 DRAWING NO. L459-9c NATE ININAL E008EER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE 811101. DATE INITIAl, OTHER APP CITY APPROVAL KEY NOTES: El PUNCH HOLE UNDER 0,108 [J 0,11 AND PATCH SUB-PAVEMENT FOR CONDUIT El 1 MINIMUM ELEARANCIE BETWEEN KENIERUNE OF GOOF HMIDHOLE AND WEST EDGE OF TRANSFORMER PAD EXIEND24OF2C OUT THE EAST SIDE OFTHE TRANSFORMER PAD FOR FUTURE SIGNAL DUR'.TCE SEE SHEETS 4 AND S FOR POLE STATION ONE LINE DIAGRAM NO SCALE I SPARLING WORK TOGETHER I 81*00 APART. 9191 Towne Centre Drive, Silo 220 Son Diego, Cot ifomio 92122 858-622-27102 8SI-667-0610 elow.9,o,lng.n,n, GENERAL NOTES: ALL WORK SMALL COMPLY ROTh SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS (SDRGO) AS ADOPTED BY OTT OF CARI.RDAO. DRAWING INDICATES ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM COMINECTIONIL POLE LOCATIONS AND ASSOCIATED OLUMINAOON PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY OTHERS. N" PARKING LOT C PARKING LOT D It uur did L I 'Us I I L ' j \ /Te PAII - - -SDGE -i d'i LO L IT ON Y 75 oa T76;? 'jfT-TTT - - fi .- V. - ----- - - -LL. -- - / PLAN VIEW e SCALE 1 = 40-0 NORTH SYMBOL LIST - V CONDUIT SOLON GRADE WITH 2110 & 1110 GOD. PER TEIRDU M-SERIES DRAWINGS HMI000LE. MARKED -STREET LIGHTING- STREET UINT IOOW INDUCTION LUMINARE HITS PHOTO CELL. SYLVANIA JERSET HA. MOUNTED AT 30 PER TEIRIET E-T+ DRAWAIC (SEE SHEET 7) SITE NON-METERED SERVICE, CONNECTED LOAD BOOVA 6OA/2 30A/2 ASI 96.1 Geotechnical -.Geologic.-. Coastal • Environmental 5741 . lme(way'i Carlsbad California 92010 (760) 438-3155 FAX (760)'93 1 0915 *June 27, 2012 W.0. 5949-B-SC Brookfield Homes * 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 ' ...Del Mari California 92014. '' . .,, .•', 1 Attention Ms Teri McHugh, and Mr Greg McDonnell Subject: •Compaction Report of Building -PadRe-Certification, Lots 92, 93 and 94, - Phase 10, Planning.Aréà f6i Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References:' 1: "Supplemental Discusion of.Siab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W-.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by . GeoSoilsjnc. .• -. -: - - 2. "Discussióñ of Building Slab5ubgrade.Pre-Wetting; Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, Caiifoinia;" 'WO. 5949-C-SC, dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoiis Inc - . 3. Reort of Rouh Grading, Pianning'Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 Through 63, 89 Through 99, 117 Through 140, and 160 Through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, SanDiego -County,, California," W.O. 5353-Bi-SC, dated February 16 2009,7b y GeoSoils Inc Dear Ms McHugh and Mr McDonnell - •• .- • , I -, -•'' -•-•,• - - .-.. . I ••• ,- . - GeóSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this ummary,of our observation and testing -services - during mitigative grading within Lots 92, 93,arid94 of, Planning Area 16, at RobertsOn Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the sUbjectIots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No: 2; Earthwork'consisted "of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill-soil across each highly expansivelot (Lots 92 and 93), and 18 inchesfor each - • very highly expansive lot(Lot 94). Once removals were completed, the exposed bottom was processed, moistureconditiohedand compacted to a depth of 12 additional inches, • - - then brought to grade with compacted fill, such that the upper 24 inches (highly expansive - : Lots" 92 and 93), and 30 inches (very highly expansive Lot 94) has been reprocessed. Where tested, ,reprocessèd and/or Jill material was-compacted to at least 90 percent - relative compaction, at 4 percent to 5 percent above the soils optimum moisturcontent- pt ASTM D 1557 (see Re,ferenOe No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have-I been prepared in ,general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and, are • considered suitable for development from ageotechnical standpoint. '. - ' , ' - • ' ; 6 r ,. -, • 4 • ' • . - •- -- 4 1 4, • .• S - * _ 4. " ;5 • - S. 4 5 4 4 . S 4 5*- I • * -: - ;-' S •' - Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed uèing nuclear (densometer) ASTM test method D6938 (Procedure A). The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." -. -•, . The laboratory maximum dry density-and optimum moisture content forthe major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test-method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: . .. - TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) 7~.MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL (PERCENT) C -.Gray Brown, Clayey SAND' 120.5 , 13.0 K - Dark Gray clay . - . , . 102.0 . 21.0 L - Olive Brown, Silty CLAY 111.0 18.5 4 . . :- .. . - Fild 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 !eat 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil' moisture content, per GSI's reports (Reference No. 1 arid 2). 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 No.2 and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superàeded herein, thefindings, conclusions, and recomm4endations 4 presented in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with 'respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our-review.' of Reference No. 3, Lots 92 and 93 are highly expansive, and categorized as foundation Category Ill, while Lot 94 (very highly expansive) is categorized as foundation Category IV. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional .geotechnical update report may be necessary. . 4 •-,. Plan Review • , •' 4; •. . . , S ' Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this 'office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and 5 recommendations of this report.. Based on our review', supplemental recommendations -and/or further geotechnical evaluations maybe warranted. -. - -- S • S • ,.Bràokfield Homes - - . 4 W.O. 5949-B-SC PA 16 Lots 92 93 & 94 Robertson Ranch June 27 2012 - File e \wpl2\5900\5949b phlO 2 cro GeOSo1ls, Inc.,Page 2 *4 ,' - 54 -• -. .-• •- - 4 3 '4. •5* Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition; this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully sub o\ / /G .C<O GeoSoils, Inc.(1z cc -41934'I- I I Certified I I \. Engineering Gbo / I!lst /1 Robert G. Crisma±.-" Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RCG/DWS/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via mail and email) 1~1 61 '9OESSiO No ACE 47857 Wrt #iIiI I'S 1* David W. Skelly O Civil Engineer, RCE 478 Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 92, 93, & 94, Robertson Ranch June 27, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.phlO.2.cro GeoSoils, Inch Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT w.O.# 5949-B-SC DATE: 06/20/12 NAME:TODD HOURS: 2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-16 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-TRACK LOADER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTIFICATION COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING AND OBSERVATION 0 EARTHWORK RELATED TO LOT RECERTIFICATION. Geo Soils, Inc. BY: %49 PAGE: 1 OF 1 his field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision c irection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presenc four 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-B-SC - DATE:06/21/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA-16 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-TRACK LOADER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTIFICATION S I.IIeJ COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING AND OBSE EARTHWORK RELATED TO LOT RECERTIFICATION. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: ;14 3 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 excusehim 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-B-SC DATE: 06/22/12 NAME: TODD HOURS: 2.5 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT_PA-16 LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-TRACK LOADER, 1-WATER TRUCK, 1-SKIP LOADER LOT RECERTIFICATION MOISTURE VERIFICATION sII)' !III1i COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO PERFORM TESTING AND OBSERVATION OF EARTHWORK RELATED TO LOT RECERTIFICATION. GeoSolls, Inc. BY: lev— PAGE: 1 OF 1 'his field report presents a summary of observation and testing by GeosoiIs 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 four 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. Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal. Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad California 92010 (760) 438 3155 FAX (760) 931 0915 www geosoilsinc corn Jiine 22, 2012 W.O. 5949-B-SC - . - ''-B - B ' 'B Bróokfield Homes •' , ... B .- . , • - 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 .' • ', . • Del Mar, California 92014 / Attention Ms Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots -49 and 50, Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch Develdpment, Carlsbad, San Diego ' County, California References: 1."Revised Lot Characteristics for Lots 49 nd 50, Planning Area 16 of Robertson, Ranch, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing No. 453-8A, Cit of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated May 21, 2012, by GeoSoils, Inc. ' ' , • - - . . - 2. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson . Ranch, City of .Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-CSC, 1ated August 17, 2010, by - GeoSoils, Inc. . - 3. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of CrIsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated October' 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. 4. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 - Through 63,89 Through 99,117 Through 140, and 160 Through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, 'Carlsbad, San Diego -County, California,", W.O. 5353-1317SC, dated . February 16, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms McHugh and Mr. McDonnell I GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and.testingserices '. during mitigative'grading within Lots 49 and 50 of Planning Area 16, at Robertson Ranch, . East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reproceth the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference 2. Earthwork consisted of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil ' across each lot, processing, moisture conditioning and compacting the exposed bottom 12 additional inches, then bringing the lotsto grade with coinpacted fill, such that the upper 24 inches of the medium to highly expnsive fill has been reprocessed. Where. -. tested, reprocessed and/or fillmaterial within Lot 49 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 3) for medium expansive soil conditions. Where fested, reprocessed and/or fill material within Lot 50 was compacted to at least 90 percent relative - - - compactibn, at 4 percent to 5 percent above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM , - •B • ,;.,, . - - B - 1 4 4 • 4 . . -,I•_ •. '- . -- 4. - . 4 ¶ 4 • • •.. .. -! -. •, -a- 4 4 I - Z •. . ' . - '. - - - 1 I -. -4, •P F • •• ,. -, .- -• . D 1557 (see Reference 2) for highly expansive soil conditions. Based on our observations 1 and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference 3 and 4), and are considered suitable for continued development from a geotechnical standpoint Field Observation and Testing F 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" I 4 4 4 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 * ASTMD 1557. The following table presents the results: .- . I . .,- -.- . -. * •- •... * I . * , . ,4 * .. - - i_I, SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) I C - Gray Brown, Ciayey Sand I . 120.5 I 13.0 - .1 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(References2 and 3). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture .4 . .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 '3 and 4). I - •, : ¶ , • .- - * •- . . . Foundation Design/Construction ' 4. . Unless specifically supercededhérein,the findings, conclusions, andrecommndations presented in Reference 4, are generally considered valid and applicable with respectto the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No 1 and 4, Lot 49 is medium expansive, and categorized as foundation Category II PT, while Lot 50 is highly expansive, and categorized as Category Ill PT. - If, building code updates are adopted for this project prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary Ft t • t Plan Review 4 .•..- • , ' • Final project plans'(foundatión, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/o further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. • . - . - •.. Brookfield Homes GeoSoils i W 0 5949-13-SC PA-16, Lots 49 & 50, Robertson Ranch - 4 . . Jure 22, 2012 Fiie e \wpl2\5900\5949b cro 49 50 ' Page 2 - • ' -. I I I Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis ãrë 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 áppreciatéd. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitte , GéoSoils, Inc. A ;e00000O W 5 Robert G. Crismn'-.> Engineering RCG/ATG/JPF/jh OFESs1. T. 32O u fljl '... fl I . tALLtSuuI's.,C 00V Geoteçhnical Engine Attachment: "Field Testing Report(s)": Distribution: (1) Addressee (Via mail and email) Brookfield Homes W.0. 5949 B SC OA-1 6 Lots 49 & 50 Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. June 2'2,'2012 F11e:e:\wp12\5900\5949b.cro.49-50 Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT w.O.______________ DATE NAME HOURS 2S ? pp~-Ap Cft?_'<35f ~o CLIENT TRACT_ LOCATION______________________ SUPT EQUII 0)0 fr-ve 0 EV. OR DEPTH __-L MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. L % RELATIVE COMPACTION Jill COMMENTS: BY:/ V 4 VVVVVLJV 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. 15, SUPT EQUH FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE ______________ NAM Mm * HOURS— C CLIENT ________________________TRACT_ LOCATION_CP,g)PjO ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION Ip I M-4 I=-, New M1 mi, FRAW, r~WJXB I W11 UMMMV M COMMENTS: This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. I r FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE r NAME_____________ HOURS CLIENT —TRACT 96 1(0 LOCATION_ci-ciThD SUPT. t€.b VY\ CONTRACTOR (AL WEST- EQUIPMENT N- ELEV. OR MOISTURE CONTENT % RELATIVE COMPACTION II - - __-- "0910 1-1119 1 B R& MCC, IMMON 01 Ml IMEW—MI we I N, WN AM, —0-11M COMMENTS: 1 rM I W/m, k/ii) 1c1 - _.1_ 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 Sf°rB' DATE Co IS ii NAME e HOURS / - CLIENT _______________________TRACT_ ') (' LOCATION_______________________ SUPT. _______________________ CONTRACTOR 6fL_tdT EQUIPMENT _ 31 OR PTH MOISTURE 1DENSITY iI ........... ME - 05MR-SWIMM, EMU 1=1 COMMENTS: BY: PAGE I OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. t — I Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 •www.geosoilsinc.com May 16, 2012 -. W.O: 5949-B-SC - :. + -• .. Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention" Mr. Greg McDonnell * + .+ - * e •.. . . - - Subject:'. Compaction Report- of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 55,56,57, 58,'59, 60, 61, 62, and 63, Planning 'Area 16, Robertson Ranch Development, - Carlsbad; San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Discussion of Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17, 2010, by GeoSoils Inc. .- 2. "Discussion of, Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C7SC, dated October 8, 2009,' by GeoSoils, Inc. .•:. . - . . 3. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village. (Lots 44 Through 63,89 Through 99,117 Through 140, and 160 Through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, Sah Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated February 16 2009 by GeoSoils Inc - Dear Mr McDonnell GeoSoils, lnô. '(GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative -grading within Lots 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63 (9 lots) of Planning Area 16, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance .'Withrecommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of removing the upper 12 inches of existing fill soil across each lot, processing, moisture- conditioning and compacting the exposed bottom 12 additinal inches, then bringing the lots to'grade with compacted fill, such that the upper 24 inches of the medium expansive fill has been reprocessed. Where tested, reprocessed and/or fill material was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, at 2% to 3% above the soils optimum moisture content per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, 'the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for continued development from a geotechnical standpoInt - p Field Observation and Testing 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 construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: , MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE DENSITY (PCF) (PERCENT) lic - Gray Brown, Clayey Sand I 120.5 I 13.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least '90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSl's reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., 3 to 7 days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No.2 and No. 3). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented. in Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are medium expansive, and categorized as foundation Category II PT. If building code updates are adopted for this project prior to the development of these' pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted.. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC PA-16, Lots 55-63, Robertson Ranch May 16, 2012 Ffle:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.cro.55-63 GoSods, Inc. Page 2 ON Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express Or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully subrnite— GeOSolls, In RCG/ATG/JPF/jh 4C\ No. 1934'\ Certified ) \ Engineering Robert G. CH Geologist j ,p \. ' sm.<J/ Engineering Ge'bIctce493 Attachment: "Field Testing Report(s)" Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 \ J 4 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (2) Brookfield Homes, Attention: Ms. Tern McHugh (via email and mail) Brookfield Homes - W.O. 5949-13-SC PA-1 6, Lots 55-63, Robertson Ranch May 16, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.cro.55-63 GeoSoUs, Inc. Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT c' WIIfL Lei CLIENT -L3 SUPT._____ EQUIPMENT —TRACT _2i1 LOCATION_CP(SBOj-.. ie;1?LJCIf CONTRACTOR CAL- Lc&3T 1120 'iwC oa~ (,GWQZ - at OR ELEV. MOI STURE CONTENT ___ .7. RELATIVE COMPACTION DEPTH % MEN FI___ IU1EI MMIM", MG __=1M OMANI= EBEIM __ MEN__ IMAMM~WMIMNM ___ am 1MAiEO301K'4 BENIN 1MEMME AM COMMENTS: N :órnni Geo 06 . U RY- PAGE 1 OFL 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, shallexcuse 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. SUPT EQUII FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. DATE NAME________ HOURS : I - CLIENT TRACT_ LOCATION_CnJ2(5/3fiD ELEV OR DEPTH MOIST ORE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY WARMI 0 W--..6~ma WON' wpm - WL INW, MR4 "! in UWA no, ljwmm Dim lr"~l COMMENTS: BY: PAGE OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 www.geosoilsinc.com September 27, 2011 W.O. 6302-B-SC D.R. Horton do REDP 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Mr. Kurt Hubbell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 1 (Lots 267,268, 268, 299, 300, and 301) of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Hubbell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 1 (Lots 267, 268, 269, 299, 300, and 301), Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surficial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: . MAXIMUM. MOISTU RE.CONTENT.... SOIL PE . .. .- DENSi (PCF (PERCEN L - Olive Brown, Silty CLAY 111.0 18.5 X - Brownish Gray, Gravelly SAND w/silt 131.5 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction perASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant period of time prior to slab construction where the slab subgrade has the potential to dry out, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing will be necessary priorto placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. 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 D.R. Norton W.O. 6302-B-Sc Phase 1 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch September 27, 2011 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro.phl Page 2 Geoftils, Inc. GeoSoils, Inc. accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully .- I•çi'• L2 L \.C., rdd '. C 0 i-ooeri . urisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" CO t /4U \ M No , Ev E232 Wndrew IT. Guatelli Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (1) Mr. Danny Alatorre w/D.R. Horton (via email) D.R.Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Phase 1 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch September 27, 2011 Fi1e:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro.phl Page 3 Inc. . .4, FI ELD TESTI NG REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE: 09122/11 . . NAME: TODD. - 4 p HOURS: 4 CLIENT .-'.DRHORTON - TRACT S _-. _PA18 LOCATION __CARLSBAD SUPER DANNY' . - CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP. . . .1-SKIP LOADER, 1-LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION . . . TEST. - LOCATION ,' EL. Or MOISTURE DRY % RELATIVE TEST SOIL NO. . DEPTH 'CONTENT% DENSITY COMPACTION TYPE TYPE 10* LOT 267 . .- . , 100.2 90.3% SC L 11* LOT 268 75.0 103.2 93.0%' SC L 12 LOT 269 -:-::----- 75.0 21.1% 103.0 92.8% SC L 56. MTN grg -._* '•..._."5_.,.'_*_ -' - 7. ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING FOR LOT RECERTIFICATION. TESTS 10 &11 DO NOT MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS DUE TO OUT OF SPEC. MOISTURE [LOW]. CONTRACTOR STARTED REPROCESSING LOTS 299-301. AT THIS TIME ADDITIONAL DEPTH +7 5-6" IS REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AND INTENDS ON COMPLETING TOMORROW 9/23/2011 BY COMMENTS: -4 - - 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 thel presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discoveredj in his work. It is understood that our firm will nt be responsible for job or site safety on this project. :- - - 4 . * 4. 4 4- 4 - I I. -__LOCATION 'r_ LOT 299 - EFTerM hilcisl,— 1000 WE ME WN WN 17 : I - - FIELD TESTI NG REPORT -. - w.o.# 6302-B-SC - : - DATE: 09/23/11 - ' •. - . NAME: i TODD -, - HOURS: - -I .... - fl - - CLIENT - DRHORTON .TRACT LOCATION __CARLSBAD ___-. SUPER - DANNY CONTRACTOR: SCM EQUIP. 1-LOADER, 1-SKIP LOADER, 14VATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION - - COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. . - • x This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc.-personnel. Our work does not include supervision ordirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be infoimed 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. - I- • - - ,. -. -- -. 1. - - S.- _. - - . 4 __5 5 - - -- . . . .5. -r -, 5 . _•t - 5_. 5- - - . . 5-- -• - - ., * 4 - . -'-: . . . - S1y - -, BY 4- Geotechnical. Geologic Coastal . Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 FAX (760) 931-0915 www.geosoilsinc.com September 22, 2011 W.O. 6302-B-SC c/0REDP 1037 Pavo Court San Marcos, California 92078 Attention: Mr. Kurt Hubbell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Model Lots 262, 263, and 264 of Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch (East Village) Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update and Foundation Plan Review for Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6302-B-SC, dated September 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," dated October 8, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 18 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 195 through 304, and 309) Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated September 17, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Hubbell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 262,263, and 264, Planning Area 18 (Sycamore at the Foothills), at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess lots that have remained fallow since the completion of mass grading (see Reference Nos. 2 and 3). Earthwork generally consisted of re-processing surlicial soils, moisture conditioning, and placement/compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557, as recommended in Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Should these pads remain undeveloped for a significant period of time after this phase of grading, additional future mitigative earthwork will likely be recommended, as presented in Reference No. 2. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Reports." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this reprocessing phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: • SOIL TYPE . . .. MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT.' (PERCENT) L - Olive Brown, Silly CLAY I iii.o 18.5 Field compaction testing indicates thatthe soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture per GSI reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant period of time 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 undersiab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. If building code updates pass, or are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. 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 D.R. Horton Model Lots 262, 263, & 264(Foothills), Robertson Ranch FiIe:e:\wp12\6300\6302b.cro W.O. 6302-B-SC September 22, 2011 Page 2 responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully GeoSoils, Inc. No. ig Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, 4 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (1) Mr. Danny Alatorre w/D.R. Horton (via email) D.R. Horton W.O. 6302-B-SC Model Lots 262, 263, & 264(Foothills), Robertson Ranch September 22, 2011 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6302b.cro Page 3 GeoSofls, Inc. 'TEST NO. - LOCATION • EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY- 'DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION 'TEST TYPE. SOIL TYPE BFG ,LOT 262 85.4 21.6% .100.1 90.2% SC _L 9FG LOT 263 _- 86.1 20.9% 101.1 91.1% SC L OBSERVATIONSUMMARY: LOTS267-2691FT.OF SOIL REMOVI D ANDSC kRIFIED AT L iAST6INCH SIN ACCORD? JCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LI E AND GRADE SET BY CONTRACTO RAND OUR DATA IS BASED ONTHAT.. _ paggge -- I - HELD TESTNG REPORT . wo# 6302 -B-SC DATE 09/21/11 - , NAME: _TODD HOURS 35 CLIENT. DR HORTON TRACT . PA18 LOCATIONCARLSBAb SUPER • DANNY ' CONTRACTOR SCM EQUIP 1-SKIP LOADER 1-LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION COMMENTS ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING RELATED TO LOT RECERT. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RELATIVE COMPACTION AND WATER CONTENT. - PAGE:1 O F 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 th&contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither thel 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. - - I- -. - ,* - ..FIELD .TESTI NG REPORT w o# 6302-8-SC - -. DATE:09/20111 - - NAME:_______________ HOURS (1 ) CLIENT DR HORTON TRACT PA18 LOCATION _CARLSBAD SUPER DANNY - CONTRACTOR SCM• EQUIP 1-LOADER 1-SKIP LOADER 1-WATER HOSE LOTRECERTIFICATION •- 1. LOCATION -- - - _ ,__%a9rv!A _Jt-_i_p11.1_JJ.ukii. —LOT .264 - JW. k.J C - to "i3. - ---I ------ -COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING RELATED TO MODEL LOT RECERTS. (262,263,264) TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WATER CONTENT AND RELATIVE COMPACTION. - H BY: 1 .PAGE:i OF 1 • This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work doesnot include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. ,The contractor should be informed that neither thel 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. . • - j * . . I - •. - FIELD-TESTI NG REPORT W.O.# 6302-B-SC DATE: _09Ji.911j NAME:____________ HOURS: 4 1 CLIENT DRHORTON TRACT __ .PAlS LOCATIONCARLSBAD 1'• . SUPER DANNY CONTRACTOR .. SCM EQUIP 1-LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE 1-SKIP LOADER PAD RECERT. -. . . TEST LOCATION- IEL. Or MOISTURE DRY %RELATIVE TEST SOIL NO. DEPTH CONTENT% DENSITY COMPACTION TYPE TYPE 1A . LOT 264 • 85.5 20.6% 100.1 90.2% SC L ZA L01264 85.5 21.4% 100.3 90.4% SC 1 4v.u0 1 IUU.L I a70 91.9% 4 LOT 262 -. 84.5 20.5% L •.. - . - . - ____I: ___ - - - -. .' -• . ON COMMENTS . . • . • ON SlihAl LI1'0 rr_QjL6:. OMODL - LOT RECERTIFICATION. RETESTED LOT 264. TESTS AND RETESTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WATER CONTENT AND RELATIVE COMPACTION. iThia field report prants a summay of cbarvaiiari and testing by Gaaoiia. Inc. paracinnal. Our work doaa not includeaup ve ui !direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the prese.nc.1 .3 a" C CC ' • E ay c . .. - - . . 1* • •. * •_!_&. --------.------.. —---... (-.) GéoSo iz1sd. As Geotechnical • Geologic .Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 .www.geosoiIsinc.com Brookfield, Homes 12865 Pdinte Del Mar, Suite 200. Del Mar, California 92014 April 4, 201 RECEIVED I 1 W.10[APR 7 2OliJ - CITY OF CARI.SBAE) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CM&I DIVISION 9-B-SC Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh . 'Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Planning Area 16, Production Phase 4, Lots 166 through 172, and I 801hrough 183, Roberton Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego Cóunty, California r Dear Ms. McHugh: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI)is providing this summary of our observation and testing services of re-grading within Lots 166 through 172, and 180 through 183 within Planning Area 16, at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. Planning Area 16 was initially graded with observation and testing services provided by GSI (2009b) The purpose of remedial grading was to re-bondition the building pads, and consisted of re-processing surficial soils moisture conditioning and compacting the soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per.ASTM.D 1557 (GSl; 2609'a',2010). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordane with the recommendations provided by this office (GSl; 2009a, 2010), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation andTesting Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densorneter) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operation'are presented in the attached copies otôur "Field Testing Report:" The laboratory rraximumdry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase weredetermined according to test methödASlM D 1557.' The following table presents the results: . MAXIMUM -MOISTURE CONTENT. SOILTYPE .. DENSITY(PCF) '(PERCENT:Y." J - Gray, Clayèy SAND 121.0 - 12.5 M - Yellow brown, silty SAND . 123.0 -13.0 1'. Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad ([2007 California Building Code {2007 CBC}] i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and testing also indicates adequatesoil moisture. However, based on the expansive character of site soils, and the anticipated additional time that will pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and verification will likely be necessary prior to placement of the undersiab vapor retarder (see Table A, Note 11, and Page 12 of GSI, 2009b). Soul Expansion, and Corrosion Potential A review of GSI (2011 and 2009b) indicates that low expansive soil underlie Lots 180 through 183 (expansion index [E.l.] >20, and <50), and medium expansive soils underlie Lots 166 through 172 (E.l. >50, and <90), as classified by 2001 California Building Code ([2001 CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 2001), Table 18-I-B. Please note that GSI utilizing this previous CBC code only to classify the soils, as the 2007 CBC (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2007) does not provide this index. Subsequent corrosion testing of soils within 3 feet of finish grade indicate that these soils present a negligible (sulfate class SO) sulfate exposure to concrete, per Table 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) document 318-08 (2007 CBC [CBSC, 2007]). Soils are relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity (pH of 7.9), and are considered corrosive to exposed ferrous metals in a saturated state. The chloride ion content in soil was also noted to generally be in the range of 84 to 194 ppm, and is considered below action levels (300 ppm [see GSI, 2009b]). It is our understanding that standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel is usually appropriate for these conditions; however, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide specific recommendations regarding foundations and piping, etc. Foundation Design/Construction Based on a review of GSI (2009b) and observations/testing performed during this phase of site grading, foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2009b) for Category I (Lots 180 through 183), and Category II (Lots 166 trough 172) post-tension foundations. Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in GSI (2009b) are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on the duration of time following pad completion, pre-wetting/saturation is recommended, as indicated in the referenced GSI reports. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC Phase 4, PA 16, Robertson Ranch April 4, 2011 File: e:\wpl 2\5900\5949b.cro. ph4 Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work ortesting 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. Af you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully su GeoSoils, md 44 Robert G. Crisn Engineering GE - Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachments Appendix - References "Field Testing Report" Distribution (4) Addressee Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC Phase 4, PA 16, Robertson Ranch April 4, 2011 File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.cro.ph4 Page 3 GeoSoits, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission, 2007, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2006 International Building Code, 2007 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2007 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. GeoSoils, Inc., 2011, Geotechnical update for planning area 16, production phase 4, lots 166 through 172, and 180 through 183, Robertson Ranch,.East Village, Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8C, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5949-B-SC, dated January 31. 2010, Supplemental discussion of slab subgrade,pre-wetting, planning area 16 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated August 17. 2009a, 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. 2009b, Report of rough grading, planning area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 through 63, 89 through 99, 117 through 140, and 160 through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5353-B1-SC, dated February 16. International conference of Building Officials, 2001, California Building Code. O'Day Consultants, Inc., 2008, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch PA 16, 17, 18, Sheets 10 and 13, Job no. 01-1014, Carlsbad Tract C.T. 004-26, Drawing no.453-8A, dated August. GeoSoils, Inc. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. DATE .3-3')—// NAME HOURS Z CLIENT 6''5 TRACT LOCATION_•-''-/ SUPT.______________________ CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT / TEST NO. .._-" LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. - . % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE A" r 1. . •../T —/(7 o. /I7 1),T- /70 117/ -- /I3. 60 'Jo COMMENTS: -. /y /-' —/ /.5 - GeoSoils, Inc. BY: /L44S6 V . 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 Geologic . Coastal . Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760)931-0915. www.geosoilsinc.com April 7, 2010 W.O. 5949-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 128, 129, and 130, Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch Development, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village (Lots 44 through 63, 89 through 99, 117 through 140, and 160 through 189), Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5353-131-SC, dated February 16, 2009, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Grading plans for Robertson Ranch PA 16,:17,18, Sheets 10 and 13, Job no. 01-1014, Carlsbad Tract C.T. 004-26, Drawing no.453-8A, dated August, 2008, by O'Day Consultants, Inc. "California Building Code," dated 2007, by California Building Standards Commission. "California Building Code," dated 2001, by International Conference of Building Officials. Dear Ms. McHugh: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services of grading within Lots 128, 129, 130 within Planning Area 16, at the Robertson Ranch Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. Planning area 16 was initially graded with observation and testing services provided by GSI (see Reference No. 1). The purpose of remedial grading was to re-condition the building pads and/or fill in a pre-existingdesilting basin located within a portion. of the subject. lots. Remedial grading consisted re-processing surlicial soils, moisture conditioning, and compacting the soil to a minimum. relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557.. Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appears to have been prepared in general accordance with the• recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 1), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing As previously indicated, the purpose of grading was to re-condition the building pads and/or fill in a pre-existing desilting basin located within a portion of the subject lots. Fills placed during this phase of site work varied up to approximately 3 feet in thickness. Fill soils placed within the subject lots were derived from soil stockpiles within the adjacent Planning Area 14. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Jesting Report(s)." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT). A - Brown, Silty SAND I 127.0 I 10.0 E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 G - Brown Gray, Gravelly SAND 131.0 9.0 S - Yellowish Gray, SAND w/CLAY 124.0 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad ([2007 California Building Codel i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and testing also indicates adequate soil moisture. However, based on the highly expansive character of site soils (see Reference No. 1), and the anticipated additional time that will pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and verification will likely be necessary prior to placement of the underslab vapor, retarder (see Table A, Note 11, and Page 12 of the referenced report). Soil Expansion, and Corrosion Potential A review of Reference No. 1 indicates that very highly expansive soils underlie these lots (expansion index > 130), as classified by 2001 California Building Code ([CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [lCBO], 2001), Table 18A-1-B. Please note that GSI utilizing this previous CBC code only to classify the soils, as the 2007 CBC (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2007) does not provide this index. Subsequent corrosion testing of soils within 3 feet of finish grade indicate that these soils present a negligible (sulfate class SO) sulfate exposure to concrete, per Table 4.2.1 and Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC Lots 128-130, PA 16, Robertson Ranch April 7, 2010 File:e:\wpl 2\5900\5949b.crol 6 Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. 4.3.1 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) document 318-08(2007 CBC [CBSC, 2007]). Soils are relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity (pH of 7.9), and are considered corrosive to exposed ferrous metals in a saturated state. The chloride ion content in soil was also noted to generally be below action levels (300 ppm [see Reference No. 1]). It is our understanding that standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel is usually appropriate for these conditions; however, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide specific recommendations regarding foundations and piping, etc. Foundation Design/Construction Based on a review of Reference No. 1 and observations/testing performed during this phase of site grading, foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 1 for Category IV post-tension foundations. As of this date, the site has not changed significantly since the completion of grading. Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1 are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on the duration of time following pad completion, pre-wetting/saturation is recommended, as indicated in the referenced GSI report. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC Lots 128-130, PA 16, Robertson Ranch April 7, 2010 FiIe:e:\wpl2\5900\5949b.crol6 Page 3 GeoSóils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitte>_—_-...... 16,11 GeoSoils, Inc Cn Exp. 9.14 jt * Certified I Engineering Andrew T. Guatelli Engineering Geologist, °' RobdWG. mi7c GeistJ Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (4) Addressee r Brookfield Homes W.O. 5949-B-SC Lots 128-130, PA 16, Robertson Ranch April 7, 2010 File:é:\wpl2\5900\5949b.crol6 Page 4 GeoSoils; Inc. FIELD TESTING REPORT ENTERED NOV 16 Ago' W.O. DATE NAME_____________ HOURS CLIENT TRACT 4 "V LOCATION SUPT._191 ,,eL IW-L CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE Jut) /40 A 3 (L/W Ro 'r )42 Cb$eJ 7c,J Az/) /3/I,g Lv fi~e.i e 3 s'z c cii ,477r#/S tt'iz L/ 4/4i, ,—' /j _____ W 41a4qe- im /''' _____ ____ F ears /'V-/& PAIJIW4 4 $341N icøe /N/ /AQ ,, ,.. 4 9•'( 7S±. 47 Pp COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT ENTERED NOV 2 I ~p t 2009 w.O.____________ DATE NAME_____________ HOURS CLIENT _TRACT_____ LOCATION_____________________ SUPT._6RIy 2f,i#(i- CONTRACTOR— EQUIPMENT TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE iiI /cr /3 10-9 1171c, 'IZ. I A it 9'3 6ie.w 4 1(i2 mi- q3/ / V /o7, iWZ077 XP A/.44 7 ,IJI i)Ci . 4 , 4iA map , Aea:~ aim 1r. /'/'-/ /4 ,'tio iy 70 4F i/il A it7i A/1CIM.. 4'1' r74e-S p '& T 1Z I30 yCA7E thf41 j /!) -y c4,i& / COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE 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. W.0.9'1-8.rEx DATE NAME_____________ HOURS 7, ENTERED DEC 012009 CLIENT -TRACT >' /fr/C LOCATION____________________ SUPT. ' 'AI/I1f- CONTRACTOR _______________________________________ EQUIPMENT / AL. TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 43ii f _/3$.O4 i?i 13 Alb A _ / AAAQ pwl, OF 4,ii, - - r.. 5t&7 k COMMENTS: GeoSoils, Iqi1c BY: 4. PAGE 0 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. -I- Vt. ----' - '-" LY—" Geotechnical . Geologic . Coastal,- Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com April 22, 2010 W.O. 5949-13-SC "Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe.Del'Mar,,Suitd 200 DeiMár, California 92014 Attention: Mè:Teri McHugh 0 Subject: Geotephnical Update forLots 1 Through 7 of P!anning Arda 14, Robertson Ranch, East Village, Carlsbad Tract 07-03, Drawing 4538A, City of Carlsbad, Sen DiegoCounty, California References: 1 "Report of RoughGrading, Planning Areai4 (Lots 1 through 16),1nc1uding H.OA Lot 18 of Robertson Ranch,. East tViiiage Carlsbad Trct 04-26, Drawin 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California;" W.O. 5949-B-SC,"dated April 122O10, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Memorandum: Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area16 of Robertson Ranch, Cityof Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated Oètobér 8,200 9, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3., "Grading plans forRobertson Ranch PA 14, Sheet 3, Job n6. 01-1014, Carlsbad Tract - C.T. 07:93," Drvving no.453-8A, print dated November 23, 2009; by O'Day Consultants, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh: * :ln accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl),has reviedthe'refdrenced reports andplans with respect to the as-graded site conditions and has repared this update report Grading and processing of original ground within the subject building pads was observed and selctively tested by a representative of GSI during the e arthwork phase of devélopmentfór the subject pr6erty: Based on oiir, observations arid tes'tin'g, thesubject lots are considered suitable for their intended residential use GeotechniaI observations and testing completed by this office during site grading are summarized in the referenced GSI report (see Reference No 1) As of the date of this letter, the site has not changed significantly since the completion of grading and the issuance of the referenced GSI report (se Reference No 1) thus, the findings, conclusions, andrecommendations presented in that GSI report are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads As the onsite soil conditions are expansive, pre-soaking is iecommended as indicated in References Nos 1 and 2 4 11 I LIMITATIONS Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review, engineering analyses, and laboratory data, these conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is express or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSl 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. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. • Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crismai Engineering Geol NAL Q..jL. No.1934 I- t CertUied I \ Engineering Geologist J A zA W~d r aew Geotechni RGC/ATG/J P F/j h Distribution: (4) Addressee (U.S. Mail) Brookfield Homes Lots 1 through 7, PA-14, Robertson Ranch File: e:\wp9\5900\5949b.gufpá14 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5949-13-SC April 22, 2010 Page 2