HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-05; LA COSTA GREENS NEIGHBORHOOD 1.16; AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT; 2009-02-24SOIL& TESTING, INC. , San DiegoOffice " , -
Indio Office
P H 0 N E P.O. Box 600627 PHONE 83-7,40 Citrus Avenue
(619).280-4321 (760) 775-5983
San Diego,CA 92160-0627 Suite G
a (877) 21s-4321' 6280 Riverdale Street (877) 215-4321 rS1-Y
TOLL FREE TOLL FREE
Indio, CA 92201-3438
(619) i80-4717 www scst corn (760) 775-.8362 www.scst.com
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
AVELLINO VILLAGESOF LA COSTA
THE GREENS, PHASE 2
NEIGHBORHOOD 1.16
LOTS I THROUGH 26 1
. - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
-
' MR. MIKE FREEMAN
KB HOME COASTAL, INC.'
* 36310INLAND VALLEY DRIVE
WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA 92595
PREPARED BY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTIIG, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET ..
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
TABLE OF CONTENTS - SECTION - PAGE
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................... ............................................. ................ i 1.1. SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................................... 1.1.1. Primary Equipment ........................................................................................................1 - 1.1.2. Clearing and Grubbing.................................................................................................... ... i 1.2. PREVIOUS SITE GRADING ............................... 1.3. SITE GRADING ....... ............................................................................ ...
............................ 2 1.4. SLOPE CONSTRUCTION ......................................................... ...................................... 3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS ................... . ... ................................ .5•3
REMAINING WORK ............................................................................. ...................................4 SEISMIbESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... .......................................... ......... 4 5.1. FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................. 5.1.1; General ......................................................................................................... .....................4 5.1.2. Reinforcement ..................................................................................................................... 5 5.1.3. Foundation Excavation Observations ............................ ................................................... 5 5.1.4. Expansion Characteristics .... . ........... . ......... . ............................................. ....... ................... 5 5.1.5,.- Settlement Charactenstics 6 5.2. SLABS-ON-GRADE........ ........................................ . ...................................................... ...6 5.2.1. Conventional Interior Concrete SIabs-onGrade ................... . ........................... ............... 6 - 5.2.2. Post-Tensioned Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Design Criteria ...................... . ............. ......... 6 5.2.3. Interior Slab Undèrtayment..:.............................................. ................. ............................. 6 5.24. Exterior Concrete SIabs-onGrade............... ................................... . ................................. 7 5.3. CORROSION ............ ...................... ................................................................................... 8 "6. LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................8
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES' • •
Figures 15 Field Density Test Locations -. Figures 6-7 Field Density and Laboratory Compaction Test Results Figure 8- Foundation Category Classification Figure 9 Córroslvity Test Results
--
-
5'
t
5-
S
,
SOIL&TIMING, INC. San Diego Office - - Indio Office
PH 0 N E P.O. Box 600627 PHONE 83-740 Citrus Avenue 2 /T 1 (619) 280-4321 (760) 775-5983 V San Diego, CA 92160-0627 Suite G
, (877) 215-4321
TOLLE 6280 RiverdaIe Street TOLL FRE.E (877)215-4321
- 'Indio, CA 92201-3438 .SlI- F A San Diego, CA 92120 F A X
- (619) 280-4717 - www.scst.com (760) 775-8362 www.scst.com
February 24, 2009 • SCS&T No. 0811195
- - , Report No. 2
Mr. Mike Freeman • -
KB Home Coastal, Inc. • -
.36310 Inland Valley Drive . .a
Wildomar, California 92595 • . - ,
Subject: AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT . . • - - •
AVELLINO VILLAGES OF LA COSTA
THE GREENS, PHASE 2
NEIGHBORHOOD 1.16 - -
- LOTS I THROUGH 26 -
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 0
. DRAWING NO. 444.2A W.O. No. 0107-0268
Dear Mr Freeman: ' - .• - - ,. .,
In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to present the results of field
observatiàns and tests performed dunng the grading for the Villages of La Costa - The Greens,
Phase 2, multi-family residential development in Carlsbad, California Our services were performed
between November 30; 2008 and JanUary 23, 2009. W.H. Baker Contractors of Riverside,
California performed the grading. To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field
-' density tests, we were prvided with a grading plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated
October 16, 2008, which defines the general ecctent of site gradingf.
1.- SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION '
1.1. SITE PREPARATION
1.1.1. Primary Equipment
The primary equipment employed for the site mass grading operations included:
I - Caterpillar 988 Loader 1 - Water truck
I - Caterpillar D6 Dozer I —.Caterpillar 623 Scraper
-• .1.1.2. Clearing and Grubbing - . -.
•0
Site preparation began with the clearing and grubbing of the existing vegetation and organic
matter at the proposed development area. The material generated from this operation was • -
exported from the site.
..-. S •_
S . Il
KB Home Coastal, Inc. February 24, 2009
Aveilino Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Phase 2 . SCS&TNo. 0811195-2
Neighborhood 1. 16, Lots l— 26, Carlsbad, Califrxr,Ia - Page .2
1.2. PREVIOUS SITE GRADING
Neighborhood 1. 16, Lots I through 26, was rough graded between March 31 and November 4,
2005, to finish pad elevations during the mass grading operations for Phase 2 of The Greens
residential development Geocon Incorporated observed the earthwork operations and performed
relative compaction testing for the rough grading aspect of the project. A summary of the
observations and tests is presented in Reference 2.
-
I.J. SITE GRADING
Neighborhood 1. 16, Lots I through 26; was fine graded between October 30,2008 and January 23,
2009, to new finish planned elevations for the Avellino Yillages of La Costa, Phase 2 multi-family
residential development.
Lots I through 4, 6, and 8 through 12 were excavated to the planned final grade elevation or
received less than 12 inches of fill. Typiàally, the surface of these pads exposed Santiago
Formation. When planned elevations were reached, the pads were track rolled and compacted until
field density tests indicated a minimum of 90% relative compaction. All references to optimum
moisture and relative compaction in this report are based on the ASTM D 1557 laboratory test
method.
Lot 5ws originally graded in 2005 as a desilting basin. A cut/fill transition was encountered during
the re-grading of the lot Where the transition between cut and ;fill occurred within three feet of finish
pad grade, the cut portion of the lot was over-excavated to a minimum depth of three feet below
fihlshed pad grade. The over-excavation was performed to create a more uniform condition beneath
the proposed structures. Subdrains that outletted into the desilting basin were encountered during
grading. These drains were connected to the existing storm drain system.
Lot.7 was over-excavated a minimum of three feet from finish grade due to the preseilcé of highly
expansive soils in the upper three feet The excavated soil was mixed with non-expansive on-site.
soil and used as fill.
Lots 13 through 26 were cut if necessary, to the new planned elevations. The surface of these
pads typically exposed compacted fill soils.--These pads were scarified 12 inches, moisture treated
and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Minor fill was placed on'some pad's to
bring to the final surface to the planned elevations.
Recreation Area 3 on the south side of Lot 11 was re-graded to planned elevations. All existing fill
was removed to formational material and replaced as compacted fill.
During grading for the retaining wall along the west side of Estrella De Mar Road approximately
from Station 23+75 through 24+50, wet to saturated fill sails were encountered. These soils were
removed until competent soils were encountered and replaced with suitable soils.
- -
KB Hxne Coastal, Inc.--•. Febnth,y 24i 2009
Avellino Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Phase 2 SCS&T No. 0811195-2
Nelghbothood 1. 16, Lots, 1-26,.Cartsbad, California Pi ago
Fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts; ,moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and
compacted until field density tests indicated a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Compaction
was achieved- by means of a Caterpillar 988 rubber tire loader or other heavy construction
equipment This process continued until planned elevations were reached
1.4. SLOPE CONSTRUCTION
Portions of the previously graded fill slopes along lots 9, 12, 22, and 26 were re-graded to the new
planned elevations and locations. Keyways were excavated a10r191 the toe of the slOpes. The
keyways were generally 10105 feet wide and slope& back into the existing sloping terrain at am,
approximategradient of 2% The keyway bottoms were scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture
conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction before additional fill was placed
Typically' ,the fill ilopes,were over-filled and wheel rolled with 'a rubber-tire dozer and other heavy
equipment After planned elevations were reached, the slopes were cut back to expose the
compacted surface. The faces of-the slopes were track-walked with a crawler dozer to form a
uniform surface Field density tests indicate that the slope surfaces were compacted to at least 90%
relative compaction
2 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS
Field observations andi density tests were performed by a representative of SCS&T during the
grading-operations at the locations shown on Figures 1 through 5. The density tests were
performed according to ASTM D 6938 (nuclear gauge) procedures. The results of these tests are
shown on Figures 6 and 7. The accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and elevations-is a
function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by others than SCS&T representatives.
Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level
methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used
As used herein, the term"observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we were
involved with, and performed-field density tests which, in conjunction with our obsenations, were the
base for our 6pinion as to whether the work was performed in substantial conformance with the
- geotechnical recommendations and the requirements of the applicable agencies. -.
- . Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in
the compacted fills according to ASTM D 1557. Th results of these tests, presented on Figure 7,
were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction
of the compacted fill.
-
- - •
The expansion potentials of-fill soils within the Upper three feet of finish gride were determined
according to ASTM D4829. The results of the tests areshown on Figure 8. The results ofthese
- tests indicate low to moderate expansive soil conditions.
-
-- .
iTL
KB Home Coastal, Inc. . February 24, 2009
Avellino Villages of La Costa = The Greens, Phase 2 SCS&TNo. 0811195-2
Neigh6othood1.18,L6tsl-28,Carlsbad, California Page
3. REMAINING WORK
The following operations remain to be completed. It is recommended that field obsèrvàtions and -
relative compaction tests be performed during these operations to verify that these operations are
being performed in accordance with job requirements and local grading ordinances.
Subgrade preparation for hardscape areas; -
. Preparation and the placement of the roadway subgrade and aggregate base; -
. Backfilhing the underground utility trenches.
4. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS •
A geologic hazard likely to affect the project is groundshaking as result of movement along an
active fault zone in the vicinity of the subject site: The site coefficients and adjusted maximum
considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2007
California Building Code based on the 2006 lntématlónal Building Code are presented below:
_;
S . . ft
Site Coordinates: Latitude 33.1530
Longitude 117.2060
Site Class: D
*
• Site Coefficient F. = 1.04 .
.
Site Coefficient F = 1.57
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods S. = 1.147:
Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period S., = 0.434
SFaSs -
•
•' : S01 2/3 S
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations and the in-place density test results, it is our opinion that the
building pad and slope preparation and compaction were performed substantially in accordance With
the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical reports, the City of Carlsbad
Grading Ordinance, and the Cálifàmia Building Code. Minimum recommendations forthe design of
the foundations are summarized below.
5.1. FOUNDATIONS
5.1.1. General •
Shallow spread footings with bottom levels in formational material or compacted fill can be used
- to support the planned structures. The minimum foundation death below the lowest adjacent
C.
I'
KB Home Coastal, Inc. February 24, 2009
Avellino Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Phase 2' SCS&TNo. 0811195-2
NeIghborhood 1. 16, Lots 1 —26, Carlsbad, California Page 5
finish pad grade for the footings is divided into categories. The category for each lot is shown on
Figure 8. The minimum footing embedment depth for each category is shown below.
Table ., ..
Footing Embedment Depth by Category
Foundation Category Minimum Footing Embedment Depth*, inches
12
II '18
lll . . 24
'below lowest adjacent pad grade
A minimum width of 12 inches is recommended for continuous footingsfor single and two story
struátures. Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches wide. A bearing capacity of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for footings supported on fomational material. These:
values can be increased by Vs when considering the totalof all loads, including wind or seismic
forces. Footings adjacent to slopes should'be extended to a depth such that a minimum
distance of ten feet exists between the bottom of the footing and the face of the slope.
Experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of
the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcement at the bottom of the perimeter footings and
the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. The structuraléngineer should design
the foundation system to reduce the potential edge lift occurring for the planned structures.'
5.1.2. Reinforáement
Both Oxterior and interior continuous footing should be reinforced with at least one No. 4 bar
positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least one No.4 bar positioned-near the tdp of
the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu
of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations.
5.1.3. FoundationExcavatloñ Observations
All footing excavations should be observed by a-member of ourengineering/geology staff prior
to the placement of forms or reinforcing steel to verify that the foundation excavations extend
into a suitable bearing stratum.
5.1.4. Expansion Characteristics
The foundation soils tested ranged from having a low to moderate expansion potential. The
. recommendations contained in this report are applicable to this condition.
&
KB Home Coastal, Inc. Febtuar1' 24, 2009
Ave!llno Villagesfof La Costa - The Greens, Phase 2 SCS&TNo. 0811195-2
Nelghbothood 1. 16, Lots 1-26; Carlsbad, California Page 6
5.1.5. Settlement Characteristics
The anticipated total and/or differential Settlements for the proposed structures may be
considered to be within tolerable limits, provided the recommendations presented in this report
are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and
foundations due to shrinkage during'curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be
anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive movement
5.2. SLABS-ON-GRADE -
5.2.1. Conventional Interior Concrete SJabson-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thicknss of at least 4Y2 inches and be reinforced with at
least No.3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 Inches on-center each way. Slab reinforcement should
be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab and extend at least 6 inches down into the
footings. The concrete slabs-on-grade underlain by deep fOundations should be designed as
structural slabs. The project Structural engineer should be contacted to provide the slab-on-
grade design.for structural slabs.
5.2.2: Post-Tensioned Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Design Criteria
Post-Tensioned slabs-on-grade can be considered as an alternative to áonventionalreinforcing
The slab should be designed by structural engineer familiar with the design-clitéria presented
in the Post-Tensioning Institutes (PTl), Third Edition, as required by the 2007 CBC, Section
1805.8. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotethnical parameters presented
below. . •
TABLE
Post - Tensioned Design Recommenditlons
'Parameters '
Post-Tensioning Institute Foundation
(PTI), Third Edition Design
• Category
I - ll_• Ill
Thomwaite Index. -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
'Edge Lift Moisture Variation
Distance, em (feet)
.' 53 5.1 49
Edge Lift, Ym (inches) . 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture
Variation Distance, em (feet) •
90 90
' .
90
Center Lift, y,1 (inches) . 0.30 0.47 0.66
.5.2.3. Interior Slab Underlayment
Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse
sand or crushed rock. A moisture vapor retarder/banier should.be placed beneath slabs where
floor coverings will be installed. Typically, plastic is Used.-as a vapor retardant If plastic is used,
KB Home Coastal, Inc. February 24, 2009
. Avellino Villages of La Costs - The Greens, Phase 2 - SCS&T No. 0811195-2
Neighbcthoàd 1. 16, Lots 1— 16, Carlsbad, California S Page 7
a minimum 1 0-mil is recommended. The plastic should comply with ASTM E 1745. Plastic
installation should comply with ASTM E 1643. -
- Current construction practice typically includes placement of a two-inch thick sand cushion
between the bottom of the concrete slab and the moisture vapor retarder/baffler. This cushion
-can provide some protection to the vapor retarder/barrier during construction, and may assist in
reducing the potential for edge curling in the slab during curing. However, the sand layer also
provides a source of moisture vapor to the underside of the slab that can increase the time
required to reduce moisture vaporemissions tolimits acceptable for the type of floor covering
placed on top of the slab. The floor covering-manufactUrershould be contacted to determine the
Volume of moisture vapor allowable and any treatment needed to reduce moisture vapor
emissions to acceptable limits for the particular type of floor covering installed.
5.2.4. Exterior ConcreteSlabs-on-Grade .
Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with at
least No.3 bars at 18 inches on center each way. All slabs should be provided with weakened
plane Joints. Joints should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
guidelines Section 3.13. Joints should be placed where cracks are anticipated to develop
naturally. Alternative patterns consistent with ACI guidelines also can be used. The landscape
architect can be consulted in selecting the final joint patterns to improve the aesthetics of the
concrete slabson-grade. -
A concrete mix with a 1-inch maximum size aggregate concrete mix is recommended for exterior
slabs. A water/cement ratio of less than 0.6 is recommended. A lower water content will
decrease the potential for shrinkage cracks.' It is strongly suggested that the driveway concrete
mix have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). This
suggestion is meant to address early driveway use prior to full concrete curing. Both coarse and
fine aggregate should conform to the "Gnk" Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction. 5
Special attention should be plaid to the method of curing the concrete to reduce the potential for
- excessive shrinkage and resultant random cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks
occur normally in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing redistribution of
stresses. Some shrinkage cracks may be expected. Such cracks are not necessarily an
indication of vertical movements or structural distress.
Factors that contribute to the amount of shrinkage that takes place in a stab-on-grade include
joint spacing, depth, and design; concrete mix components; water/cement ratio and surface
finishing techniques. According to the attached (see Appendix A) undated "Technical Bulletin"
/
KB Home Coastal, Inc. February 24, 2009
Avellino Villages of La Costa— The Greens, Phase 2 SCS&TNo. 0811195-2
Neighborhood 1. 16, Lots 1-26, Catlsbad, California. . . ,. Page 8
published by the Southern California Rock Products Associätion and Southern California Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, flatwork formd of high-slump concrete (high water/cement ratio)
utilizing 3/8-inch maximum size aggregate ("Pea Gravel Grout" mix) is likely to exhibit extensive
shrinkage and cracking. Cracks most often occur in random patterns between constxuction
joints. - - .
5.3. CORROSION
Based on Caltrans 'Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.07, dated September 2003, a portion of the on-
site materials underlying the alignñients form a corrosive enviroAment with respect to steel and
reinforced concrete. It is suggested concrete with Type V, with a maximum water/cement ration of
0.45 is recommended for use in concrete in contact with ground. The results of corrosivity tests
performed are presented on Figure 9. ..
6. LIMITATIONS .
This repoil covers only the services performed between Novernbei 30, 2008 and January 23, 2009.
Our opinions are based on our observations and the relative compaction test resuitsand are limited
by the scope-of the woik that we agreed to perform. Our work was performed in accordance with
the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable
measure-of the complianceof the grading operations with the project requirements. No warranty,
express or implied, is made or intended with respect to the work that we have performed, and
neither the performance of this work nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving
the contractor of its responsibility to conform with the project requirements
Our work was generally performed on an "on-call' basis. Therefore, the in-place density tests
performed by our field representative can only-be construed as representative of the areas tested as
shown on the attached figures. . .•
If you have any questions please contact us at 619.280.4321. .
Respectfully Submitted, .
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. B.
£2752 rn
10
Op
Soils Field Supervisor Senior ngineer
SW:GBF:sw:aw
(4) Addressee
KB Home Coastal, Inc. February 24, 2009
Aveiilno Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Phase 2 SCS&T No. 0811195-2
Neighborhood 1. 16, Lots 1-26, Carlsbad, California Peg. 9
References: 1) "Update Geotechhical Repoi1, Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Neighborhood
1.16-Lots 1 through 25, Carlsbad, California"; prepared by Geocon, Inc.; dted June
10, 2008 (Project No. 06403-52-27).
'2) "Final Report of Observation Services Performed During Site Grading, Villages of
La Costa - The Grains, Neighborhood 1.18-Lots I through 25 Carlsbad, California";' prepared by Geocon, Inc.; dated December 15, 2005 (Project No. 06403-52-19A).
"KB Home, Avellino, Carlsbad, CA, Framing and Slab Plan, Sheets S-3.1,S-
4.1 ,S-5.1, S-6.1, s-7.1, S-8.1, SD-i prepared by VCA Engineers, dated January 28,
'
2009 (VCA No. KB2348). '
"Rough Grading Plans For, La Costa Greens, Néighborhoód 1.16" prepared
by Hunsaker and Associates.
SCS&T LEGEND
.. .79 Approximate Location of in-Place Density Test
I I I 184 51 Approximate Elevation of Removal
Approximate Limit of Removal
Approximate Limits of Cut-Fill Transition
- J - C p.35_ •
- - - - - - / .nm_.1W' - - - r - - - _ --
- =
15
,2,'4A4
46*1
16rg
EffE
- •
. 12. AS
.. I
• FMATS 70URIIL4LU.8 PLAI.
,. 7 1•• l -- +Wfl
FE
r 1 ft'
(WE
-
___..
..
..
—I
SEE FIGURE 2
SCALE: 1 40'
I I C_ % 19 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
wm~~M SOIL & TESTING, INC.
LA COSTA GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS 0 L'
By: 2/209 rJob No.: 0811195-2 1 Figure:
SCS&T LEGEND
53 Approximate Location of In-Place Density
Approximate Elevation of Removal
— — — Approximate Limit of Removal
—. —. Approximate Limit of Keyway
Approximate Limits of Cut-Fill Transition
10
SEE FIGURE 1
24L
-jV-•--
40' 0' 40'
I '1
SCALE: 1"40'
...
4
C)
.4 .- .:
•
1520 / 8
• — — I -
W-
P
PJEC
2 RFA
231 /,4
LL
- I • - . ....... .
. I . - -- - . -'
Lor GSA
18.52 17
/ '. •s / . . F- 20."' / •I •if-/k It 1/
rT= V
-1-
--
L.
-
/ ..
- . Si, / .•' " /
—S. / •. - . I! .5. _'•5 ..,:r- - — .-.; . •• /
L> / .5" 5.'. •:—'--•' -
/
SM
5 /
ni . -. . . - / Sli. 4JQ - -. - — ,- I.. ,. ..
- -.5
1Y OFCARLS8AD119 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC. IA asr ORS EJOHBORHOODL16 LA COSTA GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS
By: SW/EL Date: 2/21/09
J1 Job No.: 0811195-2 1 Figure: 2
SCS&T LEGEND
.86 Approximate Location of in-Place Density Test SEE FIGURE 2
all Approximate Elevation of Removal IWL
- - - Approximate Limit of Removal
WL
MR
...-.••
\ . : :•
1l5 /
40 0 40•'4 A. '-''*' ' •-ç r:-- ..
SCALE: 4 - Afl / 7 - ) - -- -- -
41,
\ Hi.' ' _.' -_--•--- -A.. - •--
\ Ji //_ \ ¶ --------- - ----- - -- -- - --
- —-i-- -
- - - - - - - - / - - - - .. - - -----_
1TJ
C-4
:: i7 HE
OSS
N
.
L
Of
/
13 W45 139 0 Li..
h. WVATZ - .- BRASS P
C/)
20 -
'I
I IL c 21 ago
N swum
Sir
-......• .5 / ' ZI .y2
S" \\/-'. -__•.. . :._L -----------
-. f ..
.....-•--\i'. '- '--. I - ?Iç \•/7 - - - . . . . . - - ._4-_
-'-... 055 C, [[crrY or C4LSBAD {19, I )J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
/ I - SOIL & TESTING, INC.
IA cOSTA GRW SEE FIGURE 4 NEIONBORKOODLI6 LA COSTA GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS
2 4,4a'z. m By: SW/EL Date: 2121109
Job No.: 0811195-2 1 Figure: 3
SEE FIGURE 3 41
'S
6 2
56 Approximate Location of In-Place Density Test
Approximate Elevation of Removal
— — — Approximate Limit of Removal
-. -. Approximate Limit of Keyway
SCS&T LEGEND
,, -- to
FELDSPAR PLACE w
r 23
1717"1 17"M Uj
023 W
16
7
e1 YT\ - — i_Iii7 -- .---
S
I;T
108.
- ...-.- -. .- -•-.-- -'! •I
- p ._._._.._.______._._..._.__,...._.
0.40
,_'.. / ,- .-••- .- ,' _---------••--- I
- ,,. -, ,--_ .,-....../ I
11 1V - ..-' 7 ,,,' - -
SCALE I 40 NX
]ILJ[J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1 cOSrAGR2ENS I SOIL & TESTING, INC.
NEIOHBORNOOD U6 LA COSTA GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS
:) 2j4 g By: SW/EL Date: 2/21/09
II •tt I L5 C O55 ±2 Job No.: 0811195-2 Figure: 4
SCS&T LEGEND
SEE FIGURE 3
1fff-- 201
th /LIT
/
I t
SEE FIGURE 2
/ iflZI
/
73 Approximate Location of in-Place Density Test
Approximate Elevation of Removal
— — — Approximate Limit of Removal
—. —. Approximate Limit of Keyway
117.0 117.0
TING DR
'•. ; -
1--F I - TV------i{ Y- --?'-i rTTm---9------r - - v ---- •--•
24 23 22
711 . . ..
LL
,--
SCALE 1=40
IJLJ iI-11t1N 'itL4rJzLNJ LaJ I ' JL!2J
I SOIL & TESTING, INC. I ai '—
I NEIGHBORHOOD L16 LA COSTA GREENS NDGHBORHOOC
__
By:
_
SW/EL I Date: 2/21101 inn., On Ia!
CT OS-OS Job No.: 0811195-2 Figure: 5
JOB NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA PHASE 2 JOB NUMBER: 0811195-2
TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
NO. DATE LOCATION (fe*MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent)
1 10/30/08 North of Lot 22, keyway 109.0 17.4 110.5 2 91.2
2 10/30/08 North of Lot 22, keyway 111.0 19.7 110.0 2 90.8
3 10/30/08 North of Lot 22, keyway 112.5 20.2 111.6 2 92.1
4 10130108 North of Lot 22, keyway 111.5 19.8 112.2 2 92.6
5 10/31/08 North of Lot 22, keyway 114.5 11.8 112.7 2 93.0
6 10/31/08 North of Lot 22, keyway 116.5 12.0 109.6 2 90.4
7 10/31/08 South of Lot 26, fill slope 108.5 11.5 110.7 1 90.7
8 10131108 South of Lot 26, fill slope 105.5 14.3 110.6 1 90.7
9 10/31/08 South of Lot 28, fill slope 108.5 11.7 109.6 1 90.0
10 11/3/08 South of Lot 26, fill slope 111.0 12.3 110.8 1 90.8
11 11/3108 South of Lot 26, fill slope 113.0 14.8 1112 2 91.7
12 11/3/08 South of Lot 26, fill slope 115.0 11.8 110.0 2 90.8
13 11/5/08 South of Lot 26, fill elope 118.0 12.5 109.8 2 90.6
14 11/5/08 South of Lot 28, fill slope 120.0 13.7 110.0 2 90.8
15 11/5/08 South of Lot 26, fill slope 119.5 142 103.5 2 85.4
16 11/5/08 RETEST OFI5 119.5 11.8 110.0 2 90.8
17 11/5/08 North of Lot 22, fill slope 122.0 12.0 110.8 2 91.4
18 11/5/08 North of Lot 22, fill slope 124.0 14.6 109.7 2 90.5
19 1115/08 North of Lot 22, fill slope 125.5 15.7 1102 2 90.9
20 11/18108 Lot 22 126.1 FG 10.6 111.0 2 91.6
21 11/18108 North of Lot 22, fill slope 128.1 FG 9.8 112.5 2 92.8
22 11/18108 Lot 23 127.3 FG 11.4 111.4 2 91.9
23 11/18/08 Lot 24 127.9F6 8.0 110.9 2 91.5
24 11/18108 Lot 25 124.7 FG 14.6 109.7 2 90.5
25 11/18/08 South of Lot 26, keyway 122.2 FG 13.1 114.5 2 94.5
26 11/18108 Lot 26 1222 FG 14.5 109.8 2 90.6
27 11/19108 East of Lot 9, keyway 146.5 12.6 110.1 2 90.8
28 11/19/08 East of Lot 9, keyway 148.5 15.1 111.0 2 91.6
29 11/19/08 East of Lot 9. keyway 150.5 13.3 104.3 2 86.1
30 11/19/08 RETEST OF29 150.5 14.7 110.4 2 91.1
31 11/19/08 East of Lot 9, keyway 153.0 14.0 111.0 2 91.6
32 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 158.0 122 105.4 2 87.0
33 11/20/08 RETEST OF 32 158.0 13.1 110.4 2 91.1
34 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 160.0 13.8 1112 2 91.7
35 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 163.0 13.0 110.3 2 91.0
36 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 161.0 12.8 109.6 2 90.4
37 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 164.0 13.7 109.7 2 90.5
38 11/20/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 166.0 14.1 111.2 2 91.7
39 11/24/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 168.0 10.3 114.5 3 92.9
40 11/24/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 170.0 10.5 117.1 3 95.0
41 11/24/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 171.5 11.0 118.1 3 95.8
42 11/24/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 173.0 9.0 115.6 3 93.8
43 11/24/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 175.0 9.3 116.1 3 942
44 12/3/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 177.0 9.6 114.3 4 96.0
45 12/3/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 179.0 10.0 119.0 3 98.5
46 12/3/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 181.0 10.4 115.9 3 94.0
47 12/3/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 183.0 10.3 103.9 3 84.3
48 12/3/08 RETEST OF 47 183.0 12.2 114.4 3 92.8
49 12/3/08 East of Lot 9, fill slope 185.0 10.8 115.7 3 93.8
50 12/8/08 Lot 5 136.5 FG 10.5 111.3 4 93.5
FIGURE 6
'52k 1218108 Lot 18
53.1 12' Lót19
54' 1218/08 Lot20
5 5-5., 12/8/08 Loti
56' .12/8/08. Löt2
p57" 1218/08 Lot 31
58 1218/08 Lot4
59 1210/08 NorthofLot12,flOstope
60 12/9/08 RETEST OF 5$
61 1'2/9I08 Ea8t.of'Lot9:fluI s1ôpO
62' 12/10/08 L014
63 12110108 RETESTOFO2
64 12i10/08 EaatofLot9 1UI8ope
65 12110108 South L0,11 j,pbrkljo lot t
.66; 12/10/08 RETEST OF 85.
67 12/11/08 Lot 16
68 12111108 Lot16
..891 12/11/08 Lot15
70r 12111108 Lot 14
7.1 p. 12/11/08 Lot 12
12 12/11/08 Lot13
73 1/14/09 WeatskleofEstsbllaDeMar,Sta 23+95
74 1/14109 West side of Estrolla Do Mar, Sta 24+10
75' 1/1.4/09. W6st.slde.öf.E8' Dö Mir, Sta.24+35,
76 1/14/09 West side of Estrella Do Mar Sta 24+25
77 1/15/09 Lot9
78 1/15/09 LotlO
49 1/15/09 Lt11.
80 1/22/09 LoLl"
81 1/22/091 Lot 8.
82 1/22(09 Lot 21
83 1/23109 North' of Lot 5
84 1/23/09 North of LotS
85. 1/23/09' LOtS
86 1/23/08 Lot 8'
I
JOB NAME: VILLAGES OF .'P:S74.0PHA.SE:2' 'JOBNUMBER: 08111952
LEVATION MOISTURE: DRY DENSITY SOIL RELCOMP.
15.8FG. 8.1 .1222 :3? 99.1
1508 FG .15.0 108.4 4, 91'O
147.3FG 16.3 1166 3 93.9
1448FG 103 1094 4 919
1387F3 76 1106 4 929
1395F0 68 1129 t4l, 948
139.1,'FG. 14.0 114.3 4, 96
138.8FG 92 1085 4L! 911
1865 130 1001 41 840
1865 108 1076 4, 903
177.0IFG '11.7. 3 95.9
1850 138 1039 4 87.2
1850 129 1080 4 bol.
1650F0 115 1120 4 940
183.5 13.1 100.0 .4 84.0
183.5 '12.8 108.5 4 91:1
1870 118 1151 4 966
1872FG 135 1078 4 905
1870F0 124 1124 4 944
1856.FG io:o 111.9 4 94.0
187.4FG 11.7. 107.7, ..4 904'
1846F0 116 1100 4 924
1190 123 1081 4 908
1210 151 1101 4 924
119.0 1.3.1 109.3 Y4 91.8
1210 145 1145 '4 961
'181.0FG 108 108 8 4 914
I860FG 112 1079 4 906
1845F0 121 1077 4 904
1.44.0 FG'. 13.7, 1163 3 94.6.
148.5FG 153 1081 4 908
1420F0 163 1183 2 976
1300 115 1205 3 977
1340 102 1182 3 959
136.5.FG' 126 . 109.1 4 91;6
1141-AM' 10, 118,1 3 94.2
FG; Finhl1 Grade
Soi,I Maximum Optimum
Tvoe Soil Descriotlon Density. oct Moisture %
Tan Clayey'Sand 122.0, 108
2 Tan Silty. Sand 1212 11.7.
3 Tan SandySilt 'I233 101
4'. Tan: SiltySand'
FIGURE 7
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED PAD CONDITIONS AND FOUNDATION CATEGORY
LOTS NOS.1 THROUGH 26
Approximate Approximate Expansion Foundation
Lot No. Pad Condition Maximum Depth Maximum Depth of Index Category
of Fill (feet) Differential Fill (feet)
1 Cut N/A N/A 27
2 Cut N/A N/A 27
3 Cut N/A N/A 27
4 Cut N/A N/A 4
5 Fill 4 1 4
6 cut N/A N/A 1
7 Fill 4 1 56 II
8 Cut N/A N/A 60 II
9 Cut N/A N/A 60 II
10 Cut N/A N/A 63 II
11 Cut N/A N/A 63 Il
12 Cut N/A N/A 63 Il
Undercut due to 13 4 1 42 concretions
Undercut due to 14 4 1 42 concretions
Undercut due to 15 4 1 42 concretions
Undercut due to 16 4 1 42 concretions
Undercut due to 17 29 26 26 Ill cut/filltransition
Undercut due to 18 24 21 62 Ill cut/filltransition
Undercut due to 19 24 21 62 Ill cut/fill_transition
Undercut due to 20 23 20 62 III cutffill_transition
21 Undercut due to 36 26 62 III cut/filltransition
22 Fill 31 26 45 Ill
23 Fill 37 34 45 Ill
24 Fill 46 43 45 III
25 Fill 1 31 28 1 51 III
26 Undercut due to 25 21 51 lii cut/filltransition
AVE WNO VILLAGES OF LA COSTA -
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA & THE GREENS PHASE 2
SOIL AND TESTING By. GBF IDate: 2/24/2009
Job No. 0811195-2 1 Figure: 8
RESISTIVITY, pH, SOLUBLE SULFATE, CHLORIDE
Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0 (September 2003)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
RESISTIVITY
(ohm-cm)
I
J pH SOLUBLE SULFATE (%) 1 (%) -CHLORIDE
Lot 2 (Lots 1-3) 930 7.5 0.007 0.017
Lot 4 (Lots 4, 5) 660 7.4 0.011 0.044
Lot 6 850 5.4 0.039 0.018
Lot 7 290 5.0 0.161 0.062
Lot 8 (Lots 8, 9) 340 4.4 0.391 0.031
Lot 11(Lots 10-12) 370 4.3 0.022 0.06
Lot 14 (Lots 13-16) 260 6.9 0.047 0.130
Lot 17 1200 7.4 0.019 0.009
Lot 19 (Lots 18-21) 420 7.4 0.079 0.036
Lot 23 (Lots 22-24) 380 6.4 0.127 0.033
Lot 25 (Lots 25, 26) 370 5.6 0.076 0.064
ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete -
Table 4.3.1 Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions
Sulfate
PO5U
Water-Soluble Sulfate
In Soil Percentage by
Weight
Cement Type
Maximum Water-
Cementitlous Materials
Ratio, By Weight, Normal
Weight Aggregate
Concree1
Minimum tc, Normal-Weight and
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,
psi
Negligible 0.00-0.10 - -
Moderate 0.10-0.20 ll,IP(MS),iS(MS), P(MS),
i(PM)(MS),l(SM)(MS) 050
. 4000
Severe 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4500
Very Severe Over 2.00 V plus pozzoian 0.45 4500
Caitrans Corrosion Criteria
Corrosive Environment
RESISTIVITY( ohm - cm) pH SOLUBLE SULFATE CHLORIDE
<1000 <5.5 >0.2 >0.05
Corrosive enivronment as determined by the California Department of Transportation Division of Engineering Services, Materials
Engineering and testing Services Corrosion Technology Branch, 2003;Corroslon Guidelines Version 1.0, September 2003
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
AVELLINO VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS PHASE 2
lJob
By: _GBF 2/24/2009
No.: 0811195-2 _Figure 9
_Date: