Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2017-0002; PACIFIC VISTA COMMERCE CENTER; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2018-11-09FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING FINE GRADING AND MSE WALL CONSTRUCTION CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK – LOT 23 PACIFIC VISTA COMMERCE CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR RYAN COMPANIES LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 9, 2018 PROJECT NO. 06442-32-28A Project No. 06442-32-28A November 9, 2018 Ryan Companies 4275 Executive Square, Suite 370 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention: Mr. Ryan Soukup Subject: FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING FINE GRADING AND MSE WALL CONSTRUCTION CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK – LOT 23 PACIFIC VISTA COMMERCE CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Soukup: In accordance with your request, we have performed soil compaction testing and observation services during fine grading of the subject project. We performed these services from November 2017 through August 2018. The scope of our services included the following:  Observing the placement of compacted fill soil during fine grading, including scarifying and moisture conditioning of previously-placed compacted fill  Observing undercutting of bedrock materials  Observing construction of MSE retaining walls  Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted during site fine grading and backfilling of retaining walls  Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating compaction characteristics of various soils encountered. We also performed laboratory testing on soil samples collected near finish grade to evaluate expansion potential and water-soluble sulfate content  Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map  Preparing this final report of grading The purpose of this report is to document that fine grading of the site was performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report. GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS O 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 Project No. 06442-32-28A - 2 - November 9, 2018 GENERAL Lot 23 is located in the western portion of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park development in Carlsbad, California. Whiptail Loop borders the property to the east, and Lots 22 and 3 border the site on the north and south, respectively. The grading contractor for the project was originally FM & Sons of Irvine, California. F. J. Willert Contracting Company was retained towards the end of the project to complete tasks such as fine grading the parking lots and loading dock ramps. The project grading plans were prepared by SB&O Inc. titled Rough Grading Plans for: Pacific Vista Commerce Center, Project No. SDP 2017-0002, Drawing No. 505-4A, Sheets 1 through 23, undated. The grading plans include the Anchor Retaining Wall Plans (MSE) prepared by Red One Engineering Incorporated. Recommendations for grading were provided in our report titled Update Geotechnical Report, Pacific Vista Commerce Center (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park – Lot 23), Carlsbad, California, dated June 14, 2017 (Project No. 06442-32-28). We used an AutoCAD file of the grading plans provided by SB&O Inc. as the base map to present the as-graded geology and the approximate locations of in-place density tests (Figure 1, map pocket). The map depicts building pads, driveways, slopes and current and previous topography. We added the density test locations, geologic contacts, and remedial grading bottom elevations in undercut areas. References to elevations and locations herein are based on as-graded survey information obtained in the field from the grading contractor. Their grade checkers used GPS field survey equipment during grading. Geocon Incorporated does not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING Previous Grading Lot 23 was sheet-graded during an earlier phase of grading from January through May 2017. Grading was performed in conjunction with the compaction testing and observation services of Geocon Incorporated. Geotechnical information pertaining to the previous grading is summarized in our geotechnical report titled Final Report of Testing & Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park – Phase 3, Lot 23, Carlsbad, California, dated May 19, 2017 (Project No. 06442-32-25A). We also provided a supplemental report titled Rippability Study, Pacific Vista Commerce Center (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park – Lot 23), Carlsbad, California, dated August 9, 2017 (Project No. 06442-32-28). This report provided information regarding rock rippability in areas of planned excavation where granitic rock was exposed at grade. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 3 - November 9, 2018 Fine Grading Fine grading of the sheet-graded pad included excavating compacted fill and granitic rock to achieve finish grade elevations. The cut portions of the building pads, and shallow fill areas, were overexcavated at least 5 feet below finish grade. The lateral limits of the overexcavation generally extended at least 5 feet outside the building footprints. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface was scarified, if practical, moisture conditioned, and compacted prior to receiving fill. Grading consisted of maximum cuts and fills of approximately 12 feet. Previous and recent grading has resulted in compacted fill and granitic rock at finish grade. Granitic rock is exposed in the parking lot in the vicinity of Building ‘A’ in the northwest portion of the site. Fill Materials and Placement Procedures The on-site fill materials generally consisted of silty sands with gravel, cobble, and boulder sized rock fragments. The oversize rock hold-down restrictions presented in our referenced report were modified by Ryan Companies as discussed in Section 1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations. The fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate bonding and compaction. The soil was moisture conditioned as necessary and mixed during placement. Field In-Place Density and Laboratory Testing During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 6938 (nuclear). Results of the field density tests and moisture content tests performed during grading have been summarized on Table I. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that the fill, at the locations tested, has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of materials used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Additionally, laboratory tests were performed on samples to determine shear strength (ASTM D 3080), expansion potential (ASTM D 4829) and water-soluble sulfate content (California Test Method No. 417). The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables II through V. Slopes Fill slopes within the project boundary are inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. Some slopes were constructed during mass-grading, and others during fine-grading. The fill slopes were constructed with a maximum height of approximately 12 feet. The outer portions (the outer approximately 15 feet) of fill slopes consisted of soil fill predominately consisting of 6-inch minus Project No. 06442-32-28A - 4 - November 9, 2018 rock and occasional rock up to 12 inches in dimension. As indicated in the project update geotechnical report, the slopes possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against deep-seated and surficial failure. Slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the tops of slopes. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Walls We have provided observation and compaction testing services during construction of five “Anchor Vertica” MSE retaining walls. Wall No. 1 is on the south side of the project above Bioretention/Detention Basin No. 1. Wall Nos. 2, 3 and 4 abut the southwest corner of Building ‘C’. Wall No. 5 is in the northeast corner of the project. The contractor was Geogrid Retaining Walls. Recommendations were provided in our letter entitled Grading and Keystone Retaining Wall Plan Review, Pacific Vista Commerce Center, Carlsbad, California, dated October 26, 2017 (Project No. 07339-32-28). The scope of our services consisted of observing the placement of the reinforcing geogrid. In addition, in-place density tests were performed in fill placed as backfill in the reinforced zone during wall construction. Prior to placing fill, the base of the wall excavations was observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated. Our observations indicated that the soil conditions exposed at the base of the excavations consisted of competent fill material. This geologic condition is consistent with that described in the referenced geotechnical report. In summary, the bearing materials at the base of the excavations were considered acceptable for support of the retaining walls. A wall drain consisting of 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe surrounded by at least 1 cubic foot of ¾-inch gravel and wrapped in filter fabric was placed at the base of each wall. The wall drains were constructed in substantial conformance with the referenced wall plans and were extended to one end of each wall. The drains will need to be connected to an appropriate outlet structure in the future. The wall backfill was placed and compacted in layers to the design elevations for geogrid reinforcement. The geogrid reinforcement consisted of Mirafi 3XT and 5XT. In general, the geogrid was cut to the desired length shown on the wall plans and then installed by placing the geogrid over the Anchor Vertica block unit and locator notch. Slack was removed by pulling the grid tight and nailing the back of the grid to the ground. The facing units were filled with gravel. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 5 - November 9, 2018 In-place density testing of MSE retaining wall backfill was performed in substantial conformance with ASTM Test Procedures D 6938 (nuclear). The results of the in-place density tests are presented on the attached Table I. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that fill soil placed as backfill was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at the locations tested. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the material used for backfill soil to determine shear strength and compaction characteristics (maximum dry density and optimum moisture content). The tests were performed in substantial conformance with current ASTM test procedures. Results of the laboratory tests are presented on Tables II and III. Material used in the reinforced backfill zone of the keystone wall met or exceeded design parameters. Geosynthetic reinforcement must elongate to develop full tensile resistance. This elongation generally results in movement at the top of the walls. The amount of movement is dependent upon the height of the walls (e.g., higher walls rotate more), construction, soil type, and the type of geosynthetic used. In addition, over time reinforced-earth retaining walls have been known to exhibit creep and can undergo additional movement. Given this condition, the owner should be aware that structures and pavement placed within the reinforced and retained zones of the walls may undergo movement and should be designed to accommodate this movement. Finish Grade Soil Conditions Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soils within 3 feet of finish grade of the building pads have Expansion Index (EI’s) of zero and are considered to be “non-expansive” (EI of 20 or less) as defined by 2016 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3 (see Table 1). Table V presents a summary of the expansion classification for the prevailing finish grade soils on each lot. TABLE 1 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification 2016 CBC Expansion Classification 0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21 – 50 Low Expansive 51 – 90 Medium 91 – 130 High Greater Than 130 Very High We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water- soluble sulfate. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content testing are presented in Project No. 06442-32-28A - 6 - November 9, 2018 Table IV and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess a “Not Applicable” and “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. The CBC provides no specific recommendations for concrete subjected to “not applicable” sulfate exposure. It should be noted that the presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e. addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed if improvements are planned that are susceptible to corrosion. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those described in the project geotechnical report. The site is underlain by compacted fill soils (Qcf and Qpf) overlying Granitic Rock (Kgr). Figure 1 depicts the as-graded geologic conditions observed during recent grading operations. Geologic contacts should be considered approximate. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the fine grading has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the referenced project soil report. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the project soil reports, they have been described herein. 1.2 During grading, Ryan Companies revised the rock size placement criteria to:  Rock fragments greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be placed within one foot of finish grade;  Rock Fragments greater than 14 inches in maximum dimension should not be placed within ten feet of finish grade. 1.3 Based on our observations during grading, the original rock hold-down restrictions were not strictly followed. Ryan Company representatives were made aware of the grading contractor’s inability to adhere to these restrictions and Geocon was informed that any Project No. 06442-32-28A - 7 - November 9, 2018 future impacts to subcontractors resulting from the oversize materials would be managed by the Ryan Companies. The presence of over-size rock in the upper portions of the embankments however should not adversely affect the performance of the compacted fill. 1.4 No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. Based on in-place density testing, laboratory test results, and field observations, it is our opinion that fill soils placed during grading operations have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 1.5 It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, particularly after landscape irrigation is initiated. The occurrence of induced groundwater seepage from landscaping can be greatly reduced by implementing and monitoring a landscape program that limits irrigation to that sufficient to support the vegetative cover without overwatering. Shallow subdrains may be required in the future if seeps occur after rainy periods or after landscaping is installed. 1.6 Excavations for underground improvements may encounter and generate some rock fragments greater than 6 inches. Excavations for improvements in mapped bedrock areas, or in fill areas that extend through the soil cap and extend more than 10 feet in deeper fill areas may also encounter hard granitic rock and rock fragments greater than 14 inches. Excavation difficulties should be anticipated. The potential for these conditions should be taken into consideration when determining the type of equipment to utilize for future excavation operations. 2.0 Future Grading 2.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be conducted in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated should review grading plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. Trench and wall backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Geocon should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. 3.0 Seismic Design Criteria 3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 3 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. The values presented in Table 3 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered Project No. 06442-32-28A - 8 - November 9, 2018 earthquake (MCER). Based on soil conditions and planned grading, Buildings B and C may be designed using Site Class D. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. TABLE 3 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.3.2 Spectral Response – Class B (0.2 sec), SS 1.039 g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Spectral Response – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.404 g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.084 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.596 Table 1613.3.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMS 1.127 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 0.644 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SDS 0.751 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.430 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) 3.2 Conformance to the criteria for seismic design does not constitute any guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a maximum level earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 4.0 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations 4.1 The project is suitable for the use of continuous strip footings, isolated spread footings, or appropriate combinations thereof, provided the preceding grading recommendations are followed. 4.2 The following recommendations are for the planned structures and assume that the foundation systems for the structures will bear on properly compacted fill.  Building A: continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should be at least two feet square and extend a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 9 - November 9, 2018  Buildings B and C: continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should be at least two feet square and extend a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. 4.3 Isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the buildings and support structural elements connected to the building, should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 4.4 The project structural engineer should design the reinforcement for the footings. For continuous footings, however, we recommend minimum reinforcement consisting of four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two placed near the bottom. The project structural engineer should design reinforcement of isolated spread footings. 4.5 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended above is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for foundations in properly compacted fill soil. This soil bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing of 4,000 psf. 4.6 The allowable bearing pressures recommended above are for dead plus live loads only and may be increased by up to one-third when considering transient loads such as those due to wind or seismic forces. 4.7 Proposed Buildings B and C will be underlain by a maximum thickness of compacted fill on the order of 43 feet and 76 feet, respectively. The settlement of compacted fill is expected to continue over a relatively extended time period resulting from both gravity loading and hydro-compression upon wetting from rainfall and/or landscape irrigation. 4.8 Table 4 presents the estimated total and differential fill thickness and settlements of the building pads using an estimated settlement of 0.3 percent for fill soils. These settlement magnitudes should be considered in design of the foundation system and adjacent flatwork that connects to the buildings. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 10 - November 9, 2018 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF FILL SOIL Building No. Estimated Maximum Depth of Fill Beneath Structure (feet) Estimated Maximum Fill Differential (feet) Estimated Maximum Settlement (inches) Estimated* Maximum Differential Settlement (inches) Estimated** Maximum Angular Distortion A 6 1 ¾ ½ L/1200 B 43 38 1 ½ 1 ½ L/1200 C 76 71 2¾ 2 ½ L/670 *Estimated maximum differential fill settlement taken across the length of the building. **Estimated maximum angular distortion based on differential fill settlement across a 50-foot span. 4.9 Building interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least five inches in thickness. Slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center in both directions placed at the middle of the slab. If the slabs will be subjected to heavy loads, consideration should be given to increasing the slab thickness and reinforcement. The project structural engineer should design interior concrete slabs-on-grade that will be subjected to heavy loading (i.e., fork lift, heavy storage areas). 4.10 A vapor retarder should underlie slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in a manner that prevents puncture in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM requirements. The project architect or developer should specify the type of vapor retarder used based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity-controlled environment. 4.11 The project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer should determine the thickness of bedding sand below the slab. Typically, 3 to 4 inches of sand bedding is used in the San Diego County area. Geocon should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. 4.12 Exterior slabs not subject to vehicle loads should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at 24 inches on center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. The mesh should be placed in the middle of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper mesh placement. Prior to construction of slabs, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least Project No. 06442-32-28A - 11 - November 9, 2018 optimum moisture content and compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM 1557. 4.13 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage and/or expansion cracks, it is recommended that crack-control joints be included in the design of concrete slabs. Crack- control joint spacing should not exceed, in feet, twice the recommended slab thickness in inches (e.g., 10 feet by 10 feet for a 5-inch-thick slab). Crack-control joints should be created while the concrete is still fresh using a grooving tool or shortly thereafter using saw cuts. The structural engineer should take criteria of the American Concrete Institute into consideration when establishing crack-control spacing patterns. 4.14 The above foundation and slab-on-grade dimensions and minimum reinforcement recommendations are based upon soil conditions only, and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural purposes. The project structural engineer should design actual concrete reinforcement. 4.15 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placement of concrete. However, the slab and foundation subgrade should be moisture conditioned as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. 4.16 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 4.17 A representative of Geocon Incorporated should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to check that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 4.18 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 12 - November 9, 2018 5.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads Recommendations 5.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index <50. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations if backfill materials have an EI >50. 5.2 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 8H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the active soil pressure where the wall possesses a height of 8 feet or less and 12H where the wall is greater than 8 feet. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to two feet of fill soil should be added (total unit weight of soil should be taken as 130 pcf). 5.3 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. 5.4 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The wall designer should provide appropriate lateral deflection quantities for planned retaining walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should be considered when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures. 5.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI <50) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge Project No. 06442-32-28A - 13 - November 9, 2018 load. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 5.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf, provided the soil within three feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index < 90. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. 5.7 The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. As a minimum, wall footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least seven feet from the face of slope when located adjacent and/or at the top of descending slopes. 5.8 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 21H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.437g calculated from ASCE 7- 10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33. 5.9 For resistance to lateral loads, a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed formation materials. The passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least five feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. Where walls are planned adjacent to and/or on descending slopes, a passive pressure of 150 pcf should be used in design. 5.10 An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 14 - November 9, 2018 5.11 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 12 feet. In the event that walls higher than 12 feet are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.0 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 6.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2016 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 6.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 7.0 Slope Maintenance 7.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is usually preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor for surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on, and adjacent to, slopes should be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 15 - November 9, 2018 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading and represent conditions at the date of our final observation on August 28, 2018. Changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, resulting from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience and test results. Due to the inaccuracies inherent in most field and laboratory soil tests, and the necessary assumption that the relatively small soil sample tested is representative of a significantly larger volume of soil, future tests of the same soil, location or condition should not be expected to duplicate specific individual test results of this report. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. It is the responsibility of Ryan Companies to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and civil engineer for the project, and are incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Recommendations that pertain to the future maintenance and care for the property should be brought to the attention of the homeowner’s association or entity responsible for future maintenance. Project No. 06442-32-28A - 16 - November 9, 2018 Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Joseph P. Pagnillo CEG 2679 Trevor E. Myers RCE 63773 David B. Evans CEG 1860 JPP:TEM:DBE:dmc (e-mail) Addressee TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. 1 11/28/17 E Building C 378 12 0 132.5 9.8 116.4 3.3 88 90 1 A 11/29/17 E Building C 378 12 0 132.5 9.8 118.1 5.2 89 90 1 B 11/30/17 E Building C 378 12 0 132.5 9.8 122.1 11.0 92 90 2 11/29/17 E Driveway E 382 12 0 132.5 9.8 118.5 5.3 89 90 2 A 11/30/17 E Driveway E 382 12 0 132.5 9.8 122.8 10.9 93 90 3 12/01/17 E Building C 379 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.5 8.7 92 90 4 12/01/17 E Building C 378 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.8 4.0 89 90 4 R 12/04/17 E Building C 378 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 6.3 89 90 5 12/04/17 E Building C 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.0 8.8 93 90 6 12/04/17 E Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.1 9.1 93 90 7 12/04/17 E Building C 379 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.6 8.9 93 90 8 12/04/17 E Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.6 8.5 92 90 9 12/05/17 E Building C 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.1 8.5 93 90 10 12/05/17 E Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.5 9.3 92 90 11 12/07/17 E Building C 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 128.4 8.6 95 90 12 12/07/17 E Building C 382 4 0 134.9 7.4 127.0 8.9 94 90 13 12/07/17 E Building C 382 4 0 134.9 7.4 127.1 8.8 94 90 14 12/08/17 W Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 118.4 4.4 88 90 14 A 12/11/17 W Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.6 9.1 92 90 15 12/08/17 W Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.5 5.1 89 90 15 A 12/11/17 W Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.4 9.4 91 90 16 12/11/17 W Building C 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.7 9.2 92 90 17 12/11/17 W Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.6 8.5 94 90 18 12/12/17 W Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.7 9.3 92 90 19 12/12/17 W Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.3 8.5 91 90 20 12/12/17 E Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.4 8.8 92 90 21 12/13/17 W Building C 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.2 8.6 91 90 22 12/13/17 W Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.1 10.4 93 90 23 12/13/17 E Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.4 8.4 94 90 24 12/13/17 E Building C 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.7 9.1 92 90 Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location ~GEOCON TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 25 R 12/14/17 E Driveway F 374 4 0 134.9 7.4 118.3 6.6 88 90 26 12/15/17 SE Building C 375 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.1 8.1 92 90 27 12/15/17 SE Building C 376 4 0 134.9 7.4 118.4 5.5 88 90 27 A 12/15/17 SE Building C 376 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.9 7.8 91 90 28 12/15/17 SE Building C 377 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.0 6.1 89 90 28 A 12/15/17 SE Building C 377 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.5 8.3 92 90 29 12/15/17 S Building C 378 4 0 134.9 7.4 121.9 8.0 90 90 30 12/15/17 S Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.2 8.7 93 90 31 12/18/17 E Driveway F 377 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 4.3 89 90 31 A 12/18/17 E Driveway F 377 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.4 8.9 92 90 32 12/18/17 SE Building C 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.9 8.2 93 90 33 12/18/17 W Building C 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.8 9.0 93 90 34 12/18/17 E Driveway F 378 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.7 9.6 91 90 35 12/19/17 W Building C 389 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.9 8.9 93 90 36 12/19/17 W Building C 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.7 8.5 92 90 37 12/19/17 E Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.3 8.8 92 90 38 12/20/17 E Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 4.3 89 90 38 A 12/21/17 E Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.7 8.9 91 90 39 12/20/17 E Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.3 4.1 89 90 39 A 12/21/17 E Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.1 9.1 91 90 40 12/20/17 E Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.8 4.4 89 90 40 A 12/21/17 E Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.2 9.3 91 90 41 12/22/17 W Building C 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.3 8.1 92 90 42 12/22/17 W Driveway F 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.0 7.9 92 90 43 12/22/17 W Building C 389 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.6 7.6 93 90 44 12/26/17 SE Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 2.5 89 90 44 A 12/27/17 SE Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.1 3.4 89 90 44 B 12/27/17 SE Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.7 8.9 92 90 45 12/26/17 W Building B 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 118.1 2.4 88 90 45 A 01/04/18 W Building B 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.5 2.9 89 90 ~GEOCON - - - TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 45 B 01/05/18 W Building B 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.8 8.9 93 90 46 12/26/17 SE Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.3 4.5 89 90 46 A 12/26/17 SE Building C 380 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.1 8.5 91 90 47 12/16/17 W Building C 384 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.1 8.6 93 90 48 12/26/17 W Building C 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.5 8.7 93 90 49 12/26/17 E Driveway F 368 4 0 134.9 7.4 121.3 8.5 90 90 50 12/28/17 SE Building C 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.9 8.8 91 90 51 12/28/17 S Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.3 8.7 93 90 52 12/28/17 NW Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 127.4 9.0 94 90 53 12/29/17 S Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.6 8.6 93 90 54 12/29/17 NW Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.6 2.6 89 90 54 A 12/29/17 NW Building C 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 121.9 8.5 90 90 55 12/29/17 SW Building C 390 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.8 9.1 92 90 56 12/29/17 NE Building C 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.4 8.9 93 90 57 12/29/17 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.8 3.8 89 90 57 A 01/02/18 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 2.9 89 90 57 B 01/02/18 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.3 4.6 89 90 57 C 01/03/18 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.3 3.8 89 90 57 D 01/03/18 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 118.4 3.0 88 90 57 E 01/04/18 SE Building B 385 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.2 8.5 92 90 58 12/29/17 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 116.7 2.0 87 90 58 A 01/02/18 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.2 2.2 88 90 58 B 01/02/18 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.1 4.2 88 90 58 C 01/03/18 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.7 4.3 89 90 58 D 01/03/18 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.6 2.5 89 90 58 E 01/04/18 SW Building B 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.0 8.9 92 90 59 01/02/18 W Building B 386 16 20 136.4 6.6 120.7 3.2 88 90 59 A 01/04/18 W Building B 386 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.4 8.0 93 90 60 01/02/18 E Building B 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.4 4.1 89 90 60 A 01/04/18 E Building B 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.6 9.1 91 90 ~GEOCON TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 61 01/03/18 W Driveway F 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.6 3.5 89 90 61 A 01/05/18 W Driveway F 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.7 9.1 92 90 62 01/03/18 E Driveway F 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.4 3.9 89 90 62 A 01/05/18 E Driveway F 381 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.2 8.5 91 90 63 01/04/18 NW Building B 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 120.1 2.6 89 90 63 A 01/05/18 NW Building B 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.5 9.0 92 90 FG 64 01/08/18 E Building C 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.8 8.8 93 90 FG 65 01/08/18 E Building C 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.4 9.2 93 90 FG 66 01/08/18 N Building C 389 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.1 9.0 93 90 FG 67 01/08/18 W Building C 390 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.7 8.8 91 90 FG 68 01/08/18 W Building C 391 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.9 9.3 92 90 69 01/16/18 W Driveway F 386 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.3 8.5 92 90 70 01/16/18 E Driveway F 383 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.1 8.8 93 90 71 01/16/18 N Building A 392 16 20 136.4 6.6 120.3 4.2 88 90 71 A 01/20/18 N Building A 392 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.0 8.2 92 90 72 01/16/18 S Building A 392 16 20 136.4 6.6 121.0 4.5 89 90 72 A 01/20/18 S Building A 392 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.5 7.8 93 90 73 R 01/16/18 Driveway F 385 16 10 133.5 7.4 118.3 2.8 89 90 74 01/18/18 W Building B 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.8 9.0 91 90 FG 75 01/18/18 W Building B 390 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.3 8.8 94 90 FG 76 01/18/18 W Building B 389 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.8 9.2 93 90 FG 77 01/18/18 E Building B 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.7 8.6 94 90 FG 78 01/18/18 E Building B 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 124.4 9.1 92 90 79 01/19/18 E Building A 391 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.5 8.8 92 90 80 01/19/18 W Building A 393 16 10 133.5 7.4 126.1 8.6 94 90 81 01/19/18 Building A 394 16 10 133.5 7.4 123.7 9.0 93 90 82 01/20/18 Basin No. 3 375 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.1 9.1 93 90 83 01/20/18 S Building A 388 16 10 133.5 7.4 125.3 8.6 94 90 84 01/23/18 W Building A 390 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.9 8.8 92 90 85 01/23/18 E Building A 394 16 10 133.5 7.4 123.7 9.2 93 90 ~GEOCON - - - TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 86 01/24/18 E Building A 393 16 0 130.7 8.2 122.5 9.4 94 90 87 01/25/18 W Building A 395 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.6 8.6 93 90 88 01/25/18 E Building A 390 16 0 130.7 8.2 121.5 9.3 93 90 89 01/30/18 SE Building A 389 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.8 8.6 93 90 90 01/30/18 SW Building A 391 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.9 8.6 94 90 91 01/31/18 S Building A 392 4 0 134.9 7.4 119.9 4.9 89 90 91 A 01/31/18 S Building A 392 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.3 8.7 93 90 92 02/01/18 Driveway F 381 16 0 130.7 8.2 116.3 4.2 89 90 92 A 02/01/18 Driveway F 381 16 0 130.7 8.2 122.2 9.3 93 90 93 02/01/18 Driveway F 384 16 20 136.4 6.6 128.7 8.1 94 90 94 02/02/18 Driveway E 378 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.8 9.0 92 90 95 02/02/18 Driveway E 376 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.4 8.2 93 90 96 02/05/18 Basin No. 4 362 16 20 136.4 6.6 120.0 3.6 88 90 96 A 02/05/18 Basin No. 4 362 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.7 7.8 93 90 SZ 97 R 02/05/18 Slope SE Entrance 367 16 20 136.4 6.6 113.6 5.8 83 90 98 02/06/18 E Driveway F 384 16 10 133.5 7.4 126.9 9.0 95 90 99 02/06/18 W Driveway F 386 16 10 133.5 7.4 125.2 8.7 94 90 100 R 02/07/18 SE Building C 378 16 10 133.5 7.4 118.1 6.8 88 90 101 R 02/07/18 SE Building C 375 16 20 136.4 6.6 121.4 4.5 89 90 102 02/07/18 SE Building C 374 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.7 7.9 93 90 103 02/07/18 SE Building C 374 16 20 136.4 6.6 128.1 8.3 94 90 104 02/08/18 Driveway E 377 16 10 133.5 7.4 125.0 8.6 94 90 105 02/08/18 SE Building C 378 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.5 9.1 93 90 106 02/08/18 Driveway E 379 16 10 133.5 7.4 125.2 9.0 94 90 107 02/09/18 Driveway E 376 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.1 7.9 92 90 108 02/09/18 Driveway E 378 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.2 8.8 93 90 109 02/09/18 SE Building C 380 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.9 8.7 92 90 110 02/09/18 SE Building C 382 16 0 130.7 8.2 120.5 9.6 92 90 111 02/15/18 Driveway E 379 16 0 130.7 8.2 127.1 8.8 97 90 112 02/15/18 Driveway E Undercut 382 16 0 130.7 8.2 127.4 8.5 97 90 ~GEOCON - - - - --- --- TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 113 02/15/18 Driveway C Undercut 384 16 0 130.7 8.2 128.2 8.9 98 90 114 02/15/18 W Building C Loading Dock 385 16 20 136.4 6.6 127.2 7.8 93 90 115 02/20/18 SE Driveway F 370 16 20 136.4 6.6 128.2 8.4 94 90 116 02/20/18 SE Driveway F 371 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.8 9.1 93 90 117 02/21/18 Driveway F 375 16 0 130.7 8.2 123.3 9.3 94 90 118 02/21/18 Driveway F 373 16 20 136.4 6.6 126.8 8.0 93 90 119 02/21/18 SE Building A 393 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.6 8.9 92 90 120 02/21/18 Landscape W of Building B 390 16 10 133.5 7.4 125.1 8.6 94 90 121 02/21/18 W Landscape Area 394 16 20 136.4 6.6 122.2 8.7 90 90 122 R 02/22/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 377 16 10 133.5 7.4 111.6 5.8 84 90 123 R 02/22/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 375 16 10 133.5 7.4 108.6 3.1 81 90 124 02/22/18 SE Driveway F Fill Slope 362 16 0 130.7 8.2 121.7 9.3 93 90 FG 125 02/23/18 SE Building A 394 16 20 136.4 6.6 130.4 7.9 96 90 FG 126 02/23/18 SE Building A 395 16 20 136.4 6.6 129.0 7.8 95 90 FG 127 02/23/18 NW Building A 395 16 0 130.7 8.2 124.8 9.4 95 90 128 02/26/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 376 16 10 133.5 7.4 126.8 8.8 95 90 129 02/26/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 378 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.7 8.6 93 90 130 03/01/18 E Driveway F 380 16 10 133.5 7.4 124.0 8.9 93 90 ST 131 03/01/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 377 16 10 133.5 7.4 122.0 8.7 91 90 ST 132 03/01/18 S Driveway F Fill Slope 381 16 0 130.7 8.2 120.1 9.5 92 90 133 06/11/18 Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.8 8.8 90 90 134 06/12/18 2nd Ramp Bldg C 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.1 8.9 90 90 135 06/13/18 2nd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.3 8.9 90 90 136 06/15/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.1 8.3 91 90 137 06/19/18 2nd Ramp Bldg B 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.0 8.4 90 90 138 06/20/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 118.8 9.1 87 90 138 A 06/20/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 117.4 9.2 86 90 138 B 06/21/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 121.5 3.2 89 90 138 C 06/21/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 121.0 3.1 89 90 138 D 06/21/18 3rd Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.1 9.1 91 90 ~GEOCON --- --- TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 139 R 06/21/18 4th Stairs Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 121.0 3.2 89 90 140 R 06/21/18 3rd Stairs Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 121.5 3.1 89 90 141 06/25/18 2nd Stairs Bldg C 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.0 8.5 90 90 142 06/25/18 1st Stairs Bldg C 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.6 8.8 90 90 143 06/25/18 Ramp Bldg A 389 17 0 136.6 8.3 114.5 5.3 84 90 144 06/28/18 Stairs Bldg B 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.1 8.9 90 90 145 06/28/18 3rd Ramp Bldg B 389 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.1 8.5 90 90 146 07/02/18 4th Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 116.5 8.9 85 90 146 A 07/03/18 4th Ramp Bldg C 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.2 9.1 90 90 147 07/10/18 4th Ramp Bldg B 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 130.5 9.2 96 90 148 07/10/18 SW Driveway F 388 13 0 135.7 7.4 123.6 6.9 91 90 149 07/10/18 SW Driveway F 389 13 0 135.7 7.4 123.6 5.3 91 90 150 07/11/18 1st Ramp Bldg B 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 117.1 8.0 86 90 150 A 07/11/18 1st Ramp Bldg B 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 133.5 8.5 98 90 151 07/11/18 Ramp Bldg B 388 13 0 135.7 7.4 125.7 7.4 93 90 152 07/12/18 SW Driveway F 390 4 0 134.9 7.4 130.4 7.5 97 90 148 A 07/12/18 SW Driveway F 388 13 0 135.7 7.4 124.5 7.8 92 90 149 A 07/12/18 SW Driveway F 389 13 0 135.7 7.4 125.1 7.6 92 90 143 A 07/13/18 Ramp Bldg A 389 17 0 136.6 8.3 130.5 8.4 96 90 153 07/13/18 Ramp Bldg A 391 13 0 135.7 7.4 130.1 7.9 96 90 154 07/13/18 Stairs Bldg A 391 13 0 135.7 7.4 128.0 7.6 94 90 155 07/16/18 Ramp Bldg A 392 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.4 8.0 93 90 156 07/17/18 Ramp Bldg A 391 4 0 134.9 7.4 127.1 9.2 94 90 157 07/17/18 NW Bldg C 387 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.4 7.7 91 90 158 07/17/18 Ramp Bldg A 388 4 0 134.9 7.4 122.5 9.5 91 90 159 07/18/18 Basin 1 - East Weir 372 4 0 134.9 7.4 123.6 7.9 92 90 160 07/18/18 Basin 1 - East Weir 373 4 0 134.9 7.4 125.6 8.0 93 90 161 07/18/18 Basin 1 - East Weir 374 4 0 134.9 7.4 126.4 7.6 94 90 162 07/18/18 Basin 1 - East Weir 375 14 0 137.1 7.3 131.1 7.4 96 90 163 08/08/18 Driveway A 389 14 0 137.1 7.3 128.1 7.6 93 90 ~GEOCON --- --- TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Required Relative Compaction (%) Curve No. Test No. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Date (MM/DD /YY) Elev. or Depth (feet) Location 164 08/08/18 Driveway A 390 14 0 137.1 7.3 127.7 8.9 93 90 165 08/08/18 Driveway D 387 14 0 137.1 7.3 125.2 9.5 91 90 166 08/08/18 Driveway D 388 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.3 9.2 91 90 167 08/08/18 Basin 1 - West Weir 374 14 0 137.1 7.3 125.9 8.7 92 90 168 08/13/18 Basin 1 - West Weir 372 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.9 9.2 91 90 169 08/13/18 Basin 1 - West Weir 374 14 0 137.1 7.3 123.4 8.5 90 90 SZ 170 08/14/18 SE Slope 367 14 0 137.1 7.3 126.2 8.2 92 90 SZ 171 08/14/18 SE Slope 365 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.5 8.5 91 90 SZ 172 08/27/18 Wall No. 5 Slope 392 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.5 9.3 91 90 173 08/28/18 Basin 1 - West Weir 377 14 0 137.1 7.3 126.4 8.7 92 90 174 08/28/18 Basin 1 - West Weir 379 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.7 8.4 91 90 ~GEOCON TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. WB 1 04/12/18 Wall No. 1 8+55 378 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.0 8.3 91 90 WB 2 04/13/18 Wall No. 1 8+00 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.1 8.5 91 90 WB 3 04/13/18 Wall No. 1 6+55 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.0 8.2 93 90 WB 4 04/13/18 Wall No. 1 4+95 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.1 8.3 92 90 WB 5 04/13/18 Wall No. 1 3+60 381 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.3 8.1 91 90 WB 6 04/14/18 Wall No. 1 3+10 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.2 8.4 92 90 WB 7 04/14/18 Wall No. 1 4+15 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.7 8.2 91 90 WB 8 04/14/18 Wall No. 1 5+10 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.9 8.4 91 90 WB 9 04/14/18 Wall No. 1 6+30 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.5 8.1 92 90 WB 10 04/16/18 Wall No. 1 8+15 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 126.0 8.3 92 90 WB 11 04/16/18 Wall No. 1 7+10 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.2 8.0 91 90 WB 12 04/17/18 Wall No. 1 8+90 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.7 9.3 90 90 WB 13 04/18/18 Wall No. 1 3+75 385 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.8 8.2 91 90 WB 14 04/18/18 Wall No. 1 5+50 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.7 8.1 90 90 WB 15 04/18/18 Wall No. 1 7+30 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.7 8.3 91 90 WB 16 04/18/18 Wall No. 1 8+70 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.8 8.2 90 90 WB 17 04/20/18 Wall No. 1 7+90 385 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.3 8.1 92 90 WB 18 04/20/18 Wall No. 1 6+75 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.8 8.3 92 90 WB 19 04/20/18 Wall No. 1 3+50 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 128.9 8.7 94 90 WB 20 04/20/18 Wall No. 1 4+75 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.2 8.4 92 90 WB 21 04/24/18 Wall No. 1 2+75 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.4 8.6 90 90 WB 22 04/24/18 Wall No. 1 2+05 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.7 8.4 91 90 WB 23 04/24/18 Wall No. 1 2+50 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.9 8.5 92 90 WB 24 04/24/18 Wall No. 1 1+65 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 128.1 8.6 94 90 WB 25 04/25/18 Wall No. 1 2+95 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.4 8.5 90 90 WB 26 04/25/18 Wall No. 1 2+25 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 128.8 9.2 94 90 WB 27 04/26/18 Wall No. 1 2+80 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.3 8.4 90 90 WB 28 04/26/18 Wall No. 1 1+55 388 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.1 8.3 91 90 WB 29 04/28/18 Wall No. 2 3+20 374 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.4 8.1 90 90 WB 30 04/28/18 Wall No. 2 2+60 373 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.5 8.7 93 90 Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A Test No.Date (MM/DD /YY) Location Elev. or Depth (feet) Curve No. >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Required Relative Compaction (%) ~GEOCON TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A Test No.Date (MM/DD /YY) Location Elev. or Depth (feet) Curve No. >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Required Relative Compaction (%) WB 31 04/29/18 Wall No. 1 7+90 385 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.8 8.4 91 90 WB 32 04/30/18 Wall No. 2 2+45 374 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.0 8.5 92 90 WB 33 05/01/18 Wall No. 2 2+95 375 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.3 8.3 92 90 WB 34 05/01/18 Wall No. 2 2+50 375 17 0 136.6 8.3 126.1 8.1 92 90 WB 35 05/01/18 Wall No. 2 2+15 375 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.1 8.2 91 90 WB 36 05/02/18 Wall No. 2 2+85 372 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.6 8.3 90 90 WB 37 05/02/18 Wall No. 2 2+30 377 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.2 8.0 91 90 WB 38 05/03/18 Wall No. 2 1+90 378 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.7 8.4 91 90 WB 39 05/04/18 Wall No. 2 2+10 379 17 0 136.6 8.3 126.0 8.8 92 90 WB 40 05/04/18 Wall No. 2 2+65 379 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.2 8.3 92 90 WB 41 05/07/18 Wall No. 2 2+00 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.9 8.2 90 90 WB 42 05/07/18 Wall No. 2 1+50 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.4 8.4 90 90 WB 43 05/08/18 Wall No. 2 1+25 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.0 8.8 92 90 WB 44 05/08/18 Wall No. 2 1+70 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.2 8.3 93 90 WB 45 05/08/18 Wall No. 2 1+45 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.5 8.4 92 90 WB 46 05/10/18 Wall No. 3 2+70 376 17 0 136.6 8.3 120.8 5.9 88 90 WB 46 A 05/10/18 Wall No. 3 2+70 376 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.9 8.4 91 90 WB 47 05/10/18 Wall No. 3 2+50 378 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.7 8.5 91 90 WB 48 05/10/18 Wall No. 3 3+20 378 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.2 8.7 90 90 WB 49 05/11/18 Wall No. 3 2+90 379 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.1 8.3 93 90 WB 50 05/11/18 Wall No. 3 3+15 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.2 8.5 92 90 WB 51 05/14/18 Wall No. 3 1+90 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.6 9.5 91 90 WB 52 05/14/18 Wall No. 3 2+30 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.4 8.7 93 90 WB 53 05/15/18 Wall No. 3 1+50 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.8 8.5 91 90 WB 54 05/15/18 Wall No. 3 2+10 384 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.0 8.3 92 90 WB 55 05/17/18 Wall No. 4 2+75 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 126.2 8.2 92 90 WB 56 05/17/18 Wall No. 4 2+25 380 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.6 8.4 90 90 WB 57 05/17/18 Wall No. 4 2+40 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 128.0 8.0 94 90 WB 58 05/18/18 Wall No. 4 1+55 382 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.5 8.4 90 90 WB 59 05/21/18 Wall No. 4 1+80 385 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.0 8.3 91 90 ~GEOCON TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Project No.: Pre. No. Re. Pacific Vista Commerce Center (PVCC)06442-32-28A Test No.Date (MM/DD /YY) Location Elev. or Depth (feet) Curve No. >¾" Rock (%) Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. Moist Content (%) Field Dry Density (pcf) Field Moisture Content (%) Relative Compaction (%) Required Relative Compaction (%) WB 60 05/22/18 Wall No. 4 1+20 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 126.6 8.4 93 90 WB 61 08/17/18 Wall No. 5 1+50 387 14 0 137.1 7.3 127.7 9.1 93 90 WB 62 08/17/18 Wall No. 5 3+00 385 14 0 137.1 7.3 124.9 8.5 91 90 WB 63 08/20/18 Wall No. 5 2+30 386 17 0 136.6 8.3 125.7 8.1 92 90 WB 64 08/20/18 Wall No. 5 3+25 387 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.3 8.7 91 90 WB 65 08/21/18 Wall No. 5 1+70 389 17 0 136.6 8.3 124.5 9.6 91 90 WB 66 08/21/18 Wall No. 5 3+15 389 17 0 136.6 8.3 122.9 8.3 90 90 WB 67 08/22/18 Wall No. 5 1+30 390 17 0 136.6 8.3 127.2 8.9 93 90 WB 68 08/22/18 Wall No. 5 2+80 391 17 0 136.6 8.3 123.9 9.7 91 90 ~GEOCON TABLE 1 EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS AC Asphalt Concrete IT Irrigation Trench SG Subgrade AD Area Drain JT Joint Trench SL Sewer Lateral B Base M Moisture Test SM Sewer Main CG Curb/Gutter MG Minor Grading SR Slope Repair DW Driveway MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall ST Slope Test ET Electrical Trench PT Plumbing Trench SW Sidewalk ETB Exploratory Trench RG Regrade SZ Slope Zone FB Footing Backfill RWL Reclaimed Water Lateral UT Utility Trench FG Finish Grade RWM Reclaimed Water Main WB Wall Backfill FS Fire Service SBT Subdrain Trench WL Water Lateral GT Gas Trench SD Storm Drain WM Water Main A, B, C, … R >¾" ROCK - ROCK CORRECTION The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content can be adjusted for in-place soil that possesses rock larger than ¾ inch. The curve no. is adjusted for the percentage of ¾ inch rock in accordance with ASTM D 4718 or Woodward Clyde guidelines. TEST NO. PREFIX TEST NO. RE. Retest of previous density test failure following additional moisture conditioning or recompaction Fill in area of density test was removed during construction operations CURVE NO. Corresponds to the curve numbers presented in the summary of the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test results. The field representative selected the curve no. based on the laboratory test results and field observations ELEVATION OR DEPTH Corresponds to the elevation or the depth, in feet, of the in-place density/moisture content test. The value has been rounded to the nearest whole foot ~GEOCON Project No. 06442-32-28A November 9, 2018 TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) 4 Dark reddish brown, Silty fine SAND 134.9 7.4 12 Brown Silty, fine to course SAND 132.5 9.8 13 Dark brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 135.7 7.4 14 Brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 137.1 7.3 16 Dark yellowish brown, Silty (f-c) SAND 130.7 8.2 17 Brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 136.6 8.3 TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Sample No.* Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (psf) Peak Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) Peak Initial Final 12 116.1 9.3 12.6 65 38 13 120.9 7.1 11.1 170 39 14 121.2 7.5 11.4 605 28 17 121.3 8.2 12.3 440 34 *Soil sample remolded to 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No.* Moisture Content Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) EI-1 7.6 13.5 119.4 0 EI-2 7.2 12.2 120.7 0 EI-3 7.1 13.4 121.0 0 17 7.1 13.8 121.0 0 *See Table VI for representative building number. Project No. 06442-32-28A November 9, 2018 TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.* Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure Class** Exposure Rating (severity)** EI-1 0.003 S0 Not Applicable EI-2 0.002 S0 Not Applicable EI-3 0.003 S0 Not Applicable *See Table VI for representative building number. **Reference: Table 4.2.1, ACI 318 report. TABLE VI SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX AND SULFATE EXPOSURE TEST RESULTS Building Sample at Finish Grade Expansion Index CBC Expansion Classification Sulfate Exposure A EI-3 0 Very Low Not Applicable B EI-2 0 Very Low Not Applicable C EI-1 0 Very Low Not Applicable