The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 00-13; TABATA PROPERTY; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING; 2002-12-17FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING TABATA PROPERTY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LUCAS & MERCIER DEVELOPMENT, INC. VISTA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 17, 2002 I I GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS (4 4 ) Project No. 06542-52-03 December 17, 2002 Lucas & Mercier Development, Inc. 630 Alta Vista Drive, Suite 203 Vista, California 92084 Attention: Mr. Michael C. Lake Subject: TABATA PROPERTY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 10, 2002 (LG-02256), we have provided compaction testing services during grading of the property. Our services were performed during the period of September 20 and December 11, 2002. The scope of our services included the following: I Observing the grading operation including the removal and/or processing of topsoil and alluvium, the undercutting of cut/fill transition lots, and the placement of compacted fill soils. Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site. Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating maximum dry density and optimum moisture I content and shear strength of the compacted fill soils. Additionally, laboratory tests were performed on samples of soil present at finish grade to evaluate expansion characteristics and water-soluble sulfate content. I • Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map. Preparing this final report of grading. GENERAL I The Tabata Property is located east of Black Rail Road, south of the Ryland Homes Encatada project and west of Cabela Road in Carlsbad, California. The grading contractor for the project was Astleford Construction Incorporated. Grading plans for the project were prepared by O'Day Consultants and are entitled Grading Plans For: Carlsbad Tract 00-13, with City of Carlsbad approval date of I August 26 and September 3, 2002. The project soils report is entitled Geotechnical Investigation (for) Tabata Property, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 18, 2002 (Project No. 06542-52-02). I 6960 Flanders Drive 0 San Diego, California 92121-2974 U Telephone (858) 558-6900 0 Fax (858) 558-6159 I I I I P1 I I References to elevations and locations presented herein were based on the surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced grading plans. 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 Grading of the Tabata Property began with removing and exporting brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. Topsoil and alluvium were then removed to expose formational material. Within areas to receive fill, the exposed formational soil was then scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils derived from on-site excavations were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In addition, fill soils were placed and compacted during the construction of crib walls located along the perimeter of the property. The formational portion of those lots that possessed a cut/fill transition was overexcavated approximately 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill soil. In general, the on-site fill materials consisted of clayey to silty sands. During the grading operations, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were performed to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill soils. The in-place density tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 2922-96 (nuclear). The results of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In general, the in- place density test results indicate that the fill soils have a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content at the locations tested. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate moisture-density relationships, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557-00), expansion characteristics (ASTM D 4829-95), shear strength (ASTM D 3080-98), and water-soluble sulfate content (California Test 417). The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Tables II through V. I Slopes I Cut and fill slopes were constructed at design inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter, with maximum heights of approximately 25 feet. All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to I 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 top of the slope or over crib walls. I I I Project No. 06542-52-03 - 2 - December 17, 2002 I I I I I I I I Li I I I I I Finish Grade Soil Conditions I Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within 3 feet of finish grade on the subject lots have an Expansion Index of 20 or less and are classified as having a "very low" expansion potential as defined by Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 Table 18-I-B. I Table VI presents a Summary Of Finish Grade Expansion Index Test Results of the prevailing subgrade soil conditions for each lot. 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. Compacted fill soil (Qcf) was placed in fill areas and undercut lots (Quc) to achieve finish grade. The Lindavista Formation (Qln) is exposed on cut lots and slopes. Table VII presents a Summary of As-Graded Building Pad Conditions for each lot. The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Map depicts the general geologic conditions observed. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading which would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading to which this report pertains has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical report dated September 18, 2002. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the geotechnical report, they have been described herein. 2.0 Future Grading 2.1 Any additional grading and backfill performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated should review grading plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. All trench and wall backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing any additional grading or backfilling operations. Project No. 06542-52-03 -3 - December 17, 2002 I I I I I I I I [1 I I I I LI I 1 3.0 Corrosion Potential 3.1 Laboratory tests were performed on samples of the site soils to determine the percentage of water-soluble sulfate. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests are presented in Table V and indicate that the soils tested possess a "negligible" sulfate exposure as defined by UBC Table 19-A-4. 3.2 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. 4.0 Seismic Design Criteria 4.1 Table 4 summarizes seismic design parameters obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 16-J for Soil Profile Type Sc which is prevalent on this project. Table 4 presents a summary of Seismic Design Parameters for each lot. The values listed in Table 4 are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a Type B fault and is more dominant than the nearest Type A fault due to its close proximity to the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 5 miles west of the site. Table VIII presents a Summary of Soil Profile Type for each lot. TABLE 4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Parameter UBC Reference Soil Profile Type (Sc) Seismic Zone Factor Table 16-I 0.4 Seismic Coefficient, Ca Table 16-Q 0.40 Seismic Coefficient, CV Table 16-R 0.63 Near-Source Factor, Na Table 16-S 1.0 Near Source Factor, Nv Table 16-T 1.1 Seismic Source Type Table 16-U B 1 5.0 Foundations 5.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential I structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a I particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on Table 5.1. Table IX presents a Summary of Recommended Foundation Category for each lot. I Project No. 06542-52-03 -4- December 17, 2002 I I I I I I Li I I I I Li TABLE 5.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Minimum Footing Depth Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement Two No. 4 bars, one top and 6 x 6- 10/10 welded wire I 12 one bottom mesh at slab mid-point 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top and No. 3 bars at 24 inches on II two bottom center, both directions Four No. 5 bars, two top and No. 3 bars at 18 inches on Ell 24 two bottom center, both directions CATEGORY CRITERIA Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50. Category H: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet. Category ifi: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130. Notes: All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Category ifi. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for 5-inch slabs) of clean sand or crushed rock. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean sand recommended in No. 4 above. 5.2 Foundations for Category I, II, or ifi may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live loads). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads 'Eue to wind or seismic forces. 5.3 Isolated footings located beyond the perimeter of the building and supporting structural elements connected to the building are not recommended for Category ifi. 'Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with steel-reinforced grade beams. 1 5.4 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening I beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, I Project No. 06542-52-03 -5- December 17, 2002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs that exceed 5 feet in width to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 5.5 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, I the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be moistened as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 5.6 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (honzontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such I that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. I . Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to H13 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) I slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and I slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry has been determined. I . For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori- zontal: vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at I .least 7 feet horizontally inside the face of the slope, regardless of slope height. . If swimming pools are planned Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a I review of specific site conditions. Although other relatively rigid or brittle improvements such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 5.7 As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, post-tensioned I concrete slab and foundation systems may be used for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer I experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (IJBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill I I Project No. 06542-52-03 -6- December 17, 2002 I -7- Project No. 06542-52-03 December 17, 2002 settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post-Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated. TABLE 5.2 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!) Design Parameters Foundation Category I it III Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70% Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in/mo. 0.7 in./mo. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15in. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in. 5.8 UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the Structural Engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 90, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the Structural Engineer. 5.9 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit areas, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. 5.10 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations I H I I I I I Li LI I I Ll I LI I I I 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 1 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 I concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 6.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 6.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be I designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined no steeper than 2:1 I (horizontal: vertical), an active soil pressure of 40 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 of 50 or less. For I those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. I 6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00111 (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf I should be added to the above active soil pressure. I 6.3 All 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 I recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly I . compacted granular (Expansion Index of 50 or less) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be I contacted for additional recommendations. 1 6.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided.-the soil within 3 feet I . below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of 50 or less. 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 I anticipated. I Project No. 06542-52-03 - 8 - December 17, 2002 I 6.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly I compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or I 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. A friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to I sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 6.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that I walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 1 7.0 Slope Maintenance 7.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) may, under conditions that are difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The I instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually 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 generally preceded I 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, I soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a signifi- cant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or I 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 be I periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. 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 I portion of the project's slopes in the future. 1 8.0 Drainage 8.1 Adequate drainage provisions are critical to future performance of the project. Under no I circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so I I Project No. 06542-52-03 -9- December 17, 2002 I that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. 8.2 All underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked I periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for a prolonged period of time. I 8.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for I surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Surface drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures, or impervious above-grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned I adjacent to the pavement, a cutoff wall should be provided along the edge of the pavement and should extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material. I LIMITATIONS I The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to the grading of the site and represents conditions at the date of our final observation dated December 11, I 2002. 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 I identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, I experience, and test results. 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 I and location. I 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 I uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations 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. I Li I I Project No. 06542-52-03 _10 - December 17, 2002 06103 E: 00/30/05 Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED ~M 00 CEG 1524 JH:SW:dmc (6/del) Addressee Ail Shawn Weedon RCE 61803 If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Project No. 06542-52-03 - 11 - December 17, 2002 - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 1 09/20/02 PAD 13 362 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.5 12.5 90 90 2 09/20/02 PAD 14 362 1 0 120.3 13.7 108.5 20.1 90 90 3 09/20/02 PAD 16 371 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.9 12.1 95 90 4 09/20/02 PAD 13 372 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.3 18.7 91 90 5 09/24/02 PAD 13 372 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.5 12.1 92 90 6 09/24/02 PAD 14 372 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.0 .10.8 91 90 7 09/24/02 PAD 16 369 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.1 11.6 91 90 8 09/26/02 PAD 1 354 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.2 12.4 90 90 9 09/26/02 PAD 2 355 2 0 128.9 9.1 120.2 9.2 93 90 10 09/27/02 PL ON PAD 1/2 354 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.8 13.7 91 90 11 09/27/02 PAD 3 . 353 1 0 120.3 13.7 117.2 12.4 97 90 12 09/27/02 PAD 3 352 1 0 120.3 13.7 116.5 11.5 97 90 13 09/30/02 PAD 1 356 1 0 120.3 13.7 110.5 12.8 92 90 14 10/01/02 PAD 4 357 1 0 120.3 13.7 119.3 12.3 99 90 15 10/01/02 PAD 4 359 1 0 120.3 13.7 115.7 11.0 96 90 16 10/01/02 PAD 3 357 1 0 120.3 13.7 113.0 11.6 94 90 17 10/04/02 PAD 13 359 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.2 10.2 90 90 18 10/04/02 PAD 13 361 2 0 128.9 9.1 120.3 10.6 93 90 19 10/04/02 PAD 13 365 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.9 13.6 92 90 20 10/07/02 PAD 12 374 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.9 11.2 90 90 21 10/07/02 PAD 15 374 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.1 8.2 90 90 22 10/07/02 PAD 16 374 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.9 10.5 90 90 23 10/22/02 PAD 4 358 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.9 12.3 91 90 24 10/22/02 PAD 5 359 2 0 128.9 9.1 113.3 12.6 88 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - MM - MM - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 24A 10/22/02 PAD 5 359 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.8 9.7 90 90 25 10/22/02 PAD 5 360 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.6 10.9 91 90 26 10/23/02 PAD 1 354 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.2 10.4 91 90 27 10/23/02 PAD 1 357 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.8 11.7 91 90 28 10/23/02 PAD 1 359 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.5 11.2 90 90 29 10/24/02 PAD 1 353 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.9 10.3 91 90 30 10/24/02 PAD 1 356 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.7 10.6 91 90 31 10/24/02 PAD 1 358 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.4 9.3 92 90 32 10/29/02 PAD 5 361 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.4 9.8 90 90 33 10/29/02 PAD 5 362 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.3 9.7 90 90 CW 34 10/29/02 W OF PAD 3 355 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.9 10.3 91 90 CW 35 10/29/02 W OF PAD 1 351 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.5 9.4 92 90 CW 36 10/29/02 W OF PAD 2 352 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.9 9.9 90 90 CW 37 10/29/02 W OF PAD 3 355 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.6 11.1 90 90 CW 38 10/30/02 W OF PAD 1 349 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.9 9.9 92 90 CW 39 10/30/02 W OF PAD 4 355 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.2 10.3 91 90 CW 40 10/30/02 W OF PAD 2 354 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.9 10.6 90 90 CW 41 10/30/02 W OF PAD 3 356 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.2 9.3 91 90 CW 42 10/30/02 W OF PAD 4 357 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.6 9.7 92 90 CW 43 10/30/02 W OF PAD 353 2. 0 128.9 9.1 116.4 10.1 90 90 CW 44 10/31/02 E OF PAD 14 362 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.2 11.2 90 90 CW 45 10/31/02 E OF PAD 13 361 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.3 13.5 95 90 CW 46 10/31/02 N OF PAD 13 360 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.4 14.1 95 90 CW 47 10/31/02 E OF PAD 14 364 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.1 8.6 91 90 Note See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) CW 47A 11/04/02 E OF PAD 14 364 1 0 120.3 13.7 113.6 14.4 94 90 CW 48 11/04/02 E OF PAD 15 366 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.9 13.4 91 90 CW 49 11/04/02 N OF PAD 13 366 1 0 120.3 13.7 106.6 14.9 89 90 CW 49A 11/04/02 N OF PAD 13 366 1 0 120.3 13.7 111.6 12.7 93 90 CW 50 11/04/02 N OF PAD 13 364 1 0 120.3 13.7 110.7 12.8 92 90 CW 51 11/04/02 N OF PAD 12 364 1 0 120.3 13.7 105.6 11.0 88 90 CW 51A 11/06/02 N OF PAD 12 364 1 0 120.3 13.7 113.5 17.7 94 90 CW 52 11/04/02 N OF PAD 12 366 1 0 120.3 13.7 106.0 11.9 88 90 CW 52A 11/06/02 N OF PAD 12 366 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.1 13.0 91 90 53 11/04/02 N OF PAD 4 362 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.1 13.3 95 90 54 11/04/02 W OF PAD 4 360 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.9 13.3 91 90 55 11/04/02 W OF PAD 2 356 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.9 13.2 92 90 CW 56 11/04/02 E OF PAD 15 368 1 0 120.3 13.7 115.1 13.4 96 90 CW 57 11/05/02 E OF PAD 14 368 1 0 120.3 13.7 108.0 13.7 90 90 CW 58 11/05/02 E OF PAD 14 365 1 0 120.3 13.7 111.1 13.0 92 90 59 11/05/02 W OF PAD 3 358 1 0 120.3 13.7 111.5 11.5 93 90 59A 11/05/02 W OF PAD 3 357 1 0 120.3 13.7 110.1 13.5 92 90 CW 60 11/05/02 E OF PAD 13 363 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.1 12.9 95 90 CW 61 11/05/02 E OF PAD 14 367 1 0 120.3 13.7 112.8 12.8 94 90 62 11/06/02 PAD 4 360 2 0 128.9 9.1 122.1 13.2 95 90 63 11/06/02 N OF PAD 4 364 2 0 128.9 9.1 119.2 12.2 92 90 64 11/07/02 E OF PAD 13 367 1 0 120.3 13.7 106.2 10.7 88 90 64A 11/07/02 E OF PAD 13 367 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.1 14.4 91 90 CW 65 11/07/02 SW OF PAD 1 350 1 0 120.3 13.7 108.4 14.3 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - MM - - - -. - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) CW 66 11/12/02 E OF PAD 14 369 1 0 120.3 13.7 114.3 15.7 95 90 CW 67 11/12/02 E OF PAD 14 368 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.1 13.5 91 90 CW 68 11/12/02 E OF PAD 14 370 1 0 120.3 13.7 111.3 15.6 93 90 CW 69 11/12/02 E OF PAD 13 363 1 0 120.3 13.7 108.4 15.6 90 90 CW 70 11/13/02 NE OF PAD 13 370 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.1 10.7 90 90 CW 71 11/13/02 NE OF PAD 13 360 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.4 9.8 91 90 CW 72 11/14/02 NE OF PAD 13 363 2 0 128.9 9.1 115.8 10.4 90 90 CW 73 11/14/02 NE OF PAD 13 364 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.2 11.6 92 90 CW 74 11/14/02 NE PAD 13 371 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.0 9.7 92 90 CW 75 11/15/02 E PAD 14 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 117.4 12.6 94 90 CW 76 11/15/02 PAD 13 NE 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.3 13.4 91 90 CW 77 11/15/02 PAD 13 NE 371 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.6 11.8 92 90 CW 78 11/15/02 PAD 13 NE 359 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.7 12.2 91 90 CW 79 11/15/02 PAD 13 NE 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.3 11.6 91 90 CW 80 11/18/02 PAD 12 NE 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.2 11.9 91 90 CW 81 11/18/02 PAD 5 NE 363 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.0 11.1 90 90 CW 82 11/18/02 PAD 12 NE 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.7 10.6 90 90 CW 83 11/18/02 PAD 13 NW 373 3 0 125.3 11.6 111.1 10.6 89 90 CW 83A 11/18/02 PAD 13 NW 373 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.9 10.2 90 90 CW 84 11/18/02 PAD 13 NW 373 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.3 10.7 90 90 CW 85 11/18/02 PAD 12 NE 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.4 11.3 91 90 CW 86 11/19/02 PAD 13 N 368 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.7 10.7 90 90 CW 87 11/19/02 PAD 13 NW 377 3 0 125.3 11.6 109.2 9.3 87 90 CW 87A 11/19/02 PAD 13 NW 377 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.2 9.8 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) CW 88 11/19/02 PAD 12 NE 373 3 0 125.3 11.6 108.4 11.3 87 90 CW 88A 11/19/02 PAD 12 NE 373 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.5 9.9 91 90 CW 89 11/19/02 PAD 12 NE 373 . 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.9 11.4 90 90 CW 90 11/19/02 PAD 13 NW 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.1 10.9 90 90 CW 91 11/20/02 PAD 13 N 360 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.5 11.5 91 90 CW 92 11/20/02 PAD 13 E 364 3 0 125.,3 11.6 114.7 11.3 91 90 CW 93 11/20/02 PAD 14 E 367 3 0 125.3 11.1 114.3 11.7 91 90 CW 94 11/20/02 PAD 13 NE 369 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.1 11.9 90 90 CW 95 11/20/02 PAD 13 E 369 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.9 12.0 91 90 CW 96 11/20/02 PAD 13 E 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.5 11.8 91 90 97 11/20/02 PAD 13 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.8 12.4 92 90 98 11/20/02 PAD 13 365 3 0 125.3 11.6 111.7 14.9 89 90 98A 11/21/02 PAD 13 365 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.7 12.4 92 90 99 11/20/02 PAD 13 367 3 0 125.3 11.6 116.2 11.7 93 90 100 11/21/02 PAD 13 368 3 0 125.3 11.6 117.8 12.8 94 90 101 11/21/02 PAD 13 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 118.4 11.9 94 90 102 11/21/02 PAD 13 369 3 0 125.3 11.6 116.5 13.6 93 90 103 11/21/02 PAD 13 371 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.8 12.3 91 90 104 11/21/02 PAD 14 372 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.4 11.5 91 90 105 11/22/02 PAD 15 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.0 12.1 92 90 106 11/22/02 PAD 15 371 3 0 125.3 11.6 116.2 11.8 93 90 CW 107 11/26/02 PAD 16 356 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.2 12.9 91 90 CW 108 11/26/02 PAD 16 358 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.8 13.4 91 90 CW 109 11/26/02 PAD 16 364 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.4 11.7 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) CW 110 11/27/02 PAD 16 365 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.4 14.1 91 90 CW 111 11/27/02 PAD 16 363 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.1 13.2 92 90 CW 112 11/27/02 PAD 16 367 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.4 13.5 92 90 CW 113 11/27/02 PAD 16 365 3 0 125.3 11.6 109.8 12.3 88 90 CW 113A 11/27/02 PAD 16 365 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.5 12.4 91 90 CW 114 12/02/02 PAD 1 349 3 0 125.3 11.6 108.2 13.6 86 90 CW 114A 12/02/02 PAD 1 354 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.8 11.9 92 90 CW 115 12/02/02 PAD 1 354 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.8 12.7 90 90 CW 116 12/02/02 PAD 1 357 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.7 13.3 92 90 CW 117 12/02/02 PAD 1 355 3 0 125.3 11.6 112.5 12.2 90 90 CW 118 12/02/02 PAD 1 356 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.2 12.4 90 90 CW 119 12/02/02 PAD 16 369 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.0 12.9 91 90 CW 120 12/02/02 PAD 16 359 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.6 11.7 91 90 CW 121 12/02/02 PAD 16 368 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.9 12.3 91 90 CW 122 12/03/02 PAD 16 369 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.7 11.5 92 90 123 12/03/02 PAD 1 359 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.0 11.5 90 90 FG 124 12/11/02 PAD 16 372 2 0 128.9 9.1 117.8 12.8 91 90 FG 125 12/11/02 PAD 15 373 2 0 128.9 9.1 116.1 9.5 90 90 FG 126 12/11/02 PAD 14 373 2 0 128.9 9.1 118.9 10.1 92 90 FG 127 12/11/02 PAD 13 373 1 0 120.3 13.7 110.2 13.2 92 90 FG 128 12/11/02 PAD 12 374 1 0 120.3 13.7 109.7 13.4 91 90 FG 129 12/11/02 PAD 5 364 3 0 125.3 11.6 118.8 11.8 95 90 FG 130 12/11/02 PAD 4 362 3 0 125.3 11.6 118.7 10.7 95 90 FG 131 12/11/02 PAD 3 316 3 0 125.3 11.6 117.2 12.2 94 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) FG 132 12/11/02 PAD 2 361 3 0 125.3 11.6 118.5 12.6 95 90 FG 133 12/11/02 PAD 1 360 3 0 125.3 11.6 116.8 11.7 93 90 ST 134 12/11/02 PAD 13 371 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.2 12.7 92 90 ST 135 12/11/02 PAD 13 370 3 0 125.3 11.6 113.8 11.9 91 90 ST 136 12/11/02 PAD 1 357 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.2 12.4 91 90 ST 137 12/11/02 PAD 2 363 3 0 125.3 11.6 115.7 11.5 92 90 ST 138 12/11/02 PAD 4 356 3 0 125.3 11.6 114.5 11.6 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 06542-52-03 (G) EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompact ion. R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - Area Drain JT - Joint Trench ST - Slope Test B - Base Test MT - Moisture Test SW - Sidewalk CG - Curb & Gutter RW - Retaining Wall SZ - Slope Zone CW - Crib Wall SD - Storm Drain UT - Utility Trench ]JW - Driveway SG - Subgrade WB - Wall Backfill FG - Finish Grade SL - Sewer Lateral WL - Water Lateral IT - Irrigation Trench SM - Sewer Main WM - Water Main - CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test NU: Nuclear Density Test DC: Drive Cylinder Test - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D1557-00 Maximum Optimum Sample Description Dry Density Moisture Content No. (pci) (% dry weight) 1 Orange-brown, Silty, fine SAND 120.3 13.7 2 Reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 128.9 9.1 with silt 3 Reddishbrown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with 125.3 11.6 trace clay TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D4829-95 Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pci) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) El-i 9.3 17.1 114.9 3 EI-2 10.6 23.8 111.7 20 El-3 9.7 20.7 112.5 7 EI-4 1 9.8 19.3 112.7 6 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080-98 Sample No. Dry Density (pci) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 3 113.1 . 11.4 450 31 Soil sample remolded to approximately 90 percent maximum dry density near optimum moisture content (ASTMD 1557). Project No. 06542-52-03 TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Exposure El-i 0.024 Negligible EI-2 0.043 Negligible EI-3 0.051 Negligible EI4 0.051 Negligible TABLE VI SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS LOTS I THROUGH 16; TABATA PROPERTY Lot Numbers Sample No. Expansion Index UBC Classification i through 5 EI-4 6 Very Low 6 through 8 El-3 7 Very Low 9 through 11 El-2 20 Very Low 12 through 16 El-I 3 Very Low TABLE VII SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS LOTS I THROUGH 16; TABATA PROPERTY Approx. Approx. Approx. Lot Pad Remarks Depth of Depth of Fill Max. Depth No. Condition Undercut Differential of Fill (ft.) 1 Fill Fill Lot N/A 7 12 2 Fill Fill Lot N/A 7 12 3 Fill Fill Lot N/A 5 11 4 Fill Fill Lot N/A 5 10 5 Undercut Undercut Due to 3 2 6 Cut/Fill Transition 6 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A Project No. 06542-52-03 December 17, 2002 TABLE VII (Continued) SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS LOTS 1 THROUGH 16; TABATA PROPERTY Approx. Approx. Approx. Lot Pad Remarks Depth of Depth of Fill Max. Depth No. Condition Undercut Differential of Fill (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) 7 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A 8 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A 9 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A 10 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A 11 Cut Cut Lot N/A N/A N/A 12 Undercut Undercut Due to 3 11 14 Cut/Fill_Transition 13 Fill Fill Lot N/A 12 17 14 Fill Fill Lot N/A 13 16 15 Undercut Undercut Due to 3 7 10 Cut/Fill_Transition 16 Undercut Undercut Due to 3 2 5 Cut/Fill _Transition TABLE VIII SUMMARY OF SOIL PROFILE TYPE LOTS 1 THROUGH 16; TABATA PROPERTY Lot Numbers Soil Profile Type 1 through 16 Sc TABLE IX SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY LOTS 1 THROUGH 16; TABATA PROPERTY Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category l through ll I 12 through 14 II l5 and l6 I Project No. 06542-52-03 December 17, 2002