HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE PA 16, 17, & 18; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2009-02-161
.1
REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
PLANNING AREA 16
OF ROBERTSON RANCH, EAST VILLAGE
CARLSBAD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-26
DRAWING 453-8A, CARLSBAD
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
BROOKFIELD SAN DIEGO BUILDERS, INC.
12865 POINTE DEL MAR, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92014
W.O. 5353B1-SC FEBRUARY 16, 2009
C.
cdoslQw
--.._ Geotechnical Geologic Coastal Environmental
5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 FAX (760) 931-0915
February 16, 2009
K.O. 5353-B1-SC
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
Del Mar, California 92014
Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh
Subject: Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village
(Lots 44 through 63, 89 through 99, 117 through 140, and 160 through 189.)
Carlsbad Tract 04-26, Drawing 453-8A, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California
Dear Ms. McHugh:
This report presents a summary of the geotechnicat testing and observation services
provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of
development associated with the development of Planning Area 16 (PA-1 6) of Robertson
Ranch East Village, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Earthwork was
performed in conjunction with the grading of the larger Robertson Ranch East Village.
Earthwork commenced in March 2007, and was generally completed in October 2008.
PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK
The purpose of grading was to prepare building pads and associated street areas for the
construction of 109 single-family residential structures, one recreation area, and associated
surface and subsurface improvements. Cut-and-fill grading techniques were utilized to
attain the desired graded configurations. Existing colluvium (topsoil), alluvium, and
weathered terrace deposits/formational material were removed to suitable earth material
(as defined in the approved report for the site), and either exported from the site or
recompacted as fill. Rough grading is generally completed throughout PA-16. The
approximate limits of grading under the purview of this report are shown on the
Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 and 2), which use the 40-scale grading plan for this project,
prepared by O'Day Consultants (2008), as a base.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Subsurface geologic conditions exposed during the process of rough grading were
observed by a representative of GSI. Prior to grading,, earth materials onsite consisted of
surficial deposits of colluvium (topsoil), and alluvium, underlain by terrace deposits
(considered bedrock), and formational sediments belonging to the Santiago Formation
(also considered bedrock). The subsurface conditions exposed were generally as
anticipated per our approved geotechnical report (GSI, 2007b).
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
As observed onsite, the bedding structure 'observed within terrace deposits is generally
thickly bedded and sub horizontal. Bedding structure was not well developed within the
thickly-bedded Santiago Formation, but generally dips on the order of 5 to 10 degrees to
the northwest, based on mapping in the vicinity and a review of G'Sl (2004 and 2007b).
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered during site grading within this planning area. Regional
groundwater should not significantly affect the performance of the fill, provided that
prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction
plans.
Toe drains were constructed locally (see Plates 1 and 2) in order to mitigate anticipated
perched water conditions along the toe of the slopes. However, perched groundwater
conditions may develop in the future due to rainfaU, excess irrigation, homeowner altered
drainage, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated along cut/fill contacts, zones
within compacted fill with contrasting permeabilities, or in cut areas where low permeability
sediments/bedrock soils occur at, or near the surface. Should manifestations of perched
conditions (i.e, seepage, or ponding), develop in the future, this office should assess the
conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. A discussion of
subdrainage constructed during grading is presented in a later section of this report.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Earthwork operations have been completed in general accordance with the City grading
ordinance, recommendations provided by GSI (see the Appendix), and the guidelines
provided in the field by this office. Observations during grading included removals,
excavation, and fill placement, along with general grading procedures of compacted fills
by the contractor. Table 1 presents a summary Of compaction test results.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pal6 Page 2
GeL, be0
Rough Grading
Preparation of Existing Ground
Deleterious, material, such as concentrated organic matter and miscellaneous
debris, were stripped from the surface and, disposed of beyond the limits of grading
for the subject area, prior to placing any fill.
Loose surficial materials (i.e., existing topsoils, colluvium, alluvium, and unsuitable
formational soils), were removed to expose suitable bearing soils, as defined in the
approved report for the site.
Lots containing cut/fill transitions, and lots containing non-uniform native soil
conditions, were undercut per the approved report. In general, undercuts were
completed to depths no less than 3 feet across a given lot, and/or to minimum
depths no less than about one-third the maximum fill depth across any given lot.
Approximate as-built fill depths across any given lot are 'shown in Table 2:
Subsequent to completing removals, areas to receive compacted fill were scarified,
moisture conditioned, and then compacted to attain a minimum relative compaction
of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). These areas were then brought to grade with fill
compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, based on field
-observations-
5.-All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1 and 2,
was observed by a representative of GSI. Plates 1 and 2 utilize the 40-scale grading
plan (Sheets 10 and 13, DWG 453-8A), prepared by O'Day Consultants (2008), as
a base map.
Fill Placement
Fill consisted of onsite and import materials which were placed in thin lifts, approximately
4t0 8 inches in thickness, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted
to attain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Approximate as-built 'fill depths are
shown in Table 2. The presence of scattered rock fragments, on the order of 12 inches in
size, more or less, cannot be precluded from occurring within any of the fills onsite.
Compaction test results for fills are presented in the attached Table 1.
Slopes
Graded Slopes
Graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report are generally on the order of
10 feet in height, or less, and should typically perform satisfactorily with respect to gross
and surficial stability under normal conditions of care, maintenance, and rainfall (semi-arid).
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-81-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp8\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 3
Ge, Inc.
Fill slopes, constructed under the purview of this report, were provided with abasal bench,
or keyway, excavated into suitable earth material in general accordance with the approved
GSI recommendations Cut slopes were constructed using cut and fill grading techniques
in general accordance with the approved GSI recommendations (GSI, 2007b), and
exposed suitable formational earth material(s).
As a result of recent rain storms during the winter of 2007/2008, and 2008/2009, some
surficiàl erosion of the site slopes was observed. Prior to improvements construction, the.
site should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant and recommendations provided
for slope repair, as necessary. Typical recommendations may include, but not be limited
to, the removal/recompaction of loose soil, moisture conditioning, and additional
compactive effort applied to the slope face. Site soils, and soils comprising slopes, are
considered erosive.
Temporary Slopes
Any proposed/future temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a gradient of
1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]), or flatter, in compacted fill (provided adverse conditions are
not present, as evaluated by GSI prior to workers entering trenches), provided seepage
or groundwater is not present Utility trenches may be excavated in accordance with
guidelines presented in Title 8 of thO California Code of Regulations for Excavation,
Trenches, and Earthwork, with respect to "Type B" soil (compacted fill), again provided
seepage or groundwater is not present. Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil
should not be stored within 5 feet from the top of any temporary slope.
Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from
the top of temporary slopes.
Natural Slopes
Natural slopes are not present within PA-16
Subd ra inage
"Toe drains" were constructed (per GSI, 2007b) throughout PA-16, and are shown
schematically on Plates 1 and 2. These drains are planned to outlet into future, planned
storm drain systems, however, at present, these drains are "stubbed out" via a vertical riser
and must be connected to the storm drain system prior to foundation construction.
General toe drain recommendations, and schematics, are presented in a later section .of
this report Surveys performed on toe drain subdrain pipes were provided in the field by
the project surveyor (Project Design Consultants, 2008). Canyon subdrain systems were
provided within the two main canyons trending through the site in the vicinity of Lots 91,
125, and 132, and southeast of Lot 99 (see Plate 2). These drains ultimately outlet into
existing storm drain systems located offsite.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O.5353-B 1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353h1 .ror.pal6 Page 4
GeoSs Inc.
11
Field Testing
Field density tests were performed using the sand-cOne method (ASTM D 1556) and
nuclear (densometer) method (ASTM D 2922, D 3017). Tests taken for the
Robertson Ranch project were taken in consecutive numerical order. Only tests
within the subject site, under the purview of this report, are presented in Table 1 at
the end of the text. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on
the Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 and 2), which utilize the 40-scale grading plan
(Sheets 10 and 13, DWG. 453-8A), prepared by O'Day Consultants (2008), as a
base map.
Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check
the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Rock corrections were applied
during testing of fill with significant rock fragments, as appropriate. Based on the
operations observed, test results presented herein are generally considered
representative of the fills observed under the purview of this report.
Visual classification of the soils in the field, as well as random laboratory testing,
was the basis for determining which maximum dry density value to use fora given
density test.
Testing and observations were performed on a full- and part-time basis, as solely
determined by the general contractor.
LABORATORY TESTING
Moisture-Density Relations
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major soil
type was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following
table presents the test results:
SôIL1i'PE .' ;
.MAxIUM DRY.
DENSITY (pcf)
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT
A - Brown, Silty SAND 127.0 10.0
B - Dark Brown, Clayey SAND 114.0 13.0
C - Gray Brown, clayey SAND 120.5 13.0
E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND 126.0 11.0
F - Gray Brown Gravelly SAND 134.0 8.0
J - Gray Clayey, SAND 121.0 12.5
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-81-Sc PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6
Page 5
GeoSiwiJs9 Inc.
MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
:cOrrErr(°,)
K- Dark Gray, CLAY 102.0 21.0
L - Olive Brown, Silty CLAY 111.0 18.5
M - Yellow Brown, Silty SAND (import) 123.0 13.0
0 - Yellow Brown, Clayey SAND (import) 119.5 11.5
P - Yellowish Brown, Clayey SAND (import) 124.5 10.5
Expansion Index
Expansion Index (El) tests were performed for the representative foundation soil types
exposed near-finish grade in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 in groups of about
three to five lots, or if there was a significant change in expansive character. The E.I. test
results are presented in Table 2, at the end of this report.
Atterberg Limits
Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the Atterberg Limits (liquid limit, plastic limit,
and plasticity index) in general accordance with ASTM D 4318 for representative soils
exposed near finish grade that exhibited an E.I. greater than 20 or had high fines
(-200 sieve) content. The results of Atterberg Limit testing are presented in Table 2.
Corrosion Analysis
Representative samples of the site materials has been analyzed for soluble sulfates, soil
pH, and saturated resistivity by Schiff Associates, Inc. (Corrosion Consultants). Based
upon the laboratory testing, site soils are considered to range from negligible (sulfate class
SO), to moderate (sulfate class Si) with respect to water soluble sulfate exposure to
concrete, per Table 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
document 318-08 (California Building Code [CBC], California Building Standards
Commission [CBSC], 2007). Site specific soil sulfate classifications are presented in Table
2. Soils are relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity (pH range of 6.8 to 7.6)
(Romanoff, 1989), and are very corrosive to exposed ferrous metals in a saturated state
(saturated resistivity <1,000 ohm-cm). The chloride ion content in soil was also noted to
generally be below action levels (300 ppm) per Caltrans (1999), for a majority of the lots;
however, Lots 121 through 127, and Lots 136 through 140 were evaluated to have chloride
ion levels on the order of 500 to 600 ppm, and should be protected accordingly. It is our
understanding that standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel is usually appropriate
for these conditions; however, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide
specific recommendations regarding foundations and piping, etc.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\vip9\5300\5353b1.ror. pal 6 Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.
In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or
any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are
made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are
modified or approved in writing by this office. The conclusions and recommendations
presented in GSI (2007b) are generally considered valid and applicable unless specifically
superceded in the text of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
General
The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing
and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSl. Recommendations for
conventional, and post tensioned foundation systems are provided in the following
sections. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures,
provided they are founded in competent bearing material. Foundations should be founded
entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional
foundations may be used for very low to low expansive soil subgrades, where the soils
plasticity index (P.1.) is 15, or less. For low to medium expansive soil conditions where the
P.I. is greater than 15, conventional foundations may be used, provided that they are
designed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Section 1805A.8) of the CBC (CBSC, 2007).
When soils have an E.I. >21 and P1 >15, this implies that the Code may require the use
of more onerous foundations (i.e., post-tension, mat, etc.).. Where alluvium has been left-
in-place, post-tension foundations are required.
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to
supercede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSl could provide
additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design.
As-Built Conditions
As-built soil conditions to be minimally considered in foundation design and construction
are presented in Table 2 of this report.
Foundation Design
Based on the as-built conditions, general recommendations for minimal foundation design
and construction are presented below.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pal6 Page 7
GeS,
Bearing Value
The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2007).
2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and
isolated column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected
by a grade beam back to the main foundation in at least one direction. This value
may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a
maximum of 3,000 psf. No increase in bearing value isrecommended for increased
footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third under
the effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads.
Lateral Pressure
For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to compacted fill soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum lateral earth pressure of 2,5,00 psf.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third and the previously noted maximum
lateral earth pressure applied.
ifferential Settlement
All foundation systems (conventional and post-tension) should be designed to minimally
accommodate a differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40-foot span. This includes
long-term static as well as dynamic effects.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
The table below summaries the site-specific design criteria obtained per the 2007 CBC.
We used the computer program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response
Spectra, provided by the US.G.S. The short spectral response uses a period ol
0:2 seconds.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .10rpa16 Page 8
!nc
CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.FOR SITECLASS "D"SOILS
PARAMETER 'VALUE IcBc:REFEnENcE
Site Class 0 Table 1613.5.2
Spectral Response- (0.2 sec), S 115g Figure 1613.5(3)
Spectral Response - (1 sec) S, 0.44g Figure 1613.5(4)
Site Coefficient, F. 1.04 Table 1613.5.3(1)
Site Coefficient, F 156 Table 1613.5.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec) SMS
1.20g Section 1613.5.3
(Eqn 16-37)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1
0.68g Section 1613.5.3
(Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), S
0.79g Section 1613.5.4
(Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral
Response Acceleration (1 sec), S.,,
0.46g Section 1613.5.4
(Egn 16-40)
A probabilistic peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHSA) of 0.28 g was evaluated for this
site (GSI, 2007b). This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of
exceedence in 50 years (or a 475-year return period).
Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur
in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not
to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Construction
The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. Recommendations by the project's
design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's
recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements.
Minimal conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the following Table A,
followed by an explanation of the "Foundation Category," and other minimal criteria.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, inc. W. 0. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 9
GeoSis, Inc.
'C9N(ENT19NAL PERiitETE OPTINGS.A .SLADS,]IQBERTSpN RANCH EAST VILLAG.E:i777771
L U N MIN TERIOR MIN MIN INTERIOR MIN , MIN EXTERIOR
ICATEGORY FOOTING 1'5L.AB REINFORCING SLAB UNDER-SLAB GARAGE SLAB FLATWORK -:STEEL: 'EINFORCE NT. REINFORCEMENT REINFORCING Tli~I(NESS
12'W 1-No. 4 Bar No.3 Bars @ 18. 2" Sand Over 10-Mil vapor 6" x 6"
12 Deep 4 Thick Top and Bottom o.c. Both Directions retarder Over 2" Sand (10/10) welded wire None
Base fabric (WWF)
2" Sand Over 10/1 5-Mil 6"x 6"
12" Wide x 2-No. 4 Bars No.3 Bars @ 18 vapor retarder Over 2" (6/6) WWF. or 6" x 6"
18 Deep 4" Thick Top and Bottom o.c. Both Directions Sand Base (1 5-milfor No.3 Bars @18" 10x10 WWF
medium expansive soils o.c Both Directions
only) for Low
2" Sand Over 15-Mi) vapor
111 12"'Widex Thick 2-No5Bars No. 3 Bars @18" retarder Over 3"Sand Same as 6"x6" 24" Deep lop and Bottom o.c. Both Directions Base (highly expansive Interior Slab (616) WWF
soils only)
IV PT ONLY PT ONLY 1 PT ONLY PT ONLY PTONLY I PT ONLY PTONLY
Category Criteria
Category I: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 20' and E.I. is less than, or equal to, 50 (P.1. <15) and Differential Fill Thickness is
less than 10' (see Note 1).
Category If: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' or E.I. is less than, or equal to, 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and
20' (see Note 1). Presoaking required.
Category Ill: Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 30', or E.I. exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds
20' (see Note 1). Presoaking required.
Category IV: Very Highly Expansive soil conditions (Expansion Index greater than 130). Post-tension foundations only.
Notes: 1. Conventional foundations shall also be designed per Section 1805A.8, Chapter 18 of the CBC (CI3SC. 2007) where
the P.I. is 15, or greater.
Post-tension foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness
to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the E.I. exceeds 90, or inareas underlain with alluvial soil left
in place. Differential settlements discussed in the body of the report should be incorporated into foundation
design by the structural engineer/slab designer.
Footing depth measured Irom lowest adjacent compacted/suitable subgrade.
The allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 psf.
Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi at 28 days. The
maximum slump shall be 5 inches. The water/cement ratio of concrete shall not be more than 0.5 for soils with an
E.I. >90.
The vapor retarder is not required under garage slabs. However, consideration should be given to future uses of
the slab area, such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture-sensitive materials and disclosure. All vapor
retarders should be placed in accordance with ASTM E 1643, and the CBC (CBSC. 2007).
Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommendations (see report).
B. Sand used for base under slabs shall be a "clean" granular material, and have SE >30. 'Pea" gravel may he
substituted for the basal sand layer in order to improve water transmission mitigation.
Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report.
All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints to control cracking. Joint spacing should be in
accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer.
Pre-welting is recommended for all soil conditions as follows: very low 1010w expansive (at least optimum moisture
content to a depth of 18 inches, medium expansive (at least 2-3% over optimum to a depth 0118 inches), highly
to very highly expansive (at least 4-5% over optimum to a depth of 24 inches).
POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN
Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed building.
Based on the as-built soil conditions, post-tensioned slabs may be designed for low to
highly expansive soil conditions, as indicated below.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror. pal 6 Page 10
GeoScUs, Inc.
General
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to
supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with
post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI
could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to
post-tensioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should be designed
in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTl) Method (31d Edition). Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which
accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted for this
site.
Preliminary Foundation Design
Based on the as-built graded conditions, within the subject lots, the following table in
general accordance with the CBC (CBSC, 2007) presents foundation design parameters
for post-tensioned slab foundations relative to a specific range of soil expansion potential.
Settlement criteria is provided in a previous section of this report, and GSI (2007b).
TABLE B POST TENSION FOUNDATIONS
EXPANSION VERY LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH POTENTIAL (E 1=050) (E I = 51 90) (El = 91 130) (E I >130)
e0, center lift 9.0 feet 8.7 feet 8.5 feet 7.5 feet
e edge lift 5.2 feet 4.5 feet 4.0 feet 3.25 feet
y, center lift 0.3 inches 0.49 inches 0.66 inches 1.1 inches
y0 edge lift 0.7 inch 1.3 inch 1.7 inches 2.5 inches
Bearing Value 1,000 psf 1,000 psf 1,000 psf 1,000 psf
Lateral Pressure 250 psf 250 psf 250 psf 250 psf
Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch 85 pci/inch 70 pci/inch 60 pci/inch
Foundation Category Category I PT Category II PT Category Ill PT Category IV PT per GSI (2007b, see Reference)
Minimum Perimeter Footing
Embedment 12 nches inches 18 inches 24 inches 30 inches
Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be increased to 2,000 psf for a minimum
embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf.
121As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface.
Note: The use of open bottomed raised planters adjacent to foundations will require more onerous design parameters.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
Subgrade Preparation
The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum
laboratory dry. density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned in accordance with the following discussion.
Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting
From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress
of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content
of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing"
or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil
pre-wetting and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall (minimum 12 inches deep) grade
beam/typical footing should be employed.
Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize
non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab.
Embedment depths are presented in Table B. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge
should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural
engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation
recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and
construction phase of the project.
Floor slab subgrade should be treated in accordance with criteria presented in Table A,
Note 11 above. Pie-wetting of the slab subgrade soil prior to placement of steel and
concrete will likely be recommended and necessary, in orderto achieve optimum moisture
conditions. Soil moisture contents should be evaluated at least 72 hours prior to pouring
concrete. If pie-wetting of the slab subgrade is completed prior to footing excavation, the
pad area may require period wetting in order to keep to soil from drying out. The level of
moisture needed will be dependant on the length of elapsed time between the date of the
pad(s) completion and the day of foundation/final improvements.
MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION
The following methodologies for vapor transmission mitigation are provided below with
respect to the Robertson Ranch, East Village Project, are also presented in Table A. The
following minimum guidelines have been developed in accordance with the expansive
character of the building pad subgrade within about 7 feet of finish grade-
Very Low to Low Expansive Soils
For floor slabs bearing on very low to low expansive soil subgrades (E.l. of 50, or less), the
floor slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand, over a lO-mil polyvinyl membrane
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-131-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 12
tSwk, Inc.
(vapor retarder), over a 2-inch sand base. Sand used should have a minimum sand
equivalent of 30. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be 2,500 psi.
(upgraded from the prior recommendations [GSl, 2004]), and constructed in accordance
with ACI 302.1 R-04. All vapor retarders should be. placed per ASTM F 1745 and the CBC
(CBSC, 2007).
Medium Expansive Soils
For floor slabs bearing on medium expansive soil subgrades (E.l. between 51 and 90), the
slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand (SE >30), over a 15-mil vapor retarder, over
a minimum 2-inch sand (SE >30) base. The minimum concrete compressive strength
should be at least 2,500 psi. All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E-1 643 and
the CBC (CBSC, 2007). A 2-inch layer of "pea" gravel may be substituted for the sand
layer used beneath the vapor retarder, if it is desired to further mitigate water/water vapor
transmission.
Highly to Very Highly Expansive Soils
For floor slabs bearing on highly to very highly expansive soil subgrades (E.l. greater than
90), the slab should be underlain with 2 inches of pea gravel (SE >30), over a 15-mil vapor
retarder, over a minimum 2-inch pea gravel base. The water/cement ratio of the concrete
shall not be more than O.S. All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E-i 643 and the
CBc (CBSC, 2007).
Other Considerations
Regardless of the soils expansion potential, an additional improvement to moisture
protection would be to extend the vapor retarder/membrane beneath all foundation
elements and grade beams. In addition, because it has been shown that the lateral
migration of water from foundation edges may contribute significantly to excess moisture
transmission, the vapor retarder/membrane could extend slightly above soils grade around
the slab/foundation perimeter and the exposed foundation face could be painted with a
latex sealer prior to color coat. Recognizing that these measures go beyond the current
standard of care, we recommend that the developer evaluate the construction issues and
costs associated with the additional measures above and determine the feasibility of
implementing them.
While these methods are considered to be overall improvements to the existing.
recommendations for this project (GSI, 2004 and 2007b), they will only minimize the
transmission of water vapor through the slab, and may not completely mitigate it. Floor
slab sealants may also be used for a particular flooring product, if necessary. The use of
concrete additives that reduce the overall permeability (water reducers) of the concrete
may also be considered. Generally, slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to
27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while typical floor
Brookfield San Diego Builders Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 13
oSk9 Inc.
covering manufacturers recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. Accordingly,
floor coverings and improvements that can tolerate these anticipated rates should be
considered by the developer/owner.
Additionally, as indicated in GSl (2007b), site soils are considered moderately to highly
erosive. This condition should be considered prior to, and during any future development.
SETBACKS
All settlement-sensitive improvements should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of
H/3 (H =slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less
than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the
improvement or footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlined
drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the
adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be
deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively,
walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances,
as described in the retaining wall section of this report.
SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY
Based upon the laboratory testing, site soils are considered to range from negligible
(sulfate class SO), to moderate (sulfate class Si) with respect to water soluble sulfate
exposure to concrete, per Table 42.1 and 43.1 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
document 318-08 (California Building Code [CBC], California Building Standards
Commission [CBSC], 2007). Site specific soil sulfate classifications are presented in Table
2. Soils are relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity (pH range of 68 to 7.6)
(Romanoff, 1989), and are very corrosive to exposed ferrous metals in a saturated state
(saturated resistivity <1,000 ohm-cm). The chloride ion content-in soil was also noted to
generally be below action levels (300 ppm) per Caltrans (1999), for a majority of the lots,
however, Lots 121 through 127, and Lots 136 through 140 were evaluated to have chloride
ion levels on the order of 500 to 600 ppm, and should be protected accordingly. It is our
understanding that standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel is usually appropriate
for these conditions; however, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide
specific recommendations regarding foundations and piping, etc.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 14
GS@iLc, Inc.
WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Conventional Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the CBC (CBSC, 2007). The
design parameters provided below assume that either non-expansive soils (Class 2
permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native materials (up to and
including an E.I. of 50) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e.,
select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans.
Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the
proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations
presented in this and preceding sections of this report regarding conventional foundation
design, as appropriate. The bottom of footings should be embedded a minimum of
18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be
24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width.
Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided
upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Based on the as-built
condition of the pad, and the current site development plan (O'Day, 2008), several cut/fill
transitions will likely occur within the influence of planned walls. Recommendations for the
treatment of transitions are presented in a later section of this report.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure (EFP) of 100 pcf (native soil) or 60 pcf (select), plus any applicable surcharge
loading, per Table 1610.1 of the CBC (2007) for USCS soil classification SM-SC. For areas
of male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance
of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner.
Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet
high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City
and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall
design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent
fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall.
Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained
material- These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic,
structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are
finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon
request.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pa16 Page 15
GSoUs, Inc.
'suflFACE
RETAINED MATERIAL WEIGHT P CF (SELECT WEIGHT P C F
(HORIZONTAL VERTICAL)' PRE-APPROVED BACKFILL**) (NATIVE BACKFILL*)
Level* 35 45 2tol 50 60
* Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained,
without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall.
** SE >30 and <10 percent passing No. 200 sieve.
El. <50, SE >20. and P1 <15.
Values minimally conform to Table 1610.1 of the CBC (CBSC, 2007)
Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped
in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls
that are 2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter
perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1/2-inch
to 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) For low
expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind
the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium
expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials, or ½-inch to 3/4-inch
gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140, or equivalent) should be used behind
the wall as backfill within the active zone, defined as the area above a 1:1 projection up
from the base of the wall stem. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind
the wall The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. For limited access and
confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed. Materials with an
El potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls,
regardless of the criteria for backfill summarized in the preceding table. Any wall drainage
plan should be reviewed by this office for approval prior to construction. Wall backfill
should be made by relatively light equipment. The contractor should avoid stockpiling
earth or any building material within 2H of newly completed/backfilled walls, where H is the
height of the wall, in feet.
Weeping of the walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than
2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet, or less, in height, weepholes should be no greater than
6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. Outlets
should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than
±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of only weep
holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill
should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.l. <50).
Proper surface drainage should also be provided For additional mitigation, consideration
should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 16
GeoSeils, Inc.
The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Proper
surface drainage should also be provided in order to reduce the potential for surface water
penetration.
Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions
Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the.civil
designer may specify either:
A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a
distance of 2H, from the point of transition.
Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 11360 for a distance of 2H
on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be
placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural
engineer's/ wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition
conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with aflexible, non-shrink grout.
C) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened
footings).
If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than
45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a' (above) and
until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. The presence of
transitions beneath planned improvements with result in an elevated potential for distress
to the particular improvement, unless the recommendations presented above are
implemented.
TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS
Due to the potential for slope creep (see the "Development Criteria" section for a
discussion) for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the
walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting
of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on
deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion
index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a
combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than
50, comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account. Recommendations for
grade beam and caisson foundations can be provided upon request. Deepened
foundations should minimally provide for a lateral distance of 7 feet from the outside
bottom edge of the footing to the face of slope.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.0. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.rorpa16 Page 17
GeoSoik, Inc.
DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any
improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication
and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other
improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but
not totally eliminated. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations
are presented for all exterior flatwork-
The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum
90 percent relative compaction. If very low to low expansive soils are present, only
optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not
warranted. For medium, or higher expansive soils, the subgrade should be
presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum
moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture
content of the subgrade should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant within
72 hours prior to pouring concrete.
Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch
layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level
prior to pouring concrete. lf.very low to low expansive soils are present, the rock
or gravel or sand is not required. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down
completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the
surrounding earth materials. Cut/fill transitions should be mitigated beneath any
settlement sensitive improvement. The adverse effects of transitions may be
mitigated by undercutting the cut portion of the transition at least 2 feet below the
grade, and replacing with compacted fill.
Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. When driveways are placed
over rock, gravel or clean sand , driveway slabs and approaches should additionally
have a thickened edge which isolates the bedding material from any adjacent
landscape area, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab.
The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to
mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel,
increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage
and expansion.
In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, exterior slabs may be
reinforced as indicated in Table A. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut,
to a minimum depth of T/4, where "T" is the thickness of the slabs in inches. Saw
cuts should be provided often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-81-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File :e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 18
GeSh, Inc.
1 Ofeet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals
of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from thefoundations and sidewalks
with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material.
No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression
strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to a structure should be separated
from the structure with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material. In areas directly
adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints
should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic.
Planters and walls should not be tied to the house.
Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed
with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils
are present, footings need only be tied in one direction.
Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property
should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These
segments should be keyed or doweled together.
10- Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible
connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions.
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots
should provide for an adequate fall to the. street, per the design civil engineer. It
should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including
post-construction settlement, if relatively flat, yard drainage gradients are not
periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association.
Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into
the building foundation, or constructed on an isolated rigid slab with flexible
couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be
drained to a suitable outlet.
Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices
are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the
Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of
curing-for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of
soils, and fertilizers used on site If spray on typical curing is employed, apply as
soon as possible after finishing- Use Hunt's curing compound, or equivalent.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O.5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pals Page 19
GeSos, Inc.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
Preliminary pavement section design was performed in general accordance with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual of Instructions
(2006), traffic index data provided by the project civil engineer, and the minimum sections
per the City. Pavement sections are based on the aforementioned criteria, the City of
Carlsbad (1993) design criteria, and the resistance A-value data estimated for the area.
Parking Lot Stalls/Cul De Sac! 4.5 9 4.0 5.0 Low Traffic Private Streets
Private Streets 5.0 9 4.0 7.0
1(1) Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base "R"~78, SE >25).
I
Final pavement sections shall be based on site specific A-value testing upon completion
of underground improvements. All pavement construction should be performed in
accordance with the currently approved, and applicable specifications, and the standard
of practice. Best management construction practices should be followed at all times,,
especially during inclement weather.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Slope Deformation
General
Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial
stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications, should be
expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination
with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This
post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension
([FE).
Slope Creep
Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow
downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout thelife of
the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e.,
separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal
distance of approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside)
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-131-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 'File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pal6 Page 20
GeoSoils, Inc.
13
edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone affected is
generally dependant upon: 1) the height of the slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the
slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement
generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the
creep zone.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation
typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 2007 CBC);
positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and
deepening of foundations. Per Section 1805.3.1 of the 2007 CBC, a horizontal setback
(measured from the slope face to the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3
is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet and H/3 need not be
greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration of the discussion presented above, site
conditions and Section 1805.3.1 of the 2007 CBC, H/3 generally need not be greater than
20 feet for the development. As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the adjacent
slope is greater than 45 feet in height and the building/footing is within 20 feet from the
slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the design
of that portion of the structure(s) Any settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., walls ,spas,
flatwork, etc) should minimally consider the above.
Lateral Fill Extension (LFE)
LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of
expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils,
the potential component of slope deformation due to LEE is considered minor, but may not
be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement
from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by generally placing the fill
throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content, as was done on
this project.
Summary
It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or [FE.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include:
setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the CBC [CBSC, 2007]); positive
structural separations (ie., joints) between improvements; stiffening; and, deepening of
foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and
improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills.
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, away
from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary 'to sustain
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B 1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 21
Ge$oHs9 Inc.
plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can
adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting, or otherfibrous covers, may
aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc. to
develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented.
Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended-
Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and
landscaping.
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficientto prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and
tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during
fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that
future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions.
Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained
at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water
should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the
ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the
structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum
gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be
above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of
raised planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should
be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical
requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to
control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of
3 feet from structures or into an alternate, approved area, such as a drainage system
swale. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be
anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop,
recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request.
Erosion Control
Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth
materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to
providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror. pal 6 Page 22
GeoSoils, Inc.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect.proposed site improvements. We
recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures
be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type
raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be
installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised
box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter
should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into
the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the
planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope
areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be
given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface
improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive
root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for
establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding
amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Toe-of-Slope Drains/Toe Drains
Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for
some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or
contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe-of-slope/toe drains may be beneficial
in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be
utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows:
Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to
saturation of soil at the base of the slope?
Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the
slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills,
etc.)?
Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be
overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could
accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap.
Arethe slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less
evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently
prevailing seasonal storm tracks.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 23
Ges, Inc.
What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in
excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems due to storm runoff
and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height.
Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or lot where perched or ponded water
may adversely impact its proposed use?
Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered by the
design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls in slopes, descending to the
rear of such lots. Following are Detail 1 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 2 (Toe
Drain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen
conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructed
during grading, including subdrains., the locations/elevations of such drains should be
surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is
recommended thatthe above be disclosed to all interested parties, including homeowners
and any homeowners association.
Toe drains were constructed at the completion of grading in general accordance with the
recommendations provided by this office The approximate locations of toe drains
constructed are shown on Plates 1 and 2. These drain are presently "stubbed out" and will
require connections to the storm drain system once, it is installed.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided the
recommendations contained in this report. are incorporated into final design and
construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting
permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation,
poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should
perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and
provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater
conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall,
or other factors
Tile 'Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant The tile installer should consider
installation methods that reduce possible 'cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl
crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile Council of
America/Ceramic Tile Institute.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-BI-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2Q09 Filc:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pal6 Page 24
GeoSofls, Inc.
Pad grade
/
Drain pipe
Drain may be
constructed into, or•
at, the toe-of-slope
Soil cap compacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
Permeable material may be gravel wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent).
4-inch--diameter, perforated pipe (SDR-35 or equivalent) with perforations down.
Pipe to maintain a minimum 1 percent fall.
Concrete cut-off wall to be provided at transition to solid outlet pipe.
Solid outlet pipe to drain to approved area.
Cleanouts are recommended at each property line.
I SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL Detail 1
Mirafi 140. filter
fabric or equivalent
nch crushed gravel
-I
Ret
Finish grad
Wall fo
2:1 (H:V) slope (typical)
Backfill with compacted
native soils
Top of wall
1to2feet-' --
inches i
NOTES:
Soil cap compacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
Permeable material may be gravel wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent).
4-inch7diameter, perforated pipe (SDR-35 or equivalent) with perforations down.
Pipe to maintain a minimum 1 percent fall.
Concrete cut-off wall to be provided at transition to solid outlet pipe.
.6. Solid outlet pipe to drain to approved area.
Cleanouts are recommended at each property line.
Effort to compact should be applied to drain rock.
RETAINING WALL DETAIL Detail 2
Site Improvements
If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas; etc.) are planned for the
site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and
construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas
should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from
GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to the homeowners
association or other interested/affected parties. This office should be notified in advance
of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfllling after rough grading has been
completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall .backfills, flatwork,
etc
Additional Grading
This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of
the site, or trench backlilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes
completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall
backfills.
Rough grading is generally completed throughout PA-1 8. However, the area of the site is
only "sheet" graded in the vicinity of Lots 195 through 206, due to the presence of large
stockpiles of aggregate base, and other rock products generated during mass grading.
Upon removal of these stockpiled materials additional grading will be necessary to bring
these lots to the desired grades. Earth materials used to complete these lots shall be
compatible with existing, as-built soil conditions described in Table 2.
Preliminary Pool/Spa Design Recommendations
The following minimal preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in
pool/spa design and planning The following recommendations should be provided to any
contractors and/or subcontractors, etc., that may perform such work.
The pool system should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2007). The
pool shell should be embedded entirely into properly compacted fill. Pools
proposed in the vicinity of Lots 206 through 218,233 through 259,268 through 304,
and 309.may require overexcavation for the pool shell due to the presence of fill
with a high percentage of rock fragments at depths potentially as shallow as 5 feet
below pad grade. Overexcavation depths should be reviewed on a lot by lot basis,
as plans are developed.
The equivalent fluid pressure against a cantilever wall free to yield at the top, may
minimally be assumed as 62 pcf.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. - W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 27
GeoSik,
The equivalent fluid pressure against a non-yielding wall or a wall restrained from
movement at the top, may be minimally assumed as 100 pcf, per the CBC
(CBSC, 2007) for these soil conditions.
The preceding unit weights do no include superimposed loading from expansive
soil pressure, earthquakes, traffic or adjacent building /wall loads. These loads
could be provided upon request.
Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pcf, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf.
An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used
with the dead load forces.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third-
The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and
flatwork design prior to construction. Recommendations for pool flatwork are
presented in a following section. A design civil engineer should review all aspects
of such design, including drainage and setback conditions, per the CBC
(CBSC, 2007).
All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical
consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill,
prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete.
Where pools are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be
incorporated into design and construction by the pool designer.
All pool walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting
the water in the pool without soil support per Section 1805.3.3, Chapter 18 of the
CBC (CBSC, 2007).
The pool structure should be set back from any adjacent descending
slope in accordance with the CBC (CBSC, 2007).
The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same
stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool bottom, the cut
portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 24 inches, and replaced
with compacted fill. The fill should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction, at over-optimum moisture conditions. The potential for grading and/or
re-grading of the pool bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot
excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool planning, design, and
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal6 Page 28
GeSils, Inc.
construction. If pool subgrade conditions are wet, or saturated, provisions for
drying back overexcavated soils, or importing/mixing with drier soils may be
necessary. In order to minimizethe effects of expansive soils, soils placed above
the undercut should be low expansive (E.l. <50).
Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa
designs. Apool under-drain system should also be considered, with an appropriate
outlet for discharge, depending on pool location.
All fittings. and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should
be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials.
An elastic expansion/shrinkage joint (waterproof sealant) should be installed to
prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints.
Reinforced grade beams should be placed around skimmer inlets to, provide
support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face.
Pool decking/f latwork should be pre-wet/pre-soaked per the Foundation Section of
this report.
Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should
it be emptied, there exists some, potential that if emptied, significant distress may
occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied Unless
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the
observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construption. If loose
or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper foOting or
removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime.
Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the
site.
Trenching
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the
trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and
should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives
and minimally conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-Bl-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 FiIe:e:\wp\5300\5353b1ror.pa16 Page 29
GeSUs, Inc.
Utility Trench Backfill
All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above
optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow
(12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of
30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing
and selective testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results.
Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath
hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should
not be used in these backfill areas Selective compaction testing and observations,
along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
All trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA and localsafety codes.
Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the
structural engineer.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
During grading/recertification.
After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building
pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing
steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen,
etc.), as necessary.
During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement.
During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill, as necessary.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa1 Page 30
GSk, Inc.
During slope construction/repair.
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,
walls, etc., are constructed.
A report.of geotechnical observation and testing and/or field testing reports, should
be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages as necessary, in order
to provide concise and clear documentation of site-work, and/or to comply with
code requirements.
GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners
associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions
outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners
maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape
architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein,
incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit
reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum
design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable
to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs
by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze
actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence,
and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements
in :order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible
that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer
should consider all applicable codes and authoritative.sources where needed If analyses
by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical -details than are provided herein
as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be-adopted. It is considered likely
that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has
any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise
transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or
improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that
the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential
settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design, criteria specified herein.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O.5353-B1SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353h1 .ror.pal6 Page 31
Ges, Inc.
HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS. ASSOCIATIONS
It is recommended that the developer should notify, and/or make available the findings,
conclusions and recommendations presented in this report to any homeowners or
homeowners association, in order to minimize any misunderstandings regarding the
design and performance of earth structures, and :the design and performance of existing
and/or future or proposed improvements.
PLAN REVIEW
Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office,
prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations of this report.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty,
either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless
specifically requested by the Client, in writing.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File: e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror. pal 6 Page 32
Inc.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc. /ac;>
No. 1,934
\
OFEj0
(cf
Cerflfied CE 4785
Robl Crismar \tJ David W. Skelly
Engineering Geologi Civil Engineer, RC C,vtJ
Reviewed by:co F ?.
I) (i 134 .O
I
/ J eenno ohn P. Franklin €GeologiW -
(jE g ngineering Geolo
CA
R G C/ATG/D WS/J PF/jh
Attachments: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results
Table 2 - Lot Characteristics
Appendix - References
Plates 1 and 2 - As-Graded GeOtechnical Maps
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 16, 2009
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .ror.pa16 Page 33
GeoSs, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO
DATE TEST: LOCATION. TRACT
NO
ELEV.
OR
MOISTURE
CONTENT
DR'
DENSITY COMP METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
78 4/20/07 Lot 310 PA-16 48.0 15.8 102.6 90.0 ND 13--
83 4/20/07 Lot 310 PA-16 51.0 13.8 111.1 91.8 ND J
92 4/23/07 Lot 310 PA-16 56.0 18.6 100.9 90.9 ND L
94 4/23/07 Lot 310 PA-16 56.0 19.7 99.9 90.0 SC L
111 4/24/07 Lot 310 PA-16 60.0 18.9 100.6 90.6 ND L
112 4/24/07 Lot 310 PA-16 61.0 20.0 100.7 90.7
REL......ST
ND L
113 4/24/07 Lot 310 PA-16 63.0 19.1 101.5 91.4 ND L
114 4/24/07 Lot 310 PA-16 63.0 13.6 109.7 90.7 SC J
171 5/1/07 Lot 90 PA-16 62.0 21.0 100.2 90.3 sc L
172 5/1/07 Lot 91 PA-16 62.0 19.7 100.8 90.8 ND L
173 5/1/07 Lot 92 PA-16 63.0 18.9 100.6 90.6 ND L
174 5/1/07 Lot 91 PA-16 65.0 24.6 93.8 92.0 ND K
175 5/1/07 Lot 90 PA-16 65.0 21.7 91.8 90.0 ND K
176 5/1/07 Lot 92 PA-16 6.5.0 22.4 92.4 90.6 SC K
243 5/7/07 Glen Ave 16+50 PA-16 68.0 14.6 102.6 90.0 ND B
247 5/8/07 Glen Ave 15+50 PA-16 72.0 12.5 109.5 90.5 ND J
250 5/8/07 Glen Ave 16+00 PA-16 77.0 13.7 110.4 91.2 SC J
270 5/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 70.0 13.3 102.9 90.3 ND B
271 5/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 70.0 13.0 104.0 91.2 ND B
272 5/10/07 Lot 90 PA-16 69.0 14.1 103.4 90.7 ND B
273 5/10/07 Lot 90 PA-16 68.5 11.2 114.7 90.3 ND A
274 5/10/07 Lot 91 PA-16 70.0 13.7 108.7 90.2 SC C
275 5/10/07 Lot 91 PA-16 70.0 13.0 102.6 90.0 ND B
276 5/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 72.0 14.0 104.2 91.4 ND B
277 5/10/07 Lot 90 PA-16 725 14.2 103.3 90.6 ND B
278 5/10/07 Lot 91 PA-16 72.0 13.0 109.3 90.7 ND C
279 5/10/07 Lot 92 PA-16 73.0 13.3 108.5 90.0 sc C
280 5/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 76.5 10.4 115.4 90.9 ND A
281 5/10/07 Lot 90 PA-16 77.0 13.1 109.7 91.0 ND C
282 5/10/07 Lot 91 PA-16 78.0 14.2 102.9 90.4 ND B
283 5/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 76.5 10.7 114.6 90.2 ND A
284 5/10/07 Lot 310 PA-16 65.0 10.8 115.4 90.9 SC A
285 5/10/07 Lot 310 PA-16 58.0 11.7 114.7 90.3 ND A
286 5/10/07 Lot 173 PA-16 62.0 10.4 116.3 91.4 ND A 287 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-16 68.0 14.0 110.1 91.4 ND C
288 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-16 68.0 13.1 108.7 90.2 ND C 289 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-16 69.0 13.9 112.1 93.0 SC C 290 5/11/07 Lot 178 PA-16 68.0 13.6 109.2 90.6 ND C
291 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-16 70.0 14.1 109.1 90.5 ND C 292* 5/11/07 Lot 176 PA-16 73.0 20.5 99.9 90.0 ND L
292A 5/11/07 Lot 176 PA-16 73.0 18.7 101.5 91.4 SC L 293* 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-1 6 72.0 19.2 102.5 92.3 ND L 293A 5/11/07 Lot 310 PA-16 72.0 20.0 11 100.6 90.6 ND L 294 5/11/07 Lot 175 PA-16 75.0 j 18.7 1 99.9 90.0 ND L
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009
Fite: C:\excei\tables\5300\5353bi.ror.pal6 Page 1
GeoSoils, Inc.
Table •1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO
DATE . TEST LOCATION . TRACT
NO
ELEV
O
MOISTURE
CONTENT
DEPTH (ft).
DRY .
DENSITY
REL
COMP
TEST
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
295 5/11/07 Lot 179 PA-16 75.0 13.9 109.5 90.9 ND C 296 5/11/07 Lot 173 PA-16 78.0 14.0 108.7 90.2 ND C 297 5111/07 Lot 310 PA-16 79.0 152 104.5 91.7 SC B 298 5/11/07 Lot 176 PA-16 79.0 14.7 103.3 90.6 ND B 299 5/14/07 Lot 310 PA-16 81.0 11.6 115.1 90.6 ND A 300 5/14/07 Lot 310 PA-16 81.0 13.9 110.1 91.4 ND C 301 5/14/07 Lot 177 PA-16 81.0 15.1 103.4 90.7 ND B 302 5/14/07 Lot 176 PA-16 80.0 14.0 102.6 90.0 ND B 303 5/14/07 Lot 175 PA-16 80.0 13.7 104.0 91.2 SC B 304 5/14/07 Lot 174 PA-iS 81.0. 15.0 103.9 91.0 ND B 305 5/14/07 Lot 173 PA-16 81.0 10.0 115.2 90.7 ND A 306 5/14/07 Lot 178 PA-16 84.0 13.7 108.8 90.3 ND C 307 5/14/07 Lot 176 PA-16 84.0 13.0 108.9 90.4 SC C 308 5/14/07 Lot 174 PA-16 84.0 14.2 109.8 91.1 ND C 309 5/14/07 Lot 179 PA-16 88.0 13.6 103.2 90.5 ND B 310 5/14/07 Lot 177 PA-16 87.0 14.3 103.3 90.6 ND B 311 5/14/07 Lot 175 PA-16 86.5 10.8 116.1 91.4 ND A 312 5/14/07 Lot 173 PA-16 86.0 14.7 103.9 91.0 ND B 313 5/14/07 Lot 179 PA-16 90.0 13.7 103.3 90.6 SC B 314 5/14/07 Lot 178 PA-16 90.0 13.0 103.7 91.0 ND B 315 5/14/07 Lot 177 PA-16 90.0 14.2 102.9 90.3 ND B 316 5/14/07 Lot 179 PA-16 93.0 13.1 108.9 90.4 ND C 317 5/14/07 Lot 178 PA-16 93.0 13.6 109.5 90.9 ND C 318 5/14/07 Lot 179 PA-16 95.0 14.1 103.0 90.4 SC B 319 5/15/07 Lot 127 PA-16 78.0 13.8 109.2 90.6 ND C 320 5/15/07 Lot 126 PA-16 74.0 14.2 108.6 90.1 ND C 321 5/15/07 Lot 125 PA-16 74.0 13.6 104.2 91.4 ND B 322 5/15/07 Lot 127 PA-16 82.0 13.7 102.9 90.3 ND B 323 5/15/07 Lot 126 PA-16 77.0 14.2 103.2 90.7 ND B 324 5/15/07 Lot 125 PA-16 775 15.7 108.7 90.2 ND C 348 5/17/07 G Street PA-16 74.0 18.5 100.0 90.1 ND L 349 5/17/07 G Street PA-16 76.0 14.2 105.2 92.3 ND B 353* 5/17/07 G Street PA-16 77.0 6.8. 108.5 85.4 ND A 353A 5/18/07 GStreet PA-16 77.0 11.1 114.6 90.2 ND A 354* 5/17/07 G Street PA-16 79.0 7.9 110.6 87.1 ND A 354A 5/18/07 G Street PA-16 79.0 10.8 115.2 90.7 ND A 355 5/17/07 Lot 124 PA-16 78.0 13.7 109.4 90.8 ND C 356 5/17/07 Lot 124 PA-16 78.0 14.2 109.9 91.2 ND C 357 5/17/07 Lot 128 PA-16 81.0 13.1 103.4 90.7 ND B 358 5/17/07 Lot 127 PA-iS 83.0 14.9 109.5 90.9 ND C 359 5/17/07 Lot 126 PA-16 84.0 15.2 110.0 91.3 ND C 360 5/17/07 Lot 124 PA-16 86.0 14.7 109.1 90.5 ND C 473-FG 6/6/07 Lot 250 PA-18 74.0 17.2 103.3 90.6 ND B 546 6/13/07 Lot 167 PA-16 99.0 10.5 121.9 95.9 ND A
Brook-field San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009 File: C:\excel\lables\5300\5353b1.ror.pals Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO.
DATE
.
TEST LOCATION.
. . •. -
TRACT
NO
ELEV.
. OR
DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%
DRY
DENSITY
W-1)
REL
COMP
TEST
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
547 6/13/07 Lot 164 PA-16 101.0 10.2 122.2 96.2 ND A 548 6/13/07 Lot 166 PA-16 103.0 10.7 121.7 95.8 ND A 549 6/13/07 Lot 167 PA-16 101.0 11.4 121.0 95.2 ND A 550 6/13/07 Lot 165 PA-1 6 105.0 11.8 120.7 95.0 SC A 551 6/13/07 Lot 56 PA-16 112.0 11.9 120.5 94.8 ND A 552 6/13/07 Lot 59 PA-16 114.0 10.9 121.5 95.6 ND A 553 6/13/07 Lot 57 PA-16 1160 10.3 122.1 96.1 ND A 554 6/13/07 Lot 131 PA-16 85.0 10.9 121.4 95.5 ND A 555 6/13/07 Lot 132 PA-16 88.0 11.2 120.9 95.1 ND A 556 6/14/07 Lot 127 PA-16 84.0 11.4 121.0 95.2 ND A 557 6/14/07 Lot 125 PA-16 86.0 10.9 121.5 95.6 ND A 558 6/14/07 Lot 123 PA-16 88.0 11.9 120.5 94.8 ND A 559 6/14/07 Lot 126 PA-16 88.0 11.2 120.9 95.1 ND A 560 6/14/07 Lot 58 PA-1 6 117.0 10.2 122.2 96.2 SC A 561 6/14/07 Lot 60 PA-16 117.0 10.3 122.1 96.1 ND A 564 6/14/07 Lot 183 PA-16 105.0 10.1 122.2 96.2 ND A 565 6/14/07 Lot 184 PA-16 107.0 10.7 121.5 95.6 ND A 569 6/15/07 Lot 46 PA-16 116.0 10.1 121.6 95.7 SC A 571 6/15/07 C Street 16+00 PA-16 100.0 10.7 120.5 94.8 ND A 572 6/15/07 Lot 93 PA-16 78.0 11.4 121.1 95.3 ND A 573 6/15/07 Lot 96 PA-16 75.0 11.0 120.8 95.1 ND A 574 6/15/07 Lot 98 PA-16 76.0 11.7 120.7 95.0 ND A 575 6/18/07 Lot 93 PA-16 73.5 14.2 103.2 90.5 ND B 576 6/18/07 Lot 95 PA-16 75.0 13.7 102.6 90.0 ND B 577 6/18/07 Lot 99 PA-16 81.0 13.0 103.5 90.8 ND B 578 6/18/07 Lot 93 PA-16 76.0 13.8 102.9 90.3 ND B 579 6/18/07 Lot 94 PA-16 78.5 14.2 103.9 91.1 SC B 580 6/18/07 Lot 96 PA-16 79.0 14.6 103.4 90.7 ND B 581 6/18/07 Lot 93 PA-16 79.0 13.9 102.8 90.2 ND B 582 6/18/07 Lot 97 PA-16 79.5 14.1 103.3 90.6 ND B 583 6/18/07 Lot 99 PA-16 83.0 13.3 108.5 90.0 ND C 584 6/18/07 Lot 98 PA-16 81.0 13.6 109.4 90.8 SC C 585 6/18/07 Lot 97 PA-lB 82.0 13.4 108.8 90.3 ND C 586 6/18/07 Lot 96 PA-1 6 81.0 13.7 109.6 91.0 ND C 587 6/18/07 Lot 118 PA-16 90.0 14.8 109.3 90.7 ND C 588 6/18/07 Lot 117 PA-16 88.0 14.2 108.8 90.3 ND C 601 6/18/07 Lot 117 PA-16 90.0 13.5 103.3 90.6 SC B 602 6/18/07 Lot 118 PA-16 91.5 14.1 103.0 90.3 ND B 603 6/18/07 Lot 99 PA-16 84.5 13.7 104.0 91.4 ND B 604 6/18/07 Lot 97 PA-1 6 83.0 13.0 103.5 90.8 ND B 605 6/18/07 Lot 95 PA-16 87.9 13.8 109.8 91.1 ND C 606 6/18/07 Lot 95 PA-16 81.0 14.1 108.7 90.2 SC C 607 6/18/07 Lot 93 PA-16 78.0 13.3 103.6 90.9 ND B 608 6/18/07 Lot 98 PA-16 83.0 13.9 104.1 91.3 ND B
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-61-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353b1 .ror.pal 6 Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
EST:
NO
:;.pTE:. :.TEs-J LOCATION. : TRACT
NO
ELEV .
OR
DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
DRV.•
DENSITY
(pcf)
..REL.:
COMP
(%)
TST.
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
633 6/20/07 Lot 55 PA-16 116.3 14.3 113.5 94.1 ND C
634 6/20/07 Lot 56 PA-16 117.3 14.0 113.8 94.4 ND C
635 6/20/07 Lot 57 PA-16 118.5 13.7 114.1 94.6 ND C
636 6/20/07 Lot 58 PA-16 119.1 13.2 114.9 95.3 ND C
637 6/20/07 Lot 59 PA-16 119.1 13.9 114.0 94.6 SC C
638 6/20/07 Lot 60 PA-16 119.0 14.7 113.1 93.8 ND C
639 6/20/07 Lot 61 PA-16 118.5 14.5 113.4 94.1 ND C
640 6/20/07 Lot 62 PA-16 118.0 14.0 113.9 94.5 ND C
641 6/20/07 Lot 63 PA-16 117.5 13.5 114.7 95.1 SC C
673-FG 6/22/07 Lot 183 PA-16 107.8 14.1 115.5 95.8 ND C
674-FG 6/22/07 Lot 184 PA-16 109.0 13.8 115.8 96.0 ND C
675-FG 6/22/07 Lot 185 PA-16 109.7 14.3 115.2 95.6 ND C
676-FG 6/22/07 Lot 186 PA-16 109.7 13.9 115.7 96.0 SC C
677-FG 6/22/07 Lot 187 PA-16 108.8 13.5 116.1 96.3 ND C
678-FG 6/22/07 Lot 188 PA-16 107.9 13.7 116.5 96.7 ND C
679-FG 6/22/07 Lot 189 PA-16 107.3 13.3 117.0 97.0 ND C
680-DF 6/22/07 Lot 310 PA-16 70.0 13.1 117.2 97.2 ND C
681-FG 6/22/07 Lot 310 PA-16 80.0 13.4 116.9 97.0 ND C
687 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 180 PA-16 103.0 13.4 116.0 96.2 ND C
688 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 181 PA-16 111.0 13.2 116.2 96.4 ND C
689 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 182 PA-16 112.0 13.9 115.4 95.7 ND C
690 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 183 PA-16 110.0 14.2 115.1 95.5 ND C
691 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 184 PA-16 114.0 14.7 114.5 95.0 SC C
692 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 185 PA-16 115.0 14.9 114.0 94.6 ND C 693 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 186 PA-16 115.0 13.8 115.4 95.7 ND C
694 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 187 PA-16 116.0 13.1 116.2 96.4 ND C
695 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 188 PA-16 114.0 13.7 115.7 96.0 SC C
696 6/25/07 Back Slope, Lot 189 PA-16 113.0 14.0 115.3 95.6 ND C
704 6/27/07 Lot 160 PA-16 106.9 1 11.3 119.4 94.0 ND A
705 6/27/07 Lot 161 PA-16 107.7 11.5 119.1 93.7 ND A
706 6/27/07 Lot 162 PA-16 108.5 10.9 119.8 94.3 ND A
707 6/27/07 Lot 163 PA-16 109.2 12.1 111.0 92.8 SC 0
708 6/27/07 Lot 164 PA-16 109.3 11.7 111.4 93.2 ND 0
709 6/27/07 Lot 165 PA-16 108.7 11.5 111.8. 93.5 ND 0
710 6/27/07 Lot 166 PA-1 6 106.7 11.2 119.5 94.0 SC A
711 6/27/07 Lot 167 PA-16 104.5 10.5 120.2 94.6 ND A
712 6/27/07 Lot 168 PA-16 102.5 11.4 119.3 93.9 ND A- 718 6/28/07 Lot 169 PA-16 100.0 12.3 110.8 92.7 ND 0
719 6/28/07 Lot 170 PA-16 98.0 11.5 111.8 93.5 ND 0
720 6/28/07 Lot 171 PA-16 96.0 13.1 116.8 94.9 ND M
721 6/28/07 Lot 172 PA-16 94.0 12.7 117.2 95.2 ND M
722 6/28/07 Lot 176 PA-16 91.0 11.2 122.0 96.0 ND A
723 6/28/07 Lot 177 PA-16 92.0 10.7 122.5 96.4 ND A
724 6/28/07 Lot 178 PA-16 94.0 11.1 121.9 95.9 SC A
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-B1-SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353bi-ror.pal6 Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO
DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT.
NO
: Ev.:..
OR
MOISTURE
CONTENT
DRY .
DENSITY
REL.
COMP
(%)
.TEST•.
METHOD
SOIL
TYPE
725 6/28/07 Lot 179 PA-16 97.0 10.5 122.8 96.6 ND A 816 7/18/07 Lot 50 PA-16 117.0 14.1 112.0 92.9 ND C 817 7/18/07 Lot 49 PA-16 118.0 13.7 112.4 93.2 ND C 818 7/18/07 Lot 48 PA-16 119.0 13.2 112.9 936 ND C 819 7/18/07 Lot 47 PA-16 119.0 12.0 109.8 91.9 ND 0 820 7/18/07 Lot 46 PA-16 118.0 12.4 109.4 91.5 ND 0 821 7/18/07 . Lot 45 PA-1 6 117.0 11.6 110.3 92.3 ND 0 830 7/18/07 Glen Ave. Choker S. Side Lot 89 PA-16 71.0 12.1 118.5 94.0 ND E 831 7/18/07 Glen Ave. Choker S. Side Lot 91 PA-16 71.0 12.5 118.1 93.7 ND E 832 7/19/07 Glen Ave. Choker S. Side Lot 93 PA-16 73.0 11.9 118.9 94.3 ND E 834 7/19/07 Glen Ave, Choker S. Side Lot 92 PA-1 6 74.0 12.5 118.1 937 ND E 850 7/24/07 Wind Trail Way, Choker 18+00 PA-16 83.0 13.4 114.0 92.6 ND M 851 7/24/07 Wind Trail Way, Choker 18+40 PA-16 85.0 128 114.7 93.2 ND M 852 7/24/07 Glen Ave, Choker 12+00 PA-16 76.0 12.5 115.1 93.5 ND M 854 7/24/07 Glen Ave, Choker 11+30 PA-16 80.0 13.6 113.8 92.5 ND M 855 7/24/07 Buck Ridge Ave, Choker 10±55 PA-16 112.0 12.7 114.9 93.4 ND M 856 7/24/07 Buck Ridge Ave. Choker 10+20 PA-16 113.0 12.9 114.5 93.0 ND M 871 7/26/07 Glen Ave 10+70 PA-16 72.0 11.4 119.0 94.4 ND E 872 7/26/07 Glen Ave 11+50 PA-16 74.0 11.7 1119.3 94.6 ND 873 7/26/07 Glen Ave 12+40 PA-16 76.0 12.0 118.5 94.0 ND E 895 7/30/07 Lot 140 PA-16 92.0 12.3 1118.9 94.3 SC E 896 7/30/07 Lot 139 PA-16 93.0 12.7 118.4 93.9 ND E 897 7/30/07 Lot 138 PA-16 93.0 11.9 119.4 94.7 ND E 898 7130/07 Lot 137 PA-1 6 93.0 - 11.6 113.6 90.1 ND E 899 7/30/07 Lot 136 PA-16 93.0 11.8 119.5 94.8 SC E 900 7/30/07 Lot 135 PA-16 92.0 12.0 119.3 94.6 ND E 901 7/30/07 Lot 134 PA-iS 92.0 131 115.7 91.8 ND E 902 7/30/07 Lot 133 PA-16 91.0 11.2 120.0 95.2 ND E 903 7/30/07 Lot 132 PA-16 91.0 11.0 120.6 94.9 SC A 904 7/30/07 Lot 131 PA-16 90.0 10.5 121.1 95.3 ND A 905 7/30/07 Lot 130 PA-16 88.0 10.2 121.6 95.7 ND A 906 7/30/07 Lot 129 PA-16 87.0 11.0 120.5 94.8 SC A 907 7/30/07 Lot 128 PA-16 87.0 10.7 120.9 95.1 ND A 912-FG 7/31/07 Lot 182 PA-1 6 105.0 11.3 115.7 92.9 ND P 913-FG 7/31/07 Lot 181 PA-16 103.0 11.0 116.0 93.1 ND P 914-FG 7/31/07 Lot 180 PA-16 100.0 10.6 116.5 93.5 ND P 915-FG 7/31/07 Lot 51 PA-16 96.0 10.5 117.0 93.9 SC P 916-FG 7/31/07 Lot 52 PA-16 100.0 10.8 116.8 93.8 ND P 917-FG 7/31/07 Lot 53 PA-16 105.0 11.4 115.5 92.7 ND P 918-FG 7/31/07 Lot 54 PA-16 108.0 11.7 115.1 92.4 ND P 919-FG 7/31/07 Lot 125 PA-16 90.0 12.0 116.0 92.0 SC E 920-FG 7/31/07 Lot 126 PA-16 90.0 11.0 117.0 92.8 ND E 921-FG 7/31/07 Lot 127 PA-16 89.0 12.3 115.7 91.8 ND E 934-FG 8/3/07 Lot 124 PA-16 1 91.0 12.3 112.0 93.7 ND 0
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W. 0. 5353-B1 SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353bl.ror. pal 6 Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
tEsT .DATE
Y:..fro.:..:..............,..;........'''.''..S::
. tESiLb.Anc'N.........rnAc1 1ELEv MOisTURE
'Ei
(ft)(%)
ENlT. COM
TEST
'lETHob
'SOIL
°PE
935-FG 8/3/07 Lot 123 PA-16 '910 11.9 112.5 94.1 ND 0 936-FG 8/3/07 Lot 122 PA-16 92.0 11.5 113.2 94.7 ND 0 937-FG 8/3/07 Lot 121 PA-16 92.0 12.7 111.4 93.2 SC 0 938-FG 8/3/07 Lot 120 PA-16 93.0 12.0 112.4 94.0 ND 0 939-FG 8/3/07 Lot 119 PA-16 93.0 11.7 113.0 94.5 ND 0 940-FG 8/3/07 Lot 118 PA-16 92.0 11.5 113.2 94.7 ND 0 941-FG 8/3/07 Lot 117 PA-16 92.0 11.9 112.5 94.1 ND 0 969-FG 8/10/07 Lot 99 PA-16 85.0 11.9 112.1 93.8 ND 0 970-FG 8/10/07 Lot 98 PA-1 6 84.0 11.5 112.6 94.2 ND 0 971-FG 8/10/07 Lot 97 PA-16 84.0 12.2 111.8 93.5 ND 0 972-FG 8/10/07 Lot 96 PA-16 83.0 11-7 112.4 94.0 ND 0 973-FG 8/10/07 Lot 95 PA-1 6 83.0 11.0 118.0 92.9 ND A 974-FG 8/10/07 Lot 94 PA-16 82.0 10.5 118.6 93.3 ND A 975-FG 8/10/07 Lot 93 PA-16 81.0 10.1 119.0 93.7 ND A 976-FG 8/10/07 Lot 92 PA-1 6 80.0 13.7 110.0 91.2 ND C 977-FG 8/10/07 Lot 91 PA-16 79.0 13.2 110.6 91.7 ND C 978-FG 8/10/07 Lot 90 PA-16 78.0 13.0 111.0 92.1 ND C 979-FG 8/10/07 Lot 89 PA-16 78.0 131 110.8 91.9 ND C 1005-FG 8/16/07 Lot 173 PA-16 89.0 10.6 121.0 95.2 ND A 1006-FG 8/16/07 Lot 174 . PA-16 89.0 10.3 121.3 95.5 ND A 1007-FG 8/16/07 Lot 175 PA-16 90.0 10.7 120.9 95.1 ND A 1060 9/7/07 Lot 310 PA-16 85.0 15.6 102.9 90.3 ND B 1061 9/7/07 Lot 310 PA-16 80.0 14.7 102.7 90.1 ND B 1413-FG 10/15/08 Lot 44 PA-16 117.9 8.2 122.0 91.0 SC F
LEGEND:
* = Failed Test
A = Retest
FG = Finish Grade.
ND = Nuclear Densometer Test
SC = Sand Cone Test
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353B1SC
PA 16 Robertson Ranch, East Village February 2009
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353b1.ror.pal6 Page 6
GeoSos, Inc.
TABLE 2
LOT CHARACTERISTICS PA 16
LOT
-E1I.',
(PER
ASTM
D'4829)
EXPANSION
pOTENTIAL(l).:.
SULFATE
EXPOSUBE.;
PLASTICITY
INDEX
.(pJ)(3).;?
APPROX
DEPTH OF FILL
(RANGEIN.FI-)
FOUNDATION
TYPE ;
44 13 Very Low Negligible ~15 4-10 la or lb PT (5)
45 13 Very Low Negligible ~15 3-8 la or lb PT (5)
46 13 Very Low Negligible g15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
47 13 Very Low Negligible g15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
48 60 Medium Negligible 23-26 3-4 II PT
49* 60 Medium Negligible 23-26 3-4 Il PT
50* 60 Medium Negligible 23-26 3-4 II PT
51 11 Very Low Negligible g15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
52 11 Very Low Negligible ~15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
53 11 Very Low Negligible 15 3-4 Ia or lb PT (5)
54 11 Very Low Negligible 15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
55 54 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-4 II PT
56 54 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-4 II PT
57 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-5 Il PT
58 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-4 Il PT
59 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-4 II PT
60 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-4 II PT
61 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 3-5 Il PT
62 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 4-8 II PT
63 66 Medium Negligible 22-25 7-13 Il PT
89 92 1-ugh Moderate 34-38 10-11 III PT
90 92 High Moderate 34-38 5-15 III PT
91 92 High Moderate 34-38 13-19 Ill PT
92 92 High Moderate 34-38 10-18 III PT
93 92 High Moderate 34-38 9-16 III PT
94 >130 Very High Moderate 50-54 7-8 IV PT
95 >130 Very High Moderate 50-54 4-5 IV PT
96 92 High Moderate 34-38 3-4 Ill PT
97 92 High Moderate 34-38 3-4 Ill PT
98 92 High Moderate 34-38 4-5 III PT
99 92 High Moderate 20-23 6-14 Ill PT
117 67 Medium Negligible 25-29 10-17 II PT
118 67 Medium Negligible 24-28 4-10 II PT
GeoSoigs, Inc.
Ail
LOT'
(PER
ASTM ,
...:D
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL :,
-t
' SULFATE
:.• EXPOSURE
PLASTICITY
.. INDEX
PI)
APPEOX
DEP\TH OF FILV
(RANGE .iN.FT.
FOlJNDATION
_______________
119 67 Medium Negligible 24-28 3-4 II PT
120 67 Medium Negligible 24-28 3-4 II PT
121 42 Low Negligible 16-20 3-4 I PT
122 42 Low Negligible 16-20 3-4 I PT
123 42 Low Negligible 16-20 4-5 I PT
124 42 Low Negligible 16-20 7-16 I PT
125 21 Low Negligible 12-16 18-24 II PT
126 21 Low Negligible 12-16 8-24 II PT
127 21 Low Negligible 12-16 7-21 II PT
128 >130 Very High Moderate 50-54 3-6 IV PT
129 >130 Very High Moderate 50-54 3-4 IV PT
130 >130 Very High Moderate 50-54 3-5 IV PT
131 92 High Moderate 34-38 4-10 Ill PT
132 51 Medium Negligible 18-22 7-13 II PT
133 51 Medium Negligible 18-22 3-4 II PT
134 51 Medium Negligible 18-22 3-4 II PT
135 51 Medium Negligible 18-22 3-4 Il PT
136 72 Medium Negligible 26-30 3-4 II PT
138 72 Medium Negligible 26-30 3-4 II PT
139 72 Medium Negligible 26-30 3-4 II PT
140 72 Medium Negligible 26-30 3-4 II PT
160 3 Very Low Negligible ~15 3-4 la or lb P1(5)
161 3 Very Low Negligible 5 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
162 3 Very Low Negligible K15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
163 3 Very Low Negligible g15 3-4 la or lb P1(5)
164 3 Very Low Negligible -15 3-4 la or lb PT (5)
165 63 Medium Negligible 23-27 3-4 II PT
166 63 Medium Negligible 23-27 3-4 II PT
167 63 Medium Negligible 23-27 3-4 II PT
168 63 Medium Negligible 23-27 4-5 II PT
169 63 Medium Negligible 23-27 3-4 II PT
170 55 Medium Negligible 20-24 3-4 II PT
171 55 Medium Negligible 20-24 3-4 It PT
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5353-61-SC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.PA16 Table 2 Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc
LOT CHARACTERISTICS PA 16
LOT...•
ASTM
? D4829)*
EXPANSION
:; POTENTIAL
(PER A.PE!AS11CITY
SULFATE
EXPSIJRE12 .
INDEX
(PI)P
\rAPPRO)C
DEPTH OF FILL
:(RANGElNFT)'
FOUNDATION
TYPE
172 55 Medium Negligible 20-24 3-4 II PT
173 4-8 Low Negligible 20-24 16-32 III PT
174 48 Low Negligible 20-24 10-28 II PT
175 48 Low Negligible 20-24 8-21 II PT
176 48 Low Negligible 20-24 6-21 II PT
177 58 Medium Negligible 22-26 9-27 II PT
178 58 Medium Negligible 22-26 8-24 II PT
179 58 Medium Negligible 22-26 9-27 Il PT
180 40 Low Negligible 15-19 3-4 I PT
181 40 Low Negligible 15-19 3-4 I PT
182 40 Low Negligible 15-19 3-5 I PT
183 40 Low Negligible 15-19 3-5 I PT
184 40 Low Negligible 15-19 3-5 I PT
185 21 Low Negligible S15 3-5 I PT
186 21 Low Negligible g15 3-4 I PT
187 21 Low Negligible :515 3-4 I PT
188 21 Low Negligible :515 3-4 I PT
189 21 Low Negligible -15 3-4 I PT
307** Medium - - -
308k* Medium - - -
Per ASTM 4829.
Per ACI 318-08, Tables 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 (CBC, 2007). Moderate sulfate exposure requires the use of Type II cement.
The higher value in the range provided, should be used for design purposes.
Per GSI (2007b) and this report.
Category la uses the spanability method for very low expansive soils per GSI (2008).
* Lots 49 and 50 are undercut to an approximate depth of 3 to 4 feet below pad grade. Foundation design to be based
on future fill soils placed within each building pad. Values shown are for estimating only.
** Recreation Area - Foundation design to be lot specific based on proposed use; will be provided upon review of site
development.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc W.O. 5353-B1-SC
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 PAl 6 Table 2 Page 3
GeoSoiis, Inc.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building code requirement for structural concrete
(ACI 318-08) and commentary, an ACt standard reported by ACI Committee 318
dated January.
2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction: reported by ACI Committee'
302; Designation ACI 3021 R-04, dated March 23.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, Standard practice for installation of
water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs,
Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005).
1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with
soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved
2004).
California Building Standards Commission, 2007, California building code.
Caltrans, 1999, Interim corrosion guideline for foundation investigations, Corrosion and
Technology Section, Office of Materials and Foundations, dated May.
Carlsbad, City of, 1993, Standards for design and construction of public works
improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
GeoSoils,,lnc., 2008a, Geotechnical plan review, model Lots 96,97, and 98, planning area
16 of Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.0 5353-B1-SC, dated December 22.
2008b, Geotechnical update of seismic design criteria for Robertson Ranch, East
Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5353-B-SC, dated
March 17.
2007a, Compaction report of geotechnicál observation-and testing services, 847inch
storm drain improvements for Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch East Village,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 5355-D-SC, dated August 16.
2007b, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch, East Village
Development, Carlsbad Tract 02-16, Drawing 433-6, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W0. 5353-A-SC, dated January 15.
2006a, Supplemental recommendations regarding pier supported bridge
abutments, Robertson Ranch East Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 30.
GeoSoH Inc.
2006b, Memorandum: update of the geotechnical report with respect to site
grading and the current grading plan, Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad,
W-O: 3098-A2-SC, dated November 15.
2006c, Memorandum: discussion of earthwork recommendations in the vicinity
of a planned 84-inch storm drain, Cannon Road, Stations 127 to 136 +32 ,
Improvements for Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, California,
W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated July 28.
2006d, Supplement to the update geotechnical evaluation regarding the distribution
of wick drains, Robertson Ranch East, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W:O. 3098-A-SC, dated June 19.
2006e, Report of rough grading, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon
Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), Carlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390-9A,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-132-SC, dated January 27-
2004, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20.
2002, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-Al-SC, dated January 29.
2001a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, Robertson Ranch
Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31.
,2001 b, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and
CannOn Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California,
W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24.
Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois.
O'Day Consultants, 2008, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch PA 16, 17, 18, Sheets 1,0
and 13, Job no. 01-1014, Carlsbad Tract C.T. 004-26, Drawing no.453-8A, dated
August-
Project Design Consultants, 2008, Survey Of as-built toe drains, Robertson Ranch, Job
No. 3481.
Romanoff, M., 1989, Underground corrosion, National Bureau of Standards Circular 579,
Published by National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas,
originally issued April 1, 1957.
State of California, Department of Transportation, 2006, Highway design manual of
instructions, sixth edition, September printing.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc- Appendix File: eAwp9\5300\5353 b l .ror.pal6 Page 2
GeSoils, Inc.
LEGEND
0-047 17 At I .. 00J
ot m,
!EEE...
-
ITL_ Ai '1 -- —
.-----
/' J 6 Awl -/ MN Ot '
6 J ' T •-' I RjY..— -
- I
j-/2N' ,,,, XRO ' ,5\X047
\0 _O x \At
'°°
__- / ,t .---
5 / / , / '•,2 - - -- ,,
E IA € - -'-.-- : "• 'o
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PAlO psi. ig 2
FRCArMrHf CONTROL SOP A5L( 5ff SHEET No. ij mm GOALS p-la
1TYOFCARlSBAD1I
AST CHMA ZtRrsav RANCH
jJ = RNOM 47 IiI C7l. QlT11
XME\:
x-,
-NOTA PART l-/--w_'.- •'-----I-----I '1- - - - .-- - .-- - 1/7 7'• * I •- .- -.- - - --- -A
/ 7' / / I' - -_. -A '-l-A_• •A_- - .- A
I' /
- -- - I / - - _•A i-A
------
••X A -W
A At -W -A
-TT74.'-7 NOTAPART
- --r A \- 4
/ A
'f,
t NOT A PARf
- -
-
ALL LOCAIGEG ME .WAOOAXTh
] 'AS BUILT* MA
------------
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PAlO PEt*22
W.O AGE-El-GE DAlE CAGE WALE r-c
CIV
lL_;GIETSON RANCH
PAALAZ.&I8
1 •.