Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 06-25; ROBERTSON RANCH PA 21; COMPACTION REPORTS; 2012-09-13&rocc . 12-9 yrz,C0 '7 Geotechnical' Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com September 13, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 11 (Lots 19 Through 24) of Planning Area 21 ("Sago at the Foothills"), Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East Village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-131-SC, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 11 (Lots 19 Through 24) of Planning Area 21 (Sago at the Foothills), at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been reconditioned in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Report(s)." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) . MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) F - gray Brown, Gravelly SAND 134.0 8.0 X - Dark Brown Silty SAND 131.5 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate at least optimum soil moisture content (see attached field testing reports). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass priorto slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low to low expansive. However, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots, all of the subject lots are assigned to foundation Category Ill. If new building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report/revised foundation recommendations, may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site Brookfield Homes W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch September 13, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.phll.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 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 GS 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 pràjeôt. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully sub mittA (N\ G. I °t GeoSoils ' Inc CL 19 . f J Robert Crisma Engineering Geologist, 1340 ndrewT.( Geotechnic RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Repcirts" Distribution: (3) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch September 13, 2012 FiIe:e:wp12\63OO\6332b,ph11.cro 0S0-1s, Inc. Page 3 W.O.#6332-B-SC DATE: 07/31/12 NAME:TODD HOURS: 2 LOCATIONCARLSBAD FIELD TESTING REPORT EN1ERED MiGH 2q12 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA21 SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1- BLADE 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 59 LOT19 85+- 11.0% 126.8 94.6% NO F 60 LOT 20 85+- 10.2% 125.3 93.5% NO F 61 LOT 23 85+- 10.5% 126.8 94.6% NO F 62 LOT 24 85+- 1 10.1% 123.8 92.4% NO F 63FG LOT24 FG 8.5% 124.1 92.6% NO F 64FG LOT 23 FG 9.9% 123.9 92.5% NO F 65FG LOT 20 FG 10.4% 125.1 93.4% ND F 66FG LOT 1.9 FG 10.8% 122.6 91.5% NO F uiviivii' I PERFORMED TESTING WHERE NOTED. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. SOIL WAS PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. Building pads were cross ripped and processed to a depth o 8.to 12 inches, moisture conditioned to above the soils optimum moisture content and recompacted. PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision oi lirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. The contractor should be informed, that neither the presence f our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. DATE NAME&C1?/X-:_/tiL/L-,-7 HOURS CLIENT TRACT /(A LOCATION 24 SUPT.______________________ CONTRACTOR - EQUIPMENT TEST NO. LOCATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. %. RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 7r_LI F j / 11/0 /,0 1VJ2 X :-(; • COMMENTS: JT _•• _ •1I / _'"-: _!/T' r ? ( F / rL-'-i rj',- Lç j I t / • T7' _4 / __fr7Fj;/- 1 rrw crT? GeoSolls, Inc. / BY / . •. - .-- -2' • PAGE __________ / OF J This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Gcuuj JiH. Geotechnical. Geologic ' Coastal e Environméñtal 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com July 18, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Phase 7 (Lots 77 Through 80), Phase 8 (Lots 41 Through 44), Phase 9 (Lots 81 through 84), and Phase 10 (Lots 37 Through 40) of Planning Area 21 ("Sago at the Foothills"), Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East Village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-81-SC, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Phase 7 (Lots 77 Through 80), Phase 8 (Lots 41 Through 44), Phase 9 (Lots 81 through 84), and Phase 10 (Lots 37 Through 40) of Planning Area 21 (Sago at the Foothills), at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appearto have been reconditioned in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testi Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Report(s)." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 X - Dark Brown Silty SAND 131.5 9.0 Y - Brown Clayey SAND 119.0 14.5 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate at least optimum soil moisture content (see attached field testing reports). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low to low expansive. However, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots, all of the subject lots are assigned to foundation Category Ill. If new building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report/revised foundation recommendations, may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Brookfield Homes eo 0-S,flC. W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch July 18, 2012 File: e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.ph7_1O.cro Page 2 Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSl is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully subrn GeoSofis, lnc.( )Engineering A Q'I4O.1340 & (J Certified L gineeriflg Tj.( otogiM ohn P. Franklin Geologi , 340 RCGIATGIJPFIjh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (3) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. July 18, 2012 Fiie:e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.ph7_1O.cro Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT N1ER DATE__________ NAME z4 c HOURS CLIENT ______________________—TRACT _/3 Z I LOCATION_(II) SUPT._(E CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT C'Y- OR 11 DEPTH ONTENT % DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION --aniffiffimr— -w a ON I ry 1- WM- M - __ COMMENTS: This This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT gER0 utj W.O. SCI (a 1111 1 21 DATE _______________ NAME_______________ HOURS _______________ CLIENT -TRACT, LOCATION SUPT...... CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ELEV7 OR MOISTURE --I CONTENT DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE El 6 0 1 ME I M W ON Worg L ME JIM LW At [VOW NOT, COMMENTS: PAGE _______ OF / This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. IR FIELD TESTING REPORT DATE /c3/i2 fE iUN O 11 LW W. 0. (JV7 NAME________ HOURS CLIENT ____________________-TRACT _12921 LOCATION_Ci3O SUPT EQUII ELEV. DEPTH MOISTURE % DRY P.C.F. % COMPACTION LZ gaw =~W=/1WA11)WWJ1 MAIN= COMMENTS: BY: f'bt/" F PAGE Z OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT . F o am - HOURS '- CLIENT —TRACT JIEZ I LOCATION_ci&yD SUPT. 6 * CONTRACTOR 6P(- t_4icr EQUIPMENT Occo "~4-vft C--' AiNA ? 0 ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT i~ % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION ROW 0M --- 0 0 0 W MCA 00 ON, M ORMEW ,"PAM - -.-.-u mm COMMENTS: PAGE OF This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. ATc jYc NAME_____________ ER0 HOURS - CLIENT _______________________TRACT (P0 2 LOCATION zt6D SUPT._______________________ CONTRACTOR (t wcz~r EQUIPMENT (.\) 'E4 Ui cy=:~ ON - ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. RELATIVE COMPACTION Eli mom WE "001 MOM 217, mWoffl, L "iMi N W - lln~ SNAW-ATO 01OWLWO 102 ff a in, Lot I "m RA --wargap'll MA-MrAwn "vin-'r-07am" '90"'m ISM - COMMENTS: / BY: PAGE ___________ OF ________ This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. L FIELD TESTING REPORT o ' 6332-B-SC SUL DATE: 015/21112 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA21 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE I LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 43 LOT 43 73.0 10.3% 118.5 90.1% ND x 44 LOT 42 75.0 10.1% 119.3 90.7% ND x 45 LOT39 74.0 14.5% 108.4 91.1% ND v 46 LOT38 74.5 14.9% 107.9 90.7% ND y COMMENTS ON SITE AT CLIENTS REQUEST TO OBSERVE AND TEST EARTHWORK RELATED TO LOT RECERTIFICATION. TESTING APPLIES TO THE NORTH HALF OF OF LOT FOURSOME. CONTRACTOR HAS NOT COMPLETED WOURK ON THE SOUTH SIDE. Building pads were scarified to a depth of 8-12 inches moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6332-B-SC DATE:06/21/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA21 LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER TRUCK LOT RECERTIFICATION - is1K! MOISTURE FOR REFERENCE ONLY COMMENTS: N SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO OBSERVE SITE GRADING. CONTRACTOR EMOVED APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHESOF SOIL FROM THE BACK HALF OF LOTS /43. THE LOWER 6 INCHES WAS SCARIFIED AND MOISTURE CONDITIONED. GeoSoils, Inc. BY: PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT ov kS1 W.O.# 6332-B-SC DATE:06/27/12 NAME: TODD HOURS:2 CLIE141 BROOKFIELD TRACT PA2I LOCATIONCARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENJT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 47 LOT 37 72.5 11.5% 118.5 90.1% ND X 48 LOT 40 73.5 12.7% 119.3 90.7% ND x 49 .LOT 41 75.0 13.2% 118.8 90.3% ND X 50 LOT 44 75.0 12.0% 118.5 90.1% ND x COMMENTS: ON SITE AT CLIENT'S REQUEST TO OBSERVE EARTHWORK AND TEST SOIL RELATED TO LOT RECERTIFICATION ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED LOTS. ONCE EARTH WORK WAS COMPLETED THE BOTTOM WAS SCARIFIED AND MOISTURE CONDITIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LINES, GRADES, AND-ELEVATION CONTROL WERE SET BY OTHERS. Building pads were scarified to a depth of 8-12 inches moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction BY: GeoSoils, Inc. PAGE: 1 OF 1 This field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision o direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O.# 6332-13-SC cl DATE:06/28/12 FRED Bil HOURS: TODD CLIENT BROOKFIELD TRACT PA2I LOCATION CARLSBAD SUPER GREG CONTRACTOR CAL-WEST EQUIP. 1-SKIP LOADER, 1-WATER HOSE LOT RECERTIFICATION TEST NO. LOCATION EL. Or DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT% DRY DENSITY % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 51 FG LOT43 FG 14.0% 116.5 92.5% ND E 52FG LOT 42 FG 13.9% 115.2 91.4% ND E 53FG LOT 39 FG 11.6% 121.1 92.1% ND x 54FG LOT 38 FG 14.0% 114.7 91.0% ND E 55FG LOT 37 FG 13.8% 113.8 90.3% ND E 56FG LOT 40 FG 11.5% 118.4 90.0% ND x 57FG LOT 41 FG 11.8% 118.6 90.2% ND X 58FG LOT 44 FG 11.5% 118.8 90.3% ND x COMMENTS: PERFORMEED FINISH GRADE TESTING WHERE NOTED. TEST RESULTS MEET OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ONCE REMEDIAL GRADING WAS COMPLETED, THE BOTTOM WAS SCARIFIED AND MOISTURE CONDITIONED PER OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LINE AND GRADE FOR EARTHWORK WAS SET BY OTHERS. Building pads were scarified to a depth of 8-12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction BY: GeoSoi/.s, Inc. -PAGE: 1 OF 1 Ihis field report presents a summary of observation and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision 01 Jirection of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The contractor should be informed that neither the presence )f our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in anyway for defects discovered in his work. is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Gcu,uU.,1112C. 107 Geotechnical• Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinccom June 15, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 31 Through 36 (Phase 4) of Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pie-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East Village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-81-SC, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 31 through 36 (Phase 4) of Planning Area 21, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Report(s)." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: - I SOIL TYPE 1'..DENSITY.(PCF).(PERCENT) MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 1E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND I 126.0 I 11.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate at least optimum soil moisture content (see attached field testing reports). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass priorto slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low to low expansive. However, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots, Lots 35 and 36 are assigned to foundation Category I, Lots 31 and 32 are assigned to foundation Category II, and Lots 33 and 34 are assigned to foundation Category Ill. If new building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report/revised foundation recommendations, may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is Brookfield Homes GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch June 15, 2012 File: e:\wpl 2\6300\6332b.ph4.cro Page 2 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 onsitC, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an. agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should haveany questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully # No. GE2320 '- GeoSoils, Inc. * \ Exp._9/ * Robert G. Ci Engineering RCG/ATG/JPF/jh No. 1934. Certified Engineering (5 Geologist •. qi2_ GO4*i ATñdreW T. Guatelli Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (3) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes . W. 0. 63327B-SC Ge PA-21, Robertson Ranch OSO1', Inc. June 15, 2012 File:e:\wp12\6300\6332b.ph4.cro . , Page 3 PAGE 111 FIELD TESTING REPORT .._______ DATE (f / NAME 2iY) ( HOURS 7— CLIENT _TRACT_Z( LOCATION_(!/ SUPT.__ CONTRACTOR (AL UJ __________________________ EQUIPMENT 0fo TEST NO. LOATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE \Z2'° A c:?c'p -) o ji ((\Jf ( Cj Ji (()il)tL COMMENTS: ii1 1G r1O LOTS This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. FIELD TESTING REPORT w.o. (32-rC DATE NAME C HOURS CLIENT TRACT_Q 2 LOCATION______________ SUPT (•t_I CONTRACTOR LriL I A- I EQUIPMENT () Wo TEST NO. \'K(J)( LOkTION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT >k>_%-. DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE 12 V ( A-1;/ 01 p J COMMENTS: PAGE ___________ OF / This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. -.- FIELD CLIENT ' SUPT. EQUIPMENT Q TESTING REPORT W.O. 63243C DATE NAME IiAi) C HOURS ' _____TRACT___________ LOCATION _(LSBe'ö CONTRACTOR (JA (AJT ?o <ic- TEST NO. X XdATION ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE /2- iii" I 93 4) f-/2 C7 ?__& //,y Ji _3 p v ..• ( ___ tc- (1_ 0 rn COMMENTS: '&Ô1E 160Z p -cENQ i flC3 R) CBv cOflr\ rcLAE Cc-r C) NfT1LI BY: PAGE 1 OFf This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel only where the tests were performed. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. C1O(195 G4J$S&C* Geotechnical. Geologic. Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com April 3, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 45 Through 48, and 73 Through 76 (Phase-4) of Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 'Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-B1-Sc, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 45 through 48, and 73 through 76 (Phase-3) of Planning Area 21, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial, grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testi Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Report(s).." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE DENSITY (PC . WERCENT). E - Dark Brown, Silty SAND 126.0 11.0 X - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND 131.5 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, priorto placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low to low expansive. However, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots, Lots 48, 73, 74, and 75 are assigned to foundation Category II, and Lots 45, 46,47 and 76 are assigned to foundation Category Ill. If new building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site Brookfield Homes W.O. 6332-B-Sc GeoSoils, Inc. PA-21, Robertson Ranch April 3, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.ph3.cro Page 2 conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineeringanalyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. 01 i934 Certified I \. ngin9eriflg / Geo Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" aikr}orew i. uumeiii Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Respectfully s GeoSoils, I Distribution: (3) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes PA-21, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6332-B-SC April 3, 2012 FiIe:e:\wp12\6300\6332b.ph3.cro Page 3 C1O(,.2S co Geotechnical . Geologic . Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com March 12, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 49 Through 52, and 69 Through 72 (Phase 2) of Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East Village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-131-SC, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 49 through 52, and.69 through 72 (Phase 2) of Planning Area 21, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copies of our "Field Testing Report(s)." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE DENSITY (PCF) (PERCENT) JFX - Gray Brown, Clayey SAND I 131.5 I 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSI's reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., three to seven days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are very low to low expansive, and Lots 51, 52, and 69 through 71 are categorized as foundation Category I. However, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots, Lots 49 and 72 are assigned Category II, and Lot 50 is assigned to foundation Category Ill. If new building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Plan Review Final project plans (foundation, retaining wall, landscape, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical evaluations may be warranted. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is Brookfield Homes o$oj1s, Inc. W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Robertson Ranch March 12, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.ph2.cro Page 2 based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully su GeoSoils, I am Robert G. Cri Engineering G OAL Cr c4 - ¶ècD No. 1934 I-' Cortifij I Engineering / \GeoIogist/.,. 934 gSoFESSI %T.Guat Ili Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Reports" Distribution: (3) Addressee (via mail and email) Brookfield Homes o$oj1s, Inc. W.O. 6332BSC PA-21, Robertson Ranch March 12, 2012 File:e:\wpl2\6300\6332b.ph2.cro Page 3 FIELD TESTING REPORT F, DjR1 3 32 EWER NAME HOURS___________ CLIENT OI ° TRACT P—lq 2 ( LOCATION SUPT.______________________ CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT L! I Eml ELEV. OR DEPTH --- - -- ~m MOISTURE CONTENT % z RELATIVE COMPACTION 11w—__rriieiumu NMI IMP L mw rt, ro, ~Tx mq I ., MM IF R r-. I W.WI A, rM =Wro ~-jwvrrwriim owbarff-MmMIN COMMENTS: I1Atc1 - _.1 E:/wp/forms/tieldtst.wpd "C ( 7 44' OF! PAGE FIELD TLSTIN.G REPORT w.O. DATE ?iJIZ. 117 NAME HOURS r .i I i". / I ..\.•:.. CLIENT . 'J —TRACT—, & I LOCATION i••. SUPT CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT h '1L ' / . j V TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION LJL - I . j,. j.-., \.\C3 V 71 B 4/ _____ / c.. /" \. • f"k ' .fl -' <.. t I') ••,,)4 / IL , I,,______________ _______ ________ C" - ..•- ,1'". '"- '.. I'.,. _______ - ___J _ _____________ '__ j 44 I.. j • ." ç....T'' I .) ......' -- , •' ' ,•• ' .• .••'•i (' ..- 4 COMMENTS / • 4 4 4 ( I I AJ j. I I This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosbils, Inc. personnel. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. erO(,.-f7 Geotechnical Geologic Coastal Environmental 5741. Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760)438-3155 FAX (760)931-0915. www.geosoilsinc.com January 16, 2012 W.O. 6332-B-SC Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Ms. Teri McHugh and Mr. Greg McDonnell Subject: Compaction Report of Building Pad Re-Certification, Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch Development, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Geotechnical Update for Planning Area 21, Robertson Ranch, East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5981-B-SC, dated May 25, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Discussion of Building Slab Subgrade Pre-Wetting, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, City of Carlsbad, California," W.O. 5949-C-SC, dated January 21, 2010, by GeoSoils, Inc. "Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, East Village Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 5953-B1-SC, dated November 24, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. McHugh and Mr. McDonnell: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this summary of our observation and testing services during mitigative grading within Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Planning Area 21, at Robertson Ranch, East Village Subdivision in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of remedial grading was to reprocess the subject lots in accordance with recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Earthwork consisted of re-processing surficial soils to a depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557 (see Reference No. 2). Based on our observations and testing, the building pads appear to have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided by this office (see Reference No. 2 and No. 3), and are considered suitable for their intended use. Field Observation and Testing Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D 2922 and D 3017. The test results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached copy of our "Field Testing Report." The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: NTENT DENSI1 (PCF), ERCENT IX- Gray Brown, Clayey SAND I 131.5 I 9.0 Field compaction testing indicates that the soils appear to meet the minimum compaction requirements previously established and adopted by the City of Carlsbad (i.e., at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557), and recent tests indicate over optimum soil moisture content, per GSl's reports (References 1 and 2). Should a significant (i.e., 3 to 7 days) period of time pass prior to slab construction, additional moisture conditioning and/or re-establishing consistency, as well as pad subgrade proof testing may be necessary, prior to placement of the underslab vapor retarder (see Reference No. 1 and No. 2). Foundation Design/Construction Unless specifically superceded herein, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Reference No. 1, and Reference No. 3, are generally considered valid and applicable with respect to the construction and development of the subject building pads. Based on our review of Reference No. 3, the subject lots are low expansive, and categorized as foundation Category Ill, due to maximum fill depths beneath the lots. If building code updates are adopted prior to the development of these pads, an additional geotechnical update report may be necessary. Closure The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of prabtice 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 Brookfield Homes W.O. 6332-B-SC PA-21, Lots 13 to 18, Robertson Ranch January 16, 2012 FiIe:e:\wp12\6300\6332b.ph1.cro Page 2 GeoSofls, Inc. controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully syub i cp NO 5i ~51- ~rc 0. c"i ~~O—\ GeoSofls, In Robert G. Cris RZ Engineering Geoloist,Jiei 934 RCG/ATG/JPF/jh Attachment: "Field Testing Report" Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (.ieotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Brookfield Homes PA-21, Lots 13 to 18, Robertson Ranch File:e:wp1263OO6332b.ph1.cro W.O. 6332-B-SC January 16, 2012 Page 3 FIELD TEST !NG REPORT W.O. (033z- DATE' i/ia IlL NAME I C HOURS _____________ CLIENT -TRACT 21 LOCATION_____________________ SUPT._ CONTRACTOR j772-jo, EQUIPMENT (I ') -VG Od( F•iv'SH TEST NO.N 4MAg%O ELEV. OR DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY DENSITY P.C.F. % RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST TYPE SOIL TYPE zj Lor /3 / F. i. . • I ____ /'20'Z q0 • -x e- 171,11 cz I - / / JD-l (/ lZ2- I • ____ '7 - ____ //qY 9' : • X __ U ui • c/. I2/-- C/7i/ ___ X )AIS/T __ EU37 7D' a EfiV /7r 7Zif icV___ 2O' 1-1% i (Dii i-1J Lu/ht ?O (u -p , (OI-'flj'17O1J m(oz• )A-f' ) (MO COMMENTS: GeoSo1f, IAc /1 BY: PAGE • I OF E:/wp/lorrns/fueldtst.wpd