Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 81-36; PATIO HILLS CONDOMINIUMS; SLOPE FAILURE EVALUATION AND REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS; 1986-10-08,. --. Cr?I-':5tp GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION,~ SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING . GROUNDWATER • GEOPHYSICS • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 08 October 19tr E? I ~ Mr. Vito Gerardo 6992 EI Camino Real, Suite 104-260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Job No. 86'-4757 Subject: Slope Failure Evaluation and Repair Recommendations Patio Hills Condominiums . 2770 Vista Del Oro Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Gerardo: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed a visual inspection of the subject slope failure together with limited excavations and laboratory testing. From this information we have prepared recommendations regarding repairs of the slope face. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of the inspections, excavations, and laboratory tes~lng was to assess slope soil conditions and existing slope failure g~ometry to develop repair recommendations for the damaged portion .of the slope on the subject site. It must be noted that this report is an evaluation of slope conditions for the purpose of repairing the slope. face in the currently damaged area, and is not to be construed as a complete son investigation or geologic report for the entire slope or site. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is bordered along the south side by Alg,'!, Road, on the north side by Unicornio Street, on the east by another condominium' development, and on the west by single-family detached homes along Corintia Street, in Carlsbacf, Califor·nia. The majority of the site is near level, with combination cut and fill slopes along the southern and western 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549-7222 Patio Hills Condomi&s 08 October 1986 , -....' Joh No. 86.;.4757 Page 2 edges of the property. The southern slope is bounded by Alga Road and the western slope is bounded hy single-family detached homes which front Corintia Street. It was a portion of. this latter slope which failed. This western slope is up to 34 feet high with a 1.3: 1 to 1.6: 1 slope ratio, and has a terrace at approximately mid-height, consisting of a 3-foot-wide concrete slope drainage swale and a 2-foot-wide, relatively tlatarea on· the western side of the swale, together making a 5-foot-wide terrace. The slope is covered by a number of short, apprlrently shallow rooting plants, the majority of which appear to be a type of clover. DESCRIPTION OF SHALLOW FAILURE The observed slope failure consists of a shallow, circular slide with it well-developed scarp above and "hummocky" toe solis at the base.. The. entire failure is in the upper portion of the western slope and, based On' the presence of several minor scarps above the main scarp and its general appearance, it seems that the failure extends to the top of the slope. The failure slump does not appear to have damaged the ·concrete swale midway up the slope but some of the toe soils have filled and effectively, blocked the swale (see Figure Nos. I and Ila). Based on our borings, it seems that the average depth to the slide plane is approximately 3.5 feet from previous slope surface. SLOPE HISTORY AND FAILURE MECHANISMS Based on our conversations with Mr. Artie Gila<;f (the homeowner's association president) and Mr. Vito Girardo (developer), inspection of the site, and review of original construction documents for the subject site obtained by our firm, the following is understood: Patio Hills CondomirA1s 08 October 1986 • " . Job No. 86-4757 P;tge 3 1. The subject slope was irrigated one hour every day for approxi- m~tely 1.5 months before the failure took place. A sprinkler is located above the failure area and it appears that It may he leaking at the sprinkler base. The irrigation of the slope has been discontinued for the time being. 2. The subject development was originally graded on 1972. The site was then allowed to remain a vacant graded lot for approximately 11. years until 1983 when final site grading was completed. The fina'i . grading was very minor; most of the grading for the development of the subject site took place in 1972.· Also, it appears that the deepest total fill soils were placed at the southwest corner of the property and appear to be no more than 7 feet deep. This would suggest that the portion of the slope below the con~rete swale, and the lower two-thirds of the upper portion of the subject slope, would have been cut during grading operations, with the remaining upper one-third of the upper portion of the slope. censisting of compacted fill soils. 3. Shallow excavations by our Staff Geologist revealed formational material at varying depths (approximately 3 feet from the surface) in the lower three-fourths of the western slope, with minor amounts of what appeared to be fill soils overlying the formational materials. Dense, moderately cemented formational sandston~s were also encountered at the base of all three hand auger borings and outcropped along the southwest slope adjacent to the cement drainage swale (see cross section A-AI, Figure No. I laJ. It appears that an uneven section of fill soils was placed on top of the cut formational material, possibly to fill in ruts and uneven areas that had developed in the slope over the 11-year period in which the gradect lot was vacant. The fill materials appear to have a greater permeability than the underlying formational materials; therefore, the heavy irrigation appears to have saturated the shallow fill soils, activating the subject failure. Patio Hills Condomln.,s 08 October 1986 ., RECOMMENDA TIONS " Joh No .• 86-4757 Page 4 Based on our findings, conclusions, all information obtained during our investigation, and our past 'experience, we offer the following recommendations for repair of the subject slope failure and prec~utions to be taken to help prevent future similar failures. A. Repair and Stabilization of Existing Slope Failure 1. Alternative No.1: A series of short retaining walls shall be installed within the subject slope failure. The proposed wooden retaining walls may be replaced by properly designed concrete walls which, in general, have a longer life. 1.1 It is recommended that 4" x 6" posts of pressure-treated, Douglas Fir-larch, select structural, with allowable maximum fiber stress of 1,850 p.s.i., be used and set 24 inches center to center, embedded at ler.tst 5 feet into the pr?perly compacted soil or dense undisturbed formation. The posts s~all he placed in drilled holes at least 8 inches in diameter and the void between soil and post shall be backfilled with concrete. These posts may be used for up to 4-feet-high walls. For2-feet-high walls, the posts need to he embedded only 3 feet into properly compacted fill or undisturbed dense formation. 1.2 The retaining portion shall consist of 2" x 12" pressure- treated, redwood planks, s~lect structural, with allowable fiber stress of 1,700 p.s.i. The planks shall be nailed to the posts on the uphill side. The butt splices of the planks shall be staggered so that at least three of the planks are continuous at each post. 1.3 The placement and height above the slope of the proposed walls shall be as per Figure No. lib. Properly compacted backfill soils shall be placed at the assigned slope ratios. The Patio Hills Condominiums 08 October 1986 Job No. 86-4757 -PClge-5 backfill soils shall be compacted to at least 90 p~rcent of the laboratory maximum dry density of the solis. The laboratory maximum dry density shall be obtained in accordance with A.S.T.M.0-1557. 1.4 The excavation borings for the lower wall shall be advanced only after a linear area of at lec:~st 2 feet on either side of .the - row of borings has been cleared of loose fill and slumped $oifs until competent formational soils are exposed. 1.5 It is suggested that one wall be built at a time beginning with the lowermost wall. After the installation of each wall, all loose fill soils from the back of that wall to an extent of 2 feet to the rear of the next proposed wall be removed to competent formation and properly replaced, benched; and compacted as backfill for the just-built wall. We expect "the encountered loose soils to be approximately 3.5 feet thick. the soils in the drainage swale shall be completely cleaned out by the completion of the wall installations. 1.6 It shall be the repair contractor's r"esponsibility" to properly . " transport the subject soil to complete the aforementioned repair.. Embedment depth of posts, proper compaction of backfill soils, and the suitability of any imported fill soils shall be approved by a representative of this office. 2. Alternative No.2: Existing loose soils in the failed area may be removed down to competent formation or properly compacted soils, mixed with soil cement, moisture conditioned, placed and properly compacted to the approximate previous slope surf~ce. Patto .,ii'lls Condominiums 08 October 1986 " Joh No. 86-4757 Page 6 If this solution is chosen, the cement portion shall be 6 percent of the compacted dry weight of the soil-cement mixture. The cement shall be properly mixed with the soil, maisture conqitioned to approximately the optimum moisture content of the soil-cement, and then placed and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum relative compaction. A thin layer of 6 to 8 inches of organic soils may be left on the slope surface for planting purposes. The plants will be for aesthetic purposes only. This solution might be more economical than the retaining wall solution. B. Future Slope Stability Considerations It appears, based on site conditions, that similar slope fr-ilures may occur in the future in other portions of the slopes. To reduce this possibility, we recommend the following: 3. An evaluation should be made by a qualified landscape architect or landscape repair contractor as to the use of slope stabilizing (deep rooted) plants to be placed on all slopes on the property over 5' fe~t in height. Also, irrigation intervals and amounts along with proper' application of irrigation waters shall be assigned by the ',landscape architect, but in any case, irrigation shall be kept to the minimum. 4. If the current sprinkler system is to remain, a thorough testing for possible leaks should be performed by a qualified individual. 5. Any future localized surficial slope fai·lures ohserved shall be immediately corrected under the ohservations and testin,g of a .soils ' engineering firm. Patfo Hills Condominiums 08 Octo.ber 1986 GRADING NOTES Jo.h No. 86-4757 . Page 7 Any required grading o.perations shall be 'perfo.rmed in acco.rdance with the general requirements of the Co.unty of San Diego Grading. Ordinance, under the supervisio.n o.f o.ur firm. It "is the resPo.nsibility of the o.wner o.r their representative to ensure that the reco.mmendations summarized in this repo.rt are carried out .in the field, o.perations. This firm do.es not practice or consult in the field of sRfety engineering. We do. no.t direct the contractor's o.peratio.ns, and we cannot he responsible fo.r the safety of personnel other than our own on the. site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contraCtor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to. be unsafe~ LIMITATIONS Our conclusio.ns and recommendatio.ns have been based o.n all available data o.btained fro.m our field investigation, as well as our experience with the soils and fo.rmational materials located in Carlsbad. It is' therefore necessary that all observatio.ns, co.nclusio.ns, and reco.mmendi:Jti,ons be verified at the time regrading o.peratio.ns begin. In the event discrepancies are no.ted, additional reco.mmendatio.ns may be .. issued, if required. The wo.rk performed and recommendatio.ns presented herein ar.e th~ result of an investigatio.n and analysis which meets the co.ntempQr'ary standard o.f care in o.ur pro.fessio.n. No other warranty is expressed or implied. . . This repo.rt sho.uld be co.nsidered valid for a period o.f two. (2) years',and, is subject to. review by our firm follo.wing that time. Patio Hi"lIs Condominiums 08 October 1986 " Jon No. 86-4757 Page 8 The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the our office. Reference to our Job No. 86-11757 will help to expedite a reply. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Michael Gibbs, Staff Geologist for-Leslie O. Reed, President Jaime A. Cerros, R.C.E. 25241 MG/LORI JACllj/40 ---~ ~ .. t·\ ~" ., \ '\/ \ Lawn .. 11'· 1.4: l' HI." ~. SCALE: 1 "=2q·, •• F •• E .. CE: THI'.PLOT PLA .. WAS " •• PAItEO '.OM O"-I"T. PIEL •• ECO ....... ·.ANCE ...... FO.·.·EO·.~ 8EI 17' High , 1'.1: 1 Q C o It .C C ... c • CJ J( J( ....... ...-'. A A' t t • LEG·END ·EXIITING STItUCTUItE CONCRETE HUMMOCKY SURFACE STEEL FENCE 'SLOCK WALL . . ~I.IOS.S IECTI'OM , APPROXIMATE L~~AT~O~ OF DAYI:~C!itT. LINE MINOR SCA·ItP j .. SCAR; AND 'HEIGTH 't"t / Fill 4:.~Cut SLOPE' WITH RATIO AND HEIGT" $. .;XPLORATO.V AUGER BORING .~1 . . e SPRINKLER NOTE: Thk Plot ,.., II _ to ... UMd for .... pt.II'pOIMM. LocaIIoIIlIIi'Id ............ ......, ....... ActuIII ~1I1Ii'Id1oclllol1l of utIIIIiea fMY. be. hilt the Approved BuIIdInt ~ or the· ........ GddIng. ~ .. 'Ui!f!!:~Y .. ~. ......... "'.2~ -.~ -~ N'OT TO SCALE PLOT PLAN: PATIO HI.LLS CONDOMINIUMS 2770 VISTA DEL ORO CARLSB.AD, CA. FIGURE NUM8ER I JOB NUMBER 81-4757 ~~o w A W:Esr .. • CROSS SECTION A-A' Hu .... oCk' .. I lurf.c. 110,. D.ra ••••• 1 •• '. Form.tlon . SCALE:, 1·~'· •• Form.tlo. 'W Iron F.nc. A' EAST LEGEND .• -1 I HANO AUGER BORING -4--' x X X . FAILUIIE ZONE (QUERRIED WHEIIE SUSPECTED) A~PROXIMATE PRE~FAILURE TOPOGRAPHY A P P R OX I MAT E FORMATION-FILL CONTACT (QUERRIED WHEH SUSPECTE LOOSE SOILI PATIO HILLI CONDOMINIUMS 2770 VIS.TA DE'L ~RQ CARLSBAD, CA. FIGURE·NUMBER.fI. JOB NUMBER"I-~757 ~ 'I , ~ . • • SCHEMATIC A W:EST • • • f PROPOSED REP·AIR ··(CROSS SECTION A-A'') Slop. Drainag. Swal. ALTERNATIVE I ('2"x 1 2 -) Concr.t • • · •. ck fl',I.d .-·Hol •• 3: 1 Formation SCALE: 1·;5' Iron F.nc. A' .,.'~F\~~~ltli~w~~~~lj~~i EAST • ",t.;::'\ ., .... "fl. ... ;, ..• ; ...•. ;~.: :,'; ..... ~ .....•..... ~ .......... , .~., ':"';', /x/\'~~;,~:;,:,. .. ,>.'·~/i:!.:r:'.i$}~~( ~ "t.'~' ',' 'Ii •. r. ..... : .~ ..•.•••. :.' '1(-•••.•.••••••••• "~", ", ... ;, .~~.,. ,.,. J)}\t'f~;!?!f<~};{~'i~/::~Ut'H,!;i;:"~:1tt\'~~ .' '.,.: ,', .t., ,/I?:.,,,'(;t'~. ~·l ,,;;;:;0.:.:' "'·'·$:·:·iii(~' !·fl;Ji.I"·>-'~'::; ~ '''r' ".;' ,c:.' ,~"""lj,,'; 'if"~ ~";:"~'·:~;:~~"?·i:f::' !~;:;?{,fi!; Ii Formation ~ X X X ~ LEGEND PROPOSED RETAINING WALL APPROXIMATE PRE-FAILURE .TOPOGRAPHY APPROXIM,AT.E . FOR"ATION,-F-IL.L CONTACT (QUERR"lEtJ· WH~·1tE SU·$PE.CTE .COMPACTEO BACK-FUL SOILS PATtO HILLS ·CONDOMINI·UMS 27:70' VISTA DEL O.RO· CARLSBAD. CA. FIGURE NUMBE.'t.llb JOB NUMBER '86'-4" 5 7 ~~ . t ~,}.: __ <2--r FI-3 fp f~ .lJ-l,37 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • GEOPHYSICS • ENGINEERING GEOLoGy 15 October 1986 CT 0(-5'=' o Job No. 86-11757 Mr. Vito Gerardo 6992 EI Camino Real, Suite 104-260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 'I Subject: Addendum I to Limited Slope Failure Evaluation and Repair Recommendations Patio Hills Condominiums 2770 Vista-Del Oro Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Gerardo: I first visited the subject site for the purpose of inspecting a small failure in the western slope of the condominium development on Septemher n, 1986. I again visited the site with Michael Gibhs, a staff geologist with our firm, on the morning of September 29, 1986. When I inspected the slope failure during this second visit it appeared that the slump had slipped farther, possibly due to rains received between my first and second visit. During the second visit our staff geologJst remained on the site (after my departure) to conduct a limited slope failure evaluation. As stated in our original report we believe that the subject slope f~i1ure was, the result of over-irrigation of the slope. Also, in regard to your inquiry concerning the life expectancy of the recommended wooden retaining wall, found In our initial report, we understand that proper pressure treatment of wood significantly extends its useful life significantly. Please refer to the manufacturer or distributor of this type of product to inquire Into their statement of actual life expectancy of these products. We have also however, -prov.ided aqditional design criteria for the use of conventional concrete retaining walls. Design sketches are attached • 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549-7222 2 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. ,Should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 86-4151 will help to expedite a reply. Respectfully submitted, CEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION. INC. LesteD:ReedI Presfdent Jaime A. Cerros, LORI JAC IIj/43 , . PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS ~ 1 Cone. Blk. 4' MATERIALS I Concrete Fe-2000 p ••• I • . M •• onry Fm -1500 p ••• I. Mortar (TYPES)-1100 .p ••• I. Fy steel-40000 , ••• 1. ~ , , ... ,.'- 1-#4 r #4@1'·· .2" . k 2' 10· 10· 2-+4 '1 PATIO HILLS CONDOMINIUMS .101 NUMBER 86-4757 .~ /lJ!4 f= *t4t L '1 4' B" + Y.e h Z::-3.#"0 x I Z 2 = 3So~ 1./7 '/. -::: 740 '"2 / I If 1.7-0 ~:s'3 0 , H~4-7)C '3 )<. f:, + 4,07 )( I 4' 72- ':-977 r 10")7 ?() 74 F's l -- £A :: Wi :: or., ~ h2. ::-z. 4.190 -J. 1 B pa:-h ~ Ghctos 86-47~7 v,:J-c 10/23/06 _ z.. S!;, X 0-=-134 7 ?W~d_ Z 173Zf--24 0 134-7 ( \ LAW OFFICES Miller & Gibbs A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL COAPORATION THOMAS E. MILLER. A.p.e MICHAEL T. GIBBS STUART M. EPPSTEINER EDWARD J. CORWIN PATRICK L PRINDLE IVAR E. LEETMA MONICASLEV September 12, 1986 N'lERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO. 8334 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Suite 214 San Diego, California 92110 Attn: Belinda Lesperance Re: Patio Hills Dear Ms. Lesperance: DELMAR 12625 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SUITE 300 SAN DIEGO.CA92130 (619) 755-5590 (619) ~35-8999 ORANGE COUNTY 3151 AIRWAY AVENUE SUITE A-I COSTA MESA. CA 92626 171 4) 432-8669 We have recently received a proposal for stabalizing the slope at the above-referenced complex. As is indicated in the cover letter, we have also requested that an estimate for the cost of repair be obtained. Be assured that once we receive the estimate from the contractor, we shall forwarc the estimate ;:>romptly. We look forward to working further with you in this matter. ?lease do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing. ISL/mf Enclosure bcc: All Clients Very truly yours, :lIL! ... ER & GIBBS IVAR E. LEETMA r SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING/GEOLOGY 9606 TIERRA GRANDE SUITE 107 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92126 ~619) 695-3150 Law Offices of Miller and Gibbs 12625 High Bluff Drive Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Mr. Ivar Leetma Subject: REPAIR OF SLOPE September 9, 1986 Proposal No. 264.7.3 PATIO HILLS CONDOMINIUMS 2765 AND 2767 VISTA DEL ORO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with our discussion in our letter to you dated June 4, 1986, we submit herewith design information for cost obtaining estimate's for repair of the SUbject slope. For these purposes it is our opinion that the slope can be most feasibly repaired by installation of a pipe and bQard retaining system. The recommended layout of the system is shown on the attached Figure 1 (Plot Plan). Figure 2 illustrates cross sectional aspects and retaining system details. In accordance with your request we will proceed to obtain cost estimates from contractor's specializing in this work. We appreciate this opportunity .to be of service. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, OWEN GEOTECHNICAL jt--;~O~ MARTIN R. OWEN, RCE 23155 President Copies: (3) Addressee PROPERTY LINE - PROPERTY LINE \-~J .,;-,-, \ L--1 \ \ L _-----.-J < Cii -t ~ ~ (' ~ /'\ /' \. / \ .// > ( (/ \ / \. ./ \. ./ V °-90 '''-....... , 6 N·ORT.H SCALE: I" = 20' ALL OJMENSIONS AND LOCA liONS APPROXIMATE •••••••• • • B B' ~'I) LEGEND RETAINING WALL CROSS SECTION PROPOSED PIPE AND BOARD SLOPE RETAINING SYSTEM (SEE FIGURE NO. 2 FOR DETAILS) ~G:::OI(,IIf.JI,.,\1 T _,PLOT PLAN_ _ L ... ___ ". ____ J~AT!9)11~b~ .QQNQQM!N!IJM§~ __ /LA QQSTA. QA!"!FQRN!A , _____ " FIGURE NO.1 --._----- - CROSS SECTIONS' SCAlE; t"" 20' PL """." ! ("""."""" """" .. " om .i ,,\ ___ ,,,.,, ..... :'" VIStA DEL ORO .1 Af 00,".".. ~A' MIU. 10 FT. EMBEDMEUT .--___ 2" DIAMETER'GALVANlzeD IRON PiPES PL EXISTING GRADE\ •• -- B~~ SPACED AT .. FT. ON CEtHEn 2767 VISTA DEL ORO /~ ___ -1_ ----TltREE 2 X 12 WOOD ItEAOeHS ""-MIN. 10 FT. EMBEDMENT '-.. -•• --2" DIAMETER aALVANIZEO IRON PIPES SPACED AT .. FT. Ot~ CEUTER I ----oB' '--------------------------_.---------------- ~ PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE f f T. toP QE. !!~.QfE. rl , M I I .. J - A!'I'HOXtpJAlll Y .lIdW:" Of PII't AIm 11.)"1111 NOTES: t. ALL PIPE SHAll BE GALVANIZED IRON 2. FASTEN HEADERS TO PIPES ~ITH GALVANIZED BOLTS 3. ALL PIPE SHALL BE DRIVEN BY PNEUMATIC II ... MMER 4. HE ... DER BO ... RDS SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED ( .... W.P.A .... PPROVEO) CNa~t:::OI' Iii II· ,'·1 ,---------_. ------- 'SLOPE REPA!R Q!;TAILS \ ~M" __ • __ ••• __ __ •••• _ ,AIIO HII .. I-S CONDOMINIUMS LA COST A, CALifORNIA .: • ~i • A Division of Untted States Testing Company. Inc. F' ~ 34~7 Kurtz St., P.O. Box 80985, San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 225-9641 Testing Engineers -San Diego CT81--3-& January 21, 1986 Job ND. 70225 JAN 281986 American States Insurance 8334 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Suite 214 San Diego, California 92111 Attention: Subject: Gentlemen: Summary of Geotechnical Consulting Services Regarding Patio Hills Homeowners Association American States Insurance File No. 379-0003-180 Carlsbad, California this is a summary of the Supplementary Geotechnical Report, dated December 16, 1985. Per your request we have summarized our obseryation5~ conclusions and recommendations pertaining to both the slope behind units 2765 and 2767, and the asphal ti c pavement on Vi sta Del Oro ROCt.d in front of the same three Ltnits. American States InsurancG Page No. 2 January 21, 19~6 J pb No. 71)225 As mentioned in the previous report, three test pits were excavated en the portion of the slope to be studied, four cores were drilled through the asphaltic pavement of the nearby road, Based en ,t'lle rEsults of the field and laboratory tests, the co~paction within the fill material on the slope was evaluated and slope stability analysis were conduct~d. The following are summarized observations on the portion of the slo~e and the asphaltic pavement of the Vista Del Oro Road, and conclusions and recommendations for both items. OBSER\NH I ON~ Fill Slope Behind Units 2763, r"l-I co L./b~l, 1. The existing slope has a gradient of 1.4 to 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The JaAu~ry 18, 1983 Grading Plan indicates an intended slope gradient of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The present Building Code requires a gradient of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical for slopes greater than 10 feet in height unless ot.herwise · , American States Insurance Page No. 3 January 21, 1986 ~,ob No. -70225 recommended and substantiated by a soil engineer. Thus the existing slope appears to be marginally ste~pe~ ·than recommended by th~ Grading Plan, provided sUbstantiation is available (though was nDt r~yiew~J by this office) or is significantly steeper than would currently be allowed by code guidelines, without substantiatinn. 2. The compaction of the fill slope appears to range from 76 to 82 percent, while the minimum required was 90 pet-cent. Thus, thE·? f iII on thf:! ::;lopf.·? i!:.~ I Closer than ,,~as r'equi red and thi s concH ti on Illc\Y haVE? ccmtri buted to the- surfici<B.I failLlre behind unit number 2763. 3. Stability of the slope was analy~ed and the factbrs of safety computed by various methods. Factors of safety of 1.5 or greater are generall y accepted as ~'1deqLla·te. Ba.sed on our analysis, most of the slope conditions appea~ tb be statically stable. However, the slop~ condition behind units 2763 and 2767 E)·:i1ibits fc\ctors of safety less than 1.5 for shallow, surficial failure - American States Insurance Pag,,,, Nb. 4 January 21, 1986 ~'J ob No. 70225 modes. A factor of saf~ty less than 1.5 indicates that these slope conditions, if subjected to vibrations, inadequate drainage, or other forms of increased loading, may experience shallow, surficial failures and presently should be considered marginally stable. Vista Del Oro Road (Adjacent to Units 2763, 2765, and 2767) 1. The existing asphaltj~ concrete thickness which varies from 1 1/2 to 2 1/4 inches, is less than the 3 inches specified on the January 18, 1983 Grading Plan. 2. The aggregate base thickness appears to generally conform to the 4 inches specified en the January 18, 1983 Grading Plan. 3. The soil layer underneath the base material has a degree of compaction less than the 90 percent minimum r-equi rem!-'.?nt. 4. The R-value computed from the laboratory testing on the soil layer beneath the pavement was 6, indicating relatively weak soil char~cteristics. .. '. American States Insurance Conclusions and Recommendations Pi::,gr-? No. 5 January 21, 1986 Job No. 7'6225 The existing distresses observed on the site, in our opinion, are not substantial. However, some measures are needed to enhance the slope stability, which at th8 present is marginal. It should also be understood that California is an area of high sE'ismic risk. It is gener-ally considl'?rt?r.I ECf..11lc'fllically unfeasible to build totally earthquake resistant structures; therefore it is possible that a large or nearby earthquake could cause damage to the existing slope. It is our opinion th~t future performance of the structures and the slope should be mai ntai ned by the foIl owi ng n~m<=~di a I mC'?2\::.un:::·~,: 1. According to our observations in th2 field and compaction tests in the laboratory, the percent compaction of the fill material on the slope is below the minimum requirement. The slope gradient is steeper than the normally recommended ratio. The combination of these two items may facilitate surficial f2dlurE:?s on portions of the slope. 1. • , .I American States Insurance Page 1'>10. 6 Janu~ry 21, 1986 Job No. 7t)22~) We recommend that a minimum 'fill slQpe gradient of 1.5· horizontal to 1 vertical, as originally intended be maintained and that thQ top 2 to 3 feet of soil be removed and recompacted using appropriate equipment to attain at least 90 percent comp~ction. The site soil may ~e used provided it is moisture conditioned and compacted in Llrtifonn lifts o'f 6 to 8 inches to <:tt IE'2ast 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. 2. All slopes 5hould be periodically maintai'ned and properly drained so that no water is allowe~ to pond within the slope arec\. Erosion resistant veget~tjon should also be planted. Construction of concrete drains may be necessary to di sch~,rge run-of f w£\ter into the E?}: i st i ng drainage channel at the toe of the slope. The drain should be kept free of obstructions and other debriS. 3. Roof l"Jater CI.nd pad run-off shoul d be colI ected at suiteble locations and dire~ted pff the property ,and away from the resid~ntial foundations, floor slabs, and top of slopes. , ( J .,. Ameri c:an States In=Lu'-ance F'c~ge No. 7 January 21, 1986 Job No. 7-E1225 4. Normally, a lightly loaded roadway underlain by the site soi 1 woul d requi r·E~ a pavement sect i on of appro)·: i matel y 3 inches of asphlatic concrete over approxiamtely 9 inches· of acceptable aggregate base material. Therefore, the pavement should either be thickened or, at le~st, monitored for indications of distress due to over- stn::ssing. Should indications of dietress be noted, additional field evaluations should be undertaken to recommend remedial measures. For the present, Vista Del. Oro Road should be provided with improved drainage, and the existing drains along the road should be monitored and kept free of all obstruction. The material encountered on the project site and utilized in bur laboratory investigation are believed to be representative of the tot.;::ll area. However, sOlI and bedroc k fllateri al s vary in c:haractel~i sti cs between e): cavat ions clnd na.tuTal ourcrops. Since our investigation is based on the site materials observed~ selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the c:onclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. Ir,A9-----'-. , ,: ,: .. American States Insurance P<::Igf? No,. 8 January 21, 1986 Jab No. 7t)22~ These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed nor implied. The opportLlni ty to be of servi ce is si nCE~rel Y C'lppreci a:j:ed, and if you should have any questions? Dr require any clarifitations, please feel welcome to contact our office. Al maz FessehCl. Project Civil Engineer REM/AF:eg Respectfully sub~itted, TESTING ENGINEERS -SAN DIEGO -----. -----:-", ---~-... -r-,.....~ -./_ .. :~ .-, -. _.--:. R6~ E. Moore, RCE 28119 Principal Geotechnical Engineer POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S . • • • e' • • .' 0- •• "VI rt ~ '3'~ (~~) PHILIP HENKING BENTON PRESIDENT .. CIVIL ENGINEI;R BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. APPLIED SOIl. MECHANICS -FOUNDATIONS 6741 EL CAJ,ON BOULEVARD SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92115 October 19, 1972 SAN DIEGO, 583-5654 LA MESA, 469-5654 La Costa Land Company Costa Del Mar Road Rancho La Costa, California 92008 Subie~t: Project No .• 71-7 -17D Grading' Permit No. L-5930 C T81-3G, Gentlemen: Final Report on Compacted Filled Grouncl And Classification of Soil Conditions Lots 413 to 584, inclusive And Certain Street Areas ~La 'Costa ~adows Unit No.3 Carlsbad, California This is to report the results of tests and observations made in order to inspect the compaction of filled ground placed on c~rtain areas of La Costa Meadows Unit No.3 in Carlsbad, California, formerly a part of the County of San Diego. The fHls were placed during, the period between July 15, 1971 and July 20, 1972. :The approximate areas and depths of filled ,groundplaced under our inspedion in accordance twith the approved specifications are shown on the attached Drawing No.1, entitled II Location ,'of Compacted Filled Ground.1I The grading plan used for, the placement of filled ground was' prepared QY Rick Engineering Company and approved March 15, 1971. . . . The.approximate locations at which the tests were takez:! and the final test results are.presentee;! on pages T-1 to T-26,inclusive, under the IITable of Test Results.1I The laboratory determina- tions of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture ,contents of the major fill materials eire presented on pages T-27 dnd T-28, under the II Laboratory Test Results.1I Some.of the maximum dry gensities shown in the: !I Table of Test Resultsll were combinations of these. The tests were tdken during the weekly ~riods indicated below: T~t Number 1 to 4, inclusive 5 to 21, inclusive 22' to 35, inclusive 36 to 6~, inclusive 64 to 113, inclusive 114 to 153, inclusive 154 to 218, inclu$ive 219 to 275; inclusive 276 to 318, inclusive 319 to 360, inclusive Week Ending July 17, 1971 July 24, 1971 August?, 1971 August 14, 1971 August 21, 1971 August 28, 1971 September 4, 1971 September 11, 1971 S~ptember 18, 1971 September 25, 1971 • • .' • • • • • • • • Project No. 71;'7-170. La Costa Land Company Test Number 361 to 404, inclusive' , 405 to 456, inclusive 457 to 507, inclusive 508 to ~8, inclusive 539 to 570, inclusive 571 to 621, inclusive 622 to' 675,' inclusive 676 to 701, inclusive 702 to 771, inclusive 772 to 835, inclusive 836 to 905, inclusive 906 to 924, inclusive 925 to 930, inclusive 931 to 935, inclusive -2-October 19, '1972 Week Ending October 2, 1971 October r;, 1971 October 16, 1971 October 30, 1971 ' November 6, 1971 Novembe-r 13, T97.1 November 20, 197L November 27, 1971 December 4, 1971 December 11, 1971 December 18, 1971 December 25, 1971 July 1,5, 1972 July 22, 1972 The final results of tests and observations indicate that the compacted filled ground has been placed at 90 percent of the maximum dry density or greater. It has been determined that the fill materials, compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry densHy, have a safe bearing value of 1930 pounds per square foot for one foot wide continuous foofings founded at a minimum depth and placed five feet or more inside the top of compacted filled ground slopes. If footings are placed closer to the exposed slopes th!ln 5 feet inside the top of compacted filled ground slopes, these should be deepened one foot below a 1 1/2 horizontal tol vertical line protected outward and downward from a point 5 feet horizontally inside the top of compacted filled ground slopes. Tests indicate that the compacted fliled ground is adeq1,.late to satisfactorily support fhe proposed wood frame dwellings without detrimental seftlements. Expansive clay , silty clay, and sandy clay soils were placed in the upper three' feet in certain compacted fill areas and also exist in the upper three feet below finished' grade in certain cut areas. The final classifications of the soil conditions existing on each lot eire presented as follows: Type A -Critically 'Expansive Soils Lots 413 to 430, inclusive 432 to 435, inclusive 437 to 441, inclusive 446 to 450, inclusive 452 to 454, inclusive 459 to 466, inclusive 470 to 487, inclusive 489 to 510, inclusive 512 to 527, inclusive BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Lots 531 to 534, inclusive 536 to 540, inclusive 543 to 552, inclusive 554, 556, 557, 558 563; 564, 570, 574 575, 576 578 to 581, inclusive 584 • • • • • • • • • Project No. 71~7-17D La Costa Land Company -3-October 19, 1972 Type B -Mqrginally Expansive Soils ~ots Lots 431 and 436 442 to 445, inclusive 451, 455 to 458,inclusive 467 to 469:, inclusive 528, 529, 530, 535 542, 555, 560, 565 566, 568, 569, 571 572 and 573 486, 511 Tyee C -Nonexpdnsive Soils Lots 541, 553, 559, 561, 562 567, 577, 582, an~ 583 It is recommended that the following special'des'ign and precautions be taken for the houses, to be constructeq on the above lots in order to minimize the possible damaging effects due to differential movements of the potentially expansive soils: Type A Lots 1. Avoid the use of isol!Jted interior piers. Use continuo~s interconnected reinforced footings throughout, and place these at a minimum depth of two feet below the lowest adjacent exterior final ground surface. 2. Reinforce and interconnect continuously with steel bars all interior and exterior footings with one #5 bar at 3 inches above the bottom of the footings and one #5 bar placed 1 1/2 inches below the top of the stems of the footings; 3. Exercise every effort to assure that the moisture content of the soils in the upper 18 inches below finished grade is 1 percent to 3 percent greQter than optimum at the time of placing foundations and slabs. 4. Raised wooden floors fhat span between continuous footings are best, or use concrete slabs with at least 6x6 -10/10 welded wire reinforcement and 'a minimum of 4 inches of crushed rock 3/4 to 1 inch in size beneath all concrete sl.abs. A moisture barrier should be provided over the crushed rock , and this should be covered with 2 inches of sand below concrete slabs.· , 5. Separate garage ,iabs from perim~ter footings by a 1/2 inch thickness of construction felt or equivalent, to allow independent movement of garage slabs relative to perimeter footIngs. Assure complete separation by extending the felt over the full depth of the front thickened edge of the garage slab. Also, cut off the 'gar~ge door stops at least 1/2 inch above the slab • BENTON. ENGINEERING. INC. • • .' • • • • • • '. • ProJect No. 71-7-17D La Costa Land Company -4-. October 19, 1972 6. Provide positive drainage away from all perimeter footings with a vertical fall of at least 6 inches in a horizontal distance of 5 to 6 feet outside the house walls" Typ4~ BLots Those lots listed as Type B Iqts should follow all the above-listed recommendations wll'h fhe two following exceptions: 1. 2. The continuous footings may be placed at a minin1lJm depth of 18 inches below the lowest adlocent exterior final ground surface rather than the two. feet recommended for Type A lots. Single #4 bar placed as directed (above) near tops and bottoms of all interior and exterior footings may be substituted for the #5 bars recommended for Type A lots. Recommendations 3 to 6, inclusive, as listed for the Type A lots, are also applicable to the Type Blots. . . Only nonexpansive soil conditions were observed in the upper three feet on the Type Clots and therefore specially designed footings and slabs wiH not be required on these lots. Respectfully submitted, BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. By ~t!?~ R. C. Remer ~vlewedbY.~ ~~ Philip H. Ben on, Civil Engineer Distr: (4) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) Addressee Rancho La Costa, Inc. Attention: Mr. Burton L. Kramer Rick Engineering Company San Diego County Building Inspection, Vista Office Department of County Engineer (1) Attention: Mr. H. M. Taylor (1) Attention: Mr. Joe Sovella City of Carlsbad Department of Building Inspection ,BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. RCiVPHB/ew Project No. 71,..7-17D T-1 October 19 I 1972· • La Costa Lan.d Company TABLE OF TEST RESULtS -- Depth Iv\oximum • Approx-of FIJI Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 1 555 2. 13.1 ] 15.6 12'1.4 95.3 .' 2 555 4, 13.4 116.7 121.4 96.2 3 555 . 6. 13.3 114.4 121.4 94.2 4 555 8, 13.6 109.9 121.4 90.6 .5 555 10 12.5 118.8 121.4 97.9 6 554 2, 11.8 114.1 121.4 94.0 7 555 14 14.5 123.9 137.8 90.0, • 8 554 6, 9.5 127.3 137.8 92.5 9 555 18 9.0 119.0 121.4 98.0 10 554 10 12.0 115.2 121.4 95.0 11 555 22 9.9 132.8 137.8 96.4 12 554 14 11.2 132.6 137.9 96.1 • 13 555 26 12.9 110.2 121.4 90.7 14 554 18 11.2 119.0 129.6 91.8 15 555 30 9.4 119.1 129.6 92.0 16 554 22 12.0 116.5 129.6 90.0 17 556 2 12.0 100-.5 121.4 90.3 • 18 555 34 12.9 115.1 126 .. 5 91.1 19 554 26 7.8 122.0 126.5 96.4 20 556 6 9.2 133.9 137.8 97.1- 21 558 2 10.0 nO.2 121.4 90.8 22 353 4 11.4 124.1 137.8 90.0 • 23 555 38 11.1 129.0 137.8 93.8 24 554 30 15.8 106.3 115.6 91.9 25 553 8 15.8 106.3 115.6 91.9 26 ~57 4 11.8 106.3 115.6 91.9 27 556 10 11.2 109,.5 119.0 92.0 28 555 42 14.3 108.5 119.0 91.0 • 29 554 34 15.4 109.2 119.0 91.8 30 553 12 17.1 101.0 111.3 90.8 31 555 46 12.6 115.9 119.0 97.5 32 554 38 l4.9 101.8 113.1 90.0 33 553 16 14.7 106 .1 116.5 91.2 • 34 554 42 12.6 108.9 116.~ 93.4 ,35 553 20 14.2 109.0 116.5 93 •. 5 36 556 14 14.7 105.2 115.1 91 .• 5 37 553 24 10.5 100.8 110.6 91.0 38 553 28 16.0 101.0 110.6 91.4 '. 39 558 6 14.1 115.2 121.4-94.9 -40 557 8 13.2 103.5 114.5 90.4- I • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. J . Protect No. 71 ... 7-17D 1-2 October 19,1972 • ta Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depth N.aximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test NIoisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compacti()O Remarks 41 558 10 12.6 107.9 115.3 93.5 • 42 557 12 16.4-99.2 109.3 90.8 43 560 2 20.4 99.1 109.3 90.7. 44-558 14 ]4.6 ]06. 1 . 117.4 90.4 45 556 ]8 18. 1 99.0 109.3 90.4 46 562 2 15.3 106. ] 117.4 90.4 47 557 ]6 13.4 103.9 115.6 90.0 '. 48 560 6 15.7. 101. 9 111.0 91.6 49 555 50 16.7 107.8 116.7 92.5 50 558 . 18 1.5.4 105.5 115.3 91.4 51 562 2 12. 1 102.5 111.0 92.4 52 561 6 17.4 102.8 113.7 90.4 • 53 470 10 19.9 103.0 109.3 94.2 54 470 12 . 15.6 114.2 119.0 96.0 55 556 22 9. 1 114.0 121.4 93.9 56 E I Fuert~ St. 2 8.9 112.1 117.4 95.5 Opp. Lot 553 • 57 563 4 15. 1 105.8 117.4 90.1 58 557 20 17.9 104.9 109.3 95.8 59 555 54 11.5 111. 1 12L4 91.4 {/j 471 14 11. 9 108.7 119.0 91.3 61 471 16 12.6 113.8 121.4 93.6 • 62 Flamenco St. 2 19.4 103.4 11.3.7 91.0 63 Flamenco St. 4 10. 1 108.8 119.0 91.4 64 e I Fuerte St. 6 15.2 102.5 113~ 7 90.3 Opp. lot 553 65. 553 32 -l5.4 104.0 115.3 90.2 66 554 46-15.0 104.2 115.3 90.3 • 67 EI Fuente St. 10 16.0 102.4 113.7 90.2 Opp. Lot 553 68 558 22 11. 1 107.3 117.4 91.5 69 560 10 13.7 ·103.2 113.7 91.0 70 562 6 13.3 9504 11506 82.7 Reworked • 71 E I Fuerte St. 14 12.2 109.7 119.0 92.2 Opp. Lot 553 72 556 26 16.4 101.0 111.0 91.0 73 562 6 16. 1 103.4 113.7 91.1 Check on 170 74 561 10 10.0 101. 7 116. 1 8t.4 Reworked '. 75 554 50 9.5 112.4 119.0 94.5 76 EI Fuerte St. 18 11. 7' 108.2 117.4 92.2 Opp.Lot 553 77 561 10 14.5 109.6 116. 1 94.3 Check on 174 • BENTON ENGINEERING, I,,!C. • Project No. 71·07-170 T-3 October 19, 1972 La Costa Land Company .Tl~~~E OF TEST RESULTS (CaNT.) ? t Depth Maximum • Apptox-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test fv40isture Density Density Percent No. Lo~ation in.Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 78 557 24 14.8 109.7 115.6 94.6 • 79 558 26 16 • .1 102.2 11:3.4 90.0 80 559 4 13.7 106.0 113.4 93.4 81 551 2 12. 1 112.9 121.4 92.9 82 560 14 15.9 104.7 116. 1 90.2 83 555 58 11.5 104.0 ll~. 7 91.4 • 84 561 14 12.2 107 • .8 117.4 91.6 85 563 8 12.4 104.4 116. 1 90.0 86 556 30 14.6 105.2 116. 1 90.6 87 554 54 15. 1 103.6 113~ 7 91.0 88 557 28 14.4 108.2 117.5 92.2 • 89 553 36 16.4 103.5 113.7 91.2 90 EJ Fuerte St. 22 13.3 105.3 115.3 91.4 Opp. Lot 553 ·91 551 6 14.3 109.7 119.0 92.1 92 555 62 14.5 102.2 113.7 90.0 93 Storm Drain 2 17.3 107.9 1}9.0 90.7 • Between Lots 554 &555 94 556 34 11. 7 103.2 113.7 91.0 95 Chorlito St. 4 13.4 103. 1 113.7 90.9 Opp. tot 555 • 96 558 " 30 12.3 98.0 108.0 90.7 97 562 10 13.9 102.2 113.3 90.2 98 56~ 12 13.8 104.7 115.3 90·.6 99 557 32 23.0 99.6 10903 91.1 100 55.9 8 . 12.7 103. 1 111.0 92 08 • 101 560 18 15~0 103.0 113.7 90.6 102 Offsite A 2 15.3 104. 1 113.7 91.5 103 561 18 22.8 95.8 104.5 91.6 104 558 34 16.3 103.4 113.7 91.1 105 547 4 17.6 97.4 106.7 91.4 • 106 Ofrsite A 4 1.5.8 104. 1 111.5 93.4 107 5~ 22 17.5 101.8 112.0 91.0 108 Offsite A 6 22.3 9803 ·10903 9000 109 562 14 2208 100.0 111.0 9000 110 557 36 12.5 103.5 113 .• 7 91.1 111 546 2 1203 10402 H3.7 92.0 • 112 559 12 9:1 111.2 117.4 94.9 113 555 66 11.4 10209 113.7 90.7 . 114 563 16 11.8 117.·0 121.4 9603 • B~NTON ENGINEERING. INC. • Project No. 71-1-170 T-4 October 19 I 1972 La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONi.) D~pth Maxi in 1;1 m • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test fvAoisture Den5ity Den5Hy Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction RemQrks 115 561 22 11.5 116. 1 121.4-95~6 '. 116 562 18 13.0 118. 1 121.4-97.2' 117 ,56S 4 15.9 112.8 121.4 92.9 118 Storm Drain 2 12.9' 104.0 115.3 90.1 Between Lots 554 &555 • Eqst End 119 Storm Drain 2 11.0 nO.7 116. 1 95.3 Between Lots 554 &555 West End • 120 554 58 14.5 107.6 116~ 1 92.7 121 ' 558 38 15.0 107.2 116. 1 92.4 122 565 ' 8 12.2 .106 1.4 117.4 90.8 123 556 38 13.0 101. l 111.0 91.1 124 ~55 70 14.1 101.1 111.0 91.1 125 554 62 14.7 106. 1 117.4 90.4 • 126 556 42 11.8 103.7 111.0 93.5 127 555 74 12.8 100.7 116.1 86.6 Reworked 128 555 74 13.2 ' 105.7 116. 1 90.9 Check on '127 129 556 Pump Stat ion 42 14.9 111.0 115.6 96.2 130 556, 46 13.6 102.4 111.0 92.0 ,e 131 546 6 11.6 104.2 113 .. 7 91 b8 132 553 40 9.6. 107.0 116. 1 92.2 133 550 2 12.2 104.2 113.7 91.9 134 559 16 12.3 102.7 113.7 90.3 135 565 12 10.6 107.8 117.4 91.7 • 1:36 Offsite A 8 16.8 105.3 115.6 91.5 l37 547 8 12.4 108.0 119.0 90.8 138 556 Pump Station 44* 17.7 111. 1 113.7 97.S 1'39 554 66 12.0 105.0 116. 1 90.4 140 546 10 13.9 110.9 ' 11506 95.9 • 141 547 ' 12 1707 105.4 1.16. 1 90bS 142 565 16 23.6 102.0 111.0 91.9 143 546 14 10.5 109.0 117.4 92.8 144 545 6 14.5 108.8 . 119.0 91.3 145 547 16 17.3 103.3 11'3.7 9102 146 563 2& 15.7 106.8 117.4 91.0 .• , 147 560 26' 13.2 104,.0 ' 115.6 9001 148 Offsite A 10 15.4 98.3 106.7 92.2 149 460 2 9.9 113.0 118.9 95.0 150 561 26 14.9 108.5. 116.1 9304- • * Finished Grade SENTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 71-7-170 1-5 October 19, 1972 • La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture DenJity Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 151 562 22 12.5 10208 113.7 90.5 • 152 546 18 13.7 10600 115.6 91.7 153 563 24 10.3 9905 1160 1 85.6 Reworked l54 563 24 1703 9102 106.7 85.6. Reworked lSS 564 1 1100 96.5 106.7 90.5 156 562 26 11.2 99.4 109.3 91.0 •• 157 565 20 11 .. 3 102.0 11100 91.7 158 570 4 15.0 103.8 113.7 9104 159 545 10 16.5 102.5 ] 130 7 90.4 I I 160 563 24 12.5 105.2 11506 91.0 Check on 153 & 154 • 1'61 542 1 15.6 104.2 115.3 90.2 162 '547 20 15.5 10400 11503 90.2 163 "564 5 13.8 101.2 109.3 92.5 164 542 3 17.2 98.5 109.3 90.2 165 Flamencc;> St. 4 16. 1 113.8 126-• .5 90.0 • Opp. Lot 469 166 463 t 11.4 11600 126.5 91..4 167 Flamenco St 0 8 15. 1 113.3 123.9 91.4 . Oppo Lot 469 168 463' 5 11.6 105.8 117.4 90. 1 169 460 6 10.8 103.7 113.7 9.1.3 • 170 462 2 10.8 106.9 1160 1 91. 9 171 462 6 15.0 107.4 115.3 93. l' 172 463 7 10.3 118. 1 12605 9303 173 462 8 10.3 1030 1 113.7 90.7 174 463 9 12.4 105.9 114.0 9300 • 175 559 .20 16.0 103.5 113.7 90.9 176 560 30 13.3 10202 111 .0 92.0 177 El Fuerte St. 26 15. 1 106.4 115.3 9204 Across from Lot 553· 178 554 66 11.2 105.8 11601 91.1 • 179 Offsite A 12 19.4 101. 6 111. 5 91.3 180 461 2 14.;6 107.0 1160 l' 9201 181 460 10 14.0 107.5 116. 1 92.4 182 Offsite A 14 16.2 101.7 111.0 91.5 183 461 6 23.0 99.0 109.3 90.3 '. ·184 460 14 16.6 l06.8 111.9 95.4 185 557 42 12.7 98.0 115.3 85.a Reworked 186 558 42 1607 10301 111 ;0 93.0 • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Proiect No. 71-7-170 T-7 Odober 19, 1972 • La Costa Land Company T AS'lf OF tEST RESU LTS (CO NT .) Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture Density DensUy Percent Noo location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/r;u ft Compaction Remarks 220 EI Fuerte St. 2 15.0 102.8 113-.7 90.-6 • Opp. Lots 545 &549 221 545 14 ),6 .• 7 108.3 117.4 92.3 222 545 18 .14.9 102.0 111.0 91.9 223 546 22 14.8 116.0 121.4 95.5 • 224 547 20 16.5 101.4 111.0 91.6 Check on '219 225 565 24 17.5 101.0 111.0 91.0 226 563 32 16.2 10300 11303 90.9 227 564 9 15.5 103.9 11303 91 ~ 7 228 546 26 1606 102.9 113.3 9008 . • 229 564 13 16.2 100.0 111.0 9(hO 230 472 5 10.6 9605 115.6 83-.5 Reworked 231 566 3 21.2 102.0 111.0 9108 232 565 28 1508 121.2 126 ... 5 9600 233 427 1 N -1008 100.2 111.-0 9003 234 427 ] S . 13.2 10000 111.0 9002 • 235 461 10 100 1 109.0 117.4 92.8 . 236 459 3 17. 1 107.2 119.0 90.2 237 E I Fuerte St. 4 12 . .7 95.7 11303 8405 Reworked Opp. lots 545 &546 '. 238 545 22 17.2 10908 117.4 93.5 239 EI Fuerte St 0 4 140 1 105.7 113.3 93.2 Check on '237 Opp 0 lots 545 &546 240 545 26 14.7 103.3 113.;3 9102 • 241 546 30 16.4 10007 111.0 90.7 242 547 24 15.5 97.2 108.0 90.0 243 566 7 16 •. 6 103.3 111.0 93.1 244 I 565 32 15.7 9902 109.3 90.6 245 482 2 . 1207 101.8 11LO 91.5 • .246 468 14 . 11. 1 108.5 117.4 92.4 247 468 18 9.2 103.8 115.3 9000 248 472 5 10.0 105.4 11506 91.2 Check on #230 249 273 1 17.7 109.6 120.2 91.0 250 273 3 14.7 107.3 . 119.0 9003 251 564 17 '16.6 106.7 113.3 94.0 '. 252 562 30 15.0 9708 107.a 91.1 253 566 11 18.5 105.6 11504 91.7 • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Project No .. 71-7-170 T~ October 19,' 1972 • La Costa Land Company TAB-LE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depfh Maximum .' Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imQte at Test Noisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet 0/0 dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu rt Compac;tion Remarks 254 E I Fuerte Sf. 8 1401 103.8 113.3 91.4 • Opp'. Lots 545 &546 255 500 2 1408 10300 113.3' 90.8 256 560 34 1508 99.' 109.3 90.5 257 561 34 17.3 99.0 104.0' 95.0 • 258 SOO-6 10. 1 100.,9 110.6 91.3 259 Esturian St. 2 11.4 103.3 113.3 91.1 Opp. Lot 548 260 560 38 2006 95.1-104.0 91.4 261 561 38 15.5 10301 113.3 9100 262 499 2 13.8 102.5 11307 90.4 • 263 551 14 9.7 106.0 11303 93.5 264 562 34 1909 ' 100.6 111.0 9006 265 550 10 1202 1050 1 113.3 92.8 , 266 Esturion St 0 6 1605 10804 11303 95.6 , Opp o lot 548 • 267 560 42 12.8 100.3 111.0 90.4 268 563 36 12. 1 103.0 11303 90.9 269 5SO 14 1"304 101.0 111.0 91.0 270 551 18 11.8 10709 113.3 9501 271 549 2 1404 10207 111.0 9205 • 272 547 28 1305 9900 10903 90.4 273 561 42 19.6 93.5 106~'4 87.8 Reworked 274 562 38 1802 104.5 115.3 9006 275 563 40 14. 1 ·10009 11100 9008 276 261 42 19.0 97.9 106.4 9200 Check on '273 • ,277 550 18 14 .. 2 99.4 10904 9009 278 560 46 16.'0 104.2 11303 9201 279 549 ' 6 1206 9805 106.4 9204 1 280 Esturi on St. 10 13.7 109.7 11704 9305 i Opp. Lot 548' I I 281 547 32 1400 10702 11704 91.3 r. 282 550 22 15.2 '95.1 106.4 8904 Reworked 283 561 46 9.6 1060 1 113.3 93~6 284 541 5 909 10009 111.0 91.0 285 542 7 18.8 104.2 113. 1 92.0 286 570 8 1208 108.7 117.4 9206 '. 287 541 7 14.3 10308 11303 9105 288 570 12 1605 10608 11704 90.9 289 541 9 18.3 10302 113.3 91.1 290 543 8 12. 1 105'03 11303 93.0 • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Project No. 71-7-170 T-9 October 19, 1972. • La Co~ta Land Company TAB~E OF TEST RESULTS (CONT,.): Depth Ntaximum • Approx ... of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture Density Density Perc~nt No. Location in Feet 0/0 dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compac tion Remarks 291 541 9 18.7 100 .• 1 111.0 90.2 .' 292 571 2 16.7 102.4 113.3 90.3 293 542 11 17.3 109 .1 117.4 93.0 294 541 11 16.5 105.9 115.5 91.7 29.5 540 1 12.9 105.8 11'3.3 93.4 296 436 5 '15.2 101.5 111.0 91.3 297 437 3 12.8 113.1 119.0 94.9 • 298 438 1 11.8 106.4 115.6 92.0 Chackon #190 299 460 18 11.6 106.8 115.3 92.4 300 470 14 * 9.2 105.3 115.3 91.3 301 570 16 15.5 107.9 115.5 93.5· 302 541 15 14.8 103.1 113.3 91.0 • 303 540 5 17.4 105.7 117.4 90.0 304 523~ 1 14.8 108.3 117.4 92.3 305 566 15 17.2 101.6 111.0 91.5 306 571 6 18.5 99.7 109.6 91.0 307 570 20 17.6 101 .• 8 111.0 91.8 • 308 553 54 13.5 107.1 117.4 91.2 309 542 15 20.3 102.8 113.3 90.6 310 553 56 18.1 99.8 111.0 90.0 311 571 8 17.1 102.9 113.3 90.7 312 540 9 16.1 104.4 113.3 92.1 • 313 541 19 18.7 . 108.9 117.4 92.8 314 571 12 16.7 100.7 111.0 .90.7 315 569 1 17.5 103.8 113.3 91.5 316 Estl,lrian Place 1 16.8 104.1 113.3 91.7 -Cui De Sac • Opp. Lot 567 317 523 5 17.8 98.2 108.7 -90.3 318 569 5 16.9 104.8 113.3 92.5 319 427 3 12.3 104.0 115.6 90.0 320 482, 4* 13.6 109 .1 119.0 91.7 321 523 9 14.0 -104.4 113.3 92.1 . • 322 428 1 * 13.8 103.9 111.0 93.6. 323 523 13 17 .• 7 95.8 106.4-90.0 324 481 2 * 9.0 l04.8 118.9 88.2 Rework$d .325 427 5 S 11.0 105.0 115.6 91.0 326 427 5 N 12.2 ]03.5 113.3 9.1.3 • 327 436 7* 10.6 100.7 111.0 90.7 * Finished Grade • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Proiec;:t No. 71-7-170 T-1O Oc~ober 19, 1972 e. La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depth N.aximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Tesf Iv\oisture DensitY Density Percent· No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cy ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 328 435 4* 12.0 110.3 115.5 95.6 • 329 437 4* 10.2 106.2 113.3 93.7 330 427 7 15.0 109.0 117.4 92.8 331 540 13 19.6 to.1 .2 111.0 91.2 332 572 4 20.2 98.4 109.3 90.0 333 543 12, 17.6 97.0 . 111.0 87.3 Reworked 334 543 12 18.9 102.0 1H.0 91.8 Check on #333 .' • 335 438 2* 9.2 ll3.4 118.9 95,1 336 553 58.5 * 16.6 101.5 111.0 91.4 337 559 24.5 * 15.6 107.0 116.1 92.2 338 Chorlito St. 12 19.2 97.8 111.0 88,.1 Reworked Opp. Lot 555 • 339 563 44 14.1 103.4 114.6 90.1 340 564 21 20 .• 0 97.5 107.8 90.6 341 565 36 18.5 97.6 106.4 91.7 342 566 19 19.6 103.7 113.7 91.2 343 570 24 23.0 97.7 106.4 91.7 • 344 Inter. Esturian St. 2 15.6 103.4 H3.7 90.8 . & Esturian PI. 345 544 4 12.8 93.6 106.4 87.9 Reworked ~46 543 16 18.9 99.2 110.2 90.0 347 501 8 17.7 102.5 113.7 90.1 • ,348 501 12 16.8 102.1 111.0 91.8 .349 544 4 16.5 108.6 119.0 ' 91.2 Check on #345 350 549 10 18.4 101.5 111.0 91.4- 351 548 4 l7.9 102.8 111.0 92.4 352, 546 34 18.6 104.0 115.3 90.1 353 562 42 19.2 97.2 106.7 91.2 e 354 ~60 50 16.2 101.3 110.2 91.7 355 561 50 17.9 105.1 116.1 90.4 356 EI Fuerte St. 2 15.1 100.7. 106.7 94.5 Opp. Lot 549 357 549 14 15.3 103.2 . . 113.7 90.6 • 358 548 8 17.6 104.2 115.3 90.2 . . 359 562 46 15.0 100.0 111.0 90.0 360 565 40 13.4 100.6 111.0 90.5 361 500 10 15.5 102.8 113.7 90.3 . 362 499 .6 15.7 l03,8 113.7 : 91.2 e· 363 498 3 10.6 103.9 113.7 91.4 364 497 3 10.5 108.8 118.9 '91.2 365 496 3 11.8' 1"08.9 117.4 92.6 366 497 7 11.8 107.1 117.4 91.3 367 496 7 11.0 110.9 118.9 93.1 • * Finished Grade Project No. 71-7-170 T-11 October 19, 1972 • La Costa Land Company TABLE OFTEST RESULTS (CONT.) O$pth Max1mum Approx-of Fill rield Dry Dry Test imate at TeSt N.oisture . Density . Density Percent •• No. Location in Feet % dry wt .Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft . Compactton Remarks 368 495 4 11.7 99.8 109.3 91.1 369 522 2 14.4 100.1 110.1 90.9 370 52.3 17 14.9 101.4 111.0 91.3 • 371 522 6 15.1 104.0 115.3 90.2 372 523 21 18.0 100.9 109.3 92.5 373 522 10 18.1 102.0 111.0 91.6 374 521 2 19.8 100.4 111.3 90.2 375 523 25 19.3 100.5 111.3 90.3 376 522 14 8.2 105.2 117.1 90.0 • 377 523 29 10.7 101.3' 113.7 89.4 Reworked 378 523 29 9.0 103.6 113.7 91.3 Check on #377 379· 522 18 12.8 104.5 115.3 90.6 380 . 523 33 10.9 104.9 115.3 90.7 381 522 22 14.6 106.0 116.1 91.2 • 382 523 37 16.4 107.8 116.1 92.8 383 522 26 14.4 107.5 115.8 93.0 384 523 41 17.4 100.7 111.0 90~6 385 521 6 18.6 102.7 113.7 90.4 386 522 30' 20.6 107.1 117.4 91.2 • 387 521 10 20.0 102.6 113.7 90.2 .. 388 524 2 14.7 . 105.6. 116.1 90.9 389 523 45 19.2 99.4 109.3 90.7 390 521 14 14.3 101.1 111.0 91.0 391 EI Fuerte St. 1 20.7 101.1 111.0 91.0 • Opp. Lot 501 392 522 34 15.5 101.5 '. 111.0 91 .• 4 .. 393 523 49 . 22.9 100.0 111.0 90.0 394 548 12 17.7 103.5 113.7 91.'0 .395 EI Fuerte St. 5 15.1 109.8 .' 116·.1 94'.4 • Opp. lot 501 '~96 521 18 21.2 100.2 111.0 90'.2 397 523 53 18.5 105.9 ·116.1 91.2 398 522 38 18.0 104.7 116.1 90.0 . I :399 EI Fuerte St. 9 18.5 104.0 115.3 90.2. • 400 Opp. Lot 501 527 4 19.9 99.6 109.3 91.0 . 401 520 2 11.6 113.7 121.4 93.6 402 524 6 16.1 103.0 113.7 90· •. 6 "403 523 57 15.9 102.8 113.7 90.3 404 527 8 11.6 98.7 113.7 86.7 Reworked • '405 527 8 16.9 102.3 113.7 90.0 Check on #404 . 406 522 .42 14.4 102.1 112.5 90.8 407 521 .. 12' 15.0 111.5 . 121.4 91.8 • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. 'Project No~ 71 .. 7-17D, T-12 October 19, 1972 • La Cpsta Land Company TABLE Of TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depth 'lv1axlmum Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry • Test imate at Test Mlisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks. 409 524 10 17.0 103.6 113.7, 91.2 409 527 12 13.S 1'03.2 113.7 90.8 • 410 524 14 13.8 105.2 116.1 90.6 411 525 3 16.7 102.4 113.7 90.0 '412 527 16 15.1 109.5 117.4 93.3 413 524 ,18 15.2 107.4 117.4 91.4 414 525 7 20.2 102.5 111'.6 91.7 • 415 527 20 19.9 103.4 111.6 92.6 416 524 22 17.2 107.1 117.4 91.2 417 525 11 15.0 103.5 .113.7 91.2 418 527 24 14.1 107.0 117.4 91.Q 419 524 .26 15.5 104.9 116.1 90.4 .: 420 525 15 15.3 106.6 117.4 90.8 421 547 36 13.6 104.1 115.3 90.2 422" 527 28 16.9 104.5 115.3 90.6 423 524 30 17.1 103.5 113.7 91.2 424 . 525 19 16.2 106.3 117.4 90.4 425 526 1 20.2 100.7 111.0 90.7 • 426 527 32 20.5 101.5 111.0 91.4 427 527 36 19.8 100.0 111.0 90.0 428 524 34 15.0 102.8 113 •. 7 90.5 429 525 21 14.8 104.8 113.7 92.1 '430 528 1 16.7 111.3 121.4 91.8 • 431 529 3 17.3 110.1 121.4 90.7 432 528 5 13.1 103.5 113.7 90.9 433 529 7 12.9 104.2 115.3 90.3 434 525 . 25 11.5 106.5 115.6 92.1 435 526 5 13.6 100.1 109.4 91.3 • ,436 528 9 14.4 104.1 115.6 90.0, 437 548 16 11.8 99.9 113.7 87.7 Reworked 438 546 38 17.6 98.8 109.3 90.2 439. 544 8 17.0 101.0 109.3 92.4 440 529 ·11 15.9 106.8 116.1 91.8 • 441 524 38 15.1 110.0 119.0 92.3 442 Unicomto St. 1 17.7 106.1 116.1 91.3 Opp. Lot 526 443 526 9 17.4 106.0 115.8 91.5 444 528 13 17.4 l05.3 113.7 92.4 '. 445 563 48. 15.7 104.4 11p.3 90.6 446 565 40 14.2 99.0 109.3 90.4 447 564 25 16.9 99.8 111.0 90.0 • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 71-7-17D T .. 13 October 'f9/ 1972 • La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) . . - Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry . Dry Test imate. at Test Mo.isture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks .448 Unicomio St. 5 11.8 107.8 115 .• 6 93.2 • Opp·. Lof526 449 526 13 12.1 106.9 115.6 92.2 450 527 40 15.1 104.0 115.3 90.0 451 '525 29 16.5 105.1 115.6 91.0 452 566 23 15~7 98.9 109.3 90.5 453 565 44 10.2 100.1 111.0 90.1 • 454 564 29 20.9 91.1 109.3 _ 83.2 Reworked 455 563 52 15.0 106.1 114.5 92.7 456 564 29 14.4 98.8 109.3 90.4 Check on '454 457 566 27 16.4 106.1 114.5 92.7 , 458 565 .48 15.8 105.9 114.5 92.6 • 459 564 33 15.S 98.5 109.8 90.0 460 566 31 15.1 105.2 113.5 92.6 461 -Esturiern Place 1 18.1 102.1 111 .3 91.7 -Opp. LQt 567 462 570 30 19.6 102.4 111.8 91-.7 • 463 545 30 13.5 107.9 113.5 95.0 464-547 40 13.7 109.3 117.4 ,93.2 465 546 42 11.5 99.2 '110.1 90.0 466 547 44 11.4 110.~ 115.4 96.0 467 524 42 14.7 113.8 116.7 97.4 • 468 525 33 12.2 109.7 118.1 92.7 469 545 34 18.1 102.4 11LO 92.1- 470 546 46 12 •. 5 100.9 J 11 ;0 -90.7 471 563 56 13.S 103.2 1.13.5 91.0 472 _ 565 52 15.7 103.4 113.5 91.4 .. 473 563 60 13.5 104.3 112.5 92.8 474 564 37 15.8 100.1 1,09 .3 91.6 475 527 44 19.4 107.0 119.0 90.1 476 526 17 17.7 102.2 111.0 92.0 477 529 ',15 17.7 106.2 117.4 90.~ 478 567 3 12;,6 10S.l 116.1 93.3 • 479 Esturicin St & 6 15.6 108.8 117,4 92.6 Esturici'n Place 480 Esturi<m Cui 5 16.1 -105.3 116.1 90.8 De Sac 481 565 56 18.9 109.0 117.4-93 •. 0 •• 482 566 35 . 15.7 11 0.0 117.4 93.8 483 564 41 17 .• 0 108.6 117.4 92.5 484 567 7 13.3 l06.1 115.3 92 •. 0 • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. • Protect No~ 71-7-170 T-14 October 19, 1972 La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) . Depth Maximum • Approx-·of Fill Field Dry Dry Test tmate at Test Iv\oisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction 'Remark, 485 569 9 17.4 108.2 1.17.4 92.1 486 570 34 19.2 100.2 111.0 90.3 • 487 545 3S 15.5 103.9 113.5 91.6 488 546 50 13.5 105.1 113.5 92.6 489 545 42 15.6 105.2 113.5 92.8 490 546 54 19.7 102.2 111.0 92.5 491 571 .16 15.4 110.2 117.4 94.0 • 492 544 12 15.6 104.9 111.3 94.4 493 542 19 . 12.1 102.0 112.4 90.7 494 543 20 9.7 111.5 117.4 95.0 495 542 23 12.6 104.5 114.1 91.6 496 EI Fuerte 14 16'.5 110.2 117.4 94.0 • Opp. Lots 545 &546 497 500 14 17.4 107.8 117.4 91.8 498 499 10 10.7 102.4 111.0 92.4 499 EI Fuerte 18 1.2.3 .. 100.6 111.0 90.4 • Opp. Lot 545 &546 500 565. , 60 20.5 100.0 109.3 91.4 501 566 39 15.9 109.5 117.4 93.3 502 567 n 14.4 116.5 126.5 92.0 503 Esturion St. & 10 13.9 112.9 121.4 93.0 • tsturian Place 504 570' 38 17.6 105.2 116.1 90.4 505 544 16 12.4 104.6 116.1 90.0 506 571 20 16.7 106.4 117.4 90.4 507 Esturian St. & 14 12.8 109.4 117.4 93.1 • Esturion Ploce 508 524 46 12.2 110.0 117.-4 93 .• 7 509 527 48 9.8 110.2 117.4 94.0 510 525 37 9.7 112.8 117.4 96.0 511 526 21 11.3 114.1 117.4 97.2 • 512 528 17 11.5 111.1 117.4 94.6 513 529 19 11.5 111.1 117.4 94.6 . 514 527 52 12.4 110.2 117.4 93.9 SIS 526 25 14.4 110.0 ' 117.4 93.7 516 524 50 12.~ 111.0 117.4 94.5 • .517 528 21 12.4 118.2 121.0 97,.8 518 529 23 15.0 112.8 121.0 93.1 519 527 56 12.4 118.0 . 121.0 97.5 520 531 2 12~6 110.5 117.4 94.0 • SENTON ENGfNEERING. INC. Proiect' No. 71..;7 .... 170 T-15 October 19, 1972 ,'., ~a Costa Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) Depth Ntaximutn Approx-of Fill Field' Dry Dry •• Test imate at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. Location in ,Feet % drywt Ib/cu ft . Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 521 528 25 13.6 109.8 117.4 93.5 . 522 527 60 12.9 114.6 121.0 94 •. 8 • 523 529 27 12.7 108.4 117.4 92.4 524 530 2 14.9 111 .5 121.0 92.1 525 S31 '6 lS .1 112.0 121.0 92.5 526 528 29 14.1 110.5 121.0 91.4 527 529 31 12.,0 113'.0 121.0 93.4 ' •. 528 527 64 13.4 112.7 121.0 93.2 529 530 6 9.8 116.6 121.0 96.5 530 531 9 9.9 113.9 121.0 94.1 531 563 64 14.4 112.4 121.0 93.0 532 564 45 14.3 113.6 121.0 94.0 • 533 565 64 14.8 120. 1 121.0 99.4 534 566 43 16.6 106~2 117.8 90.4 :535 564 49 16.6 107.6 117.8 91.5 536 561 15 14. 1 108. 1 117.8 92.0 537 569 13 16.3 107.9 117.8 91.6 • 538 570 42 15. 1 107. 1 117.8 91.1 539 543 24 10.6 107.5 117.8 91.5 540 571 24 10.5 104.0 113.7 91.5 541 565 68 12.0 104.9 115.9 90.6 542 566 47 18.9 106.5 117.8 90.5 543 569 17 9.5 103.9 113.5 91.5 • 544 572 8 14.9 103.2 113.5 91.0 545 547 48 14.9 103~ 9 .1J3.5 91.5 -546 Estl!rian St. Be 18 13.9 104.6 115.9 90.3 Esturian .Place 547 564 53 12. 1, 113.0 '121.0 93.5 • 548 567 19 9.3 105.6 ).13.5 93.0 549 568 1 9.2 112,.0 117.8 95.1 550 570 46 14.2 105. 1 115.9 90.9 551 544 20 17.2 108.3 117.8 92.1 552 542 27 17. () 110.0 121.0 91.0 • 553 543 28 14.4 103.4 113.5 91.1 554 569 21 14.0 109.3 117.8 93.0 555 571 28 13.3 107.0 116:1 92.2 556 545 46 12.0 102.7 113.5 90.5 557 546 58 14.7 107. 1 117.8 91.1 • 558 545 50 1'5.5 107.0 117.8 90.9 559 544 24 15.6 112.4 121.0 93.0 560 542 31 11.8 105.5 115.8 91.3 • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. • Project No. 71-7-170. T-16 October 19, 1972 La Costa land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS '(CO NT .) Depth Maximum • Approx-of HII Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft 'Compaction Remarks 561 546 62 12. 1 106.1 116. 1 91.4 • 562 545 54 17. 1 107.6 116.1 92.6 563 541 23 13.7 106.2 117.8 90.2 564 543 32 17.4 103. 1 113.5 90.8 565 572 12 14. 1 104.9 116. 1 90.4 566 565 72 13.7 105.2 116. 1 90.6 • 567 540 13 14.3 103.0 113.5 90.9 565 566 5.1 14.2 102.6 113.5 90.5 569 'Esturian St. & 22 14.8 109.0 117.8 92 .. 7 Esturian Place 5]0 545 58 14.4 1.08.0 117.8 91. 7 • 571 564 57 13.8 101.0 111.'2 90.9 572 567 23 18.6 111.0 116.1 95.6 573 568 5 12.5 107.7 116.1 92.7 574 ' 570 50 14.7 107.9 116. 1 93.0 575 544 28 12.5 111. 1 116. 1 95.7 576 542 35 12.5 108.7 116. 1 93.6 • 577 553 59 * 12.9 105.5 116. 1 90.9 57a 554 56 * 11.0 103. 1 113.8 90.7 579 555 50 * 10.4 103, .. 5 112.9 91.6 580 556 48 * 13.7 100.2 109.0 91.9 58"1 569 25 16.7 114.8 121.0 94.9 • 582 572 16 9.6 104.0 112.9 92. 1 583 571 32 12.3 103.6 113.5 91.4 584 565 76 11.0 107.8 117.2 '92.0 585 5,66 55 14.0 106.8 117.2 91.1 586 567 2,7 15.8 105.7 117.2 90.2 • 587 568 9 13.3 107.2 117.2 91.5 588 570 54 12.2 112.0 121.0 92.6 589 569 29 18.8 100.1 . 111.2 91.0 590 564 61 18.8 108. 1 119.0 90.7 591 566 59 14.8 107.6 118.3 91.0 • 592 568 13 16.2 108.8 118.3 92.0 593 570 58 18.0 105.6 116. 1 91.0 594 571 36 18.0 104.3 116. 1 90.0 '595 552W 2 14.8 103.8 114.5 90.6 596 E I Fuerte St. 22 16.1 116.0 121.0 95.9 Opp. Lot 545 •• &546 597 552 E 2 16.9 101.4 112.3 90.5 * 'Finished Grade • .BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. • Proiec.t No. 71-7--170 T-17 Oc·tober 19, 1972 la Costa land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONr.) Depth Maximum • Approx-ofFi/./ Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet 0/0 dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remark$ 598 500 -14 16.3 105.8 115.3 91.7 '. 599 499 10 15.4 108.3 119.0 9f.2 600 541 27 2.1.3 97.5 106.4 91.6 601 552W 6 18.7 -98.0 106.4 92. 1 602 552 E 6 18.6 104.5 115. 1 90.7 603 E I Fuerte St. 26 lB. 1 104.4 115. 1 90.6 • Opp. lot 545 &546 604 E I Fuerte St. & 4 1-4.9 99.5 110.6 90.0 Cacatua St. 605 540 17 14.B 104.0 113.5 91.6 • 606 500 1B 15.2 106.9 114.3 93.5 607 499 14 14.4 10B.7 114.B 94.6 60B 541 31 15.3 103.9 115.3 90.1 609 543 36 15.0 1] 1.2 117.0 95. 1 610 500 -22' 14.5 107.3 119.0 90.3 611 572 20 20.6 99.0 109.B 90.2 • 612 499 1B 20.2 100.4 111.2 90.4 61-3 ElF uerte St. & 8 19.4 102.9 113~5 90.7 Cacatua St. 614 500 26 19.6 roO.8 111.2 90.7 615 520 6 19.9 104.9 115.9 90.6 • 616 518 4 1B.6 1Ol.3 110.6 91.8 . -617 519 2 18. 1 104.3 109.8 95.2 618 519 6 24.0 lOO.1 109.8 91.4 619 521 26 19.4 96.9 106.7 90.8 620 540 21 21.1 100.7 111.2 90.6 • 621 541 25 21.2 100.3 110.9 90.6 622 5S2W 10 14.8 101.4 110.6 91. 9 623 565 80 14,9 101.6 . 111.2 91.4 .624 567 31 18.4 102.5 1 l3.5 90.4 625 542 39 • 19.4 100.Q 111.2 90.0 a 626 541 35 18.0 102.7 113.5 90.6 • 627 EI Fuerte St. & 12 15.5 104.3 115.3 90.6 CacatuQ St. 628 540 25 18. 1 102.8 113.5 90.6 629 539 2 21.8 94.5 106.7 88.6 Reworked • 630 565 84 18.3 91.8 106.7 86. 1 RewQrked • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. • Project No. 71-7-170 T-18 October 19, 19,72 La Costa Land Company TABLE OF rEST RESULTS (CONT.) • Depth Maximum Approx-. of Fill Field ,Dry Dry rest j'm(2te at Test N.;>is'ture Density Den~ity Percent No. . location, in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks I 631 552 E 8 17.9 96.9 106.7 9O.S • 632 566 63 16.7 106.9 115.3 92.e 633 569 33 18.9 103.0 113.5 90.8 634 539 2 14.3 107.8 116.1 92.9 Check on 1629 635 544 32 13.4 99.8 110.6 90.3 636 542 43 16.9 106.0 116. 1 91.3 • 637 539 6 13.6 108.2 116. 1 93.2 638 541 39 20.2 . 105.0 113.5 92.6 , I 639 543 40 11.6 102.4 113.5 90'.3 640 5,39, 10 17.2 106.9 111.2 96.2 641 Esturian St. Opp 3 17.5 106.1 111.2 95.5 • Lot 572 642 544-36 14.7 105.2 116. 1 90.6 643 539 14 16.3 102.5 111.2 92.3 644 E sturian St. 7 16,.0 102. 1 111.2 91.8 Opp. lot 572 • 645 539 20 17.0 103.3 111.2 93.0 646 Esturian St i 11 18. 1 101. 1 111.,2 91.0 Opp. lot 572 647 543 44-16.3 103.3 114.8 90. 1 648 540 29 15.1 112.3 119.0 94.4 649 E I Fuerte St. 16 16.9 98.4 107.7 91.4 • & Cacatua St. 650 501 16 16.5 ' 102.6 111. 7 92.0 651 573 ,4 18.0 102.5 111.2 92.2 652 539 24 ,14.2 109.0 120.2 90.6 653 542 47 14.5 98.7 107.7 91.6 • ,654 573 8 15.5 101.8 108.9 93.6 655 539 28 11.5 108.2 119.0 90.9 ,656 499 22 19:9 96.6 106.7 90.5 657 573 12 12.4 104.0 114. 1 91.0 658 539 32 13.9 101.5 111.2 91.1 • 659 573 16 12.5 105.1 115.,3 91.1 660 538 2 13.6, 102.2 113.5 ' 90.1 661 500 30 17.9 102.9 113.5 90.8 662 498 7 11. 9 97.0 106.7 90.9 663 574 2 16.2 105.9 116. 1 91.3 664 573 20 14.7 114.6 121.4 94.4 • 665 496 11 15.2 105.7 116. 1 91.1 666 499 26 18.2 106.9 116. 1 92. 1 ,' .. . " ElENTON ENGINEERING. INC. • Project No. 71 '!"7 .. l7D T-.19 . October 19, 1972 lac Costa land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) • Depth Maximum Approx-of Fill Held Dry Dry Test imate at Test J<.ioisture Density Density Percent No. location-in Feet % ·dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/eu ft Compaction Remarks 667 Unicornio St. 3 16.9 104.5 115.3 90.6 • & E I Fuerte Sf. 668 571 40 14.4 100.8 111.2 90.7 669 570 62 17.8 101.2 111.2 91.1 670 572 24 17. 1 103.7 113.5 91.4 671 Unicorn 10 St. 7 12. 1 110.6 117.4 94.2 • & E I Fuerte St. 672 ·571 44 13.8 109. 1 117.4 93.0 673 572 28 l3.7 109.8 117.4 93.5 674 571 48 13.6 108.7 117.4 92.7 675 543 48 . 10.9 102.8 113.5 90.6 • 676 Unicornio St. 11 12.0 109.5 H7.4 93.3 & E' Fuerte St. 677 542 51 12.6 104.'2 115.3 90.$ 678 543 52 11. 1 106.0 116. 1 91.3 679 541 44 14.3 105.1 115.3 91.2 680 E I Fuerte St. 20 14.3 109.6 117.4 93.4 • & Cocatua St. 68,1 540 33 12.1 104.6 115.3 90.7 682 54'1 48 15.7 102.3 113.5 90.2 683 502 2 12.9 107. 1 117.4 91.2 684 542 55 l4.3 102.2 113.5 90.2 • 685 571 52 12.5 105.7 117.4 90.0 686 572 32 12.5 105.4 116. 1 90.9 687 E I Fuerte St. 24 14.2 105.6 115.3 91.6 & Cacatua St. 688 542 57 11. 9 115.7 121.4 95.4 • 689 572 36 13.2 109.5 121.4 90.4 690 S40 37 13. 1 103.8 113.5 91.5 , 691 5/2 38 13.3 107.8 117.4 91.8 692 539 34 10. 1 114.2 117.4 97.3 693 538 6 10.5 117.2 121.4 96.5 • 694 539 38 14 .. 5 101. 1 115.2 93.0 695 538 8' , 7.2 108.6 116. 1 93.6 696 541 52 9. 1 108.2 116. 1 93 .. 2 697 540 41 9.5' 109.0 113.5 96.1 698 . 540 45 12.2 102.0 113.5 90.0 • 699 501 20 13.9 105.2 115.3 91.3 700 502 6 14.9 105.Q l1S.3 91.1 • BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. • ProJect No. 71--7-170 T-20 October 19, 1972 ~a Co.ta Land Company TABLE OF TEST RESULTS(CONT.) Depth Maxhnum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imote at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 701 500 34 6.8 111.0 121.0 91.7 • 702 522 46 11.2 104.5 116. 1 90.1 703 523 61 n.9 106.4 116. 1 91.7 704 520 10 18.5 99.2 109.3 90.6 705 52'1 30 18.4 101.7 109.3 93.1 706 498 11 11. 7 121.7 126.5 96.3 e. 707 499 30 12.4 1l7!3 126.5 92.9 ' 708 497 11 9.0 .111. 6 117.4 95.0 709 522 50 10.3 105.7 117.4 90.0 710 520 14 13.5 106.2 117.4 90.4 711 518, 4 14.0 107.7 115.3 93.5 e 712 498 15 17. 1 101.6 111.2 91.4 713 496 15 15.9 102.5 113.5 90.4 714 519 10 21.5 99.3 109.3 90.7 715 501 24 13.0 107. 1 117.4 91.3 716 501 10 14.3 106. 1 117.4 90.4 717 500 38 23.6' 96.5 106.4 90.6 • 718 497 15 14. 1 107.1 116. t ' 92.2 719 499 34 22.4 96.8 106.4 91.1 720 495 8 15.0 105'.6 116. 1 91.0 721 500 42 19.3 100.8 111.2 90.6 722 498 19 15.-9 109.2 118.3 92.3 • 723 496 19 17.8 104. 1 115.3 90.2 ,724 499 38 20.0 98.6 109.3 90.1 725 497 19 17.0 110.0 121.4 90.6 726 495 12 ' 18.8 104.0 115.3 90.2 727 504 2 15.8 99.9 110.9 90.1 • 728 503 4 17.7 104.9 110.6 94.9 729 504 6 16.0 102.8 11'3.,5 90.7 730 503 10 15.6 103.7 11:3.5 91.4 731 504 10 16.0 99.5 110. 1 90.3 732 497 23 16.9 107.2 115.3 93.0 733 500 46 ' 12.0 107. 1 116. 1 92.3 • 734 498 23 13.0 108. 1 116. 1 93.1 735 495 ·16 14.4 105. ,1 116. 1 90.6 736 496 23 12.4 106.4 . 117.4 90.6 737 497 27 18.2 105.,8 117.4 90.1 738 496 27 11.8 104.5 117.4 89.0 Reworked • 739 496 27 13.5 107.3 115.4 93.1 Check on '738 740 499 42' 14,.8 102.3 113.5 90.2 e' BENTPN ENGINEERING. INC. • Project No. 71'-7-170 T-21 . Oct()bet 19, 1972 .La Costa Land Company TABLE OF TeSr RESULTS (CONT.) Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill ·Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test NIoistu're Density Densi·ty Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 741 557 44-* 17.6 101.2 109.8 92.2 • 742 558 44-* . 9.0 107. 1 " 116.8 91.7 743 Chorlito St. ' 12 17.5· 101.9 112.4 90.6 Opp. Lot 555 744 .560 53 * 14.8 103. 1 113.5 91.0 745 561 54 13.4 105.3 116.8 90.2 • 746 561 . 56 * 13.3 101.3 111.5 90.9 747 Esturian St. 14 17. 1 107.6 116.8 92.2 Opp. Lot 548 748 500 50 14.4 108.7 117.4 92.6 749 503' 14 10.5 110.3 115.3 95.7 • 750 501 28 18.9 106.7 111.2 96.0 751 SOO 54 21. 9 99 .. 1 108.~ 91.1 752 498 27 14.8 109.9 117.8 93.4 753 499 46 15.8 103.8 115.3 90.0 754 541 56 13.1 105.7 113.5 93.3 755 Cacatua St. 2 11. 1 106.8 116. 1 92.1 • Opp. lot 500 .756 500 58 10.7 104.0 115.3 90.2 757 Cacatua St. 15 12.7 99.7 113.5 87.9 Reworked Opp. lot 572 758 495 20 13. 1 105.8 116. 1 91.1 ).. 759 495 24 23.8 96.8 106.4 90.9 760 494 . 2 23.1 98.4 109.3 90.0 761 495 28 22.4 98.7 109.3 90.2 762 494 6 14.5 99.0 115.3, 85.8 Reworked 763 494 6 16.5 104.2 111.2 93.7 Check on '762 • 764-494 10 21.6 102.7 111.2 92.4 765 494 12 17.? 105.8 117.0 90.4 766 494. 14 18.0 . 106.4 117.0 91.0 767 494 16 18.3 105.0 114.6 . 91.7 768 493 2 17. 1 105.2 115.3 91.3 • 769 493 4 18.3 100.7 109.3 92.2 770 493 6 14.8 108.0 117.0 92.4 771 552 E 12 19.4 104.8 114.6 91.6 m 523N 65 16. 1 106.7 113.5 94.1 173 '518 8 16.8 117.0 121.0 96.6 774 523 N 69 .20.,8 104 .. 9 111.2 94.5 • 775 522 N 54 18.3 104.4 113.5 92. 1 776 521 34 19. 1 105.8 113.5 93.3 'm 520 18 20.2 105.0 113.5 92.6 * Finished Grade e BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. • Pro jed No. 71-7-170 T .. 22 October 19, 1972 Lg Costa land Company TABLE OF TEST RE'SUlTS (CONT.) Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imote at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 778 519 14 25.4 83.3 111.2 75.-0 . Reworked • 779 518 12 18.5 .]04.2 113.5 91.8 780 519 14 18.8 103.7 111.2 93.2 Check on 1778 781 493 ,8 19.7 96.8 112.3 86.2 Reworked 782 517 3 26.0 95.0 109.3 86.9 Reworked 783 520 22 19.0 102.3 112.3 91.2 • 784 521 38 21.0 103.0 112.3 91.6 785 522 N 58 22. 1 104. 1 113.5 9-1.S 786 523 N 73 lS.7 105.7 113.5 93.2 787 521 42 17.5 101.6· 112.3 90.4 788 522 N 62 19. 1 104.9 113.5 . 92.4 • 789 523N 77 16.9 103.8 115.3 90.0 790 Unicornio St. 15 -14.:4 119.4 12"1.0 98.7 & EI Fuerte St. , 791 552 E 14 13.2 106.7-112.3 95.0 792 552 E 16 20.2 102.3 113.5 90.2 •• 793 552 E 18 18,4 106.0 115.9 91.5 794 521 46 17.0 102.7 113.5 90.4 795 496 31 16. S J01.7 . 112.3 90.6 S96 Unitornio St. 13 14.6 116.3 121.0 96.1 Opp. lot 526 797 522 N 66 11.8 107.6 1l2.3 95.9 • 798 EI t=uerte St. 30 17.0 106.6 113.3 94.1 Opp. lots 445 & 446 799 568 17 19.5 96.S 106.7 90.7 SOO 523 S 4 19.3 104.9 113.5 92.5 • 801 522 S 4 17.3 106.7 113.5 94.0 802 Cacatua PI. 15 13.6 10S.0 1 l3. 5 95.~ Ched< on 1757- Opp. lot 572 803. Esturian St. & 26 15.4 113. 1 12'1.0 93.5 Esturianp·l. • 804 413 3 19.8 104.6 114.6 91.3 805 413 5 17.5 104.0 113.5 . 91.5 806 -' 413 7 18.9 107. 1 115.9 92.5 807 523 S 8 19.7 96.2 113.5 84.7 Reworked S08 41"3 9 17.6 107.0 113.5 94A • 809 523 S 8 19.2 103.6 113.5, 91.3 Check on 'S07 810 522 S 8 19~ () 102.S 113.5 90.6 • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. • Project No. 71-7-170 . T-23 October 19, 1972 La Costa Land Company TAB.~ OF TEST RESULTS (CONTo) Depth Maximum • Approx-of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test Moisture. Density Density Percent No. LocotiQn in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 811 523 81 21.5 99.2 109.6 90.5 812 413 11 13 .. 5 108.8 113.5 95.9 •• 8,13 562 50 * 16.0 103.9 113.5 91.6 814 493 8 19.9 104.3 113.5 92.0 Check on #781 815 493 10 • 16.4 104.9 113.5 92.5 816 570 64.5 1r l5.6 103.7 111.0 93.4 817 55'1 21 .. 16.2 104.3 112. 1 93.0 • 8.18 550 22 18.2 98.3 106.7 92.1 Check on'282 819 550 25 .. 15.4 99.0 109.4 90.5 820 517 3 15.7 105.7 112. 1 94.2 Chec k on '782 821 549 18 • 15.8 105.8 111.6 95.0 822 548 16 22.6 '99.7 109.6 91.0 Check on i 437 823 548 18 * 16.8 106.3 113.5 93.7 . '. 824 547 50 1r 12.4 106.3 113.5 93.7 825 546 64 * 17.3 106.7 113.5 94.0 826 545 62 * 21. l' 96.2 106.7 90.2 827 544 39 1r 15.2 105.2 113.5 92.S 828 543 54 * 14.3 111. 3 121.0 92.1 • 829 542 59 13.0 113.5 121.0 93.8 830 542 61.5 * 16.6 111.0 121.0 91.7 831 564 . 65.5" 16.7 95.7 106.4 90.0 832 565 84 17.4 94.6 106.7 88.6 Rew~rked 833 565 86 ... 12.5 111.8 11'7.4 95.2 • 834 566 66 * 16.2 104.5 114.0 91. 7 835 567 35.5'* 16.3 100.6 111.2 90.5 8,36 523 85 16.6 101.0 111.5 90.6 837 572 40 13.3 109.8 117.4 93.6 838 572 42 12.5 111. 6 117.4 95.Q • 839 572 44-* 16.4 111. 7 117.4 95.0 840 522 70 19.0 100.3 111.2 90,.3 841 563 64,.5 * ,14. 1 104.3 111.2 ,93.8 842 573 24 16.6 98.0 111.3 88.0 Reworked 843 568 19 * 20.7 " 103.2 113.6 '91.0 • 844-569 ' 35 * 15.0 103.7 115.3 90.0 845 571 . 55 * 18.9 103.4 114.0 90.7 846 540 49.5 * 16. 1 103.2 113.5 91.0 847 541 58 .. 18.3 . 100.8 112.3 90.0 848 501 32 • 20.2 103.6 111.2 93.2 • 849 502 14.5 • 20.8 1.00.6 111.2 90.4 850 503 18.5 * 18.4 109.0 121.0 9().1 • Finished Grade • BENiONENGINEERING, INC. • Project No. 7,1-7-170 T-24 October 1'9, 1972 La Costa Land Company TABlE OF TE~T RESULTS (CONT.) Depth Maximum • Approx-_ of Fill Field Dry Dry r"st imate at Test Moisture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % drywt Ib/cu ft Ib/cuft Compaction Remarks 851 504 12.5 * 18.8 102.2 113.6 90.1 -e 852 523 88 13. 1 110.0 112. 1 98.2 853 538 10 12.9 108.6 117.4 92.5 854 538 12 13.0 109.2 117.4 93.1 855 538 14 12.9 108.8 117.4 92.7 856 538 16 -"" 19. 1 111.0 117.4 94.5 .-857 539 40* 12.6 120.8 121.0 99.8 858 523 90 17. 1 100.7 111.2 90.6 85~ 582 2 13.3 1.09.3 117.4 93.2 860 582 4-"" 1-4.5 116.7-121.0 96.4 861 515 2 * 19.4 105.8 111.2 95.1 862 500 62 * 1:4.3 108~6 116.1 93.4 • 863 499 49-* 18.6 98.3 109.3 90.0 864 498 30 * 17.2 105. 1 116. 1 90.6 865 497 30 * 17.2 100.3 111.2 90.2 866 496-33 * 15.7 106.8 116. 1 91. 9 867 495 32 ""-19.7 101.5 111.2 91.4 • 868 494 18-.5 * 18.6 104.3 115.3 90.6 869 524 -52.5 * 19.3 99.3 109.3 90.7 970 525 41 * 16.9 101'.3 111.2 91 ! 1 871 526 26 ""-19.5 101. 3 111.2 91.1 872 527 Q6 "" 18.2 101.8 111.2 91.4 e 873 516 2 "" 15.7 112. 1 117.4 95.5 874 51'7 5 * 17.5 110.7 113.5 97.6 875 -518 16 ." 16. ] 106. 1 113.5 93.5 876 483 3 "" 11.6 110. 1 115.3 95.5 877 -Cacatua p.,. 6 16.3 1()'7.2 113.5 94.5 . Opp. lot 500 _e 878 463 13.5 ." 13.2 115. 1 121. 0 95.1 879 562 12.5 * 12.,6 106.5 115.3 -92.3 880 469 28.5* 13.2 106.6 113.5 94.0 881 468 20 ." 11. 7 105.8 115.3 91.6 882 472 7 * 11.7 111.5 118.9 93.9 e 883 473 5 * 9.7 108.3 118.9 91.2- 884 528 31 ." 13.6 108.3 117.4 92.3 885 52'9 33 ." 15.8 106.7 117.4 90.9 886 53Q' 7 * 17.4 108.2 117.4 92.2 887 531 10 ." . 18.3 105. 1 116.9 90.0 • 888 459 28 "" 12.8 102.6 111. 9 91. 7 889 460 19 ." 13.4 102.3 113.5 90.3 890 461 13 * 15. 1 98.7 1.09.3 ,90.3 * Finished Grade • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC, Pro ject No. 71-7-170 T-25 October 19, 1972 • La Costa land Compan)' TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (CONT.) . Depth Maximum • Approx-of FIJI Field Dry Dry Test imote at Test Ntotsture Density Density Percent No. Location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 891 466 4 * 12.3 110.6 117.4 94.3 • 892 467 12 * 13.6 104.3 114.0 91.6 893 471 20.5 * 10.8 97. 1 118.0 . 82.3 Reworked 894 427 7.5'·* 11.5 105.2 . 116.1 90.6 895 426 " 3 9.8 110.7 117.4 94.2 896 426 5 '* 11.3 109.9 " 117.4 93.6 • 897 424 2 12.7 105. 1 115.6 91.0 898 424 4 * 16.6 102.7 113.4 90.6 899 423 5 * 19.0 101.3 112.4 90.0 900 565 84 16.3 .104.0 115.3 90.2 Checks on 1630 & '832 901 573 24 12.8 102.9 113.5 90.7 Check on 'S42" • 902 574 6 12.5 105.3 113.5 92.9 903 574 10 12.2 107.8 116. 1 92.9 904 573 2S.5* 15.2 108.3 119.2 90.9 905 574 13 * 16.5 100. 1 111.2 90.,0 906 523 92 *" 16.2 101.2 111.2 91.0 • 907 522 72.5 * 14.9 1.01.6 110.8 91. 7 90S 521 48 * 13.9 " 102.7 113.5 90.5 909 520 24.5 .. 16.0 104.8 114.6 91.4 9lO 519 lS.5 * 17. 1 103.8 111.2 93.4 911 414 2 * 16.5 100.6 111.2 90.5 • 912 413 13 * 17.7 103.6 111.2 93.2 913 552W 14 15.7 102.4 114. 1 90.0 914 552W 16 * 16.9 103.4 114. 1 90.6 915 552 E 20 'ft. 16.7 107.3 111.9 96.0 916 Offsite B I NEnd 2 9.4 104. 1 113.5 91.8 ••• tast ofE 1 F uerte St . 917 Offslte B, N End 6 lO.4 108.3 116. 1 93.4 tast of 1:.1 F uerte St. 918 Offsite B I NEnd 8 17.7 96.2 106.7 90.2 tast Qf EJ Fuerte St .• "919 OffsJteB" 5 End ' 2 11. 1 106.3 117.4 90.6 • fa~t of EI F uerte St. 920 Cffsite B I 5 End 4 12.8 112.3 117.4 95.7 fast of EI Fuerte Sto • * "Finished Grade • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 71-1-170" T-26 October 19, 1972 • La Costa Land Compciny TABLE OF TEST ~ESUlTS (CQNT.) • Depth Maximum Apptox-. of Fill Field Dry Dry Test imate at Test N\oisture Density Density Percent No. location in Feet % dry wt Ib/cu ft Ib/cu ft Compaction Remarks 921 Offsite C 10.0 * 21.6 109. 1 110.0 96.6 • Area A 922 Offsite C 6 .... 0 * 19.7 98.2 107.9 91.0 AreaC 923 471 20.5 * 12.3 119.9 126.5 94.7 924 481 2.0 * 13.0 106.4 117.8 90.5 • 925 Chorl'ito St. .12.0 15.4 106.2 113.5 93.7 Opp.,.Lot 555 926 Offsite C 2.0 13.8 109.4 117.4 93.2 Areq A 927 Offsite C 4.0 13.8 113.0 121.6 93.0 • Area B 928 Offsite C 6.0 14.2 105.3 116.1 90.6 Area A 929 0.ffsite C 8.0 17.5 106.1 114.4 92.8 Area B 930 Offsite C 10.0 8.7 114.9 117.4 97.7 • Area A 931 Offsite C 2.0 17.1 102.0 111.5 91.4 Area D 932 Offsite C 4.0 14.7 103.9 111.5 93.2 Areo.E • 933 Offsite C 6.0 10.1 102.8 111.0 92.6 AreaD 934 Offsite C 2.0 14.6 108.7 120.2 90.3 Area C 935 Offsite C 4.0 21.0 103.0 113.5 90.7 -.' Area C • * Fi n ished Grade • BENTON ENGINEERJNG, INC. •• • • • •• • • • • • • Project No. 71"'\7-17D La COS~9 Land Company T-27 LABORATORYTEST RESULTS Oct.ober 19, 1972 The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the maior fill materials as deter- mined by the A.S. T.M. D 1557-66T method, that uses 25 blows of a 10 pound rammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder, are presented as. follows: . SoH Description Red-brown fine to mecJhJm sandy clay Light yellow-brown silty fine to medium sand with siltstone Brown silty fine to coarse sand with 30 to 40 percent gravel Medium brown fine to medium sandy clay with flecks of rust Light yellow-brown with streaks of·gray silty fine to medium sand with small chunks of siltstone Brown fine to medium sand with flecks of yellow-gray Red-brown silty clay Brown fine sandy clay (topsoU) with scattered gravel Light olive-green silty clay Light whitish-gray clayey silt with streaks of rust and yellow Light olive-gray clayey silt with streaks of rust and yell.ow Whitish yellow-brown slightly clayey very fine to fine sand with rusty flecks of lime light to yellow-brown flecks of white and rust silty day with scattered fine to medium grains and occasional cemented chunks Light gray with some yellow slightly silty fine sand Whitish light olive-green clayey sil t Light yellow-graysi Ity fine sand Iv\edium brown fine sandy clay Gray-brown 51-1 ty clay Light brown-yeHow clayey fine sand Brown fine sandy clay (topsoil) Light gray-brown sil ty very fine to fine sand with scat·tered clay binder Medium brown slightly silty fine to medium sand with few coarse grains Light to mec;fium brown clayey silt Whitish silt with 'lightly cemented limestone' light yellow-brown silty very fine to fine sand w.ithstreaks of rust and lime BENTON ENGINEERING. INC. Maximum Optimum Mois- Dry Density ture Content Ib/cu ft % dry wt 111.3 15.0 11-1.0 15.4 137.8 8.4 118.0 12.4 117.4 13.1 120.2 11.5 111.9 15.3 119.0-11.5 116.9 13.0 111.3 16.0 106.4 13.8 113.7 . 13.8 109.3 14.0 115.3 13.7 109 .0 16.2 117.0 11.7 11'9.0 13.2 110.6 16.7 116.8 12.4- 118.9 13.0 117.8 13.1 121.4 11.3 106.7 174 . . 96.5 21.6 113.3 14.2 PrQlect No. 71 ... 7-170 1'-28 October 19, '1972 • La Costa Land' Company' Maximum Optimum Moi$- Dry Density ture Content Soil Description Ib/cu ft % ~ry wt • Dark gray-black fine sandy day with lime 1l5~6 13.8 Whitish light gray streaks yellow silty very fine to 116.1 13.2 , fine sand with very slightly clay binder fv4.edium brown fine to medIum sandy clay wHh 126.5 9.4 • scattered gravel Light brown Silty fine to coarse san~ ,with 20 to 30 119.0 13.1 percent gravel (D. G .) Light gray-brown sl:ightly silty fine sand (micaceous) 109.6 12.4 (import) .-Light yellow-brown silty very fine to fine sand 113.5 11.5 Light brown silty clay and cemented chunks (flecks white) 109.8 15.2 l.ightyellow-brQwn clayey silt flecks white and 115.9 13.3 cemented chunks Light brown slightly silty fine to medium sand 121.0 10.0 Gray-green silty clay 111.2 13.6 • • • • • • • BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.