Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDU 01-03; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE M; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 2000-06-26FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING PREPARED FOR CONTINENTAL RESIDENTIAL, INCORPORATED CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JUNE 2000 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 I Continental Residential, Incorporated 2237 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 I Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Dave Lother I Subject: VILLAGE M LOT NOS. 242 THROUGH 308 RANCHO CA1RILLO I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING I Gentlemen: I .In accordance with your request and, our proposal, dated August 30, 1999, we have provided compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our services were performed during the period of November 14, 1999 through June 7, 2000. The scope of our services I included the following: I Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils, colluvium and alluvium. I . Providing on-site geologic consultation and observation services to verify that grading was performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the preliminary project soils report. Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site. Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction and expansion characteristics of various soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill. Preparing "As-Graded" Geologic Maps. Preparing this final report of grading. It should be noted that Lot 306 has not yet been finish graded at the time of preparing this report. An addendum report Will be issued upon completion of this lot. 6960 Flanders Drive in Son Diego, California 92121-2974 IN Telephone (858) 558-6900 Fax (858) 558-6159 I 1 [1 I I I .1 I GENERAL The grading contractor for the mass grading phase of the project was Sukut Construction, Incorporated. The fine grading operations were performed by Signs and Pinnick. The project mass grading plans were prepared by Rick Engineering Company and are entitled Grading Plans for 1 Rancho Carrillo Sheets 12 through 15 with the City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14, 1996 The fine grading plans were also prepared by Rick Engineering Company, and are entitled Grading and Erosion Control Plans for Rancho Carrillo Villages L & M with the City of Carlsbad approval datedMay 6, 1999. Theproject soils report prepared by Geocon Incorporated are entitled Preliminary ,Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Carrillo, Villages F, G, L, M, N, and F, Carlsbad, California, I and Final Report of Testing and Observation services During Mass Grading Melrose ,Drive', Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad California, dated March 11, 1998. 1 References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING. The grading operation was performed in two phases. The first phase was performed in conjunction with the mass grading operations for Melrose Drive during 1997. These operations consisted of sheet grading of large pads and construction of two buttress fills along Melrose Drive. Documentation of this work is presented in our report entitled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Mass Grading, Melrose Drive, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, 'California, dated March 11, 1998. The current phase of grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded in, the balanc&of the project. In addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium, and alluvium were removed to firm natural ground. In general, surficial deposits were removed and the excavations were observed by Geocon' s field representative to verify that unsuitable materials had been removed and dense formational soils were exposed at the base of the cleänouts. Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils 'derived from on-site excavations and the surrounding areas were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the fill materials consist of various ted, brown, and yellowish clayey sands, silty sands, sandy clays, silty gravels, and silty clays with varying amounts of cobbles and boulders. During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were Project No. 05845-12-45 , -2- June 26, 2000 I I performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D-2922-8 1. The results of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In general, the in-place density test ' results indicate that the fill soil has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations tested. The approximate locations of the in-place density tests are shown on the As-Graded Geologic Maps, Figures 1 through 4. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557-91) and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Tables II and ifi. Slopes In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (honzontal:vertical) or flatter, with maximum height of approximately 35 and 55 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. During the mass grading operations for Melrose Drive, the major cut slope bordering the site was stabilized' at two locations by construction of two, drained buttress fills. The details of the buttress fills are presented in the referenced report. During the current phase of grading, a drained stability fill slope was constructed south of Lot Nos. 280 through 283, due to the presence interbedded sandstones and claystones. All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope. Subdrains A canyon subdrain was installed within the southern portion of the site, within Lot No. 271, at the general location shown on the approved Grading Plans. In addition the subdrain was "as built" for ' location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company and is shown on the attached As-Graded Geologic Map. The heel drains associated with the buttress fills and the stability fill are also shown. These subdrains are connected to the storm drain system. The only exception is the heel drain from the stability fill behind Lots 280 through 283, which is yet to be connected to the permanent storm drain system. I I Project No. 05845-12-45 -3 - June 26, 2000 I I Finish GradeSoiI Conditions Based on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade on each lot have an Expansion Index of 7 to 112 (Table III), and are classified as having a" very low" to "high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 1,84-B. Table IV presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soil condition for each lot. Thecut portions of those lots which contained a cut-fill transition within the building areas (except where the fill thickness was less than 2 feet) were undercut approximately 3 feet below rough finish- grade and replaced with compacted fill soil. It should be noted that, although rocks larger than 12 inches were not intentionally placed within the - upper 3 feet of pad grade, some larger rocks may exist at random locations. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those described in the project geotechmcal report In general, the compacted fill soils are underlain by I either the Delmar or Lusardi Formations. The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps (Figures 1 through 4) depict the general geologic conditions observed. These maps also show the original topography prior to the start of grading. No soil or geOlogic conditions were observed during grading which would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the 1 grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil reports. Soil and I geologic conditions encountered during grading that, differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant I :modification to the recommendations of the project sqil report, they have been described herein. Project No. 05845-12-45 -4- June 26, 2000 F, 1 2.0 Liquefaction Potential 2.1 The site is underlain by compacted fill and dense formational soils. Near-surface permanent groundwater is not present. Therefore, it is our opinion that the soils on site are stable and that the potential for liquefaction is remote. El 3.0 Future Grading 3.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. All trench backfill in excess of one-foot I thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. 4.0 Foundations 4.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented below in Table 4.1. A summary of as-graded building pad conditions is presented in Table V. TABLE 4.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement (inches) I 12 One No. 4 bar top and bottom 6 x 6-10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid-point II 18 Two No. 4 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions III 24 Two No. 5 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions CATEGORY CRITERIA Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50. Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet. Category Ill: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130. Project No. 05845-12-45 -5 - June 26, 2000 I I LI I I I I HI I Notes: All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories I and and 5 inches thick for Category ifi. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category ifi) of clean sand or crushed rock. All slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of-the tclean sand recommended in No. 4 above, 4.2 Foundations for either Category I, II, or ifi may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of .2,000 pounds per square fOot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. 4.3 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 4.4 The use of isolated footings that are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 4.5 For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 4.6 1 Recommended foundation category for each lot is presented in Table 4.2. :1 Project No. 05845-12-45 -6- June 26, 2000 TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION FOUNDATION CATEGORY Recommended Lot Numbers Foundation Category 267, 268, 273 I 242, 243, 253-255, 257, 258, 261-266, 269, 274, 280-283, II 286, 288-296, 300-305 244-252, 256, 259, 260, 270-272, 275-279, 284,285, 287, ifi 297-299, 307*, 308 * Lot 306 has not yet been completed. 4.7 For building pads with finish grade soils possessing an Expansion Index between 50 and 90 (see Table V), it is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension exceeding 8 feet be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for'cracking. The reinforcement for building pads with Expansion Index greater than 90 should consist of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions. In addition, all 'concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing of 12 feet. 4.8 All subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to concrete placement. Where drying has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required. This recommendation applies to slabs-on-grade foundations as well as exterior flat work. 4.9 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. For fill slopes less than 20 feet high; building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. I 1 Project No. 05845-12-45 - 7 - June 26, 2000 I Li 1 Li Li I Li I I LI I I I LI Li I I I • For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori- zontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at I least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height. Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that I . the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For I swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions. 4.10 Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without I causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 4.11 As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the I Post-Tensioning Institute (UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should I incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post- Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated. I I 1 I I Project No. 05845-12-45 -8- June 26, 2000 4.12 I 4.13 TABLE 4.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATIONSYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PTO Design Parameters Foundation Category i II iii Thornthwaite Index -20 •, -20 -20 Clay Type - Monthiorillonite Yes Yes .. Yes Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70% Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0-ft. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. Moisture. Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. Edge Lift moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 26 ft. .8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78m. 1.l5in. Center Lift Moisture'Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. Center Lift 2.12m. 3.21 in. 4.74. in. I 1 I I UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in: its structural design procedures. If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams .be .used for Foundation Categories II and ifi; The depth of the perimeter, foundation should be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category 1. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 91, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to' provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. ' The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying thicknesses. However, even with the. incorporation of the recommendations presented herein', foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is ,independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled' by 'limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the 'placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur. '1 ' Project No. 05845-12-45 , - 9 - ' June 26, 1000 5.0 Seismic Design Parameters 5.1 The following table summarizes site design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 5.1 are for the Rose Canyon Fault that is identified as a Type B fault and is more dominant than the nearest type A fault due to its close proximity to the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 8 miles west of the site. TABLE 5.1 SITE DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-I Soil Profile SD Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, C 0.64 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, N 1.0 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U LI 6.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 6.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of I 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward I from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill I materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure 1 of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure 6.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project Project No. 05845-12-45 _10 - June 26, 2000 I LI I LI I I I 1 architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. A typical retaining wall drain system is presented on Figure 5. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 6.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. I 6.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon I Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 1 7.0 Slope Maintenance 7.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (honzontal:vertical) may, under conditions that are both 1 difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and I . usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of I 1 Project No. 05845-1245 -11- June 26, 2000 I .1 I I I 1 I [] subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. 8.0 Drainage 8.1 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation June 7, 2000. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 05845-12-45 - 12 - June 26, 2000 Li I Li I I I I, I I, I [1 I I I I If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOON INCO AS:DFL:dmc (6/del) Addressee (1/del) Continental Ranch Job Site Attention: Mr. Dave Jones (1) Rick Engineering Company Attention: Mr. Craig Kahien :1 Project No. 05845-1245 - 13 - June 26, 2000 - - - - - .- - - - _i - on NO .- - - we - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 1 10/14/99 KEYWAY LT 284 BOTTOM 440 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.0 18.0 91 90 SZ 2 10/14/99 FILL LOT 284 BOTTOM 446 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.1 15.0 90 90 SZ 3 10/14/99 FILL LOT 285 BOTTOM 448 146 0 115.5 15.3 108.1 17.0 94 90 SZ 4 10/15/99 SLOPE LOT 284 BACK 452 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.9 15.6 91 90 SZ 5 10/15/99 SLOPE LOT 284 BACK 454 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.1 16.4 92 90 SZ 6 10/15/99 SLOPE LOT 285 BACK 461 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.3 19.1 93 90 SZ 7 10/15/99 SLOPE LOT 285 BACK 465 9 0 107.1 17.1 96.3 19.0 90 90 SZ 8 10/15/99 LOT 285 BACK 470 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.8 15.8 91 90 9 10/18/99 KYWY FILL L 272 BCK 460 149 0 115.5 15.3 107.3 18.0 93 90 SZ 10 10/18/99 SLOPE LOT 271 BACK 465 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.3 19.0 91 90 SZ 11 10/18/99 SLOPE LOT 271 BACK 469 146 0 115.5 15.3 101.5 20.4 88 90 SZ 11A 10/18/99 SLOPE LOT 271 BACK 469 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.7 16.2 91 90 SZ 12 10/18/99 SLOPE LOT 284 BACK 478 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.3 11.8 90 90 SZ 12A 10/18/99 LOT 284 BACK 478 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.7 15.7 92 90 13 10/18/99 KYWY LOT 284 BACK 476 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.4 13.3 91 90 14 10/18/99 LOT 284 478 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.0 16.9 91 90 15 10/18/99 LOT 285 475 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.8 15.8 91 90 SZ 16 10/19/99 LOT 272 472 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.0 15.1 90 90 SZ 17 10/19/99 LOT 271 477 146 0 115.0 15.3 98.2 13.8 85 90 SZ 17A 10/19/99 LOT 271 477 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.9 16.8 90 90 SZ 36 10/22/99 LOT 248 379 157 0 109.0 15.4 101.7 18.3 93 90 37 10/22/99 LOT 250 388 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.6 16.3 92 90 38 10/22/99 LOT 247 380 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.3 16.4 91 90 39 10/22/99 LOT 248 384 146 0 115.5 15.3 107.0 16.9 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) SZ 40 10/22/99 LOT 251 291 4 0 115.8 15.7 103.9 21.8 90 90 SZ 41 10/22/99 LOT 249 290 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.7 19.9 91 90 SZ 42 10/22/99 LOT 248 285 157 0 109.0 15.4 99.5 20.3 91 90 43 10/22/99 LOT 250 394 146 0 115.5 15.3 102.5 18.2 89 90 43A 10/22/99 LOT 250 394 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.1 16.8 90 90 SZ 44 10/25/99 LOT 252 398 116 0 111.2 17.5 100.8 20.9 91 90 SZ 45 10/25/99 LOT 253 402 116 0 111.2 17.5 97.9 21.7 88 90 SZ 45A 10/25/99 LOT 253 402 116 0 111.2 1.7.5 99.8 21.2 90 90 46 10/25/99 LOT 254 411 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.6 14.9 91 90 47 10/25/99 LOT 252 407 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.0 16.0 90 90 SZ 48 10/25/99 LOT 254 409 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.3 15.3 92 90 SZ 49 10/25/99 LOT 255 416 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.1 15.9 92 90 50 10/25/99 LOT 253 414 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.3 16.7 90 90 51 10/25/99 LOT 251 410 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.6 15.1 90 90 52 10/26/99 LOT 249 399 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.3 19.9 90 90 53 10/26/99 LOT 250 403 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.8 20.6 92 90 54 10/26/99 LOT 254 419 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.7 19.7 91 90 SZ 55 10/26/99 LOT 252 413 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.5 14.6 93 9 56 10/26/99 LOT 252 417 146 0 115.5 15.3 107.3 17.4 93 90 SZ 57 10/26/99 LOT 253 419 146 0 115.5 15.3 111.0 15.4 96 90 SZ 58 10/26/99 LOT 255 420 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.9 16.9 91 90 59 10/26/99 LOT 251 413 116 0 111.2 17.5 100.7 17.7 91 90 60 10/26/99 LOT 255 422 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.9 18.9 90 90 61 10/27/99 LOT 252 418 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.8 14.9 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - an _I M. - - -> - - - - - ..- - (_. - Project No. 05845-12-45 (C) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 62 10/27/99 LOT 254 422 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.5 18.0 90 90 63 10/27/99 LOT 250 406 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.8 18.7 90 90 64 10/27/99 LOT 255 424 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.5 16.9 91 90 65 10/27/99 LOT 256 428 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.6 17.4 91 90 SZ 66 10/27/99 LOT 251 414 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.0 18.0 90 90 67 10/27/99 LOT 248 396 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.2 21.9 90 90 68 10/27/99 PASEO DESCANSO 7+60 406 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.7 16.2 92 90 69 10/27/99 PASEO DESCANSO 9+70 418 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.9 16.8 91 90 70 10/27/99 LOT 253 422 25 0 112.2 17.0 100.4 18.1 90 90 71 10/28/99 PASEO DESCANSO 412 157 0 109.0 15.4 98.6 20.2 91 90 72 10/28/99 LOT 307 420 157 0 109.0 15.4 100.0 21.0 92 90 73 10/28/99 LOT 256 431 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.3 17.3 91 90 74 10/28/99 LOT 255 430 146 0 115.5 15.3 107.6 15.9 93 90 75 10/28/99 LOT 284 478 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.4 21.5 93 90 76 10/28/99 LOT 272 488 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.8 20.4 91 90 77 10/28/99 LOT 270 491 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.4 19.5 92 90 78 10/28/99 LOT 271 494 157 0 109.0 15.4 101.0 21.1 93 90 79 10/28/99 LOT 283 480 157 0 109.0 15.4 100.4 20.2 92 90 80 10/28/99 LOT 285 480 157 0 109.0 15.4 99.0 19.1 91 90 81 10/29/99 LOT 272 490 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.3 20.1 91 90 82 10/29/99 LOT 271 494 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.9 18.6 92 90 83 10/29/99 LOT 270 495 25 0 112.2 17.0 103.8 19.9 93 90 84 11/01/99 LOT 255 432 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.7 14.4 93 90 85 11/01/99 LOT 253 423 157 0 109.0 15.4 100.8 16.9 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms .- - - '- an No, an - -aw OW - - .- - - .- - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/41 Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) SZ 86 11/01/99 LOT 272 493 148 0 115.0 14.6 103.5 22.0 90 90 SZ 87 11/01/99 LOT 270 496 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.0 18.0 91 90 88 11/01/99 LOT 254 427 148 0 1150 14.6 103.0 11.8 90 90 88A 11/01/99 LOT 254 427 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.2 15.9 92 90 89 11/01/99 LOT 271 498 157 0 109.0 15.4 100.2 16.3 92 90 90 11/01/99 LOT 286 479 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.8 15.2 91 90 91 11/01/99 LOT 275 490 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.1 18.0 91 90 92 11/02/99 LOT 255 434 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.7 15.1 90 90 93 11/02/99 LOT 253 425 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.4 15.7 90 90 94 11/02/99 LOT 256 436 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.3 16.6 91 90 95 11/02/99 LOT 254 429 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.9 16.2 90 90 96 11/02/99 LOT 294 451 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.7 17.1 91 90 97 11/02/99 LOT 257 448 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.4 15.5 91 90 98 11/02/99 LOT 256 438 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.6 18.0 91 90 99 11/02/99 LOT 254 433 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.5 16.1 92 90 100 11/03/99 LOT 257 452 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.2 19.7 90 90 101 11/03/99 LOT 256 444 25 0 112.2 17.0 100.7 20.9 90 90 102 11/03/99 LOT 276 492 157 0 109.0 15.4 99.4 19.5 91 90 103 11/03/99 LOT 272 500 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.2 17.6 90 90 104 11/03/99 LOT 270 501 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 16.1 93 90 105 11/03/99 LOT 275 495 157 0 109.0 15.4 98.9 16.6 91 90 106 11/03/99 LOT 271 503 146 0 115.5 15.3 107.1 15.9 93 90 107 11/03/99 LOT 270 505 157 0 109.0 15.4 99.8 17.8 92 90 108 11/03/99 LOT 276 501 148 0 115.0 14.6 109.1 14.6 95 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms I - - -. as -. on no, - - .- -. -, - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock. Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 109 11/04/99 LOT 272 507 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.7 13.9 95 90 110 11/04/99 LOT 269 510 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.6 17.7 90 90 111 11/04/99 LOT 271 511 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.9 16.7 91 90 112 11/04/99 LOT 266 505 157 0 109.0 15.4 93.7 23.6 86 90 112A 11/04/99 LOT 266 505 157 0 109.0 15.4 99.8 20.3 91 90 SZ 113 11/04/99 LOT 266 509 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.0 18.1 91 90 SZ 114 11/04/99 LOT 266 511 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.6 17.0 91 90 SZ 115 11/04/99 LOT 266 515 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.9 19.2 90 9 116 11/04/99 LOT 270 509 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.4 17.5 91 90 117 11/04/99 LOT 272 511 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.5 16.7 91 90 118 11/05/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 245 383 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.3 23.2 92 90 119 11/05/99 LOT 275 504 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.0 19.4 91 90 120 11/05/99 LOT 269 513 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.2 15.7 92 90 121 11/05/99 LOT 271 513 148 0 115.0 14.6 103.7 17.6 90 90 SZ 122 11/05/99 SLOPE LOT 246 ABOVE 386 9 0 107.1 17.1 94.2 18.5 88 90 SZ 122A 11/05/99 SLOPE LOT 246 ABOVE 386 9 0 107.1 17.1 96.5 19.1 90 90 123 11/05/99 LOT 303 472 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.7 21.9 92 90 SZ 124 11/05/99 SLOPE LOT 245 ABOVE 390 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.2 18.7 93 90 SZ 125 11/05/99 SLOPE LOT 245 ABOVE 394 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.7 18.5 92 90 SZ 126 11/05/99 SLOPE LOT 245 ABOVE 397 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.1 17.3 90 90 SZ 127 11/08/99 SLOPE LOT 246 ABOVE 400 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.6 16.7 91 90 SZ 128 11/08/99 SLOPE LOT 247 ABOVE 409 148 0 115.0 14.6 101.1 11.6 88 90 SZ 128A 11/08/99 SLOPE LOT 247 ABOVE 409 148 0 115.0 14.6 103.9 13.8 90 90 129 11/08/99 SLOPE LOT 245 ABOVE 405 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.3 15.6 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 130 11/18/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 246 412 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.6 16.7 91 90 SZ 131 11/08/99 LOT 277 STABFILL 482 148 0 115.0 14.6 94.0 12.8 82 90 SZ 131A 11/08/99 LOT 277 STABFILL 482 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.0 16.9 90 90 SZ 132 11/08/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 245 411 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.3 18.6 90 90 SZ 133 11/08/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 247 417 25 0 112.2 17.0 99.6 17.5 89 90 SZ 133A 11/08/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 247 417 25 0 112.2 17.0 103.0 18.1 92 90 134 11/08/99 SLOPE ABOVE LOT 247 423 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.8 16.9 92 90 135 11/08/99 SLOPE BELOW LOT 297 426 146 0 115.5 15.3 104.5 17.8 91 90 136 11/08/99 SLOPE BELOW LOT 298 429 146 0 115.5 15.3 103.7 18.8 90 90 137 11/08/99 SLOPE BELOW LOT 297 432 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.8 21.9 91 90 138 11/09/99 SLOPE BELOW LOT 298 435 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.4 19.6 92 90 139 11/09/99 SLOPE BELOW LOT 297 438 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.7 19.8 91 90 SZ 140 11/09/99 LOT 278 STABFILL 485 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.0 15.3 92 90 SZ 141 11/09/99 LOT 276 STABFILL 488 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.7 16.5 93 90 SZ 142 11/09/99 LOT 277 STABFILL 487 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.2 16.2 91 90 143 11/09/99 LOT 276 490 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.1 15.4 91 90 SZ 144 11/09/99 LOT 278 STABFILL 490 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.5 13.9 94 90 SZ 145 11/09/99 LOT 277 STABFILL 493 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 13.6 93 90 146 11/09/99 LOT 276 495 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.8 15.9 91 90 SZ 147 11/09/99 LOT 278 STABFILL 499 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.4 15.8 93 90 SZ 148 11/09/99 LOT 277 STABFILL 501 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.3 14.8 92 90 149 11/10/99 LOT 279 503 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.5 15.1 93 90 150 11/10/99 LOT 278 505 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.9 17.8 92 90 151 11/10/99 LOT 306 457 148 0 115.0 14.6 100.3 15.6 87 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms H - on W an- - - - am No - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/411 Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 151A 11/10/99 LOT 306 457 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.0 16.0 90 90 152 11/10/99 LOT 306 461 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.1 15.4 91 90 SZ 153 11/10/99 LOT 304 465 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 14.4 93 90 154 11/10/99 LOT 276 506 148 0 115.0 14.6 103.4 16.0 90 90 155 11/10/99 LOT 277 505 25 0 112.2 17.0 100.8 17.8 90 90 156 11/10/99 LOT 303 468 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.3 15.9 92 90 157 11/10/99 LOT 305 471 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.7 16.6 91 90 FG 157 11/17/99 LOT 272 514 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.3 18.5 94 90 158 11/10/99 LOT 304 472 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.1 15.2 92 90 159 11/10/99 LOT 301 465 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.0 10.3 91 90 159A 11/10/99 LOT 301 465 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.6 14.3 91 90 160 11/12/99 LOT 242 IMPORT N 368 174 0 121.8 12.4 111.2 12.2 91 90 161 11/12/99 LOT 242 IMPORT S 373 174 0 121.8 12.4 112.0 12.0 92 90 SZ 162 11/12/99 BACK OF LOT 297 448 148 0 115.0 14.6 110.2 14.7 96 90 SZ 163 11/12/99 BACK OF LOT 297 446 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.2 13.7 94 90 SZ 164 11/12/99 LOT 306 CORNER SLOPE 431 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.5 21.3 91 90 SZ 165 11/12/99 LOT 306 SLOPE 433 25 0 112.2 17.0 102.8 20.0 92 90 166 11/12/99 LOT 243 370 174 0 121.8 12.4 110.8 13.1 91 90 167 11/12/99 LOT 283 481 48 0 119.0 13.5 110.2 15.8 93 90 168 11/12/99 LOT 282 479 101 0 115.6 14.2 105.2 15.6 91 90 169 11/12/99 LOT 281 477 101 0 115.6 14.2 106.0 16.0 92 90 170 11/12/99 LOT 280 476 101 0 115.6 14.2 107.4 14.6 93 90 ST 171 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 275 500 148 0 115.0 14.8 104.1 12.8 91 90 ST 172 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 272 490 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.1 11.5 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location ST 173 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 271 ST 174 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 270 ST 175 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 270 ST 176 11/15/99 BELOW LOT 276 SZ 177 11/16/99 SLOPE LOT 272 SZ 178 11/16/99 BACK OF LOT 263 FG 179 11/17/99 LOT 270 FG 180 11/17/99 LOT 269 FG 183 11/17/99 LOT 266 FG 185 11/17/99 LOT 271 FG 187 11/18/99 LOT 274 FG 188 11/18/99 LOT 275 FG 189 11/18/99 LOT 276 FG 190 11/18/99 LOT 277 191 11/18/99 LOT 263 192 11/18/99 KYWY BACK OF LOT 290 193 11/18/99 LOT 262 SZ 194 11/18/99 BACK OF LOT 262 SZ 195 11/18/99 BACK OF LOT 285 FG 196 11/19/99 LOT 278 FG 197 11/19/99 LOT 279 198 11/19/99 LOT 265 FG 199 11/22/99 LOT 284 FO 200 11/22/99 LOT 283 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 475 148 0 115.0 14.8 103.9 12.5 90 90 495 148 0 115.0 14.8 107.3 12.5 93 90 510 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.8 16.0 92 90 495 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.2 23.5 92 90 513 148 0 115.0 14.8 104.6 15.6 91 90 496 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.3 16.3 92 90 516 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.0 14.6 94 90 516 147 0 118.3 13.7 110.7 13.4 94 90 521 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.2 16.1 94 90 515 148 0 115.0 14.8 107.6 18.6 94 90 508 101 0 115.6 14.4 109.1 14.7 94 90 507 101 0 115.6 14.4 106.6 15.0 92 90 507 101 0 115.6 14.4 105.4 15.6 91 90 507 101 0 115.6 14.4 107.2 14.5 93 90 496 148 0 115.0 14.8 106.5 14.6 93 90 469 146 0 115.5 15.3 105.0 17.0 91 90 489 101 0 115.6 14.4 104.3 15.3 90 90 488 101 0 115.6 14.4 106.1 15.6 92 90 472 25 0 112.2 17.0 103.5 20.2 92 90 508 148 0 115.0 14.8 106.1 14.2 92 90 508 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.4 17.7 94 90 506 101 0 115.6 14.4 105.5 15.4 91 90 482 101 0 115.6 14.4 111.6 14.5 97 90 482 101 0 115.6 14.4 111.2 13.4 96 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location FG 201 11/22/99 LOT 281 FG 202 11/22/99 LOT 285 ST 203 11/22/99 BELOW LOT 278 FG 204 11/22/99 LOT 282 FG 205 11/23/99 LOT 265 FG 206 11/23/99 LOT 264 207 11/23/99 LOT 300 208 11/24/99 RANCHO MONTANA STFIL 209 11/24/99 RANCHO MONTANA STFIL 210 11/24/99 LOT 302 211 11/24/99 LOT 303 212 11/24/99 KYWY BACK OF LOT 261 213 11/29/99 KEYWAY FILL LOT 261 SZ 214 11/29/99 LOT 261 NW SLOPE 215 11/29/99 LOT 261 FG 216 11/29/99 LOT 263 FG 217 11/29/99 LOT 262 FG 218 11/29/99 LOT 261 219 11/29/99 LOT 305 FG 220 11/29/99 LOT 304 FG 221 11/29/99 LOT 303 FG 222 11/29/99 LOT 302 FG 223 11/29/99 LOT 305 224 11/30/99 LOT 289 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req 1 d or 3/411 Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 439 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.2 15.1 91 90 482 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.6 16.1 94 90 495 101 0 115.6 14.4 107.4 17.0 93 90 480 101 0 115.6 14.4 107.0 16.7 93 90 507 148 0 115.0 14.8 103.5 14.3 90 90 504 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.1 15.6 91 90 457 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.0 16.1 91 90 507 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.1 15.7 91 90 0 148 0 115.0 14.8 106.3 14.7 92 90 470 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.5 15.3 92 90 471 148 0 115.0 14.8 104.6 16.1 91 90 470 147 0 118.3 13.7' 106.3 15.3 90 90 473 9 0 107.1 17.1 96.1 22.3 90 90 484 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.3 23.4 91 90 480 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.7 16.2 92 90 498 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.3 16.1 94 90 491 148 0 115.0 14.6 110.3 14.3 96 90 486 2 0 115.0 14.8 110.7 15.1 96 90 474 2 0 115.0 14.8 109.1 15.7 95 90 474 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.4 16.4 93 90 472 2 0 115.0 14.8 108.6 14.4 94 90 47 2 0 115.0 14.8 111.6 13.1 97 90 475 2 0 115.0 14.8 112.0 14.1 97 90 469 148 0 115.0 14.3 106.5 15.9 93 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS .Test No. Date Test Location ST 225 11/30/99 DELOW LOT 301 226 11/30/99 LOT 288 SZ 227 11/30/99 BACK OF LOT 298 228 11/30/99 LOT 298 229 12/01/99 LOT 290 230 12/01/99 LOT 291 231 12/01/99 LOT 292 232 12/01/99 LOT 293 FG 233 12/01/99 LOT 290 234 12/02/99 LOT 295 235 12/02/99 LOT 297 FG 236 12/01/99 LOT 291 ST 236 12/07/99 BACK OF LOT 297 FG 237 12/02/99 LOT 292 FG 238 12/02/99 LOT 293 SZ 239 12/02/99 LOT 306 240 12/02/99 LOT 306 FG 242 12/06/99 LOT 295 243 12/08/99 LOT 307 244 12/08/99 LOT 308 FG 245 10/08/99 LOT 294 246 12/08/99 LOT 242 247 12/03/99 LOT 243 248 12/03/99 LOT 244 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 465 2 0 115.0 14.6 111.4 13.8 97 90 471 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.4 15.6 93 90 446 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.8 17.3 93 90 447 147 0 118.3 13.7 110.0 16.8 93 90 467 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.4 16.1 93 90 463 148 0 115.0 14.6 109.1 16.7 95 90 461 147 0 118.3 13.7 111.7 15.1 94 90 458 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.3 16.9 94 90 469 147 0 118.3 13.7 109.9 15.8 93 90 450 147 0 118.3 13.7 111.3 15.9 94 90 447 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.3 15.1 92 90 466 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.0 15.3 93 90 440 146 0 115.5 15.3 108.9 17.5 94 90 463 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.1 17.1 92 90 460 2 0 115.1 14.8 108.3 16.3 94 90 451 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.8 15.3 93 90 453 2 0 115.0 14.8 108.1 14.3 94 90 453 147 0 118.3 13.7 111.3 13.9 94 90 447 147 0 118.3 13.7 110.0 14.0 93 90 437 148 0 115.0 14.8 107.1 15.4 93 90 242 148 0 115.0 14.8 108.4 15.0 94 90 367 148 0 115.0 14.8 105.9 16.0 92 90 371 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.0 15.3 92 90 378 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.8 16.1 92 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 249 12/06/99 LOT 245 382 147 0 118.3 13.7 107.1 14.0 91 90 250 12/06/99 LOT 246 386 147 0 118.3 13.7 109.5 13.8 93 90 SZ 251 12/06/99 LOT 252 419 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.1 20.1 93 90 SZ -252 12/06/99 LOT 253 426 12 0 114.7 16.0 107.3 22.0 94 90 SZ 253 12/06/99 LOT 251 414 12 0 114.7 16.0 110.3 22.0 96 90 SZ 254 12/06/99 LOT 249 401 12 0 114.7 16.0 105.2 20.0 92 90 SZ 255 12/06/99 LOT 254 435 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.7 18.3 93 90 256 12/07/99 LOT 259 469 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.3 19.3 93 90 257 12/07/99 LOT 260 471 148 0 115.0 14.6 109.1 17.8 95 90 FG 258 12/07/99 LOT 297 448 147 0 118.3 13.7 109.6 16.9 93 90 FG 259 12/07/99 LOT 298 448 147 0 118.3 13.7 111.5 13.1 94 90 FG 260 12/07/99 LOT 300 458 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.5 16.4 92 90 FG 261 12/07/99 LOT 286 481 147 0 118.3 13.7 110.5 14.6 93 90 FG 262 12/07/99 LOT 301 467 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.3 16.3 92 90 ST 263 12/07/99 BACK OF LOT 297 440 146 0 115.5 15.3 108.9 17.5 94 90 ST 264 12/07/99 BACK OF LOT 298 430 146 0 115.5 15.3 110.5 13.5 96 90 ST 265 12/07/99 BCK LOT 298 ABV ESMT 444 146 0 115.1 15.3 108.8 15.4 94 90 ST 266 12/08/99 BCK L0T298 BLW ACSRD 410 146 0 115.5 15.3 107.5 17.7 93 90 ST 267 12/08/99 LOT 244 370 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.3 16.3 92 90 ST 268 12/08/99 LOT 246 380 146 0 115.5 15.3 106.1 16.1 92 90 269 12/08/99 LOT 248 397 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.3 15.9 93 90 270 12/09/99 LOT 249 402 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.7 15.6 93 90 271 12/09/99 LOT 246 388 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.3 16.8 93 90 272 12/09/99 LOT 247 390 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.5 16.7 93 90 Hm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) SZ 273 12/09/99 FRONT OF LOT 308 436 147 0 118.3 13.7 109.3 15.0 92 90 274 12/10/99 LOT 247 392 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 17.3 93 90 FG 275 02/10/99 LOT 247 393 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.5 16.0 94 90 276 12/10/99 LOT 250 408 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.5 15.9 93 90 277 12/10/99 LOT 251 412 148 0 115.0 14.3 108.3 16.3 94 90 ST 278 12/10/99 BACK OF LOT 247 385 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.9 17.4 92 90 ST 279 12/13/99 BACK OF LOT 250 400 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.3 15.3 94 90 FG 280 12/13/99 LOT 244 378 148 0 115.0 14.6 106.4 16.0 93 90 FG 281 12/13/99 LOT 245 383 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.6 17.3 92 90 FG 282 12/13/99 LOT 246 388 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 16.1 93 90 RG 282 04/14/00 SLOPE BELOW LOT 189 458 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.2 19.9 91 90 283 12/14/99 LOT 243 373 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.3 16.1 93 90 RG 283 04/14/00 SLOPE BELOW LOT 189 460 9 0 107.1 17.1 103.8 18.6 97 90 284 04/17/00 SLOPE BELOW LOT 189 462 12 0 114.7 16.0 104.1 20.1 91 90 ST 284 12/14/99 LOT 252 BACK OF 420 146 0 115.5 15.3 109.1 14.6 94 90 285 04/17/00 SLOPE BELOW LOT 189 457 12 0 114.7 16.0 103.7 19.7 90 90 ST 285 12/15/99 LOT 257 BACK OF 456 146 0 115.5 15.3 108.1 14.3 94 90 286 12/15/99 LOT 255 444 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.5 16.0 93 90 287 12/16/99 LOT 242 367 2 0 115.0 14.8 109.3 15.6 95 90 288 12/16/99 LOT 242 369 2 0 115.0 14.8 108.7 16.1 95 90 SZ 289 12/16/99 LOT 257 457 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.8 16.3 93 90 SZ 290 12/16/99 LOT 256 449 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.0 17.0 93 90 291 12/17/99 LOT 306 NW 456 148 0 115.0 14.6 108.3 15.0 94 90 292 12/17/99 LOT 306 455 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.1 14.6 93 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev.' Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Eel. Rel. Test Depth' Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 293 12/20/99 KEYWAY LOT 242 363 27 44 130.1 8.5 126.3 11.6 97 90 SZ 294 12/20/99 KEY WAY 242 , 365 27 42 129.4 8.8 124.6 11.0 96 90 ST 295 12/20/99 N OF LOT 242 368 27 20 121.5 11.9 112.3 12.6 92 90 FG 296 12/20/99 LOT 242 369 27 20 121.5 11.9 110.8 13.1 91 90 FG 297 02/01/00 LOT 249 404 21 0 118.1 14.0 109.6 15.4 93 90 FG 298 02/01/00 LOT 250 409 21 0 118.1 14.0 110.3 13.9 93 90 299 02/01/00 LOT 251 416 21 0 118.1 14.0 111.2 13.8 94 90 300 02/02/00 LOT 252 422 21 0 118.1 14.0 111.8 9.6 95 90 300A 02/02/00 LOT 252 422 21 0 118.1 14.0 109.7 13.4 93 90 301 02/02/00 LOT 253 427 25 0 112.2 17.0 104.0 17.9 93 90 302 02/02/00 LOT 253 429 21 0 118.1 14.0 108.3 16.5 92 90 303 02/03/00 LOT 254 436 21 0 118.1 14.0 107.0 13.2 91 90 304 02/03/00 LOT 254 438 21 0 118.1 14.0 108.5 13.7 92 90 305 02/03/00 LOT 255 442 21 0 118.1 14.0 106.5 14.7 90 90 306 02/04/00 LOT 255 455 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.0 14.4 90 90 307 02/04/00 LOT 255 0 2 0 115.0 14.8 105.6 14.7 92 90 308 02/04/00 LOT 255 0 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.0 15.1 92 90 309 02/07/00 LOT 256 451 25 0 112.2 17.0 104.9 16.0 93 90 310 02/07/00 LOT 256 453 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.0 16.1 92 90 311 02/07/00 LOT 257 456 25 0 112.2 17.0 106.4 17.2 95 90 312 02/07/00 LOT 257 459 25 0 112.2 17.0 105.9 17.8 94 90 FG 313 02/08/00 LOT 256 454 25 0 112.2 17.0 104.7 17.3 93 90 FG 314 02/09/00 LOT 255 447 25 0 112.2 17.0 106.3 16.8 95 90 FG 315 02/09/00 LOT 254 438 21 0 118.1 14.0 109.1 15.2 92 90 - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location FG 316 02/09/00 LOT 253 FG 317 02/10/00 LOT 252 FG 318 02/10/00 LOT 251 319 05/23/00 LOT 307 320 05/26/00 LOT 306 321 05/26/00 BTM OF LOT 258 OVERX SZ 322 05/26/00 LOT 307 323 06/05/00 LOT 306 FRONT FG 324 06/05/00 LOT 307 325 06/05/00 LOT 258 FG 326 06/06/00 LOT 258 FG 327 06/06/00 LOT 243 FG 328 06/06/00 LOT 248 FG 329 06/06/00 LOT 257 FG 330 06/06/00 LOT 280 FG 331 06/06/00 LOT 288 FG 332 06/06/00 LOT 289 FG 333 06/07/00 LOT 306 FG 334 06/07/00 LOT 308 Elev. Plus Max. opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 430 21 0 118.1 14.0 109.8 13.8 93 90 424 21 0 118.1 14.0 111.2 15.7 94 90 451 21 0 118.1 14.0 109.0 14.0 92 90 448 148 0 115.0 14.6 103.2 18.3 90 90 458 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.3 19.3 90 90 464 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.0 17.0 91 90 449 148 0 115.0 14.6 104.7 16.7 91 90 458 21 0 118.1 14.0 108.3 14.4 92 90 450 21 0 118.1 14.0 113.1 12.1 96 90 466 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 14.9 93 90 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 90 373 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.1 12.1 91 90 398 2 0 115.0 14.8 105.3 12.0 92 90 460 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.0 15.8 91 90 477 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.2 14.2 93 90 473 148 0 115.0 14.6 105.8 14.8 92 90 471 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.8 12.5 94 90 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 90 439 148 0 115.0 14.6 107.0 14.6 93 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No. 05845-12-45 (G) EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction. R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - Area Drain JT - Joint Trench ST - Slope Test B - Base Test MT - Moisture Test SW - Sidewalk CG - Curb & Gutter RW - Retaining Wall SZ - Slope Zone CW - Crib Wall SD - Storm Drain UT - Utility Trench DW - Driveway SG - Subgrade WB - Wall Backfill FG - Finish Grade SL - Sewer Lateral WL - Water Lateral IT - Irrigation Trench SM - Sewer Main WM - Water Main - CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test NU: Nuclear Density Test DC: Drive Cylinder Test - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. I I TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS I ASTM D 1557-91 Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture No. Density (pci) Content (% dry wt.) 2 Yellow-tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND, with trace clay 115.0 14.0 9 Yellow-brown, Silty CLAY, with fine to medium sand 107.1 17.1 12 Green-gray-tan, Silty CLAY, with trace sand and gravel 114.7 16.0 21 Yellow-brown, Silty, fine SAND, with little clay 118.1 14.0 25 Green-tan, fine to medium Sandy CLAY, with little silt 112.2 17.0 27 Yellow-tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND with little clay (poorly graded) 114.4 15.1 146 Dark gray-brown, fine to coarse sandy CLAY 115.5 15.3 147 Red-brown silty, fine to coarse GRAVEL, with little clay 118.3 13.7 148 Red-brown, sandy CLAY, trace silt 115.0 14.6 I I I I I I I I Project No. 05 845-12-45 June 26, 2000 I I I I 1 I [ii I I TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pci) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) 174 10.2 26.8 110.2 70 A 9.7 27.3 111.0 62 A2 10.5 30.1 109.1 98 B 10.1 31.6 110.0 48 B2 11.2 30.6 105.8 87 C 10.2 24.8 109.2 49 D 9.2 22.3 113.6 20 E 9.8 33.3 110.0 79 F 12.6 35.0 100.9 90 O 10.0 26.3 109.9 57 H 9.6 28.2 111.4 78 I 10.3 27.5 108.1 52 J 10.7 31.0 107.9 78 K 10.2 31.7 109.3 98 L 11.2 31.0 106.8 60 M 11.6 32.8 104.8 81 N 11.2 28.8 107.9 74 o 38.4 35.3 108.4 87 P 10.1 24.4 110.3 55 Q 11.1 35.5 106.9 104 R 9.6 24.9 111.2 7 S 11.0 32.7 106.0 89 T 9.9 24.6 109.8 17 U 10.1 25.2 110.1 49 V 9.1 32.8 113.0 64 W 10.3 32.3 109.9 76 X 11.1 32.4 105.6 105 Z 9.0 26.4 114.0 52 Zi 9.1 20.9 113.2 17 A-A 9.2 23.9 112.3 . 51 B-B 9.7 30.3 112.2 75 C-C 11.2 32.4 107.6 112 D-D 13.1 28.9 101.2 79 E-E 9.9 27.4 110.0 73 FF 9.2 21.6 114.2 . 47 Project No. 05845-1245 - -.--- June 26, 2000 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 'TABLE III (continued) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample Moisture Content .. 'Dry Expansion Before Test (%) After Test (%) No. Density (pcf) Index GG 8.7 24.7 114.8 6,8 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH LOT Lot No. Sample No. Expansion Index IJBC Classification 242 D-D 79 Medium 243 through 246 Z 52 Medium 247 through 250 , . Zi 17 Very Low 251 through 254 A-A 51 Medium 255 through 257 E-E 73 Medium .258 F-F 47 Low 259 through 260 X 105 High 261 B-B .75 ' Medium 262 through 264 I 52 Medium 265 H 78 . Medium 266 A 62 Medium 267 through 268 B 48 Low 269 through 272 C 49 Low, 273 D 20 Very Low 274 through 275 E 79 Medium 276 through 277 E 79 Medium 278 through 279 F 90 . Medium 280 through 283 G 57 Medium 284 through 286 J 78 ' Medium 287 ' K 98 ' High 288 L 60 Medium 289 M ' 81 Medium 290 through 293 W , 76 ' Medium 294,295 S 89 Medium Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 TABLE IV (continued) SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH LOT Lot No. Sample No. Expansion Index IJBC Classification 296,297 T 17 Very Low 298 R 7 Very Low 299 c-c 112 High 300,301 P 55 Medium 302 through 304 N 74 Medium 305 0 87 Medium 307,308 V 64 Medium I 1 I I I I I LI I I I I 11' I H ru I I Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 TABLE V SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS FOR VILLAGE M, RANCHO CARRILLO Lot Number Pad Condition Approximate Depth of Fill (feet) Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill Differential Expansion Index Foundation Category 242 Fill/Undercut 10 6 79 II 243 Fill/Undercut 15 10 52 II 244 Fill/Undercut 28 25 52 III 245 Fill 32 28 52 III 246 Fill 30 - 24 52 IH 247 Fill 29 26 17 III 248 Fill 26 20 17 HI 249 Fill 35 28 17 III 250 Fill 30 21 17 III 251 Fill 37 24 51 III 252 Fill 31 24 51 HI 253 Fill 31 14 51 II 254 Fill 29 12 51 II 255 Fill 33 15 73 II 256 Fill 33 23 73 III 257 Fill 21 14 73 II 258 Fill/Undercut 18 15 47 II 259 Cut 0 0 105 III 260 Cut 0 0 105 III 261 Undercut 17 14 75 II 262 Fill/Undercut 17 14 52 II 263 Fill/Undercut 14 11 52 II 264 Fill/Undercut 6 3 52 II 265 Undercut 3 0 78 II 266 Fill/Undercut 20 17 62 II 267 Cut/Fill 10 10 48 I 268 Cut/Fill 10 10 48 I 269 Fill/Undercut 14 11 49 II 270 Fill 57 51 49 III 271 Fill/Undercut 52 41 49 III 272 Fill/Undercut 55 52 49 III 273 Cut 0 0 20 I Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i TABLE V (continued) SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS FOR VILLAGE M, RANCHO CARRILLO Lot Number Pad Condition Approximate Depth of Fill (feet) Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill Differential Expansion Index Foundation Category 274 Fill/Undercut 9 6 79 II 275 Fill/Undercut 39 34 79 ffi 276 Fill 29 24 79 HI 277 Fill/Undercut 29 26 79 III 278 Fill/Undercut 30 27 90 III 279 Fill/Undercut 30 27 90 III 280 Undercut 3 0 57 II 281 Undercut 3 0 57 II 282 Undercut 3 0 57 II 283 Fill/Undercut 3 0 57 II 284 Fill/Undercut 42 39 78 III 285 Fill/Undercut 41 38 78 III 286 Fill/Undercut 14 11 78 II 287 Cut 0 0 98 III 288 Undercut 3 0 60 II 289 Undercut 3 0 81 II 290 Undercut 3 0 76 II 291 Undercut 3 0 76 II 292 Undercut 3 0 76 II 293 Fill/Undercut 10 7 76 II 294 Fill 10 7 89 II 295 Fill/Undercut 10 7 89 II 296 Cut/Fill 10 10 17 II 297 Fill/Undercut 39 36 17 III 298 Fill/Undercut 39 36 7 III 299 Cut 0 0 112 III 300 Undercut 3 0 55 II 301 Undercut 3 0 55 II 302 Fill/Undercut 7 4 74 II 303 Fill/Undercut 14 11 74 II 304 Fill/Undercut 17 14 74 II 305 Fill/Undercut 16 13 87 II Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 I 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE V (continued) SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS FOR VILLAGE M, RANCHO CARRILLO Lot Pad Approximate Approximate Expansion Foundation Number Condition Depth of Maximum Depth Index Category Fill (feet) of Fill Differential 307 Fill/Undercut 39 36 64 III 308 Fill/Undercut 30 26 64 HI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. 05845-12-45 June 26, 2000 I TOP OF DITCH WER01 41 HGL.*JOO YR 39.@1-' SE \ 304- IT ' 0100=4.5 87j FL 6.TX± PROFILE: STORM DRAIN PRIVATE SCALE: HOR!Z. I'40', VERT. I'8' STORY DRAIN DATA DELTA OR BAG. RADIUS LENGTH * REMARKS NO. JLN 69'49'25' W 107.65' I81 RCP (I350-D) N44'57'57' Vi 66.42' I81 RCP (1350-0) 'LENGTHS IN DATA BOX ARE I.E. TO I.E. %9KENGINEAERIN—OIc' 00 eo 120 40 20 0 ;;RLALL GRAPHIP S, 40' rivu . Na 94'3 No. 27 Cxp. 3/21/02 7 d OF C FOR LEGEND SEE FIGURE 4 BENCH MARK EROF WORK T B UILT" PRIVATE DESCRIPTIONS STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENT RIM, GINEERING CO. LOCATION' STATION 24907.56 P.O.C. ON EL CAM INO REAL APPROX. 2.5 MILES NORTH . ROGER BALL . . 8 DATE OF LA COSTA AVE. EXP. 3/31/02 7 E1PDTDEFSLcPESFOI?8L7/1P8D RECORD FROM: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RI800 ROGER BALL . .E.27678 DATE REVIEWED BY• _______ RND PEi?/METE/? RRERS iHE RPPP&/ñf8TE (249+07.'56) EX P. 3/31/02 REPRESENT/ITIDIV$DFF/EIOODND,7DNS. ELEVATION: 307.874 DATUM: M.S.L. THEX OD //T HEP,?E$EiWT ,4'SSL//LT CH D BY:CONO/T/DN.5. • PECTOR 041 SEE SHEET NO. 5 ________________ CITY (OFCARLSBAD I1s ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 0 GRADING AN OSION CONTROL PL OR R OCAR RANCHO CARRIL AGES 'L'&'M' APPROVED:LLOYD H S ffEV/SETORMD9/NpRDF/L - CITY ENGINE R.C.E.23889 EXPI2/3 DATE 7/12/go LT L fNE REYIS/DAV PER FfN14'L f/9P DR.E.C. PROJECT NO. FtD R G NO. tINITIAl ~Hy: DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE C _______ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL CT 93-04 3610- . UMWL) 97-543 J. N. I,6I59 r: \d_I3I59\3I59s4 dOn 10-MAY-2000 13:30 / -- SE I ET. N04 \\\\\ - t - / ..• ./ ..• ..•.. .... / .../ ./ ./ .../ 66.74 .' 1 OE: CT PORIONS ALL CTILL TRANSTIN LOTS . \. '... N., LO 240 /• 4::fO - SF4ALL BE UNDERCUT 3' AND REPLACED WITH PROPERLY ° // / 283 . . ... ... o / 161 i FG27 247 / - '0 .... ... ....•/ I ...Y.../ . >' ................ L .: . \\ :.,• s. \. .......:... .... . /\ FG—Z48 OT 310 c 0 / 250 \ / - ............ ............. ............ W ........ 4 .............. ............ ............ ........ 58 ....... FG-275 .... ... ...... 36i . c ................ .... 274 .............. 12 ............ . ............ 0 "PAD (T=3.61 4 "RIP, "RAP ...................... . . Z .......... SOICS v ...... ........... B NK~T:'-PER )MMENbATI( ........... ... 30 .............. O j .2 ............... z 46 --,QA 4D ...... 01 I 00 lo 390.5 .. ......... FG-328 ........ ....... . .......... ......... ....... 0 UT- TAIL T. .:.A u > .......... ......l24 S 0 0 FG-297 9 279 52 Ir /1 OP SPACE ---ft .. .... led 270 - - Q : fl ......... lyc 0 4 .3 \\!/ .... ....... \,. .... ......... ....,........... ...... N.\ .\ ...... ........ . ..: ... . -... .. •••••••.•••i ../.y .. ....., ....- 51 ,...,,.., ........... ...... .. 265 19 TYPE 'B I' INLET 300 0 162 __ II'184 7620' ... ..... ..,. .• ... ... . / 163 4 20 CE UTIL, 4k 0 AS — óRADED OôGIC MAP \ 1 437 I...... 302 1 1A 'E M. ......... .......... 0 A H -ARILI ........ ...... VIL . ...... ... JD R C ........ 5 ... ........................ Z 2 U ... % .......... ..... ...... ..... TO CA LS~) UKt 0; 60 n \ 0 .. ........... 19 GEOCON \ PROJEc 545145 26-20:: / o Qucc / e \ - I5 4\1 0•85 •. / FG-316 GoTEQt4A1coNsu1ANTs 235 4 II 0 10 • 0 301 93 SHEET .2' EGEND SEE FIGURE 4 ...... ....... FOR L 2 4 4 48 FG-~34 1 0~, *. C. 0 0 uc 69 moo= 10*' 7L \ , 1\1001, \\ - 00 304 -315 FG Y, v7, 95 li NPrtf ffflifR 7r fY A71VIT -0,'VflW1N(4 ONC. 9% 58 tCH Td yj Lq 4 % N F242 FG-314 322". 305 14551' 0 324 60 49 O.() c 0 0 306 it~? o'. 71 ........... ... 0 r4 4 81 415, u 7o 2 \\ \ 42 308 2 - — \ — - — - 4 C 40 20 0 120 - , SEE SHEET IM 6 ___ ___ _____________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ,...... ... .... U . ... ... '., N.... El CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEE I' 40' /____4( . . .. . ...... .\.. . .. .. . ______ . . ______ _____ ______ _____ _______ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GRAPHIC SCALE Ole ____________ GRADING A OSION CONTROL PL A OR 00or r" : ROGRL,BA1L w. 27678 -Mb BENCH MARK . . . INEER OF WORK . "AS BUILT" . ____ . . \* \ Up. 3/31/0Z . DESCRIPTION' STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENT RICK GINEERI cia NG. CO. . . . LOCATION' STATION 249+07.56 P.O.C. ON . . . . .. RANCHO CARRILL AGES 'L'&'M' EL CAMINO REAL APPROX. 2.5 MILES NORTH .. . . ROGER BALL R. • 8 .. DATE. . . APPROVED: LLOYD HU OF LA COSTA AVE. . EXP. 3/31/02 . ______ _____ ______________________________________ ______ _____ _____ _____ TO F 9/1410 r0Ej0FSZ0P?1'S F.0 . COUNTY.OF SAN DIEGO R1800 ROGER BALL C.E. 27678 DATE REVIEWED CITY ENGINEE3o00'- C.E. Z3889 E X P. 12 —/7—N LI DATE EXP 3/31/02 7tflk REPHE.cE/vrgrID,v.s'oFr/~'LoeDfvD/TfDNs. ELEVATION' 307.874 DATUM' M.S.L. . '. . DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INI - OWN BY• R.E.C. PROJECT NO. . DR NC NO. . . . .. . .. C ED BY: __________ . . PECTOR . DA ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL CHK BY: CT 9304 360 cahItnia9211(2596 (192917O7 . .-. .......-.. .. ..-..,,. . . . . . f% k A IAI r'A Q 7_I1 I M IIRO ¼# lvi' V LI J f J .1 0 I in I %J I J ./ r:\d_I3I59\3I59Qs5.dn I0-M4Y2000 3:29 - / T NO. 5 \ \ U1IG ___________________________ _________ \ I - S c z \ / 1t1 NOTE CUT PORTIONS OF ALL CUT -FILL 1kL' 22 / 44J "0 - U — SHALL BE ULiERCUT 3 (ND REPLACED Vn N 164 65 COMPCTED OWflO LO EXPASI F / 41' I8T1PE 6..'INLE I (I \ \ v \ '& 'j ' 073 c \ \ A i \ / c—ii . 3 f 4 ' 4583 ~4G62 2lO t cf 292 3O 3 FG-3I3 P 2 / / / 3 L X / W 289 7 2CTCHPER5 \ \ \\ \ V uct : Qj / t58 ( . \ ON SHEET 3 .. . 46 .. . •... •... . 157 .... •.. . Oo .. 311.../C .. . ... .. . '. .. •. ....\ 2 / 0'. . •......., . FG32I ..... ..., . '....•.... ... •... •. ' \ / /'. FG-236 7O "I' 0 47/2 219 'ii / 69 0 5 T9 0 / 67 3 dO 32 I / 9 72 FG-2 / 1111 !L457 -/ —___ • : 7 4733 c G 26 i flit •, 0 \ n/ 1/ 0 U \ / ItLJ •. f :.: I : 'o 4P '9- ,' / c.471 0 / 229 / $t N '3 1?/3 212 / % 1 224 F / \ ____ /1 N / 4 Quc 033I /& 214 '' 1' - ' V// ;\FGr / S / 2I5 & J c/':' A ' - FG-I8 (. 2:9 .......... . \. / •/ ......................O . E.ONNECT I9 .\...\ Y I FG-330 0 DRAJN- - - -_____ \ .,.. ..,..,.,. ,.. •. ., ... ... .. .. ... ••. 0 . 74 •. 0 . .. FG2I ... ... \. .. ,.. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. . ... • ___ I9 - 0 ____ PP.,4'/ñfL7LW 6ff,'W///6 PE,?FDi?MFD P3-202 - ic: .: IiN8i? SfPiM97( PER4i'/T PW ••• • • A 79 —'' \ •\..\ Off9W/A'6 fV 38/- /R RNP IS M'T 4 fi'EfO 0/V 7/1/! PMN ° -.% FG-2bI FG-201 .- '9 - AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP %9 - 4, ___ p9 , 9 49 RANCHO CARILLO - VILLAGE M \ FG04 / \ BEGIN 24 CQNC DtTC 70 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA e .. G-9 203 147 , / — PER D-Th EG 480 SCALE DATE o \ 0 .. ., F I ,/' I / ______________________ PROJECT NO 05845-12- 06 26 20: - \ 0 ) \ •.\ F620 Z // \\ 1/ - II - M S ( ' \ GEOTEa+,CAL CONSULTANTS CAliFORNIA 92121 2974 3 , , I- -1 I .—'.J y .' 145 ot ) -'--1 pHO'E 858 558-6900 FAX 858 SHEET 3 OF 4 / •\ /75 '-L, -._L. ____ 0 $ -..- r,11t - FOR LEGEND SEE FIGURE 4 450 - %/ e J /' : — - - — —\ (T \ II 1/ / / '" / \ FG-6 \ FG-7 FG-206 ..... .. .,,., /. ;i . 1: •) ,." I.... • ,.j , . ........ . .. .. ,.... '; ,....,.. / ° / I ,/ / / 4I I '55 QUI • \ FG-205 50 9 - .'...\\;\. . --- \ \\ / \ \ I / /3 ; 26W II, \, .. .. :. r . . ..,. L .- .. 2.08.. . . . \ \\ \ l I / I 604 12/ x 514 No.21618 . '. -. -'' . . ..-. . . ., ..-,. - . ..... .. .. •.\ . i• ANY•OFFSITE\WORK IN REDWING. .40 20 0 40 SO 120 ,.--- -, - =— ---.--- .,— ,. ____________________________________________________ GRAPHIC SCALE I'= 40' __________________________ I- _________ 4 — ________________ WuIhJIU " - Ii! riwJ. !J 1GINEER OF WORK RICKS1.QEERING C ,. GI T( JI1DAfl1 California 92110-2596 ROGER BALL...f.E. 27678 EXP. 3/31/02 BY: _____________ BENCH MARK DESCRIPTIONZ STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENT LOCATION' STATION 249+07.56 P.O.C. ON EL CAMINO REAL APPROX. 2.5 MILES NORTH TOP ,q1yo TOES 'F S1DPES FOR &7Th' PD OF L A COSTA AVE. R/OPER/METEREI9SRPPffLTK//)19TE RECORD FROM' COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO R1800 i i' REPffESENTQT/DNSOPF/ELDCWD/7/D'VS. (249+07.56) T/1EYPDMDTREPRESEWSS1J/LT ELEVATION' 307.874 DATUM' M..L. COHO/T/T/iS (619) 291-0707 DATE . . . ________ II29g _____ /\ REV/515ff,qO//yG - CITY ENGIN/ R.CE. .3889 Exp.I2L DATE CMWD 97-543 J.N., 13159 rAd.J3159\3l59Qs6.dQn I0MAY -2000 13:28 -- 49 . . ... . .::.. . ___ . •\.••. :; :... •:.: ::. . GEOLOGIC CONTACT CONC FAULT (Dotted Where Buried) t. . . ..... . '•8o :.TI' '\: :.':./.::...... ''/(. H • _ ELATN OF BASE OF FILL (FEET) S \ . . c cj . ......... .. ./.!..,., ........... id... •... . I73.Oü . . _______ ..:•. . APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDPIN (FEET) / / 9 FG 248 APPROXL%ATiON OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS / Quc/'7 O68 // _____ U 333 \ - I SZ SLOPE ZONE £ /5 Ii 0 Lii 0 / 272 / Quc/::.: Td Qcf 145 - .. ....o ... n... ..... .. .... ii ...... .... ......... •. .... . ....... \. ...... / .. .\ . ..... — U \ 6 / \ / 06 120 FG-I80 f IVO 1E~ oiv r ....... '\. .. .. ,....-. .... GI7è• 0.••.• •. .. . .. \ 0 . _—_-----I . . . SAGE . $ Q6f/7f • i7 cf,/Th PE :SENT 76 ___ 00 - 500 I I a ' / EXIST CONC DITCH TO R MAIN i 9Q 2 1 ° —! LX 18' RCP B U T T R E S F I L L 8' RCP _- - .nt-T11I- -' • C O IC DII C H 10 - PEB MOD PER DLI / r- ( 0 5h13 676 ---- EXIST )8'RCP I EXIS1. 2 2 I 5I ___: r - EV.S ' RCP I 'I 36 901' 1gCP . ............. .. •... ...... .... . ........ ... .. .... ........ .. . . :. .. ... .... ... . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. .. .... 0621 -- r _________. / -- i33 - - ' : - - - -- I I I , I / 1 - P0 __.__ , MEUOSE / _T I ________ I I I _-__--- _-- AS-GflADED GEOLOGIC tAP RANCHOCARILLO-LLLAGE M 7 . ... . . ... . ... ... . . Si01- ... _____________________ , c-0 . . . -. / GEOCON SCALE w = 40 . .. (A -) . - --V - INCORPORATED F IrTN r rI.,.rl . . . .---- . . - ( ROGER 1. BALL I GfOTEa1Nr_AL COrJJLTAJIT - 0584 - 12 -45 O6O F1kt•E$ - 9'I•2Q74 4 i, No.21618 ) J 40 20 0 40 SHEET 4 OF 4 * . Exp. 3/31/02 / * / . . ----.• --.. ________ ' ' CIVIL / .......... ___----. --.- ______ ______ _______________________________ _______ p /JNE,?5EP,9RgTEPERM/TPEI? _____ ____ _____ ____ _____ ENCINEERLC DEPARTMENT (JI DK8W///64/D.33/-/RRNO/S/VT — ____ ___ ____ ____ ______________________ _____ REFLEeTEO DIV T1/SPtR,V _____ ____ _______________________________ _____ ____ ____ GRADING AN17EF?OSION CONTROL PLA'FOR : BEN C H M AR K flTrT — _____ ____ ______________________________ _____ ____ ____ ____ DESCRIPTION' STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENT RICK GINEERING CO. o c LOCATION' STATION 249O7.56 P.O.C. ON . ROGER BALL R. • 8 DATE RANCHO CARRILL AGES 'L'&'M' EL CAMINC) REAL APPROX. 2.5 V . A P OVED: LLOYD HU TP RHO TOES OF SlOPES ,FO BOTH PI9j9 OF LA COST A AVE. A ______ _____ ______________________________________ ______ _____ _____ _____ sr'nRr, Th'EY 00 1/07 REPRESEAVTRS SO/IT ELEVAT I ON 307. 874 DATUM' M. S. L. DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL [o BY• _.L PROJECT NO. Dk . C LE-'.' a1ifYII259 (1J)29Ifl7 co/VO/TID/iS I -- CH DBY - - PECTOR DATE - FNCIMEEROF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL 1cH BY CT 93-04 360- . ••• . UMWU(-b4 J.N.IiI59 - r \d_I3I59\3I59s7 dr IOMAY-2000 II 55