HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2019-0012; BLOCK (WARD) RESIDENCE; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2022-10-19 (2)AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
WARD RESIDENCE
3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
BRETT WARD
7043 WHITEWATER STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92011
PREPARED BY
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
3980 HOME AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1
October 19, 2022
Brett Ward CWE 2200524.06
7043 Whitewater Street
Carlsbad, California 92011
Subject: As-Graded Geotechnical Report
Ward Residence, 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California
Grading Project No. GR2019-0031, Project No. PD2019-0012, Drawing No. 519-7A
References: 1) Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report 2200524.01, Report of Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, dated October 5, 2020
2) Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report 2200524.03, Revised Grading Recommendations,
dated December 7, 2020
Dear Mr. Ward:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated January 22, 2021, we have prepared this report to
summarize our services during the earthwork operations at the subject site. This report presents the as-graded
geotechnical conditions of the site, our observations, the results of our laboratory testing, and the results of
relative compaction tests performed in the fills and backfills that were placed during the grading operation
operations as well as the preparation of subgrade and aggregate base course materials and subsequent asphalt
concrete placement within the city right-of-way for the subject project. The observation and testing services
addressed by this report were coordinated by McCauley Builders and were provided between January 21,
2021 and October 17, 2022.
In order to assist in our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, our firm was provided
with a grading plan for the site prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, bearing an approval date from
the City of Carlsbad of January 27, 2021. Plate No. 1 of this report is a reproduction of the plan, modified to
show the approximate locations of our field tests and the relevant limits of the earthwork operation.
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Page 2
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of an irregular-shaped lot located at 3291 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California. The
property is bounded on the east by Highland Drive and on the remaining sides by developed residential
properties. Prior to the grading addressed in this report, the site supported a one-story, single-family
residence, detached garage and other associated improvements. According to the grading plan (Omega, 2020),
the site sloped gently to the west with elevations ranging from approximately156 feet at the westerly property
line to approximately 171 feet at the easterly property line.
The subject project consisted of the demolition of the existing improvements at the site in order to construct
a new single-family residence and an attached garage. The residence and garage are one- and two-story
structures with partially subterranean lower-level levels that daylight out to the west. The structures are of
masonry and wood-frame construction, supported by conventional shallow foundations, and incorporate
concrete slab-on-grade floor systems. Retaining walls up to about 10 feet high were constructed in
association with the lower levels. Exterior improvements include a swimming pool and masonry retaining
walls up to about 5 feet high. Grading consisted of cuts up to about 10 feet and fills of less than a few feet
from existing grades.
SCOPE OF SERVICE
The following services were provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering during the course of the earthwork
operations.
Participated in a pre-grading meeting to address the geotechnical aspects of the work and to coordinate
our testing and observation services.
Provided continuous or periodic observation of the earthwork operations, as determined by the rate of
progress of the earthwork.
Provided field recommendations for elements of the earthwork not specifically addressed by the
referenced geotechnical report, as needed.
Recorded the approximate elevations and limits of significant geotechnical elements.
Performed in-place density tests in the fills, backfills, subgrade, base, and asphalt concrete placed.
Determined the laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture, and water-soluble sulfate content
of soils encountered in the earthwork.
Prepared this report, which presents a summary of our observations and results of our relative
compaction tests.
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Page 3
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
The earthwork addressed by this report was performed by Charlie’s Tractor. Site preparation started with the
demolition of the existing improvements and exporting the resulting debris from the site. Remedial grading
operations consisted of removing the compressible soils to the contact with competent old paralic deposits in
the areas to support the proposed settlement sensitive improvements. In the areas to support the proposed
structures the cut portions of building pad were undercut to a depth of at least 5 feet below the designed
finish grade elevation. The undercuts were sloped to provide drainage away from the structures. Lateral
removals extended at approximately 5 feet outside the edge of the proposed improvements where possible.
Limits and depths of removals are shown on Plate No.1.
Two, four-foot diameter CMU block lined vertical seepage pits were encountered during the grading
operations. The seepage pits were located in the area of the pool and along the southwest side of the
residence. The excavations were measured to extend approx. 18 feet below grade. The seepage pits were
infilled with a 2-sack slurry mix and 8-inch-thick, reinforced concrete caps were constructed over the
openings. The concrete caps extended at least 2 feet outside of the openings and were reinforced with No. 4
bars spaced at 12 inches on center each way. The top of the cap near the southwest side of the residence was
measured to be about 5 feet below finish pad grade.
A keyway was excavated along the toe of the fill slope at the west edge of the site. The keyway excavation
was at least 10 feet wide, extended approximately 1.5 to 2 feet into the competent paralic deposits, and was
configured to dip slightly towards its heel of the key. Soils exposed at the bottom of the keyway were
scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction. Compaction of slopes was performed at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being
placed, and track-walking of the slope was performed once the slope was completed.
Soils exposed at the bottoms of the excavations were scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, moisture-
conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fill materials consisting of the on-site
silty sands were typically placed by a track loader and skid steer in relatively thin, uniform lifts. Moisture-
conditioning was applied as needed and compactive efforts were then performed by means of the laden track
loader to attain at least 90 percent of maximum dry density.
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Page 4
RETAINING WALLS
The lower level retaining walls of the residence and garage were backfilled using native sandy soils. The
backfills were placed in thin horizontal lifts, which were watered to near optimum conditions and compacted
in place by means of the reciprocating compactors to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density.
PAVEMENT PREPARATIONS
Pavement preparations were observed by our firm in the area of the concrete driveway approach, an SDG&E
line, and a saw cut area located between the driveway and Highland Drive within the city right-of-way.
Subgrade preparations in the area of the driveway approach consisted of removing the existing soils
approximately 2 to 3 feet below the proposed subgrade elevation. Once the removal bottom was compacted a
layer of Tensar TX130s stabilization fabric was placed across the entire excavation. Fills were then moisture
conditioned and compacted up to the subgrade elevation. Subgrade was compacted to approximately 91
percent of the maximum dry density. This was accepted by the city inspector and is considered suitable in our
opinion. Aggregate base course materials were then placed in the area of the driveway approach and in the
area of the SDG&E line. The aggregate base course materials were placed in thin, uniform lifts, moisture
conditioned and compacted by means of dual drum vibratory compactors to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density. Asphaltic concrete was placed within the trench zone of the SDG&E line and in a saw
cut area located between the driveway and Highland Drive. Asphaltic concrete placement was monitored for
its laydown temperature during its construction. Mix temperatures were noted to be within the acceptable
range of 270F to 320F, as specified in section 302-5.5 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction. Compactive efforts were made by dual drum vibratory rollers to attain a minimum of at least
95 percent of the maximum density.
LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the soils predominantly encountered in the
earthwork were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D1557, “Test Method for
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort.” The tests were conducted in
accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain-size distribution of the soils tested. The results of
these tests are presented in Appendix A on Table I.
The maximum density determinations for the asphalt concrete placed above the SDG&E line at was provided
by the material manufacturer (plant). This test result is presented in Appendix A on Table II.
A representative sample of the soil present within the foundation zone of the proposed structure was tested
for its water-soluble sulfate content in accordance with California Test Method 417. The soil was determined
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Page 5
to have soluble sulfate contents of less than 0.1 percent. This is considered to be negligible and no special
recommendations are needed. However, it should be recognized that the sulfate content of surficial soils may
increase with time due to soluble sulfate in the irrigation water or fertilized use. These test results are also
presented in Appendix A on Table III.
Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the fills, backfills, subgrade, aggregate base courses and
asphalt concrete, were conducted in accordance with ASTM D6938, “Standard Test Methods for Density of
Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods,” and ASTM D2950, “Test Method of Bituminous
Concrete in Place by Nuclear Method.” The locations of the field tests were selected by our technicians in
areas discerned to exhibit a degree of relative compaction that was generally representative of that achieved in
the fills, backfills, subgrade, aggregate base course and asphalt concrete placement. Elevations were estimated
using simple hand instruments measured against existing monuments, surveyor or contractor staking, the
existing grade and/or elevations provided on the construction plans. These test results are also presented in
Appendix A on Table IV through VIII.
CONCLUSIONS
It is the opinion of Christian Wheeler Engineering that the earthwork addressed by this report has been
performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report, the
grading requirements of the City of Carlsbad and the California Building Code. This opinion is based upon
our observations of the earthwork operations, the results of the density tests taken in the field, and the
maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the
proposed construction.
Our recommendations for the minimum design of foundations for the proposed structures, originally
presented in the referenced geotechnical report, are in our opinion, still suitable based on the as-graded
conditions.
AS-BUILT GEOLOGY
The geologic units encountered during the earthwork operations were generally consistent with those
anticipated in our referenced report of geotechnical investigation. No unforeseen, adverse geologic
conditions or features were noted by our field personnel during the earthwork operation addressed herein.
The earthwork operations addressed by this report have, in our opinion, satisfactorily mitigated the
potentially adverse conditions described in the referenced report.
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Page 6
UNOBSERVED WORK
A cut/fill transition was observed within the bottom of the pool bowl excavation. It was recommended that
the fill soils below the proposed pool be removed and the pool entirely founded on old paralic deposits. The
resulting void of the removed fill materials could be filled back to the proposed bottom of pool elevation
with a 3-sack slurry mix. Our firm was never contacted to observe or document any of these operations and
cannot verify if they occurred. In addition, our we were never contacted to observer any of the foundation
excavations for the property line walls. We should be contacted when these operations are performed if they
have not been constructed already so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications.
LIMITATIONS
The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on
the subject site during the period from January 21, 2021 and October 17, 2022. As limited by the scope of
the services that we agreed to perform, the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our
observations of the work and the results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in
accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the region in which the earthwork was
performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the described
work with applicable codes and specifications. With the submittal of this report, no warranty, express or
implied, is given or intended with respect to the services performed by our firm, and our performance of
those services should not be construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his
work to the standards required by the applicable building codes and project specifications.
Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional services on this
project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our
firm.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Daniel B. Adler, RCE #36037 Daniel J. Flowers, CEG #2686
DBA:djf:mahec: brettoward@gmail.com sean@omega-consultants.com mccauleybuilders@cox.net
165.5
164.0
162.5155.5
155.5 156.0
156.0
155.5
156.0
156.0
155.0154.0
154.5
154.5
155.0
19
18
15
37
14
16 17
22
25
21
24
40 20
39
23
26
51
4555
42
50
41
53 54
43
49
44
56
47
57
46
48
27
58
52
32
31 28
29 30
33
34 36
38
165.0
8345
11
2
129
6
7
1
10
13
Qaf
QopQaf
Qop
Qaf
Qop
Qaf
Qop
Qaf
Qop
Qaf
Qop
35
VERTICALSEEPAGEPITS
59
60 65 68
6667
62
63
70
61
6964
RW26 RW23 RW18 RW21 RW5RW25
RW19
RW20
RW9
RW2 RW24
RW14
RW10
RW22
RW3
RW17
RW11
RW16
RW6RW4
RW12RW15
RW1
RW13
RW8
RW7
B1
AC1
SG1
B3 B5
B4 B2 171.5
172.0
TENSAR TX130sSTABILIZATIONFABRIC
AC3
AC2
AC4
DATE:OCTOBER 2022
BY: DJF/MAH
JOB NO.: 2200524.06
PLATE NO.: 1
GRADING PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP
WARD RESIDENCE
3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
CWE LEGEND
RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST
ELEVATION AT EXCAVATION BOTTOM
LIMITS OF REMEDIAL GRADING
LIMITS OF KEYWAY EXCAVATION
ARTIFICIAL FILL OVER OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS
#
156.0
Qaf
Qop
I
I
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
)
I
I
I
I
' I /3• PVT. Silf/ O,SEl,/[NT
CONNECTION TO PIJBUC
6" ~ MAIN Ill
I/CK/I/L£Y STRffT. P£R
COl/1/0N~AL TH T/Tl£
R[l'(!flT DATED
12/27/19 4 --!---j_f
Ev
rn..' ·w. ~ 158.67,W
154.61/F
/
/
_/
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I J'/
-I --- ---':"----
NOTE TO CONTRACTOR!
LOCATION OF EXISTING SE~R LINE IS APPROX/I/A TfD.
EXISTING SE~R LINE MUST BE POTHOLfD AND THE
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION JS TO BE
CONRRMED PRIOR TO ANY WORK B[ING DON£
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
r
/ I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IDEL/VER RN/SH SU
I !
1'-4" WAll I
158.67,W 0 /
151.J.JIF
(158.JJEG) I
I
I
I
,., "'I ,., ,., ,., I
• • ___,....., • I
§11-J. , I
SU-4 I "' ,., ,., I
.,. ;Tf-5, ·I
;Tf-1, , I sl I
,., + ...I
' ' ,., "'v I
, ~ "{ I
" ~ 11 ' :
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I ,
3 '-o• WA (])SD A.O.
16200,W 16150TG
160.0/JBW 159.001[ ,
~
/
I
~, I
='---'3 I 164. /
16J.JJBW 1
I
I
N 55'23' 75.06'
/
161.981'
COlf/lEJ]
PATIO
I
1/PPfH fl{)(J/: 172. 75
lOYtfH IDfl.=162.00
PAD=/61.25
1
I
I
I
SEAN M. SAVAGE R.C.E. 75677
\, )/ 1' I I so FORC£MAIN ounu / I I ,,.. __ W/ Tff FOR £N[RGY DISS/PA TION'
/ P[R DETAIL f S/lffT 5
"WA 1
(]\ ~iJI
169.00TW\:'.J / -----\ / /
1/683.JBW ,/' \ / / I
/ ,,.
I I
/ J.5'1-_,..f.5' 6.4' I , ,,,., MATCH [X.
• · · (114.76TB:t) :j (174.26fl}
MATCH EX 'I
· (114.62TB:t) . ' ift
/ (114.45FU} -_Jjj ,
· SERVICE ABANDONED AND RELOCA TfD TO
MCKINLEY ST P[R ROW 2019-0787
I. n -----JI,,, ,f!
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
EXISTING I V DOMESTIC M[l[R
. ·/ /0046601063 (TO REMAIN} -+-2 .L. -~ c,-1 · I // · · I! l if4;;cRLAr
' f(O-J
~
\
I
I
!
I
<:> I f" BACKFLOW PREVENTr"2!P 5/ II C-. "' .. =1:",1 MATCH [X ""'i i'J '-. (114.89TB:t) I
/~ \, 11 I i ) 1/
"" ENCROACHMENT NOTE:
PROPOSEO CONCRE/f WALKWAY Ill R.0.W. P£R [AGII[[ 2019-0044 I
I
I
I
I
I
RP, 15, -8
0 CONSTRUCTION
110. DESCRIPTION
I DEEPENED COi/CRETE EDGE
0 STORM DRAIN ClEANOUT
0 STACKED KEYSTONE BLOCKED WAil
0 PCC DRIVEWA Y
0 STORM DRAIN PUMP CHAMBER
0 10• ROUND AREA ORAi/i
3 9.69' II 32'34~9• [ 6" HOP£ SO
4 4J.OO' N 55'23'34" [ 6" HOP£ SO
5 J.39' N 34'3726" W 6" HOP£ SO
6 31.81' II 55'23'34" W 6" HOP£ SO
7 36.17' II 2878'35" W 6" HOP£ SO
8 41!.83' II 2878'35" W 6" HOP£ SO
9 4.83' N 34'36'28" W 6" HOP£ SO
ID 21.68' 200' 08'29'26 6" HOP£ SO
II 10.12' II 3479'32" W 6" HOP£ SO
12 5.61' N 39'23'00" W 6" HOP£ SO
13 4.93' N 85'JJ'I J" £ 6" HOP£ SO
14 9.61' N 5576'23" [ 6" HOP£ SO
15 104.68' N 5576'23" [ 6" HOP£ SO
16 45.16' II 34'36'28" W 6" HOP£ SO
17 10.93' N 55'2J'J2" E 6" HOPE SO
18 TO.JI' II 34'31'54" W 6" HOP[ SO
19 11.32' N 34'31'54" W 6" HOP[ SO
20 9.16' II 34'31'54" W 6" HOP£ SO
21 1865' II 55'23'32" £ 6" HOP£ SO
22 2273' 11 34'36'28" W 6" HOP£ SO
23 19.85' N 21'06'59" W 6" HOP[ SO
24 16.9/' 50' 19'22'56" 3• HOP[ SO Fl,/
25 14239' II 5576'23" £ 3• HOP£ SO Fl,/
26 16.6/' 11 2J1ovr E J" HOP£ SO Fl,/
27 4.28' N 34'4.J'Jr W 6" HOP£ SO
28 21.J.J' N 34'36'28" W 4• P[Rf. HOP£;P'IC
SEWER DATA TABLE
<2> Lfl/GTH BEARIIIG/D[L TA R[l,(ARKS
I 4.826' N 68'3735" E 4• SOR-35 fl 2% MIN
NOTES:
STAIIDAR.0 DRAHfl/GS / DfTAILS SYMBOL QUA/IT/TIES UNITS
m ------32 LF
ffi " J EA
--- -
65 LF
MOlJIRED SORSO G-14A Pf) ,,t:-;'7\ 330 SF
®ED @ I EA
® e 20 [A
., ,.•. --.. . . 7"1--=-i 0 2• MIN STABILIZED DG (PUBLIC &-PR/VA TE) I -·;:··_:· ..-, . . .i.' .. :.:1 5,560 SF
1~··~
l ···11=-~ I) \ .____,
I I
!
1/15/2021
DATE
I
/
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I .
I
1'
I
;..-()
/ \. . FH \
\
No. 75677
CI VI I.
I I
I
I
0
0
®
@
@
@
®
@
®
®
®
®
@
RETAINING WAil W/ WALL DRAINS SORSO C OJ, C 07 EB - -
23
RETAINING WALL W/ OPEN HEAD JOI/ITS SORSO C-03, C-07 ff) 185
PERVIOUS PA VERS ffi IHHHHHHHHHHHHl 930
COi/CRETE WALKWA Y 4• THICK PCC W//J fl 18" 0.C.f.W. I ' I J,J/5
AC BERM TYPE A (PUBLIC) SORSO G-5 27
SAWCUT ----- -45
4• WALL DRAIN m ----JOO
AC PAVEMENT -MATCH EX SECTION (PUBLIC) m I<.?,>. t•,··• :"••.I 95
CURB OUTLET TYP[ A (PUBLIC) MOO/RED SORSO 0-25 EB 1101 Ill I
CMU WAil SORSO C-03, C-07 -----J2
TURF --trp.t1t(t§~!Qfi~&f!): 1,205
GRASS --I· • • • • 1,945
BACKFlOW DEVICE WITH PROTECTIVE CAGE Cl,//YO W-20 E3 I SIZ[ PER PLAN
0 AS BUIL TH
MEGA
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
4340 VIEWRIDGE AVE SUITE B
SAN DIEGO. CA 92 I 23
PH (8 58) 634-8620 FAX.(858)-634-8627
RC[ __ _ EXP. ___ _
REVIEIIED BY•
INSPECTOR
LF
LF
SF
Sf
LF
IF
lF
SF
[A
LF
SF
SF
EA
DATE
DATE
t----+----,-----------+--+---l-----,---l ] SH2EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH7EETS I
~=="===E:::N::::GI=:N::::E:=E:::R=:IN:::G=D::::E:::PA:::R=T:::M:=E:::N=:T=="===~
GRADING PLANS FOR:
1------+--+-----------1-----1----1---1----1 (WARD)BLOCK RESIDENCE
1/12/2\ 1 REPLACES SHEET 2 SIGNED 9/10/20 der
DATE INlllAl DA TE INITIAL DA TE INITIAL
ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTl<ER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL
GR2019-0031
APPROVED: t"' {mdl, fur
CITY ENGINEER
OWN BY: SMS
CHKD BY: __ _
RVWD BY:
3291 HIGHLAND DRIVE
GRADING PLAN
JASON S. GELDERT
1/27/2021
RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 20 DA TE
PROJECT NO.
PD2019-0012
DRAWING NO.
519-7 A
Appendix A
Test Results
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Appendix A, Page A-1
Soil
Type
1
2
3
AC
Type
AC1
AC2
TABLE III: FINISH GRADE SOLUBLE SULFATES (CALTEST 417)
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
1 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 167.0 1 8.2 117.9 130.0 90.7
2 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 166.5 1 8.3 117.8 130.0 90.6
3 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 165.5 1 6.7 112.0 130.0 86.2
4 2/2/2021 Retest of #3 165.5 1 7.2 119.1 130.0 91.6
5 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 167.0 2 8.8 125.3 131.3 95.4
6 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 168.0 2 7.7 124.4 131.3 94.7
7 2/2/2021 East of the Residence 169.0 2 10.2 123.1 131.3 93.8
8 2/3/2021 East of the Residence 169.0 2 9.3 122.7 131.3 93.5
9 2/3/2021 East of the Residence 169.5 2 9.8 122.5 131.3 93.3
10 2/3/2021 East of the Residence 170.0 2 8.3 125.3 131.3 95.4
11 2/3/2021 East of the Residencey (F.G.) 171.5 2 7.4 125.9 131.3 95.9
12 2/3/2021 East of the Residence (F.G.) 171.5 2 7.9 123.8 131.3 94.3
13 2/3/2021 East of the Residence (F.G.) 171.5 2 7.3 122.7 131.3 93.5
14 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.5 1 7.7 121.7 130.0 93.6
15 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.5 1 9.0 119.8 130.0 92.2
16 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.5 1 9.0 119.6 130.0 92.0
17 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.8 123.7 131.3 94.2
18 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.5 124.1 131.3 94.5
19 2/5/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.2 124.5 131.3 94.8
20 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.5 2 8.1 120.4 131.3 91.7
21 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.5 2 8.2 119.9 131.3 91.3
22 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 156.0 2 8.4 122.3 131.3 93.1
23 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.5 2 9.8 120.1 131.3 91.5
24 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.5 2 9.7 124.9 131.3 95.1
25 2/8/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.4 121.8 131.3 92.8
26 2/9/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.4 121.2 131.3 92.3
27 2/9/2021 Single-Family Residence 157.0 1 7.9 122.4 130.0 94.2
28 2/9/2021 Garage 157.0 1 7.5 121.8 130.0 93.7
29 2/9/2021 Garage 157.0 1 8.0 120.1 130.0 92.4
30 2/10/2021 Garage 159.0 1 8.1 119.3 130.0 91.8
Maximum Density (pcf)
150.0
130.0
131.3
TABLE IV: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - MASS GRADING
3/4" Class II Agg. Base (Vulcan-Carroll Canyon) 7.5 125.8
Description
Superior Ready-Mix Concrete, Escondido (Plant Value)
150.6
TABLE I: SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE & MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557)
Location
Building Pad
Soluble Sulfate %
0.003
Classification
Negligible
Optimum Moisture
(%)
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
7.5
7.9
Description
Grayish-brown, Silty Sand
Orangish-brown, Silty Sand
TABLE II: LABORATORY COMPACTED UNIT WEIGHT, HVEEM METHOD (ASTM D1560)
Superior Ready-Mix Concrete, Escondido (Plant Value)I I
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Appendix A, Page A-1
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
31 2/10/2021 Garage 159.0 1 10.3 122.3 130.0 94.1
32 2/10/2021 Single-Family Residence 159.0 1 10.2 123.0 130.0 94.6
33 2/10/2021 Garage 164.0 1 9.9 121.4 130.0 93.4
34 2/10/2021 Garage 164.0 1 10.2 122.3 130.0 94.1
35 2/10/2021 Garage 166.0 1 8.8 121.9 130.0 93.8
36 2/10/2021 Driveway 166.0 1 9.5 124.1 130.0 95.5
37 2/10/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence (F.G.)160.0 2 11.1 129.0 131.3 98.2
38 2/10/2021 Driveway 160.0 2 9.6 128.1 131.3 97.6
39 2/10/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence (F.G.)160.0 2 9.5 121.2 131.3 92.3
40 2/10/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence (F.G.)160.0 2 10.2 122.4 131.3 93.2
41 2/12/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 10.4 119.2 131.3 90.8
42 2/12/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 158.0 2 8.0 120.2 131.3 91.5
43 2/12/2021 Single-Family Residence 158.0 2 10.6 119.7 131.3 91.2
44 2/12/2021 Single-Family Residence 158.0 2 12.2 121.3 131.3 92.4
45 2/12/2021 Single-Family Residence 158.0 2 12.0 122.3 131.3 93.1
46 2/12/2021 Single-Family Residence 157.5 2 9.0 122.1 131.3 93.0
47 2/12/2021 Single-Family Residence 157.5 2 11.3 122.7 131.3 93.5
48 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence 159.5 2 10.5 126.7 131.3 96.5
49 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence 159.5 2 9.4 120.7 131.3 91.9
50 2/16/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 159.5 2 11.3 120.4 131.3 91.7
51 2/16/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 159.5 2 10.6 122.8 131.3 93.5
52 2/16/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence 159.5 2 10.2 120.4 131.3 91.7
53 2/16/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence (F.G.)161.0 1 9.8 120.1 130.0 92.4
54 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence (F.G.) 161.0 1 10.0 121.7 130.0 93.6
55 2/16/2021 Rear Yard, West of the Residence (F.G.)161.0 1 10.2 121.4 130.0 93.4
56 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence (F.G.) 161.0 1 9.8 127.2 130.0 97.8
57 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence (F.G.) 161.0 1 10.7 124.6 130.0 95.8
58 2/16/2021 Single-Family Residence (F.G.) 161.0 1 10.2 122.2 130.0 94.0
59 6/8/2021 Garage 163.0 2 11.2 120.8 131.3 92.0
60 6/9/2021 Garage 165.0 2 10.5 119.1 131.3 90.7
61 6/9/2021 Garage 165.0 2 12.7 122.6 131.3 93.4
62 6/10/2021 Garage 166.0 2 6.7 112.4 131.3 85.6
63 6/10/2021 Garage 166.0 2 8.1 126.4 131.3 96.3
64 6/10/2021 Retest of #62 166.0 2 8.8 125.1 131.3 95.3
65 6/10/2021 Garage 168.0 2 9.1 119.7 131.3 91.2
66 6/10/2021 Garage 168.0 2 9.3 119.3 131.3 90.9
67 6/11/2021 Garage (FG)169.0 2 7.7 118.8 131.3 90.5
68 6/11/2021 Garage (FG)169.0 2 9.2 124.6 131.3 94.9
69 6/11/2021 Garage (FG)169.0 2 8.6 119.1 131.3 90.7
70 6/11/2021 Driveway Area (F.G.) 170.0 2 9.1 120.0 131.3 91.4
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
RW1 6/8/2021 Garage, Southern Stem Wall 163.0 2 11.2 121.5 131.3 92.5
RW2 6/8/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 163.0 2 10.9 120.8 131.3 92.0
RW3 6/8/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 163.0 2 10.7 118.6 131.3 90.3
RW4 6/8/2021 Residence, Western Stem Wall 163.0 2 11.0 118.5 131.3 90.3
TABLE V: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - RETAINING WALL
TABLE IV: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - MASS GRADING
CWE 2200524.06 October 19, 2022 Appendix A, Page A-1
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
RW5 6/9/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 163.0 2 10.1 119.3 131.3 90.9
RW6 6/9/2021 Residence, Western Stem Wall 165.0 2 13.9 121.1 131.3 92.2
RW7 6/9/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 165.0 2 17.8 120.9 131.3 92.1
RW8 6/9/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 165.0 2 14.2 119.8 131.3 91.2
RW9 6/9/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 165.0 2 10.7 118.5 131.3 90.3
RW10 6/9/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 165.0 2 14.0 112.5 131.3 85.7
RW11 6/10/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 166.0 2 10.3 118.4 131.3 90.2
RW12 6/10/2021 Residence, Western Stem Wall 168.0 2 10.8 119.9 131.3 91.3
RW13 6/10/2021 Garage, Southern Stem Wall 168.0 2 11.5 118.3 131.3 90.1
RW14 6/10/2021 Retest RW10 165.0 2 10.6 129.6 131.3 98.7
RW15 6/11/2021 Residence, Western Stem Wall 170.0 2 9.0 119.1 131.3 90.7
RW16 6/11/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 168.0 2 10.2 118.8 131.3 90.5
RW17 6/11/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 168.0 2 10.8 120.7 131.3 91.9
RW18 6/11/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 161.0 2 11.1 121.7 131.3 92.7
RW19 6/11/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 167.0 2 7.8 119.8 131.3 91.2
RW20 6/14/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 169.0 2 8.4 121.5 131.3 92.5
RW21 6/14/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 168.0 2 11.1 118.2 131.3 90.0
RW22 6/14/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 172.0 2 11.2 121.2 131.3 92.3
RW23 6/14/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 167.0 2 10.7 119.4 131.3 90.9
RW24 6/14/2021 Residence, Northern Stem Wall 171.0 2 8.7 119.6 131.3 91.1
RW25 6/14/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 170.0 2 9.3 123.3 131.3 93.9
RW26 6/14/2021 Residence, Eastern Stem Wall 169.0 2 10.4 121.1 131.3 92.2
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
SG1 9/26/2022 Concrete Driveway Entrance SG 2 8.3 120.7 131.3 91.9
Test
No.Date Location
Elev.
(feet)
Soil
Type
Field
Moisture
(%)
Field Dry
Density
(pcf)
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
B1 1/19/2022 SDG&E Line, North of Site B 1 5.5 128.7 130.0 99.0
B2 9/27/2022 Concrete Driveway Entrance B 3 12.7 117.5 125.8 93.4
B3 9/27/2022 Concrete Driveway Entrance B 3 10.1 109.8 125.8 87.3
B4 9/28/2022 Retest B2 B 3 9.6 120.7 125.8 95.9
B5 9/28/2022 Retest B3 B 3 9.1 119.9 125.8 95.3
Test
No.
Date Location Course Asphalt
Material
Type
Wet
Density
(pcf)
Estimated
Max.
Density
(pcf)
CWE
Max.
Density
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
AC1 1/19/2022 SDG&E Line, North of Site FS AC1 143.2 150.0 150.0 95.5
AC2 10/17/2022 Between Driveway and Highland Dr BC AC2 147.7 150.6 150.6 98.1
AC3 10/17/2022 Between Driveway and Highland Dr FS AC2 147.5 150.6 150.6 97.9
AC4 10/17/2022 Between Driveway and Highland Dr FS AC2 147.0 150.6 150.6 97.6
TABLE V: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - RETAINING WALL
TABLE VI: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - SUBGRADE
TABLE VII: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6938) - BASE
TABLE VIII: SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D2950) - ASPHALT CONCRETE
I I I I I I I I I