The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1986 1006 CC REG ITEM 11BJAMES D. WEAK Mayor THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor Pro Tem ALBERT PRIETO Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk THOMAS P. GF_NOVESE City Treasurer MOORPARK MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: John F. Knipe, Asst. City Engineer DATE: September 12, 1986 =T :M 11B STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney RICHARD MORTON Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police SUBJECT: Informational Item - Tract 4037 Grading At their meeting July 7, 1986, the City Council received a copy of an anonymous letter (see Exhibit "A ") regarding grading inadequacies on the above subject tract. The City Council then directed the City Engineer to look into the question raised concerning compaction and soil testing. On July 9, 1986, the City Engineer sent a letter to Gorian and Associates (see Exhibit "B ") requiring a map of the project area showing the location, depth and results of -all compaction tests taken during the grading operation. This information was received by the City Engineer on September 10, 1986. We reviewed this report and we believe that based upon the information presented that the earthwork operation and compaction testing was performed in accordance with standard practice. A copy of the compaction test results have been attached for your reference along with a location map of the compaction test sites. However, in view of Council concerns and the original letter (Exhibit "A "), we also obtained an outside opinion from another soils engineering firm. Their analysis also confirmed our opinion that the compaction testing met the requirements. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 9_3021 (805) 525 -6264 Page -2- Based upon the foregoing technical review of the compaction test results, we have concluded that retesting of the soils is not necessary. All engineering conditions of approval have been satisfied for zone clearance. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council receive and file this informational item. RDD:JW:go - Encl. cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager ✓ John F. Knipe, Asst. City Engineer John Wanger, Project Engineer Ron Wilson, Inspector JN 3706 Decz.r Mr .-`14. yor -- :. -- -. -- -- Pten.Ss C-7 yo")- _.NeXT Eo�zrd .— CSeeTl rv6 = a.�+. a, t•sa.vy T_ _OPQrQror._ k.✓oI-Keor oAv T'}+e CCLC -,oroP .job CL COUPLe OF .Weeks. o-ga . S Ca. m 'T Tc L L you .M41. IVa. M e or 7,;-%,e)( w, L L doNe T T;n e L o r S Too S oFT. 7}- e y Ma.dC us PuT Tao M a. N y Layers o N b e Fo re tai- "V 6%. s Pa. C/l r T r� a, y be -a,rc! Foy- rA(2 Farr r COU PI-C o F Fe e T .b u T 73, e ry ITS' Loo 6e.' %fie y K1vew e xa -c-rLy L., ere The r.vS,oeCTOr.s WO (-4 .Ld L oo K Q,.vQ( T� GL 7-s T'n e ow L yr IvL GL C W e C a M Pa. c rccl r h Q a. r a1 Th e nn S a. y TZ, e. s e J e _- ..:�:v...:'— .d- j•ki�:�- rte:- :•;y`K.f�.. —...- ' do,vr i<lvo l✓ Wha.7 -5 GOoC� Or No r. T KNOW ^j 62 6, Thes2 kcLuS& --s Move /N Cc,_ Ye 0, i^ O r T w p L /fie 77-<-- O v e S �,v (fcc. 6 Le My �,.orK �S Good buT = wa.S O,vLy d o I nI b W ;- ct -r 2 L✓ GC, S TO Lcl- 7-0 o -- RECEIVED — JUL o3IS-�s City of Moorpark EXHIBIT "A" t MOORPARK JAMES 0. WEAK Mayor THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor Pro Tem ALBERT PRIETO Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY - SUTTON Councilmember DORIS 0. SANKUS City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer Calprop Corporation 5456 McConnell Av. Los Angeles, CA 90066 Dear Sir: July 9, 1986 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney RICHARD MORTON Oirec:or of Community Development R. DENNIS OELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE C'nief of Police At their meeting of July 7, 1986, the City Council received a copy of the attached letter. The City Council has directed the City Engineer to look into the questions raised concerning compaction and report back to them. Af ter your review of the matter, we will need a report on your findings. In a parallel effort, by the attached letter, the Citv will also request the soils engineer to investigate the compaction of all fill areas on your project and report their findings directly to the City. While this review is taking place, I would appreciate your time table in order to report to the City Council at their July 21st meeting. In the mean time, should you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Very tru y yours CT= MOO K o F. K ipe Assist1 nt City Engineer JFK :go Encl. cc: - S teve Kueny, City Manager R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Ron Wilson, Inspector John Wanger, Design Engineer tt•, 799 Moorcark Avenue Moorcark, California 93021 (ECS) 529 EXHIBIT "B" Staal, Gardner & Dunne, Inc. S-11\1 D Consulting Engineers and Geologists Willdan Associates September 11, 1986 374 Poli Street, Suite 101 Ventura, California 93001 Our Job 86103 Attention: Mr. John Wanger Subject: Geotechnical Review of the Final Rough Grading Compaction Test Report, Tract 4037, Lots 1 -66, Northwest Corner of Moorpark and Peach Hill Roads, City of Moorpark, California, Dated July 23, 1986, Prepared by Gorian & Associates, Inc. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the subject compaction test report with respect to Lots 33 through 49 located on the northeastern portion of the tract. The review was conducted to evaluate whether adequate compaction testing had been performed for the grading in that area. Based on our review of the report, we offer the following comments: . 1) Approximately 186 field density tests were taken in the area of Lots 33 through 49. Based on an assumed f ill volume of on the order of 100,000 cubic yards, this corresponds to one test for every 500 to 600 cubic yards. 2) Field density tests were taken throughout the depth interval filled, with no apparent gaps or ranges in elevation that were not tested. 3) Lowest test elevation shown is +540 feet, which is 10 feet below the lowest portion of the canyon as indicated by the original contour lines shown on the grading plan. 4) Tests appear to be relatively randomly distributed throughout the graded area. EXHIBIT "C" 121 North Fir Street, Suite F • Ventura, California 93001 • (805) 653 -5556 Willdan Associates September 11, 1986 2 It appears that the compaction testing was performed in accordance with standard practice. The soil engineer has certified the rough grading as being done in accordance with the soil and geologic report for the site, and there are no indica- tions that substandard construction practice was followed. While this review did not go into sufficient detail to determine the exact location and configuration of the tested zones within the fill, it is our opinion that on the basis of the results reported in the subject report, there is no reason to believe that substandard construction practices were used. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, STAAL, GARDNER & DUNNE, INC. %��EESS1�i�A� N. p n, 'o. 32973 �; / 1 Ex C/VIA F OF CA`i� Timothy N. Dunne TND;tg /16 SG D� Z�'+// 135 q - - Iii 25r 6 �o N 4. 135 �- 4-8 1 1 [j 9131 8 � ?f 121 X05 "�'37a4 3d.bS� gyp`! i - UILpIN(a S • • �3 ,, >• � 7' Go7. y -1 t2o 120 loa !004.2 ;EA5EMCETBQGC o.d✓_ 7 3 Q ��, \ \\\ � • � • 1. : 111 � 85 '.�tioosG,a 211 Q • g • /� Fto 5E EASEti�E/71 1 8 • ^ �� 84 • ,% n - - - ,.q �:'�1 61 • /°� ems_ _ 302 1 m 1 �. - --., h )8 91�,� 86 rl _ 55 75, H 0 91 180 • I .0.. O"/ 5iaieET 4 � 36 �0 - � 109 n� / �) � 45 68 2m �� y _ • 116• :1 b0 34 52 • - '� � = 35 `�f�3a 11* 68 nr • 211 r ' --• -42 1 - 16 )4 'I9 �. • Ao • 1)5 • • 29. 5' 6 2. oe' 2 . .3' 65 ,vE 30 - 25 �. • • 46 •23 213 �'? �` S9 0 , eg 31 18 IO�i'`C �f 56 ,sue -- -- z, _ _ Q� a c -� �� ' •� S �� ' 75 ��- z ¢8 13 • /r i �i 744` j o 0 9 / o) 75 ;fYo \ 112 1 • • • 4 ' 21 J 197 Low `, V -� i 9G aZ 4 ! , N • � n • 2 � 74 �115Ny^ v,;� L 66• � 48a 92- 1wrc v� 114 224 '` 66q`r I 48e. rc ' .1 t(1 • 6/ 101• )0 .5` ! / � 39 ?a 16• 20• 6�- ExiyT. i8' tniP to 182 I .9 • n o sT- _� 11225 /' �9 ) _ � 5N ET 9 goo. oo' t 119 } 226' • DY \ 19 8 to s a m •e • 83 ; f !I 50 `- 53 98 d Z4 s • / 31 / • O ExiST Ao "cwiP 53� 8 < PER vEarruR,a 215 DwG tJo /03 zz.o - B, J • h T 95 / 5., 33 '/ / Ca/ � -� a�� 40, -' c.�o v � Ga L s 9 I. 76 38 i 11 •)g c tll I C ` B • • 131 �oo. �, 30 � �' � I o • ,' 132 SZ" � ° °¢ /•a) - -- 199 �Q I o C \; �` 6) • u b • �� - m I 69 3J/ 4 /ar�'•113 s • l05 Q zz oo . =s 191 I 106 122 • \ / ` • -- - -- rG` • 2.3 U • 82• • B9 G�'i4 `�� Nf / � " \ Q� �k- - -- y°al°' Q•134 �4 rG?o •94a 94 ti� 99• 3 • 42 �� aI _ _ -_- -- -- I `� u 100 • o w�� '� ga , `\ ! - — 2.0 I r 34' s/ "" 1�' 88 \/ 129 t CIL �j GO .� � • i29a -d 221- .• ,� �, � 81 139 • T J 5� �� \., • - 141 42�, .!i1 s� • 138 / / f TYP�c 4 — NUMBER AND LOCATION OF vnr,,ATinm ATP nF r.f1p4PAf:T1nN TEST SITES COMPACTION TEST TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS W. 0 ..806.4.20..'.....:.. NAME ... CAL PP,OP.....TR 4037 ...................REPORT DATE.......... TEST N0. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (b) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (p) SOIL r TYPE LOCATION 1 5 -16 -86 540.0 11.1 111.3 91 III 43 2 5 -16 -86 541.0 13.2 111.9 91 III reet of 43 3 5 -19 -86 542..0 I 14.1 111.7 91 III I 43 4 5 -19 -86 _ 544.0 10.0 111.4 91 III t Street E . St 43 5 5 -19 -86 544.5 9.9 113.4 94 I 43 6 5 -19 -86 546.0 14.4 110.9 91 IIII 43 7 5 -20 -86 546.5 13.0 110.3 90 III 43 8 5 -20 -86 548.0 9.9 110.5 90 IIII Sttreet E. of 43 9 5 -20 -86 549.0 14.6 113.2 92 III Street t. of 43 10 5 -21 -86 551.0 12.7 110.7 90 III 43 11 5 -21 -86 552.0 13.9 110.3 92 I Street E. of 43 12 5 -21 -86 553:0 10.8 108.7 90 II. trees E. --af 44 13 5 -22 -86 552.0 12.9 113.3 91 V 44 14 5 -22 -86 554.0 8.9 100.0 85* IV I 43 14A 5 -22 -86 554.0 14.9 109.4 94 IV I 43 15 5 -23 -86 554.0 9.8 106.1 91 IV Street E. of 43 16 5 -23 -86 556.0 9.8 115.9 93 V I of r42t E. 17 5 -23 -86 554.0 9.0 114.1 92 V 44 18 5 -27 -86 556.0 9.4 111.4 92 I 44 19 1 5 -27 -86 555.0 10.1 114.9 93 V I 43 20 5 -27 -86 557.0 10.0 107.2 92 IV Lreet E. of 43 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED-. 'ORIAN AND // SSOCIATEZ ln c. L7 %`+r TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS ` W.0.. 806= 4: 20.. -.....:..NAME .... CAL_PROP ............................... REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT ( o) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT. ) RELATIVE COMPACTION (ro) SOIL _ YP E i LOCATION 21 5 -27 -86 558.5 12.6 105.3 90 IV ��r�St E- 22 5 -27 -86 557.0 11.1 105.6 90 IV 45 23 5 -28 -86 559.0 9.7 101.9 87* IV 43 23A 5 -28 -86 559.0 11.2. 106.6 91 IV ' 43 24 5 -28 -86 559.5 12.9 115.8 93 V 41 25 5 -28 -86 560.0 10.4 111.9 90 V 45 26 5 -28 -86 561.0 13.8 104.1 86* I 44 26A 5 -28 -86 561.0 11.7 110.9 92 I 44 27 5 -29 -86 563.0 12.7 109.6 91 I ( 43 28 5 -29 -86 562.0 12.9 108.7 90 II ( 43 29 5 -29 -86 558.0 12.6 113.3 91 VI 41 30 5 -29 -86 564.0 10.4 110.0 91 II' 45 31 5 -29 -86 563.0 9.9 105.5 90 IV 44 32 5 -30 -86 561.0 12.6 113.3 91 VI 41 33 5 -30 -86 563.0 11.8 I 106.6 91 IV 41 34 5 -30 -86 566.0 13.1 113.2 91 VI 45 35 5 -30 -86 565.0 13.4 115.5 93 VI ( 43 36 5 -30 -86 570.0 12.9 108.9 90 II 45 37 6 -2 -86 563.5 13.7 115.0 93 VI ofJ42C c. 38 6 -2 -86 567.0 12.0 108.9 90 II ( 41 39 6 -2 -86 568.0 12.1 ! 105.7 90 IV I 41 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. - A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REk'ORKED: 1110RlAN AND 11SS0C,,ATES, lnc. %W--7 **"-w Cam- T ABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0..806- 4.20.......:.. NAME... CAL . PROP ................................ REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (p) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LES. /CU .FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (ro) SOIL TYPE LOCATION 40 6 -2 -86 572.0 10.7 107.2 92 IV 46 41 6-2-86 575.0 11.8 109.1 91 I II I 46 42 6 -2 -86 572.0 10.9 113.8 92 IV 45 43 � - - 6386 568.0 13.6 103.5 92 V I I ( Street . of 41 44 6 -3 -86 6 -3 -86 567.0 I 14.2 102.9 91 VIII 43 45 568.0 15.1 104.2 92 VIII 43 46 6 -3 -86 569.0 17.1 103.8 92 I VIII 44 47 6 -3 -86 569.0 14.9 102.3 91 VIII 41 48 6 -3 -86 569.0 12.1 98.0 87* I VII tr.eet W . of 41 48A 6 -3 -86 569.0 14.8 103.4 92 VII otr?t el' a .9 - - 6485 574.0 15.0 112.4 91 VI I 45 50 6 -4 -86 571.0 11.7 112.1 90 VI. _ 41 51 6 -4 -86 590.0 10.8 107.9 _ 87* VI 47 51A 6 - 4 - 86 590.0 11.9 112.3 91 I VII 47 52 6 -4 -86 576 . 0 I 10.1 111.9 90 VI I 45 53 - - 6486 5 73.0 12.0 105.3 85* I VI ( 42 573.0 13.6 112.1 90 I VI I 42 53A 4 86 6-4-86 54 - - 6486 577.0 13.3 107.8 91 IV 46 55 6 -4 -86 570.0 14.0 114.8 95 II 43 56 4 86 6-4-86 571.0 12.6 109.2 91 II ( 42 57 6- 4- 86 573.0 13.0 99.9 88* VII 42 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIRE, ENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING- RE. %'ORKEJ: - / 'nQfdN AND Z�'SSOCIATcS, lnc. t L7 ry r TABLE .I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0.. 806.4.20...... ....NAME ....................... ...................REPORT DATE.......... TEST N0. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (of) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LB S. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION ( ;) SOIL TYPE. LOCATION 57A 6 -5 -86 573.0 12.8 102.8 91- VII 42 58 6 -5 -86 575.0 13.3 104.9 93 VII 42 59 6 -5 -86 577.0 14.2 108.9 93 IV 41 60 6 -5 -86 580.0 15.1 103.5 88* IV 46 60A. 6 -5 -86 580.0 15.3 106.7 91 IV 46 61 6 -5 -86 572.0 13.0 104.1 92 VII 43 62 6 -5 -86 575.0 14.1 102.2 27* IV 43 62A 6 -5 -86 575.0 14.4 105.8 90 IV 43 63 6 -5 -86 578.0 16.1 104.8 93 VII 42 64 6 -5 -86 579.0 13.8 105.5 93 VII 41 65 6 -5 -86 581.0 14.0 101.9 90 VII 46 66 6 -6 -86 583.0 13.0 97.4 86* VII :: 40 66A 6 -6 -86 583.0 13.1 103.5 92 VII 40 67 6 -6 -86 579.0 12.1 9622 85* VII 42 67A 6 -6 -86 579.0 14.5 105.2 93 VII 42 68 6 -6 -86 579.0 13.9 99.2 88* VII 43 68A 6 -6 -86 579.0 14.0 105.3 93 VII 43 69 6 -6 -86 580.0 14.2 99.1 88* VII 34 69A 6 -6 -86 580.0 12.9 105.3 93 VII 34 70 6 -6 -86 585.0 14.2 111.0 92 II I 40 71 6 -6 -86 586.0 13.1 112.4 93 II 47 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED-. /3DPIAt4 AND dSS0C,'ATESlnc. %woe, _ e w TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W. 0 ..806=4=20 ........... NAME ... CAL PROP ............ ...................REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT ( %) UN IT DRY DENSITY (LB S. / CU. FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (ro) SOIL _ ►YP r � LOCATION 72 6 -6 -86 584.0 13.4 110.0 91. II 45 73 6 -9 -86 583.0 13.9 104.7 93 VII 42 74 6 -9 -86 582.5 12.0 100.0 88* VII 43 74A 6 -9 -86 582.5 13.6 104.5 92 VII 43 75 6 -9 =86 585.0 16.0 99.9 88* VII of 40 reet W 75A 6 -9 -86 585.0 15.1 103.0 91 VII ree of 40 76 6 -9 -86 586.5 12.8 106.7 91 IV 40 77 6 -9 -86 588.0 14.0 104.7 93 VII V7 78 6 -9 -86 586:0 10.4 106.0 91 IV c�5 79 6 -9 -86 585.0 15.4 104.0 92 VIII 80 6 -9 -86 585.0 14.8 105.1 93 YII �3 80A 6 -9 -86 585.0 15.5 102.6 91 VII 73 81 6 -10 -86 587.0 14.5 108.8 90 II 90 82 6 -10 -86 588.0 12.8 110.7 92 83 6 -10 -86 589.0 13.7 112.5 91 VI c{0 84 6 -10 -86 591.0 10.1 108.5 90 I 90 85 6 -10 -86 591.5 14.0 111.6 93 I/ 86 6 -10 -86 587.0 13.7 110.9 92 I 87. 6 -10 -86 588.0 12.8 112.1 .93 TI �Z 88 6 -10 -86 589.0 18.0 106.0 94 VII si� 3`/ 89 6 -10 -86 591.0 17.2 102.7 91 VII * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED-. /3DRIAN AND dSSOCIATESInc. %00.11' i 0- TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0..80E -4. . .'.... ....NAME•.CAL_PROP ............. ...................REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (01 UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (p) SOIL �- ►YPc LOCATION 90 6 -10 -86 592.0 15.4 105.2 93 VII 46 91 6 -10 -86 590.0 10.7 105.8 88* II 44 91A 6 -10 -86 590.0 13.8 111.2 92 II 44 92 6 -10 -86 591.5 15.0 105.0 93 VII 43 93 6 -10 -86 590.0 16.9 102.5 91 VII 33 94 6 -11 -86 591.5 14.7 97.5 86* VII 35 94A 6 -11 -86 591.5 15.8 101.9 90 VII 35 95 6 -11 -86 593.5 13.3 110.0 94 IV 40 96 6 -11 -86 593.0 12.9 108.7 93 IV 47 97 6 -11 -86 592.0 14.0 110.5 92 II 44 98 6 -11 -86 593.0 13.9 112.4 93 II 42 99 6 -11 -86 593.0 10.7 103.3 86* II 33 99A 6 -11 -86 593.0 12.5 109.4 91 II 33 100 6 -11 -86 595.0 13':7:- 114.4 92 VI 35 101 6 -11 -86 595.5 10.9 114.8 93 VI 40 102 6 -11 -86 600.0 13.1 116.5 94 VI 48 103 6 -11 -86 594.5 13.6 109.7 94 IV 45 104 6 -11 -86 595.0 12.9 109.1 93 IV 43 105 6 -11 -86 596.0 14.7 110.5 92 II 42 106 6 -11 -86 597.0 15.3 109.5 91 II 35 107 6 -11 -86 597.0 14.2 112.5 93 II Street W. of 40, INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REkfORKED: 1+11,07OR1AN AND ASSOCIATESlnc. %M7 l , ip, y\ TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0.. 806 =4- 20.......:.. NAME ... CAL. PROP............ ..................REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. -- DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (X) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (ro) SOIL _ rE ►YPc LOCATIOf! 108 6 -12 -86 598.0 15.7 105.9 94. VII 47 109 6 -12 -86 597.5 14.0 101.8 90 VII 44 110 6 -12 -86 598.0 17.2 105.0 93 VII S r t E. 111 6 -12 -86 598.0 13.4 113.7 92 VI 42 112 6 -12 -86 570.0 14.1 116.1 94 VI 43 113 6 -12 -86 598.0 13.2 115.2 93 VI 41 114 6 -12 -86 599.0 14.4 114.0 92 VI treet of 35 115 6 -12 -86 597:5 15.1 112.8 94 II 40 116 6 -12 -86 600.0 14.9 110.1 91 ( II 48 1.17 6 -12 -86 599.0 15.2 113.3 94 II 46 118 6 -12 -86 598.0 13.0 108.6 90 II 43 119 6 -12 -86 599.0 14.5 109.7 91 II. :: 40 120 6 -13 -86 603.0 13.1 107.9 87* VI 49 120A 6 -13 -86 603.0 11.7 112.0 90 VI 49 121 6 -13 -86 592.0 10.6 106.4 86* VI I 45 121A 6 -13 -86 592.0 12.3 114.5 92 VI 45 122 6 -13 -86 594.5 16.9 103.1 91 VII ( 46 123 6 -13 -86 596.0 15.8 104.9 93 VTI 46 124 6 -13 -86 596.0 14.9 106.2 94 VII 47 125 6 -16 -86 597.0 14.1 103.7 92 VII 46 126 6 -16 -86 600.0 17.3 104.2 92 VII 46 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REk'ORKED: S "ORIAN AND /�SSOCJATES Inc. L7 011--w TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS W.0.. ... 806-4-20 . .........NAME.. CAL. PROP ............. .................. .REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO. DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT UNIT DRY DENSITY RELATIVE COMPACTION ro(% ) SOIL TYPE LOCATION 127 6 -16 -86 600.0 17.8 102.0 90 VII 42 128 6 -16 -86 606.0 11.7 114.6. 91 VIII 48 129 6 -16 -86 603.0 8.8 109.6 87* VIII 33 129A 6 -16 -86 603.0 9.4 115.6 92 VIII 33 130 6 -17 -86 604.0 12.0 108.5 90 II 40 131 6 -17 -86 609.0: 14.0 110.5 91 II ( 41 132 6 -17 -86 605.5 13.7 111.9 93 II 35 133 6 -17 -86 606.0 11.9 110.9 92 II 41 134 6 -17 -86 608.0 12.6 111.2 92 II 34 135 6 -17 -86 612.0 14.0 103.9 86* II 49 135A 6 -17 -86 612.0 14.1 111.7 93 II 49 136 6 -18 -86 609.5 14.8 102.6 91 VII Street . q. of 30 137 6 -18 -86 610.0 15.9 105.9 94 VII 35 138 6 -18 -86 611.0 16.3 104.9 93 VII 33 139 6 -18 -86 612.0 14.9 105.4 93 VTI 34 140 6 -18 -86 612.0 15.1 106.4 94 VII 30 141 6 -18 -86 615.0 14.8 110.9 92 II I 33 142 6 -18 -86 614.0 13.9 1.11. -€r-- - 9.3....._____ . II 33. 143 6 -19 -86 642.5 11.2 113.2 90 uII 8 144 6 -19 -86 632.0 10.4 109.3 91 I I 4 145 6 -19 -86 623.0 11.8 108.6 90 I 1 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED.. - /?DRIAN AND ,,4SS0C,ATES, Inc. %W.-*, r aw TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W. O. ............ NAME ...... CaI. Prop. .. Tract. 4037 ................2EP02T DATE.......... TEST N0. DATE Elevation MOISTURE CONTENT (�) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (10 SOIL TYPE Location 146 6 -19 -86 646.5 9.4 112.7 91 V 10 147 6 -19 -86 636.0 10.9 113.4 90 VIII 5 148 6 -19 -86 642.5 12.2 113.0 90 VIII 8 149 6- 20 -86} 642.5 11.6 115.8 92 VIII 7 150 6 -20 -86 624.0 13.4 110.9 91 III 23 151 6 -20 -86 622.0 10.1 111.5 91 III 66 152 6 -20 -86 620.0 14.4 110.4 90 III 66 153 6 -23 -86 647.5 7.1 110.3 90 III 10 154 6 -23 -86 647.5 10.1 110.6 90 III 9 155 6 -23 -86 644.5 13.0 97.9 87* VII 8 155A 7 -12 -86 644.5 9.9 106.0 94 VII 8 156 6 -23 -86 643.0 8.9 108.5 90 I 7 157 6 -23 -86 638.5 9.2 106.4 91 IV 6 158 6 -23 -86 637.0 10.8 105.3 87* I 5 158A 7 -12 -86 637.0 8.0 110.0 91 I 5 159 6 -23 -86 634.0 9.9 99.2 85* IV 4 159A 7 -12 -86 634.0 9.2 106.5 91 IV 4 160 6 -23 -86 628.5 9.2 102.2 87* IV 3 160A 7 -12 -86 628.5 8.2 105.3 90 IV 3 161 6 -23 -86 625.0 8.8 110.1 91 I 2 162 6 -23 -86 624.5 11.4 105.6 90 IV 1 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED. ARIAN AND dSSQCJATEa1na. %7 0 4w TABLE. I. RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0. 806- 4- 20........:_.NAME.._ Cal . Prop... Tract 4037 ......................REPORT DATE.......... TEST DATE Elevation MOISTURE UNIT DRY RELATIVE NO. evaon CONTENT DENSITY COMPACTION SOIL ( %) (LBS. /CU.FT.) (b) TYPE Location 163 6 -24 -86 645.5 8,5 105.5 EF 0 IV 11 12 164 6 -24 -86 641.0 6.5 113.1 VIII 165 6 -24 -86 638.5 9.4 113.0 90 VIII 13 166 6- 24 -86 - -_ 637.0 9.0 109.4 91 I 14 167 6 -24 -86 636.0 9,2 102.0 90 VII 15 168 6 -24 -86 636.0 10.2 101.9 90 VII 16 169 6 -24 -86 636.5 10.1 102.7 91 II 17 170 6 -24 -86 635.5 8.2 105.5 90 IV 18 171 6 -24 -86 635.5 8.1 105.6 90 IV 19 172 173 6 -24 -86 6 -24 -86 634.5 647.5 8.5 7.9 104.5 92 VII 20 106.0 94 VII 11 174 6 -25 -86 598.5 6.4 111.4 92 II 43' 175 6 -25 -86 600.5 12.1 101.1 89* VII 44 175A 7 -12 -86 600.5 7.2 104.1 92 VII 44 176 6 -25 -86 601.0 8.0 99.0 88* VII 45 76A 7 -12 -86 601.0 7.0 104.1 92 VII 45 177 6 -25 -86 602.0 9.3 103.0 91 VII 46 178 6 -25 -86 604.0 7.2 103.4 92 VII 47 179 6 -25 -86 609.0 7.2 108.9 90 II 48 180 6 -25 -86 607.5 5.7 114.0 95 II 49 181 6 -26 -86 610.0 10.8 111.1 92 T 11 51 * INDICATES A INDICATES COMPACTION RETEST OF TEST RESULT FAILING AREA BELOW THE MINIMUM AFTER BEING COMPACTION REWORKED. REQUIREIMENTS. ajRIAN AND SSOCIATE� Inc. -f" TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0 ..... 806 - 4=20._._:_. NAME ... Cal. Prop... Tract .4037 ...................REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO' DATE Elevation MOISTURE CONTENT W UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (rod SOIL TYPE Location 182 6 -26 -86 610.0 14.0 109.9 91 II 52 183 6 -26 -86 612.0 13.7 110.4 92 II 53 184 6 -26 -86 612.5 15.5 105.1 93 VII 54 185 6 -26 -86 613.0 16.1 106.1 94 VII 55 186 6 -26 -86 613.5 13.8 112.8 94 II 56 187 6 -26 -86 616.0 16.9 104.4 92 VII 57 188 6 -27 -86 616.5 12.7 109.2 91 II 58 189 6 -27 -86 615.0 13.8 110.6 92 II 27 190 6 -27 -86 161.5 10.6 115.3 93 VI 28 191 6 -27 -86 612.0 9.9 111.6 90 VI 36' 192 6 -27 -86 614.0 8.7 112.0 90 VI 30 193 6 -27 -86 632.0 10.6 111.7 90 VI street W 194 6 -27 -86 618.5 13.4 104.4 92 VII 27 195 6 -27 -86 619.5 14.8 103.1 91 VII 28 196 6 -27 -86 635.0 12.9 102.6 91 VII ofr6e I 197 6 -30 -86 611.0 8.1 109.0 90 I 51 198 6 -30 -86 611.5 9.3 105.6 90 IV 52 199 6 -30 -86 614.0 9.5 101.9 90 VII 53 200 6 -30 -86 614.5 8.6 103.5 92 VII 54 201 6 -30 -86 615.5 7.7 101.8 90 VII 55 202 6 -30 -86 615.5 7.8 107.2 92 IV 56 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED. /?DRIAN AND J'SSCCIAT03, Inc. %MO.,, i w TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS W.0 . _ _ 806 -4. 20......:. ,NAME. , . Cal_ Prop... Tract 4037 ........................REPORT DATE.......... TEST DATE MOISTURE UNIT DRY RELATIVE Elevation CONTENT DENSITY COMPACTION TOYPt Location NO. yo 203 6 -30 -86 618.0 8.1 102.0 90 92 VII 57 204 6 -30 -86 618.5 7.4 103.9 VII 58 205 7 -1 -86 625.0 10.8 108.5 90 I I 66 65 206 7 -1 -86 625.0 14.2 111.2 92 207 7 -1 -86 626.5 11.3 108.9 90 I I 64 61 60 street W of 50 208 7 -1 -86 626.5 12.9 110.1 91 209 7 -1 -86 625.0 12.2 112.1 93 I VII VII 210 7 -1 -86 612.0 11,8 99.1 88* 210A 7 -1 -86 612.0 14.9 .103.0 91 211 7 -2 -86 614.0 10.4 108,7 90 II II street W of 50 50 212 213 214 7 -2 -86 7 -2 -86 7 -2 -86 609.5 610.5 611.5 12.1 13.6 14.4 109.8 111.2 109.4 91 92 91 II 50 II 38" 15 7 -3 -86 612.0 11.2 108.5 90 II 37 216 7 -3 -86 614.0 15.5 104.0 92 VII 2 217 7 -3 -86 614.5 16.6 104.6 93 VII 31 218 7 -3 -86 616.0 14.8 102.5 91 VII 32 219 7 -7 -86 616.0 8.6 105.4 90 IV 30 220 7 -7 -86 618.0 8.4 113.2 91 VI 33' 221 7 -7 -86 616.5 6.7 106.7 91 IV 34 222 7 -8 -86 616.0 8.0 113.4 90 VIII 35 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIRE,"IENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED. a2RIAN AND SSOCIATE$ lnc. 04 TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS w. 0. 806 -4- 20 .......... NAME ... C.al..Prop ...T.rart AQ37 .................... REPORT DATE .......... TEST NO. DATE Elevation MOISTURE CONTENT (o) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION O SOIL TYPE Location 223 7 -8 -86 614.0 8.3 107.8 92 IV 36 224 7 -8 -86 604.5 6.9 112.4 93 I 40 225 7 -8 -86 604.0 6.9 112.4 93 I 40 226 7 -9 -86 6000.0 6.8 108.8 90 I 41 227 7 -9 -86 598.0 6.3 108.7 90 I 42 228 7 -9 -86 605.5 10.1 108.6 90 I 39 229 7 -9 -86 624.5 7.4 111.7 91 III 59 230 7 -10 -86 629.0 7.4 105.9 91 IV 21 231 7 -10 -86 626.0 7.0 108.7 93 IV 22 232 7 -10 -86 625.0 7.1 110.2 94 I 23 233 7 -10 -86 622.5 6.5 102.8 91 VII 24 234 7 -10 -86 622.0 11.0 110.2 91 II 25 235 7 -10 -86 621.0 9.1 112.6 93 I 26 236 7 -11 -86 620.5 7.2 104.3 92 VII 27 237 7 -11 -86 620.5 9.4 109.0 90 II 28 238 7 -11 -86 615.5 5.5 113.7 92 VI Parcel A 239 7 -12 -86 628.0 7.8 110.8 90 III 62 240 7 -12 -86 628.0 7.2 110.6 90 III 63 241 7 -12 -86 619.0 8.7 109.8 91 II street E of 66 242 7 -19 -86 623.0 18.1 101.9 90 VII Lot 1 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED. liORIAN AND ZISSOCIATE-%� Inc. V 01-1w TABLE. I RESULTS OF COMPACT ION TESTS 806-4-20 Tract 4037 . . ... ._........REPORT DATE.......... TEST NO- DATE ELEVATION MOISTURE CONTENT (;) UNIT DRY DENSITY (LBS. /CU.FT.) RELATIVE COMPACTION (;) SOIL E_ TYPt LOCATION 243 7 -19 -86 624.0 19.2 103.1 91 VII Lot 1 244 7 -19 -86 619.0 14.7 104.8 93 VII treez W. of Lot 1 * INDICATES COMPACTION TEST RESULT BELOW THE MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. A INDICATES RETEST OF FAILING AREA AFTER BEING REWORKED. /70RIAN AND ZfSSOCIATES� Inc. :7 ovr l