The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1100 Forest Dr - 218923301003 - 1844-99ISINDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, CO 81631 Telephone: (970) 328-8755 COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 1844-99 BP NO. 12432 OWNER: JAVIER AND CYNTHIA GONZALEZ-BRINGAS PHONE: 970-927-0287 MAILING ADDRESS: 405 PARK AVE #F3, BASALT, CO 81621 APPLICANT: SAME PHONE: SYSTEM LOCATION: 0900 FOREST DRIVE, EL JEBEL, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2189-233-01-003 LICENSED INSTALLER: PIFCO, DUANE PIFFER LICENSE NO. 66-99 PHONE: 970-963-8176 DESIGN ENGINEER: PHONE NO. INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM FOR A THREE BEDROOM RESIDENCE 1000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 1350 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA VIA 44 CHAMBERED UNITS AS REQUESTED BY OWNER. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL IN SERIAL DISTRIBUTION IN TRENCHES WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT SMEARING OF SOILS AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. FENCE OFF LEACH FIELD AREA TO PREVENT ANIMALS FROM GRAZING OVER IT. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT- AL HEALTH FOR FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACK FILLING ANY PART OF THE INSTALLATION, OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING INSTALLATION. BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS RECEIVED FINAL APPRO- VAL. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 CONDITIONS: 1. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25-10-104, 1973, AS AMENDED. 2. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR CONNECTION TO STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH COUNTY ZONING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, CONNECTION TO OR USE WITH ANY DWELLING OR STRUCTURE NOT APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION OF A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT BOTH LEGAL ACTION AND REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. 3. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO BE LICENSED. FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM (TO BE COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR): NO SYSTEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS APPROVED PRIOR TO COVERING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. INSTALLED ABSORPTION OR DISPERSAL AREA: 1350 SQUARE FEET (VIA 44 TNFTT.TR AT(1R TTNTT$ ) INSTALLED CONCRETE TANK: 1000 GALLONS IS LOCATED 268 DEGREES AND _2 _ FEET FROM THR CT,F.ANOTTT COMMENTS: ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ( �% ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL4t'�//,/j/ DATE:OCTOBER 5, 1999 (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # 1 0 qtl ! I APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 328-8755/927-3823 (El Jebel) ************************************************************************** * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00 * * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" PROPERTY OWNER J AJ (Lv-L p�LA C . ,(U'JPHONE: (97 o) q7,1 o Z f ? MAILING ADDRESS: `1 o IA a 6,,' A2 F:7 3 5 ASS *C -t Co _ ( 6 '2, I APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: t,4-t _ PHONE: (q7o ) 717ot 2(7, MAILING ADDRESS: LICENSED ISDS CONTRACTOR: PHONE: ( ) COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS: ************************************************************************** PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: f,,,4 New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair ************************************************************************** LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Building Permit # �f 3a ( if known) Legal Description: Subdivision:Cv ULcM caco/. —U 3 Tax Parcel Numbe Street Address: 0 0 0 FO,/LL S 7" Oat J L CA "x it ing:_Block: Lot No.,? — Lot Size: _ �#3 BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) b J ) Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) (r ) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supper *These systems require/d si, by Re eyed Professional Engineer SIGNATURE: r Date: i TO BE COMPLETED BY COUNTY AMOUNT PAID: . RECEIPT # : tFS� DATE : 3��/ CHECK #: I Zli- CASHIER: ISDS PERMIT # PERCOLATION TEST EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEATLH OWNER: G' � � �✓rir► � a 5 - •PHSYSICAL ADDRESS: 0 9o0 kyeg F LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 4 .-- 1 e e-md of road ktv Eyes _S MAILING ADDRESS: i4o far 4 Ot,G 4 3 6qjAff,, Lo F/&Z TYPE OF DWELLING: r. s7• NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: Z TEST HOLES PRE-SOAKED: YES NO TIME WATER DEPTH V,,N oqtMS OF FALL SOIL �� RATE PROFILE ny m, mmmmmmbm= TIME TO DROP LAST INCH: t4 PERC RATE: qQ AN A"" MINIMUM LEACH FIELD d MINIMUM SEPTIC T �( 41 SIZE:q,� M C TANK SIZE�� C OMMF.NTC- .- MY liVEV&CL- 44,& SAWAIA 7b q . 7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST DATE 7 S7� Al Z r L7A a. S = `� = q o o { f Z ISDS Permit # Lqq . qq Date 28�c/ ISDS Final InsBection Completeness Form Tank is ' �^' "J gal. Tank Material Tank is located -05 ft. and oLW degrees from �' (permanent landmark) Tank is located ft. and degrees from (permanent landmark) Tank set level. ✓ Tank lids within 8" of finished grade. Size of field✓►t2 y units lineal ft. Technology �S Cleanout is installed in between tank and house(+ 1/100ft). There is a "T" that goes down 14 inches in the inlet and outlet of the tank. ✓ Inlet and outlet is sealed with tar tape, rubber gasket etc. a/ Tank has two compartments with the larger compartment closest to the house. Measure distance and relative direction to field. 30 T �- V, Depth of field ft. y1 Soil interface raked. Inspection portals at the end of each trench. —✓— Proper distance to setbacks. Chambers properly installed as per manufacturers specifications. (Chambers latched, end plates properly installed, rocks removed from trenches, etc.) (� Type of pipe used for building sewer line5,01 17 leach field-504 Other Inspection meets requirements. Copy form to installer's file if recommendations for improvement were suggested. - ACTION TAKEN: Setbacks Well Potable House Property Lake Dry Tank Drain Water Lines line Stream Gulch Field 100 25 20 10 50 25 10 10 Tank 50 10 5 10 50 10 10 JOB EAGLE -COUNTY ENV. HEALTH P.O. BOX 179 SHEET NO. OF EAGLE, CO 81631 CALCULATEDY DATE CHECKED BY DATE ever c .. ,........................... ...... _. ......... .:..............p._...........,..............;.............;......................................,. .. ..; ....................�........ ` a. �. .. ......... ... .... .......; ................. ... ......... - .......... .............:...... .........,.. ......... ......... ....... ....... :.... ...................... .............. ............. ......... ... , ... ........ 4 1 ...... . ...... ............ ......... ......:..............i....................... ......................... i ................ ....... .......... .............. ........... ............. .............. ..................................... ............... .......... ........... ............. ... .... .... .............. . .......... ........... PRODUCT 204.1 ISingle Shem) 2f&I (Padded) ®s Inc.. Groton, Man.01471, To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 14W0.2254 M I6 p� V SA."D APR SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED GONZALE&BRINGAS RESIDENCE LOT 8, COULTER CREEK RANCH COTTONWOOD PASS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO.197 704 JANUARY 233,1998 PREPARED VOR. JAVIER GONZALES-BRINGAS - C/O JOHN BACKMAN P.10. BOX 1842 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MAR 12 '99 07:22PM HARRY TEAGLE p;2 TABLE OF CONTENDS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS ................................ I .......... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ............ 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................2 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ........................... 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................ 3 FLOOR SLABS ..................................... 4 SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................... 5 PERCOLATION TESTING ................................ 6 LIlVIITATIONS............................................... 6 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH MAR 12 '99 07:23PM HARRY TEAGLJE P.3 BEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECM41CALl INC. January 23, 1998 Javier Gonzales-Bringas c/o John Backman P.O. Box 1842 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 197 704 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Gonzales-Bringas Residence, Lot 8, Coulter Creek Ranch, Cottonwood Pass, Eagle County, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of about Z'A to 3 feet of topsoil and very stiff silty clay overlying relatively dense basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural basalt gravel subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The upper clay soils are expansive and should be removed below the building area. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and' presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and geld services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHMCAL, INC. Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr. P.E. Rev. By: DEH JZA/ksm MAR 12 '99 07:23PM HARRY TEAGIE P. DIM 1 his report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 8, Coulter Creek Ranch, Cottonwood Pasd, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to John Backman dated December 15, 1997. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations For foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechrdcal engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure located as shown on Fig. 1. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths up to about 5 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H-P GEOTECH MAR 12 '99 07:23PM HARRY TEAGLE P.5 SITE CONDMONS The site was vacant and covered with about 2 feet of snow at the time of our field work. The area of the proposed residence had been cleared of vegetation. The ground surface in the building area is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the west. There is about 3 feet of elevation difference across the building area. A small trailer is located in the area of the proposed residence. Vegetation consists of sagebrush and scattered stands of aspen trees. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 29, 1997. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a thick -mounted Longyear BIB-S 1HD drill rig. The borings were lagged by a representative of Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13A inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by A►STM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDI'X'IONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils in the building area (Borings 1 and 2) consist of about 1 fA feet of H-P GEOTECH MAR 12 ' 99 07: 24PM HARRY TEAGIIE P. 6 -3- topsoil and 1 to 1 ps feet of very stiff sandy clay overlying relatively dense basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix. The subsoils in the leach field area (Profile Boring) consist of 2 feet of topsoil and 5 th feet of very stiff sandy clay overlying dense basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the upper clay soils in the proposed building area, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a high expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. The clays were moderately compressible upon increased loading after wetting. Atterberg limits testing indicates the clay soils have high plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The shallow clays encountered on the site are highly expansive and should be removed from the building area. The basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix should provide adequate support for a spread.footing foundation.. Based on the borings there is 2 1h to 3 feet of topsoil and clay overlying the basalt gravels in the proposed building DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings beating on tin' natural basalt gravels below the topsoil and clay. M-P GEaTECH MAR 12 '99 07:24PM HARRY TEAGIE P.7 -4- The design.and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural basalt gravels should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The upper clay soils are highly expansive and should be removed from the building area. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Condimous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span . local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for on -site basalt gravel or imported granular soils as backfill. 5) The topsoil, clay and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural gravel soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical eagiaeer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil and sandy clay, are suitable to support Lightly loaded slab -on grade construction. 'The shallow clay soils have a high expansion potential which could result in slab distress if the subsoil become wetted. H-p GEOTECH MAR 12 '99 07:24PM HARRY TEAGUE P.e - The clays should be removed below, the building areas. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab'reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath slabs -on -grade to act as a leveling course. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill should consist of the on -site basalt gravel or suitable imported granular materials devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. The on -site expansive clays should not be used as fill within the building area. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. H-P GEoTeCH MAR 12 '99 07:25PM HARRY TEAGLE• P.9 -6- 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on January 6, 1998 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring and three percolation holes were drilled at locations as shown on Fig. 1. The test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils encountered in the percolation holes are similar to those encountered in the Profile Boring shown on Fig. 2 and consist of sandy clay. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The measured percolation rates were quite variable, from 40 to 240 minutes per inch. Relatively siow percolation rates are typical of expansive clays such as those found at this site. It had been our experience that percolation tests performed in auger borings can result in slow rates due to restricted permeability by smearing of the sides of the holes with the auger. We recommend that additional percolation tests be performed in hand dug holes prior to construction. We expect that the site will require a civil engineer to design the infiltration septic disposal system. LnWrATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions H-P GEOTwH MAR 12 199 07:25PM HARRY TEAS a�F'.10 ,da 7_ encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr. P.E. Reviewed By: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA/ksm cc: Kurtz & Associates - Attn: Brian Kurtz H-P GEOTECH MAR 12 199 07:26PM HARRY TEAGUE " P.11 NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN WAS -PREPARED FROM j A FIELD SKETCH BY I H-•P GEOTECH. �♦_----— — — — — — — — — — — — --•� EXISTING DRIVEWAY / ----_ — — — — — -----1 1 / 1 I. • 1 BORING 1 I I i i t PROPOSED i RESIDENCE I i ( f I BORING 2 I I i I i t . I BENCH MARK: GROUND AT EXISTING WELL; ELEV. = 100.0'. ASSUMED. I I I P10 . I PROFILE BORING I Q P 2 LEGEND: • SOIL BORING P 3 0 PERCOLATION TEST 197 704 HE WORTH - PAWLAK I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. I 1 MAR 12 '99 07:26PM HARRY TEAGLIE P.12 BORING l BORING 2 PROFILE BORING ELEV. = 103.3' ELEV, = 101.D' ELEV. 97.5' 105 - 105 1e/1z WC--2" e DO=98 100 ,r.-2oo=es 100 47/12 13/12 •ti wC=13.6 WC=2&7 —R00-35 OD-94 m m .., e. 35/12 95 .i WC=16.2 16/12 95 —200=40 0 •�� w :. 31/12 r,• 23/12 v e• • �• wc--18 DO�t052 90 ,r. .' 20/3 LL�69 90 10/0 85 85 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 197 704 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL. INC. ic: MAR 12 '99 07:26PM HARRY TEAGLE LEGEND: P. 13 2 TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, stiff, moist, dark brown. upper 4 inches frozen. b h CLAY (CL); silty, slightly sandy. very stiff, slightly moist to moist, reddish brown. high plasticity. BASALT FRAGMENTS (GC); gravel to bouldew'sise. in a sandy clay matrix, medium dense to dense, slightly moist. reddish to whitish brown, calcareous. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ). 1 3/8—inch I,D, split spoon sample, ASTM D - 1588. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were 18 12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. . TFracticol refusal to auger drilling. NOTES: I. Exploratory borings were drilled on December 29, 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locationsof exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown an the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No Free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pef ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( X ) PI = Plasticity index ( X ) 197 704 1 GEOTEC LAICAL, W1NC. I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3 MAR 12 '99 07:26PM HARRY TEAGLE P.14 Moisture Content = 24,6 percent ,'Dry Density 28 pef Sample of. Slightly Sandy Clay � �iFrom: Baring Feet n5 0 ■rii ii �ne Expansion upon Moisture Content — 25.7 percent Sample of. Sandy Clay From: Boring 2 at 1.5 Feet watting Evil �1111�11�� 1111 �Illfl�l K SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ,� GEOTECFiNICAL. IN C. MAR '12 199 07: 27PM HARRY TEAGLE. P.15 a n W w W r Cad a=.� z m u s & ,, vu a u m vi eo o r >. a m -o v v a V C"M C H v3 U to m C u3 C df cn m m w z as 4L V - V � Ln Q = ci LU W W LL W r�uAi � 3 V O W PA /� 1w W N ~ �' YI z_« 0 o �ma It Q LL a 0 a � o F— arc a 0. w 00 Lc) W ,q yto m Cm N a a v N .— Ld N d ai V— 9 Cdi LU LU m N O a MAR 12 '99 07:27PM HARRY TEAGLE P.16 s � ' HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 11 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 197 704 EPTH ES) LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH INTERVAL DROP IN AT START OF AT END QF (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL WATER PERCOLATION (INCHES) (INCHES) LEVEL iINCHV21 RATE (MIN NCH) FULN is 39 b 381-1 k - 5 39 38% 30 38% 38% k 30 38A 38% 'k 43 is 24 b 24 120 k 15 24 23% X 30 23% E23 k hP-3 30 23 % 34 34 5 15 A 15:6 �4 40 5 15,,E 15 TMO Y. F 15 15 NOTE: Percolation tests Were performed on January &. 1998. The test hales were soaked with water the previous day and was about 34° F. Protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam insulation. The sail temperatures at the time of the Percolation test t 416 F-r_ hoc, CJ4trt;Y f'OSrs U-fi Lt T{ HEAVILY vEGE ii4TED�' Scale:l"=100'-0" v � p � W VN � � I 1844-99 Tax# 2189-233-01-003 Lot #8, Coulter Creek GONZALEZ JOB- NAME 0900 Forest Drive BRINGAS El Jebel JOB NO., �- JOB LOCATION BILL TO DATE STA TED �9 DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED F P G JOB COST SUMMARY TOTAL SELLING PRICE TOTAL MATERIAL �V V TOTAL LABOR INSURANCE SALES TAX MISC. COSTS TOTAL JOB COST GROSS PROFIT LESS OVERHEAD COSTS OF SELLING PRICE NET PROFIT JOB FOLDER Product 277 JOB FOLDER Printed In U.SA.