HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 95-07; CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1994-06-03I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
CARLSBAD-BY-THE SEA,
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
June 30, 1994
Project No. 4940285-01
Prepared For:
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES
2312 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, California • 91803
3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626
FAX (619) 292-0771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
To:
Attention:
Subject:
LEIGHTON AND ASS()CIATES, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants
June 30, 1994
Project No. 4940285-01
California Lutheran Homes
2312 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, California 91803
Mr. James Doyle
Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad-by-the-Sea, California Lutheran Complex,
Carlsbad, California
In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the
redevelopment of the Carlsbad-by-the-Sea complex located in Carlsbad, California. This report
presents the results of our subsurface investigation and geotechnical analysis, and provides a summary
of our conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed redevelopment
Based on the results of our investigation and review of the preliminary development plan prepared
by O'Day Consultants, the proposed redevelopment of Carlsbad-by-the-Sea is considered feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations outlined in this report are
implemented during grading and construction.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
~w.~~°:;'Jiz ~-&30N4)
Project Geologist
RKW/JGF~ss
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(4) The Steinberg Group
Attention: Mr. Bill Williams
(2) O'Day Consultants
Attention: Mr. Hartley Richar
(3) AOL Planning Associates
Attention: Mr. Tony Lawson
3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626
FAX (619) 292-0771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
TABLE OF CONTEN'IS
Section Pa~e
1.0 IN1'RODUCI1ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ...................................... .
1.2 Site Description and Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing ........................ .
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDIDONS ...................................... .
2.1 Regional Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Site-Specific Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.21 Undocumented Fill (Unmapped) .............................. .
2.2.2 Topsoil (Unmapped) ....................................... .
2.2.3 Quaternary Beach Deposits (Map Symbol -Qb) ................... .
2.2.4 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) .................. .
2.3 Geologic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Ground Water .................................................. .
2.5
2.6
Faulting ....................................................... .
Se ... lSDUCity ...................................................... .
Ground Shaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground Lurching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tsunamis ................................................ .
1
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4
2.6.5 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Foundation Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
-i -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.24
Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Floor Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lateral Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Underpinning/Shoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Seawall Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1 Seawall Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.2 Seawall Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.3 Seawall Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.4 Seawall Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 Type of Cement for Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5 Surface Drainage and Lot Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6 Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.7 Construction Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 1 -Site I..ocation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2 -Lateral Earth Pressures for Shoring Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Table
Table 1 -Major Tsunamis Recorded in San Diego County ............................. 9
Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Pocket
Appendices
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Boring Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results and Test Procedures
Appendix D -General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-i -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Pumose and Scope of Services
This report has been prepared in accordance with your request and presents the results of our
geotechnical investigation of the subject property. The purpose of our investigation was to
evaluate the pertinent geotechnical conditions at the site and to provide preliminary design
criteria relative to the pro~ redevelopment. Our scope of services included:
• Review of pertinent available geotechnical literature, geologic maps, and aerial photographs.
• A subsurface exploration program consisting of the excavation, sampling and logging of
12 small-diameter exploratory borings. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B.
• Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during our subsurface investigation
( Appendix C).
• Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with
respect to the pro~ site redevelopment.
1.2 Site Description and Proposed Development
The Carlsbad-by-the-Sea complex is located west of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Carlsbad
Village Drive in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 ). The complex encompasses three separate
parcels: 1) an ocean front lot west of Ocean Street and north of Grand Avenue; 2) a 2.3-acre
rectangular lot surrounded by Ocean Street, Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard, and
Christiansen Way; and 3) a 0.9-acre lot bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, Grand Avenue,
Garfield Street, and existing structures to the south (see Plate 1).
The beach front property which ranges in elevation from approximately 7 to 44 feet mean sea
level ( m.s.1.) currently is utili7.ed as a scenic view. Existing improvements include a concrete
stairway and concrete landings containing a number of bus-stop type benches. The lot is
fenced off and covered with ice-plant.
The large 2.3-acre site contains the Carlsbad-by-the-Sea complex which consists of bungalows
on the western portion of the site and a large structure consisting of apartments, offices,
meeting rooms, chapei dining room facility and lobby on the eastern portion of the site. The
bungalows which were constructed in the mid to late 1950's consist of six multi-unit single
story residences surrounded by landscaping walkways and a water foundation. The multi-story
large U-shaped building on the eastern portion of the lot was • built sometime in the late
1920's. Site elevations range from approximately 45 feet m.s.1. on the west to approximately
58 feet m.s.l. on the east.
-1 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ 26
/
-----------,
\
Base Map: Aerial Foto-Map Book, San Diego COlllty,
1988-87, Aerial Graphics, Page 7D
CARLSBAD-BY-THE-SEA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SITE
LOCATION MAP
0 2000 4000 feet
Approximate Scale
Project No.
4940285-01
Date
6/30/94
[f[I]
FIGURE 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940?.85-01
The small 0.9-acre lot located on the south side of Grand Avenue currently consists of a
skilled nursing home/medical facility. In addition to the structure on the lot, improvements
include two parking areas-.and garages at the southwest comer of the lot. We also understand
a gas station may have previously occupied a portion of this lot. Site elevations range from
approximately 50 to 57 feet m.s.l.
Based on our understanding, the proposed development on each parcel will include the
following:
• The ocean front lot will consist of a one-to three-story split-level condominium complex
with lowest finish floor elevations of approximately 17 feet m.s.L on the western and 37 feet
m.s.l. on the eastern portion of the lot. We anticipate that a retaining wall(s) with an
approximate height of 20 feet will be constructed between the two finish floor elevations
of 17 and 37 feet m.s.L
• The large 2.3-acre lot will consist of a two-to five-story residential complex with one level
of underground parking. We anticipate that the new structure will contain ~ntially the
same type of rooms as the existing building. We also anticipate that the perimeter of the
underground parking garage will consist of an approximately 10-to 20-foot high retaining
wall. Based on the redevelopment plans prepared by O'Day Consultants, the underground
parking garage will have a finish floor elevation of 36 feet m.s.1. Access to the underground
parking garage will be off Christiansen Avenue.
• The small 0.9-acre will consist of a four-story nursing home/medical facility with an
underground parking garage will consist of an approximate 10-to 20-foot high retaining
wall. The lower most floor elevation is anticipated to be at an elevation of 40 feet m.s.1 with
access to the underground parking garage off Garfield Street. A 10-to 15-foot high
retaining wall is anticipated to be constructed around the perimeter of the parking garage.
In addition to the three structures proposed on the site, other site improvements will include
regrading of the lot perimeters and parkway, construction of diagonal parking spaces on Grand
Avenue, parking spaces and construction of a cul-de-sac in Christiansen Avenue (including
partial abandonment of the street right-of-way), placement of underground utilities, and
landscaping. According to the site development plans, grading of the site will generate
approximately 72,000 yards of cut material and approximately 1,000 yards of fill.
1.3 Subsurface InvestiKation and Laboratory TestinK
Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of five small-diameter borings utilizing
a limited access drill rig and seven small-diameter boring logs utilizing a truck-mounted rig to
a maximum depth of approximately 21.5 and 31 feet, respectively. The approximate locations
of these borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1 ). Logs of the borings are
presented in Appendix B. The purpose of this program was to evaluate the engineering
characteristics of the onsite soils and soils anticipated to be encountered during construction.
The borings were logged by a geologist who obtained representative (bulk and undisturbed)
samples of the soils encountered for labora~ory testing. Subsequent· to fieJd exploration, all
excavations were backfilled. Several borings were attempted at the base of the slope on the
-3 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
ocean-front lot; however, due to the abundance of rounded cobbles, the limited access rig was
unable to penetrate through these cobbly recent beach deposits.
Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples and included moisture/density
determinations, maximum dry density, expansion index, minimum resistivity and pH, direct
shear, and soluble sulfate content tests. A discussion of the tests performed and a summary
of the results are presented in Appendix C. Toe density and moisture content of the
undisturbed samples obtained from the borings are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B).
-4 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS
2.1 Reiiional Geolou
Carlsbad is situated in the coastal section of the California Peninsular Range, a geomorphic
province within a long and active geologic history. This region is more specifically known as
the San Diego Embayment, an area which was undergone several episodes of marine
inundation and regression during the last 54 million years. This has left a thick sequence of
marine and nonmarine sediments overlying the Southern California batholith. Recent tectonic
uplift has lead to the formation of a bluff and a relatively thick sequence of Terrace Deposits
along much of this coast line.
2.2 Site-Specific Geolou
Based on our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geologic and geotechnical
literature (Appendix A), the site is underlain by undocumented fill, topsoil, recent beach
deposits, terrace deposits and at depth by the Santiago Formation. A brief description of the
geologic units encountered during our subsurface exploration program is presented below.
2.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Unmauped)
Minor areas of undocumented fill soils were encountered in limited areas of the site
during our subsurface exploration program. These fill soils are anticipated to be the
result of past grading at the site. As encountered, the undocumented fill soils
appeared to be derived from native silty sands and generally consisted of light brown
to dark brown, damp, loose, silty fine-to occasionally coarse-grained sand. As
encountered during our subsurface exploration program, the undocumented fill soils
had a maximum thickness of approximately 2.5 feet. Although not encountered in our
borings, undocumented fill is anticipated to greater depths in the vicinity of
Boring B-12 on the northwest comer of the small 0.9-acre parcel. In this area, we
understand a gas station previously existed. Therefore, excavations for underground
tanks are anticipated to be backfilled with undocumented fill soils. There is also the
possibility that the underground storage tanks were never removed but simply
abandoned. In addition because the site was previously developed, other areas of
existing undocumented fill may be present on site. The extent of these areas if
encountered should be evaluated during site grading.
22.2 Topsoil (Unmapped)
Topsoil was encountered mainly in the landscaped areas of the complex and on the
ocean front parcel. The topsoil was found to be generally dark brown, damp to moist,
loose to medium dense silty sands. The topsoil was generally 6 inches or-less in
thickness and contained minor amounts of decomposed organics. •
-5 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
2.2.3 Ouaternazy Beach Deposits (Map Symbol -Ob)
Quaternary Beach Deposits consisting of varying thickness of beach sand and rounded
gravel and cobbles are present on the western side of the ocean-front parcel These
beach deposits, which sit on a platform of more resistant material, are subject to
varying thicknesses and composition due to seasonal tidal variations, storm activity, and
fluctuations in longshore transport and sand replenishmenl These deposits are
considered loose and not suitable for support of structures in their present condition.
Due to the abundance of rounded gravel and cobbles present at the base of the slope
on the parcel, the limited access drill-rig was unable to penetrate the recent beach
deposits and determine their thickness.
2.2.4 Ouaternazy Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Ot)
The terrace deposits which mantle the majority of all three parcels consist of light
brown, orange-brown and red-brown, damp to saturated, medium dense to dense, silty
fine-to coarse-grained sand. None of the borings penetrated the Terrace Deposits,
however, at depth, the underlying bedrock unit is anticipated to be the Santiago
Formation. Based on our professional experience in the Carlsbad area, the Santiago
Formation underlying the site should consist of massive sandstone and minor lenses of
claystone. The upper approximately 2 to 3 feet of the Terrace Deposits were found
to be dry and somewhat less dense than the underlying Terrace Deposits. The upper
2 to 3 feet should be removed and recompacted in areas of near surface structural
improvements. Laboratory testing (Appendix C) indicates a very low expansion
potential for these soils.
2.3 Geoloiuc Structure
Based on our professional experience, the beach deposits rest unconformably on a gently
(westward) sloping platform cut into the underlying terrace deposits. The beach sands are
relatively unstratified and structureless with only localized evidence of bedding. Bedding
within the Terrace Deposits is anticipated to be near-horizontal with some minor development
of cross-bedding. At depth, the site is underlain by bedrock of the Santiago Formation which
is also a massive and generally has relatively shallow bedding attitudes that dip on the order
of 5 to 10 degrees to the wesl
2.4 Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. We anticipate that
ground water is at or slightly above mean sea level within the limits of the site. As. a result,
the ground water table should not be a constraint to developmenl However, localized
seepage conditions may result due to irrigation.
-6 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
2.5 Faultin1
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and
state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By
definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had
surface displacement with Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State Geologist
has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during
Quaternary time (last 2,000,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault
Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as
subsequently revised in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. The intent of this
act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active
faults. Based on our review of the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, the site is not
located within any Earthquake Fault Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1992).
Our review of available geologic literature indicated that there are no known active,
potentially active, or inactive faults that transect the subject site (Appendix A). The nearest
known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone mapped by the California Division of
Mines and Geology as being approximately 2 to 3 miles offshore to the southwest (Jennings,
1975 and 1992).
2.6 Seismicity
The subject property can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of
southern California. Seismic hazards that may affect the site include ground shaking, ground
rupture along a pre-existing fault, ground lurching, tsunamis, liquefaction and dynamic
settlement. The seismic hazards affecting the site are discussed below.
2.6.1 Ground Shakinii
The seismic hazard mostly to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one of the major regional active faults. Due to the close proximity of
the Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the site, the most significant ground shaking from one
of the active regional faults will occur on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. A maximum
credible earthquake of moment magnitude 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone could
produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.47g. For design purposes, an
effective ground acceleration of 0.40g based on Uniform Building Code criteria (ICBO,
1991) may be assumed for the anticipated duration of ground shaking.
2.6.2 Ground Rupture
Ground rupture generally is considered to occur along pre-existing fault strands. Since
no active faults have been mapped crossing the site or in the general vicinity of the
site, ground rupture is considered unlikely.
-7 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
2.6.3 Ground Lurchin&
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the surface by the passage of seismic
surface waves. Effects of this nature are likely to be significant where the thickness of
soft sediments vary appreciably under structures. Due to the presence of relatively
dense material on the three parcels (with the exception of the recent beach deposits),
damage to the proposed structure should not be significant
26.4 Tsunamis
A tsunami is a sea wave generated by a submarine earthquake, landslide or volcanic
activity which displaces a relatively large volume of water in a very short period of
time. A number of factors at the originating point such as earthquake magnitude, type
of fault, depth of earthquake focus, water depth, and the ocean bottom profile all
contribute to the sire and momentum of a tsunami (Iida, 1969). In addition, factors
such as the distance away from the originating point, coastline profile (including width
of the continental shelf) and the angle of which the tsunami approaches the coast also
determines the sire and severity of a tsunami.
There have been over 500 tsunamis reported within recorded history, most of them
occurring within the Pacific Ocean. Extremely large tsunamis have been occurring
somewhere in the Pacific Basin at an average rate of one per every 12 years. Table 1
presented below shows a number of great tsunamis and their effects on the San Diego
County coastline. Interestingly, the great tsunamis represent each of the major
generating zones within the Pacific Basin (Joy, 1968).
-8 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
Table 1
Major Tsunamis Recorded in San Diego County4'
San Diego La Jolla
Arrival Wave Height Arrival Wave Height
Event/LOCation Date TlDle (hr.) (ft.) TIDlC (hr.) (ft.)
Hawaii ll/29(15 NA 0.4 NIA 1.0
Prince William Sound, 3/27/64 +6.2 3.7 +5.8 22
Alam
Southern Chile 5/22160 +14 4.6 +14 3.3
Aleutian Islands 3/9/57 +6.9 1.5 +6.6 20
Kamchatka 11/5/52 +9.6 2.3 +9.6 0.8
Aleutian Islands 4/1/46 ? 1.3 +6.2 1.4
Sanriku, Japan 3/3/33 ? unknown ? 0.25
Cape Arguello, 11/4(}.7 ? 0.02 +0.98 0.02
California ..
• modified from JO'f, 1986 and McCulloch, 1985
•• 11m ~ the only well documented locally generated tsunami in California history.
Tsunami studies performed for Southern California indicate that tsunami wave heights
and runup elevations experienced along the San Diego County coastline during the last
170 years (including the values presented in Table 1) have fallen within the normal
range of the tides (Joy, 1986).
Southern California is not only favorably oriented (i.e. not directly in line with any of
the major originating tsunami zones), it has a relatively wide ( about 140 miles) and
rugged continental shelf or borderland which acts as a diffuser and reflector of
remotely generated tsunami wave energy (Joy, 1968). In addition, the existing geologic
and seismic conditions ( such as the abundance of strike-slip faults and the scarcity of
large submarine earthquakes) along the coastline also tend to minimize the likelihood
of a localized tsunami.
Recent studies of potential tsunamis that may affect the Southern California coastline,
indicate the height of the 100-year tsunami at the subject site is estimated to be
approximately 5 feet (McCulloch, 1985). Based on the minimal height of the 100-year
tsunami, knowledge of the effects of remotely generated tsunamis and the favorable
geologic and seismic conditions along the coastline, there is little potential for
catastrophic damage along the San Diego County coastline. However, minor problems
such as flooding of low-lying coastal areas and material damage to some water front
structures may occur as the result of tsunamis ( especially in conjunction with storm
surges, high waves, and/or high tides).
-9-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
2.6.5 Liguefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquef~ction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong Vibratory motion
due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated,
granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement while the stability
of silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by Vibratory motion (Seed, 1982).
Liquefaction is typified by a total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer,
thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive
settlements and sand boils at the ground surface.
The Terrace Deposits are not considered liquefiable due to their high density and the
lack of a near-surface ground water table. However, the loose and granular recent
beach deposits may be liquefiable in its present state. Liquefaction is not anticipated
to be a constraint to site development provided the recommendations of this report are
followed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation at the subject site, it is our opinion that the
proposed redevelopment is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following
conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans, specifications, and during
site construction.
The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors which may effect development of the site.
•
•
The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill provided they are relatively
free of rocks larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension, organic material and debris.
Ground water was not encountered on the site, nor is it anticipated to be a significant factor
during site grading and subsequent development.
• Active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site.
• The main seismic hazards that may affect the site include ground shaking and tsunamis hazards.
• The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site due to a credible earthquake on the
Rose Canyon Fault Zone of moment magnitude 6.9 is estimated to be 0.47g with an effective
ground acceleration of approximately 0.40g.
• Due to the relatively dense nature of the Terrace Deposits, the potential for liquefaction and
dynamic settlement of the site is not considered significant. However, if high tides or storm
conditions (which result in the saturation of the relative loose beach deposits) occur concurrently
with a seismic event, liquefaction of the recent beach deposits may result.
• Only minor areas of undocumented fill were encountered. However, because the site was
previously development, soQie localized areas of undocumented fill should be anticipated. In
areas of underground parking, the planned excavation will likely remove undocumented fills.
Other areas should be evaluated during grading.
• Laboratory test results and our experience with similar materials on nearby sites indicate the soils
present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on concrete, a moderate to
possibly heavy corrosion potential and possess a very low expansion potential.
-11 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation of cut
material, fill placement, footing excavations, and trench excavation and backfill. We recommend
that earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City
of Carlsbad grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
(GEGS) included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall
supersede those in Appendix D.
4.1.1 Excavations
Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional
heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that oversized rock will be
generated during grading. Due to the relatively loose and cohesionless nature of the
recent beach deposits, temporary excavations such as utility trenches, excavations for
shore protection, caissons, retaining walls, etc. with vertical sides in this unit may not be
stable for the period required to construction the utility. In accordance with OSHA
requirements, all excavations between 5 and 20 feet should be shored and/or laid back to
a maximum inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such
excavations. Portions of excavations deeper than 20 feet, or excavations in fill soils
should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical).
4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils
In general, topsoil, undocumented fill, recent beach deposits, and weathered Terrace
Deposits not removed by the planned grading should be removed, moisture-conditioned
as needed to obtain a near-optimum moisture content, and then compacted prior to
placing any additional fill or improvements. All removal bottoms should be observed by
the geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of fill soils. Removal depths in the
Beach Deposits at the western boundary of the western lot could not be evaluated due
to abundant cobbles, accordingly, removal depths in this area should be evaluated during
grading.
4.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of
organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension.
All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum
dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The optimum lift thickness required to
produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and sire of compaction
equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
-12 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
thickness. Retaining wall backfill soils which support structural improvements or are in
excess of 15 feet in height should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of
95 perce~t (based on.ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the
current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General
Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix D.
4.2 Foundation Desiaii Considerations
The proposed foundations and slabs of the multi-story structures should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. The following
recommendations are based on the assumption that soils in the upper 3 feet from finish grade
on the site will have a very low expansion potential.
4.2.1 Foundations
The proposed structures (up to the anticipated height of five stories including the
underground parking garage) may be supported by conventional, continuous
perimeter, or isolated spread footings extending a minimum of 18 inches for one-and
two-story structures and 24 inches for structures over two stories. The minimum
footing depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent compacted soil grade ( or
slab subgrade for areas covered with hardscape or slabs). At this depth, footings may
be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square
foot (psf) if founded into properly compacted fill soils. Footings founded in
competent Terrace Deposits may utilize an allowable-bearing capacity of 4,000 psf.
These bearing capacities may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of
embedment to a maximum of 500 psf above the original value. The allowable
pressure may be increase by one-third when considering loads of short duration such
as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches
for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings should
be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a
minimum reinforcement of four No. 4 rebars (two top and two bottom). The footing
may be designed for passive pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of
depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soils of 0.35 may
be assumed. The lateral pressure may be resisted by a combination of passive
pressure and the friction force, provided the passive pressure does not exceed two
thirds of the total resistance.
Care should be taken when removing topsoil adjacent to existing footings to allow
enough lateral soil resistance for lateral stability and not to undermine these footings.
-13 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
4.2.2 Floor Slabs
The floor slab should be at least 4 inches in thickness and be reinforced with
6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh at slab midheight. Considering the inherent difficulty in
placing wire mesh at slab midheight, we offer an alternate reinforcement of No. 3
rebars at 18 inches on center (each way) or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center (each
way) placed at midheight in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of
clean sand over a 6-mil moisture barrier. Care should be taken not to perforate the
moisture barrier. All penetrations through the barrier should be appropriately sealed
and all laps spliced We recommend control joints be provided acros., the slab at
intervals not exceeding 15 feet. Isolated spread footings should be structurally
isolated from the floor slab for garage areas.
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement
ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring
of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a
slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack
sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. The floor covering
installer should evaluate the vapor drive through the slab if moisture sensitive floor
coverings ( such as wood parquet, etc.) are proposed.
4.2.3 Lateral Earth Pressures
The recommended lateral pressures for the site soils and level or sloping backfill are
as follows:
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pct)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active. 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
Passive 350 150
(Sloping Down)
To design an unrestrained wall, such as cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may
be used. For a restrained retaining wall, such as a basement wall, the at-rest pressure
should· be used. For large walls, it may be more cost-effective to use a traperoidal
earth pressure distribution as presented on the lower half of Figure 2 Passive
pressure is used to compute lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural
movement. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used
at the concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the
passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall
footings may be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive
presistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short
duration including wind or seismic loads. The horirontal distance between foundation
-14 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of three times the depth
of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressure. The total depth
of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below
the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel
of the footing for overturning and sliding. All retaining structures should be provided
with a drainage blanket or drains (see Appendix D) and appropriately waterproofed.
Surcharge loading effects from adjacent structures should be evaluated by the
geotechnical and structural engineers.
4.2.4 Under.pinninWShorin&
We recommend that all construction cut slopes be cut back at an inclination of 1:1
for slopes less than 20 feet in competent Terrace Deposits or 1.5:1 (horimntal to
vertical) for the portions of slopes greater than 20 feet or slopes in fill soils. All
slopes should also be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements. If steeper
construction cut slopes are desired in certain areas, temporary shoring may be used.
Unshored cut slopes should not be constructed within a 1:1 plane down from the
outside base of adjacent footings. A qualified shoring contractor should be consulted
to provide construction shoring/underpinning recommendations as necessary, including
the surcharge loading of adjacent structures. However, preliminary shoring·
recommendations are presented in Figure 2. Additional design criteria may be
provided, as needed, for the shoring contractor.
The results of our analyses for cast-in-place piers to be used in shoring/underpinning
are provided below:
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 5,000 psf
Minim.um Embedment into Terrace Deposits: 5 feet
Allowable Friction Resistance: 400 psf
It is our opinion that settlement of properly installed piles designed in this manner
should be negligible. However, we suggest that the footings of adjacent structures
be monitored and photo documented during construction by the project civil engineer
or qualified surveyor. Please note that the purpose of our analysis was to provide
preliminary design rough estimates only. Actual underpinning design should be
performed by a qualified contractor. We recommend that final project drawings be
reviewed by this office prior to construction.
4.3 Seawall Desim
We understand that as part of the development of the ocean front lot, a seawall may be
constructed. The seawall should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
the following recommendations:
-15 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
4.3.1 Seawall Foundation
a) Foundation
The wall may be founded on a continuous footing at a minimum depth of 3 feet
below the top of the Terrace Deposits which is anticipated to be within 10 feet
of the existing ground surface. However due to the abundance of cobble, the
actual depth to the Terrace Deposits underlying the Recent Beach Deposits was
not determined during our subsurface investigation. Should potentially erodible,
blocky or weathered materials be encountered during excavation it may be
necessary to deepen the footing by as much as an additional 1 to 2 feet An
alternative to a continuous footing would be a pier supported wall.
b) Allowable BearinK Capacity
Provided the wall is founded at least 3 feet into bedrock, the foundation may
be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 pounds per
square foot This value may be increased by one-third for short-term loads.
Piers may use an allowable bearing of 5,000 psf for a minimum embedment of
5 feet into the Terrace Deposits.
c) Lateral BearinK Value
An allowable uniform lateral bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot may
be assumed for passive resistance to horirontal forces provided the foundation
or pier is poured tight against undisturbed bedrock of the Terrace Deposits.
d) Friction Factor
An allowable friction factor 0.35 may be assumed between the concrete and
bedrock.
e) Excavation of Bedrock
Excavation for the seawall foundation may require the use of heavy trenching
equipment Prior to excavating the bedrock it will be necessary to strip the
beach sand and cobbles (which will be at the lowest level during the winter and
spring months) and possibly utili7.e dewatering techniques or other methods to
minimize saturated sand from flowing into the excavation.
f) CleaninK of Foundation Excavations
Foundation excavations should be reasonably dry and free of loose materials
prior to pouring concrete. It will be the contractor's responsibility to protect
the excavations from sea water infiltration during construction.
-16 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
J
1
• •
' --I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
g) Foundation Inspection
All foundation excavations should be inspected by the soils engineer to ensure
competency of foundation materials and consistency of geologic conditions
influencing the stability of the wall .
4.3.2 Seawall Pressures
The sea-wall should be designed for lateral pressures resulting from a saturated
backfill condition. On the condition that the wall will be backfilled with selected non
expansive sandy soils, the following design values may be applied:
a) Level Backfill
Active equivalent fluid wall pressure equal to 80 pounds per square foot per
foot of depth may be utilized. This value is applicable provided the backfill is
level behind the wall for a horizontal distance no less than the height of the
wall.
b) 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) Slopin2 Backfill
Active equivalent fluid wall pressure equal to 105 pounds per square foot per
foot of depth may be utilized.
4.3.3 Seawall Draina2e
The wall should be drained by a continuous blanket of filter rock placed behind the
wall having a minimum width of 2 feet and extending to within 2 feet of the top of
wall. Class 2 Permeable Material (Caltrans Specifications) or an equivalent is
recommended as a suitable filter material
The water should be discharged through weep-holes placed in the wall at frequent
intervals or by perforated, non-corrosive pipe (6-inch diameter minimum) drained to
suitable outlets. Weepholes should be set at various elevations at the wall face and
at least 1 foot above high beach sand levels.
4.3.4 Seawall Backfill
Wall backfill should consist of non-expansive sandy soils such as the native beach
sands, sandy Terrace Deposits, or imported sand.
If it is desired to use the onsite Terrace Deposits as backfill, this office should be
consulted since portions of these materials may not meet the recommended
requirements.
-17 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
Wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density as
determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-91. Free-draining, granular soils may be
compacted by jetting provided the materials have a sand equivalent of greater than
30 and are approved by the Soils Engineer.
4.4 Tme of Cement for Construction
4.5
Tests performed on representative soils at the site indicate soluble sulfate contents are
considered negligible based on the Uniform Building Code criteria (ICBO, 1991). Therefore,
the foundation and slab can be constructed with normal Type II cement (or equivalent). The
seawall and piers supporting the structure on the ocean-front lot should be designed to be in
contact with sea water.
Surface Drainaie and Lot Maintenance
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage (such as drainage
swales or area drains) should be provided to direct surface water away from all structures
toward the street or other suitable collective drainage facilities. Surface waters should not be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings.
4.6 Pavement Desiim
Final pavement recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of roadway
subgrade soils as final grades are achieved. For planning purposes, we have assume the sandy
onsite soils will have an R-value of 35. Utilizing assumed traffic indices of T.I. = 5.0,
T.I. = 6.0, and T.I. = 7.0. The actual traffic index should be evaluated by the project
architect/civil engineer for the anticipated traffic loads.
The following structural pavement sections can be assumed for planning purposes.
Traffic Index R-Value Structural Pavement Design
T.I. = 5.0 R = 35 3 inches of asphalt concrete over
5 inches of Caltrans aass 2 base
T.I. = 6.0 R = 35 4 inches of asphalt concrete over
5.5 inches of Caltrans aass 2 base
T.I. = 7.0 R = 35 5 inches of asphalt concrete over
6.5 inches of Caltrans aass 2 base
-18 -
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
4940285-01
The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test
Method D1557-91. If fill is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be
performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. The aggregate
base material should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.
4. 7 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by
widely-spaced borings and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated surface conditions should
be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton and Associates.
All grading operations should be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction
is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Grading plans and final
project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction.
-19 -~
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cantilever Shoring System f---xH --Line Load QL (pounds)
H (feet)
Tie-Back Shoring System
H (feet)
Ih ( feet )"''"q,, "w"~''
r-350h (psf)
Surcharge Pressure P (psf)
.H 0.5P (psf)
QL (pounds)
istance
ind thi
1 i ne
R
X
< 0.4
> 0.4
Minimum 51 depth
for supporting pilesH
•I" ~, 0.5P (psf) 30H (psf
Project No. 4940285-01
Scale Not-to-Scale
Engr./Geol. JGF / RKW
X y
0 .1 0.6H
0.3 0.6H
0.5 0.56H
0.7 0.43H
R
0.55 QL
0.64QL
x2 + 1
( feet)
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
FOR SHORING SYSTEMS Drafted By ---'-r=w _____ _ 1042 889
Figure No. 2 Date 6/30/94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
4940285-01
Eisenberg, LI., 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County in Abbott,
P.L., Editor, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San
Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 86-91.
Garcia, AW. and Houston, J.R., 1974, Tsunami Run-up Prediction for Southern California Coastal
Communities, USA in Tsunami Research Symposium 1974: Royal Society of New
Zealand, Bulletin 15.
Hannan, D.L, 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego
County, California in Ross, A and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of
Camp Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California, San Diego Association
of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 56-60.
Hart, E.W., 1992, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special studies Zones
Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conversation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Iida, K., 1969, • The Generation of Tsunami and the Focal Mechanism of Earthquakes in Tsunamis
in the Pacific Ocean: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tsunamis and
Tsunami Research, University of Hawaii: East-West Center Press.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1991, Uniform Building Code.
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic
Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000.
----, 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California: California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open File Report 92-03, Scale 1:750,000.
Joy, J.W., 1968, Tsunamis and Their Occurrence Along the San Diego County Coast Prepared for
the Unified San Diego County Civil Defense and Disaster organization: Westinghouse
Ocean Research Laboratory.
Leighton and Associates, 1992, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping study,
84 Sheets, dated November, 1992.
----, In-house Unpublished and Unpublished data.
Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised:
New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone: Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Volume 1, pp. 679-688.
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
APPENDIX A (Continued)
McCulloch, D.S., 1985, Evaluating Tsunami Potential in Ziony, ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake
Hazards in the Los Angeles Region -An Earth-Science Perspective: U.S. Geological
Survey, professional Paper 1360, pp. 375-413.
Nielsen, R.C., and Moffatt, G.E., Architedl and Engineers, 1958, As-built Plot Plan, Bungalow
Apartment Units, Carlsbad by the Sea, Job No. 5802, Scale 1" = 16', dated January 22,
1958.
O'Day Consultants, 1994, Preliminary Site Plan, Carlsbad-by-the-Sea, Carlsbad, California, Job
No. 93-1015, Scale 1"=20', dated June 1994.
Reichle, M.S., and Kahle, J.E., 1990, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana
Metropolitan Area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Publication 100.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Monogram Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Weber, F.H., Jr., 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California: California
Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3, 309p.
----, 1982, Recent Slope failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the North-Central
Coastal Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open File Report 82-12, LA
Wilson, K.L, 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas
Quadrangles, San Diego, California.
Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in Ziony,
ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region -An Earth -
Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 13f>O, pp. 43-91.
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIJ
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
Date __________ _
Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS
Sheet _1 _ of -L
Project No.
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
0
u
fg
111.J '-(.!)
5----.1_1
~I
: ~ l. :
10 ... . ·.•.
... . .
~
p·~u
0 • ,...o .,;.:_·
b \)· c
o:.
15:---4.....-b f~f
20
~ . ·=----~-
~~ ~~--=-____
' \ ' 1_ -I
V ~ < ~_l'-l-
z-ji
ttti
-
-
(fl
QI "C :, +
. 0 + z (1'10 QI .c QI 30 olL :,-1--Q. -'-e a:lQI
Ill a. en
....
....
....
...
...
I-
....
....
....
....
I-
Type of Rig
Drive Weight ----------------------Drop __ in. Ref or Datum
:::n ~ + QI ·-'-.. (fl :,+ C't-+C QI u CQ. (fl QI
·-+
:::n cc :co '-u C
."" (fl • Ula,
Ill • -u u . _en
·-::i
~'-'
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
CL
CH
Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean -... Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay
OL-01 Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures ....
ML Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey silt with low
1----+--.,'-_..,;P..:.:la::;;st::.:ic::.:1itv~----,,------,,-......,.---:---:---:-------1"17
MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt
CL-MI Low plasticity clay to silt mixture
ML-Sl\ Sandy silt to silty sand mixture
CL-SC Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture
SC-SN
SW
SP
aayey sand to silty sand mixture
Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fmcs
Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture
SC aayey sand; poorly graded sand-clay mixture
GW
GP
GM
GC
Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fmcs
Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fmcs
Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture
aayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture
Sandstone
Siltstone
Oaystone
Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-supported conglomerate)
Conglomerate (rounded gravel and cobble, ciast-supportcd)
Igneous granitic or granitic type rock
Metavolcanic or metamorphic rock
Artificial or man-made ftll
Asphaltic concrete
Portland Cement Concrete
....
....
....
....
....
I-
SOSA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date ____ ...,,6-~22::...::::-94'-"'-----Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C::;al=-:L::::u:::th:.:e::.:ran=/-=C:::a:.:rl:::.:sba=d'----_______ Project No. 4940285-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Drilling Co. ----------=Pa=clft=ca..:Drlll==ing:::;;:a._________ Type of Rig Umited Access
Hole Diameter 4 In. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 2!!._in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-9 ft. Ref or Datum See Geotechnical Mau
. :Ill ,.. . ,..
C :i +-+-.,:-: Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o,...._ u uig ·-'-'-' "'en :;: ... .c" ·-UI "'" :::,+-41 • ...... .c 1:1 II • ~LL C'+--u '11 QI Q. QI Q.O +--II U 1;ic u. >QI Ql_f 111..J 0 D. -'-CD. ,_ II _en ~0 c,._, '-z C0 II '-' ~~ Logged By JB/pLG (!) • :Ill ·-:i II Q. w en a 0 ~'-' Sampled By JB u
0 -~i~ Bag-1 GM R6CENTB&CIO:BfQSO:S @ 0': Ught brown, looie, damp, silty, cobbly SAND to sandy COBBLE
\ Refusal at 1.S feet on abundant cobbles It -Total Depth • 1.5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered -Backfilled on June 22, 1994
5 -....
5-....
-
-
-
0 -
10-..
... -.. -
.... -
~ -5 -
15-....
-
-
-
-10 -
20-....
-
.... -
.... -
-15 -
25-
-
-
-~
-20 -
~ I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date ____ ...:6-~2:::2...:::·94'-'-----Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project _________ _;C:::::al=-=L==u=th==e:=.::ran=/-=C=arl=sb==a::d'--______ _ Project No. 4940i85-01
Drilling Co. Pacific Drilling Type of Rig limited Access
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop _fill in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-37 ft Ref. or Datum . . See Geotechnical Mau
. :JI "' . "' C :i +-+-QI~ Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o,.... 0 1110 ·-C,. V "'en ·-.... .J:."" Ill "'"' ::,+-...
+-QI ,._+-.J:. ti QI II :J 0 C'+--u
Ill QI 11. QI 11.0 .... -0LL QI 0 ~c (J •
>'+-QI QI 111.J :i 11. -'-C 11. ·-QI _en JB/DLG ~v c!!; t. 10 QI V ~~ Logged By CD Ii :JI -~ Ill Q. UJ en a 0 iv Sampled By JB (.)
0 .. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS .. .. @ O': Ught brown to~· t oran_gc-brown, dry to damp, loo&e to medium dclliC, -... silty, fine-to m 1um-graincd SAND
3.S
.. @ 1': Ught brown to li~oran~gray, damp, medium dclliC, silty, fine.. to -.. medium-grained ; aint oxidized laminae; a few rootlets . . -. . . . .
-..
.. s-~ . .
.. 1 21 SP-SM @ 5': Light brown to li~t orange-brown, damp, medium dense, slightly silty to .. . . silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND; faint oxidized laminae; a few rootlets -: : : .. .. . . 30 -.. . . . . . . . . -. : : .. . . .. -. . .. . . . . . .
10-... 2 28 1.8 @ 10': Light orange-brown to light brown, ~to moist, medium dclliC, slightly .. . . .. siltv to siltv, fine-to medium-1m1ined
25 -Total Depth == 11 Feet ... No Ground Water &countered
Backfilled on June 22, 1994 ... -
-
15-
-
20 -
-.. -
20-..
--
15 -
-... -
25-...
-
10 -
-
-
~
SOSA( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date ____ ..,.,6:...::-2=2..::.•9_._4 __ _ Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project _________ ......::C~al=L=u=th==e=-=ra==n::L/-=C=arl=sb::a:.:d::...---------
Drilling Co. Pacific Drilling
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight
Project No. 4940285-01
Type of Rig Umited Access
140 pounds Drop _l!L in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-31 ft Ref. or Datum . See Geotechnical Map
:JI " .
C . +-QIX 111" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o" u 0 +-·-L .._,, Ill • ~" ·-Ill z 1118 Ill" 111CI? :;:+-........ ~ti QI QI ~LL. cc+-:,+--u 111CII Q. CII Q.O +-QI u !i u. >CII CII QI 111..J 0 -ca. Q. -L _en ~0 00 L z & a:> QI ""' o+-Logged By Jlfl>LG (!) Ill Q.. :JI :c 5 •-:;; I.LI Cl) a u ~""' Sampled By JB
0 .. SM TERRACE DEPQSITSIFII,L('l) ... .. @ O': ~-t brown, damp, k>o&e to medium dcme, silty, fine-to medium-grained 30 -... ; uniform, with occasional rounded, fine gravel ... . .
-• L.." ----@ 1': Caving; water added to sustain upper portion of bole .. TERRACE DEPOSITS ------. . . .. . . @ 2': Demer, i.lowcr drilling -: : . I-.. . . . . . -.. . . . . . . . . . 5-... 1 39 109.4 2.6 SP-SM @ 5': Light brown to orange-brown, damp to moist, medium dcme, liilty to .. . . ... slightly silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND
25 -. .. . . ... . . . . -. : : .. . . . . . -. . . .. .. . . . .. -. : . ... .. . . . .
10-. . .. @ 10': Same u above .. . .
20 -. : . .. . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . .
~ -. . . .. .. . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . .
15--~---.·. @ 15': Lif!t gray to off-white, damp to slightly moist, medium dcme, slightly silty
..
... 2 31 SP
15 -. . :-.· to c can, rme-to medium-grained SAND; uniform ... ... . . . . . . . ... -Total Depth .. 16.5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered -Backfilled on June 22, 1994
-
20-
10 -
-
-
-
25-
5 -
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Date ____ ...:6..c.::22=--"'·94c..:.-__ _ Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C::::::al=-=L==u:::th::e::.:ran=/~C:::arl=sb==a:::d:.--------Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. Pacific Drilling Type of Rig Umited Access
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hole Diameter 4 ln. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 2!!._in.
Elevation Top of Hole + /-22 ft. Ref or Datum See Geotechnlcal Mao
. :JI "' ii"' C 0 ... +-.x GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o"' u ·-'-'-" Ill • .r::."' ·-Ill z 1110 "'"' •CJ? :;:+-...... .r::. °' • QI 30 C'+-::,+--u Ill QI Q. QI Q.O +--oLL QI u ]i u. >QI QI QI 111.J j i -'-CQ. _en !I!~ c'+-'-IICI QI '-" o+-Logged By JB/DLG '-" . (!) .. n. ~ J: 5 ·-:::,
UJ ~'-" • en u Sampled By JB
0 .@0-o": Landscaein.Jand!OE'Oil _____________________ -. .,. ----
-· .. SM TRRB,ACE DEfQSITS .. @ 6": Brown to li~t ora~-brown, moist to damp, medium dcnsc, silty, fine-to 20
-· .. medium-grained ... . .
-· .. .... .. . . .
L--. ... . .
5--~· . . @ 5': Light orange-brown to brown, damrc, medium dcnsc, silty to slightly silty, ...
... SP-SM .. . . fine-to medium-grained SAND; a cw occuiollal fine gravels -: : : L-
15 .. . . ... -.. . . . . . . . . . . . -... . . . . . . . -. .. . . . . . . . . .
10-... 1 37 110.4 7.S @ 10': Orange-gray to orange-brown, moist, medium dcnsc, slightly silty to silty, .. . . ... fine-to medium-grained SAND; root hairs -. . . . .
10 ... .. . . -... . . . . . . . -. . . . . . .. . . -... . . . . . .
15-. . . . . :--;-:··.·. SP @ 15': Light gray to ligh~y-brown, moist, medium dcnsc, slightly silty, fine-to .. medium-grained .·. -...
5 . • =· .• -;-\·? .. . . -:_:_::_: ::
-:-<): ... . . . . . .
20-:,. .. }··:r··,: 2 28 SP-SM @ 20': Light gray to brown, dam=moilt, medium dcue, slightly silty to silty, . : . .
-:·:·: •• : fine-to medium-grained ; laminated L-
0 .... .... -Total Depth • 21.S Feet
No Ground Water Encountered .... -Backfilled on June 22 1994 •
L--
.... 25-
-
-5 -
-
-
~ I sosAc111n> LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date ____ ....:6-:...:2=2-=-94'-'----Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C:::::al=-=L:::u::th::e:::;ra::n::L/~C:::a::.:rl::::sb::a::d:_______ ____ Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. __________ ....;P=-::a:::.:clfl=c'-'D~ri=-=lll=n•g_________ Type of Rig Umited Access
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ..J!L in.
Elevation Top of Hole + /· 53 ft. Ref or Datum See Geotechnical Mau .
. :JI " In" C 0 +-+-a,X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION -~"' (.I z UI 0 ·-t. 'J UI •
.J:." ·-UI U,I"'\ •Cl? ++-++-.J:.11 QI II 30 C'+-:,+--u Ill QI 0. QI 0.0 +--0"'-QI (.I 1;jc (.J •
>QI QI QI 111.J :i t -t. co. ·-II _en ~~ c'+-t. Ill GI 'J 0+-Logged By JB/DLG ....,. (!) :JI :c5 ·-::)
UJ
,. 0.. a ~....,. en (.J Sampled By JB
-u . @ 0-6": Landscaein..J and T~ _____________________ -·-=------. . . SM TERRACE D~QSIIS .. @6": Brown to light brown, moist, loose, silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND . . .
-· . . ... . .
50 -· .. . . . . .
-· . . ,._
... ..
5-.. Brown to light brown, moist, loose, silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND .. 1 11 104.7 6.S @S': . . . . .
-: . .
,._ -...
45 -. . . ...
. . . ... -.. . . . . .
10-... @10': Same as above; material becomes more deme
,._
. . . ... -.. ... . . ,._ -. . .
... 40 -. . . . . . .. ,._ -. . . . . . . . . .
15-...: J: ... .. 2 24 SP-SM @ 15': Ught brown and orange-brown, moist, medium deme, slightly silty, to silty . . . .. fine-to medium-grained SAND with lamination ,._ -... . . . . ... -Total Depth • 16.S Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
35 -Backfilled on June 22, 1994 ...
-
20-
-
-
30 -
-
25-
-
-
25 -
-
.... I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date ____ ~6-::2~1-~94-=-----Sheet _1_ of _2_
Cal Lutheran/CBl"lsbad Project ---------~:...===::L.::==::....--------Project No. 4940285-01
Pacific Drilling Drilling Co. -----------=-=::::..;==---------Type of Rig Limited Access
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hole Diameter 8 in. --------'1=-40,..,,_..po~u=n:::ds=---------Drop 30 in. Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Hole +/· 53 See Geotechnical Map ft. Ref. or Datum
C
0"' :;:+-tO a, >a, ~0
LIJ
50
45
40
3.5
30
25
.s:."' u
+-+-Q. a, a, a,
J:.Q Q.0 111..J c0 L (!)
0
.. -. . . ...
-:I'->:-:_. .... ...
-. : ·.:. . . . .. . .. . . · -~<<<
20-:\::/: ......
-:-·.::-:.:~ .. · .. . . . . · -: : :· : -: .. • .. · -:-<-< .. · .. . . . . · -._:_:._:_::
is-/)·< .... · -:_:_::_:_:: ..... . . . . -<?< .... · -: :_::: ::
....
-:·:·::.:·:: I 505A(11/~) .·.·.:-.-::
I
UI GI +-0 z
. :i
• -t ,. en
1
2
3
Bag-1
@17'-2C
4
...
Ill 8
~LL
-L ID GI Q.
18
22
30
4S
:JI ,... ... GI:,.:
"'"
L >J
:::,+-C'+-'t-c i! i ·-., 'J i"E ~ 0 u
110.8 7.5
1~.o 1.1
123.5 4.3
102.9 3.5
. ,... Ill • Ill en • • -u u. _en
-::i
~'J
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
PAVEMENT SECTION
@ 0-2": Asphalt
JB/DLG
DLG
@ 2"-10": DO base, light brown, damp, loo&e, silty SAND
SP '.IERRACE DEPOSITS --------
@ 2': Red-brown, damp, medium delliC, fine-grained SAND
@ 5': Red-brown, damp, delliC, fine-grained SAND
@ 10': Light red-brown, damp, delliC, fine-grained SAND
@ 20': Same u above
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
...
L,.
...
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date ____ ...;6-c..::2=1..::•9...,_4 __ _ Sheet _2_ of _2_
Project _________ _;C::.:al=-=L==u::::th==e::.:ra==n::L/-=C=arl=sba=d'--_______ Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. Pacitlc Drilling Type of Rig Umited Access
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight ---------=1 ..... 40"-po""""""un=ds:...... _______ Drop 30 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-53 ft Ref or Datum See Geotechnical Map . .
. JI ,... . ,...
C 0 +-+-.,x Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION -~" u z UI 0 ·-L"" Ulen .c" ·-UI u,,... :,+-flJ • ...... ...... .CCI ., ., :, 0 C'+--u Ill QI Q. QI Q.0 +-oLL ., u ~c u . >QI QI QI 111.J 0 -QQ. Q. -L ·-., _en ~~ c~ L z a::i ., "" ~i Logged By JJJ/DLG e JI . (.!) .. a.. •-:::::, LIJ L a"" Cl) C u Sampled By DLG
30 .. 5 82/11" 101.6 5.6 @ 30': Light brown, damp, very dellie, medium-grained SAND . •' .. . . . . · . . ·.:• ·•.
-Total Depth "' 31 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994
20 -
-
35-
-
-
15 -
-
40-
-
-
10 -
-
45-
-
-
5 -
-
so-
-
-
0 -
-
55-
-
-
-5 -
-
~ I 505AC11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Date ____ ...,,6-:..;:2::1"""·9~4___ Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C::::al=-=L==u===th=e:=.;ran=/-=C:=ar:.::l:::sba=d=---------Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. ----------=-Pa:::.:clft=c:..:Drl=l===U=na.g_________ Type of Rig Limited Access
Hole Diameter 7 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .2!. in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-44 ft. Ret or Datum See Geotechnical Mao
C o,.... .c'"' u
·-+ ·-+(II ++ .cm
Ill QI Q. QI Q.0 ::>.,._ (II QI 111...1
~'-" c~ t. (.!)
UI
0
: -: .. -
: -..
:
40 -: : ..
s-;~;.•::-.: .. . . -. . . ·.
3.5
10~::::
-::=\/·
.. · .. ·
30 ->~<:-:.::
15-:://:
-·: ....
25 .. :-.·
20->-: ..
.... -: :
-..... .. -. :
20 -.· ... . . . .
25-·: ....
UI QI .... 0 z
.
:i
• t • (I)
1
2
3
4
33 117.5 6.8
39 115.1 6.5
32 105.5 5.0
29 97.5 2.7
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
lBJDLG
DLG
----, @ 0-3": j\&J>halt ____________________________ _
TERRACE DEPOSITS SM @ 3": Darlt red-brown, damp, medium dcme, silty fine SAND
SP
SP-SM
@ 2': Darlt red-brown, damp, dc111e, silty fine SAND; well induratcd
@ 5': Red-brown, damp, dcme, fine SAND; induratcd
@ 10': Light red-brown, damp, dcmc, fine SAND
@ 20': Light brown, damp, dcmc, medium to coanc SAND
@ 25': Sand contains abundant rounded beach cobbles
\ @ 26.5': Refusal on cobbles?
Total Depth • 26.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
...
...
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date 6-21-94
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
C: 0,-.. ·-+ +-QI Id QI >ct-QI..._,
UJ
so
45
40
.r:.,-.. 0
++-.r:. ca Q. QI QI QI Q.0 ...... c~ L CD
0 ...
-: .. . . . .
-:-:--: .. :-,:
10-:/::} .... --·: · .. ·. -.. · : : :: : .• -·· • .. ·.-·. . : · .. ·. -. -· . •' .. ->\·? .. :--· -: : :_ :-: . -.. ·
1s-:-<-/ ..... -. :-.· -: : :_ :-: .... · -/{·:-::
-: : :: :·-: .... ·
35 -\{-~-::
20-:~;·:~·:
.... -..... -... . . . . . . . . -
. . . . .
30 -. •. •.• .
25
. . .
25-:\-:-: -: :< <·: .....
... -.... ·.-. . . . . .
-·: ... ....
Ill QI +-0 z
8 in.
+/-54
.
0 z
QI
Q. E Ill en
1
2
3
4
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
Cal Lutheran/Carlsbad
Pacific Drilling
Sheet _l_of _2_
Project No.
Type of Rig
4940285-01
Umited Access
Drive Weight ----------=1...:..:40=-po~un=ds:..... _______ Drop 2!lin.
ft. Ref. or Datum
:JI ,-.. . ,-..
+-+-.~ Ill •
4110 L...., "'en
30 111,-.. ~+-... C: Cf--u 0LL QI 0 ~ C: u .
-L C Q. ·-QI _en ID QI ...., ~~ :JI .
0.. ·-::, L ~"' C u
SM
11 102.8 S.8 -SP--
18 119.2 9.4
40 110.2 8.8
See Geotechnical Map
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
.ELL
DLG
@ O': Dark brown, moist, IOO&C, silty fine SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS ---------
@ 2': Dark red-brown, damp, IOO&C, fine-grained SAND; abundant roots
@ S': Red-brown, damp, medium dense, fine-to medium-grained SAND;
abundant tree roots
@ 10': Red-brown, damp, dense, rmc-to medium-grained SAND; scattered tree
roots
38 99.4 4.8 SM @ 20': light red-brown, damp, denae, silty SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
...
...
...
...
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
Date 6-21-94 Sheet _2_ of _2_
Project ----------=C=al:...:L==u==th==e:::;ran=/-=C=arl~s==ba=d _______ _ Project No. 4940285""'"-0=1'--_
Drilling Co. Paciftc Drilling Type of Rig Limited Access
Hole Diameter 8 ln. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .1!l in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-54 ft. Ref or Datum . See Geotechnlcal Map
. :,I ,,... _,,... C 0 +-+-QI~ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o,,... u ·-t..,.,, Ill • .c,,... ·-Ill z Ill 0 Ill,,... "'<I? ·-.... ........ .cm • 30 C'+-:I+-+-QI • -u Ill QI 0. QI 0.0 +--gLL !~ ~c u.
>c+-QI QI 111-1 :i 0. -t. ·-QI _en JBjoLG ~...., c~ t. 10., .,.,, 21: Logged By (.!) e :JI ·-:::i Ill CL UJ en 15 0 o.,.,, Sampled By DLG u en
30 J.J:l s 86/11" 106.1 4.8 SM @ 30': Lipt brown, moist, dense, silty SAND
-Total Depth 2 31 Feet ,_
No Ground Water Encounteicd
Backfilled on June 21, 1994 ... -
20 -
35-
-
-
-
15 -...
40-,_
,_ -
,_ -... -
10 -...
45-...
,_ -... ---
5 -....
50-
-
-
-
0 -
ss-...
-
-
-
-5 -
~-I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
Date 6-21-94 Sheet _1 _ of _1 _
Cal Lutheran/Carlsbad Project -----------'==== Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
C o,...
:;:+
111(11
>(II ~~
LI.J
55
50
45
40
35
30
.c"' u ·-++-.cm Q. QI Q.0 (II (II 111.J c~ '-(.!)
0 .. ... -... . .
--. ..,. ... .. -...
. . . -..
..
5-~~;-·\
-/)/
-:<<=-:-·: _:.-:::.::
10-/)\ ..
-
-
-
15-
-
-
-
-
20-
-
-
-
-
25-
-
-
-
-
·~
505A(11/77)
Ill QI +-0 z
8 in.
+/-58
.
0 z
QI -Q. E Ill Cl)
1
2
3
ft .
+-1110 30 o"--c.. ID QI
Q.
15
24
31
Pacific Drilling
Drive Weight
Ref or Datum
:JI "' . " +-QI~ Ill • ·-'-...., lllcn 111 ..... ::,+-Ill • C't--u QI u ~c (J • CG. ·-QI _en ...., :2~ :JI . ·-::::, a 0 i'-' (J
SM
119.3 13.S -sl'i-
119.2 9.4 SP
llll.3 6.4
Type of Rig Umited Access
140 pounds Drop 30 in.
See Geotechnical Map
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By DLG
.FILL @ 0-2': Dark brown, moist, loolie, silty fme-grained SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 2': Dark red-brown, moist, medium demc, silty SAND; abundant roots
@ S': Dark red-brown, moist, demc, medium-grained SAND; well indurated
@ 10': Same as above
Total Depth = 11 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994
>-
....
....
...
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date 6-21-94
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
C o,.._ ·-.... +-QI Ill QI >If-~'-'
LI.I
55
50
45
u .i:."' ·-..,_+-.i;, II Q. QI Q.0 QI QI 111..J elf-c.. '-' ti)
0 ...
-...
--~-.. ·.~. ...
-:\/.:: .... · .
..... • • ·.:-.-:♦• ....
5-:·:·::-<:
.• •. :-. ·:--~-\ · < .... ·
_:_:_::_:_:: ..... · -:.:·::-:-:: ....
-. : · .. • . . . . ·.-
10,_ .. •• :-· .·• .. : . _ .. ... -... -· ..... -·: .. •. .--.:•.·:.... -.-.-.:-_-·_ .... · . . .. . . -:.=<:-:-:: .. · .. -:·:·:··:·:: .. :-.·
15-:.:•>:-:_: ....
40 -:·:·::---::
35
30
.... :-:.. •.
-:.:•>:-::_ ....
-.-.-.:-... • . . . . . ·. 20-//? -. -•. -· ..... . : .. ·.
-:>:<\. .... -.-.-.:-_-· . . . . . ·--/)\
25-~·;·>?
-:>>:~::~: ..... · .. · .. • -:·:·::·:·:: .... · ..... -. : .. ·-
....
Ill II +-0 z
8 in.
+/-
-.--.:•.·:-. . . · .. I 505A(11/~) :·.·:·<·
I
56
. 0 z
II -i Ill Cl)
1
2
3
4
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10
Sheet _1_ of _2_
Cal Lutheran/Carlsbad Project No. 4940285-01
Pacific Drilling Type of Rig Limited Access
Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ...M!._in.
ft. Ref. or Datum
JI ,... .
+-+-GI~
._,...
c.....,, UI •
Ill 8 11(1)
"'"' :,..,_ Cit-.
~u. -u ~~ ~c u . -c.. •-II _ct> ID11 ...,, ~"E JI . a.. ·-::, a 8 i...,,
SM
11 105.1 8.2 -SP--
17 102.5 6.6
32 101.0 4.7
42 102.9 3.2
See Geotechnical Map
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
.ElLL
DLG
@ O': Dark brown, damp, IOO&C, silty fine SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS
@ 2': Dark red-brown, damp, IOO&C, fine SAND; abundant roots
@ 5': Red-brown, damp, dense, fine SAND; saturated tree roots
@ 10': Red-brown, damp, dense, fine SAND; 1oca11y moderately cemented,
scattered tree roots
@ 20': Light red-brown, damp, dense, fine SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
...
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10
Date ____ -=6--=2=1-..;::;9..:..4 __ _ Sheet _2_ of _2_
Project __________ C;:::;.;al=-=L=u=th=e;;;.;ran=/-=C=arl=sba=d'--________ Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. __________ .::.:Pa::::c:::iD::::c:....:D=.=ri~l:::ll=ng_________ Type of Rig Umlted Access
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight ---------=1-"40,.__po--=u=n-=ds=-----------Drop _.fil!..in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-56 ft. Ref or Datum See Geotechnical Mav .
. :JI " . " C: 0 +-+-.~ Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o"" 0 z Ill 0 ·-'-""' lllu,
:;: +-.c" ·-Ill Ill" ::,+-,. . +-+-.c ca QI QI 30 C:'+--u Ill QI Q, QI Q.O +--oU. ~~ ti C u. >QI QI QI 111..J 0 Q, -'-·-cu _en QI ... c'+-'-z 110 cu ...,, o+-Logged By JB/DLG _...,, ...,, (!) E :JI . ,. 0.. :C C ·-::::, LLJ '-0 ~...,, • Cl) C u Sampled By DLG
30 .·. s S4 99.8 5.S SP @ 30': Ught brown, damp, dcnK, fine SAND : . : .. · ...
25 . · .. · .·
-Total Depth • 31 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994 -
-
35-
20 -
-
-
-
40-...
15 -
:.. -
-
-
45-
10 -
-
I--
-
so-
5 -
-
-
-
55-
0 -
-
-
-
~ I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11
Date -----=6~-2~1.;;:::•9~4___ Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C=al=-=L==u:=:th;::::e:::.;ran=/-=C:.::::arl=sba=d'--_______ Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. __________ .:.;Pa::.::cl:::fi::::c::...:Drl=ll=in=g-________ Type of Rig Limited Access
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ~in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-56 ft Ref or Datum See Geotechnlcal Mau .
• JI " .,..
C 0 +-+-a,X Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o,..,. u z 1118 ·-'-'J "'en :;::+-.J:. ...... ·-Ill Ill'"' :::,+-Ill • +-+-.J:.Q QI QI ~LL C'+--u Ill QI Q. QI 0.0 +--QI u 1;c u. > QI QI QI 111-' 0 t -c. ca. __ QI _en .!~ c'+-'-z m• 'J i"E Logged By JB/DLG 'J (,!) i .
Ill ll.. ·-::,
LL.I 8 ~'J • Cl) Sampled By DLG
0 .. SM .ElLL ... .. @ 0-1.5': Dark brown, moiit, loose, silty fine SAND 55 -. ...
._; :~ -sM--------------------------------------~ -. . . TERRACE DEPOSITS ...
1 14 103.6 10.9 @1.5': Red-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND ... -. . . . . . . .
-· ..
.....
5-: ~:·::-: 2 20 112.8 9.8 SP @5': Red-brown, moiit, dense, medium-grained SAND .. :-.· Ba,-1 50 -. : . @5-8' .. :• -·
-:->·:-•.:: ... . . :• .· -:_:_:._:_: ...
-~-~·;:-:.:: ..
10-/?\ 3 34 111.3 S.8 @10': Red-brown, moist, dense, SAND
45
-Total Depth • 11 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994 -
-
15-
40 -
-
-
-
20-
35 -
-
-
-
25-
30 -
-
-
-
·~ I sosAc111n> LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date ____ ..:::6..~2~1...::-9;;:;4 __ _ Sheet _1_ of _1_
Project __________ C:::::al=-=L:::u::th:::e::.:ran=/~C:::arl=sb:::a:::d~-------Project No. 4940285-01
Drilling Co. Pacific Drilling Type of Rig Limited Access
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight __________ 140~po=u=n=ds,.__ _______ Drop .2!!._in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-56 ft. Ref or Datum See Geotecbnical Mau
. :JI ,.... iii" C 0 +-+-QIN GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 01"\ 0 z 1118 ·-I'.. V Ill • ·-.... .s::." ·-Ill 1/11"\ ::,..,_ ,_en ........ .J::. DI QI C'f-.
+-QI " ~~ -u
Illa, Q. QI Q.O +-QI 0 1;jc u .
>'+-QI QI '11.J 0 t -I'.. co. ·-" _en ,!v c'+-I'.. z ID II V 21 Logged By JB/DLG V (!) ~ .
II Q. ·-::::, uJ ~v (I) u Sampled By DLG
0 ----, @ 0-2": j\sphalt _____________________________ ...
55 -.. .ElLL ... SM @2": toS•: Light brown, damp, loo&c, silty coarse SAND -. : : : . @ 2': Obstruction, possible pavement from former gas station, possible tanks in ... • _:, :..:1, . . .. 1 26 111.9 4.1 SP \ __ _place _______________________________ 11 -. : ·.: .. . . TERM.CB I!l!fQSITS ... . . @2.S': Dark red-brown, damp, demc, SAND -. . . . . ...
5-
. . :• .· -~: .:...:: : : : .•• 2 64 131.7 6.4 SM @ 5': Dark red-brown, damp, very deme, silty SAND; moderately cemented
50 -Ba,-1 ... @S-8'
... -.. . . . . . -...
... -.. . . .
10->;-\: ...
3 29 110.S 4.6 SP @ 10': Light red-brown, damp, demc, SAND
45 ·.:• -·
-Total Depth • 11 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled on June 21, 1994 -
-
15-
40 -
-
-... -
20-
35 -
I--
-... -
25-I-
30 -
I--
I--... -
....
505A(11/n) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.. ...
2500i---------.-----.------.-------.-------,
2000t------+-----+------1---------1f-----~
t1s00t------+-----+------1------:,A~1-------1 ..,,
en ;
ten
0:: ~ 1000t-------+-----+---r----1-----l-------1
en
0=-------=1::--------,:-:';::,:;----~;;:1:,:,------=='=="---==' 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-3 Depth (ft) 5.0
Sample No. 1 SoU Type SP-SM
Type of Sample Undisturbed
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
37
110
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
Project No. 4940285-01
Project Name Cal Lutheran/Carlsbad
Date 8/29/94 Figure No. __.1_
I
I
I
I
I
,,
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,...
'+
2500r-------,,-------.-----r------r-----~
2000t--------i------+-----+-------+------<
t 1500t------1r-------t------+----..,,......-----1
-.;
(I)
(I) I.LI 0:: t(1)
0::
; 1000t------1r-------t-----,,'----t------+-----1
(I)
0~-----=:!=-----,-,:l::-=----'"'='::=------,='=-=-------,,,=I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-6
Sample No. 3
Type of Sample
Depth (ft) 10.0
SoUType _..::S:.:..P_
Undisturbed
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
36
80
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
Project No. • ------=4U!9~4011:.!!2Uli8.ll£.;5-;.x.0..i...1 __
Project Name Cal Lutheran/Carlsbad
Date Q/29/94 Figure No . ....2_
[][!]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..... ...
2500.-------,,------,------,-------r-------,
20001--------il------+-----+------+------I
f15001--------11-------+------+-------+--~--~
'oJ
ffl ~
0::
; 10001--------i-----+---~-+-----+------I
(I)
01:------=!:=-----T:":=----.-;1::=-------::='==-----=~ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-7 Depth (ft) 10.0
Sample No. 3
Type of Sample
SoUType _...;::S:.:.P_
Undisturbed
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
33
90
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
Project No. 4940285-01
Project Name ca, Lutheran/Carlsbad
Date 6/29/94 Figure No. _.L_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,....
'+Ill Q, ....,
(I)
(I)
3000
2500
2000
~ 1500 t(1)
Q: 81 m /
V
/
V
/
V
✓
V
1000
500 V •
0 0 500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-9
Sample No. 1
Type of Sample
Depth (ft)
SoUType
Undisturbed
Friction Angle (deg.)
Cohesion (psf)
43
510
2000 2500
2.0
SM
Project No. 4940285-01
3000
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS Project Name cat L.uthmn/callll!llll [ljDJ
Date 6/29/94 Figure No. _4__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
APPENDIXD
General Earthwork and ·Gradini Specifications
1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and
earthwork to be utiliz.ed in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general
earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report
in the case of conflict Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading
may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report It shall be the responsibility of the contractor
to read and understand these specifications as well as the geotechnical report and approved
grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and TestinK
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed
for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with
the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the
responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work
schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel
accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the
geotechnical consultant The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is
aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods
to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding
the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate
compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended
in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor
moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of
work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant
will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the
conditions are rectified.
Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in
general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials
test Method ASTM D1557.
3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
3.1 ClearinK and GrubbinK: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, ~d all other deleterious
material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable· to the
owner, design engineer, governing agencies, and the geotechnical consultant
D-1
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
General Earthwork and Gradini: Specifications (Cont'd.)
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill
material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be
allowed.
3.2 Processini:: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as
specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are
broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable
ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve
the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant For purposes of determining quantities of materials
overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utili7.ed.
3.4 Moisture Conditionini:: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried
back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near
optimum.
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed,
screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the
geotechnical consultant
3.6 Benchini:: Where. fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant Other benches should be excavated into
competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant Ground sloping flatter
than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the
geotechnical consultant
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal
areas, and ·toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior
to fill placement
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and
other deleterious substances, and shou~d be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
prior to placement Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should
be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to
achieve satisfactory fill material.
D-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
General Earthwork and Gradin& Specifications (Cont'd)
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unles.,
the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the
geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of
oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill Oversize materials should not be placed
within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground
construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the
attached detail.
4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should
meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the
geotechnical consultant to observe ( and test, if neces.,ary) the proposed import materials.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to
receive fill, in near-horiwntal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thicknes.,.
Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of
material and moisture throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditionin&: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed,
as neces.,ary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and
mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not les., than 90 percent of maximum dry
density (unles., otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized
and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to
efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in additional to normal
compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments
of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results.
At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face
should be at least 90 percent.
5.5 Compaction Testin&: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of
the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. The location and
frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions
encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces,
as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of _vertical height of the slope.
D-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4940285-01
General Earthwork and Gradin& Specifications (Cont'd.)
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended should be installed in areas previously evaluated for
suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details
shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or
modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may
recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All
subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after
installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling
over the subdrains.
7.0 Excavation
8.0
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical
consultant (as necessacy) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further
excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e.,
stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended.
Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or
determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be
utilized.
D-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
314•-1-112·
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3ft;3/ft. MIN.
OUTLET PIPES
4 • flJ NONPERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
e• MIN.
OVERLAP
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
4•~ n.---=--4•~
NON-PERFORAT PERFORATED
PIP~-PIPE
--5~MINT FILTER FABRIC 4• MIN.
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI BEDDING
140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
SUBDRAIN tRENCH DETAIL
NOTES:
II
BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER --------------=-~-=---=--=-"":..-"M~~~==----~--=...-SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
' BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUIT ABLE OUTLET
r----10• MIN. PERFORATED 1-1.-l EACH SIDE
PIPE~
CAP
NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
T-CONNECTION DETAIL
* IF CAL TRANS-CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4•-1-112-• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
111
3/411
3/8 11
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
% Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
For buttress dimension•, see geotechnlcal report/p,ana. Actual dlmenalona of buttreaa and. aub.draln
~•~ be changed by the geotechnlcal consultant baaed on field condition•.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION"'Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforatlona down a1 depicted.
At location• recommended by the geotechnlca!\ consultant, nonperforated pipe ahoukl b• lnatalled
SUB0RAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylon trtle Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Cl'aaa 125, SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum flll depth• of aa f .. t.
Claaa 200, SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depth• of 100 fee tr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
--------..
*NOTE:
TRANSITI_ON LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
-----------------
CUT LOT
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
1----...,.........------5'
MIN.
EXISTING
GROUND SUR'FACE J__
---------------------<--REMO VE _____--_..-
"-UN$UITABLE-.,.. -___..-
MATERIAL ~
COMPETENT BEDROCK ./
~R MATERIAL EVALUATED__..-,
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
---
Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavation and
recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnlcal-,
consultant based on actual field conditions encountered
and locations of proposed improvements
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
PIN&8H GRADE
DETAIL
-----------------
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used wlthn 10 feet
vertically of. finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utilHy whichever I~ ·greater),.
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4-feet should not be utilized In flll&
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil,, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant. •
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above. detail•
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted). •
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular a.oil (S.E._ greater than or equal
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill vo~d• around and beneath
rocks.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
'------EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE_
--------------------------------------------_--:.,==-~-=-::E-::-=-:==-==-==-==-:::-:::-:-::-::-::-: ::-: : :::-::-:: : :::-~ = ::-::--: :::-::---------------------------------------------:.. --=~:::-=-:::-:::-~:::-::.coMPACTED FILL::-::~-::-:::-:::------=-----~~~~~~-==~~~~-::~------
-==='=::~~~~ -----
----~-=-~-=--=--:-.-=--=-------=-~-=--:..--
~F.,,;::.~==i!~~ --=:-:::~-:::== ~~~=-=-
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE ✓e• MIN. OVERLAP
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED f
EQUIVALENT)*
' e• MIN.
COVER e• MIN.
COfER· t 1/, ~ -= .. 314•-1•112• CLEAN
GRAVEL
314•-1.:112• CLEAN
GRAVEL (9ft.3/ft. MIN.)
4 • MIN. BEDDl~G
"----e• fiJ MIN. ---
PERFORATED
PIPE
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN 'TERMINAL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
--~-==-==--==--
-OMPACTE0:-
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE ABOVE
!!!~~!i ==---
--~-=-0 0 " 0 ~ • • 0 0 0 •
--:..-==~~~~ 0 O • I) Q O 17 : O • O • O 0 . . . .
11
.. 15' MIN. .., 5'MIN1.,.~-----PERFORATED a• fJJ MIN. PIPE
~ONPERFORATED e• es MIN.
(9ft.3 itt. MIN.)
* IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL 18 USED IN PLACE--OF
314•-1•112• GRAVEL, FlL TER FAlrRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
l"
3/4"
3/811
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
% Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
Subdraln should be c·onstructed only on competent· mat,erlal aa _evaluated by th• 0:•otechnlca&·
conaultant.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln pipe should be inatalled with perforatlona do~II aa d•plcted.
At locatlona recommended by the geotechnlcal.conaultant, nonperforated pipe ahould. be lnatalled.
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylonltrlle Butadlene Styrene (A.8.8.), Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125, SDR 32.5 should be uHd for maximum
fill deptha of 35 feet •. Claaa 200,SDR 21 should be uaed for maximum fHI: depttla of 100 feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
FINISHEI;) SLOPE FAC~
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
OVERBURDEN OR
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
EXISTING GROUND -----
SURFACE~___. -----/' ,,-,-
// /
/ / / /
/ /
// // / FINISHED CUT PAD
/
--------------\V/,I f=(IP-1 I I
___ Q.~PAC_TEo-::-
--=--=--=---=---::FILL=---:_-:_-:_-:_ -=--=--=-v-____ ..,
-----------PAQ OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
AND R_ECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BASED ON ACTUAL.FIELD
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.
--=-1---=-~* ✓-;{,.-;:. ~~-~:;: -
BENCH.
:I
KEY• LOWEST
BENCH DEPTH (KEY) (
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MATERIAL AS EVALU~TED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsu_rface conditions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
-----------------------· --------------OMPACT!l)-::§::§::§:::§ ------Fl1 I --------
--==~~~:f"f~~~-:_-:=--,._..
-----------EXISTING
GROUND su·RFACE --=---=---=--~
---=-..r--=-
--_-_-:,."":.,"":... ,.-Mtti.~~
--~ ----~-=-
2' MIN.L~5• MINrl
KEY ILOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
ACTED=:~ FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE ILL-=------·
EXISTING~ GROUND SURFACE -
_,_-----
~ . _.... _.... LOWEST
__. -MIN. BENCH
~i~H (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
• PLACEMENT) /.,/'
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
5' MIN~
2' MIN. LOWEST I
KE'( DEPTH BENCH --(KEY)
EXISTING / /
GROUND //
SURFACE~ / '$
// ~l~ / L, \\,,.,
/
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant baaed on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendation• may
also be altered based on field condition• encountered.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS --
FINISH GRADE.
------------------------------·---=-=-:~~~~~~OMPACTED FILLt~~~~~ -------------------------------------· -------------
NO·T TO SCALE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
111
3/411
3/811
% Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
SOIL BAC!(FILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
---------·
-------------------TYP ----
~~~-=--=--=~i-:-=-
0 op ~ ==--=-.. .. --=---
1 o e• MIN. ?...;-FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
?VEoR~A (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
' EQUIV A LENT) H
4•.(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
'PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 ~
EQUIVALENT) WITH PEJVORATION8
ORIENTED DOWN A8 DEPICTUt
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULT ANT'
* BASED ON ASTM D 1557·
**IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) 18 USED IN PLACE o,
314•-1-112• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE ·
DELETED; CAL TRAN&· CLA8e 2 PERMEAa&.a
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO ..
PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTIOII*
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
5-15
0-7
0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADfWN
OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2. INSTALLAllON SHOULD BE PERFORtt&> IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANLFACTURER'S SPECIACA 110NS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I -
~. J1
Carlsbad by the Sea Facility
Cultural Resource Survey
and
Historical Assessment
---·--------------
----
July 1994 RECCFJN
"J.d~O El)N~NNYiid av~~,~~:> ~o AJ.o~
~ssi s , 1nr
1,
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' Ii
Ii
II
I I'
I
I
I
I