The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; Calavera Hills Community Park Phase I & II; Soils Report; 1987-10-07LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES - - - - - - - - - October 7. 1987 Project No. 8850373-08 TO: ATTENTION: SUBJECT: City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department 1166 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Mr. Gary Kellison As-Graded Report of Rough and Post-Grading Operations for the Calavera Hills Community Park Site, Phases I and II, Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization. we have performed geotechnical services during the rough grading and fine grading operations for the subject site. This as-graded report summarizes our observations, field and laboratory test results, and geotechnical conditions encountered during grading between March 1987 and September 1987. Pertinent geotechnical reports issued for this development were reviewed and are listed in Appendix A. Accompanying Maps and Appendices Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 Plates 1 through 3 - Density Test Location Maps - In Pocket Plates 4 and 5 - As-Graded Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Appendix A - References Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Tests Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 931-9953 - lR”lNE . WESTLAKENENTURA . DIAMOND BARIWI\LN”T . SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE . SAN DIb m PALM DESERT . SANTA CLARITAIVALENCIA . CaCL~SBFn . TEMFCUI AlRANCMO C41~IFORNIA - - - - ,- .~- - - - - I I I ----- 0 2000 4000 scale feet BASE MAP: Aerial Foto-Map Book, 1985, Paqe 7D CALAVERA HILLS/PARK SITE Flgur. 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 8850373-08 LElGHTON and ASSOCIATES I*Cc.~CoRATED - - - - ..- -- - - - .-~ - - - - 8850373-08 Project Description and Location The Calavera Hills Park Site encompasses approximately 14 acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Elm Avenue (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The site is bounded to the north by Elm Avenue, on the east by Glasgow Drive, on the west by Tamarack Avenue, and on the south by the "Colony at Calavera Hills, Village B" residential subdivision (Map No. 9935). Proposed development at the site includes a community center/park site, City of Carlsbad fire station, roadways, parking areas, ball fields, and recreational areas. Summary of Park Site Rough and Postgrading Operations Rough and postgrading operations at the site were conducted by William J. Kirchnavy, Inc. between March and September 1987. Grading and trench backfill observation (of sewer and storm drain) and field density testing were performed by representatives of our firm who were on site full time during rough grading operations and part time, on call, during post-grading operations. Geologic mapping of cut slopes, fill slope keys, compressible soil removals, and other onsite excavations were performed, as necessary, by geologists from our firm. The project grading plans entitled "Grading Plans for Calavera Park Site (CUP- 266)," Project No. PE 2.86.16, Drawing No. 269-6, dated September 25. 1986, approved December 2, 1986, by Rick Engineering Company, Sheets SE-3. SE-4, and PL-2 were utilized as base maps to present the approximate locations of field density tests (Plates 1 through 3) and as-graded geotechnical conditions (Plates 4 and 5). Specific operations during grading are discussed below. a Site Preparation and Removal of Compressible Soils Prior to grading, excessive vegetation and debris in areas of proposed structural fill and/or improvements were stripped and removed from the subject site. In general, potentially compressible fill soils, debris, and residual topsoils within areas of planned grading were removed to competent formational material in accordance with the recommendations outlined in our geotechnical reports (Appendix A, References 11 and 14). prior to subdrain installation and fill placement. A geotechnical report was issued on November 24, 1986 pertaining to existing undocumented fill that had been placed in the northern portion of the site along the southern edge of Elm Avenue. This undocumented fill was reportedly associated with the grading and construction of Elm Avenue along the northern subject property boundary (Appendix A, Reference 14). As discussed in Reference 14, the existing undocumented fill on the site is not considered suitable for structural support in its present condition. Therefore, the undocumented fill was removed to competent formational soils and replaced with properly compacted fill in the area beneath the proposed fire station building pad, in accordance with our recommendations outlined in Reference 14. -3- LElGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCDRPOeATEO - - - - - - - - 8850373-08 In general, areas receiving fill were scarified, brought to near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78. Compaction and mixing of fill materials were accomplished with heavy construction equipment. In general, fill keys were excavated at the toe and the fill-over-cut catch point for proposed fill slopes in accord- ance with our recommendations (Appendix A, Reference 11). Benching into firm bedrock was performed as fill was placed. l Fill Placement Native onsite materials and import soils were used as compacted fill and trench backfill. Soils were generally spread in loose, 6- to 8-inch lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to attain near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-78. Aggregate base material placed for the southernmost parking area in Phase I (Plate 3) was compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 95 percent as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78. Fill slope faces were compacted by backrolling with a sheepsfoot roller generally at 3- to 4-foot intervals of slope height. Slope finishing was achieved by trimming and/or trackwalking of the slope face. During rough grading, a 2:l (horizontal to vertical) fill slope was con- structed along the southern edge of Elm Avenue (see Plate 4) overlying the existing undocumented fill. Due to the depth of undocumented fill, it was not possible to excavate a fill slope key into formational soils. The approximate location and elevation of the fill slope key is presented on Plate 4. As discussed in Reference 14, this fill slope is considered to be grossly stable. a Field and Laboratory Testing Density tests were performed using the sand-cone method (ASTM Test Method D1556-82). drive cylinder method (ASTM Test Method D2937-83). and nuclear gauge method (ASTM Test Method D2922-81). The approximate density test locations are shown on Plates 1 through 3 (in pocket). The results of the field density tests are summarized in Appendix B. As indicated in Appendix B, areas in which field density tests were less than 90 percent relative compac- tion were recompacted and retested until the minimum 90 percent relative compaction was achieved. It should be noted, however, that the inherent precision of the field density and laboratory testing is such that some minor variance from 90 percent relative compaction (or 95 percent relative compac- tion in base material) may be anticipated. Representative soil samples were tested for maximum density and expansion index as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78 and UBC 29-2, respectively. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. However, in accord- ance with a request from the City of Carlsbad, representative expansion index tests were not performed on the building pad finish grade soils. Based on our visual evaluation of the finish grade soils beneath the proposed fire station and the community center, the expansion index of these soils may vary from low to medium. - - ,- .- - - .- - - - - - 8850373-08 a Graded Slopes Cut, fill, and fill-over-cut slopes were constructed during rough grading of the park site in general accordance with our recommendations (Appendix A, Reference 11) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. Review of the project grading plans (Appendix A, Map 1) indicates that the graded slopes were constructed at inclinations of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Based on geologic mapping during rough grading, cut slopes and cut portions of fill-over-cut slopes did not appear to expose any adverse geologic conditions. The graded slopes appear to have an adequate factor of safety against deep- seated failure. l Subdrains In order to reduce the potential for rising ground water, a trench-type subdrain consisting of approximately 9 cubic feet per linear foot of granular material surrounding 6-inch perforated pipe was installed in accordance with our recommendations (Appendix A, Reference 11). The approximate location of the subdrain installed is shown on Plate 4 (in pocket). o Parking Area and Structural Pavement Section A minimum structural pavement section consisting of 3-inch asphaltic concrete (A.C.) over 4-inch aggregate base was placed for the parking area located in the northeastern portion of the site (Plate 3) in accordance with our report (Appendix A, Reference 5). The aggregate base material was compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density based on field density tests as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78, within the limits of the pavement section. Asphaltic concrete placement was observed and tested by a representative from our firm. The asphaltic concrete was compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the theoretical maximum density provided by the source plant. The results are presented in Appendix B and approximate test locations are indicated on Plate 3. -5- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCOmPORATED - - - .- _- - - - - 8850373-08 Engineering Geology The geologic units encountered during site grading are generally similar to those described in the project preliminary geotechnical report (Appendix A, Reference 11). The approximate limits of the geologic units mapped during rough grading are shown on Plates 4 and 5 and are described below: a Documented, Compacted Fill Soils (Map Symbol - Af) Structural fill soils were placed and compacted during project grading and predominantly consist of brown to red-brown, clayey, residual topsoils and imported olive-gray to gray. silty sands. The potentially expansive residual topsoils were placed as fill a minimum of 3 feet below proposed building pad areas or properly mixed with nonexpansive material to achieve a lower expan- sive potential. Where these topsoils were observed in place at proposed finish grade of building pad areas, they were removed (i.e. undercut) and replaced with properly compacted fill. Compacted fill soils were also placed overlying existing undocumented fill in the northern portion of the site and as such are designated as a nonstructural area (Plates 4 and 5). a Nonstructural Fill (Map Symbol - Afn) Fill designated as nonstructural exists in the northern portion of the site. This nonstructural fill is not considered suitable for support of structural improvements (Appendix A, Reference 14). These materials are subdivided into two groups: (1) existing undocumented fill and (2) rock fill placed during grading. These materials are discussed below: - Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afo) Undocumented fill not removed during the subject grading remains in the northern portion of the site. The undocumented fill predominantly consists of a rock fill with subangular cobbles and boulders typically ranging in size from 6 to 14 inches in diameter, within a loose to medium dense, clayey sand matrix. In addition, undocumented fill was observed overlying metavol- canic rock along the lower to midheight portion of the cut slope in the northeastern part of the site. This fill appears to be associated with previous grading performed during construction of Glasgow Drive. - Rock Fill (Map Symbol -Afr) During grading, onsite excavations in the metavolcanic bedrock generated significant amounts of oversize rock. This rock was placed under our observation in a portion of the site overlying the existing undocumented fill to within 3 feet of rough finish grade. Rocks disposed of generally ranged between 6 to 24 inches, and as large as 3 feet in diameter. Due to the possibility of void spaces created by nested rocks, fill settlement should be anticipated in the area where rock fill has been placed (Plate 4). Therefore, the rock fill is considered to be part of a nonstructural area. Please refer to the recommendations provided herein for possible mitigative measures relative to this area. -6- LElGHTON and ASSOClATES INCORPORATED - - - - - - - - 8850373-08 l Topsoil (Unmapped Unit) The onsite residual topsoils were generally found to consist of orange to orange-brown to red-brown to brown-gray to brown, medium dense, clayey sand. Based on laboratory testing (Appendix B), these topsoils have a very high expansive potential. l Alluvium (Map Symbol - pal) Alluvial soils encountered during our preliminary geotechnical investigation (Appendix A, Reference 11) remain in the west-trending canyon that parallels the southern property boundary. As discussed in Reference 11 these soils consist of green-brown, silty sands and sandy silts with a significant potential for consolidation. No grading was performed in this portion of the site during rough grading operations. Therefore, no removals of the alluvium were performed. a Debris Fill (Unmapped Unit) Portions of the site underlain by debris fill consisting of various amounts of different soils, construction debris, vegetation, and trash were removed from the site in accordance with the recommendations outlined in Reference 11 (Appendix A). o Pre-Cretaceous Metavolcanics (Map Symbol - pkml The entire site is underlain by pre-Cretaceous metavolcanic rock. The metavolcanic rock consists of metamorphosed volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks of variable composition and color. The metavolcanic rock was noted to be generally highly fractured and jointed. Joints predominantly trend northwesterly to northeasterly and are typically highly inclined. More specifically, jointing was measured as ranging from N40"W to N80"W and N35'E to N80"E. and was generally steeply dipping. Joint planes typically were stained by black manganese oxide and red-brown iron oxide deposits. Representative joint attitudes are shown on Plates 4 and 5. o Faulting and Seismicity No evidence of faulting (inactive or active) was observed within the subject site during site grading, nor were any anticipated. The subject site can be considered to be in a seismically active region, as can all of southern California. There are, however, no known or observed active faults on or adjacent to the subject site. A more in-depth discussion with regard to faulting, seismicity, and liquefaction potential relative to the subject property is contained in our preliminary geotechnical report (Appendix A, Reference 11). -7- LElGHTON and ASSOCIATES ,NCOlPORATED - - - ,~ - - - - - - - - 8850373-08 CO'CLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Geotechnical conditions encountered during rough and post-grading of the Calavera Hills Community Park site have been evaluated and were generally as anticipated. It is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for its intended recreational use, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the fine grading, design, and construction of the site. The following is a general summary of our conclusions regarding grading of the subject site. l The geotechnical properties of the onsite soils encountered during rough grading were generally as anticipated. l Removal areas and fill key excavations were geologically mapped prior to fill placement. o Nonstructural fill associated with the construction of Elm Avenue exists in the western portion of the site (as depicted on Plate 4). These materials are not considered suitable for support of structures in their present state. o Rock fill was placed on existing undocumented fill during grading operations and therefore is considered part of a nonstructural area. Fill settlement can be anticipated in this area. l In structural fill areas, unsuitable soils were removed to competent material and replaced with compacted fill soils. l Graded slopes are considered grossly and surficially stable. Graded slopes may be subject to erosion until vegetation is established. m Groundwater or seepage was not observed or encountered during rough grading. l No evidence of faulting was observed during rough grading within the subject site. o Based on our observations and field and laboratory test results. it is our opinion that compacted fill soils associated with structural fill areas and trench backfill were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-78). l Based on field and laboratory test results, that the aggregate base material placed for the subject site parking areas has been compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557-78). Asphaltic concrete placed within the subject parking area has been compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 95 percent of the theoretical maximum density furnished by the source or batch plant (Sim J. Harris, Inc.). -8- - - - 8850373-08 Recommendations l Foundation and Slab Design Considerations Foundation and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural con- siderations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume the fill soils underlying subject building pads have a medium potential (based on visual observation) for expansion. - Foundations The proposed buildings may be supported on continuous footings founded in dense, natural, or properly compacted fill soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath lowest adjacent finish grade. At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil-bearing value of 2,500 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 rebars, one top and one bottom. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings. Approximate field measurements made during rough grading operations indicate that the depth of fill beneath the Community Center pad ranges from ap- proximately 1 to 3 feet. Therefore, in order to help mitigate a daylight condition beneath the slab, we recommend the entire foundation be extended to dense metavolcanic bedrock, This will locally require foundation excavations deeper than the minimum 18 inches recommended above. We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet. We should note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. In order to help mitigate the potential for misalignment of proposed door openings, we recommend a grade beam or footing be extended across the openings. This grade beam should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of two No. 4 rebars (one top and bottom). Footings founded in natural soils or compacted fill may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soils of 0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration , including wind or seismic loads. The total lateral resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistances provided the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. -9- - - .- .- - .- - .- - - 8850373-08 - Floor Slabs Floor slabs should be at least 4 inches in thickness and be provided with a minimum reinforcement of 6x6-6/6 wire mesh. Care should be taken by the contractor to insure that the wire mesh is placed at slab midheight. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand over a 6-mil Visqueen moisture barrier. In order to help mitigate perforation and the accumula- tion of moisture beneath the slab, we recommend that a 4-inch layer of clean sand be placed beneath the Visqueen. In addition. we recommend control joints be provided completely across the slabs at intervals not exceeding 15 feet. The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precau- tions 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. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Prior to the pouring of the floor slabs, the upper 18 inches of subgrade soils should be moistened to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78. In order to help facilitate moisture penetration, the contractor may elect to construct the foundations prior to the pouring of the slabs to help retain water on the slab subgrade soils. e Nonstructural Fill Areas We recommend the geotechnical consultant review any plans for development in the designated nonstructural fill areas known to exist at the subject site to provide appropriate recommendations should this area be considered for development as a structural area. Mitigative measures such as removal and recompaction of the underlying undocumented fill and removal of the overlying rock fill will likely be necessary prior to development in this area. l Subdrain Outlet The subdrain outlet should be cleared of soil cover or other potential blockage which may have occurred since initial subdrain construction. It is recommended that appropriate measures be taken to maintain and prevent potential future blockage of the subdrain. The approximate location of the subdrain outlet is shown on Plate 4. o Oversteepening of Existing Slopes Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine grading and construction phases unless supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. Retaining structures should be designed with structural con- siderations and appropriate soil parameters provided by the geotechnical engineer. - 10 - - - - -- - .~ - - 8850373-08 l Slope Maintenance Installation and proper maintenance of drainage devices, early slope planting, control of slope irrigation, and regular maintenance of plant cover should help minimize the potential for erosion or gullying and the effective depth of seasonal moisture change. A qualified landscape architect should be consulted for specific planting recommendations. Prolonged drying and wetting of the slopes should be avoided. l Surface Drainage and Lot Maintenance Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. NO water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet away from the building, and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. We suggest the installation of eave gutters and downspouts on the buildings, which will help facilitate roof runoff away from the foundation. The discharged water from the downspouts should be directed away from the buildings to an appropriate noncorrosive outlet. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to the buildings should be avoided if possible. Planting areas at grade should be provided with adequate positive drainage directed away from the building. Planters should not be designed below grade unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and pipe drains are made. Drainage away from the slopes should be maintained at all times such that water does not drain over the top of the slopes. The need for and design of drainage devices on the site is within the purview of the design civil engineer. l Construction Observation and Testing Construction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future excavations and foundation or retaining wall con- struction at the site. Additionally, footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of steel reinforcement and the pouring of concrete. Prior to construction of future structural improvements, improvement plans should be reviewed and evaluated for ap- propriate design recommendations. - 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8850373-08 If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Stan Helenschmidt, RCE 36570 Chief Engineer Chief Engineering Geologist JB/RLW/SRH/RW/lj Distribution: Attention: Mr. Rod Barette - 12 - APPENDIX A 8850373-08 - APPENDIX A - REFERENCES 1. Albee, A.L. and Smith, J.L. 1966, Earthquake characteristics and fault - activity in southern California in Lung, R. and Proctor, R., editors, Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, October. ..- - 2. Allen, C.R., Amand, P., Richter, C.F., and Nordquist, J.M., 196.5, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in southern California, Seismological Society of American Bulletin, V. 55, No. 4, p. 753-797. 3. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong ground motion, Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Paper No. 292, - pp. 1304-1313, June. 4. Bonilla. M.J., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects in Wiegel, R. (editor). Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 5. Carlsbad, - 6. Cummings, pp. 47-74. City of, 1986, Contract documents and special provisions for site grading and Phase I construction of Calavera Hills Community Park, Contract No. 3173, dated December 2. David, 1980, Calculation of thickness of "hidden layer" with velocity inversion, shallow refraction surveys, Sot. Exploration Geophysicists. - 7. Dobrin, M.A., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting, third ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 630 p. - 8. Greensfelder. R.W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. .- 9. Lamar, D.L, Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence intervals on major faults in southern California in Moran, D.E.. Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., Yelverton, California, extors. 1973, - Geology, seismicity, and environmental impact, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication. 10. Leighton and Associates, Inc., Unpublished in-house data. 11. , 1985, Geotechnical investigation, Calavera Hills Park Site, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4850373-02. dated July 24. 12. , 1986 Supplemental seismic refraction survey, Calavera Hills Park Site, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4850373-03, dated May 16. - A - i 8850373-08 REFERENCES (continued) - 13. , 1986, Supplemental geotechnical reconnaissance and grading plan review, Calavera Hills Park Site, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8850373-06, dated October 21. 14. , 1986, Geotechnical evaluation of fill soils along Elm Avenue, Calavera Hills Park Site, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8850373-07, dated November 24. 15. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., September 1974, Repeatable high ground accelerations from earthquakes --important design criteria, - California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9. 16. Schnabel, B. and Seed, H.B., 1974, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western United States, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516. - 17. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of rock motions during earthquakes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM5, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218, September. - 18. Telford, W.M.. Geldart. L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied geophysics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 860 p. 19. Weber, F. Harold Jr., 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. 20. Wilson, K.L.. 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis - Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego, California. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - - Date Source Scale Flight Photo No. 1953 San Diego County 1"=1,000 AXN-8M 69 & 70, 102 & 103 MAPS - 1. Rick Engineering, 1986, Grading plans for Calavera Hills Park Site (CUP-266), Project No. PE 2.86.16, Drawing No. 269-6, Prepared at a scale of 1"=40/50', Sheets SE-3 and SE-4, dated September 25, approved December 2. - 2. I 1986, Plans for onsite sewer and water layout, Phase 1, Calavera Hills Park, City of Carlsbad. California, prepared at a scale of 1"=40/50', Sheet PL-2, dated March 4. A - ii APPENDIX B 8850373-08 - - - APPENDIX B EXPLANATION OF SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS A. Test No. -: OOI* Field density test by Sand Cone Method (ASTM Test Method. D1556-82) 001 Field density test by Drive Cylinder Method (ASTM Test Method 02937-83) OOI# Field density test by Nuclear Method (ASTM Test Method D2922-81) B. Test of: CF --- Compacted Fill SF --- Slope Face FG --- Finish Grade M --- Moisture Content SM --- Sewer Main Backfill SD --- Storm Drain Backfill AB --- Aggregate Base AC --- Asphaltic Concrete NOTE: Soil type and descriptions are presented in Appendix C (Summary of Laboratory Test Results) - - B -i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECT NUneER : 8858373-U SUWRV OF FIELD UENSITY TESTS PRE 1 PROJECT NIW : CRLRVERA HILLS ?+lRRK SITE (SEE PLATES 1 FIND 2) TEST TEST TEST TEST LllCRTIW SOIL No DATE OF TYPE 1 3/09/67 II FIRE STR PAD N5740 E9300 3 2 3/W/87 N FIRE STA PRO N5735 E9305 3 3t 3/89/87 ff FIRE STA PRD N5725 E929S 3 4* 3lW87 CF FIRE STA KID N5695 E9315 3 5* 3/M/87 CF FIRE STA HI N5725 E92a0 3 6s 3/18/87 CF FIRE SiR PRO NW4 E9338 3 7 3/11/87 ti WISE I N4775 ES@00 I a 3/11/87 n WE i N4840Ea985 1 9 3/12/87 M Pias I N467a E9115 1 ia 3/12/87 i4 II* 3/16/87 CF 121 3/16/87 CF 13s 3/16/87 EF 14* 3/16/87 CF 151 3/17/87 a 161 3117187 ff 171 3/17/87 a lat 3117187 M i9t 3/17/87 a 281 3/17/a? ff 211 3117187 ff 22s 3118187 cF 23s 3/la/a7 CF 244 3/ia/a7 a PHRgI N4@SESBBB 1 ffl 1/9-m N4718 E9878 2 PHI/SLOPE N4765E9308 2 PH I/SLOPE N4W Ea990 1 Fli I/SLOPE N4710 E9185 2 Fli I/%OFC N4648 E9438 1 PHI/SLOPE N4al5E9030 2 PHI/9..opE N4625E9388 2 fflI/SLOPE WE%60 2 w I/SLOPE w67a E9175 2 FtlI/sLLiPE N4645E9355 2 PH I/SLOPE N4660 E9355 2 W I/%CM NW E%35 2 ffl I/9DE N4785 E9370 2 Fti I/sAw N49@# E8960 3 ELEV OR DWTH iFEET) 332-a 335.a 337.8 339.0 30.0 344.8 311.8 313.0 321.8 32e.a 325. a 327.0 325.8 329.8 333.8 331.0 331.0 3z. a 336.8 33.8 336.8 335.8 336.8 309.8 DRY lKtiS@CF) IYIISTUREW RUTIVE RENRRKS FIELD nax FIELD C@T CCWXTION .a 126.8 11.9 1a.a .0 126.0 13.1 10.8 125.1 126.0 13.2 XI.0 122.8 126.B 12.7 la.0 124.3 126.0 14.6 10.0 126.8 126.8 13.8 la.0 .a 115.0 1i.B 13.5 .a 115.0 la.7 13.5 .0 115.8 la.3 13.5 .a 115.8 la.7 13.5 112.4 119.5 17.9 13.8 113.7 119.5 17.4 13.8 111.4 115.0 15.7 13.5 115.4 119.5 17.2 13.8 112.4 115.0 18.2 13.5 iii.8 119.5 1~6 13.8 117.4 119.5 15.9 l3.a 121.1 119.5 15.3 13.8 109.5 119.5 15.6 13.8 118.4 119.5 17.4 13.0 115.7 119.5 12.4 13.a 115.6 119.5 14.9 13.8 115.6 119.5 14.a 13.9 117.1 126.8 14.3 i0.a Ci) 0. NOISTl!RE TEST ONLY 0. ffiISTURE TEST ONLY 99. 97. 9% ma. a. a. a. a. 94. WISTURE TEST MY KIISTURE TEST OKY WOISTURE TEST ONLY N0ISTuR-E TEST LNLV 95. 97. 97. 98. %. 90. 188. 92. 99. 97. 97. 97. 93. - - - - - - - - SLaVYlRV ff FIELD DENSITV TESTS Ke2 PROJECT tU@ER : 88583734 PRQIECT N#f : CRl$'iERA HILLS PRRK SITE (SEE PLRTES 1 MD 21 TEST TEST TEST TEST ItCATION SOIL ELN OR DRY DfNSIPCF) IIIISTURE(XI REWTIVE RolRRHS m HE OF 251 3llala7 CF 26s 3/la/a7 a 271 3119la7 CF 28 3/19/87 II 29s 3/19/87 a 3 319fS7 W 31 3119187 i4 32 3/20/87 M 33 3ma7 ff 34 3/2wa7 N 33 3120187 F 36s 3123187 CF 37 3123187 n 381 3123187 a 39 3/24fa7 II 4-a 3124187 a 41s j/25/87 a 42s 3125187 a 43* 3125187 CF 44 3125187 M 43 3ma7 CF 46s 3wa7 a 47s 3/26/87 CF 40 3rwa7 a TYPE DEPTH (FEET) PH I/SLOPE N46S0 E94BB 2 337.8 W I/SLOPE N4998 E8970 1 312.0 ffl I/SLOPE N49BB Ea9BB 1 315.0 PH I/SLOPE N4990 Ea995 3 318.8 pH II9m2 N4995 Ea9a8 3 321.0 ffl I/SLOPE N5020 E9075 3 324.8 PH Il%W'E -15 E9820 3 322.0 PH I/SLOPE iu5665 E917a 3 334.8 PH I/SLOPE N4998 E9W 3 325.8 W I/SLOPE N4975 E9055 3 27.8 PH IlSlopE em E8995 3 330.8 PH I/SLOPE N4995 E9018 2 330.a PH I/SLOPE N5@35 E9115 3 337.8 w IISWE N492eEE981-a 3 33.8 ffl I/SLOPE m5eE9218 3 340.8 PH I/SLOPE N49% E9025 3 335.8 W IISLCQE N5828E9W 3 336.0 ffl I/Sl.WE N4a75E9350 4 338.a PH I/Sim N5015E9040 4 339.8 PH I/SLOPE N4995 E9145 4 341.8 ffl Ilsm N5ca E9858 4 341.8 w IIlsLopE 6178 E98ia 1 341.8 W II/SLOK N5M5 E9230 1 341.0 w wsLm iti618 Ea9a3 2 323.0 (%) 92. I@. 92. a. 93. MOISTURE TEST of&Y 0. a. a. 90. WISTURE TEST ONV I'WTUAE TEST WY tUlISTUAE TEST ONV a. %. llDISTuRE TEST OKY FIELD MAX FIELD OPT CW'RCTION 189.9 119.5 14.7 13.8 115.3 115.8 14.2 13.5 106.3 i15.8 15.2 13.5 .0 126.0 la.3 1a.a 117.7 126.8 17.0 IB.8 .a 126.0 11.6 10.0 .a 126.8 17.6 10.a .a 126.0 17.8 18.8 i23.9 126.0 13.6 la.0 .0 126.8 la.3 1e.a 118.3 126.8 17.5 ma ma.9 119.5 14.9 13.a .a 126.8 13.2 18.0 125.8 126.0 14.5 18.0 .a 126.0 15.5 i0.a 117.9 126.8 12.4 18.8 113.3 126.8 17.4 1e.a 113.8 116.5 12.6 14.8 123.6 116.5 16.6 14.8 .e 116.5 15.7 lba 126.8 116.5 14.a 14.8 lai.4 115.0 14.4 13.5 115.1 115.8 16.8 13.5 114.5 119.5 15.5 13.0 96. 91. a. 188. MISTWE TEST ctu 0. m1STORETEST OKY 9). 98. 98. Ma. a. rnwu~ TEST wi 1@0. ea. Nl3EsTEDoN TESTNO 47 1m RmSTa mm 46 - - - - - - - - _~ - - - WWiV OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PM3 PROJECT tUlBER : 8858373-M PROJECT WE : CFWJERR HILLS PARK SITE (SEE PLRTES 1 PND 2) TEST TEST TEST TEST LOCRTION SOIL ELEV OR No' DRTE OF TYPE DEPTH iFEET) 4% 3126187 ff PH II/SLOPE N%&l Ea995 1~ 323.8 DRY cm@ul FIELD WIX 50s 3/R/87 CF PH IIISLOFE ti5290 E9&75 2 342.0 51* 3127187 CF PH II/SLOPE ti5410 E8975 2 3x0 52r 3/27/87 CF PH II/SLOPE N5!85 EM0 3 343.0 53* 3/30/87 CF PH II/WIPE N569a ES100 1 332.a 54+ 3/38187 CF PH IIISOPE N%50 E9055 i 331.8 111.6 115.0 117.8 119.5 117.5 119.5 121.5 126.8 i89.2 115.8 112.7 115.0 55s 3i30/87 SF PHRSEI WE8995 4 332.0 113.4 116.5 56~ 3/30/87 CF PHIa II N5628 E8955 3 331.8 123.5 126.0 57% 3131187 CF PHRSE II NW5 E9W 3 333.0 127.7 126.8 5at 3i31/87 CF wax II ~5700 E9145 3 336.8 120.7 126.0 591 3/31/87 CF WRaE II NW0 E8938 4 332.0 114.8 116.5 6kr 3131187 CF PtBSE II N5575 E9@00 4 333.0 111.2 116.5 61* 4ial/a7 ff PHRSf II N5458E8%5 3 342.0 121.9 126.0 6-3 4ma7 CF PHWII WE9040 4 3-35.8 114.6 116.5 63s 4/02/87 SF MaE I N4980 E89a5 5 331.0 1al.a 104.0 64s 4187187 CF PlHE II N%a E9115 5 337.8 187.2 104.0 65 4187187 n F-WISE II N3515 E9145 4 341.0 .a 116.5 66t 4/M/87 ff PH IIICISTW N525R E92Z 6 343.8 119.2 121.8 67+ 4/10/87 CF ffl IIICISTRN N5255 E922a 6 345.8 111.5 121.8 60s 4116187 a PHRSE II N5725 E9240 3 340.0 120.6 126.0 69" 4116187 CF W(RSE II ~5525 Ea995 2 337.8 Ill.8 119.5 7%+ 4116187 a ME II N5705 E9115 2 340.0 118.2 119.5 71~ 4117187 CF COMITY CHTR ~5255 ~9270 7 347.8 107.2 120.0 724 4/17/87 a COWI'TY CNTR ~5255 ~9260 7 347.a 103.3 120.0 MISNREIL) RELATIVE FXNARKS FIELD OPT mTIoN (%I !:.a 13.5 97. 15.6 13.8 99. 17.5 13.8 98. 16.8 IO.a 96. 14.5 13.5 95. 14.0 13.5 98. 19.8 14.0 97. 13.4 1a.a 98. 12.4 10-B l@. 13.9 le.8 96. 15.2 14.0 99. 14.5 14.0 95. 17.4 ma 97. 17.6 14.8 98. 19.2 la.8 97. 22.7 1a.a lee. 17.9 i4.a a. WoIsni~ TEST 0M.Y 11.6 12.8 9% 12.8 12.8 92. 17.8 la.0 96. 15.6 13.0 94. 17.2 13.8 92. 11.7 12.5 89. RITEsTEn ON TEST No 72 11.7 12.5 91. RETEsTa TEST No 71 -- - - - - - PROJECTNMBER : @50373* SUWlYIRY OF FiELD DSNSITV TESTS ME 4 PROJECT NME : CALGVERA HILLS PARK SITE MF. PLATES 1 MI 2) TEST TEST TEST TEST LKRTIW SOIL ELEV OR No DRTE OF TYPE DEPTH (FEET, 73~ 4117187 CF FIRE STRTIM ~5710 E927a 7 345.0 74~ 4117187 a PwsE II N5595 Ea960 7 339.8 7% 4120187 CZ FIRE STRiION NE.670 E9135 7 343.8 76" 4121187 ff WRSE II N547a E912a 7 343.8 77^ 4122187 CF wm Ii ~5555 Ea935 7 342.8 7aA 4ma7 ff FIRE STATIM ~5685 E934a 7 348.8 79^ 4122187 cF WRSE II N5588 E92la 7 346.0 aa^ 4123187 CF WE II N5470 E%U 7 344.8 al” 4123187 CF FIRE STR PRD t&6658 E9270 7 347.8 a2t 4127187 CF FIRE STR wu) Wla E927a 7 349.0 83 4127187 EF FIRE SIR PM N5690 E92%3 7 351.0 a4r 4128187 FG FIRE STA PRD N57la ~9317 7 352.8 B5* 4/28/87 F6 FIRE STR PRD N5625 E92a0 7 352.8 ffir 4128187 F6 FIRE STR FUD N5685 E9335 7 a.0 87" 5128187 F6 MT M @lC6 N4955 EB389 7 344.6 w 5/2a/a7 a REST Ibl Bu)G N4975 EB315 7 343.8 a9 6117187 n PwlsE II Ii5642 ESlJB 3 3388 98 6117187 n PH4% II N559s E8998 3 339.8 9i* a/25/87 ~6 NU rnkw N5600 E9015 3 344.8 IW‘ a/23/a7 ~6 miwi SIDE ~5635 ~9885 3 345.0 93^ 812512.7 SF U FIRE STA N5698 E9230 7 349.8 94~ am/a7 SF NORTHSLOPE ~5695E9m 7 336.8 95~ a/25/87 g NORM SLOPE ~5 ~902s 7 339.8 96t am/a7 ~6 cm CTR PRD ~5158 m-15 7 349.0 DRY DENSIPCF) mIsTuiw%I ~TIVE ilENi%S FIN) HRX FIELD OPT KWGCTION 189.6 120.B 14.4 12.5 109.i 120.0 12.9 12.5 116.5 120.0 14.2 12.5 188.3 120.0 13.4 12.5 111.7 120.0 15.3 12.5 116.6 ma 14.7 12.5 lie.8 128.0 15.7 12.5 187.8 120.8 14.8 12.5 led.5 128.8 14.3 12.5 112.5 128.0 15.7 12.5 115.9 120.B 16.2 12.5 118.4 128.0 14.3 12.5 109.2 MB.8 15.5 12.5 114.1 ma 14.7 12.5 111.5 120.8 13.4 12.5 110.2 ma 13.0 12.5 .a 126.a 14.1 la.0 .B 126.0 16.4 I0.B 120.0 126.0 7.8 1a.a 117.5 126.8 a.7 ia. 109.3 120.0 11.4 12.5 109.8 120.8 11.4 12.5 111.8 120.0 12.4 12.5 114.9 120.8 9.8 12.5 Ii) 91. 91. 97. 90. 93. 97. 92. 89. 90. 94. 97. 93. 91. 95. 93. 9-2. 0. 0. 95. 93. 91. 91. 93. 96. NINIMJM 85% SLKIVE QW. mIsTurtf TEST OKY m1sTLlRE TEST OKV _- - - - .- - - - - SJWRY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Pt%E5 PROJECTNUllBER:8858373-M PROJECT NAME : CRLRVERR HILLS PARK SITE (SEE PLRTES 1 AND 2) TEST TEST TEST TEST LOCRTIffl SOIL ELEV OR DRY lKNS(PW IYIISJJREW RELRTIVE REMUS Nu DRTE OF TYPE UEP?H FIELD WX FIRD OPT CWFCTION (FEET) I!.) 971 a/25/87 ~6 rm CTR PRD ~35 E9205 4 349.0 :05.2 116.5 11.4 14.8 90. 98s 8/25/87 FG CM CTR PAD N5215 E9290 4 349.0 118.7 116.5 11.7 14.0 93. SUIW\RY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS WE1 PROJECT tGi%ER : 8858373-88 PROJECT NJW : CRWVERR HliLS PRRRK SITE - LNDERGROLiND TESTS ISEE PLRTE 3) TEST No TEST iES1 D(ITE OF iEST iBXTIffl SOIL REV OR iVPE DEPTH (FEET) a 346.8 a 34a.e 6 33.8 7 3-x.8 3 339.8 6 339.8 3 332.8 3 X6.0 4 342.8 4 342.0 4 342.a 6 327.8 6 310.a 6 318.0 6 309.0 6 319.0 4 328.8 DRY oENs(PCF) )IoiSTUfiE(~J RESTIVE RBiARHS FiEW M(IX FIE!J OPT COUPFICTION 135.9 129.0 la.6 a.a 141.2 139.0 8.6 a.8 114.4 12l.a 13.1 12.8 115.8 128.0 13.3 12.5 116.3 126.0 13.3 10.0 114.3 121.8 12.7 12.8 117.6 126.0 14.2 10.0 116.1 126.0 19.0 10.0 Ma.1 116.5 14.3 14.0 119.2 116.5 15.9 14.8 111.8 116.5 15.6 14.0 110.5 121.8 12.1 12.0 185.9 121.8 11.9 12.8 120.3 i2i.a 15.5 12.8 116.3 121.8 14.2 12.8 113.1 121.0 14.8 12.8 110.5 116.5 13.8 14.8 1%) 98. lee. 95. 96. 92. 94. 93. 92. 86. 188. 95. 91. ea. 99. 96. 93. 95. K+i* m-2* O-l? D-2* S-l? S-3 s-3* - s-4* s-5* .- S-6* - .- - s-71 s-a+ s-9 s-la* s-11* s-12* s-131 9/02/87 AR NW3 E9390 9/02/87 ~8 4/09/87 so rma7 SD 4x8187 SM 4189187 sn 4109187 SM 4m/a7 SN 4189ia7 sn 4wa7 sn 4m/a7 mu 4ma7 sn 4wa7 sm 4ma7 SN 4mva7 sll 4/l0/87 sn 4113187 6u N5007 E9512 sEEPLRTE3 SEE PLRTE 3 STRTION jr611 SiATION 3% STRTIffl 1~75 STRTION 2+28 STRTIW 4168 STRTION 4t40 STRTION 6t6S STATION I+30 STRTION 0t50 STRTION 0+40 STRTION 0+&W STRTION 0+60 STRTIW 0+78 RETESTED ON TESTNO 6 RETEST OF TESTHO 5 RETESTED ON TESTK! 10 RETEST OF TESTW 9 - - - -. APPENDIX C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :E! NO - 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - MTE 987 - g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 g/2 9/2 g/2 - LOCATION ELEV. Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* -1" Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* Phase I Finish Parking Grade Lot* Phase I Finish Parking Grade , ot* *See Map, Plate 3 FEID DENSITV bc0 133.1 137.3 134.5 134.2 134.7 131.6 135.5 132.4 132.5 133.0 133.5 THEORETICAL MAXMUM DENSITV bc0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 RELATIVE TYPE o OWACTION TEST (ASTM) 96 D2922-8 98 D2922-8 97 D2922-8 97 D2922-8 97 D2922-8 95 D2922-8 97 02922-8 96 D292i-8 95 D2922-8 96 D2922-8 95 D2922-8 FR ,l 81 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EMARK CALAVERA HILLS/PARK SITE SUMMARY OF ASPH CONCRETE DENSITY TESTS