The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3598; MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1999-06-28Immmomml HIIiti 1IIIIIJI UHIlIuiii!ii IrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LJIIIIIIIIIIIlIIl FiIIIIIHIHIIIH iliIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Very truly vours Paul Dunster RG 6761 PD:AS:DFL:dmc (4) Addressee I(NO. 22527. * E 12131/01kp- clvx * Luf 11778 \cf) I CERTIFIED cp ENGINEERING ' .A GEOLOGIST 08/31/99 Op C • ( EDGi PAUL (./ OUNSTER cr NO. 6761 IPA op 6960 Flanders Drive E San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (619) 558-6900 U Fax (619) 558-6159 I GEOCON I INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS I Project No. 06076-12-01 June 28, 1999 I Rick Engineering Company I 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110-2596 I Attention: Mr. Kai Ramer I CARLSBAD, Subject: MELROSE,DRIVE EXTENSION CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION I Gentlemen: I I I I I.. I I I I . I. I In accordance with our Proposal No. LG-97441 and your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical investigation of the proposed Melrose Drive Extension in Carlsbad, California. The proposed Melrose Drive Extension will extend from its present terminus at Palomar Airport Road northward to the Vista city limits for a distance of approximately 1,800 feet. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the roadway as presently proposed. Provided the recommendations of this report are followed, the site is considered suitable for roadway development as currently planned. If you should have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE-AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................... SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.......................................................................................I SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................ ............................................... 2 3.1 Undocumented Fill (unmapped) ...................................... .................................................... 2 3.2 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) ......... . ...................................................................................... 2 3.3 Topsoil (unmapped) ...................... . ........................................................................................ 2 3.4 Alluvium (Qal) ....................................................... ............................................................... 2 3.5 Delmar Formation (Td) ................................... ...................................................................... 3 3.6 Granitic Rock of the Southern California Batholith (Kgr) ..................................................3 3.7 Geologic Structure .............................. . ................... ............................................................. 4 GROUNDWATER. . ..4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ........... . ......................................... ........................................ . ........... 4 5.2 Liquefaction ..... . .................................................................................................................... 5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................5 6.1 Slope Stability ............................................................................. ..... ....................................... 5 6.2 Alluvium Settlement .................................................................................. .... ....................... 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................8 7.1 General ............................................................................................. . .................................... 8 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics .....................................................................................8 7.3 Groundwater .............................................................. . .................................... . ....................... 9 7.4 Grading... ................................................................................................................... . ......... 9 7.5 Cut Slopes ........................................................................................................................... 10 7.6 Fill Slopes ........................................................................................................................... 11 7.7 Settlement Considerations .................................................................................................. 11 7.8 Earthwork Grading Factors ................................................................................................. 12 7.9 Preliminary Pavement Section .................... .......................................................................13 7.10 Slope Maintenance ................................. ........................................................ . ..................... 13 7.11 Drinage................................................................................................................................. .14 7.12 Grading Plan Review ........................................................................................................... 14 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map (Map Pocket) Figure 3, Geologic Cross-Section .A-A' Figure 4, Geologic Cross-Section B-B' Figure 5,Fill Slope Stability Analysis Figure 6, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis Figure 7, Typical Buttress Detail Figure 8, Settlement Monument I FIELD APPENDIX A INVESTIGATION Figure.A-1—A-11, Logs. of Borings I Figure. A-12, Logs of Trench APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING I . Table .13-1, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results Table B-Il, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results . I . Table B-Ill, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-IV, Summary of R-Value Test Results Figure B-i, Gradation Curve I . Figures B-2—B-3, Consolidation Curves Figures B-4—B-6, Time Rate of Settlement Curves I APPENDIX C EQFAUILT COMPUTER ANALYSIS 1 Table C-I, Soil Strength Parameters APPENDIXD S I S RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS .. . I I I: I I I I I I 1 I I I. 1 I I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Melrose Drive Extension. The proposed extension is located north of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive's current terminus northward to the Vista city limits, in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this report was to evaluate surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions and, based on those conditions, provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of improving the roadway as proposed. The scope of this geotechnical investigation consisted of performing a geologic reconnaissance, excavating 1 backhoe trench, 2 small-diameter boreholes and 4 large-diameter boreholes, and geologic mapping. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Logs of the exploratory excavations are presented in Appendix A. The scope also included a review of an improvement map entitled Alignment Study Melrose Drive Alternative B, prepared by Rick Engineering Company, (undated). Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate pertinent physical properties. Details of the field investigation and laboratory tests are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. The recommendations presented herein are based upon an analysis of observations during this investigation, results of laboratory tests, data analysis and experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS The proposed Melrose Drive Extension is located in Carlsbad, California and consists of approximately 1,800 feet of future roadway. The alignment is bounded to the north and south by existing segments of Melrose Drive and extends through property currently utilized for agriculture and off-road motorcycle events. Topographically the southern portion of the alignment rises to a rounded hilltop that slopes steeply I downhill to the north into an east-northeasterly draining tributary canyon. This canyon is drained underneath the existing Melrose Drive segment (within the City of Vista) to a west-draining creek. I The site ranges in elevation from a high of approximately 475 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) to a low of 310 feet MSL. The hill drains in all directions. Site vegetation generally consists of native weeds, I . Project No. 06076-12-01 - I - June 28, 1999 I I grasses, scattered trees and bushes. Some of the property is presently being cultivated. Fences, crops, debris, dirt roads, motorcycle race tracks, and overhead power lines were observed on the property. I. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS I Four surficial soil types and two geologic formations underlie the roadway alignment. The surficial units include undocumented fill, previously placed fill, topsoil, and alluvium. The formational units I encountered include the Eocene-aged Delmar Formation and granitic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. The soil types and geologic formations are discussed below in order of increasing age. 3.1 Undocumented Fill (unmapped) Undocumented fill was not observed in the exploratory excavations but may exist. This is common where agricultural activities may have masked the presence of such soils It is also apparent that some I earthwork has occui-red as a result of maintaining, the off-road motorcycle race track. All undocumented fill in areas of planned improvements should be removed and properly recompacted. 1 3.2 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) I .Previously placed compacted fill was encountered in the exploratory trench, T-1, at the toe of the embankment below the existing segment of Melrose Drive at the northern end .of the project. The placement and compaction characteristics of this fill were described by R. Prater and Associates in a I report entitled Earthwork Observation, Testing and As-Built Geology Services, Oak Ridge Business Center III, Vista, California, August 23, 1991, (personal communication with Rudy Shabec, City of I Vista, June 1 1999 ). The fill encountered during this investigation generally consists of medium dense, moist, silty and clayey, fine sand with some cobbles. 3.3 Topsoil (unmapped) I Topsoils 'thickness of. 1 to 3 feet generally blanket much of the roadway alignment and consist of loose to firm, dry to damp, sandy and clayey silt. Topsoils are considered unsuitable in their present condition and will require complete removal and recompaction. I 34 ., Alluvium (Qal) I Alluvial materials were encountered within the natural drainage canyon that flows east-northeasterly at the northern extent of the road extension The alluvium generally consists of soft to medium dense, I wet to saturated, porous, silty and clayey sand, and sandy clay. Observations of the alluvium from the small-diameter borings indicate that the alluvium is at least 21 feet thick. Areas of deeper alluvium may occur within this valley.. The alluvium in its present condition is compressible. Alluvial deposits Project No. 06076-12-01 - 2 - June 28, 1999 I I typically consolidate when subjected to an increase in vertical loading such as would result from filling or the placement of structural improvements Improvements planned for areas underlain by alluvial I deposits will require special consideration such as settlement monitoring, surcharge fills and removal and recompaction of those soils not affected by the presence of groundwater. 3.5 Delmar Formation (Td) The Eocene-aged Delmar Formation unconformably overlies the Granitic Rocks of the Southern California Batholith and is exposed, at the surface over much of the site. The ,Delmar Formation, consists primarily of interbedded silty sandstone, sandstone, claystone, and siltstones The sandstone I units are generally, 3 to 25 feet thick, massively to thinly bedded and moderately cemented Cementation, however, can vary from highly cemented, drill-resistant, concretionary beds 1 to 3 feet I thick to slightly cemented zones and occasional layers where the material is nearly, cohesionless Scattered, poorly defined, undulatory laminae also occur. The claystone and siltstone units are I generally thick to very thick and are laminated in places. Some laminae exhibit smooth, polished surfaces and/or remolded and shearedmaterial. A review of data from 'the exploratory borings indicates that "bedding plane shear" features are present within the Delmar Formation These features will adversely, impact the stability of the proposed I roadway cut slopes and require remediation In addition, cut slopes exposing siltstones and claystones increase the risk of surficial instability and will require mitigation by construction of a stability fill. MM It is anticipated that the majority of the' excavation within this Unit can be accomplished with conventional, moderate to heavy-duty grading equipment. Heavy ripping will be. required for excavations in localized areas of highly cemented concretionary beds Some oversized cemented chunks may be generated. Any oversized material (i.e., material greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension) will require special handling and placement as recommended hereinafter. Typically, the sandstone' members, of the Delmar. Formation, possesses, moderate R-Value characteristics for the 'roadway in either an undisturbed. and/or properly compacted condition. The claystone and siltstone portions of the formation, however, are generally weaker, moderately to highly expansive and exhibit very low R-Value characteristics In general, highly expansive soils should be placed in deeper fill areas and away from the face of slope. 1 3.6 Granitic Rock of the Southern California Batholith (Kgr) I Granitic rock was encountered in the exploratory excavations beneath theçsurficial soils in the canyon at the north end of the alignment and in.an outcrop in the same vicinity. In general, the granitic rock Project No. 06076-12-01 . :3 ' ' June 28, 1999 I I encountered was completely weathered, and should be excavatable with conventional heavy-duty equipment where encountered. I 3.7 Geologic Structure I The geologic structure of the site is characterized as a gently southwestwardly-dipping to horizontal series of Eocene sediments lying unconformably on granitic basement rock. Due to the shallow-dipping I and undulatory nature of the sediments, it is difficult to accurately, predict the outcrop pattern that will: result following construction of the proposed cut slopes. A significant structural aspect of the sedimentary rocks is the occurrence of bedding-plane shears in the Delmar Foriiation. These ancient I shear zones are characterized by soft clay gouge zones that vary from approximately 1/16 inch to 8 inches thick and/or planer, smooth and polished planes. The significance of these features and measures to mitigate their potential adverse effects on graded slopes are discussed hereinafter; 4. GROUNDWATER Shallow groundwater was observed within the alluvium at the northern end of the proposed roadway I extension The exploratory excavations encountered groundwater at depths varying from ,6 to 11 feet below ground surface Surface water was observed flowing toward the existing culvert below I Melrose Drive, north of the alignment. The subsurface water levels should be expected to vary widely depending on the antecedent rainfall. . Seepage was observed in Borehole LB-4 at a depth of 52 feet. Similar, localized seeps should be expected at shear zones, geologic contacts and joints. 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity A review of geologic literature, experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the general area, and observations during the field investigation indicate that no active faults are lOcated at the site. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 8.2 miles west of the site. Maximum Credible and Maximum Probable seismic events of Magnitude 6.90 and Magnitude 5.70, respectively, are postulated forthe Rose Canyon Fault Zone. I The estimated Maximum Credible and Maximum Probable peak site accelerations are 0.41 g and 0.23 g, respectively. The maximum effective ground motion, however, is estimated to be I . approximately, 0.28 g for the same seismic event. The effective ground motion is associated with the significant part of the ground motion containing repetitive motions that possess strong energy content and that produce structural deformation. It has been estimated by Ploessel and Slosson (1974) that I Project No. 06076-12-91 . -4 - . June 28, 1999 effective ground acceleration is equal to approximately 65 to 70 percent of the peak ground motion for earthquakes within 20 miles of a site. Seismic parameters for some other regional faults capable of generating ground acceleration at the site are summarized below. TABLE 5.1 DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULTS Fault Name Distance From Site (miles) Maximum Credible Event Maximum Probable Event Maximum Credible (Mag.) Peak Site Acceleration (g) Maximum Probable (Mag.). Peak Site Acceleration (g) Rose Canyon -. 8.2 6.90 0.41 5.70 0.23 Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 11 6.90 0.34 5.80 0.19 Elsinore-Julian 22 7.10 0.21 6.40 0.14 Elsinore-Temecula 22 6.80 0.17 6.30 0.13 Coronado Bank 24 7.40 0.22 6.30 0.11 Elsinore-Glen Ivy 36 6.80 0.10 6:30 0.07 Earthquake Valley 39 6.50 0.07 5.70 0.04 It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the above mentioned faults, however, the seismic risk at the site is not considered: to be significantly different than that of the surrounding developments of similar geologic settings in the Carlsbad area. 5.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs in loose cohesionless soils located below the water table that are subjected to large accelerations during strong earthquakes. The alluvial, soils present within the drainage course at the north end of the proposed roadway is mostly clayey in nature with some medium dense layers of sand. A review of the blow counts and densities of these materials shown on the small-diameter- boring logs indicafes a low potential for liquefaction. 6. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Slope Stability i . The results of the field investigation indicate the presence of adverse geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed cut slopes illustrated on the Melrose Drive Alignment Study Plans, Figure 2. The adverse geologic conditions encountered iiëlude remolded bedding-plane shears, weak clay strata, and adversely dipping geologic contacts Project No. 06076-12-01 June 28, 1999 1 I Slope stability analyses of these slopes was performed utilizing the SLOPE/W computer program and parameters shown in Table C-I. The results of the analyses are presented in Appendix C. The cut slopes are located between approximate Stations 47+00 and 59+50 of the proposed Melrose ' Drive Extension. The grading plans (Figure 2) indicate a maximum cut-slope height of approximately 55 feet. Figure 3 presents a geologic cross-section through the slopes. The projected data from the exploratory borings indicate the presence of adverse conditions within the west-facing cut slopes. I However, due to the undulatory nature of the bedding-plane shears and experience with similar conditions encountered with the Rancho Carrillo project, located just south of the project site, the I adverse conditions may also present within the north-facing slope. Drained buttress fills are recommended for the slopes due to the presence of bedding plane shear features as observed in large- diameter Boring Nos. LB-2 and LB-4. Shallow dipping to horizontal bedding-plane shears were I observed between approximate elevations of 390 to 410 feetMSL. The buttresses should be at least 40 feet wide at the bottom. It should be recognized that remedial grading involves the risk of failure of the temporary backcut I .during grading due to the high variability of geologic conditions. These uncertain conditions include the variable strength of the different material types within the formation and also variable hydrostatic pressures within the formation. - The, details of mitigation measures, including temporary backcut, shear key configurations, and phased grading, are described in the Conclusions and Recommendations section. R' 6.2 Alluvium Settlement Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, total removal and recompaction of the alluvial soils is I .. not practical and alluvium will be left in place. The area underlying the proposed alignment of. Melrose Drive that will be affected by, the compressibility of the alluvial soils not removed is located at the northern portion of the alignment. The amount of settlement that could occur is a function of thickness and compressibility of the layers within the alluvial deposits and depends upon the magnitude of additional vertical loading resulting from placement of fill and/or structures. The grading plan, indicates that a maximum of 45 feet of fill will be' placed in some- portions of the. proposed fill embankment. Data from Boring Nos. SB-i and SB-2 indicate that approximately 15 feet of compressible alluvium will be left in place in this area. Based on our analyses,, the total amount of theoretical settlement that could be expected is. approximately 5 to 7 inches, at the vicinity of the small-diameter borings. However, based on experience with similar materials, the actual settlement may be 20 to 30 percent less than the Project No. 06076-12-01 -6- ' ' June 28, 1999 I. •0 I calculated seftlët. Under the load imposed by fill planned to achieve, proposed wade, the time required for 'primary settlement in this area is estimated to be 20 to 4 months. This area should be I instrumented and monitored as described below to determine when primary, settlement has occurred and improvementscan be installed. 0I0 •0 .10 010 :1. ii 1 0 0 0 • 1. 0 J O 0 •O. . 0 I 0 Project No. 06076-12-01 June 28, 1999 :1 1. 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 7.1 General .1 7.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered during this geotechnical investigation I Drive performed by Geocon Incorporated that would preclude the proposed extension of Melrose that the recommendations of this report are followed provided I 7.1.2 The surficial soils such as the undocumented fill, topsoil, and upper 5 feet of alluvium within planned improvement areas will require remedial grading in the form of removal and recompaction Also any debris, existing structures, and trash encountered will need to I be removed and disposed off-site. I 7.1.3 'Large chunks of cemented sandstone may be generated during grading and will require special handling and in fill areas. placement 7.1.4 Buttress fills and shear keys will be required to stabilize the proposed cut slopes I not 7.1.5 Some portions of the proposed roadway embankMent are underlain by alluvial soils that are due praëtical to remove to the presence of shallow groundwater. These areas will be subject to a time-dependent settlement. I 7.2 Soil and Excavation Charaàteristics I 7.2.1 The soil conditions encountered varied from low expansive sands to highly expansive silty • clays derived from the Delmar Formation and alluvium. These clayey materials are highly I expansive and in general should not be placed as fill in the outer 15 feet of any fill slope face and/or within 3 feet of finish fill grade. Claystone material should be placed in the deeper portions of fill areas away from the slope zone or mixed with sandy soils to yield an 1 Expansion Index of less than 90. 1 7.2.2 . It is anticipated that the surficial deposits can be excavated with light effort using conventional heavy duty grading equipment. A moderate to heavy effort is expected for I'. excavations within the formational sedimentary and granitic units. Oversize materials in the form of cemented chunksand/or slabs of sandstone may be generated during excavation of portions of the Delmar Formation. Oversize rock or slabs should be broken so that no rock I fragments greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension are placed in fills. Oversized rocks should be placed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in I • Appendix D. It is recommended that prior to beginning grading, acceptable areas and methods of rock disposal be designated and reserved for the, placement of rock as it is encountered. , I • Project No. 06076.1201 • -8- .. . .June 28, 1999 I 1 7.3 Groundwater 7.3.1 Groundwater was encountered within the canyon 'alluvial deposits at depths' ranging I between 6 to ii feet: Seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater 'depth should be expected. Saturated or overly moist, excavated alluvial soils will require drying and/or mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction. 1' , Grading 7.4.1 All 'grading should be performed in accordance with the' Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix D and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those in Appendix D, the recommendations 'of this section take precedence. All earthwork should, be observed and all fills tested for proper compaction by Geocon Incorporated. - 7.4.2 Prior to 'commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or developer, grading contractor,' civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 7.4.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing structures, debris, vegetation, I' and all deleterious material. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill are relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition shouli be exported from the site. 7.4.4 All compressible surficial soil deposits (undocumented fill and topsoil) within areas: of planned grading should be removed to firm natural ground and properly -compacted prior to placing additional fill and/or structural loads. In addition the upper portion of previously placed fill should be excavated' or scarified to a sufficient depth to expose well-compacted 'fill with optimum moisture content. 1 7.4.5 The alluvium below structural fill areas should be removed to approximately 3 feet above the groundwater level and replaced as properly compacted fill. I . 7.4.6 The actual extent of unsuitable soil removals will be determined in the field during grading I by the soil engineer and/or, engineering geologist Overly wet surficial soils will require drying and/or mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction 1 7.4.7 After removal of unsuitable materials as recommended above is performed, the site should then be brought to final subgraäe elevations with structural fill placed and compacted in 1 -- Project No. 06076-12-01 ' - 9 - ' June 28, 1999 Li I layers. Prior to placing fill, the exposed natural ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted. In general, soils native to I the site are suitable for use as fill if free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and I compaction. All, fill, including scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D-1557-91, at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Fill materials with in-place '1 density test results indicating moisture contents less. than optimum may require additional .. - moisture conditioning. . ; . ... 7.4.8 Oversize cemented sandstone chunks (defined as material greater than 12 inches in nominal dimension) will likely be generated during grading within the Delmar Formation. 1 Placement of oversize materials within fills should, be performed in accordance with the recommendations in Appendix D. 7.4.9 Grading operations should be scheduled to permit the placement of oversized rock. and expansive soils (if encountered) in the deeper fills. Oversized rock should be placed at least 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepestutility, whichever is greater. 7.4.10 Grading operations should consider capping the roadway subgrade with 3 feet of granular, soils.'This should provide higher R-Value subgrade soils which would reduce the required pavement section. 7.5 . Cut Slopes 7.5.1 It is recommended that drained buttress fills be constructed on both sides of the roadway 'I for the proposed cut slopes shown on Figure 2 and the Geologic Cross-Section A-A' on Figure 3 The buttress should be constructed for the entire length of the proposed cut slopes between approximate Stations 47+00 and 59+50, with a minimum width of 40 feet at the bottom of the shear key. 7.5.2 Therefore, it is recommended that the backcut slopes be carefully observed and logged I during the excavation by an engineering geologist to confirm that the size of the buttress fill is adequate.. Ii 7.5.3 The proposed buttresses and shear key fill materials shOuld be approved by the soil engineer prior to placement. A typical buttress fill configuration, including the recommended drainage system is presented in Figure 7. Hi E Project No. 06076-12-01 - 10- June 28, 1999 I 1 7.5.4 It should benoted that, due to the variable nature of the Delmar Formation, localized slope instability of the temporary backcut of the shear key excavation could occur. The risk of instability of the temporary cut slopes may be reduced by flattening the slope of the backcut and/or constructing the shear-key in segments. Those portions of the slope which become activated will likely require complete removal and replacement with properly 1 compacted fill soil. 1. 7.6 Fill Slopes 7.6.1 The outer 15 feet of fill slopes, measured horizontal to the slope face, should be composed I of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the potential for surface sloughing. In general, soils with an Expansion Index of less than 90 will be acceptable. 7.6.2 All fill slopes should be-overbuilt at least 3 feet horizontally, and cut to the design finish. grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by back-rolling at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walking with a D-8 dozer, or equivalent, upon completion such that the fill soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction to the face of the finished slope. 7.6.3 All slopes shOuld be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion; 7.6.4 Slope stability analysis utilizing average drained direct shear strength parameters based on I laboratory tests and experience with similar soil types in nearby areas indicates that the proposed 'fill slopes; constructed of on-site materials, should have calculated factors of I safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions for both deep-seated 'failure and shallow sloughing conditions. Deep-seated slope stability and surficial slope stability calculations are presented on Figures 5 and 6. I .7.7 Settlement Considerations 7.7.1 Prior to the completion of the roadway embankment over the alluvium area, at least two settlement monuments should be installed as depicted on Figure 8 The location of the J monuments, should generally, be along the center line of the roadway and beyond the area of future underground improvements. It is recommended that, at the bottom of the cleanout; steel plates (4'x4'xl/2") be placed and the top surface surveyed prior to backfilling. Crushed rock should be placed above and below the plates. The plates and gravel should be I . located within a 2-foot-deep pit excavated at the bottom, of the cleanout to permit backfilling the area without disturbing the plate. Project No. 06076-12-01 ' - 11 - . ' June 28, 1999 I 1 Subsequent to achieving grade, the location of each plate will be drilled and the plated "tagged" to enable surveying the elevation and to measure settlement which occurred .I during placement of embankment fill. Surface monuments will then be set and utilized for further, settlement surveying Surveying should continue on a weekly basis to characterize the settlement/time. response of the alluvial settlement. It is recommended that, when I essentially no additional settlement is measured over 4 consecutive weekly readings, primary consolidation will be considered complete and further site development may 'I proceed. 7.7.2 A licensed surveyor should be retained to monitor the vertical elevation of the monuments I to the nearest 0.005. foot on a weekly basis for at least 4 weeks or until primary consolidation of the saturated alluvial deposits has occurred Geocon Incorporated should I be provided with the weekly readings to, determine when primary consolidation is complete. 1 7.7.3 The construction of settlement sensitive improvements, such as underground pipelines, should be delayed over the alluvium area until primary consolidation of the alluvium has I occurred. This time period has been estimated to be '2 to 4 months after the completion of the roadway embankment. 7.8 Earthwork Grading Factors 7.8.1 Estimates of embankment shrink-swell factors are based on comparing laboratory compaction tests with 'the density of the material in its natural state and experience with I . similar soil types. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as well as in compacted fill, render shrinkage value estimates, very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact fills to any relative compaction of 90 percent or higher of the 1 . laboratory maximum dry density. Thus, the contractor has at least a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume Based on our experience and laboratory testing in similar , geologic materials, the following earthwork factors may' be used as a basis for estimating how, much the on-site soils may shrink or swell when removed from their natural state and placed in compacted fills. 1 . TABLE 7.8 Soils Unit , . Shrink-Swell Factors Topsoils, Colluvium, Alluvium, Undocumented Fill Soil 5% to 10% Shrinkage Delmar Formation , . . 5% to 10% Bulk M i. Project No. 06076-12-01 -12- . . • June 28, 1999 I Preliminary Pavement Section 7.9.1 R-value tests performed on material derived from the Delmar Formation, indicate that the sandy portionof the Delmar Formation possesses an R-Value of 37 and the clayey portion an R-Value of less than 5. Based on an assumption that the roadway will be capped with granular soils, an assumed R-Value of 30 was used to evaluate a preliminary pavement section. A Traffic Index (TI) of 9 has been assumed for Melrose Drive. Utilizing the California Flexible Pavement Design procedure, and the City of Carlsbad minimum requirements, the pavement section presented in Table 7.9 was determined. It should be noted that the pavement section is preliminary. The final pavement recommendations will be provided for City of Carlsbad approval after finish subgrade is achieved and R-Value tests are performed on the actual subgrade soils. It should also be noted that where the subgrade soils exhibit an R-Value of less than 12, the City of Carlsbad requires lime stabilization of the subgrade. TABLE 7.9 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS Class 2 Location Assumed Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Traffic Index (inches) (inches) MelroseDrive 9 • 6 12 7.9.2 Base course material should consist of Class 2 Aggregate Base and be properly moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum relative compaction (ASTM D1557-91) of 95 percent. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should also be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. 7.9.. Class 2 Aggregate Base and asphalt concrete should confoim to City of Carlsbad Standards. 7.10 Slope Maintenance 7.10.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent, on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excess,ive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope, planting, may Project No. 06076-12-01 - 13- June 28, 1999 Ii p I I I I I .- I 1 1 I I also be a. significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recom- mended that, to the maximum extent practical (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude pondmg or erosion It should be noted that although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. 7.11 Drainage 7 11 1 Establishing proper drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage Positive measures should be taken to properly finish grade the improvements so that drainage water is directed away from pavement and the tops of slopes into controlled drainage devices. Experience has shown that even with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface condition can and may develop in areas where no such condition existed prior to site development This is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape irrigation. 7.12- Grading Plan Review .7.12.1 The geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the necessity for additional comments, recommendations and/or analysis Project No. 06076-12-01 - 14 - June 28, 1999 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or Of his representative,, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein' are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps 'are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and 'should not be relied upon after a period of three years.' Project No. 06076-12-01 ' ' . June 28, 1999 ' I 7 I 'ct i8 s 'TA PS NY -; / NE 13 1400 .__ar , .: P) " :L i!!° I 0 2800 : ell 1.r92OSI N-- CT C RLSBAB RANCH PARK 19 LA ELPATO I . 23 2SO ? . ,. Si CA le,4 FU Nip 700i Ll 0 xw loz ZODIAC ' D I N SOURCE: 1999 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. . I THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION NO SCALE GEOCON Aft INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PD/RSS DSK/E000D VICMAP VICINITY MAP MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA DATE 06-28-1999 PROJECT NO. 06076- 12-01 1 FIG. I LEGEND Td........DELMAR FORMATION LB-3 APPROX. LOCATION OF LARGE DIAMETER BORING GE000N 0 INCORPORATED GEOTECIINICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE . SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121.2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PROJECT NO. 06076- 12- 01 FIGURE 3 DATE 06-28-1999 5 6076PD / RSS MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA A 550'-n m AV1r 550' PROPOSED GRADE MELROSE DRIVE LB-3 .. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE (PROJECTED) LB-4 II (PROJECTED) (PROJECTED) IL . Td <$fr Td ? Td 4 MIN 40 MIN :BEDDING~P~LANE SHEARS (SEE FIG. 7) (SEE FIG. 7) (TYPICAL) Td -500' I 450' I -400' I - 350' CROSS-SECTION A-A' - 300' SCALE: 1=50 (HORIZ.VERT) -11 MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA B 450' -. 400- Z 350'- 0 250'- 200'- PROPOSED GRADE MELROSE DRIVE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - ---------------------------- --------------- Kgr (PROJ?CTED) (PROJECTED) APPROX. DEPTH OF REMOVAL Kgr CROSS-SECTION B -B' SCALE: 1"=50' (HORIZ. = VERT) Bf 450' 400' 350' Qal 300' Kgr 250' 200' ?----- Qal - 5 6076PD1 I RSS LEGEND Qal ........ ALLUVIUM it Kgr ........ GRANITIC ROCK SB-I .........APPROX. LOCATION OF SMALL DIAMETER BORING GEOCON 6 INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121.2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 . FAX 619 558-6159 PROJECT NO. 06076 - 12 - 01 FIGURE 4 DATE 06-28-1999 OJECT NO. 06076-12-01 ASSUMED CONDITIONS: Slope Height Slope Inclination Total Unit Weight of Soil Angle of Internal Friction Apparent Cohesion No Seepage Forces H = 45 feet 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical) = 130 pounds per cubic foot 4) = 25 degrees C = 300 pounds per square foot ANALYSIS: 7c4 = yH tand Equation (3-3);Reference 1 C FS = Equation (3-2), Reference 1 yH yco = 8.04. Calculated Using Eq. (3-3) Ncf = 30 Determined Using Figure 10, Reference 2 FS = 1.54 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2) REFERENCES: Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics, Series No. 46, 1954. Janbu, N., Discussion of J.M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal of Soil Mechanics-and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967. FILL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURES I . I PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 ASSUMED CONDITIONS: Slope Height H = Infinite . Depth of Saturation Z = 3 feet Slope Inclination . 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical) Slope Angle . . i = 26.5 degrees Unit Weight of Water 7w =. 62.4 pounds per cubic foot Total Unit Weight of Soil y,= 130 pounds per cubic foot Angle of Internal Friction = .. 25 degrees. Apparent Cohesion C = 300 pounds per square foot Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face. Seepage forces parallel to slope face FS = C±(y1 —y)Zcos2 itanØ - =2.52 ytzsinicosi REFERENCES: ••. • 1 Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second International Conference, SMIFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62. Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability ofNatural Slopes in London Clay, Proc. Fourth International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-8 1. SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 6 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 1.5 BACKCUT (NOTE 1) '& NOTE 4 /7 ?) d ZIN12H. SEE DETAIL NOTE 2 40 MIN . NOTE 6 J 1 NO SCALE NOTE 5 MIN. MIN./ DETAIL NOTES: 1......EXCAVATE BACKCUT AT 1.5:1 INCLINATION SUCH THAT THE KEY WIDTH AT FINISHED PAD GRADE IS AS SPECIFIED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 2......BASE OF BUTTRESS FILL TO BE 5 FEET (OR AS DETERMINED BY SOIL ENGINEER) BELOW ADJACENT PAD GRADE SLOPING A MINIMUM 2% INTO SLOPE 3.....BUTTRESS FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL WITH MINIMUM SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS OF (25°, C=250ps1 ..... INSTALL PREFABRICATED CHIMNEY DRAINS PANELS (MIRADRAIN; TENSAR, OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET CENTER TO CENTER. ADDITIONAL DRAINS WILL BE REQUIRED WHERE AREAS OF SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED. ..... FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 1-INCH, OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT). 6......COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK-WALLED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET. TYPICAL BUTTRESS DETAIL . () GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PD/RSS I I REV /DFL IUTFIL3 IX-IXVIII/RSS MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA , . DATE 06-28-1999. IPROJECT NO. 06076-12-UI FIG 7 EXISTING GROUND 4' OR 6" DIA. PLASTIC PIPE SURFACE MIN. DIA. RIGID METAL PIPE 4' MIN. 1.0 PLYWOOD OR 0.25 STEEL PLATE 6' MIN. USE SILICA SAND TO PROVIDE LEVEL BASE NO SCALE NOTES: 1......LOCATION OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2.....CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN 10-FOOT HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT WITHIN 5 FEET (VERTICAL) OF PLATE BASE. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHALL BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED SOILS ENGINEER. I SETTLEMENT MONUMENT I GE000N 0 INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 TVL / RSS I DSK / E0000 TLMNT1 MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 66-2á-1999 1 PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 1 I I APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION 1 The field investigation was performed March 24 and May 19 and 20, 1999, and consisted of a visual I site reconnaissance, the excavation of I backhoe trench, 2 small-diameter boreholes, and 4 large diameter boreholes. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on Figure 2. The backhoe trench was advanced to a depth of 13 feet using a JD 555 track-mounted backhoe equipped with a 24-inch-wide bucket. The small-diameter borings were advanced to a depth of 25 feet below existing grade using an Ingersoll-Rand A-300 rig equipped with an 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch split-tube sampler into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 1-inch by 23/8-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and -laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Testing was also conducted in the small diameter boreholes and a bulk sample was I obtained. I The large-diameter borings were advanced to depths ranging from 35 to 60 feet below existing grade using an EZ-BORE-E120 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket auger and rock corer. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch split tube sampler 12 I inches into the "undisturbed" soil mass with the drill rig Kelly bar. The sampler was equipped with * 1-inch by 25/8-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and laboratory testing. Bulk and chunk samples were also obtained. The soils encountered in the exploratory excavations were visually examined, classified, and logged. I Logs of the backhoe trench and borehole logs are presented on Figures A-i through A-12. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered. "Refusal" was encountered in LB-2 and LB-3. Borehole LB-1 was prematurely terminated and backfilled without "downhole logging" at the insistence of the landowner (we were ejected from the I property and the hole was backfilled for safety reasons). Boreholes LB-2, -3, and 74 were "downhole logged" by our geologists. I 1 Project No. 06076-12-01 June 28, 1999 PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 W BORING LB-1 z DEPTH SAMPLE U) C I— <C SOIL c. H- I—a i- H" n W, IN NO. z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 473 DATE COMPLETED 3/24/99 wj z FEET (USCS) C • EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ML TOPSOIL — - - \ Firm, dry, pale, yellowish brown, Sandy SILT, - 2 - :••':c: \ abundant roots - DELMAR FORMATION - - - :••:: Dense to very dense, slightly moist, dark yellowish - - orange, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE - - - B1-1 ,i:J: SM - - 6 - 131-2 - 1 8 1 - - Pale olive to grayish olive - _ - - 10 - 131-3 ' - 10/10' 133.6 6.7 - - 1314 . -Very pale orange - 12 - - SM S 14 - B15 - 7 16 - 18 20 _ . Very dense, hard, damp, dark yellowish orange and 22 - ' light olive brown, Silty fine SANDSTONE/Sandy SILTSTONE - 24 ______ .11. - B1-6 -I ' ;M/ML 6 118.0 15.7 - 26 - B1-7 -28 - Figure A-i, Log of Boring LB-i MDE SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I I ... LLIUrOW u,O,iU QM19rLC ... CHUNK Ml1LC .X ... WM I CK I?DtC vic aCCrAUC NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN .HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR -TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. [I - 1 . PROJECT NO. 0607642-01 BORING LB-1 0 DEPTH SAMPLE o 4x o SOIL . Hr)- H, NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 473 DATE COMPLETED 3/24/99 4u wj FEET H (USCS) EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 30 - 131-8 - 10 121.7 146 - - B1-9 MH DELMAR FORMATION - Hard, damp, grayish olive and dark yellowish orange, - 32 - elastic SILTSTONE. Sheared bedding planes noted. in - - - S sample - - 34 BORING TERMINATED AT 35 FEET Figure A2.. B Lo of oring LB-1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) '.. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ' ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE U NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 'SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I - PROJPCT NO flt076-12-01 BORING LB-2 DEPTH (1) I SOIL o. i-,, . WX ' SAMPLE 0 0 ELEV. (MSL.) 453 DATE COMPLETED 5/19/99 FEET EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 . - / MH TOPSOIL - Firm, damp, dark yellowish brown, Clayey SILT, 2 - abundant roots -. DELMAR FORMATION • - Hard, damp, dusky yellow and light olive brown, 4 - elastic SILTSTONE, abundant shell fragments and - - caliche in lenses up to 1" wide - B2-1 MH 5 119.7 12.2 6 - 132-2 - - -Gradational contact ..... 8 - - Dense, dry to damp, dark yellowish orange, fine to - medium, poorly graded SANDSTONE, massive, - fossiliferous to 8' - - - Bedding Plane Shear: N 78 W15. SW, poorly defined, 10 B2-3 s undulatory sandstone - 4 114.1 7.1 - - 1324 -Fossiliferous below 10.5 feet - - 12 - - - :.:.:.: -6" thick zone, abundant soft carbonate clasts up to 1 - 14 - diameter, (caliche). Erosional/undulatory lower - contact - - B2'5 I' . -1" thick moderate olive brown, elastic siltstone, - 3/1" - 16 - 132-6 ::::::::: fossiliferous - Bedding N15 W/6 SW V thick undulatory, partially - - cemented bed at 14 feet - 18 - '-Erosional/uu1atoycontact -- - - Alternating dense, damp, moderate olive brown and - dark yellowish orange, fine, Silty SANDSTONE and 20 - Sandy SILTSTONE, 2" to 1' thick beds, abundant B2-7 shell fossils M/ML - 5 118.4 16.0 - - 132-8 -Horizontal, 2" thick elastic SILTSTONE bed at 19 - 22 - ..,. feet - -Laminated, undulatory, lenticular discontinuous beds - - Hard, moist, pale olive to grayish olive, Clayey - 24 - SILTSTONE, massive - - 132-9 MH - 5 -26 -132-10 - - 28 - I Figure A-3, Log of Boring LB-2 MDE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 .... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 Cl) I- BORING LB-2 DEPTH SOIL - FEET SAMPLE NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 453 DATE COMPLETED 5/19/99 EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - 30 132-11 - MH 6 - - 132-12 DELMAR FORMATION - Hard, moist, pale olive, grayish olive and mottled - 32 - yellows and dark yellowish orange, elastic - SILTSTONE, massive - — -Bedding: N 75W/12 SW, welidefined sandstone - 34 - -. laminae -Joints: N 30 E/88 SE, 1/4" wide, red silt filled, I 132-13 4L/SM discontinuous, undulatory, rough 6 36 -Gradational contact Very dense, moist, grayish yellow to pale olive, Silty, • fine SANDSTONE / Sandy SILTSTONE, massive with - 38 - ', scattered laminae - -Bedding: N 67 W/11 SW at, 37 feet - -Bedding: N 68 W / 10 SW, 6' thick, undulatory, - - partia1Lycernented sandstone -------------------40 B215 4H/CH Hard, moist, light olive gray and yellowish orange, 4 93.5 29.8 - - 132-16 --- Clayey SILTSTONE and Silty CLAYSTONE, - laminated - 42 - -Scattered interbeds of fine sandstone. At 39 feet - - - joint N 34 E / 90 and N 70 W / 90, 1/8" wide, red - silt filled; - 44 - -6" thick fossiliferous sandstone at 41 feet - - -Bedding: E-W / 8 S. At 42 feet, polished, planar 132-17 smooth shear 5 - 46 - 132-18 Bedding Plane Shear: N 66 W /5 NE that cuts laminae -End visual log at 44 feet I BORING TERMINATED AT 46.5 FEET (REFUSAL) Figure A-4. Log of Boring LB-2 I - --, -- -- - - •- I'lL I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I U SAMPLE SYMBOLS .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 LD I- BORING LB-3 DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL o,. • ''' F NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 473 DATE COMPLETED 3/24/99 Cn CD EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION. -0 - - - - ML iopsoii. ~_abundant Firm, thy, pale yellowish brown, Sandy SILT, 2 - rootlets DELMAR FORMATION Dense, thy to damp, pale yellowish orange, light - 4 - :::::. olive, grayish orange, pale olive gray, Silty, fine SANDSTONE, massive with scattered poorly defined - - 133-1 undulatory laminae - - 6 B3-2 .I::: SM - -Concretionary lense 8 '-Gradationa1contact - Very dense, damp, grayish yellow to yellowish gray, - Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE / poorly graded 10 - B3-3 SM/SP SANDSTONE, massive, with scattered, poorly defined 8/10' 129.1 7.4 B34 ::•• laminae :• -12" thick concretion - 12 - -Gradatiohal contact - Poorly graded, fine to coarse SANDSTONE - - 14 - - - - - 133-5 SP - 6 16 B3-6 Bedding N 35W 20 SW poorly defined laminae - 18 - - 20 - SM 1 B3 7 - - Dense damp grayish, ;low to yellowish gray silty--__ fine to medium, SANDSTONE, high angle joints dip - 22 - :.E:::: toward the S.W. - - - - - 24 - . B39 7/10" 26. - - --Erosional/poorly defined contact 28 - Very dense damp light olive gray and dark yellowish orange, Silty, fine SANDSTONE and Sandy - - . SILTSTONE, poorly defined, approximately horizontal - - undulatory laminaé Figure A-5. Lot' of Boring LB-3 -- ---------, -- - -- MU SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. i PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 BORING LB-3 DEPTH SAMPLE CD - 0 SOIL • ' IN FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 473 DATE COMPLETED 3/24/99 C\ WH:1 Z 0cj in — (USCS) Uj LD EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 30- 133-10 [{{[ - MH \ -11oot thick, fossiliferousbed, lower 6" I 8 - - 133-11 \ concretionary at 29 feet J - Hard, moist, light olive gray to. olive gray, elastic - 32 - - ::• I SILTSTONE, laminae well defined, planar, smooth, - - continuous, alternate with dark yellowish orange -Bedding N 22 W / 3 degrees SW and N 5 E / 5 W.34 Bedding Plane Shear: N 60 E I 3 NW - - -Well defined 1/2" thick remolded shear N 60 E / 3 - 133-12 SP NW at 32 feet I 12 120.2 13.6 36 - B343 ..:3' - - Dense, damp, dark yellowish orange and grayish - - - ::• . Silty,fine SANDSTONE, orange, to medium scattered - fossil shells, poorly defined, undulatory, - 38 - discontinuous, very thin beds - - -8" thick concretion a 34 feet - -End visual log at 37 feet .40 BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET (REFUSAL) Figure A-6. Log of Bnrin LB-3 I -- 1 --- . . 1'l I U NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. SAMPLE SYMBOLS Li ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 BORING LB-4 S z DEPTH SAMPLE CD I- SOIL 00 LLJ LUX NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 452 DATE COMPLETED 5/20/99 FEET EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MH TOPSOIL - Firm, dry to damp, Sandy SILT, abundant roots, - 2 - porous ;,• •.. - DELMAR FORMATION - - ::' - Firm to hard, pale yellowish orange, fine, Silty - - - - ::: SM SANDSTONE - - 6 - - 8 - -12" thick concretionary bed, approximately ) horizontal, fossiliferous -Abundant caliche stringers up to 1" wide and clasts - 10 X. SM up to 2" diameter 12 -6" thick concretioiiarybe'd, approximately horizontal 14 - . -Approximately, horizontal contact .- - - MH Hard, damp, light olive brown, elastic SILTSTONE 16 - -12" thick concretionarybed- -- - CH Hard, grayish olive CLAYSTONE, massive, appears bentonitic', concoidal fracture, "soapy/waxy" texture 18 - ::• -Poorly defined, approximately horizontal upper and - -lower contacts -- SM Very Dense, damp, mottled dark yellowish Prange and 20 - pale yellowish orange, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE - 22 Firm to hard, damp, mottled dark yellowish orange and light olive gray, elastic SILTSTONE, massive 24 MH - 26 - 28 - -Joint: N 60 W / 90, 1/8" wide, red silt filled - Fii!ure A-7. Lo of Boring LB-4 I --- - / -- -------- - 191. I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I . , 0 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E . . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST E ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 BORING LB-4 DEPTH 0 .J - 'E SOIL ( 1) z LLI • H I— • H wX NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 452 DATE COMPLETED 5/20/99 U) LLI FEET LU CD EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 _____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 30 ML - DELMAR FORMATION - Firm to hard, moist, grayish orange SILTSTONE -32 - ML minated -La - - :F:•: - - Bedding Plane Shear: N 40W /.10 SW, well defined, planar,i'goue -- - 34 - Very dense, dry, moist, very pale orange, Silty, fine - - - SANDSTONE/Sandy SILTSTONE - 36 M/ML - - - 38 - 40 - - 42 - -------------------------------------- Hard, moist, pale olive, mottled yellow, elastic MH - III SILTSTONE, laminated - - -Upper and lower contacts defined by - - - - Bedding Plane Shears: N 41 W / 10 SW, well defined, - planar, smooth, 6" gouge - - Very dense, damp, yellowish gray, Silty, fine 8 - 46 134-2 J.:1 •• : . SANDSTONE/Sandy SILTSTONE, - mottled, massive M/ML - 48 - 50 S . 134-3 3 84.6 357 - - B4-4 - 52 - -Partia1lcementecl Bedding Plane Shear: N 60 E / 5 NW to horizontal, CH soft zone, poorly defined, highly plastic clay 6-8' - 54 - - Firm to hard, moist, pale olive, mottled dark thick,slight see paje ---- yellowish orange CLAYSTONE, laminated, poorly - 56 - - B4-5 CH defined, -approximately horizontal --- - Abundant gypsum lined, discontinuous, 1/4" wide - 58 - joints - • - • Bedding Plane Shear: N21W/3SW and N1oE/3 • ,, - ______ NW, smooth planar surface overlain by up to 1 1/2" nf highly plictk' nlivp gry p -vcivly cheirM clly Figure A-S. Lo of Rorin LB-4- MDI -- - -- - -- -- ------- - MD I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT 15 NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 1 5 SAMPLE SYMBOLS Li... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ...'DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I - - - - - - I SAMPLE SYMBOLS -D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) - ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE LJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 - BORING DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL <C 0 0 H H"00 IN FEET = 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 452 DATE COMPLETED 5/20/99 rC\ zL j z Ld H (USCS) CD EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 120 O '-'0 Ci, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -60 - -- ___ _____________________________ at 5,7 feet -Olive gray below 57.5 feet -End visual log at 58 feet BORING TERMINATED AT 60 FEET. c ( E'iure A-9. Log of Boring LB-4 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED-TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I -. I .. PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 BORING SB-i >- DEPTH SAMPLE CD SOIL FEET ELEV. (MSL.) 325 DATE COMPLETED 5/19/99 H 0,(USCS) EQUIPMENT I.R. A-300 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION.. - SC-CL ALLUVIUM - Loose, damp, light brown, Clayey SAND to Sandy SBI1 CL CLAY __________ Soft, wet, dark 'rayish brown, Sandy CLAY - SB1-2 >7< 13 104.8 22.5 6 - - - 10 - SB 13 -Becomes saturated - 9 • . -Water table at 11 feet' - 1 12 1 Becomes interbedded with thin Clayey, coarse sand layers 14 - SB14 't SC-CL 12 114.9 18.9 -- 16 - -Alternating firm/saturated, dark, micaceous, Silty CLAY with thin layers of Clayey SAND - -18 - ., -/7- - - 20 -. - i_...... - . SP 30 - . SB1-5 -- . -Becomes dark brown, medium to coarse SAND -22 - GRANITE + + Completely weathered, dark gray to orange gray, - 0 - + medium-grained GRANITE 24 + + + • BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET E'iure A-iO. Loof Boring SB-i SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETR.ION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCHLOCATION AND ATTHE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE. CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I_I I V PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 I- BORING SB-2 >- DEPTH SAMPLE CD 9 0 0 SOIL .. =U L- LL • IN FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 316 DATE COMPLETED 5/19/99 cn w (USCS) - W 0 C W I- EQUIPMENT I.R. A-300 V MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - V -0- ALLUVIUM - V Loose to medium dense, moist, grayish brown, Clayey V -2 - SAND V - - - - -Becomes medium dense, dark grayish brown - V 4 V S132-1 V SC 14 115.1 162 - I - V V / = -Water table stabilized at 6 feet / V 10.- SB2-2 CL-SM- Becomes alternating very firm, moist, very dark - grayish brown to black Sandy CLAY with medium 12 - />, V dense, medium grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium - ----------------------------- -13 - --- -V . SAND 14 V - S132-3 17- SM 22 113.4 18.9 V 16 - V. j - Becomes medium dense, saturated, light-grayish VI_ I brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, mottled 18 • I.1.1.•. ________________ 20 - + GRANITIC ROCK . SB2-4 + + Completely weathered, orange-brown, medium 50/6' - + V. grained granite - - 22 ++ + + V V24 ++ V • V + V BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET Figure A-il, Log of Boring SB-2 . MDC SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 13 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST E ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) i: DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE 5 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 'I • V V V PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 W. TRENCH. T 1 DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 318 DATE COMPLETED 5/19/99 'EQUIPMENT JD 555 TRACK HOE p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - COMPACTED FILL - (North side of trench), medium dense, moist, - 2 - . ,' SC mediuñ brown, Silty to Clayey SAND with some - cobbles. Existing road embahkment .1 2t -- 4 /- __ — --------------------------------------- ALLUVIUM (Southside of trench, from ground surface) - 6 - CL-SC Medium dense, moist to wet, very dark brown - - Clayey SAND with little cobbles, becomes sandy clay with depth 8 - -!— - - Loose, wet to saturated, dark brown, Clayey SAND -Heavy water seepage from 8 feet 10 - SC -Caving from 8 feet - -12 - -_ - _______________ TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13 FEET IFigure A-12, Log of Trench T 1 S MDI II ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Li .. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE, LOG, OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL []....STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) S S'S., APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, consolidation and shear strength characteristics, as well as a grain size and "R" values. The results of our lâboratoiy tests are presented as follows on Tables B-I through B-IV and Figure B-i and B-2. The, in-place dry density and moisture content results are indicated on the exploratory excavation logs. TABLE-B-1 SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D3O8O Sam Ic No p Dry Density (pci) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) B12* 102.,67 19.1 760 28 134-1 113.6 19.7 1,260 24 B4-5 102.3 29.1 540 7 *Sample remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at optimum moisture content. TABLE B-Il SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-91 Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density (pci) Content (% dry wt.) S131-1 Dark gray, Clayey SAND 117.5 12.9 B1-2 'Light grayish brown, fine SAND 114.0 11.5 Project No. 06076-12-01 - B-I - June 28, 1999 TABLE B-Ill SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (ASTM 4829) Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pci). Expansion Index Classification Before Test (%) After Test (%) B4-4 14.0 43.2 97 2 201 Very High TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Sample No. Location R-Value B3-11 Borehole LB-3, 30 feet deep <5 B4-2 Borehole LB-4, 45 feet deep 37 Project No. 06076-12-01 -B-2- June 28, 1999 PROJECT NO. 06076-12-01 GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE OARS MEDIUM J FINE U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE WJECT NO. 06076-12-01 SAMPLE NO. SB 1-4 -4 2-- 0 cn 11111 liii U N 0 a. 6 8 10 ------.- 12 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114:9 Initial Saturation (%) . 100 Initial Water Content (%) 18.9 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 CONSOLIDATION CURVE MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MDE Figure B-2 PE OJECT NO. 06076-12-01 SAMPLE NO. SB2-3 -4 -- - -2 IL C 10 12 - 0.1 1 l0 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 113.4 Initial Saturation (%) 100 Initial Water Content (%) 18.9 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 CONSOLIDATION CURVE MIELROSE DIUVE EXTENSION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MDE 1' Figure B-3 MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION Sample SB 1-4 (TR@2K) CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA -2650 -2675 D) cD -2700 I C I -2725 -2750 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •I_ I I .1 _I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I $ I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •.—i I I I I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •1 I I I I I I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I o 5 10 15 20 25 Square Root Time (mm) TIME RATE OF SETTLEMENT GEOCON 0 INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558•6159 PROJECT NO. 06076 - 12 - 01 FIGURE B-4 DATE - - - - - - - - - - - - - MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION Sample SBI-4 (TR@4K) CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA -2730 C) b -2755 -2780 -2805 -2830 L 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I hR H 5 10 15 Square Root Time (mm) TIME RATE OF SETTLEMENT- 20 25 GEOCON 6 INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 PROJECT NO.06076 - 12-01 FIGURE :B5 DATE MELROSE - DRIVE EXTENSION Sample SB2-3 (TR@4K) - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - _I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I - •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •I I I I I I I I_ I -2600 0 5 10 - - 15 20 25 - - - Square Root Time (mm) - TIME RATE OF -SETTLEMENT GEOCON INCORPORATED (low) GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PROJECT NO. 06076- 12 - 01 FIGURE B-6 DATE - - -2500 -2525 a) -2550 -2575 S. • 5 . ii Hi . . • I 'APPENDIXC I . .. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS . for I . . MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I . . PROJECT NO. 0607612-01 1. i I . . :1 APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS. Analyses of the stability of the proposed 50-foot-high cut slope was performed utilizing SLOPEW computer program based on the Simplified Janbu Method of slices. Geologic Cross Section A-A' (Figure 3) is the original geologic Cross-Sections from which. the computer generated section was derived (Figure C- 1). The section is- considered to represent the most critical in terms of geologic constrains and proposed grading geometry. Assumed Soil Strength Parameters The soil strength parameters utilized in the analysis of the cut slope stability, were selected from a range of values obtained in the laboratory and experience with similar soil and geologic conditions in the general vicinity. The following are the strength parameters utilized for this analysis. TABLE C-I SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS Material Unit Weight (Pei) Cohesion (C') (psi) Friction Angle () (degrees) Delmar Formation (sandstone, siltstones) 130 400 30 Delmar Formation (bedding plane shear) 125 100 8 Fill 125 300 25 The results of the analysis of the 50-foot-high cut slopes indicat&a factor. of safety of less than 1.5 for the proposed interim grading configuration. . The analysis is based on a final critical block failure surface determined by the Modified Janbu Method. The results of our analysis indicate that the construction of a drained buttress fill (Figures.3 and C-I) will be required to achieve the desired calculated factor-of-safety in excess of 1.5 with the presently propOsed grading configuration. The minimum shear key width required for the buttress at location of Cross Section A-A' is 40 feet. Project No. 06076-12-01 June 28, 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION -- SECTION A-A' BUTTRESS FILL JANBU METHOD FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.53. 480 - 455- 430 0 Td Bedding Pla e Shears 380 Td 355 IlIIiiiIIlI"l -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425' 450 475 Project No. 06076-12-01 Figure C-i APPENDIX 0 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS for. . . MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.06016-12-01 I I I Hi I I I RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in 'conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for' the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom- mendations containedin the textof the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the. Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. . 1.3. 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 or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather,' and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. / I I I 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying I as-graded topography. I. S. . GI rev. 8/98 1 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. ' Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7. Geotechnicai Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda)'which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable. for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 1 3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or-hard lumps larger than 4 'feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow I for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills' are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 314 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity Of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. I ' , GI rev. 8/98 I 1 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous I materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner I .the .termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. I 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of I properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and a soil layer no thicker..than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. I This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. — 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory I by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report, may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of I complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried I . logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to I provide suitable fill materials. I . I . GE rev. 8/98 V." 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel maybe placed in fills; provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall theft be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4. Where the stdpe ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Ground 2 Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That Soil Engineer Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies "B" See Note 1 See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B' should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be 'V modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 8/98 I' H I 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area I should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT I 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be I capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the moisture content. I specified 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. I 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by theContractor in accordance with the follOwing recommendations: 6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should I generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall he spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. I Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91. 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, I water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture 'content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill, is above' the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by I, the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. I ' GI rev. 8/98 I 1 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. I Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as - I over determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the I entire fill. . I 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at.a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7.. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To I achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered - preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6:1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a I heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer ' or similar equipment, such that a. dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. I. 6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: - 6.2.1: Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be .I incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or - 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension. may either be .I. individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments. up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may, be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in I maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. I S• I GI rev. 8/98 1 1 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and I- should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench-procedure, however, this method should -' first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either I parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet I .center -to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher I windrow. - 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the -' - - windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3.- Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: I . - 6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 I - percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable - - . subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during I . construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock - -I- trucks traversing previously placed lifts, and dumping at the edge of the currently - placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during -placement. Watering shall I consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying - water continuously during rock placement.- Compaction equipment with - I - compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory -, - - roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the 1 . - GI rev. 8/98 I I' required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to lie made will be determined as described in I Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. I 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM Dl 16-64; may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of 1 passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill I (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent) Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and SIX passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the -rock 1 fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil Pill and the rock fill and by evaluating thedeflectionvariation with number of I, passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required I number of passes be less than two. 6.34. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water. is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The. actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during. grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each: approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 63.5. Test pits shall be excavated by- the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled, with smaller rock material. . In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. I 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock I should be determined by the Consultant prior, to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is I being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. GI rev. 8/98 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one fleld'density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil. or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing, tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified,. the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring, program shall be, as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during 'grading. . . I Li GI rev. 8/98 I .1. I I I I I I I 7.5. - The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By, the Sand-Cone Method 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1-3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop- 7.6.14., Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard Methodfor Nonrepresentative Static Plate 'Load Tests of Soils-and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Designs of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent pondmg of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been. installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and, tested by 'the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GE rev. 8/98 S. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of, elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location.. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactbiy, to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechncàl engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 8/98 GEOLOGIC MAP MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 'A I_,,_ 1" = 10(Y 06-28-1999 I N C 0 R P CI R A T E D U' I '' N ______________________________ D6O7f-12-01 GOTEO1NICAL CONSULTANTS ________________________________ 6960 RANCEPS rIpIJf SN t4E,' CA.IFc 44419 9211 2 PI-4('4-f .4+ 61+ S4.' F40 •' '4.' 4 ENGINEER OF WORK RICK ENGINEERING CO. KAI E. RAMER CHECKED BYz R.CIIE. 44146 DATE "AS BUILT" R.C.E. DATE EXP. REVIEWED BY: INSPECTOR DATE SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS _______ ENGINEERING_DEPARTMENT ________ - ALIGNMENT STUDY MELROSE DRIVE ALTERNATIVE B 4 4 I .. I 4 4 I I I I I I 1 I 4 4 1 I 4 I I 4 4 * 1 4 I I I 4 4 1 4 I 4 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 I 4 4 I I I -.- I -# 1 4 4 - 4 4 1 1 4 I I 1 1 4 4 4 - -1 4 1-4 -4 -- 4 I * I I I 4- 1 1-4 I v : I I I -- i ; ; -$ I II -4 4 -; - -._z ; - -4 - - 4 4 I-I 4 I I. I - 1 I- I 4 1 4 4 4 I I --4- 4- 1 1 1 I 4 1 4 4 4 - 4 1 I -4 1 1 - I + + - - 1 I I I I 4 4-4-- + I I I I I- 4 1 4 -4 4 4 4 1 I I 4 4 4 -1 I I -4 1 4 4 -v v- 4 I 11- I I 4 1 4 I I -4 4 4 4 I 4 4 - 4 4 I - .-.- 4 ....•-.4 ...-.. -S ...-.-. -..-.4-•4• 4.._...4 ...#...,- --.--...-. ... .-. --:----- __•5 __•_ ... S .- . - 4 1 I I - I I -I I 4 1 - 4 1 * I I 1 4 4 - I I I 1 4- 4 4 * 1 4 - 4 .4 I I 1 4 4- + 4 4 I 4 I I I 1 4 -4- 4 + 4 4 1 I I * 4- + 1 4 4 4 I I 4 4 - + I * I I 4 4 4- 4 4 * I I I 1 4 4 - - 4 1 I I 4- 4 -I - - - - L - - * -------- - 0 :. :.::::.::::t ::::: ::: r:-. '.:: ::.::!:.::: I :::: - :. :.:: .::: ::::.::. ':::.:::: : ::.:.:I.::.::t ::::t..:.::J::::: !:. :- .:::::::::t::.::.::t.:t: :.:.::::.:::: ::::. ::!:::::L:::: .:: :.::t:;:.:.:::::::: .. .:..:.t.:: :::::::::::.; :.::i:::.:::t::::::::::.!::::i::::::::t:::I: ::t. :.:::::::t::.::. ::::::L ::::.:::::t::.::. ::.:::::t:::::::.::::::::- - :::.:t:. :: .. I . : : * * I F1NISHtRAE C I _- _I_ I 1 1 °1 I I : 1 T I I 1 4 1 I I 4 : I * I I 1 1 I I1 I 4 • t t I.. I I 4 4 i -- - - :: . I .- 1 - 7 - : I I 1 4 1 1 4-I I I -: 1 1 1 I 1 I 4 1 I I I I 4 4 4 I I 1 4 4 I -I 4 4 - 1 I I 1 1 4- + I I * l 4 4 4-4. 4- + 4 I 4 I 4. 4. 4- + 1 4 1-I I - - 4 4 I I -I C 0 ii I 4 1 1 4- 4 4 I 4 4 I * 1 4 I + 4 - - I :. :::. ........::............- : .:::...........:::::.............::: : :: :::::............. :..............::: :::...........7 :::::7::::..!'_:::::::: ::.:_: :::: ::::::::::::_. :::: ..:z -7:::' .::7':::.:...........:::::::,:::.:::::::::.':::.::'.' ....:-:::'.z :............::;:.:::::__.::!:.$ ::_ :,:::.::::Z:::::::::::::::1:: :::::,:::::::I::::: ......::..::_:'::::.:_::::::: .... :'..': ' S,:::::::::Z::::Z'.:Z:::7.: ::7:::::::::::..::!'::'.::::::C + Q__ :::::7:::::::Z::::::::::'....4:. .:::: ....... _::::::.::_:_4 '.:' :::::::.::. .......:::::::.::..:_• . ::.::.::::: ..... -4 I I I I I I I I 1 4 4 4 1 I I 4 1 4 1 4 4 I 4 4 4 I- I 1 1- 4 4 4 -1 4 1 I * I I 1 4 4 4 1 I I- * I 4 4 4- 4 4 4 4 I I I I - . 1 -+U_J I I I I I 1 + ' I I I - I I I I I - 1 7 4 4 4 1 4 4 I I - 1 I 4 4 I 4 4 -I I 4 I 4 4 4- 7 7 4 I * I I 4 -4 4- - I I I I I 4. 4 4. 4- 4 4 - I I I I- * I 7 1 4 1 - I CW<-+ + 7 1 1 4 4 4 I 4 + .4 I 4 4- 44 - + 4 - .. : . : : .. - .. - I - - - - - s- - -: : . - ..- - - . - .. : .. : --u - Q..0 - - I _. 4 1 I I I _ I I I I 1 I 1 - I I I - 4 4 1. > I I 4 I 4 4 4 - I 1 4 I I I I 4 _ - .1 .! I I . * 4 7 4 I - 7 4 1 4 - * : - 1 - - I L I 1 - I 1 I I I - 1 I I 1 • * t I I I 1 * 4 * 4- 1 4 4 - 4 1 I I I - 4 - * - I I - I I - I - : + I I I 4 I I - I-I I .4 I * I 4- + 4 4 4 I I & 4 4 4- 4- 4 1 I I * #- 4 4. - 7 4 I I 4 * 4 - - 4 ___+ I I'I7 + 1 1 I I I I 4. 1/ I I I I I I 1 4. 4 - I I I 4 7 I I I I - - 4 4 I I I I I 7 7 - I I I I - 4 I I I 4 I 7 1_.4 I I 4- 4 4 4 4 - 4 j I - 4 4 - 4 4 7 - -_ - 4 I I 7 1 -* 4 1 - I * 4 1 - 4 4 7 - I 1 I 1 4 I I - 4 / - I I I I - 4 - I I H L I !: II L II I * I 14 1- 4 III 44 4! I I , , I VETCURVEMtETS50MPH IDESIGN8ASED4 ONC0MFORTFACT0RPER 4 - + I : ; :-: -: : : --v, : ; - : : : : - : : : -- : : : : : - I - I AASHTO 1990 ED1TON WITH ENHANCED LIGHT!NG) : : I : : -i-- : : : : - : : : : : 1 - 4 : - 4 * * - : I 4 Lv2 Tc5b=4O0'1_LENGTHOFVERTCURVE I I 1 1 I I I 4 7 4- 1 I l I 4 7 I [ II_1- 1 I 4 : : * : I * I 4 - - I -i I I - - I I 7 & I I - 44r5 6.5 AwALGtBRAIcOtFF. 1NRAO I I - - - - I I I I I - I I I I I 1 4 4 47 I 4 I I I I I. ±1 I I 4 4 -+ I I I 4 4 - - 4 I I I - I 7 + - - 7 1 I I 4 - I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 4 - - I I I I 4 4 4 ---------------------------------------I I I I * 7 - 4 1 I I 1- 7 - I I I 1 7 7 - I I I I I I * 7 7 1 I I I 4 I - 4 I I I I - I I - I I - I I I I I I I 1 v ( 1 I I I I I - I I I I 7 7 7 - * * I I I + 7 7 * 4 1 & t I I 7 4 - 7 7 1 * I tv+Lij - 4 4 4 I I I 4 - I I I I - 4 4 1 I - AND I - I I 4 - I I - : - - * * I I I : I I : I I I - I 7 4 I I - I - - - I - I VERTCURVEPERAASHTQ'ANINFORMATIQNGUIDEFQR I I I I 4 4 - 4 I 4 - 1 1 I I . - : * I I I I I I I 7 4 * I I I * I I I I I I I - I I 4 4 ROADtA r t_ I ClIr I 140 I I * -- I I 1 I I I 4 1 4- 4 I I I I I I I I - - * 4 I 4 * - - - 4 4 1 -1 I I 4 I I 4- -4 7 I I I I I - I * - - - - - -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 -'I. ' I '' -. ---------------I--I........................................................................I -------------------------------I ..................................................------------------.I--------------------------I--------I-------------------------------------------------------------4 -----------------I --------I-.'- I--------------------------UI--------------------I --------I -----------------------I--------4----------------------------------------------------4-:. --4--------I--------------------------4-----------------+ -------4-..........................I--------I........I--------I .......I---------- 0'--VC 4------------------I I--------I *-----------------I--------4-.......4--------4--------4---------------------------I --------I........I.......I......I--------4--------------------------------------------I........I -----------------I --------I----------------------------------I-------------------------I ........I. I I I - I 4 I I I - I I I _ 4 I 1 7 - 7 1 I I - 4 - : - I 44033 t 56T 4 1 - : I 4 I - 7 - I I I - 1 - I - - I I I - - I I I I I I - * f.. .1 * I I 4. - I I - I I,/t * I I I I ..± I I I I - - 4 16..48% - - I I I & 1 1 : I I I - - I I * - - I I I - I I - 4 I & I I 4 I - - I - I I I - 1j I j__ v I - I I I 4 , 7 I I 7 7 1 1 7 I 2=3.O0% - - & 7 I I I I 1 I I I I 4 - 7 I I I : - I I I I I I I - I I I - 1 1 4 I I - I I I - 9 - I I 4 7 1 I I - 7 7 - 7 - 4 4 4 I I I 7 7 1 - 7 4 I I 1 7 - I I I 1 4 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I - I - I I I ______ : I I I I I : : : I * -: : : I I I 11 I - - I * I I - I - I I I I I I I I 7 - * 1 I I I - 7 I I * I 4 1 7 - - I I I I I329.92+92.4 1 - : 1 I / - - I : - I : : 4 I : : 4 I - : * i 4 I I : I - 1 I 4 I - - - I - 1G1= 1.50/. - - - I - I - 7 * I I 4 4 - -* - & 4 - 4 - 7 - I I I I I - - I * I * I - I I I : - - I I I I I I I I I I - + 4 - - - I I I - - - _-- : : 1 4 1 : : - : I I : : I I I : : : : I : E : I - - I I I I I - - I I 1 * * * I - - - 1 * I I 4 I 4 4 - I I I I 4 4 + - - - - * I I I I I * - I I I I 4 4 - - I * I I 4 4 4 - - I I I ' I 4 - 4 I * * 1 - I I - - 4 I I I .4 I It 5 * I * 4 * * I 4 4 * I I I * 4 4 4 1 I I I I I I 7 7 7 7 7 4 - I I I * - I I I * I 1 1 -I I I 4 1 I 1 4 4 1 4 * * 4 - 4 4 * 4 4 I I + I * - - 4 I - I 4 I * I 1 - I I I I I I - -I 1 4 I I I I I 4 1 4 1 4 I I I I I 4- 7 * 1 * I II 4 4 - - I 4 I * * I 4 - -4. I I 4 I I * - - I * I I * I - I 4 I I 1 4 4 I - - I I I I I .4 4 4 .4 - I I - I I I 4 4 4 - - I I I * * 4 - - - - I 4 4 I I * * I I I I 4 4 - * - I I I I I I 4 - - 4 I I I * 4 1 -- - 4 I * I 1 4 - - - * * 1 I I I * I I I I * 4. 1 'Q)( I \I - 44*'' 4 * 4 - 4. I I I I 1 7 4 I 4 4 4 I 4 7 - - -4. I I I I 4 4 4 7 - - I 4 4 I I 7 4 - 4 I I * 4 4 1 4 1 * 4 4. 4 I I 4 I I II 4 1 I 4 I - 4 4 4 - I - 7 4 4 * - - - I * * I 7 - - * 4 I * I 4 4 7 - - I I 4 4 4 4 7 - 4 * 4 4 I * I I + I I I I 4 4 * - I I I I 4 4 9 - - - 4 I I - 320- I EX1srCOVEROVER1OX7'BOX I 1 11 I I I 11: - I I 4 I 4 - - 4 I I I 4 I I I - ._d320 I I 4 * - I I EXCEED MAX F I LI.. ALLOWABLE OF I * I I 4 -I I I I I * 4 4 I i * 4 I - - 4 4 * * 4 7 - 1 I 4 I I 7 * 7 1 4 I I I I I 4 4 - + 1 * I I 4 I 4 - - 4 4 * I - I I I + - 1 - * I I I 18' PER SAN DIECO RGI0NAL I - - I * * 4 4 4- - 7 I I 1 4 I I I I C 4- - - * I I I I + .4 * 1 I I I * I 4 7 4 I * * 4 4 1 I I 4 4 4 1 I - - - I - - I I I * * - I * : I - - : * - : : I 1 1 - - I : : : : : : - - I I 4 I * I I I I 1 4 I I I SCAI_E. HORlZ1'IOO' VER]11 2O' - - * - - I * I 4 4 - - - 1 4 4 4 I * * - 4 I I I - - I I I * I I - - : I I * * I - 4 + - I 4 * * - I I 1 I 4 1 I - I * - - -I - 4 I 4 4 - I- I I I I I * - I * I 4 4 1 I * * 1 I I - I * I 4 I * 4 I 30~ 00 45 +00 50~00 55 +00 60~ 00 GE000N LEGEND 1 Qpf .......PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL, REPORTED BY P. PRATER AND ASSOCIATES (AUGUST 23, 1991) ITY ENGINEER R.C.E. _______ EXP. _______ DATE - RICK ENGINEERTNG COMPANY PLAN: MELROSE DRa 100 50 0 tOO 200 300 I I I GRAPHIC SCALE I'= IOO 0' * ITO K- - 00' 4- 00' o - a' I'I C- 5I2U Prulrl Road. San Th+g. Cnhforn4i Y211O29 DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL IDWN BY: ii PROJECT NO. ___________________________ CHKD BY: _______ THER APPROVAL I CITY APPROVAL 1RVWD BY: DRAWING NO. DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION ENGINEER OF WORK (M9) 2J-O7O7 r-rri U ilki A ri r i\ LL L I IVIlI N H F\ I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION