Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIP 4608; POINSETTIA COMMUNITTY PARK PHASE IV; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - POINSETTIA PARK DOG PARK & PARKING LOT, 6600 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA; 2020-03-11 March 11, 2020 GDC Project No. SD597C City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Administration 799 Pine Avenue, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Barbara Kennedy, Park Planner SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot 6600 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California Ms. Kennedy: Group Delta Consultants (Group Delta) is submitting this report to present the findings from our geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements at the existing Poinsettia Park in Carlsbad, California. We prepared this report in accordance with our proposal dated December 6, 2019 (Group Delta, 2019), and City of Carlsbad’s (City) authorization dated January 14, 2020 (City of Carlsbad, 2020). PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The project includes the construction of a new dog park, parking lot, restroom building and supporting infrastructure on the eastern portion of the existing park, south of the recently constructed pickle ball courts. The areas of proposed development are currently dirt surfaced or covered with mulch, landscaping, and concrete flatwork. The proposed dog park area currently slopes down to the south and west, and we understand that leftover fill soils and boulders from previous projects on the west side of the park currently cover the site. Figure 1 presents the site location map. The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed restroom building, shade structures, light poles, storm water BMPs, underground utilities, flatwork and pavements. Our scope of services consisted of the following tasks: • Reviewed geologic and geotechnical reports, As-built plans, and preliminary design documents provided by the City. • Performed a site reconnaissance to mark out the proposed exploration locations, notified Underground Service Alert, and retained a subcontracted utility locating service Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 2 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc to clear the planned exploration locations with respect to existing utilities. • Retained a subcontractor to conduct six backhoe test pits across the site in areas of the proposed improvements, as shown on Figures 2 and 3. Bulk soil samples were collected from the test pits. Once completed, the test pits were backfilled with tamped soil cuttings and the ground surface was restored to approximately match the existing conditions. • Hand augered four 6-inch-diameter borings, as shown on Figures 2 and 3. Conducted infiltration testing at various depths within these four borings. Once completed, the boreholes were backfilled with tampered soil cuttings and the ground surface was restored to approximately match the existing condition. • Conducted laboratory testing on selected bulk soil samples obtained from the explorations to assess the pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils. • Performed engineering analysis to develop recommendations for design of the proposed improvements. • Assessed infiltration rate for the design of storm water BMPs. • Prepared this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the eastern portion of Poinsettia Park in Carlsbad, California, as shown on the Site Location Plan, Figure 1. The approximate centroid of the site is at a latitude of 33.1152º north and a longitude of 117.3060º west. The northern portion of the site where the parking lot is proposed is relatively flat, with a surface elevation of about 178 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The site is currently dirt surfaced and covered with mulch. The proposed improvements include a restroom building, 38 parking stalls including two ADA parking stalls and four electric vehicle charging parking stalls, a proposed stabilized decomposed granite walkway, concrete flatwork, and landscaping, per Schmidt Design Group (2019a). Figure 3A shows the proposed improvements for the parking lot. The southern portion of the site is where the dog park is proposed. The site currently slopes down to the south and west, and some leftover fill soils and boulders from previous projects on west side of the park currently cover the site. Surface elevations range roughly between 179 and 168 feet above MSL. The proposed improvements include a retaining wall with an integrated seat wall at the southwestern corner, a seat wall at the northeastern corner, a proposed bioretention basin at the southwestern corner, concrete flatwork, overhead shade structures, light poles, picnic tables, six foot tall chain link fences, graded drainage swale, and waterline relocation, per Schmidt Design Group (2019b). Figure 3B shows the proposed improvements for the dog park. Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 3 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc We understand that City plans to develop the site as a parking lot and dog park with supporting Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project Civil Engineer is considering bio- retention basin BMPs to manage storm water. We have chosen infiltration testing locations based on their input. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of site reconnaissance, excavation of six test pits and four hand auger borings, and the performance of four infiltration tests as described in the sections below, followed by a discussion of the laboratory testing program. Test Pits A CAT 308E Mini-excavator dug six test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) on February 5, 2020 using a 24- inch bucket. A Group Delta Geologist: 1) supervised the field investigation, 2) logged the test pits, and 3) obtained bulk soil samples for laboratory testing from different geologic units. The depth of test pits varied between 4 and 10 feet, depending on the material encountered in the field. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. The test pits were backfilled with soil cuttings and the ground surface was restored following excavation. Figures 2 Exploration Plan shows the approximate locations of the test pits. Attachment A contains the log of the test pits. Infiltration Testing Four infiltration borings (I-1 through I-4) were hand augered to a maximum depth of 5 feet and prepared for percolation tests by presoaking for at least 20 hours. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the shallow percolation test method referenced in the Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (Riverside, 2011) as well as BMP Design Manual issued by City of Carlsbad (2016). The infiltration testing was performed at several depth intervals to assess a variety of soil conditions. A Factor of Safety of 2 was adopted using guidance in BMP Design Manual (City of Carlsbad, 2016). Table 1 below provides a summary of the factored test results. Attachment C presents the test results. Table 1. Storm Water Infiltration Test Summary Test Hole Testing Interval Geologic Conditions Design Infiltration Rate inches/hour (with F.S. = 2) I-1 1.5 feet ~ 4.7 feet Old Paralic Deposits; Sandstone with silt 0.005 I-2 1.3 feet ~ 3.3 feet Fill; Silty Sand 0.06 I-3 2.1 feet ~ 4.0 feet Old Paralic Deposits; Silty Sandstone 0.01 I-4 3.2 feet ~ 5.4 feet Old Paralic Deposits; Silty Sandstone 0.03 Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 4 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Laboratory Testing Group Delta’s San Diego laboratory tested selected soil samples to evaluate the physical properties of the soils and subgrade characteristics. The geotechnical testing program included gradation analyses and plasticity index tests to aid in material classification using the unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and to further interpret the potential for infiltration feasibility. Index tests were also conducted on the bulk samples to help evaluate the soil expansion and corrosivity potential. A compaction test was performed on a shallow sample to evaluate the relationship between maximum dry density and optimum water content. R-Value tests were conducted to design preliminary pavement structural sections. Attachment B provides the laboratory test results. GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This province stretches from the Los Angeles basin to the tip of Baja California. It is characterized as a series of northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones. The coastal plain consists typically of subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations overlying igneous rocks. Undocumented fill of variable thickness was encountered in most of our explorations at the site and is underlain by dense Old Paralic Deposits (non- marine). Although not encountered in our shallow explorations, the site is underlain at depth by Tertiary-age Santiago Formation materials as indicated on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 4 (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). The sections below describe the units encountered in our subsurface explorations ranging from the youngest to oldest geologic age. Fill Relatively minor amounts of undocumented fill1 ranging from three to five feet in thickness was encountered locally in most of our explorations (TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, I-1, and I-2). The fill was observed to consist of yellowish brown to grayish brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand and clayey sand. Note that during our field investigation, near the area of TP-5, we noticed some fill soil stockpile present onsite, possibly some leftover soils from other project sites. The approximate limits of the stockpile are shown in Figures 2 and 3B. Old Paralic Deposits The Old Paralic Deposits encountered in our investigation generally consist of poorly sorted, medium grained reddish brown to grayish brown silty or clayey sandstone that is dense to very dense. The excavated soils break down to silty sand, clayey sand, or poorly-graded sand with silt. Difficult excavation was encountered during test pit excavations and hand augering within the Old Paralic Deposits due to localized cementation. Groundwater No seepage or groundwater was encountered in the explorations conducted for this investigation. Groundwater seepage is not anticipated during construction. It should be noted 1 Undocumented fill is where there are no records of compaction testing and observation by a Geotechnical Engineer. Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 5 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc that changes in rainfall, irrigation practices or site drainage may produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions at any location within the fill soil or formational units underlying the site. Such conditions are difficult to predict and are typically mitigated if and where they occur. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS We anticipate the primary geologic hazards at the site to be strong ground shaking from an earthquake on the nearby Rose Canyon fault zone. Other geologic hazards are discussed below. Strong Ground Motion The site could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from a nearby or more distant, large magnitude earthquake occurring during the expected life span of the project. This hazard is managed by structural design of the buildings per the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC, 2019). Seismic design parameters are provided in the Recommendations section. Fault-Rupture Ground rupture is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. Ground rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the ground surface. No indications of Holocene-active or potentially active faulting were found in our reconnaissance or literature review. The nearest known active fault is the Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone that is located approximately six kilometers to the west (USGS, 2020). No known active or potentially active faults cross the site. Earthquake-Induced Ground Failure Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength within saturated, loose to medium dense, sands and non-plastic silts. Liquefaction is caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during strong ground shaking from an earthquake. Secondary effects of liquefaction are sand boils, settlement and instabilities within sloping ground that occur as lateral spreading, seismic deformation and flow sliding. Associated with liquefaction is seismic compaction, which is the densification of loose to medium dense granular soils that are above groundwater. Based on the dense nature of the formational soils underlying the site and recommendations for removal and recompaction of potentially loose undocumented fills that underlie the proposed improvements, the potential for earthquake induced ground failure due to soil liquefaction and seismic compaction is considered very low. Landslides Based on the relatively flat topography of the site and the gentle sloping ground of the planned site development (i.e., less than inclination of 2h:1v), landslides and slope instability are not design considerations. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are soils that expand upon wetting and shrink upon drying. Based on Expansion Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 6 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Index (EI) tests performed on near surface soils within the fill, the onsite materials are expected to have a very low expansion potential (EI<20). However, if encountered during construction, moderately expansive materials (EI>20) are not considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill and should be removed from the site. EI test results are summarized on Figure B-14. Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding The site is outside of the 100-year flood plain, and is considered the area of minimal flood hazard (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020). The risk of tsunamis, seiches, and flooding is considered low. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. Specific conclusions regarding geotechnical conditions are provided below. • Undocumented fill soils underlie the majority of the site and are not suitable to provide support to settlement sensitive improvements in their current condition. Remedial grading recommendations are provided in the following sections. • The on-site soils should be suitable for reuse as compacted fill, except for soils with deleterious materials, expansive soils, or soils that City considers to be contaminated. Environmental sampling and testing are not within our scope of work. • Groundwater was not encountered in our subsurface explorations. However, changes in rainfall, irrigation practices or alterations to surface drainage could produce zones of seepage or perched groundwater. • Soil corrosivity tests indicate that onsite soils are considered corrosive to ferrous metals. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific corrosion control recommendations. • The potential for full or partial infiltration has been assessed at the site. Our feasibility screening of the potential for on-site infiltration resulted in the “no infiltration” category. RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents recommendations for earthwork, shallow foundation, pavement design and storm water infiltration. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standards of practice in southern California. If these recommendations do not to appear to cover a specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions. Seismic Design Seismic design parameters were developed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). Based on the subsurface exploration and underlying geology, the site classification for seismic design is Site Class C, in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16. Mapped seismic design parameters in Table 2 were developed using the online SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 7 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Maps tool (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019). Table 2. Mapped Seismic Design Acceleration Parameters Design Parameters General Seismic Design Parameter (ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4) Site Latitude 33.1152º Site Longitude 117.3060º Ss (g) 1.067 S1 (g) 0.385 Site Class C Fa 1.2 Fv 1.5 TS (sec) 0.451 TL (sec) 8 SMS (g) 1.28 SM1 (g) 0.577 SDS (g) 0.854 SD1 (g) 0.385 Earthwork Earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the requirements of 2019 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during construction. Site Preparation General site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious materials from the site. Deleterious materials include existing structures, foundations, slabs, trees, vegetation, trash, contaminated soil and demolition debris. The existing loosely deposited undocumented fill stockpile (i.e., see TP-5 in Figures 2 and 3B) in the central portion of the proposed dog park should be removed entirely and replaced with properly compacted fill. The exposed subgrade should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer or their field designate. Localized probing or proof rolling may be needed to identify soft or loose areas requiring further removal and recompaction. Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 8 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Building and Other Settlement Sensitive Structures Areas The existing undocumented fill beneath the proposed restroom building, shade structure, retaining walls, seat walls, and all other settlement sensitive structures should be excavated and replaced as a uniformly compacted fill. The cut portion of the restroom building pad should also be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 3-feet below finish pad grade. The remedial grading should extend at least 5-feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure. All fill placed within the building pad area should have a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index <20). Improvement Areas Two feet of material with an expansion index of 20 or less is recommended beneath all new concrete sidewalks, exterior flatwork areas and building slabs-on-grade. In order to accomplish this objective, the upper 12-inches of soil below the slab subgrade elevations should be scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavements, brought to slightly above optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. If soil with an expansion index above 20 is encountered, the soil should be excavated and replaced with very low expansion material. Fill Soils The removed undocumented fill soils should be suitable for reuse as fill. The near surface soils observed during our subsurface exploration primarily consisted of clayey sand (SC) and silty sand (SM). Two Expansion Index (EI) tests completed at shallow depths resulted in a “Very Low” potential expansion. Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. In general, imported soil for common fill should consist of granular soil with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM C136 and an Expansion Index less than 20 based on ASTM D4829. Fill Compaction All fill should be placed in loose lifts that do not exceed eight inches in loose lift thickness at a moisture content that is slightly above the optimum moisture content for compaction using equipment that can produce a uniformly compacted product. The minimum recommended relative compaction for general fill is 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on the latest version of ASTM D1557. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations are anticipated for the construction of the proposed retaining walls and underground utilities. All excavations should conform to California OSHA (Cal-OSHA) guidelines. Based on the existing data interpreted from site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration, the following Cal-OSHA Soil Types may be assumed for planning purposes. The contractor should note the materials encountered in construction excavations could vary significantly across the site. The assessment of Cal-OSHA Soil Types for temporary slopes is based on Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 9 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc preliminary engineering classifications of material encountered in widely spaced explorations. Note that slopes that exceed 20 feet in height require specific analysis by a registered Civil Engineer. Table 3. Preliminary Cal-OSHA Soil Types Geologic Unit Cal/OSHA Soil Type Undocumented Fill Type C 1, 2 Old Paralic Deposits Type B 1, 2 1. Not subject to vibration or surcharge loads. 2. Groundwater at least 5 feet below the bottom of the slope with no seepage emanating from the face of the slope. The design and construction of temporary slopes, as well their maintenance and monitoring during construction, is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should have a competent person evaluate the soil or rock conditions encountered during excavation to determine permissible temporary slope inclinations and other measures as required by Cal- OSHA. The contractor's competent person should observe temporary slopes at regular intervals to assess their need for maintenance and stability. Surface Drainage Foundation and slab performance depend greatly on how well surface runoff drains from the site. The ground surface should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures and tops of slopes without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this may depend on the prevailing landscaping. Planters should be built so that water will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. If roof drains are used, the drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains or discharge at least 10 feet from buildings. Irrigation should be limited to the minimum needed to sustain landscaping. Excessive irrigation, surface water, water line breaks, or rainfall may cause perched groundwater to develop within the underlying soil. Shallow Foundations Shallow foundations that bear directly within compacted fill soil or competent formational soils may be used to support the proposed restroom building and retaining walls. The existing fill depth beneath the proposed structure is estimated to be 4 feet or less. If competent formational soils are discovered at shallow depths at the site during construction, it could be used as foundation as well. However, foundations should not transition between compacted fill and old paralic deposits unless a Geotechnical Engineer provides specific recommendations for such placement. The following preliminary geotechnical parameters are provided for design: • Allowable Bearing: 2,000 lbs/ft2 for compacted fill; 3,000 lbs/ft2 for paralic deposits (allow a ⅓ increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). • Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches • Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade (with minimum Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 10 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc embedment into compacted soil or paralic deposits described above). • Minimum Reinforcement: Per structural engineer Settlement We estimate that the total and differential settlement of the new building foundations will be less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch in 30 feet, respectively. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads against the structure may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and slabs and the soil, and passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into compacted fill or old paralic deposits. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 and a passive pressure of 350 lbs/ft2 per foot of embedment may be used. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction For the preliminary evaluation of settlement under spread footing loads, a modulus of subgrade reaction for a one-foot square footing may be assumed to 300 pounds per cubic inch (k1). This value assumes shallow footings are constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided above. Note that k1 should be adjusted for footing sizes wider than one foot using the following equation: kB = k1 [(B +1) / 2B]2 where: kB = the modulus of subgrade reaction for footing of width ‘B’ B = footing width in feet Deep Foundations Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles are planned to support the proposed light poles and shade structures. Due to the lightweight nature and anticipated height of the poles, lateral loading is anticipated to control the design of the foundations. The piles are estimated to be between 30 and 48 inches in diameter. Preliminary recommendations regarding axial capacity, settlement, and lateral capacity are discussed in the following sections. Construction considerations for CIDH piles are also discussed following the recommendations. Axial Capacity The CIDH piles are anticipated to derive axial capacity from frictional resistance in the undocumented fill and undisturbed Old Paralic Deposits. All piles should be embedded at least 5 feet into undisturbed Old Paralic Deposits. The depth to competent Old Paralic Deposits should be evaluated during drilling at each pile by the geotechnical consultant. Allowable axial unit skin friction for the material types at the site are presented in the table below. The vertical resistances were calculated using a Factor of Safety of 2. The axial capacity Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 11 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loads. The upper 3 feet of soil should be neglected in the axial shaft resistance capacity. Table 5. Allowable Axial Unit Skin Friction Resistance Material Type Downward Resistance (psf) Uplift Resistance (psf) Fill 150 100 Old Paralic Deposits 500 350 Settlement We estimate that CIDH piles sized to resist the allowable axial capacities and embedded 5 feet or more into competent Old Paralic Deposits should experience less than 1 inch of total settlement. Settlement should occur when loads are applied. Lateral Capacity As noted above, lateral loads should control the design of the foundations for light poles and shade structures that will be supported by piles. Their foundations can be designed following CBC (2019), Section 1807.3. The foundation depth to resist lateral loads should be determined using the following equation: d=0.5A[1+(1+4.36h/A)1/2] Where: A = 2.34P/(S1b) B = diameter of round post or pole (feet) d = depth of embedment in earth in feet, less than 12 feet h = distance from ground surface to point of load (feet) P = applied lateral force (lbs) S1 = allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure (psf) The allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure may be assumed to be 150 psf/ft. Note that per CBC 1806.3.4, isolated poles that are not adversely affected by ½-inch of motion at the ground surface due to short term lateral loads can use a lateral bearing of two times the value provided above. Construction Considerations Soil caving and difficult drilling might be anticipated during the construction of CIDH piles. Drilled shafts should be backfilled with concrete immediately after completion of drilling and observation by the geotechnical consultant. Excavations should not be left unprotected or open. Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 12 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Concrete should be placed through the center of the drilled shaft such that it does not come into contact with the reinforcing steel prior to reaching the bottom of the hole. Concrete mix designs should consider the reinforcing steel clear spacing such that the aggregate can flow through the cage. The recommended allowable unit side friction values assume that the pile is constructed as a continuous mass that fully contacts the sides of the drilled shaft. The pile capacities presented above do not include end bearing. If end bearing is adopted into the design by the structural engineer, Group Delta should be contacted for recommendations. Clean excavation bottoms are essential when end bearing is adopted into pile design. Provisions should be made by the contractor to use a cleaning plate or other suitable method to clean the excavation bottoms if end bearing is accounted for in design, and the bearing conditions should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing steel and concrete. On-Grade Slabs Building slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. Slab thickness, control joints, and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer and should conform to the requirements of the current CBC. The site soils are anticipated to be predominately granular with a very low expansion potential (EI<20). However, some expansive clays may exist. If expansive soils are encountered in the building pad, the clayey soil should be over-excavated two feet, and two feet of non- expansive soils (EI<20) should be placed directly beneath the heave sensitive concrete slabs on- grade. Moisture Protection for Slabs Moisture protection should comply with requirements of the current CBC, American Concrete Institute (ACI 302.1R-15) and the desired functionality of the interior ground level spaces. The project Architect typically specifies an appropriate level of moisture protection considering allowable moisture transmission rates for the flooring or other functionality considerations. Moisture protection may be a “Vapor Retarder” or “Vapor Barrier” that use membranes with a thickness of 10 and 15 mil or more, respectively. The membrane may be placed between the concrete slab and the AB or finished subgrade immediately below the slab, provided it is protected from puncture and repaired per the manufacturer’s recommendations if damaged. Note that the CBC specifies that a capillary break such as 4 inches of clean sand be used beneath building slabs (as defined and installed per the California Green Building Standards), along with a Vapor Retarder. Retaining Walls Two retaining walls are being proposed at the site with retained height less than six feet. The retaining wall design should follow 2019 CBC. The following preliminary geotechnical parameters are provided for design: Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 13 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc • Cantilever retaining walls that yield at the top at least ½ percent of the wall height may be designed using an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 / 65 lbs/ft3 for level and sloped (2h:1v) backfill, respectively. • Foundations for retaining walls can be designed using the recommendations in the Shallow Foundations section of this report. The above parameters assume the following: 1. Cantilever walls will retain properly processed, placed and compacted coarse grained soils meeting the recommendation in Earthwork Section. 2. Both retaining walls have a vertical back. 3. No hydrostatic pressures. All retaining walls should contain adequate backdrains to relieve hydrostatic pressures. Typical wall drain details are shown Figure 5. The California Build Code requires seismic design for all earth retaining structures over six feet in height. The seismic earth pressure is not provided herein, given the height of the walls less than six feet. Asphalt Concrete Pavements Structural Section Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Method (Topic 608.4) (Caltrans, 2019). R-Value tests were conducted on two selected samples collected during the field investigation in general accordance with CTM 301. The test results were presented in Figures B-7 and B-8 in Attachment B. Based on our test results, preliminary pavement sections are provided below for an R-Value of 7. The pavement section design may vary based on actual subgrade R-Value tests performed during fine grading operations. Traffic Indices of 5.0 through 7.0 were assumed for preliminary pavement section design purposes. We understand that a Traffic Index of 7.0 or more may apply to fire truck access lanes. The Project Civil Engineer should review these assumed Traffic Indices to determine if and where they apply to the various new pavements proposed at the site. Based on a subgrade R-Value of 7, and the assumed range of Traffic Indices, the following preliminary pavement sections would apply. Table 6. Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections PAVEMENT TYPE TRAFFIC INDEX ASPHALT SECTION BASE SECTION Passenger Car Parking 5.0 3 Inches 10 Inches Light Truck Traffic Areas 6.0 4 Inches 11 Inches Heavy Traffic Areas 7.0 4 Inches 15 Inches Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 14 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc Subgrade Preparation The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavement sections, brought to within two percent of optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. These recommendations assume the upper two feet of subgrade has a very low Expansion Index (EI<20). Aggregate base should also be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC), Section 200-2 (APWA, 2018). Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 400-4 of the SSPWC and should be compacted to between 91 and 97 percent of the Rice density per ASTM D2041. Surface Drainage Pavement performance depends greatly on how well surface runoff drains from the site. Adequate surface drainage should be provided to reduce ponding and possible infiltration of water into the base and subgrade materials. Paved areas should have a minimum gradient of one percent. As much as possible, planter areas next to pavements should be avoided; otherwise, subdrains should be used to drain the planter to appropriate outlets. Exterior Concrete Slabs Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick. Crack control joints should be placed on a spacing of 10-foot or less centers, each way, for slabs, and on 5-foot or less centers for sidewalks. The potential for differential movements across the control joints may be reduced by using steel reinforcement. Typical reinforcement for exterior slabs would consist of 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric placed securely at mid-height of the slab. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavement sections, brought to within two percent of optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. These recommendations assume the upper two feet of subgrade has a very low Expansion Index (EI<20). Pipelines The development will include a variety of pipelines such as water, storm drain and sewer systems. Geotechnical aspects of pipeline design include lateral earth pressures for thrust blocks, modulus of soil reaction, and pipe bedding. Each of these parameters is discussed separately below. Thrust Blocks Lateral resistance for thrust blocks may be determined by a passive pressure value of 350 lbs/ft2 per foot of embedment, assuming a triangular distribution. This value may be used for thrust blocks embedded into compacted fill soils as well as the formational materials. Modulus of Soil Reaction The modulus of soil reaction (E’) is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed along the sides of buried flexible pipelines. To evaluate deflection due to the load associated with Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020 City of Carlsbad, California Page 15 SD597C-Poinsettia Park -20200311-clean.doc trench backfill over the pipe, a value of 1,500 lbs/in2 is recommended for the general conditions, assuming granular bedding material is placed around the pipe. Pipe Bedding Typical pipe bedding as specified in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction may be used. As a minimum, we recommend that pipes be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding material such as minus ¾-inch crushed rock or disintegrated granite. Where pipeline or trench excavations exceed a 15 percent gradient, we do not recommend that open graded rock be used for bedding or backfill because of the potential for piping and internal erosion. For sloping utilities, we recommend that coarse sand or sand-cement slurry be used for the bedding and pipe zone. The slurry should consist of a 2-sack mix having a slump no greater than 5 inches. Reactive Soils To assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site soils, samples were tested for water-soluble sulfate content, as shown in Appendix B. The test results indicate that the on- site soils have a negligible potential for sulfate attack based on commonly accepted criteria. The sulfate content of the finish grade soils should be determined during mass grading. In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with buried metals, the chloride content, pH and resistivity were also evaluated (see also Appendix B). These test results suggest that the on-site soils are corrosive to buried metals. Typical corrosion control measures should be incorporated into design, such as providing minimum clearances between reinforcing steel and soil, or sacrificial anodes for buried metal structures. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific recommendations. Storm Water Infiltration Three of the four field infiltration tests performed showed a factored stabilized infiltration rate of less than 0.5 and 0.05 inches per hour, which are the lower bound thresholds for full and partial infiltration, respectively. Only one test (I-2) showed a factored stabilized infiltration rate slightly more than 0.05 inches per hour, however, the average infiltration rate of our field tests is 0.3 inches per hour. Considering that the site is underlain by very dense old paralic deposits, we recommend a “no infiltration” condition for the design of storm water BMPs at the site. Construction Observation and Testing Site preparation and the processing and placement of engineered fill, foundation, and pavement section should be performed under the observation and testing services of the Geotechnical Engineer or their field designate. Tests should be taken to determine the in-place moisture and density of the engineered fill and asphalt concrete so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD597C  Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot March 11, 2020  City of Carlsbad, California Page 16    SD597C‐Poinsettia Park ‐20200311‐clean.doc   LIMITATIONS  The recommendations in this report assume soil and geologic conditions do not deviate  appreciably from those observed in the field or reported in this letter.  Geotechnical  engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty.  Professional judgments  presented herein are based partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and  partly on our general experience.  Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current  professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect.   The findings of this report are valid as of the present date.  However, changes in the condition  of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work  of man on this or adjacent properties.  In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate  standards of practice may occur 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.   We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service.  Please feel free to contact the  office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else.    GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS            Congpu Yao, Ph.D., P.E. 85035    James C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258   Senior Engineer     Associate Engineering Geologist     Attachments: References  Figure 1 – Site Location Map   Figure 2 – Exploration Plan  Figure 3A and 3B – Proposed Improvements  Figure 4 – Regional Geologic Map  Figure 5 – Wall Drain Details    Attachment A – Field Exploration Logs  Attachment B – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing  Attachment C – Storm Water Infiltration Assessment    Distribution: (1) Ms. Barbara Kennedy, Park Planner (Barbara.Kennedy@carlsbadca.gov)    REFERENCES American Public Works Association (2018). Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 200-2.2, Untreated Base Materials, Section 400-4, Asphalt Concrete: BNI, 761 p. American Society for Testing and Materials (2019). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (II); Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, Compact Disk. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), (2019). 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, dated: July 1. City of Carlsbad (2016). City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, For Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment, and Hydromodification Management, effective date: February 16. City of Carlsbad (2018). Master Agreement for Geotechnical Services, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., PSA19-0570CA, November. City of Carlsbad (2020). Project Task Description and Fee Allotment No. 3, Project No. 4608. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2020), Flood Map Service Center, accessed on March 11, 2020, at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home Group Delta Consultants (2019). Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation Poinsettia Park Dog Park and Parking Lot. Kennedy and Tan (2007). Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’X60’ Quadrangle, California, compiled by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, digital preparation by K. Bovard, R. Alvarez, M. Watson, and C. Gutierrez. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, accessed February 11, 2020, at: https://www.usgs.gov/natural- hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. (2011). Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. Riverside, California, September. Schmidt Design Group (2019a). Poinsettia Community Park – Dog Park, Parking Lot Study, Carlsbad, California, dated October 30, 2019. Schmidt Design Group (2019b). Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Poinsettia Dog Park, 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California, Parks and Recreation Department, AMEND 2018-0011/CDP 2018-0048, July 15. Structural Engineers Association of California and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2020). Seismic Design Maps Online Tool, https://seismicmaps.org/, accessed February 11, 2020.                             FIGURES    Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California SD-597C 1 NO SCALE SITE LOCATION MAP SITE LAT: 33.1152 N LON: 117.3060 W 20-0025 REFERENCE: Google Maps (2020). LIMITS OF POINSETTIA PARK PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS REFERENCE: Google Maps (2020). TP-6 TP-4 B-1 10’B-2 10’ B-3 4’ B-4 17’ B-5 4’ Location of Test Pit Approximate limits of proposed development Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California SD597C 2 NO SCALE EXPLORATION PLAN B-2 I-2 Location of infiltration testing A-17-001 (Geo/Infil) A-17-002 (Geo) A-17-003 (Geo) A-17-004 (Geo) A-17-005 (Geo) A-17-006 (Geo/Infil) A-17-007 (Geo) A-17-008 (Geo/Infil) TP-6 I-4 A-17-009 (Geo) A-17-010 (Geo) 20-0025 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 TP-1 TP-2 I-3 I-4 I-1 I-2 Approximate limits of undocumented fill stockpile PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS REFERENCE: Schmidt Design Group (2019a). Poinsettia Community Park - Dog Park, Parking Lot Study, Carlsbad, California, dated October 30, 2019. TP-6 TP-4 B-1 10’B-2 10’ B-3 4’ B-4 17’ B-5 4’ Location of Test PitApproximate limits of proposed development Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California SD597C 3A NO SCALE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B-2 I-2 Location of infiltration testing A-17-001 (Geo/Infil) A-17-002 (Geo) A-17-003 (Geo) A-17-004 (Geo) A-17-005 (Geo) A-17-006 (Geo/Infil) A-17-007 (Geo) A-17-008 (Geo/Infil) TP-1 I-1 A-17-009 (Geo) A-17-010 (Geo) 20-0025 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 TP-1 TP-2 I-3 I-4 I-1 I-2 TP-1 TP-2I-1 I-2 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS REFERENCE: Schmidt Design Group (2019). Poinsettia Park Dog Park Conceptual Landscape Plan and Site Plan, dated July 15, 2019. TP-6 TP-4 B-1 10’B-2 10’ B-3 4’ B-4 17’ B-5 4’ Location of Test Pit Approximate limits of proposed development Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California SD597C 3B NO SCALE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B-2 I-2 Location of infiltration testing A-17-001 (Geo/Infil) A-17-002 (Geo) A-17-003 (Geo) A-17-004 (Geo) A-17-005 (Geo) A-17-006 (Geo/Infil) A-17-007 (Geo) A-17-008 (Geo/Infil) TP-6 I-3 A-17-009 (Geo) A-17-010 (Geo) 20-0025 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 I-3 I-4 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6I-3 I-4 Approximate limits of undocumented fill stockpile PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS SD597C 4 NO SCALE REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP LEGEND: REFERENCE: Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’X60’ Quadrangle, California, compiled by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, digital preparation by K. Bovard, R. Alvarez, M. Watson, and C. Gutierrez (2007). LAT: 33.1152 N LON: 117.3060 W SITE 20-0025Qop - Old Paralic Deposits, late to middle Pleistocene Qvop - Very Old Paralic Deposits, middle to early Pleistocene Tsa - Santiago Formation Kp - Point Loma Formation Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS SD597C 5 NO SCALE WALL DRAIN DETAILS LAT: 33.1152 N LON: 117.3060 W SITE 20-0025 Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot City of Carlsbad, California ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE PANEL DRAIN ALTERNATIVE 12”12” COMPACTED BACKFILL COMPACTED BACKFILL DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED 12-INCH MINIMUM MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR APPROVED SIMILAR) 4-INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE 4-INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAR FOOT OF MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC WEEP-HOLE ALTERNATIVEWEEP-HOLE ALTERNATIVE 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1%. 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep-holes may be constructed. Weep-holes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, spaced no greater than 8 feet, and be located just above grade at the bottom of wall. 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. NOTES 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or approved similar product. BIORETENTION BIORETENSION PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (858) 536-1000 ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS                           ATTACHMENT A  FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS       SD597C Attachments.doc  FIELD EXPLORATION    The subsurface exploration program included a visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site, and  the excavation of six test pits (TP‐1 through TP‐6) on February 5, 2020. All test pits were excavated  using A CAT 308E mini‐excavator. Bulk samples were collected from the excavation at various of  depths.  The depth of test pits varies between 4 and 10 feet, depending on the material  encountered in the field.  Groundwater was not encountered during investigation. The test pits  were backfilled with soil cuttings and the ground surface restored immediately following  excavation.      Besides, four infiltration testing borings (I‐1 through I‐4) were hand augered to a maximum depth  of 5 feet and prepared for percolation tests by presoaking for at least 20 hours.  Bulk samples were  collected out of each hole.     The approximate boring locations were determined by visually estimating, handheld GPS reading,  pacing and taping distances from landmarks shown on the Exploration Plan. The locations shown  should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used and  the scale of the map.  The lines designating the interface between differing soil materials on the  logs may be abrupt or gradational. Further, soil conditions at locations between the excavations  may be substantially different from those at the specific locations we explored.  It should be noted  that the passage of time may also result in changes in the soil conditions reported in the logs.                                                A-1TEST PIT RECORDTP-1SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)?12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~E0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-1DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:MULCH & ORGANIC SOILOLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop )*:2-4POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; reddish brown;moderately weathered; very soft;unfractured; (CLAYEY SAND (SC);dense to very dense; moist; mostlyfine to medium sand; some fines;low plasticity; weakly cemented).[SAMPLE: TP-1-1].*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-1?EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN???PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME A-2TEST PIT RECORDTP-2SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)?12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~S0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-2DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:MULCH & ORGANIC SOILSILTY SAND (SM); mediumFILL:dense; yellowish brown; moist;mostly fine SAND; some fines; tracegravel; low plasticity.[SAMPLE: TP-2-1].OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop )*:2-4POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; reddish brown;moderately weathered; soft;unfractured; (CLAYEY SAND (SC);dense to very dense; moist; mostlyfine to medium sand; some fines;low plasticity; strongly cemented).[SAMPLE: TP-2-2].*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-2?EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN???33???PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME A-3TEST PIT RECORDTP-3SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)?12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~E0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-3DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:MULCH & ORGANIC SOILCLAYEY SAND (SC); mediumFILL:dense; grayish brown; moist; mostlyfine to medium SAND; some fines;low plasticity.[SAMPLE: TP-3-1].OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop )*:2-4POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; grayish brown;highly weathered; very soft;unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM);medium dense; moist; mostly fine tomedium sand; some fines; nonplastic;non-cemented).[SAMPLE: TP-3-2].OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4)SAND lense; poorly-graded SAND(SP); medium dense; light yellowishbrown; moist; mostly fine to mediumSAND; trace fines; nonplastic.*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-3?EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN???33????44PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME A-4TEST PIT RECORDTP-4SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)?12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~S0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-4DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:MULCH & ORGANIC SOILSILTY SAND (SM); mediumFILL:dense; brown; moist; mostly fine tocoarse SAND; some fines; lowplasticity. [SAMPLE: TP-4-1].FILL:SANDY lean CLAY (CL); stiff;moist; mostly fines; little sand;medium plasticity. [SAMPLE: TP-4-2].OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4)POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; grayish brown withiron oxide staining; highly weathered;very soft; unfractured; (SILTY SAND(SM); medium dense; moist; mostlyfine to medium sand; some fines;nonplastic; non-cemented).[SAMPLE: TP-4-3].*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-4?EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN???33????44????PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME A-5TEST PIT RECORDTP-5SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~E0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-5DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose;FILL:yellowish brown; moist; mostly fine tomedium SAND; some fines; lowplasticity; strong organic odor[SAMPLE: TP-5-1].OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop )*:2-4POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; reddish brown;moderately weathered; soft;unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM);dense to very dense; moist; mostlyfine to medium sand; little to somefines; nonplastic).[SAMPLE: TP-5-2].*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-5EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN?????PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME A-6TEST PIT RECORDTP-6SD597CCity Of CarlsbadPoinsettia Park (Task No. 3)?12GROUND SURFACELIMITS OFTEST PIT~S0-5510 15 20 25 30-1005DISTANCE (FEET)DEPTH (FEET)APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETNOTE: DIRECTION, SCALE AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 2.55TEST PIT NUMBER:TP-6DATE OF EXCAVATION:2/5/2020EXCAVATION COMPANY:WEST-TECH CONTRACTING, INC.EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT:CAT 308E CR MINI-EXCAVATOR2EXCAVATION METHOD:24-INCH BUCKETTEST PIT LOGGED BY:S. NarvesonSAMPLING METHOD:BULKBACKFILL METHOD:COMPACTED TRENCH SPOILSDATE OF BACKFILL:2/5/2020DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION:MULCH & ORGANIC DEBRISOLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop )*:2-4POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE;medium grained; reddish brown;moderately weathered; very soft;unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM);medium dense to dense; moist;mostly fine to medium sand; littlefines; nonplastic; weakly cemented).[SAMPLE: TP-6-1].*GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION(DISTURBED SOIL DESCRIPTION)21TP-6?EXPLANATION:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,DASHED WHERE INFERRED, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN???PROJECT NAMEPROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE NAME MULCH and ORGANIC SOIL FILL: Clayey SAND (SC); loose to medium dense;gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; mediumplasticity. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop_2-4) : POORLY INDURATED SANDSTONE; medium grained; reddishbrown; moderately to highly weathered; very soft; unfractured; (Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM);dense to very dense; moist; mostly fine to mediumSAND; little fines; nonplastic; weakly cemented). NOTES 1. Total Depth = 4.7 feet (target depth reached).2. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. 3. Boring converted to infiltration test shortly afterdrilling.4. Infiltration testing depth = 1.5'-4.7'. 5. Geologic description (disturbed soil description). B1 5 10 15 20 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)DEPTH (feet)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft) DRILLING METHOD NOTES START MOISTURE(%)60Poinsettia Park (Task No. 3)SD597C 2/5/2020 2/5/2020 S. Narveson FIGURE A-7 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATAPRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 5 10 15 20 Hand Auger DRILLING COMPANY BORING SHEET NO. LOGGED BY DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 Bulk Lat: 33.11573°, Lon: -117.30610°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ELEVATION(feet)DEPTH (feet)FINISH I-1 Poinsettia Park, Carlsbad, California 1 of 1 C. YaoN/A Hand Auger 6 BORING RECORD SITE LOCATION SAMPLING METHOD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING DIA. (in) 4.7 NE / na CHECKED BY San Diego, California 92126 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.GDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD646 LOGS.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 3/4/20 MULCH and ORGANIC SOIL FILL: Silty SAND (SM); medium dense; grayish brown;moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4): POORLYINDURATED SANDSTONE; medium grained; reddish brown; moderately to highly weathered; very soft;unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM); dense to very dense;moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic; moderately cemented). NOTES 1. Total Depth = 3.3 feet (hand auger refusal). 2. Groundwater not encountered during drilling.3. Boring converted to infiltration test shortly after drilling.4. Infiltration testing depth = 1.3' - 3.3'.5. Geologic description (disturbed soil description). B1 5 10 15 20 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)DEPTH (feet)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft) DRILLING METHOD NOTES START MOISTURE(%)60Poinsettia Park (Task No. 3)SD597C 2/5/2020 2/5/2020 S. Narveson FIGURE A-8 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATAPRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 5 10 15 20 Hand Auger DRILLING COMPANY BORING SHEET NO. LOGGED BY DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 Bulk Lat: 33.11553°, Lon: -117.30592°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ELEVATION(feet)DEPTH (feet)FINISH I-2 Poinsettia Park, Carlsbad, California 1 of 1 C. YaoN/A Hand Auger 6 BORING RECORD SITE LOCATION SAMPLING METHOD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING DIA. (in) 3.3 NE / na CHECKED BY San Diego, California 92126 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.GDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD646 LOGS.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 3/4/20 MULCH and ORGANIC SOIL OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4): POORLYINDURATED SANDSTONE; medium grained; reddishbrown; moderately to highly weathered; very soft; unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM); dense to very dense;moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; some fines; nonplastic; weakly cemented). NOTES 1. Total Depth = 4.0 feet (hand auger refusal).2. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. 3. Boring converted to infiltration test shortly afterdrilling.4. Infiltration testing depth = 2.1' - 4'. 5. Geologic description (disturbed soil description). B1 5 10 15 20 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)DEPTH (feet)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft) DRILLING METHOD NOTES START MOISTURE(%)60Poinsettia Park (Task No. 3)SD597C 2/5/2020 2/5/2020 S. Narveson FIGURE A-9 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATAPRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 5 10 15 20 Hand Auger DRILLING COMPANY BORING SHEET NO. LOGGED BY DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 Bulk Lat: 33.11483°, Lon: -117.30623°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ELEVATION(feet)DEPTH (feet)FINISH I-3 Poinsettia Park, Carlsbad, California 1 of 1 C. YaoN/A Hand Auger 6 BORING RECORD SITE LOCATION SAMPLING METHOD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING DIA. (in) 4 NE / na CHECKED BY San Diego, California 92126 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.GDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD646 LOGS.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 3/4/20 MULCH and ORGANIC SOIL OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4): POORLYINDURATED SANDSTONE; medium grained; reddishbrown; moderately to highly weathered; very soft; unfractured; (SILTY SAND (SM); dense to very dense;moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; some fines; nonplastic; noncemented to weakly cemented). NOTES 1. Total Depth = 5.4 feet (target depth reached).2. Groundwater not encountered during drilling.3. Boring converted to infiltration test shortly after drilling.4. Infiltration testing depth = 3.2' - 5.4'.5. Geologic description (disturbed soil description). B1 5 10 15 20 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)DEPTH (feet)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft) DRILLING METHOD NOTES START MOISTURE(%)60Poinsettia Park (Task No. 3)SD597C 2/5/2020 2/5/2020 S. Narveson FIGURE A-10 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATAPRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 5 10 15 20 Hand Auger DRILLING COMPANY BORING SHEET NO. LOGGED BY DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 Bulk Lat: 33.11477°, Lon: -117.30609°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ELEVATION(feet)DEPTH (feet)FINISH I-4 Poinsettia Park, Carlsbad, California 1 of 1 C. YaoN/A Hand Auger 6 BORING RECORD SITE LOCATION SAMPLING METHOD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING DIA. (in) 5.4 NE / na CHECKED BY San Diego, California 92126 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.GDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD646 LOGS.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 3/4/20                             ATTACHMENT B  GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING         LABORATORY TESTING    Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily  exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the  same locality.  No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of  the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests.  Where a specific laboratory test  method has been referenced, the reference only applies to the specified laboratory test method,  which has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not  as a “Test Standard”.  A brief description of the various tests performed for this project follows.    Classification:  Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System as  established by the American Society of Civil Engineers per ASTM D2487.      Particle Size Analysis:  Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM  D7928, and were used to supplement visual soil classifications.  The test results are presented  graphically in Figures B‐1 through B‐3.      Atterberg Limits:  ASTM D4318 was used to determine the Liquid and Plastic Limits, and Plasticity  Index of selected soil samples.  The Atterberg Limits test results are presented in Figure B‐4. The  Atterberg Limits test results are also shown with the associated particle size analyses (where  applicable).     pH and Resistivity:  To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metals, selected soil samples  were tested for pH and minimum resistivity using Caltrans test method 643.  The corrosivity test  results are summarized in Figure B‐5.    Sulfate Content:  To assess the potential for reactivity with concrete, selected soil samples were  tested for water soluble sulfate.  The sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1  (water to dry soil) dilution ratio.  The extracted solution was tested for water soluble sulfate in  general accordance with ASTM D516.  The test results are also presented in Figure B‐5, along with  common criteria for evaluating soluble sulfate content.    Chloride Content:  Water soluble chloride was also extracted from the soil under vacuum using a  10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio, as described above.  The extracted solution was tested for  water soluble chloride using a calibrated ion specific electronic probe.  The test results are also  shown in Figure B‐5, along with common criteria for evaluating chloride content.    Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum  moisture content were determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557.  The results are  shown in Figure B‐6, and summarized in Figure B‐12.           LABORATORY TESTING (Continued)    R‐Value: R‐Value tests were performed on selected samples of the on‐site soils in general  accordance with CTM 301.  The test results are shown in Figure B‐7 and B‐8, and summarized in  Figure B‐13.    Expansion Index:  The expansion potential of selected soil samples was estimated in general  accordance with ASTM D4829.  The test results are shown in Figures B‐9 and B‐10, and summarized  in Figure B‐14.  Figure B‐14 also presents common criteria for evaluating the expansion potential  based on the expansion index.    In‐Situ Moisture:  The in‐situ moisture contents of selected soil samples were evaluated in general  accordance with ASTM test methods D2216.  The results are presented in Figure B‐11.       COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINESILT ANDGRAVELSANDCLAYSAMPLEUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SP-SMATTERBERG LIMITSSAMPLE NUMBER: I-1LIQUID LIMIT: --SAMPLE DEPTH: 0-4.5'DESCRIPTION:POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILTPLASTIC LIMIT: --PLASTICITY INDEX: --SOIL CLASSIFICATIONDocument No. 20-0025 Project No. SD590C FIGURE B-110099988129141193'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4#10#20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer9% Fines→←0% Gravel91% Sand ↔01020304050607080901000.0010.010.1110100Grain Size in MillimetersU.S. Standard Sieve SizesPercent Finer by Weight COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINESILT ANDGRAVELSANDCLAYSAMPLEUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SCATTERBERG LIMITSSAMPLE NUMBER: TP-1-1LIQUID LIMIT: --SAMPLE DEPTH: 6.5'DESCRIPTION:CLAYEY SANDPLASTIC LIMIT: --PLASTICITY INDEX: --SOIL CLASSIFICATIONDocument No. 20-0025 Project No. SD597C FIGURE B-210097745140373429282521191715123'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4#10#20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer34% Fines→←0% Gravel66% Sand ↔1401020304050607080901000.0010.010.1110100Grain Size in MillimetersU.S. Standard Sieve SizesPercent Finer by Weight COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINESILT ANDGRAVELSANDCLAYSAMPLEUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SCATTERBERG LIMITSSAMPLE NUMBER: TP-5-1LIQUID LIMIT:30SAMPLE DEPTH: 1'DESCRIPTION:CLAYEY SANDPLASTIC LIMIT:16PLASTICITY INDEX:14SOIL CLASSIFICATIONDocument No. 20-0025 Project No. SD597C FIGURE B-310098959189735138332927262421201817153'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4#10#20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer29% Fines→←5% Gravel66% Sand ↔1601020304050607080901000.0010.010.1110100Grain Size in MillimetersU.S. Standard Sieve SizesPercent Finer by Weight REVISION 0, DATED 1/31/15 Project Name:Poinsettia Park Tested By :S. Narveson Date:02/21/20 Project No. :SD597C Data Input By:J. Krehbiel Date:02/21/20 Sample No.:TP-5-1 Checked By:C. Yao Date:03/04/20 Sample Location:1' PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST NO. 121234 Number of Blows [N] 32 23 17 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 18.05 30.86 32.20 32.71 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 17.05 26.54 27.26 27.49 Wt. of Container (gm.) 10.81 11.57 10.91 10.91 Moisture Content (%) [Wn]16.03 28.86 30.21 31.48 LIQUID LIMIT 30 PLASTIC LIMIT 16 PLASTICITY INDEX 14 PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 7.3 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL=Wn(N/25)ºꞏ¹²¹ PROCEDURES USED Wet Preparation Multipoint Wet Preparation X Dry Preparation Multipoint Dry Preparation X Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One-point Test STANDARD METHOD FOR ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 10 100MOISTURE CONTENT (%)NUMBER OF BLOWS 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 102030405060708090100Plasticity Index (PI)Liquid Limit (LL) MH or OHML or OL CL or OL CL-ML CH or OH Classification of fine‐grained & fine‐grained fraction  of soils   Document No. 20‐0025  Project No. SD597C  FIGURE B‐5      CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS  (ASTM D516, CTM 643)      SAMPLE    pH    RESISTIVITY  [OHM‐CM]    SULFATE  CONTENT [%]    CHLORIDE  CONTENT [%]  TP-2-2 @ 2' - 3' 7.28 1,507 0.02 < 0.01  TP-5-1 @ 1' 7.44 1,551 0.01 0.01          SULFATE CONTENT [%] SULFATE EXPOSURE CEMENT TYPE  0.00 to 0.10 Negligible ‐  0.10 to 0.20 Moderate II, IP(MS), IS(MS)  0.20 to 2.00 Severe V  Above 2.00 Very Severe V plus pozzolan    SOIL RESISTIVITY GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS  0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive  1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive  2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive  5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive  Above 10,000 Slightly Corrosive     CHLORIDE (Cl) CONTENT GENERAL DEGREE OF  0.00 to 0.03 Negligible  0.03 to 0.15 Corrosive  Above 0.15 Severely Corrosive              LABORATORY TEST RESULTS  STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (ASTM D1557)REV. 1, DATED 09/19/19 PROJECT: SAMPLE ID: PROJECT NO.: DATE: TESTED BY: CHECKED BY: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: A) WATER ADDED B) MOLD TARE WEIGHT C) WEIGHT OF WET SOIL AND MOLD D) WET SOIL WEIGHT (C - B) E) WET DENSITY (D / V) F) DRY DENSITY (E / [(L/100) + 1]) G) TARE WEIGHT H) WEIGHT OF WET SOIL AND TARE I) WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL AND TARE J) WEIGHT OF WATER (H - I) K) DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (I - G) L) MOISTURE CONTENT (J / K * 100) SIEVE NUMBER PERCENT RETAINED MAXIMUM DENSITY [PCF] OPTIMUM MOISTURE [%] MAXIMUM DENSITY [PCF] OPTIMUM MOISTURE [%] Page 1 of 1 128.1 119.6 135.0 119.8123.9 134.8 12.6 285.7 721.2 339.3 409.3 138.3 124.7 281.4 650.5 620.7 15.13 USED 10.2 -3/8" 0.0% 125.1 MOLD VOLUME CORRECTION -- -- pcf/gm pcf/gm WITH ROCK CORRECTION WITHOUT ROCK CORRECTION 15.13 34.196 inch: V= 4 inch: V= 386.6 milliliters grams grams grams 100 2001.9 2001.9 3939.5 1937.6 5.5 lb.10lb.ManualMechanicalMethod: Hammer: Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot SD597C APT TP-4-1 @ 0-3' February 14, 2020 CY 250 2001.9 2042.5 150 200 2001.9 4095.0 2039.6 4041.5 2093.1 Moderate yellowish brown silty sand (SM) grams grams grams grams percent 4044.4 672.3 48.9 grams pcf pcf 295.6 674.2 29.8 281.4 735.4 690.7 44.7 649.3 24.9 353.7 7.0 8.8 10.9 B METHOD USED (A,B or C) 4 inch MOLD 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 0 5 10 15 20 25 30DRY DENSITY (pcf)WATER CONTENT (%) Gs=2.6 Gs=2.7 Gs=2.8 Poly. (Series1)ZERO AIR VOIDS SAMPLE NO.: SAMPLE DATE: 2/5/20 SAMPLE LOCATION: TEST DATE: 2/19/20 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: LABORATORY TEST DATA TEST SPECIMEN 12345 A COMPACTOR PRESSURE 300 140 60 [PSI] B INITIAL MOISTURE 3.0 3.0 3.0 [%] C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT 1200 1200 1200 [G] D WATER ADDED 85 106 135 [ML] E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) 7.3 9.1 11.6 [%] F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) 10.3 12.1 14.6 [%] G MOLD WEIGHT 2019.5 2009.4 2018.5 [G] H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT 3103.1 3126.8 3120.3 [G] I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) 1083.6 1117.4 1101.8 [G] J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT 2.35 2.49 2.54 [IN] K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) 126.7 121.3 114.7 [PCF] L EXUDATION LOAD 7871 6308 2800 [LB] M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) 628 503 223 [PSI] N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 37 52 64 [PSI] O STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS 88 120 140 [PSI] P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI 3.70 4.72 6.20 [Turns] Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER 36 15 5 R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) 32 15 5 S EXPANSION DIAL READING 0.0068 0.0028 0.0009 [IN] T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) 294 121 39 [PSF] U COVER BY STABILOMETER 0.66 0.82 0.92 [FT] V COVER BY EXPANSION 2.27 0.93 0.30 [FT] TRAFFIC INDEX: 4.5 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.49 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 7 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 12 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 7 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from pavement section using CTM 301, Section C, Part b. REV. 2, DATED 1/31/15 I-2 0-3' Grayish brown silty sand (SM) R-VALUE TEST RESULTS CT301 Project No. SD597C FIGURE B-7a Document No. 20-0025 Sample: I-2, 0-3' R-Value at Equilibrium: 7COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTSProject No. SD597CDocument No. 20-0025FIGURE B-7b01020304050607080901000100200300400500600700800R-ValueExudation Pressure [psi]0.00.51.01.52.02.53.00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Cover Thickness by Stabilometer [FT]Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT] SAMPLE NO.: SAMPLE DATE: 2/5/20 SAMPLE LOCATION: TEST DATE: 2/19/20 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: LABORATORY TEST DATA TEST SPECIMEN 12345 A COMPACTOR PRESSURE 350 240 140 [PSI] B INITIAL MOISTURE 2.0 2.0 2.0 [%] C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT 1200 1200 1200 [G] D WATER ADDED 100 115 130 [ML] E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) 8.5 9.8 11.1 [%] F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) 10.5 11.8 13.1 [%] G MOLD WEIGHT 2018.0 2108.3 2013.5 [G] H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT 3062.6 3202.9 3103.4 [G] I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) 1044.6 1094.6 1089.9 [G] J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT 2.39 2.46 2.61 [IN] K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) 119.8 120.6 111.9 [PCF] L EXUDATION LOAD 7442 5470 3313 [LB] M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) 593 436 264 [PSI] N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 18 46 54 [PSI] O STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS 33 106 119 [PSI] P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI 4.15 4.90 5.82 [Turns] Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER 70 21 13 R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) 68 21 14 S EXPANSION DIAL READING 0.0030 0.0007 0.0000 [IN] T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) 130 30 0 [PSF] U COVER BY STABILOMETER 0.30 0.74 0.81 [FT] V COVER BY EXPANSION 1.00 0.23 0.00 [FT] TRAFFIC INDEX: 4.5 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.53 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 14 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 41 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 14 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from pavement section using CTM 301, Section C, Part b. REV. 2, DATED 1/31/15 Project No. SD597C FIGURE B-8a Document No. 20-0025 TP-2-1 0-2' Yellowish brown silty sand (SM) R-VALUE TEST RESULTS CT301 Sample: TP-2-1, 0-2' R-Value at Equilibrium: 14COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTSProject No. SD597CDocument No. 20-0025FIGURE B-8b01020304050607080901000100200300400500600700800R-ValueExudation Pressure [psi]0.00.51.01.52.02.53.00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Cover Thickness by Stabilometer [FT]Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT] STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829)REV.1, DATED 1/31/15 PROJECT: SAMPLE NUMBER: PROJECT NO.: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: TESTED BY: DATE: CHECKED BY: SAMPLED BY: LOCATION Page__1__ of _2___ MOISTURE CONTENT TRIAL NO.NO. 1NO. 2NO. 3 WET SOIL WEIGHT g DRY SOIL WEIGHT g A MOISTURE (((WET - DRY) / DRY) X 100)% RING PREPARATION B WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g C RING WEIGHT g D WET WEIGHT OF SOIL (B - C) g E DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (D / ((A /100)+1)) g F DRY DENSITY OF SOIL (E * 0.3016) g G CALCULATE (2.7 * A * F) H CALCULATE (168.5 - F) J SAMPLE SATURATION (G / H)% DIAL READINGS FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT K INITIAL SETUP READING in O WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g L 10 MINUTE DRY READING in P DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g M 24 HOUR WET READING in Q WEIGHT OF WATER (O - P) g N EXPANSION INDEX ((M - L) * 1000)EI R DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (P - C) g Remarks (if any)S MOISTURE CONTENT ((Q/R )* 100)% EXPANSION INDEX CORRECTION T CALCULATE (50 - J) U CALCULATE ((65 + N ) / (220 - J)) V CALCULATE (T * U) CORRECTED EXPANSION INDEX (N - V) Poinsettia Park Dog Park&Parking Lot TP-2-1 @ 0-2' SD597C Yellowish brown silty sand (SM) % COARSE: 422.8 389.6 593.7 J. Estes 2/13/2020 J. Krehbiel 8.5% <10Carlsbad, California 200.9 392.8 362.0 616.5 558.1 58.4 357.2 0.200 0.200 16.3% 7.7 0.4 3.1 0 0.201 1 2506.1 59.3 42.3% 109.2 STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829)REV.1, DATED 1/31/15 PROJECT: SAMPLE NUMBER: PROJECT NO.: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: TESTED BY: DATE: CHECKED BY: SAMPLED BY: LOCATION Page_2___ of __2__ MOISTURE CONTENT TRIAL NO.NO. 1NO. 2NO. 3 WET SOIL WEIGHT g DRY SOIL WEIGHT g A MOISTURE (((WET - DRY) / DRY) X 100)% RING PREPARATION B WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g C RING WEIGHT g D WET WEIGHT OF SOIL (B - C) g E DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (D / ((A /100)+1)) g F DRY DENSITY OF SOIL (E * 0.3016) g G CALCULATE (2.7 * A * F) H CALCULATE (168.5 - F) J SAMPLE SATURATION (G / H)% DIAL READINGS FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT K INITIAL SETUP READING in O WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g L 10 MINUTE DRY READING in P DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g M 24 HOUR WET READING in Q WEIGHT OF WATER (O - P) g N EXPANSION INDEX ((M - L) * 1000)EI R DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (P - C) g Remarks (if any)S MOISTURE CONTENT ((Q/R )* 100)% EXPANSION INDEX CORRECTION T CALCULATE (50 - J) U CALCULATE ((65 + N ) / (220 - J)) V CALCULATE (T * U) CORRECTED EXPANSION INDEX (N - V) Poinsettia Park Dog Park &Parking Lot TP-5-1 @ 1' SD597C Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC) % COARSE: S. Narveson 365.0 332.9 593.8 J. Estes 2/13/2020 J. Krehbiel 9.6% 6.0Carlsbad, California 201.6 392.2 357.8 617.6 556.2 61.4 354.6 0.200 0.200 17.3% 3.8 0.5 1.9 12 0.214 14 2796.8 60.6 46.2% 107.9 Page__1__ of _1___(ASTM D2937 & D2216)REV. 1, DATED 1/31/15PROJECT: SAMPLED BY: TESTED BY:PROJECT NO.: CHECKED BY: DATE:WET DENSITY DETERMINATIONA)SAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONB)SAMPLE DIAMETER (2.420" or other)[IN]C)SAMPLE LENGTH (CAL Rings are 1.000" Each)[IN]D)SAMPLE VOLUME (3.1416 * (B/2)2 * C)[IN3]E)WEIGHT OF WET SOIL AND RINGS (or TUBE)[G]F)WEIGHT OF RINGS (or SHELBY TUBE)[G]G)WEIGHT OF WET SOIL (E - F)[G]H)WET SOIL DENSITY (G / D) * 3.810[PCF]MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONI)TARE WEIGHT[G]J)WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND TARE[G]K)DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL AND TARE[G]L)DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (K - I)[G]M)WEIGHT OF WATER (J - K)[G]N)MOISTURE FRACTION (M / L)DRY DENSITY AND MOISTURE CONTENTO)DRY DENSITY (H / (1 + N))[PCF]P)MOISTURE CONTENT (N * 100)[%]STANDARD METHOD FOR DETERMINING DRY DENSITY ANDTP-5-1Poinsettia Park Dog Park & Parking Lot S. NarvesonI-1 I-3 TP-2-1J. EstesSD597CJ. Krehbiel 2/11/2020MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOILS0-4.5' 0-4' 0-2' 1'-- -- -- --361.9 496.7 607.8 569.3135.8 152.5 153.2 137.9201.4 315.6 400.8 369.4337.2 468.1 554.0 507.30.123 0.091 0.134 0.16824.7 28.6 53.8 62.012.3 9.1 13.4 16.8-- -- -- --   Document No. 20‐0025  Project No. SD597C  FIGURE B‐12  4” Mold Compaction  (ASTM D1557)      SAMPLE NO.    DESCRIPTION    MAXIMUM  DENSITY  [lb/ft3]    OPTIMUM  MOISTURE  [%]  TP‐4‐1 @ 0‐3’ Fill: Moderate yellowish brown silty sand (SM) 125.1 10.2                      LABORATORY TEST RESULTS    Document No. 20‐0025  Project No. SD597C  FIGURE B‐13    R‐VALUE TEST RESULTS  (CTM 301)      SAMPLE NO.    DESCRIPTION    R‐VALUE  I‐2 @ 0‐3’ Fill: Grayish brown silty sand (SM) 7  TP‐2‐1 @0‐2’ Fill: Yellowish brown silty sand (SM) 14                LABORATORY TEST RESULTS    Document No. 20‐0025  Project No. SD597C  FIGURE B‐14  EXPANSION TEST RESULTS  (ASTM D4829)      SAMPLE            NO.    DESCRIPTION    EXPANSION  INDEX  TP‐2‐1 @ 0‐2’ Fill: Yellowish brown silty sand (SM) 0  TP‐5‐1 @ 1’ Fill: Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC) 12                                          EXPANSION INDEX                             POTENTIAL EXPANSION    0 to 20    Very low    21 to 50    Low    51 to 90    Medium    91 to 130    High    Above 130    Very High    LABORATORY TEST RESULTS                               ATTACHMENT C  STORM WATER INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT        SD597C Attachments.doc  INFILTRATION TESTING      Four borings (I‐1 through I‐4) were prepared for percolation tests after hand‐augering.  The tests  were conducted in accordance with the percolation tests referenced in the Design Handbook for  Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (Riverside, 2011) as well as BMP Design  Manual issued by City of Carlsbad (2016). Figures C‐1 through C‐4 show the infiltration testing  results from these four boreholes.       Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐1 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Average Test Depth: Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rate1:  Feasibility Screening Factor of Safety, F.S.2: Temperature Correction Factor2,3:   1: Rate Factored by Factor of Safety and Temperature Correction Factor. 2: Reference: City of Carlsbad BMP DESIGN MANUAL, February 2016. 3: Factor based on as‐tested water temperature of 64 F and rainfall temperature of 60 F. *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for details. 0.05 to 0.5 Design Condition2 0.95 City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐1 INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER Full Infiltration No Infiltration FIGURE NUMBER SD597C C‐1.1Parking Lot BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST UNFACTORED INFILTRATION RATES* DURING TEST Above 0.50 Factored Infiltration Rate2 Below 0.05 Partial Infiltration 0.005 in./hr. 2 3 in. 4 in. 4.7 ft 1.5' ‐ 4.7' Average Water  Temperature: 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Infiltration Rate (in./hour)Duration of Test (minutes) Unfactored Infiltration Rate* Stabilized Unfactored Infiltration Rate*: 0.01 in./hour Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐1 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Gravel Base Thickness: Initial Depth  to Water Final Depth     to Water Measured  Drop in Water  Level Unfactored  Infiltration  Rate* (ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in./hour) ΔtT Havg  X radius ΔH It *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for  details. Stabilized, Unfactored  Infiltration Rate*:0.01 inch/hour1: Porosity of gravel assumed to be 0.4 to correct drop in water. See text of Appendix C for details. ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Percolation  Rate1 ΔHc/Δt ‐‐ Reading Number TimeInterval (min.)         INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER SD597C FIGURE NUMBER C‐1.2 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐1City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park Parking Lot 0.12 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Avg. Height of  Water (Head) Pre‐soak (120) (120)‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Drop in Water  Level1 ΔHc ‐‐ 3 in. 4 in. 4.7 ft Cumulative Time (min.)(in.) (in.) (in./hour) 3 in. Average Water  Temperature: 1 30 30 1.43 1.45 0.24 [from ground surface] 0.010.16 0.32 ‐‐ ‐‐ 39.12 12*r 3 30 90 1.46 1.47 0.12 0.01 2 30 60 1.45 1.46 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 38.94 12*r 38.82 11.9*r 0.12 0.01 5 30 150 1.49 1.50 0.12 0.01 4 30 120 1.47 1.49 0.16 0.08 0.32 0.16 38.64 11.9*r 38.46 11.8*r 0.24 0.01 7 30 210 1.52 1.54 0.24 0.01 6 30 180 1.50 1.52 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.32 38.28 11.8*r 38.04 11.7*r 0.24 0.01 9 30 270 1.55 1.57 0.24 0.01 8 30 240 1.54 1.55 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.32 37.86 11.6*r 37.68 11.6*r 0.12 0.01 10 30 300 1.57 1.58 0.08 0.1637.50 11.5*r 0.01 Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐2 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Average Test Depth: Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rate1:  Feasibility Screening Factor of Safety, F.S.2: Temperature Correction Factor2,3:   1: Rate Factored by Factor of Safety and Temperature Correction Factor. 2: Reference: City of Carlsbad BMP DESIGN MANUAL, February 2016. 3: Factor based on as‐tested water temperature of 64 F and rainfall temperature of 60 F. *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for details. 0.05 to 0.5 Design Condition2 0.95 City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐2 INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER Full Infiltration No Infiltration FIGURE NUMBER Partial Infiltration C‐2.1Parking Lot BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST UNFACTORED INFILTRATION RATES* DURING TEST Above 0.50 Factored Infiltration Rate2 Below 0.05 Partial Infiltration 0.06 in./hr. 2 3 in. 4 in. 3.3 ft 1.3' ‐ 3.3' Average Water  Temperature: 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Infiltration Rate (in./hour)Duration of Test (minutes) Unfactored Infiltration Rate* Stabilized Unfactored Infiltration Rate*: 0.13 in./hour Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐2 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Gravel Base Thickness: Initial Depth  to Water Final Depth     to Water Measured  Drop in Water  Level Unfactored  Infiltration  Rate* (ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in./hour) ΔtT Havg  X radius ΔH It *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for  details. Stabilized, Unfactored  Infiltration Rate*:0.13 inch/hour1: Porosity of gravel assumed to be 0.4 to correct drop in water. See text of Appendix C for details. ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Percolation  Rate1 ΔHc/Δt ‐‐ Reading Number TimeInterval (min.)         INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER SD597C FIGURE NUMBER C‐2.2 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐2City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park Parking Lot 1.56 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Avg. Height of  Water (Head) Pre‐soak (120) (120)‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Drop in Water  Level1 ΔHc ‐‐ 3 in. 4 in. 3.3 ft Cumulative Time (min.)(in.) (in.) (in./hour) 4 in. Average Water  Temperature: 1 30 30 1.66 1.84 2.16 [from ground surface] 0.221.44 2.88 ‐‐ ‐‐ 18.00 4.7*r 3 30 90 1.58 1.68 1.20 0.11 2 30 60 1.65 1.75 0.80 0.80 1.60 1.60 18.60 4.9*r 19.44 5.1*r 1.20 0.12 5 30 150 1.21 1.35 1.68 0.13 4 30 120 1.32 1.44 0.96 1.12 1.92 2.24 22.44 6.1*r 23.64 6.5*r 1.44 0.12 7 30 210 1.21 1.36 1.80 0.14 6 30 180 1.03 1.20 1.36 1.20 2.72 2.40 25.62 7.2*r 23.58 6.5*r 2.04 0.15 9 30 270 1.18 1.30 1.44 0.11 8 30 240 1.22 1.35 1.04 0.96 2.08 1.92 23.58 6.5*r 24.12 6.7*r 1.56 0.12 1.34 1.08 0.09 10 30 300 1.22 1.35 1.04 0.72 2.08 1.44 23.58 6.5*r 23.46 6.5*r 0.12 11 30 330 1.25 Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐3 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Average Test Depth: Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rate1:  Feasibility Screening Factor of Safety, F.S.2: Temperature Correction Factor2,3:   1: Rate Factored by Factor of Safety and Temperature Correction Factor. 2: Reference: City of Carlsbad BMP DESIGN MANUAL, February 2016. 3: Factor based on as‐tested water temperature of 64 F and rainfall temperature of 60 F. *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for details. BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST UNFACTORED INFILTRATION RATES* DURING TEST Above 0.50 Factored Infiltration Rate2 Below 0.05 Partial Infiltration 0.01 in./hr. 2 3 in. 4 in. 4.0 ft 2.1' ‐ 4' Average Water  Temperature: Poinsettia Park BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐3 INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER Full Infiltration No Infiltration FIGURE NUMBER SD597C C‐3.1Dog Park 0.05 to 0.5 Design Condition2 0.95 City of Carlsbad 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Infiltration Rate (in./hour)Duration of Test (minutes) Unfactored Infiltration Rate* Stabilized Unfactored Infiltration Rate*: 0.02 in./hour Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐3 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Gravel Base Thickness: Initial Depth  to Water Final Depth     to Water Measured  Drop in Water  Level Unfactored  Infiltration  Rate* (ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in./hour) ΔtT Havg  X radius ΔH It 2.05 0.24 0.02 10 30 300 2.01 2.03 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.32 23.76 7.3*r 23.52 7.2*r 0.02 11 30 330 2.03 9 30 270 2.00 2.01 0.12 0.01 8 30 240 1.98 2.00 0.16 0.08 0.32 0.16 24.12 7.4*r 23.94 7.3*r 0.24 0.02 7 30 210 1.95 1.98 0.36 0.03 6 30 180 1.90 1.95 0.40 0.24 0.80 0.48 24.90 7.6*r 24.42 7.5*r 0.60 0.05 5 30 150 2.32 2.34 0.24 0.02 4 30 120 2.30 2.32 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.32 20.28 6.1*r 20.04 6*r 0.24 0.02 3 30 90 2.29 2.30 0.12 0.01 2 30 60 2.27 2.29 0.16 0.08 0.32 0.16 20.64 6.2*r 20.46 6.2*r 0.24 0.02 1 30 30 2.25 2.27 0.24 [from ground surface] 0.020.16 0.32 ‐‐ ‐‐ 20.88 6.3*r BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Avg. Height of  Water (Head) Pre‐soak ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Drop in Water  Level1 ΔHc ‐‐ 3 in. 4 in. 4.0 ft Cumulative Time (min.)(in.) (in.) (in./hour) 2 in. Average Water  Temperature: ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Percolation  Rate1 ΔHc/Δt ‐‐ Reading Number TimeInterval (min.)         INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER SD597C FIGURE NUMBER C‐3.2 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐3City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park Dog Park 0.24 *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for  details. Stabilized, Unfactored  Infiltration Rate*:0.02 inch/hour1: Porosity of gravel assumed to be 0.4 to correct drop in water. See text of Appendix C for details. Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐4 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Average Test Depth: Preliminary Factored Infiltration Rate1:  Feasibility Screening Factor of Safety, F.S.2: Temperature Correction Factor2,3:   1: Rate Factored by Factor of Safety and Temperature Correction Factor. 2: Reference: City of Carlsbad BMP DESIGN MANUAL, February 2016. 3: Factor based on as‐tested water temperature of 64 F and rainfall temperature of 60 F. *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for details. 0.05 to 0.5 Design Condition2 0.95 City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐4 INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER Full Infiltration No Infiltration FIGURE NUMBER SD597C C‐4.1Dog Park BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST UNFACTORED INFILTRATION RATES* DURING TEST Above 0.50 Factored Infiltration Rate2 Below 0.05 Partial Infiltration 0.03 in./hr. 2 3 in. 4 in. 5.4 ft 3.2' ‐ 5.4' Average Water  Temperature: 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Infiltration Rate (in./hour)Duration of Test (minutes) Unfactored Infiltration Rate* Stabilized Unfactored Infiltration Rate*: 0.07 in./hour Project Name:Poinsettia Park Date Drilled:2/5/2020 Borehole Radius (*r): Project Number:SD597C Date Tested:2/6/2020 Casing Diameter: Test Hole Number:I‐4 Tested By:S. Narveson Depth of Hole: Drilling Method:Hand Auger 64 F Gravel Base Thickness: Initial Depth  to Water Final Depth     to Water Measured  Drop in Water  Level Unfactored  Infiltration  Rate* (ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in./hour) ΔtT Havg  X radius ΔH It *Porchet method used to convert percolation rate to infiltration rate. See text of Appendix C for  details. Stabilized, Unfactored  Infiltration Rate*:0.07 inch/hour1: Porosity of gravel assumed to be 0.4 to correct drop in water. See text of Appendix C for details. ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Percolation  Rate1 ΔHc/Δt ‐‐ Reading Number TimeInterval (min.)         INFILTRATION RATE PROJECT NUMBER SD597C FIGURE NUMBER C‐4.2 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST ‐ I‐4City of Carlsbad Poinsettia Park Dog Park 0.84 BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Avg. Height of  Water (Head) Pre‐soak ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Corrected  Drop in Water  Level1 ΔHc ‐‐ 3 in. 4 in. 5.4 ft Cumulative Time (min.)(in.) (in.) (in./hour) 4 in. Average Water  Temperature: 1 30 30 3.11 3.25 1.68 [from ground surface] 0.121.12 2.24 ‐‐ ‐‐ 26.64 7.5*r 3 30 90 3.14 3.24 1.20 0.09 2 30 60 3.25 3.35 0.80 0.80 1.60 1.60 25.20 7.1*r 26.52 7.5*r 1.20 0.09 5 30 150 3.15 3.25 1.20 0.09 4 30 120 3.11 3.15 0.32 0.80 0.64 1.60 27.24 7.7*r 26.40 7.5*r 0.48 0.03 7 30 210 3.28 3.36 0.96 0.07 6 30 180 3.20 3.28 0.64 0.64 1.28 1.28 25.92 7.3*r 24.96 7*r 0.96 0.07 9 30 270 3.28 3.36 0.96 0.07 8 30 240 3.20 3.28 0.64 0.64 1.28 1.28 25.92 7.3*r 24.96 7*r 0.96 0.07 3.31 0.96 0.07 10 30 300 3.20 3.27 0.56 0.64 1.12 1.28 25.98 7.3*r 25.56 7.2*r 0.06 11 30 330 3.23