HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 02-23; LARWIN PARK; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2002-10-09Updated Geotechnical
Investigation
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAR WIN PARK
City of Carlsbad, Larwin Park
Vancouver Street
Carlsbad, California
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad - Recreation Administration
Attn: Liz Ketabian
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, California 92111
Project No. 2002-0570
October 9, 2002
Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc. Established 1946
Liz Ketabian October 9, 2002
City of Carlsbad - Recreation Administration Project No.. 2002-0570.
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
San Diego, CA 92008 .
Subject: Updated Geotechnical Investigation
Project: City of Carlsbad, Larwin Park
Vancouver Street
Carlsbad, California
Dear Ms. Ketabian:
In accordance with TESD's Proposal No. P2002-0570 dated July 30, 2002, Testing Engineers-San Diego,
Inc. has conducted an Updated Geotechnical Investigation at the above referenced site in Carlsbad,
California. The attached report discusses the earthwork construction and foundation design for site
development.
From this investigation and analysis of the subsurface soils, TESD concludes that the proposed
development is geotechnically feasible if recommendations contained herein will be incorporated into the
design and planning, and implemented during construction. . .
Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you on this project and
welcome the opportunity to continue our role as geotechnical consultants. Should you have any questions
regarding the site conditions or contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc.
E. J. MAldrich, GE 2565
Geotechnical Engineer
2002-0570 Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Invesligation.ca a.
I No. 2565 '
* ( Exp. 6/30/06 ) *
OF
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Proposed Development .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................2
SITE INVESTIGATION...............................................................................................................3
4.1 Suburface Exploration.....................................................................................................3
4.2 Laboratory Testing Program............................................................................................3
GEOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................3
5.1 Geologic Setting ....................................................................... . ........................................ 3
5.2 Site Stratigraphy...............................................................................................................3
5.2.1. Fill Soils...............................................................................................................4
5.2.2. Alluvium...............................................................................................................4
5.2.3. Bedrock................................................................................................................4
5.2.4. Groundwater.........................................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4
6.1 General.............................................................................................................................4
6.2 Grading and Earthwork....................................................................................................5
6.2.1. General..................................................................................................................5
6.2.2. Restroom Facility Overexcavation ....................................................................... 5
6.2.3. Pavement...............................................................................................................5
6.2.4. Gravel Parking Lot................................................................................................6
6.2.5. Hardscape .............................................................................................................. 6
6.2.6. Fill Placement and Compaction............................................................................6
6.2.7. Fill Material...........................................................................................................6
6.2.8. Excavation Conditions..........................................................................................7
6.3 Foundation and Slab Recommendations.........................................................................7
6.3.1. General ................................................................................................................... 7
6.3.2. Foundations .......................................................................................................... ..7
6.3.3. Restroom Slab-on-Grade ...................................................................................... 7
6.4 Asphalt Pavement............................................................................................................7
6.5 Trench Backfill................................................................................................................8
6.6 Construction Materials.....................................................................................................9
6.7 Foundation Excavations...................................................................................................9
6.8 Plan Review ..................................................................................................................... .9
6.9 Pre-Grade Meeting...........................................................................................................9
6.10 Observations and Testing...............................................................................................9
7. LIMITATIONS . 9
7.1 Limits of Investigation.....................................................................................................9
7.2 Additional Services........................................................................................................10
PLATES. .
Plate 1 - Vicinity Map.
Plate 2— Upper Site Plan
Plate 2— Lower Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Field Exploration Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LARWIN PARK - CITY of CARLSBAD
VANCOUVER STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
TESD # 2002-0570 Date: October 9, 2002.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE
This report presents the results of Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. (TESD) updated
geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed improvements at Larwin Park, located in
the City of Carlsbad, California. The attached Plate I shows the Vicinity Map. These conclusions
and recommendations have been developed from our interpretation of the existing surface and
subsurface soil conditions at the proposed site. The purpose of the evaluation is to develop
updated conclusions and recommendations as to the site suitability for the currently planned
improvements.
1.2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Larwin Park project will include the construction of a decomposed-granite-covered
parking lot at the upper portion of the site located next to the existing Dog Park, asphalt-pavement
parking at the main park access located at Vancouver Street, property walls adjacent the parking
lot, a restroom structure, concrete flatwork and planter walls. The attached Upper Site Plan and
Lower Site Plan, Plate 2 and 3, illustrate the proposed improvements in relation to the existing site
contours. The plans also depict a graded walking trail that connects the upper and lower sites,
which includes retaining walls up to five feet high. An evaluation of the walking trail and
associated improvements is not part of TESD's scope of services.
1.3. SITE DESCRIPTION
Generally, Larwin Park encompasses an area of approximately 22 acres, located north of Carlsbad
Village Drive and west of Concord Street The site is bordered by Carlsbad Village Drive to the
South and by residential proprieties to the North, East and West General topography of the site
includes an 80-foot deep drainage, with a north-south orientation. Particularly, the development
and improvements will be locatôd in two areas, one adjacent to the existing Dog Park adjacent to
Carlsbad Village Drive and the other on a relatively level area located at the northeast portion of
the site off of Vancouver Street. The location next to the Dog Park, identified as Upper site,
encompasses an area of 0.5-acre, slopes gently to the North, and presently is presently covered
with natural grown grass. The second location, identified as Lower Site, encompasses an area of
approximately 3.0 acres. Its grade is generally level and is bordered to the west by a natural
descending slope. The present grade of the lower site suggested that this area was previously
TESD. Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
I
graded to form a relatively flat pad. Vegetation on both sites included scattered eucalyptus and
other medium size trees. The lower site access, at Vancouver Street, is covered by irrigated lawn.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services for this project consisted of reviewing previous geotechnical engineering related
work performed for Larwin Park and other projects in the area; observing, logging and performing in
situ testing during field explorations; performing laboratory testing and analysis of selected soil
samples; developing conclusions and recommendations; and preparation of this report. Specifically,
the scope of services included:
. Site reconnaissance and review of the available soils reports previously prepared for the
subject area.
Limited subsurface investigation to verify the conditions presented in the soils reports. This
includes five hand-auger borings excavated within the proposed area of development.
Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The samples were sealed in
moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis.
Laboratory testing on selected samples. R-value, gradation, chloride and sulfate content,
maximum density and in-place moisture and density were included in the testing program.
Provide TESD's geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding the site
preparation grading, restroom facility and paved parking lot.
Provide an update geotechnical investigation report.
3. BACKGROUND
TESD has reviewed the available geotechnical documents for the park site and adjacent residential
development. The "Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Grading Operations For
Carlsbad Track No. 74-4 (Spinnaker Point)", prepared by GEOCON Incorporated, dated September
13, 1984, addressed the placement of engineered fill during the grading of Vancouver Street at the
park's lower site access area. As shown in the As-Graded Plan, Plate 2, the park's lower site was cut to
grade in the majority of this area, which resulted in exposing Santiago Formation at the surface
elevation.
The "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Larwin Park Development", prepared by Group Delta
Consultants, Inc., dated May 9, 1991 addressed the proposed development plan for the park that was
planned in 1991. The original development plan included softball and multi-purpose athletic fields,
tennis and basketball courts and other facilities, which required 135,000 cubic yards of grading. Group
Delta performed six exploratory borings and twelve test pits for the subsurface exploration of the
complete park area. Test pits T- 1 and T-2 were located in the vicinity of the lower site and test pit T-5
TESD. Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
2
was located near the upper site. Test Pits T-1 and T-2 encountered Santiago Formation soils at near
surface depths. Santiago Formation was described as dense, dry, light brown silty sand. Test Pit T-5
encountered landslide deposits to a depth of five feet conformed by dark gray sandy clay and olive-
gray silty clay, Santiago Formation was encountered underlying the landslide deposits.
SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
TESD's subsurface exploration was performed on September 12, 2002 and consisted of six hand-
auger borings, labeled B-i through B-6. Boring B-i was located on the upper site and borings B-2
through B-6 were located within the lower site. Plates 2 and 3 show the boring locations at the
upper site and lower site, respectively. The borings were excavated to depths ranging from one to
five feet below ground surface (bgs). TESD's Staff Engineer logged the subsurface conditions
encountered by the borings and collected samples that were sealed in moisture-resistant containers
and transported to the laboratory for subsequent testing. Logs of the exploratory borings are
attached in Appendix B. Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained
from the borings.
4.2. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
A laboratory-testing program was conducted to evaluate pertinent geotechnical engineering
characteristics. Laboratory testing included in-place moisture content and density test, particle size
analysis, maximum density, chloride and sulfate content determination, and R-value evaluation.
All phases of the laboratory-testing program were conducted in general accordance with the
current applicable ASTM specifications and other accepted test methods. Appendix C provides a
summary of test results.
GEOLOGY
5.1. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located within the coastal portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of
California. The coastal portion of the province of San Diego County are typically composed of
shallow westward dipping sedimentary materials forming low mesas. West flowing drainage
channels in turn, dissect the mesas. Geologic data and mapping indicates that the site is underlain
by Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation.
5.2. SITE STRATIGRAPHY
The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions, which were exposed during the
field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
3
conditions may not be represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered
during the field investigation are presented on the Exploration Logs.
5.2.1. Fill Soils
Fill soil was encountered in borings B-i through B4 and B-6 to depths ranging from 0.5 foot in
boring B-3 to 4.5 feet in boring B-2. The fill materials consisted of light brown to tan silty sand
with consistency ranging from loose at boring B-i to medium dense at borings B-2, B-3, B4
and B-6. The fill encountered in the lawn area at the lower site was wet, likely from the
landscaping irrigation. This soil may need to be dried or blended to achieve the recommended
moisture content for fill placement.
5.2.2. Alluvium
Alluvium soil was encountered in borings B-i and B-2 underlying the fill soil. Alluvium
consisted of dark brown sandy clay with medium stiff to stiff consistency and moderate to high
moisture content. This material is likely expansive and should not be placed as fill, unless it is
uniformly blended to provide a material with an Expansion Index of 50 or less.
5.2.3. Bedrock
Sandstone bedrock characteristic of the Santiago formation was encountered in borings B-land
B-3 though B-6 at depths ranging from 0.0 feet in boring B-5 to 2.5 feet in boring B-l. The
bedrock consisted of tan to light brown, medium to fine grained sandstone with various
amounts of silt Encountered foundational material was generally damp to moist, dense to very
dense and light to moderately cemented.
5.2.4. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of TESD's field exploration.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. GENERAL
Based on the results of our investigation, we consider the proposed development is feasible from a
geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are implemented
during design, grading and construction. A TESD engineer should review the final grading and
foundation plans for conformance to the recommendations. General geotechnical considerations
applicable to site grading and recommendations for the design and construction of the project are
discussed below.
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
4
6.2. GRADING AND EARTHWORK
6.2.1. General
All grading and earthwork should be in accordance with the recommendations herein and any
grading requirements of the governing authorities. Prior to grading the surface obstructions,
vegetation, and other miscellaneous I debris should be removed from the areas of the proposed
improvements. Holes and depressions resulting from the removal of trees or obstructions
should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations contained
in the subsequent sections of this report.
6.2.2. Restroom Facility Overexcavation
The restroom facility pad should be overexcavated a minimum of two feet below bottom of
footing or mat foundation elevation prior to placement of any fill needed to establish finish
grade. The overexcavation will remove the upper disturbed soil and provide a uniform bearing
surface to reduce potential differential settlement. The overexcavation should extend laterally
a minimum of five feet beyond the structure limits.
Following overexcavation and removal of existing materials, the exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of six to eight inches, brought to within two percent of optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The
excavated soils may then be replaced as properly compacted fill.
As an alternative to the overexcavation of the restroom facility pad, the structure may be
designed and constructed with continuous footings or a mat foundation that extends to
undisturbed formational soil. Subgrade supporting slab-on-grade should be scarified a
minimum of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to within two percent of optimum moisture and
recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1517).
6.2.3. Pavement
To provide for more uniform supporting conditions and reduce the potential for differential
movement, TESD recommends that the pavement subgrade area be removed to a minimum
depth of two feet below the existing or proposed subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper.
After removal, the exposed ground surface should be observed by a TESD engineer or
geologist to verify that the encountered subsurface conditions are consistent with those
encountered by the exploratory borings. Undocumented fill or alluvium material deemed
unacceptable should be removed to an approved depth, as recommended by the geotechnical
consultant during grading. Upon observation and verification, the exposed ground surface
should be scarified a minimum depth of eight inches and moistened conditioned to within two
TESD. Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
5
percent of optimum, based on the ASTM D1557 test method. The moisture conditioned soil
should then be compacted to a minimum dry density of 90 percent based on the ASTM D1557
test method.
After .the surface to receive fill has been prepared, the removed soil may be replaced as
engineered fill. The removed soil should be mixed to a uniform soil condition, moisture
conditioned and compacted as described in section 6.2.6 of this report.
6.2.4. Gravel Parking Lot
The planned decomposed granite parking lot located on the upper site will be underlain by
undocumented fill and/or possibly landslide debris. Grading for this gravel parking lot does
not require any remedial grading. However, if the parking lot will ever be paved, we
recommend removing the undocumented fill and landslide debris prior to placing fill.
6.2.5. Hardscape
In order to provide uniform soil conditions, the subgrade in hardscape areas should be
scarified 12 inches and compacted in accordance with the following section of this report.
The scarified and compacted area should extend laterally a minimum of 12 inches beyond the
Hardscapeliniits.
6.2.6. Fill Placement and Compaction
All fill placed at the site should have the soil moisture adjusted to within two percent of the
optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, based on ASTM D
1557. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal loose lifts of less
than eight inches in thickness. Each lift should be observed, tested and approved prior to
placement of subsequent lifts.
6.2.7. Fill Material
The on-site soils with Expansion Index of 50 or less may be used as compacted fill. Both
imported and existing on-site soils to be used as fill should be free of debris, organic and
cobbles over six inches in maximum dimension. Imported fill material should be approved by
the geotechnical engineer prior to importing. The geotechnical engineer should be notified not
less than 72 hours in advance of the location of any soil proposed for import. Alluvium and
some fill located in the area of the proposed parking lot consisted of clayey soil. This soil
may be expansive and should be disposed in areas where improvements are not planned, or
may be uniformly blended with sandy soil to provide a mixture with an expansion index of
less than 50.
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
6
6.2.8. Excavation Conditions
TESD anticipates that excavation of the on-site materials may be accomplished with typical
earthmoving or trenching equipment. Local cemented zones within the sandstone, if
encountered, could require ripping.
6.3. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
6.3.1. General
The following paragraphs present foundation and slab recommendations for the proposed
restroom structure. The footings and slab configurations, and reinforcement recommendations
herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agencies
or by structural considerations. A structural engineer should evaluate configurations and
reinforcement requirements. We anticipate that the structure will consist of slab-on-grade and
perimeter footings or a mat slab foundation system.
6.3.2. Foundations
Foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent finished subgrade and be founded entirely on compacted fill or entirely on formation.
Footings bearing entirely on properly compacted fill soil may be designed for an allowable
dead-plus-live load bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in
bearing pressure may be used for short-term or seismic loads. For foundation elements
supported on undisturbed formational soil, the allowable dead-plus-live load bearing pressure
may be increased to 3,000 pounds per square foot.
6.3.3. Restroom Slab-on-Grade
For geotechnical considerations, TESD recommends a minimum slab thickness of four inches.
A thickened edge may be used for the perimeter foundation. Minimum slab reinforcement
should consist of No.4 rebar at 18 inches on-center, each-way, placed at mid-height of the
slab. The slab should be underlain by four inches of aggregate base. Foundations and slabs
should be designed by a structural engineer in accordance with the applicable sections of the
Uniform Building Code.
6.4. ASPHALT PAVEMENT
The following presents recommendations for the proposed parking lot asphalt concrete (AC)
pavement to be located at the access from Vancouver Street. These recommendations are based on
standard design procedures and our experience with similar pavement structures.
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
7
The tested R-Value result of 19 indicates a low to moderate capability for support of vehicle loads.
The pavement structural sections are based on assumed traffic loadings in the form of Traffic
Index (TI) values. Based on the tested R-Values, the assumed TI and the State of California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) standard method for design of pavement structural
sections, TESD recommends a design section of four inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four
inches of aggregate base (AB).
Prior to placement of the aggregate base course, the pavement subgrade should be prepared as
previously discussed in the earthwork section of this report. The subgrade preparation and
compaction should extend to a horizontal distance of at least two feet beyond the limits of the
pavement or concrete curbs. The aggregate base should conform to Section 200-2.2 of the
"Greenbook" standard specifications. The aggregate base should be compacted to a relative
compaction of 95 percent with a moisture content within two percent of optimum (ASTM D1557).
The asphalt concrete should be Type III-C2 or C3-AR4000 in accordance with the "Greenbook"
standard specifications. If desired, a smoother surface may be constructed by using Type Ill-D-AR
4000 for the upper two inches of the asphalt concrete pavement. The asphalt concrete should be
compacted in accordance with Section 302-5.6.2 of the "Greenbook" standard specifications.
The pavement design section is based on one preliminary R-Value test. Additional R-Value
testing should be performed on the surface soils after the grading is completed to verify the
pavement design.
6.5. TRENCH BACKFILL
All subsurface utility trench backfill, including water, sewer, and electrical lines should be
mechanically compacted. Water jetting should not be used for compaction. The pipe bedding
should consist of free-draining sand or small gravel with a minimum sand equivalent of 30. There
should be sufficient clearance along the side of the utility pipe or line to allow for compaction
equipment. The pipe bedding shall be compacted under the haunches and along side the pipe.
The soil backfill located above the bedding shall be compacted to the requirements described in I
ie Earthwork and Rough Grading section of this report. More stringent backfill placement
criteria may be required by the governing authority.
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
8
6.6. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Testing of select soil samples indicated a negligible sulfate exposure as indicated by the California
Building Code (CBC 1997 Table 19-A-4). The results indicated no requirements for sulfate
resistant concrete. However, TESD recommends Type II or Type V Cement with a maximum
water cement ratio of 0.50.
6.7. FOUNDATIONS EXCAVATIONS
Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of
forms, reinforcement, or concrete to verify that the exposed soil conditions conform to those
encountered during this investigation. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square.
All loose or sloughed material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
6.8. PLAN REVIEW
The Geotechnical Consultant should review the grading and foundation plans when they become
available. The purpose of this review is to verify that the recommendations contained in this
report have been properly incorporated into the plans and specifications.
6.9. PRE-GRADE MEETING
Prior to commencement of grading, a pre-construction meeting should be held with representatives
of the owner, contractor, architect, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official to
clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional
recommendations, and to help establish a suitable construction sequence.
6.10. OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
All grading, earthwork and foundation construction should be performed under the observation
and testing of a geotechnical engineer representative. Testing should be used to verify the
suitability of material and soil compaction.
7. LIMITATIONS
7.1. LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
This investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by registered geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advise included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and
may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and TESD, Inc.
TESD, Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
9
The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of
site conditions: however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test
excavations and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction
excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the change conditions must be
evaluated by a representative of TESD and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs
recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought
to the attention of the project engineer. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of
a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural process or the works
of man. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or
the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, his report is subject to review and should
be updated after a period of three years.
7.2. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction is an integral
part of the recommendations made in this report. The required tests, observations and consultation
during construction includes, but is not limited to:
Inspection of grading removal bottom, overexcavation, temporary cuts, footing excavations,
and slab subgrade.
Observation and testing during grading operations.
Additional consultation as required during construction or upon the owner's request.
The above listed observation and testing are additional services, which aie provided by TESD and
should be budgeted within the cost of the project
Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc.
TESD. Inc. * Larwin Park Updated Geotechnical Investigation * 2002-0570 * October 2002
10
PLATES
- •.
..Mira ;c T
. 70 --
.
7thi
Countrj Club
w. / -por
ZZ - •
—I Camino qp
—
. . .cs'
/ 8 -
— —
oppIh Ctr .
A ON
Re Location
/
tr e
IlI I
-
\
.. .. :. .• ... -. I Oda
p . . . •. . •• .• . .:
. •:• ..• : .....:.. :.. \.
.\ ... • r'
VE ) (\
. -
'L\/.
/
- ..444k
4.
uuv it ...opo u i.opyrtt IV 1999 L.Lcrm. Yarmouth, ME 04096 Scale: 1 22.400 Detail: 13-0
ru
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. VICINITY MAP - PLATE 1
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 LARWIN PARK
San Diego, CA 92111 Carlsbad, California
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
2002-0570 1 September, 2002
N N.
c .
\\WE OCA TE EXIS ttN6\I
I \)\\Qm/TROLLER VALVES
c \'
—I
o 10 20 JO
SCALE (FEET)
II
EXPLANA TION
—4-8-6 Boring Exploration approximate location
TESTING ENGINEERS - SAN DIEGO, INC
PROJECT: LARWINPARK -CITY OF CARLSBAD
JOB No.: 2002-0570
TITLE: UPPER SITE PLAN
PLATE: 2
—I
0 40 80
SCALE (FEET)
,rg_1Ivfrj IIL/IV
4-8-6 Boring Exploration approximate location
Qof Artificial Fill
Is Santiago Formation
Inferred Geologic Contact
TESTING ENGINEERS - SAN DIEGO, INC
PROJECT: LARWINPARK- CITY OF CARLSBAD JOB No.: 2002-0570
TITLE: LOWER SITE PLAN
PLATE: 3
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
GEOCON Incorporated, March 8, 1983, Quail Ridge, Lots 215 through 219 (Model Lots) Carlsbad, California, Testing and Observation Services During Grading
Operations; Partial Final Report of Grading, File No. D-0684-MO2.
GEOCON Incorporated, September, 1983, Final Report of Testing and Observation
Services During Mass Grading Operations for Carlsbad Tract No. 74-4 (Spinnaker
Point) Phase I.
GEOCON Incorporated, June 19, 1984, Carlsbad Tract No. 74-4 (Spinnaker Point
Phase I) Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California Final Report of Testing and Observation
Services During Mass Grading Operations.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc., February 20, 1991, Summary of Geotechnical
Considerations for Proposed Larwin Park Development, Carlsbad, California,
project no. 1317-GEO1.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc., May 9, 1991, Geotechnical Investigation for
Proposed Larwin Park Development, Carlsbad, California, project no. 13 17-SIO1.
State of California, 1997, California Building Code.
.
APPENDIX B
HELD EXPLORATEON LOGS
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTiFICATION
The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted.
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
N: Standard Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 lb hammer falling 30" on a 2" O.D. split-spoon.
Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tsf.
Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf.
Mc: Water content, %.
LL: Liquid limit, %.
P1: Plasticity index, %.
Rd: Natural dry density, PcF.
V: Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion.
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
CAL: Modified California Sampler -25/8" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted.
SS: Split-Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted.
ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.
DC: Drive Cylinder Sample.
BK: Large Bulk Sample.
SB: Small Bulk Sample.
SC: Sand Cone.
HD: Hand Drive Sample. .
Bulk: Bulk Bag Sample
Block: Undisturbed Block Sample.
RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (SPT)
Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Dense 31 to 50 Very Dense Over 50
TERM (COHESIVE SOILS). SPT OU - (TSF) Very Soft . 0 to2 0 -0.25 Soft 2 to 4 0.25 - 0.50 Medium Stiff 4to8 0.50-1.00 Stiff 8to16 1.00-2.00 Very Stiff 16 to 32 2.00-4.00 Hard Over 32 4.00+
PARTICLE SIZE
Boulders 12 in. + Coarse Sand No.4 - No. 30 Silt No. 200 - Hydrometer Cobbles 12 in -3.in Medium Sand No. 30- No.70 Clay Hydrometer Gravel 3 in —No.4 Fine Sand No. 70—No. 200
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 1 I- San Diego, CA 920111
Tel (858) 715-5800 Fax (858) 715-5810
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT NAME: Larwin Park -City of Carlsbad PROJECT NO: 2002-0570 DATE OBSERVED: 9/12/2002 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: Hand Auger LOGGED BY: CEA GROUND ELEVA11ON N/A LOCATION: See Map
DEPTH UND BULK MOIST. BORING No.: B-I (FEET) CLASS N SAMPLE SAMPLE CONT. DO DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST = _= _(%) = SM ARTIFICIAL FILL:
Medium to fine SAND with trace silt and gravel
Light brown, dry, loose, clods of plastic silt and oragnic matter Sc [j TOPSOIL BULP 2-
\ Clayey SAND
3 Dark brown, moist, loose, some organic matter SM
[!] WLI ALLUVIUM
\ Sandy CLAY 4-
- \ Dark brown, moist, medium stiff, trace of organics, blockly
structure, mottled with olive silty sand. 5-
SANTIAGO FORMATION \
6 \ SANDSTONE (Clayey SAND)
Olive gray, moist, very dense, cemented
Terminated at 0.41n.
No ground water encountered
- backfilled 9/12/02
LOGGED BY CEA GROUND ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: See Map
BORING NO.: B.2
LAWN and TOPSOIL SM
1-
SM
CD -_
14.5 111.3
ARTIFICIAL FILL
Silty SAND (Decomposed Granite)
2 - \ Brown, wet, loose
Silty SAND
-
BUL: Tan/ gray, wet to near saturated, medium dense
4-
CL ALLUVIUM - -
- \ Silty CLAY with some sand
6 - Dark brown, wet, stiff
Terminated at 5 Ft.
- No groundwater encountered
Backfllled 9/12/02
8-.
I 1 Pit
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 920111
Tel (858) 715-5800 Fax (858) 715-5810
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT NAME: Larwin Park -City of Carlsbad PROJECT NO: 2002-0570
DATE OBSERVE 9/12/2002 METHOD OF EXCAVATION:. Hand Auger. LOGGED BY: CEA GROUND ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: See Map
DEPTH UND BULK MOIST. BORINGNo.: B-3 (FEET) CLASS N SAMPLE SAMPLE CONY. DD DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST
=
SM
= =
ARTIFlClALFlLL:
Medium to fine SAND with trace silt and gravel SM Jf]
\ Orange brown, damp to moist, medium dense -
SANTIAGO FORMATION 2 -
SANDSTONE (Silty SAND)
-
Light gray / tan, damp to moist, very dense, slightly cemented,
grained medium to fine
Terminated at 12 inches 4-
No ground water encountered
backfilled 9/12/02 5-
6-
7-
LOGGED BY: CEA GROUND ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION: See Map
BORING NO.: B-4
SM
BULkl 1
ARTIFICIAL FILL
Medium to fine SAND with some silt and trace gravel
SM - Reddish/orange brown, dry to damp, medium dense
2- SANTIAGO FORMATION
• \ SANDSTONE (Silty SAND)
\ Light gray! tan, damp to moist, very dense, slightly cemented,
• • \ grained medium to fine • •
Terminated at 18 inches 4 -
- No groundwater encountered
- Backfilled 9/12/0
6-
7-
8—
, ru
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 920111
Tel (858) 715-5800 Fax (858) 715-5810
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT NAME Larwin Park- City of Carlsbad PROJECT NO: 2002-0570
DATE OBSERVED: 9/12/2002 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: Hand Auger . LOGGED BY CEA GROUND ELEVATION: N/A LOCATION-. See Map
DEPTH . UND BULK MOIST. BORING No.: 13-5
(FEET) CLASS N SAMPLE SAMPLE CONT. OD DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST
SM SANTIAGO FORMATION MD=122.5percent BULK
SANDSTONE (Silty SAND) OM = 11.5
\ Light gray / tan, damp to moist, dense to very dense, slightly
\ cemented, grained medium to fine 2-
\ weathered, dry and loose top 3 inches
Terminated at 12 inches 3-
No ground water encountered
backfilled 9/12/02 4-
5-
6- . .
7-
LOGGED BY: EJA (9/17/02) GROUND ELEVATION: N/A LOCA11ON: See Map
BORING NO.: B-6
Silty CLAY with sand
TOPSOIL
SM
LH \ Dark Brown, wet, soft
\ ARTIFICIAL R-Value: 19 2-
\ \ Silty SAND, trace of Clay
3 - - - \\ ------------------- Light Brown, wet, soft
___ ___
•
. \SAND. .. . ...
-
\ ' Brown, very moist to wet, medium dense
-
\ SANT1AGOFORMATON
SANDSTONE with silt
Light grayish brown, moist, very dense
Terminated @ 3.0 ft. 6 -
No Groundwater Encountered
- Backfilled 9/17/02
leSIMICOWS I!
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative
engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or other accepted standards. The
following presents a brief description of the various test methods used.
Classification - Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory
testing of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D-2487. The soil classifications
are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B.
Particle Size Analysis - Particle size analyses were performed on a select representative
sample in accordance with ASTM D-422. The results are provided on Plate C-i.
Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content - The laboratory maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content of a select sample was determined in
accordance with ASTM D- 1557, Method A. The test result is provided on Plate C-2.
Soil Corrosivity - Soluble sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance
with California Test Methods 643 and 417 to assess the degree of corrosivity of the
subgrade soils with regard to concrete and. The test results are provided on Plate C-3.
In-Situ Moisture and Density - The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight at
selected depths were determined utilizing ASTM D-4959. The dry unit weight and
moisture content are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B and on Plate C-4.
Resistance Value (R-Value) - An R-Value test was performed on a soil sample in
accordance with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Test Method 301
The results are shown on Plate C-S.
100
90
30
20
10
C
Particle Size Distribution Report
C
IIIIIhIHiiIohiIis!lIuu milli IIIIuIoIIIII IIIIIIIIuflIIIHhI___
UIh
IIIIHIIIIIIHII_IIIIIIIIIOhIUI_1111111
1 _ IIuhi•IuhI 11111111 Illslull 11111111 ill millilililmilill 0
1
I IIHhIIIIIIUhIiI!!IIIII__111111
11111111 uIuHhIuuiuIIiiIuuuIIgIiui__jIgIui III. IsTi I, 'II!iI (RAIN SIZE - mm
% COBBLES % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES I CRS. I FINE I I CRS. I MEDIUM I FINE I SILT I CLAY I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 1.4 I 21.6 I 64.4 I 12.6
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(XNO)
1/2 in. 100.0
3/8 in. 100.0
#4 100.0
#10 98.6
#20 92.4
#40 77.0
#60 48.6
#100 23.9 #200 12.6
Soil Description
LIGHT GRAY-TAN SILTY SAND
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1
Coefficients
D85= 0.543 D60= 0.304 050 0.256
D30= 0.175 D15= 0.0984 D10
Cu= cc=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
TESD NO. 5679
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: 5679 Source of Sample: Date: 9/12/02 Location: B-S Elev./Depth: 0"-12"
Client: City of Carlsbad - Recreation Administration
TESTING ENGINEERS Project: City of Carlsbad - Larwin Park Geo. T&I
No: 02-0570 Plate 1
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Curve No.: I
Project No.: 02-0570 Date: 9/12/02
Project: City of Carlsbad - Larwin Park Geo. T&1
Location: B-S
Elev./Depth- 0-12"
Remarks TESD NO. 5679
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Description: LIGHT GRAY-TAN SILTY SAND
Classifications - USCS: AASHTO:
Nat. Moist. = Sp.G. =
Liquid Limit = Plasticity Index = %> No.4 = 0.0 % % < No.200 = 12.6 %
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 122.5 pef
Optimum moisture = 11.5 %
140 - = = = = S j\ Test specification:
- F - - - - - -
ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
130—'—--'--'
120--
--- ...----.,-.
- - - 100% SATURATION CURVES
FOR SPEC. GRAy. EQUAL TO:
28
- - 27
0.110— I 26 c
-
-
- -.----'.q -
0 -
90
100--
- --- -
— —
::I
E FJ-
1041t 15 20 25
70
30 35 40
Water content, %
Plate 2 TFsTIlJr JtIMPPPS
-San Diego, Inc. Testing Engineers Established 1946
CIThORIDF & SULFATE TEST
Date. September 23,2002 ... .: .
Job No: 2002-0570
Job Name: CITY OF CARLSBAD - LARWIN PARK GEo. T&I
Address: Carlsbad, California
Plan Number: N/A
Permit: N/A
Application: N/A
Report No: 4375
ENGINEER: BENJAMIN SHIRER, STAFF ENGINEER
SULFATE CHLORIDE
LB NUMBER SAMPLE CONTENT CONTENT IDENTIFICATION (PPM). . (PPM)
5679 B-5 @ 0tt12 12.8 24.0
Plate C-3
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810
- ES!) i'Z'*. ••.4• - -.' - _4&, t;. ,'- . .C..& .I*t.. ..t..>;' .. r..?., '-S '..' a -.
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. Established 1946
-
Natural Moisture And Density
(Ring Samples). .
Date: September 23, 2002 .
..
Job No: 2002-0570
Job Name: CITY OF CARLSBAD - LARWIN PARK GEO. T&I
Address: Carlsbad, California
Report No: 4374
ENGINEER: BENJAMIN SHIRER, STAFF ENGINEER
PROJECT: LARWIN PARK
DATE SAMPLED: 9/12/02
LAB NUMBER: 5677
SAMPLE .. B-2 @ .. .. . . IDENTIFICATION/NO. 811-14"
MOISTURE CONTENT, % 14.5
DRY DENSITY, pcf 111.3
Plate C-4
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. Established
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME LARWIN PARK - CITY OF CARLSBAD
CLIENT'S PROJECT OR WORK ORDER NUMBER 2002-0570
SAMPLE LOCATION B-6 @ 6"-18"
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION GRAY-BROWN CLAYEY SAND
SAMPLED BY • TESD
[DATE PROJ. NO. 2002-0570 DATE RECEIVED 9/12/2002
LAB NUMBER 5710
LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 2 3
Compactor Pressure (psi)
Moisture at Compaction (%)
Compacted Density (pct)
350 75 225
10.8 12.5 11.7
125.5 121.7 123.4
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (feet)
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer (feet)
Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-Value (corrected)
1.03 0.37 0.57
0.72 1.18 1.07
640 270 410
50 18 26
EXPANSION PRESSURE
----- ----- ----- - ----- ----- ----- _
TI ----- ----- _ _N_-----_ ----- ----- p. --n-- ----- ----. - 'I II • ---- - ----- ---- - --- .. ---- ---- _ S - ---- ---- - ----- - ----- ----- - ----- ___; ---- - •• ----- ---- I- -
.----- ----- - ----- n---- - ---- ----- ----- _
_F___ ----- ----- -
i'r-- -
IT 1r -i 2.0
EXUDATION PRESSURE
'U 100
80
60
LU 40
Ui 20
go
Af 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
EXUDATION PRESSURE. (psi)
.I½SSI..Jlv[El) I'1..A.F}IC I1'1])E)C
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION 19 Reviewed By
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION 40 BENJAMIN SHIRER, STAFF ENGINEER
R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM 19 Plate C-5