The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 01-01; Pacifica Palomar Office Building; Site Development Plan (SDP) (2)TT E<:T :HM(:,\. ON E GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR SHAPOURI & ASSOCIATES RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 7, 2001 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Project No. 06480 32-01 Febmary 7, 2001 Shapouri & Associates 16089 San Dieguito Road, Suite HI02 Post Office Box 676221 Rancho Santa Fe, Califomia 92067 Attention: Subject: Gentlemen: Mr. Ali Shapouri PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION In accordance with your request and our proposal dated March 9, 2000 (LG-00212), we have performed a geotechnical investigation for an approximately 7-acre proposed business development site located in Carlsbad, Califomia. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as proposed. In our opinion, the site may be developed as planned provided the recommendations of this report are followed. The primary consideration during site development will be the presence of relatively deep alluvium across the majority of the site and settlement and liquefaction issues related to the deep alluvium. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very tmly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED £) David B. Evans CEG 1860 MEE:DBE:dmc (6) Addressee (1) Hope Engineering Attention: Mr. Jim Amundson 6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Undocumented Fill 3 3.2 Alluvium 3 3.3 Santiago Formation 3 4. GROUNDWATER 4 5 . GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity 4 5.2 Ancient Landslides 5 5.3 Liquefaction 5 6 . SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 6 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 7.1 General 8 7.2 Groundwater 8 7.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 8 7.4 Grading 9 7.5 Slope Stability 10 7.6 Seismic Design Criteria 10 7.7 Mat Foundations 11 7.8 Concrete Slabs—General 11 7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 12 7.10 Drainage and Maintenance 13 7.11 Grading Plan Re view 14 LMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDmONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figures 2, Site Plan (Map Pocket) APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 - A-12, Logs of Borings Figures A-13 - A-27, Logs of Cone Penetrometer Soundings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figures B-l - B-7, Consolidation Curves Figures B-8 - B-14, Percent Consolidation Versus Time Figures B-15 - B-16, Gradation Curves APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for a proposed business development planned in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. The purpose of the study was to investigate the soil and geologic conditions, as well as geotechnical constraints (if any) that may impact areas of proposed development. This report provides recommendations relative to the geotechnical engineering aspects of developing the property as proposed based on the conditions encountered during this investigation. The scope of the investigation included a review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, a draft version of a previous geotechnical report and readily available published geologic and geotechnical literature pertinent to the property (see List of References). The scope also included performing a field investigation, laboratory testing to evaluate physical soil properties, engineering analyses and preparation of this report. The field investigation was conducted on March 31, April 3 and May 25, 2000, and consisted of a site reconnaissance, drilling 5 small-diameter borings and 15 cone penetrometer soundings. The borings and soundings were performed to evaluate the thickness and physical properties of the alluvium that covers the majority of the site. Details of the field investigation as well as descriptive boring and sounding logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative soil samples obtained during the field investigation to evaluate the pertinent physical properties of the soil conditions encountered. The testing program focused on determining the in-situ moisture-density, consolidation and gradation characteristics of alluvial deposits in areas of planned development. The laboratory infonnation was used in engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading and development. Details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the exploratory boring logs. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on an analysis of the information obtained from the exploratory field investigations, laboratory tests, and experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The generally triangular-shaped site consists of approximately 7 acres of undeveloped land located in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Specifically, the site is bound by Palomar Airport Road on the north, Laurel Tree Road on the west, and steep, hilly terrain to the Project No. 06480-32-01 -1- February 7,2001 south. A westerly-flowing active drainage traverses the property roughly parallel to, and approximately 120 feet north of the southem property boundary. All development is proposed north of the drainage and, hence, the geotechnical investigation was performed in the area north of the drainage (see Site Plan, Figure 2, map pocket). Based on a review of the referenced 1953 aerial photographs, the drainage formerly flowed roughly through the middle of the proposed development area. Subsequent grading at the site appears to have shifted the drainage to the south to the base of the hillside. Topography varies from relatively flat within the area of proposed development between the drainage, Palomar Airport Road and Laurel Tree Road, to the steep hillside south of the drainage. The planned development area consists of a previously rough-graded pad that slopes gently from northeast to southwest, varying in elevation from approximately 97 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 105 feet MSL. The drainage is lower than the pad by 5 to 10 feet. South of the drainage, the natural terrain rises steeply to a high of approximately 165 feet MSL along the southem property line. Both Laurel Tree Road and Palomar Airport Road are higher than the existing pad by 5 to 10 feet. Site vegetation consists of light weeds, crabgrass, etc., within the graded pad and a dense growth of trees and bushes as well as native grasses primarily along the drainage. Native bmsh appears to cover the slope south of the drainage. The field exploratory program was based on an initial development configuration that consisted of two proposed buildings on the east and west ends of the site. The plan was subsequently modified and the currenfly proposed development includes the constmction of one centrally located 3-story office building with one level of underground parking and associated surrounding parking and infrastmcture improvements. The building is expected to encompass approximately 120,000 square feet, resulting in an approximately 40,000-square-foot footprint. It is understood that grading for the project will consist of minor cuts with fills not greater than 1 to 2 feet. The pad grade for the underground parking level is anticipated to be an elevation of 90 feet MSL. A box culvert is proposed at the southwest comer of the site where Laurel Tree Road crosses the creek. The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance, a review of the site plan, and our general understanding of the project as presently proposed. If project details vary significantly from those described above, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to determine the need for additional analyses or revision of this report. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Two surficial soil types and one geologic formation were encountered during the field investigation. The surficial deposits consist of undocumented fill, and alluvium. The formational unit consists of the Project No. 06480-32-01 - 2 - February 7,200! Santiago Formation. Each of the surficial soil types and the geologic formation encountered is described below in order of increasing age. 3.1 Undocumented Fill The site was found to be covered with 7 to 9 feet of undocumented fill. Based on a review of the referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation dated August 18, 1982, the fill thickness varies from a few feet to at least 11 feet. The undocumented fill was observed to overlie alluvium within all of the borings and soundings with the exception of Boring B5 and Cone Penetrometer Sounding CPT 4, both located at the northwest comer of the site, where the fill was directly overlying the Santiago Formation. The fill may have been placed over 30 years ago. A review of the 1982 report indicates that the fill likely was not controlled during placement. The undocumented fill typically consisted of medium dense, clayey and silty, fine- to medium-grained sand and sandy clay. Chunks of asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete, as well as other debris, were observed on the surface of the fill during the site investigation; however none was encountered within the borings or soundings suggesting that the debris is limited in extent. Portions of the undocumented fill will require remedial grading. 3.2 Alluvium Alluvial soils appear to underlie all but the northwest comer of the development area. Based on the exploratory borings and soundings, the alluvium is at least 55 feet thick and consists of moist to saturated, firm to very stiff, silty and fine- to medium-grained sandy clay with lenses of loose to medium dense, fine to medium-grained sand with varying amounts of silt. The alluvial deposits are considered compressible if subjected to additional loading. In addition, the clean sands within the alluvium may be susceptible to liquefaction if a major earthquake occurs. The presence of groundwater within the alluvium may affect the depth of remedial grading, especially if grading is planned during the winter months. 3.3 Santiago Formation The Tertiary-age Santiago Formation was found to underlie the surficial soils in all of the borings and consists of medium dense to very dense, massive, silty, sandstone with some stiff claystone. The Santiago Formation generally exhibits adequate bearing characteristics, but is not anticipated to impact the project due to its depth beneath the alluvium. Project No. 06480-32-01 - 3 - February 7,2001 4. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered within the alluvial deposits and is expected to be an important consideration during site development. The groundwater ranged from 15 to 21 feet below the ground surface as observed in the borings; however, based on laboratory test results the clayey alluvium appears to be saturated at a depth of 8 to 9 feet. This correlates to pore pressure dissipation measurements taken within selected CPT soundings, which indicated groundwater depths between 8'/2 and 9 feet. Groundwater levels in the alluvium should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and will likely affect site grading as well as construction of the underground parking structure and the box culvert. Dewatering may be necessary during the construction of these improvements. 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity Based on the site reconnaissance, exploratory excavations, previous work by others, and a review of the referenced geologic maps and reports, the site is not located on any known active or potentially active fault trace. An inactive fault has been mapped southwest of the site on an adjacent development and is referenced in the CDMG publication dated 1996. Based on the general trend of this feature, the fault would be located immediately west of the site if it is extended north of its mapped location. To evaluate the site seismicity characteristics, a deterministic analysis was conducted to evaluate the Maximum Credible and Maximum Probable earthquake magnitudes and corresponding site accelerations. In order to determine the distance of known faults to the site, the computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 1989, updated 1997) was utilized. The program calculates the distance from the site within a specified search radius to known "active" Califomia fauhs that have been digitized in an earthquake catalog. The program also calculates estimated site accelerations. Attenuation relationships developed by Geomatrix (1994) were used in the analysis. The results of the deterministic analysis indicate that the Rose Canyon Fault is the closest source for potential ground motion occurring at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 5 miles west of the site and is considered the dominant source due to its close proximity. The Rose Canyon Fault is postulated as having the potential to generate a Maximum Credible Magnitude earthquake of 6.9 and Maximum Probable Magnitude earthquake of 5.7. The "maximum credible earthquake" is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework, while the "maximum probable earthquake" is the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval (California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43). Estimated maximum credible and maximum probable ground accelerations were determined to be approximately 0.34 g and 0.18 g, respectively. Presented Project No. 06480-32-01 -4- February 7,2001 on Table 5.1 are the active faults and the associated maximum probable and maximum credible earthquakes most likely to subject the site to ground shaking. TABLE 5.1 Fault Distance From Site (miles) Maximum Credible Earthquake Magnitude Maximum Probable Earthquake Magnitude Rose Canyon 5 6.9 5.7 Newport-Inglewood (offshore) 8 6.9 5.8 Coronado Bank 21 7.4 6.3 Elsinore (Julian) 24 7.1 6.4 It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the above-mentioned faults. However, the seismic risk at the site is comparable to that ofthe surrounding developments and the Carlsbad area in general. Seismic design parameters are presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations section within this report. 5.2 Ancient Landslides No ancient landslides were observed on the property during the investigation or aerial photograph review. 5.3 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is generally limited to relatively clean, sandy soils that are poorly graded, in a relatively loose, unconsolidated condition and located below the water table. A liquefaction analysis was performed using a peak ground acceleration (PGA) that has a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years as suggested by CDMG Special Publication 117 (1997). The computer program FRISKSP (Blake, 1998) with attenuation relations developed by Sadigh et al. (1997) was used to determine the PGA of 0.28g. The "Simplified Method" of evaluating liquefaction potential, originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971), with modifications and updates from Technical Report NCEER-97-0022 (1997) was used in conjunction with the computer program LIQUEFY2 (Blake and Blake, 1989) to provide a general evaluation of liquefaction potential. Further refinement of potentially liquefiable layers was conducted incorporating the results of the cone penetrometer soundings. Layers that should be further evaluated for liquefaction were determined based on methods suggested by Robertson and Campanella (1986). The liquefaction Project No. 06480-32-01 •5 -February 7, 2001 potential of those layers identified for analysis was evaluated using methods suggested by Zhang (1998). Based on the analysis discussed above, some ofthe sand lenses have the potential to liquefy during a seismic event with a PGA of 0.28g. Those layers that were identified to have the potential for liquefaction were further evaluated to quantify the magnimde of settlement that may be anticipated. Methods suggested by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) were used to evaluate volumetric strain that could be anticipated in the event of liquefaction. Based on this analysis, liquefaction-induced settlement of approximately 2 inches could occur at various locations throughout the site with isolated locations having the potential to settle approximately 3 inches. Damage due to hquefaction is greater when ground-surface dismption occurs. Methods suggested by Youd and Garris (1995) were used to evaluate the potential for surface dismption. Based on these methods, the liquefaction analysis performed indicated that the potential for ground surface dismption to occur is low. 6. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Due to the lack of proper documentation, the existing fill soil is not considered suitable for the support of building loads. The majority of the fill appeared to be medium dense and should be acceptable for pavement and non-building areas. Removal and recompaction of the upper two feet of existing subgrade soils should provide relatively uniform support for paved areas. Due to the relatively shallow groundwater condition and extensive depth of the alluvium, it is not considered practical to remove and compact all of the alluvial deposits underlying areas of proposed development. Hence, the settlement potential of the alluvium left in place (below groundwater) will be a consideration for site development. Laboratory test results indicate that the saturated alluvium has moderate compressibility characteristics when subjected to additional loading. Additional loading would occur if fill soil is placed to raise the pad elevation of the site and/or from the proposed building loads. It is understood that because the placement of additional fill would increase the amount of settlement, the pad elevation of proposed buildings will not exceed the existing ground surface elevation. Hence, settlement of the alluvium will result only fi-om the proposed building. For a typical three-story office building constmcted at the existing grade elevation, and assuming that the upper 9 feet of existing fill soils is removed and properly recompacted, it was estimated that a maximum of 3 inches of settlement could occur. This setdement could be mitigated by either surcharging the building pad area with 8 feet of fill or lowering the first floor level such that the soil removed is equivalent to the weight of the building. It is estimated that the surcharge fill would have to remain for a period of 4 to 8 months to achieve primary Project No. 06480-32-01 - 6 - February 7,2001 consolidation. Excavgtion ofJhe building area to balance the new building load is expected to require an excavation en 5 to 8 fe^^below existing grade. The thickness of soil that will require removal can be determined once the total building weight and/or foundation loads are known. Some settlement should also be anticipated during constmction as the soil is reloaded by the weight of the building. The total magnitude of this settlement can be evaluated once foundation loads are determined; however, it is estimated to be less than 1 inch across the building during constmction and less than /4 inch postconstruction. Project No. 06480-32-01 - 7 - February 7, 2001 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. As specific development plans progress, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the plans and determine the need for additional investigation and/or possible modification of this report. 7.1.2 The existing undocumented fill is not considered suitable for the support of stmctural loads in its present condition and will require partial removal and compaction beneath the proposed pavement and landscape areas. 7.1.3 Because the pad grade for the building is anticipated at an elevation of 90 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), the imdocumented fill is expected to be removed during excavafion operations down to pad grade. 7.2 Groundwater 7.2.1 The groundwater surface in Boring Nos. 1 through 4 was found to vary firom elevation 81 feet to 87 feet MSL. In addition, the alluvium above the groundwater level was saturated. Therefore, excavations below approximately elevation 95 feet MSL will encounter wet soil conditions resulting in possible excavation, and subsequent reuse as compacted fill, difficulties. Dewatering of excavations deeper than 95 feet MSL may be necessary during constmction. 7.3 Soli and Excavation Characteristics 7.3.1 The soil conditions encountered vary from silty and clayey sands to silty clays. The soils observed within the undocumented fill consisted predominantly of clayey and silty sand with some sandy clay. The Santiago Formation typically consisted of silty sandstone with some claystone. Excavations within the Santiago Formation are not anticipated with the exception that underground utilities in the northwest comer of the site (if any) may extend into this formation. The surficial soils and the Santiago Formation are considered rippable with conventional heavy-duty grading and excavation equipment. Some cemented zones have been known to occur within the Santiago Formation where the material may require greater than normal effort to excavate. Project No. 06480-32-01 - 8 - February 7, 2001 7.3.2 The surficial deposits in areas of planned remedial grading may be very moist to saturated during the winter or early spring depending on preceding precipitation and may require mixing with drier material or drying prior to their use as compacted fill. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C and the city of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this report, the recommendations of this report should take precedence. 7.4.2 Prior.to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 7.4.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. 7.4.4 The undocumented fill is anticipated to be entirely removed beneath the structure if the building pad grade remains at an elevation of 90 feet MSL. If the pad grade is adjusted higher, complete removal and compaction of the undocumented fill beneath the building and 10 feet wider than the footprint, is recommended. 7.4.5 Within pavement or hardscape parking areas, it is recommended that the undocumented fill be removed at least 2 feet below existing grade or pavement subgrade, whichever is deeper, and replaced as properly compacted fill soil. The base of the removal should be scarified 6 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary, and properly compacted. 7.4.6 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers. In general, soils native to the site are suitable for re-use as fill if free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near-optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91. Fill materials near and/or below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. Project No. 06480-32-01 - 9 - February 7, 2001 7.4.7 Rock or concrete fragments should not be used in fill areas due to the anticipated limited fill thickness. 7.4.8 The excavation for the building may extend near, or below, the groundwater table. As stated previously, dewatering may be necessary. The dewatering may consist of a series of well points surrounding the excavation, or sloping the base of the excavation to one comer to allow nuisance water to be pumped from a single point. In either case, consideration should be given to providing a minimum 6-inch-thick gravel mat at the base of the excavation to provide a stable working platform. The gravel should be underlain by a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500X. The actual dewatering method should be determined by the contractor. 7.4.9 It is likely that the subgrade for the culvert will expose saturated, and potentially loose alluvial deposits, which could adversely impact the constmction of the stmcture. To minimize the potential for differential settlement and provide a relatively stable level subgrade during constmction, it is recommended that the base of the stmcture be underlain by at least 12 inches of cmshed gravel {VA inch maximum size). The lower 6-inches of the gravel blanket should be completely encapsulated with a geotextile such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent). The blanket should extend a minimum of two feet wider than the culvert footprint. The gravel blanket excavation should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated to verify that the soil conditions exposed are similar to those anticipated. 7.5 Slope Stability 7.5.1 No new slopes are proposed. The existing slope along Palomar Airport Road is considered to be stable and possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions for both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing conditions. 7.5.2 All slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation, having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, all slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion. Slope planting should generally consist of drought tolerant plants having a variable root depth. Slope watering should be kept to a minimum to just support the plant growth. 7.6 Seismic Design Criteria 7.6.1 The following table summarizes site specific seismic design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 7.6 are for the Rose Canyon Fault (located approximately 5 miles west of the site), which is identified as a Type B fault. Project No. 06480-32-01 -10- February 7,2001 TABLE 7.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Design Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type SF Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table I6-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cy 0.99 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, Ny 1.1 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U 7.7 Mat Foundation 7.7.1 Due to differential settlement considerations, a mat foundation system is recommended for the support of the proposed building. This assumes that the elevation of the ground surface below the proposed building will be lowered such that the weight of the soil removed exceeds the weight of the proposed building (dead plus live loads but not transient loads). It is recommended that 125 pcf be assumed for the average density of the soil to be removed. 7.7.2 The proposed building would be supported on a neat foundation system designed for a soil modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 70 pci. 7.7.3 Foundation design should include allowances for buoyant forces assuming a groundwater elevation of 95 feet MSL. 7.8 Concrete Slabs—General 7.8.1 Interior slabs which are anticipated to receive moismre-sensitive floor covering, or that will be used to store moisture-sensitive materials, or where migration of moisture through the slab is undesirable should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand and a suitable vapor barrier placed at the mid-point of the sand layer. 7.8.2 Crack-control joints should be provided for all at-grade concrete slabs. The spacing of the crack-control joints should be no greater than 12 feet. 7.8.3 Presaturation of subgrade soil is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, soil that is to receive concrete should be sprinkled with water as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. Project No. 06480-32-01 - 11 February 7, 2001 7.8.4 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce, not prevent, the potential for cracking of concrete slabs. Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, foundations, smcco, and at-grade concrete slabs may still exhibit cracking due to shrinkage of the concrete during curing. The occurrence of shrinkage cracks is independent ofthe supporting soil characteristics. The potential for shrinkage cracks may be reduced by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper placement and curing of the concrete, and the constmction of crack-control joints. 7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 7.9.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward fi-om the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 90. Where soils have an Expansion Index greater than 90 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.9.2 The above recommendations apply to retaining walls for the underground parking stmcture above an elevation of 95 feet MSL. Below an elevation of 95 feet MSL, the wall should be designed to include hydrostatic loading; therefore, below 95 feet MSL the active earth pressure should be increased to 85 pcf for a level backfill. 7.9.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure. 7.9.4 Retaining walls, other than those for the underground parking, should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 90) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. Project No. 06480-32-01 -12- February 7,2001 7.9.5 Dewatering will likely be required for the constmction of the wing wall foundations at the box culvert. Due to settlement considerations it is recommended that these footings be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. This bearing pressure may be increased by one third when considering wind or seismic loads. The footing excavations should also be observed by a Geocon representative prior to placing reinforcement steel. A gravel mat may be necessary to stabilize the base of the foundation excavation for the wing wall foundations. This should be evaluated by a Geocon representative during constmction. 7.9.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90 and the base of the footing is above elevation 98 feet MSL. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 7.9.7 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid with a density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 7.9.8 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are plaimed, such as crib-type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.10 Drainage and Maintenance 7.10.1 Good drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to properly finish grade the building pads after the stmctures and other improvements are in place, so that the drainage water firom the buildings, lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and to the street away from foundations and the top of the slopes. Experience has shown that even with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water conditions existed prior to the site development; this Project No. 06480-32-01 - 13 - February 7,2001 is particularly tme where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape irrigation. 7.11 Grading Plan Review 7.11.1 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the Grading Plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the need for additional investigation, comments, recommendations and/or analysis. Project No. 06480-32-01 -14- February 7,2001 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed constmction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 06480-32-01 February 7, 2001 SOURCE : 2000 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS- IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION 4 M NO SCALE GEOCON ^ INCORPORATED ^^SO^ GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 VICINITY MAP GEOCON ^ INCORPORATED ^^SO^ GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MB/TA DSK/EOOOD DATE 02-07-2001 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 FIG. 1 1VICMAP APPENDIX APPENDIXA FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on March 31, April 3 and May 25, 2000, and consisted of a visual site reconnaissance, the excavation of 5 small-diameter borings and 15 cone penetrometer soundings. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and soundings are shown on Figure 2. The previous proposed site configuration included buildings at different locations within the site. Hence, during the field investigation, borings were placed and grouped across the site both to accomplish general site characterization and to focus on proposed building areas. The borings were advanced to depths of between 15 and 65 feet below existing grade using a CME 55 tmck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow stem auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch, split-mbe sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140 pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. The sampler was equipped with six 1-inch by 2.5-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were also performed by driving a 2-inch split-tube sampler into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Bulk samples were also obtained. The soils encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged. Logs of borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-12. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The cone penetrometer testing consisted of pushing an instmmented cone into the underlying soils. The resistance to continuous penetration encountered by the cone tip and adjacent friction sleeve exhibit high sensitivity to changes in soil type, thus providing data on soil behavior types and correlated strength parameters. The CPT soundings were advanced to depths ranging fi^om 9 to 76 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of the cone penetrometer soundings are presented on Figures A-13 through A-27. Project No. 06480-32-01 February 7, 2001 i ROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 BORING B 1 ELEV. (MSL.) 104 DATE COMPLETED 3/31/00 EQUIPMENT CME 55 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL , \ Grass and some plants at surface, observed chunks of / 1 _ asphalt^and concrete at surface,_upger 3" to 6"_dry ' Medium dense, moist, white to yellowish-brown, Clayey SAND, interbedded with dark brown, sandy clay Medium dense, moist, white to olive-brown, Silty SAND with layers of dark brown, sandy clay and trace gravel mUl a LU -o O ALLUVIUM Very stiff, saturated, olive to yellowish-brown, Silty CLAY with a little sand and trace gravel Stiff, saturated, olive-brown, Silty CLAY with trace gravel (plastic clay) Stiff, saturated, olive to yellowish-brown, fine to medium Sandy CLAY (plastic) with silt and trace gravel (water in sampler) Firm, saturated, olive-brown. Clayey, fine SAND and fine Sandy CLAY with trace gravel 16 14 25 18 15 112.2 111.5 108.4 108.2 105.6 108.0 10.0 10.2 21.3 21.2 23.5 23.3 Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° - '''''''' UNSUCCESSFUL S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE ? ••• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 1 ELEV. (MSL.) 104 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 3/31/00 H JLJ' CJ. UJ tn a |0 30 32 34 - 36 38 - 40 - 42 - - 44 - 46 48 50 52 54 - 56 58 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Bl-8 Bl-9 CL Bl-10 Bl-11 1/ Bl-12 Bl-1 ML CL SM Stiff, saturated, olive to yellowish-brown, Silty CLAY, trace gravel with Silty, fine SAND lenses, slight organic odor Stiff, saturated, dark grayish-brown, Silty CLAY (plastic) with trace white to orange, silty clay Stiff, saturated, light olive to orange, Silty CLAY with trace sand and quartz gravel Firm, saturated, light olive-brown. Clayey SILT with trace sand and interbedded black clay strands, slight organic odor (disturbed sample at 45 feet) Very stiff, saturated, grayish-brown, Silty CLAY with interbedded thin layers of black clay and quartz gravel Stiff, saturated, grayish-brown, Silty CLAY with trace gravel 16 111.6 18 100.9 20 102.0 10 107.1 26 101.5 15 20.2 27.8 26.5 23.3 25.6 1 1 1 !• r 1 -I'l 1 1 Figure A-2, Log of Boring-B 1 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° - UNSUCCESSFUL W ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE t.. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. >- CO o -1 o SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 1 ELEV. (MSL.) 104 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 3/31/00 UJ He >- .0- UJ. CJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 60 Bl-14 ~ 62 - ~ 64 - Bl-15 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION Medium dense, saturated, light grayish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE (massive) Very dense, saturated, light grayish-brown, Silty, fme to medium SANDSTONE 31 103.8 22.9 -50/4" 118.7 15.8 BORING TERMINATED AT 65.3 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 17 FEET MEASURED AFTER BORING COMPLETED Figure A-3, Log of Boring-B 1 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° - UNSUCCESSFUL m ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE C. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE ? ••• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE OATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. a: > iii CD ^-O <r _l o a X z 1-H o _l ct: CO SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 2 ELEV. (MSL.) 101 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 3/31/00 UJ CO UJ CJ a UJ CJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 - 4 - B2-1 - 6 - 10 12 B2-3 14 16 B2-4 18 - - 20 - 22 - 24 26 28 - B2-5 B2-6 0'/ \>'/ FILL Abundant grass and plants at surface, observed some chunks of asphalt and concrete at surface, upper 4" to 6 " dry Medium dense, moist, light grayish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with some dark brown clayey sand Medium dense, very moist, grayish to yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with some dark brown, sandy clay ALLUVIUM Stiff, moist to saturated, dark yellowish-brown, Silty CLAY with trace sand CL Loose, saturated, olive to yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND wiUi trace silt SC Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace silt Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace silt 21 20 18 11 15 12 102.7 24.6 107.1 22.4 Figure A-4, Log of Boring-B 2 PACCC n ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE ^ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. >-CO o _l o X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 2 ELEV. (MSL.) 101 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 3/31/00 CD CQi UJ CJ a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 30 B2-7 - 32 - 34 B2-8 36 - 38 - - 40 - - 42 - - 44 - 46 - 48 - 50 - 52 54 - 56 - 58 I B2-9 I B2-10 m /•/.• B2-11 '/ /, B2-12 /A ML SP-SM CL SC Firm, saturated, yellowish-brown, Clayey SILT with trace fine sand Stiff, saturated, light grayish to light orange-brown. Clayey SILT with trace fine sand Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, fine to medium SAND, trace silt Very stiff, saturated, grayish-brown, Silty CLAY with some fine to coarse sand and some gravel Medium dense, saturated, grayish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace silt Medium dense, saturated, light grayish-brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace silt and trace quartz gravel 11 20 23 15 19 98.0 108.1 99.0 •/ .f/ Figure A-5, Log of Boring-B 2 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° """ ^'^""^^^'^ UNSUCCESSFUL S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 'ROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. > CO O _l O X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 2 ELEV. (MSL.) 101 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 3/31/00 ;UJ' t?u. Ul UJ^CO n u-s./ UJ, Q a: to UJ -o u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 60 B2-13 62 - 64 - B2-14 CL SM SANTIAGO FORMATION Stiff, saturated, light grayish-brown, CLAYSTONE with interbedded layers of light grayish to OTMige-lH'own^ fine jq_medium_s^d Very dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE (massive) 21 89.4 33.3 •50/6" BORING TERMINATED AT 65.5 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 15 FEET MEASURED AFTER BORING COMPLETED Figure A-6, Log of Boring-B 2 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° """ '''''''' UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 3 ELEV. (MSL.) 102 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 JUJ' UJ coR >- UJ o a .V UJ •o CJ - 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 10 12 B3-1 B3-2 B3-3 B3-4 - 14 B3-5 16 - - 18 - - 20 - 22 - 24 - 26 - 28 B3-6 B3-7 SM FILL Grass and plants at surface, observed some chunks of asphalt^ and concrete at surface,_upger 3 " to 5 " dry _ Medium dense, moist, light olive-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with dark brown, sandy clay Medium dense, moist, light olive-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND CL ALLUVIUM Stiff, very moist to saturated, dark olive-brown, Silty CLAY with some sand Medium dense, saturated, light yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND SM Loose, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine SAND (water in sampler) Loose, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with some clay 22 27 113.5 111.2 16 104.2 15 105.6 11 8.4 10.7 22.3 20.6 Figure A-7, Log of Boring B 3 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° - '''''''' UNSUCCESSFUL W ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. >-CO O _J o X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 3 ELEV. (MSL.) 102 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 ^LLI Hyi- <n£\ cn ^cn° gci a 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B3-8 32 H 34 36 - 38 - 40 - 42 - 44 46 H 48 50 H 52 54 56 H 58 H B3-9 B3-10 B3-11 B3-12 B3-13 •I ' I SC CL SM Loose, saturated, yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace silt Loose, saturated, olive to yellowish-brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace silt Stiff, saturated, grayish to yellowish-brown, Sandy CLAY with trace gravel Very stiff, saturated, light grayish-brown, Sandy CLAY with trace quartz gravel Very stiff, saturated, grayish-brown, Silty CLAY with some light grayish-brown, fine to medium sand with trace quartz gravel Medium dense, saturated, light yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 13 100.6 11 103.2 12 102.8 21 100.3 27 104.6 -45-104 .'1 Figure A-8, Log of Boring-B 3 PACCC D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SAMPLE SYMBOLS " m ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE C. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE 3C ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I ROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. > to o _J o X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 3 ELEV. (MSL.) 102 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 UJ^IQ a Ul CO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 60 I B3-14 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION Dense, saturated, white to light olive-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with some quartz gravel BORING TERMINATED AT 61 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 21.5 FEET MEASURED AFTER BORING COMPLETED 38 96.4 25.0 Figure A-9, Log of Boring-B 3 PACCC n ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ ^AHKLINU S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE; THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I ROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. >-CO O _J o X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 4 ELEV. (MSL.) 102 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 tn, UJ, a tn LU MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 '/ V* '/ B4-1 B4-2 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 14 - - 16 I SM FILL Grass and plants at surface, observed small chunks of asphalt^ancl concrete at surface, upper 4" to 6'^clry Medium dense, moist, yellowish-brown to light grayish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Medium dense, moist, grayish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay B4-3 SM-SC ALLUVIUM Very stiff, moist, grayish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with interbedded dark brown, sandy clay B4-4 SC - 18 20 - 22 - /• Medium dense, saturated, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace silt B4-5 Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND (water in sampler) SM 24 26 B4-6 28 - SM-SC Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, interbedded with yellowish-brown, clayey sand 16 17 115.8 13.8 25 15 15 105.3 21.5 18 Figure A-10 , Log of Boring-B 4 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS • .. . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL c. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • .. . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS B.. . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ^ .. . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B.. . CHUNK SAMPLE ¥ •• . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. >-to o _l o X SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 4 ELEV. (MSL.) 102 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 I-^LU tn >- UJ, a UJ LU - 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 B4-7 SM-SC 32 - 34 - 36 - 38 - 40 - 42 44 H 46 48 H h 50 141 Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, interbedded with light olive, clayey silt B4-8 I-ll; SP-SM B4-9 [ Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fme to coarse SAND with trace quartz gravel Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND B4-10 Medium dense, saturated, tan. Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel B4-11 'A-yk SC SM SANTIAGO FORMATION Very dense, saturated, white to light grayish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE BORING TERMINATED AT 50.3 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 21 FEET MEASURED AFTER BORING COMPLETED 22 24 107.6 20.6 18 29 -50/4" Figure A-11, Log of Boring-B 4 PACCC SAMPLE SYMBOLS • ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL B S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 BORING B 5 ELEV. (MSL.) 101 EQUIPMENT DATE COMPLETED CME 55 4/3/00 Hyi- cn' iLJ; tn UJ UJ^OQ UJ u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Surface covered with grass and plants, observed chunks of AC and concrete at surface, upper 4" to 6" dry Medium dense, moist, light olive-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace dark brown, sandy clay 17 116.5 14.9 Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY with some light olive-brown, silty sand 16 117.0 15.4 SANTIAGO FORMATION Very dense, moist, white to light yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE 50/6" Very dense, moist, light yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE with thin lenses of siltstone BORING TERMINATED AT 15.5 FEET NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 50/6" Figure A-12, Log of Boring B 5 PACCC D... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ =>«nKLiNl> UMSULUC^arUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE c. B.. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . CHUNK SAMPLE ¥ ••• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. CL (U Q Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-1 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 07:09 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Rf (%) SBT Silty Sami./Satul Sand Silly Soiul/SuuJ Sand Silty Sand/Saiid Sand Silt Clayey Silt SUty Clay Clay Sandy SUt SUt Sandy SUt SUt Clayey SUt Clay SUt SUty Sand/Sand Sand SUty Sand/Sand SUt Sandy SUt San>l Sill Clayey Silt Sill Clayey Sill Sandy Sill Sill Sandy Sill SUty Send/Sand Sandy Sill Sandy SUt Clayey Sill Sill Claj«y Sill Oayvy Sill SUty Saud/Sand Sand Silly Sand/Sand Max. Depth: 70.05 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella lOBR) Figure A-13 EGG Q. Q) Q -10 -20 -30 -AO -50 -60 -70 -80 GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-2 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 07:57 Qt (tsf) Fs (tsf) 300 G.G 5.0 Ud (psi) 0 25 Rf (%) —\ ! 1—!—'~'—1—1— f 1 •TTI—I—I—I—I—r—T—r I M I I I I I SBT 1 M I I I I M Silly Sand/Sand Sandy Silt SUt Sandy Sill SUt Clayey Sill Silly Clay (layey Silt Sill LTayey Silt SUt Sandy Silt SUl CUyey Silt SUt Clayey SUt Clay SUty Clay Clayey Sill SUl Clayey SUt SUt Clayey Silt SUt Sandy SIU SUt Sandy Silt Silt Clayey Silt SUt Sandy Silt Silt Sandy Sill SUl Sandy Sill Clajey SUt SUt Sandy SUl Silt Sandy Sill SUt Clayey Silt Sandy Sill SUt Clayey Silt SUt Clayey Silt Silly Sand/Sand Sandy Silt SUty Saud/Sand Max. Depth: 76.1 1 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 19HH) Figure A-14 EGG Q. -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-3 Engineer : M. EtlBICK Date : 05:25:00 08:27 Qt (tsf) Fs (tsf) 300 0.0 5.0 Ud (psi) 0 25 Rf (%) SBT —1—^ 1—r~~ 1 1—1—1—1— f Sundv Silt Clayey Sill Sandy SUt SUt Clayey Silt SUt Sandy Sill Clayey Silt Clay Clayey SUl Clay SUty Clay Clay SUty Clay Clayey SUl SUty Clay Clayey SUt Sandy SUl SUt SUty Sand/Sand Sand Sandy Sill Silty Sand/Sand SUt Silty Sand/Sand Sandy SUl SUt Sandy SUt Max. Depth: 43.14 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1968) Figure A-15 Q-(U Q EGG -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-4 Qt (tsf) Fs (tsf) 300 0.0 5.0 Ud (psi) 0 25 1—I—\—\—I—I—r Engineer : fl. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 08:57 Rf (%) SBT 0 10 0 i; 1—I—n—r Sand Saikly Sill Silty Sand/^nd Sandy Silt Silly Saud/Sand Max Depth: 9.02 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Cami)anena 1988) Figure A-16 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-5 Engineer : fl. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 09:06 Ud (psi) 0 25 Rf (%) SBT 111 II llllliill Sand Silly Sand/Sand Sandy Silt Silt Clayey Sill (Hay Clayey SUt Sandy Sill Clayey Silt SUt CTay Silty CTay Clayey Silt SUl Sandy Silt Clayey SUt Sandy SUl Clayey Silt Saudy SUt SUt Saudy Sill Silty Saud/Saud Sauiy Sill Silt Clayey Silt SUl Clayey Sill SUt llaywy Silt SUt .Silly Clay Sandy Sill Max Deptlr 57.09 (ft Depth Ina: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Tyix; (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-17 EGG -i-j JZ -t-J CL CD Q -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-6 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 09:32 Qt (tsf) Fs (tsf) Ud (psi) 0 300 0.0 5.0 Rf (%) SBT 0 25 lllllllllllll Sand Silly Saud/Sand Silt Sandy SUl Silly Saud/I9and SUt Cla>«y Sill Sandy Silt SUt enayey Sill Clay Silly Clay Ouyey Silt Silty Cloy CTay Silly CTay Sandy SUl SUl SUty SanJ/Sand Sand Sandy SUl SUt Clayey Sill Sill SUty Sand/Saud Satkdy SUl Sill Sandy SUl SUty Sand/Sand Sand Saudy Sill SUt CTayey SUt Cemented Sand SUt Max. Depth: 50.03 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (fi) SBT: Soil Beliavior Type (Robertson and Canipanella 1988) Figure A-18 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-7 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 10:0^ Rf (%) SBT Silly Sand/Sand Sandy Sill Silty Clay Clay Silty Clay Clayey Sill Silty Clay Clay Clayey Sill SUt Sandy Sill Sill CTayey Silt Silly Clay Clay Clayey Sill SUty Clay SUl Clayey Sill SUl Sandy Silt Clayey SUl Silly Clay Clayey Silt SUl Clayey Silt SUl Saudy SUl SUl Clayey SUt Sandy Silt SUl Clayey SUl SUt Clayey Sill SUl Clayey SUl SUt SlUy Clay SUl Silty Sand/Saud Saudy SUt Silly Sand/Sand SUl Max. Depth: 64.47 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-19 EGG -t-> CL (D Q -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-8 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 10: 3i Qt (tsf) 300 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Rf ( SBT I I I I I I I I I I TTTTTTTTTTT Sandy Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silly Clay Clay Silly Clay Clayey SUl SUty Clay Silt Clay SUly Clay Clayey Sill Clayey SUl SUty Sand/Saud Sand Silly Sand/Sand Sandy SUl SUt Clayey SUl Sandy Sill SUlv Sand/Sand Sandy Silt Sill Clayey Silt Silt Sandy Sill SUt Clayey Silt Sai»ly SUl Sill Silly Sand/Sand Sand SUty San.l/Sand Sand Max. Depth: 65.12 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-20 EGG CL QJ Q GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-9 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05: 25: 00 1 1: 07 Qt (tsf) -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 Fs (tsf) 300 0.0 5.0 Ud (psi) 0 25 Rf (%) SBT I 11 11 ^llllliill Silty Saiul/Saiid Sand .Sandy Silt SUl Clayey Silt Silty Clay Clay Silly Clay Clay Silty Clay Clay SUty Clay Clayey SUl SUly Clay Clayey SUt SUt Clu>ey Sill SUt Clayey Sill Sill CTayey Silt Silly Oay Clay Clayey SUl CTay SUty Clay Clay Clayey Silt SUly Sand/SarvJ SUt Satidy Sill Clayey SUt SUty Clay Clayey Sill SUl CTayey Silt Silt SUly Sand,/Sand Sand Saudy SUt Silty Sand/Saud Sandy Silt Max. Depth: 64.47 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBP: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-21 EGG a QJ Q -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 GEOCON r Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-10 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05: 25: 00 1 1: -^3 Qt (tsf) Fs (tsf) 300 0.0 5.0 Rf (%) SBT Sandy Sill SUty Sarul/Sand Sandy Sill Clayey Sill (luy Clayey Silt SUl SUly Sand/Saud Sand Saudy Sill SUl Clayey Silt Clay SUt Sandy SUt Clayey SUl SUly Clay Sandy SUt SUt Sandy SUl Sill Sandy Sill CTayey SUt SUly Clay Clayey SUl SUty Clay Clayey SUt SUt Sandy SUt SUty Sand/Sand Sandy SUt Silly Saud/^nd Sill Clayey SUl SUty CTay Clayey Silt Sandy Sill Silly Sand/Sand Max. Deptlr 64.14 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-22 f Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-11 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05: 25: 00 1 2: 1 1 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Rf (%) SBT -1—I—I—I—r •M M 1 M I M SUly Sand/Sand Sandy Sill CTayey Silt Clay Clayey Sill SUt Silly Sand/Sand SUt SUty Clay Clay Silly CTay SUl Sandy SUl SUl Clayey SUt SUt Clayey SUl SUl Sandy SUl SUl Saudy SUt Silly Sand/Saud Sill Clayey Silt SUt Clayey SUt Sill SUly Clay Clayey Silt SUt SUty Clay SUt SUty CTay Clayey Sill SUly Clay Sauly SUl Max. Depth: 63.16 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (fl) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-23 EGG QJ CJ Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-12 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 12:-^2 Qt (tsf) Rf (%) SBT -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 300 TTTTTTTTTTT ~„lu^^ Sill SUty .Sand/Saud ••ll' sm CTayey Silt Cliil Sill Sandy Sill Silty .Soiul/Soud Silt Silly Clay (laywy Silt Silt Cla)*y Silt Silty San-I/Saud Clayey Silt SUl Clayey Sill SUt Saudy Silt Sill Sandy SUt Sill Clayey Silt SUt Clayey Silt Clayey Sill SUl Clayey Silt SUt Silty Saml/Saiid Sultai Saudy Sill Sill Saitdy Silt (Tayey Sill SUt Clayey Sill Saudy Silt Max. Depth: 69.06 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and ('ampanoila 1988) Figure A-24 Sl +-> n QJ -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-13 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05: 25: 00 1 3: M Qt (tsf) 300 Fs (tsf) 0.0 5.0 Ud (psi) 0 Rf (%) SBT 10 Silt Saudy Silt Silt Sandy Silt Silty Suiul/Sand Clayey Sill Saudy Silt Clayey Silt Silty Clay Clay Stiff Hue Grained Max Depth: 18.04 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-25 '4- IZ QJ :Z -10 GEOCON Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-M Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 13:25 Qt (tsf) 300 Ud (psi) 0 Rf (%) SBT Saiulv Sill SUl Sandy Sill SUly Saiul/Saiul Saiiiiy Silt SUty Suiid/Sami Sandy SUt Clayey Sill SiUy Clay 1 li.v Silly (Tay Clayey Silt Silly Clay Clayey Silt SUt CTayey Sill SUly Clay Clayey Sill Sill Clayey SUl SUl Clayey Sill SUt Saudy Sill SUt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt SUt Clayey Silt Sill S,.ii.lv Sill Max. Depth: 56.43 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) .Siri': Soil Behavior Type (Robert son and Campanella 1988] Figure A-26 Site : PACIFICA Location : CPT-15 Engineer : M. EMBICK Date : 05:25:00 13:58 Ud (psi) G Rf (%) SBT 0 i: Seiuly Sill SUly Saud/Sand Sandy Silt SUl Clay SUty Clay Clayey SUt SUt Sandy SUl Sill Silly Saud/Sand Sand SUty Sand/Sand Sill Clayey SUl SUt Clayey Silt Silly Clay Clay Clayey Sill SUl SaiKly Silt Clayey SUl Sill Sandy SUl SUt Clayey SUt Sandy SUl SUt Sandy Sill SUt Sandy Silt SUt Clayey Sill Sandy Sill SUty Sand/Sand Sandy Silt Clayey Sill Max. Depth: 66.44 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) SBL Soil Behavior Type (Robertson and Campanella 1988) Figure A-27 APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected, relatively undisturbed drive samples were tested for their in-place dry density, moisture content, and consolidation characteristics. Gradation tests were performed on several bulk samples. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in graphical forms hereinafter. The in-place dry density and moisture characteristics are presented on the exploratory boring logs. Consolidation and gradation test results are presented on Figures B-l through B-16. Project No. 06480-32-01 February 7, 2001 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 o H I-<E a H _1 o (/) z o CJ u QL UJ Q. SAMPLE NO. Bl-5 -4 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.2 Initial Water Content (%) 21.2 Initial Saturation (%) 100-h Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-l PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 <E Q H _1 O (0 z o o UJ o ct: Ul CL SAMPLE NO. Bl-7 -2 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.0 Initial Water Content (%) 23.3 Initial Saturation (%) 100+ Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-2 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 o H I-<E a H _i o tn z o u z UJ a ct: Ul Q. SAMPLE NO. Bl-9 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.9 Initial Water Content (%) 27.8 Initial Saturation (%) 100-f Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-3 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 a o o u Ul o UJ Q. SAMPLE NO. Bl-12 -4 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 101.5 Initial Water Content (%) 25.6 Initial Saturation (%) 100-f Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACCC PACinCA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-4 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 o H H-<C a H _J o CO z o u z UJ a Q: UJ SAMPLE NO. B3-8 -4 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.6 Initial Water Content (%) 23.3 Initial Saturation (%) 95.3 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACinCA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-5 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 o H h- <n Q H -J O cn z o o z UJ o u tl. SAMPLE NO. B3-10 10 12 0.1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.8 Initial Water Content (%) 25.1 Initial Saturation (%) 100-H Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-6 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 <E a H _j o tn z o CJ UJ u 0:: Ul 0. SAMPLE NO. B3-12 -4 10 12 0.1 10 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104.6 Initial Water Content (%) 22.7 100 Initial Saturation (%) 100 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125 CONSOLIDATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-7 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample Bl-5 Time Rate of Consolidation -2640 t- -2660 -2680 o, -2700 c T3 flj 0) tc la a -2720 -2740 -2760 -2780 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Time (minutes) 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Load 4,000 psf Figure B-8 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample 81-7 Time Rate of Consolidation -2700 -2750 -2800 O) c '•5 2 -2850 -2900 -2950 -3000 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Time (minutes) Load 4,000 psf Figure B-9 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample 81-9 Time Rate of Consolidation -2450 -2500 O -2550 g -2600 "ra Q -2650 -2700 -2750 4 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Time (minutes) 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Load 6,000 psf Figure B-10 -2580 -2600 -2620 -2640 -2660 .£ -2680 m o CC S -2700 Q -2720 -2740 -2760 -2780 -2800 0.01 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample 81-12 Time Rate of Consolidation 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Time (minutes) 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Load 8,000 psf Figure B-11 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample B3-8 Time Rate of Consolidation -1900 -1950 -2000 Ol c I -2050 re -2100 -2150 -2200 4 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Time (minutes) Load 6,000 psf Figure B-12 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample 83-10 Time Rate of Consolidation -2050 1 -2100 -2150 tc n 5 -2200 -2250 -2300 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Time (minutes) 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Load 4,000 psf Figure B-13 Pacifica Carlsbad - Sample 83-12 Time Rate of Consolidation -2440 -2460 -2480 -2500 Ol c ^ -2520 ra D -2540 -2560 -2580 -2600 0.01 • — -•— -— -•— - - -•--— - --•--— - i > - — — i r 4 — — -* •- — -- -— -f •- — -- - — • — % • • — — ---— — — ---— • • • — — • * 1' . 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Time (minutes) 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00 Load 4,000 psf Figure B-14 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY 100 90 80 5 "70 3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 60 100 200 UJ > CO 60 £ 50 K 40 UJ u ct UJ 30 20 10 0 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 SAMPLE Depth (ft) CLASSIFICATION VAT WC LL PL PI • Bl-6 20.0 (CL) Fine to medium Sandy CLAY 23.5 III B2-9 40.0 (SP-SM) Fine to medium SAND, trace silt 22.2 • B3-6 20.0 (SP-SM) Fine SAND, trace silt GRADATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-15 PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SDLT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SDLT OR CLAY 100 90 80 70 60 3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 60 100 200 CD H Ul > CQ 0£. U 50 H U. ^ 40 Ul u Q: UJ 30 20 10 0 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE EV MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 SAMPLE Depth (ft) CLASSIFICATION VATWC LL PL PI • B4-6 25.0 (SP-SM) Fine to medium SAND with SILT IXI B4-9 40.0 (SM) Silty, fme to coarse SAND GRADATION CURVE PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PACCC Figure B-16 APPENDIX M APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS for PACIFICA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06480-32-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. TTie recom- mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geoteclmical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the Califomia licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. GI rev. 8/98 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a Califomia licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a Califomia licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defmed as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 8/98 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Ovmer shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency. Owner and Consultant. 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 8/98 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3. After clearing and gmbbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontahvertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Grountl Finish Slope Surface Remove Ali Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur See Note 1 See Note 2 —' No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to pennit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formarional material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 8/98 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the 50// or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1. iS'o/7 fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the 50// fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91. 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the 50// fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the 50// fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 8/98 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content - generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8. As an aitemative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. GI rev. 8/98 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. " Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-constmction infiltration of water. 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks fraversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water tmcks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the GI rev. 8/98 ' required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM Dl 196-64, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the - compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be perfonned as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. GI rev. 8/98 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, gmbbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. GI rev. 8/98 7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constmcted in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM DI 196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard Methodfor Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During constmction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to fmished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or stmctures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 8/98 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work. Contractor shall fiimish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstmctions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate goveming or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a Califomia licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a Califomia Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were perfonned in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 8/98 UST OF REFERENCES 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, SEC Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway, Carlsbad, California, 92009, draft copy, Constmction Testing & Engineering Incorporated, June 29, 1999 (CTE Job No. 10-3403). 2. Zhang, Lianyang, Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Using Optimum Seeking Method, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Volume 124, No. 8, p. 739 ff, August, 1998. 3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Pacifica Enterprises L.L.C, Southeast Corner of Palomar Airport Road and College Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, 92009, Phase One Incorporated, September 16, 1998 (Phase One Project No. 3244). 4. Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, Version 3.01b, updated 1998. 5. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997. 6. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, December 31, 1997. 7. Tan, Siang S. and Michael P. Kennedy, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, CDMG Open File Report 96-02, 1996. 8. Youd, T. Leslie and Christopher T. Garris, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 121, No. 11, p. 805 ff., November, 1995. 9. Landslide Hazards In The Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Encinitas Quadrangle, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 95-04, 1995. 10. Blake, Thomas F., and Blake, Kristina R., LIQUEFY2, Version 1.11, updated 1989. 11. Tokimatsu, K. and H. B. Seed, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 113, No. 8, p. 861 ff, August, 1987. 12. Robertson, P. K. and R. G. Campanella, Guidelines for Use and Interpretation of the Electronic Cone Penetration Test, Third Edition, November, 1986. 13. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Laurel Tree Development, Laurel Tree Lane and Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, Southem Califomia Soil & Testing Incorporated, August 18, 1982 (SCS&T Project No. 14065). Project No. 06480-32-0! February 7, 2001 UST OF REFERENCES (Continued) 14. Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, p. 1249 ff, 1971. 15. U.S. Geological Survey, Encinitas 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, 1968. Mines And Mineral Resources Of San Diego County, Califomia, County Report 3, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1958-1959. 16. 1953 stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site and surrounding areas (AXN-8M-99,100). Project No. 06480-32-01 February 7, 2001