Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3971-2; CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE; PREGRADING/ PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL; 1998-01-23
.-'-.-j:.-" - - _4-.--.i - . ft • - - -- r-_ 3k._.. :- - •Sy&s 1 - -. - ' -. ...•• * : - . •,. -' r S• . •• -. - --- ;4-.- S Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Preg radi ng/Preli ml nary Geotechnical Reports and Letters Table of Contents Tab No. 6) 7) De Title February 16, 1998 Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course by LEIGHTON May 10, 2000 Addendum to the Geotechnical Investigation by LEIGHTON July 21, 2000 Remedial Grading Map Plates by LEIGHTON August 4, 2000 Remedial Quantity Estimate and Supplemental Recommendations by LEIGHTON January 18, 2005 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Golf Cart Bridges by LEIGHTON February 22, 2005 Addendum to the Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation of the Proposed Golf Cart Bridges by LEIGHTON March 1, 2005 Geotechnical Boring Completion Report by LEIGHTON • GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA January 23, 1998 (Revised February 16, 1998) Project No. 4841363-006 S Prepared For: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, California 92101 rh Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY S S Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY January 23, 1998 (Revised February 16, 1998) ProjectNo. 4841363-006 To: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, California92101 Attention: Mr. Chuck Moore Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course located in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our study was to provide one comprehensive geotechnical report for the entire golf course. Our study included further evaluation of areas not previously addressed during earlier investigations on portions of the site and adjacent properties (see Appendix A). The results of previous geotechnical studies are incorporated into this report. During the most recent phase of work we concentrated our investigation on the areas proposed for structural improvements, including underground utilities, and the areas where remedial grading would most likely be required. This report also includes design recommendations for the proposed site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Scott C. Burns, RCE 55370 Michael Senior Staff Engineer Director of Geology KAB/JGF/MRS Distribution: (6) Addressee II 1' No. 1349 l*t CER1WIED \ ENGINEERING I \ GEOLOGIST 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS S Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................I 1.1 PURPOSEANDSCOPE........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................3 1.4 CURRENT SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................. ............................................................................ 4 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS.........................................................................................5 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - Jsp) ............................................................................5 2.2.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - l's) ................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2.4 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.5 Colluvium/ Slope Wash (Unmapped)......................................................................................................6 2.2.6 Topsoil (Unmapped)................................................................................................................................7 2.2.7 DocumentedFill (Map Symbol— Af).......................................................................................................7 2.2.8 UndocumentedFill (Map Symbol - Afu)...................................................................................................7 2.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ............................................................................................ ............... ........................... 8 2.4 GROUND WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 MASS MOVEMENT............................................................................................................................................8 2.6 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY...............................................................................................................................8 2.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................................9 2.7.1 Liquefaction/DynamicSettlement ............................................................................................................ 9 2.8 GRADED SLOPES ............................................................................................................................................. 10 2.8.1 Existing Slope Configurations ............................................................................................................... 10 2.8.2 Cut and Fill Slopes ................................................................................................................................ii 2.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis.........................................................................................................................11 2.8.4 Surflcial Slope Stability ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL..............................................................................................................................14 3.1 SULFATE CONTENT, MNIMUM RESISTIVITY AND PH. ....................................................................................... 14 3.2 EARTHWORK SHRINKAGE/'BULKING ............................................................................................................... 15 4.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................16 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................................18 5.1 GOLF COURSE AND BUILDING STRUCTURE EARTHWORIC.................................................................................18 5.1.1 Site Preparation..............................- ............................ . ............................ . ............................ - ..........18 5.1.2 Removal and Recompaction ofPotentially CompressibleSoils..............................................................18 S 4 -I- Leighton 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.1.3 Excavations...........................................................................................................................................19 5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ............................................................................................................. 19 5.1.5 StabilityFills. .................................................................................................. ........................................ 20 5.1.6 Transition Lots.......................................................................................................................................20 5.1.7 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters.......................................................................................20 5.1.8 Preliminary Foundation Design Considerationsfor Building Structures ............................................... 21 5.1.9 Footing Design for Building Structure&.................................................................................................21 5.1.10 Floor Slab Design ............................................................................................................................ ..... 22 5.1.11 Foundation Setback...............................................................................................................................22 5.2 SPECIAL DESIGN AND GRADING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FILL SETTLEMENT ...................................................... 22 5.3 EXPANSIVE SOILS/PRESOAK ...................................................................................... ......................................23 5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................23 5.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN AND EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIDGE STRUCTURES.......................................25 5.5.1 College Bridge.......................................................................................................................................25 5.5.2 Eastern and Western Bridge Crossing Main Drainage Course..............................................................29 5.5.3 Deep Foundation Design, Eastern and Western Bridges........................................................................30 5.6 TYPE OF CEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................................33 5.7 CORROSIONRESISTANCE ....................................................................................................................... .......... 33 5.8 PAVEMENT DESIGN..........................................................................................................................................34 5.9 WATER FEATURES .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Tables Table 1 - Dynamic Settlement- Page 10 Table 2 - Slope Stability Analysis Parameters- Page 11 Table 3 - Equivalent Fluid Weight - Page 24 Table 4 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (College Bridge, West Abutment - Page 27) Table 5 - Pile Group Capacity Reductions - Page 27 Table 6 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Western Bridge) - Page 32 Table 7 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Eastern Bridge) - Page 33 Table 8 - Structural Pavement Design - Page 34 Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 S Leighton 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Plates Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Plate 2 - Geologic Cross-Section A-A - In Pocket Plate 3 - Geologic Cross-Section B-B' - In Pocket Plate 4 - Geologic Cross-Section C-C' - In Pocket Plate 5 - Geologic Cross-SectionD-D' - In Pocket Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring and Trench Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results and Test Procedures Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix - Slope Stability Calculations S 40b- Leighton 4841363-006 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report provides a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the onsite soil and geologic conditions to be utilized for site development purposes. In preparation of this report we have utilized the 200-scale site grading plans entitled "Grading Plan (based on route plan 6-2-97) City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course", prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated July 14, 1997 as a base map during this study, and the previously issued geotechnical reports relative to the proposed project (see Appendix A). The purpose of our study was specifically, to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course (CMGC) site (Figure 1), and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to site development based on the additional data and conceptual development plans. The main objective was the further evaluation of site remedial grading with regard to areas of proposed structural improvements. These areas include, but are not limited to, the clubhouse area, several planned industrial golf related pads, two large lake areas, a maintenance area, associated underground utilities and three bridges. The scope of our services during the evaluation included the following: - Review of geotechnical literature and aerial photographs pertaining to the general vicinity of the site, and geotechnical reports pertaining specifically to the site. A list of the items reviewed is included in Appendix A. is - Field reconnaissance of the site and general vicinity. Additional subsurface investigation of the site conditions, including the drilling, logging and sampling of 5 additional small diameter borings and 10 additional backhoe trenches. All borings and trenches were logged by our geologists and backfilled upon completion. The logs of these excavations are presented as Appendix B. The logs of previously excavated borings and trenches are also included in Appendix B and were utilized in preparation of this report. - Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the onsite soils. - Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained, including re-evaluation of previously obtained data. - Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to the proposed development. Our report includes the results of the previous subsurface exploration studies and laboratory data applicable to the CMGC project. As requested, our study did not include an evaluation of all alluvial areas, natural slope areas not to be graded, or the areas proposed for the Police Shooting Range or 0.8-acre Conference Center. It is understood that some settlement of alluvial areas within the golf course areas is expected and is acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. - - Leighton I I - K -j -- / I OGG \ PALOMAR BASE MAP: Thomas Bros. GeoFinder for Windows, San Diego Coi.zfly, 1995, Page 1128 0 2000 4000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Carlsbad Municipal SffE PROJECT No. Golf Course DATE _ Carlsbad, California LOCATION 4841361 -006 1\4A January 1998 FIGURE No. 1 Leighton 4841363-006 1.2 Site Description The site is locateJ north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The CMGC project is bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the south, the proposed extension of Cannon Road and Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north and agricultural commercial properties to the east. The Carlsbad Ranch / Legoland projects are located west of and adjacent to the CMGC site. Topographically, the site is characterized by numerous ridges and intervening valleys that connect with a main northwest trending drainage that flows into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 20 feet mean sea level (m.s.I.) at the extreme northwest corner of the site in the main drainage, to approximately 321 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) near the ridgeline along the southeastern edge of the property. Natural slopes on the site range from relatively steep (steeper than 1:1, horizontal to vertical) to relatively gentle (less than 3:1, horizontal to vertical. Existing improvements on site are generally related to past and present agricultural activities on the site. Improvements associated with the agricultural fields include underground irrigation lines and valves, city water lines supplying the water reservoir to the west of the site, and minor cuts and fills associated with access roads. Other onsite improvements include: access roads associated with several SDG&E easements, a water main and graded pads present adjacent to the northwest side of College Avenue. These pads were created during the grading for College Avenue and the widening of Palomar Airport Road. Several deep erosional gullies were observed as the slope faces between these pads. Vegetation on site ranges from minor growth of grasses and weeds on the majority of the hillsides to shrubs and thick weeds in the ravines. Riparian trees and shrubs grow quite heavily in the main drainage trending northwest-southeast across the site. In addition, portions of the site are planted as agricultural areas. 1.3 Proposed Development Based on our review of the 200-scale grading plans prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated July 14, 1997, it is our understanding that future use of the site will include the construction of an 18 hole championship golf course, including several lakes, numerous buildings, including a large clubhouse, and improvements associated with the golf course such as bridges, cart paths and parking areas. In addition, several large pad areas have been slated for industrial/golf related development. A precise grading plan for site development has not yet been prepared. Based on our conversation with the owners' representative and the City of Carlsbad, we understand that general golf-course areas will be considered non-structural areas and as such, can tolerate some settlement. Accordingly, as requested, we have not performed a complete evaluation of alluvial areas. Areas proposed for buildings or settlement sensitive improvements should be considered structural. areas and treated accordingly. S -3- Leighton 4841363-006 Based on our review of the site tentative map, proposed grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and . fills creating sheet-graded areas for the building pads, parking areas and other improvements within the subject site, and cuts and fills associates with the contour grading of the course itself. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be constructed at slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Maximum depths of cut are on the order of ±40 feet from the existing site elevations. While maximum fill is on the order of ±80 feet above existing elevations, maximum cut slope heights of ±75 feet and maximum fill slope heights of ±90 feet are proposed. While some changes from this plan are anticipated, the overall site grading is not likely to differ significantly. Previous investigations included the excavation of large- and small-diameter borings, exploratory backhoe trenches and test pits. All pertinent boring and trench logs are included within Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings and trenches are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Also included are the laboratory test results of representative soil samples collected during the most recent investigation as well as previous L&A subsurface investigations onsite. Laboratory test results relative to the CMGC project are included in Appendix C. The laboratory testing included direct shear, expansion index, moisture/density determinations, maximum dry density, grain size analysis, and consolidation tests. Brief descriptions of the laboratory test procedures and the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. The test results of the moisture/densitydeterminations are presented in the boring logs included in Appendix B. 1.4 Current Site Investigation The current site investigation included the drilling, logging and sampling of 5 small diameter exploratory borings and 10 exploratory trenches. The small diameter borings and trenches were excavated predominantly in existing fill areas, alluvial areas, and in areas of proposed structural improvements. The maximum depth of excavation during the most recent investigation was 52 feet below ground surface in boring B-I a. Previous subsurface investigations reached a maximum depth of 75 feet below ground surface in boring B- 1. All borings and trenches were logged and sampled by our geologists and backfilled upon completion. The small diameter borings drilled in conjunction with this study have been designated B-i a through B-5a, the trenches have been labeled as T-la through T-10a. Logs of these borings and trenches, as well as those from previous studies are included as Appendix B. The locations of all exploratory excavations are indicated on Plate No. 1, Geotechnical Map. -4- Leighton 4841363-006 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS fl 2.1 Regional Geology The subject site is located within the coastal subprovence of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Provence, near the western edge of the southern California batholith. The topography at the edge of the batholith changes from rugged landforms developed on the batholith to the more subdued Iandforms which typify the softer sedimentary formations of the coastal plain. 2.2 Site Geology As encountered during our investigation(s), and our review of geotechnical reports applicable to the subject site (Appendix A), the CMCG site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the Tertiary Santiago Formation and the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. Surficial units consist of alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, and documented and undocumented fill soils. The approximate areal distributions of the units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 2.2.1 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - Jsp) The Jurassic aged Santiago Peak Volcanics were encountered in the easternmost portion of the subject site. Typically the unit is hard and extremely resistant to erosion and forms topographic highs. Most of the rocks are dark greenish gray where fresh but weather grayish red to dark reddish brown. The soil developed on the Santiago Peak Volcanics is the color of the weathered bedrock and supports the growth of dense chaparral. If deep removals are planned in this area, localized heavy ripping or blasting may be required. 2.2.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) The bedrock unit underlying the majority of the site is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. In general, the unit consists of massive to weakly bedded sandstone with interbedded clayey siltstone and silty claystone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray, light brown, and light yellow-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and weakly bedded to massive. The siltstone consisted of brown and olive- brown, moist, stiff, clayey siltstones that were fissile to indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese-oxide and iron-oxide staining. . The claystone typically was gray to brown, moist, stiff. -to hard,. fine-grained, sandy to silty claystone that was moderately sheared. Where encountered, the upper 6 to 12 inches of the Santiago Formation appears to be moderately.weathered, porous and potentially compressible. This layer should be removed and recompacted in areas of structural fill placement or settlement sensitive improvements. S 4 -5- Leighton 4841363-006 2.2.3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits locally overlie the Santiago Formation and were encountered in the easternmost portion of the site along an isolated ridgeline above an elevation of approximately 300 feet (msl). As encountered during our current and previous investigations, these deposits generally consist of orange to red brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. The upper portion of the Terrace Deposits (generally the upper 3 to 8 feet) appeared to be highly weathered and are anticipated to be moderately to highly porous and compressible. In general, the Terrace Deposits have a very low expansion potential. With the exception of the upper weathered zone, the terrace deposits have favorable engineering properties and are suitable to receive the proposed improvements. The weathered portion of the terrace deposits will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed structural improvements or fill soils. 2.2.4 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) Alluvium was encountered during our investigation of the proposed development in most of the low-lying drainages and the low lying areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue. As encountered the alluvium generally consisted of potentially compressible, moist to saturated, loose to medium dense silty sands with some sandy silts and sandy clays. In the area adjacent to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue, alluvial deposits are on the order of 15-25 feet thick. Within the main northwest trending drainage the alluvium is relatively thick as evidenced by approximately 24-45 feet of alluvium encountered in borings B-I a and B-2a respectively. In many of the smaller side canyons, alluvium was encountered and mapped. However, these areas were not accessible with the drilling equipment utilized in this investigation. Based upon our work on adjacent properties and our experience with similar conditions alluvial depths in these areas can be expected to range from 3-10 feet Unsaturated alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible and not suitable for the support of structural loads of fill soils in areas of settlement sensitive improvements. These soils should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for structural improvements as part of site grading. In golf course areas where settlement can be tolerated, these soils may be left in place, however settlement should be anticipated. 2.2.5 Colluvium /Slope Wash (Unmapped) Holocene aged colluvium / slope wash was encountered mantling thelowei valley slopes, throughout the project site. As encountered, the colluvium /slope wash typically consisted of poorly consolidated surficial materials derived from nearby soil and decomposed bedrock sources. This reworked debris is deposited along the flanks of the lower valley slopes by the action of gravity and surface water. Generally, the material was light brown to dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty to clayey sand that was generally 2 to 10 feet in thickness although locally it may be deeper. The colluvium / slope wash was typically porous and anticipated to be potentially compressible under the load of existing -6- Leighton 4841363-006 fills or improvements. In places, it was somewhat difficult to distinguish the sandier colluvial soils from the underlying weathered Santiago Formation. 2.2.6 Topsoil (Unmapped) Topsoil was encountered essentially covering the entire site but was not mapped. The topsoil was found to be generally light brown to dark brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sands with minor amounts of clay. The topsoil was generally ± 2 feet in thickness, contained minor amounts of decomposed organics and has been disturbed by the past and present agricultural activities on the northeastern portion of the site. This unit was evaluated to be potentially compressible under the loading of fill soils or improvements. 2.2.7 Documented Fill (Map Symbol —Af1) Documented compacted fill soils were placed on the subject site..during the grading for College Avenue and the widening of Palomar Airport Road. A fill disposal site located adjacent to the northwest .side of College Avenue where several graded pads are located (see Plate 1) was used as an area to place excess soil derived from the grading operations on the two streets. The disposal site was prepared to receive fill (i.e., compressible soils were removed, fill slope keys constructed and canyon subdrains placed), after which fill soils were placed and compacted during August through October, 1986 under the observation and testing services of San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Subsurface exploration indicated that as much as 40 feet of fill was placed during these operations. . These fill soils generally consisted of clayey to silty sands and some sandy clays that were generally medium dense to dense, moist and relatively well compacted. Existing fill slopes in areas are heavily eroded and will require rework. 2.2.8 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) A relatively large amount of undocumented fill soil is present on the site in. various locations. The major undocumented fill areas are located at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue and at: the extreme southeastern corner of the site in the area of the proposed maintenance area. Borings completed during our earlier supplemental geotechnical investigations (see Appendix A) and trenches. excavated during the latest investigation indicate that potentially compressible alluvium was left in place beneath these fill areas. In addition, our literature review did not indicate that any documentation or testing was completed for these areas. Undocumented fill soils were also noted in several other locations within the subject site. These fill soils consisted of earthen embankments for agricultural . ponds, unimproved roads, end-dumped debris piles, and utility trench backfill. .. 4 -7- Leighton 4841363-006 As encountered, the undocumented fill consisted of numerous soil types, but typically the fill soils were light brown to medium brown and gray, moist to very moist, loose, silty sands and clayey sands. 2.3 Geologic Structure The bedrock units encountered on the site were generally massive with no apparent bedding. However, based on our professional experience in the area, bedding of the underlying Santiago Formation is anticipatedto be relatively gently dipping (i.e. 5 to 10 degrees) to the west. 2.4 Ground Water Ground water was encountered within several of the onsite drainages in the lower elevations of the site particularly in the main drainage and adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. The presence of ground water in these areas would most likely limit the removal of alluvium and undocumented fill that would be required for structural improvements proposed for these areas. Based upon our experience on adjacent sites and our professional experience on nearby sites with similar conditions, we anticipate that perched groundwater conditions may be encountered at the contact between the relatively impermeable Tertiary Santiago Formation and the relatively porous overlying soils. However, ground water is not anticipated to be a constraint to site development provided the recommendations of this report are adhered to. 0 2.5 Mass Movement Based on our review of the previous geotechnical reports, available geologic literature and maps, and aerial photographs, no indication of mass movements (such as landslides, surficial slumps, etc.) were observed within the areas proposed for development. In the northern portion of the site an area has been mapped as a possible landslide based on topographic expression. Because this feature is localized in predominantly an open-space area, it is not considered a major constraint to site development. Geologic mapping of all excavating in this area should be performed during site grading. Localized zones of weak claystonematerial are present in -the Santiago Formation and may create localized areas that are prone to slope instability if exposed in aut slope. Accordingly, all cut slopes should be mapped by an engineering geologist during, site grading. Additional recommendations for slope stabilization can be provided as needed during site grading. 2.6 Faulting and Seismicity Our discussion of the faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years) but that has not been proven to be active or inactive. This definition is used S in delineating Fault Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault r -8- Leighton 4841363-006 Zoning Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 1994. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active faults. Base on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones, the subject site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1994). However, several inactive fault zones have been mapped in a number of places within and adjacent to the subject site. These inactive fault zones are not considered to be a constraint to site development. The location of the proposed development can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of southern California. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone which is located approximately 3.5 miles to the west of the site is considered to have the most significant seismic effect at the site from a design standpoint. A maximum probable earthquake of moment magnitude 5.9 on the fault could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately 0.30g at the site. 2.7 Seismic Considerations The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking and/or seismically induced liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The probability of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal since active faults are not known to cross the site. Ground lurching due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout the southern California region. 0 2.7.1 Ground Shaking The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major regional faults. As discussed above, a maximum probable event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (considered the design earthquake for this site) could produce a peak horizontal acceleration at the site of 0.30g. A site coefficient (S factor) of 1.2 may be used for design-purposes (ICBO, 1994, Table. 16-J). The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994). 2.7.2 LiquefactionlDynamicSettlement Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. The Santiago Formation is generally not considered liquefiable due to its high density characteristics. The onsite identified documented fill soils are also not considered liquefiable due to.their generally unsaturated condition, fine-grained nature and relatively dense characteristic. . 4 -9- Leighton 4841363-006 From our preliminary field study, it appears that the only region susceptible to liquefaction is the main drainage area. Accordingly, improvements and golf course fills in those areas may be subject to settlement in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the two bridges proposed in this area may be affected. From our observations during our field study, the alluvial sediments appear to be interbedded with sand lenses and fine sandy silty lenses. Therefore, based on our analysis, it is our professional opinion that the main drainage region has a moderate potential for liquefaction in isolated areas. Accordingly, we estimate the following total and differential dynamic induced settlements resulting from the design earthquake for the east and west bridges. Table 1 Dynamic Settlement Area Most Susceptible Total Dynamic Differential Settlement (feet bgs) Settlement Over 100 feet Horizontally (inches) (inches) West Bridge 7'6"-30' 4 2 East Bridge 9'-20' 2 1 It should be recognized, however, that many of the parameters used in liquefaction evaluation are subjective and open to interpretation. It should also be understood that much of Southern California is an area of moderate to high seismic risk and is not generally considered economically feasible to build structures totally resistant to earthquake related hazards. However, current state-of-art standards for design and construction are intended to reduce the potential for major structural damage. 2.8 Graded Slopes 2.8.1 Existing Slope Conditions A number of existing graded slopes have been constructed along Palomar Airport Road, College Avenue, and the fill disposal areas discussed above. These slopes have inclinations ranging from 2:1 to .3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The slopes consist of both cut and fill slopes. . Existing fill slopes are limited to the fill disposal area and adjacent to the southern portion of College Avenue. The stability of existing cut and fill slopes adjacent to College Boulevard was previously addressed at the time of construction. We understand that portions of the existing slopes are temporary and will be reconfigured to reflect the elevations shown on the project grading plans. Based on the As-Graded Geotechnical Report of the Fill Disposal Site (San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, 1987), the fill slopes for this area were constructed with fill slope keys, but the temporary slope faces were not compacted. As a consequence, severe erosion was observed within the south facing temporary fill slope near the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue. This slope will require remedial grading in addition to the design grading to mitigate these deep erosional features. S 4 _10- Leighton 11 4841363-006 2.8.2 Cut and Fill Slopes Based on our review of the site grading plans, (Appendix A) fill slopes up to ±90 feet in height at <2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and cut slopes up to ±75 feet in height at <2:1 (horizontal to vertical) are proposed. Geotechnical analysis indicates that the proposed cut slopes will be stable against deep-seated failure if adverse geologic (i.e., clay seams, or out- of-slope-bedding) conditions do not occur in the cut slopes. Where adverse conditions are exposed during grading, replacement or buttress fills may be required to provide stable slope conditions. Fill slopes less than 75 feet in height were analyzed to have an adequate factor of safety (1.5) against deep-seated failure. For fill slopes greater than 75 feet and less than 90 feet, a 10-foot horizontal trench shall be constructed at least 35 feet vertically from toe of slope. We recommend that all excavations and cut slopes be observed and mapped by a geologist from our firm during grading operations to verify that the soil and geologic conditions encountered do not differ significantly from those assumed in our analysis. Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine-grading and construction unless supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerantvegetation as soon as possible after completion of grading to minimize the potential for erosion. In slopes where seepage is present, drainage should be provided as shown in Appendix D. Slopes which require special drainage features can be evaluated and recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading operations. 2.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis The proposed slopes were analyzed for their deep-seated and surficial stability. Slope stability analysis were performed using the PC software program XSTABLE. The values used in the analysis are provided below: Table 2 Slope Stability Analysis Parameters Soil Type Friction Angle (degrees) Cohesion (psf) Santiago Formation* (composite) 30 250 Santiago Formation (Claystone) 25 250 Santiago Formation (Sandstone) 32 175 Clayseam 10 100 Artificial Fill for Buttresses (Claystone/Sandstone Mix) 28 175 -11- 4 Leighton 4841363-006 * Due to the interbedding of the sandstone and claystone materials in this unit, the friction S angle and cohesion values were estimated from these respective values obtained from the claystone and sandstone units themselves. This composite value must be confirmed prior to placement of the mixed fill to verify our assumptions. Cut slopes in the Santiago Formation and fill slopes derived from the predominant on site materials were analyzed for inclinations up to 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Where adverse geologic conditions such as clayseams do not exist, a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater was calculated for the proposed slopes. However, our laboratory tests indicate that slopes derived from the Santiago Formation claystone possess deep-seated stability (when constructed at an inclination of 2:1 [horizontal to vertical]) to a maximum height of only 20 feet (less than the maximum proposed slope heights). Therefore, we recommend that the Santiago Formation claystone be utilized only in deeper fills or thoroughly mixed with onsite sandy soils in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that the fill material be tested during grading:;to evaluate the strength parameters of the fill. With information obtained from our referenced report dated September 24,199 1, our most recent field study and the referenced grading plan by P&D Technologies, Cross-Sections A, B, C and D were developed. These cross-sections are provided at the end of this report. From our analyses, buttressing will be necessary at a portion of Cross-Section A-A' given the proposed configuration. The buttress shall be constructed in accordance with Geologic Cross Sections A-A' and Appendix D. Our analysis indicates Cross-Section C-C' is stable given its proposed configuration; however, due to the presence of a clay seam, we recommend a stability fill also be constructed for this slope due to a potential for future surficial instabilities. Minor design changes may be made based on in-grading inspection. Accordingly, we strongly recommend geologic mapping of all cut slopes to verify our assumptions. In addition, laboratory testing of the cut and fill materials during grading should be performed to verify the strength parameters used in our analyses. Special precautions shall be taken for grading operations performed in the area of the SDG&E metal towers. Buttress cuts or other excavations next to the poles or towers should start at least 20 feet from the structure and not be steeper than 1-1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 2.8.4 Surficial Slope Stability Our calculations of surficial stability (Appendix E) show a calculated factor of safety of 1.5 or greater for the proposed slopes. The strength parameters presented in Table 2 were used for our analysis. Erosion and/or surficial failure potential of fill slopes may be reduced if the following measures are implemented during design and construction of the subject slopes. S 4 12- Leighton 4841363-006 Selective Grading of Fill Materials We recommend against the exclusive use of either highly expansive clayey soils or poorly graded sands of the Santiago formation. Highly expansive soils are generally known to be subject to surficial failures when exposed in slope faces. Clayey soils of the Santiago Formation weather, generally losing integrity when exposed on slope faces. Poorly graded sands utilized in slope faces may be subject to excessive erosion and rilling. A mixture of clayey soils and sandy soils is recommended to reduce overall expansion potential and slope erosion and increase surficial slope stability. We recommend that mixture of soils be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to placement in fill slopes. Slope Landscaping and Drainage Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to minimize potential for erosion. Berms should. be provided at the top of all slopes and lot drainage directed such that surface runoff on slope faces is minimized. S S 4 -13- Leighton 4841363-006 3.0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL S The expansion potential of the soils encountered within the subject site are described as follows: Undocumented Fill: Low expansion potential for the majority of the soils. Minor amounts of silty sand/clayey sand soils may have a moderate expansion potential. Alluvium and Colluvium: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. Topsoil: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. Santiago Formation Low expansion potential for silty sandstone, medium to high for sandy to clayey siltstones and high to very high for the silty claystones. Expansion testing of representative finish grade soils in proposed building areas:should be performed upon completion of rough grading to better assess the expansion potential of the finish..grade soils so that final foundation recommendations can be provided. 3.1 Sulfate Content, Minimum Resistivity and PH The test results from site investigations performed on the adjacent Carlsbad Ranch and other nearby projects indicate the onsite soils possess a negligible to high soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates, if present in significant amounts, can be damaging to conventional Type I/TI cement. 5 Therefore, as a preliminary recommendation, sulfate resistant cement (Type II or V) should be used. In addition, laboratory testing of finish grade soils at grade or in contact with concrete and/or buried metal conduits should be performed once grading operations are completed. Our minimum resistivity test results indicate that the onsite soils do possess a very corrosive potential to buried, uncoated metal conduit. A corrosion engineer should be consulted to address this condition. S 4 -14- Leighton 4841363-006 3.2 Earthwork shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction as fill is expected to vary with material and location. Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock material vary significantly in natural and compacted density, and therefore, accurate earthwork shrinkage/bulking estimates cannot be determined. However, the following factors, based on the results of our geotechnical analysis and our experience grading the adjacent Carlsbad Ranch project, are provided as guideline estimates. If possible, we suggest an area where site grades can be adjusted be provided and utilized as a balance area. - Topsoil: 5-10 percent shrinkage. - Undocumented Fill 5-15 percent shrinkage - Colluvium/Slope Wash 0-2 percent shrinkage - Alluvium 5-15 percent shrinkage - Terrace Deposits 3-5 percent shrinkage upper -3 feet 0-3 percent bulking below 3 feet in depth - Santiago Formation 4-7 percent bulking (assuming the majority of the Santiago Formation is sandstone, bulking may be greater in areas of siltstone or claystone). - Santiago Peak Volcanics 15-20 percent bulking • -15- Leighton 4841363-006 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the 200-scale project grading plans and the results of our geotechnical investigations and review of pertinent data, it is our opinion that the proposed development of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors which may affect development of the site. Based on subsurface investigations, the site is underlain by alluvium, colluvium/slope wash, undocumented fill soils, the Santiago Formation, and the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. The topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formational material and undocumented fill soils are porous and/or potentially compressible in their present state and will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed structural improvements. If complete removals are not made, settlement should be anticipated. Based on the our subsurface investigations of the formational soils and surficial soils present on the site, we anticipate that these materials will be rippable with heavy-duty construction equipment. However, localized concretions and cemented layers within the Tertiary Santiago Formation if encountered, may require heavy ripping during excavation. In addition the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics that outcrop in the southeastern portion of the site are extremely hard and may require localized heavy ripping and/or blasting for removal should design plans change in this area. Significant amounts of oversized material should be anticipated if such measures are required. Undocumented fill soils are present on the site at various locations. Removal of these deleterious materials will be required in areas proposed for structural improvements Laboratory test results of representative soil samples from our investigations onsite the and our previous experience on adjacent sites indicate the soils present on the site have the following soil engineering characteristics: - very low to high expansion potential - negligible to considerable sulfate content - adequate shear strength in both existing formational soils or as properly compacted fill soils - mild to high potential for corrosion to buried metal conduits The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable for use as fill material provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. • Ground water was observed in several of the borings excavated in the alluvial areas onsite. It is anticipated that groundwater will limit the extent of required removals in the area adjacent to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue, and in the immediate vicinity of the main drainage onsite. Perched ground water conditions were encountered within the tract in a number of places. Ground water is not considered a constraint to development, however, ground water seepage or shallow ground water conditions may occur in areas where ground water did not previously exist. This is especially true where a relatively impermeable material such as a claystone or a cemented layer (i.e. $ -16- Leighton 4841363-006 the Santiago Formation) underlies a relatively permeable material such as sandstone or sandy fill soils. After removal of undocumented fill and alluvium, canyon subdrains should be installed to avoid a future buildup of water. Additional subdrains may be required based upon our review of final development plans and conditions encountered during site grading. Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the CMGC project. However, inactive faults and other seismic features have been mapped and/or observed transecting the site. The impact of these faults will depend on their location and relation to the proposed cut slopes and structural improvements. The observed sheared material associated with the faulting may affect the stability of the cut slopes and, in pad areas, juxtapose materials with differing engineering characteristics at pad grade. The exact location of the faulting can best be determined during grading operations. Mitigative measures may include overexcavation and recompaction or special foundation recommendations in pad areas and stabilization fills for impacted proposed cut slopes. The peak horizontal ground acceleration on the site due to the design earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone of moment magnitude 5.9 is estimated to be 0.30g. Based on our evaluation, the potential for liquefaction of the majority of site soils is considered very low. However, due to the perched ground water conditions and presence of relatively loose alluvium in isolated areas of the main drainage region, the potential for liquefaction is considered moderate. Grading of the subject site may result in a transition condition (cut/fill) in several of the proposed building areas. Section 5.1.6 provides recommendations to mitigate these conditions. Proposed fill slopes between 75 and 90 feet or greater in vertical height will require benching or reinforcement for inclinations of 2 to 1. Several of the planned cut slopes in the southeastern portion of the site require construction of a stability fill. S 4 -17- Leighton 4841363-006 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Golf Course and Building Structure Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, removal and recompaction of potentially compressible soils, fill placement, and backfill. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Carlsbad grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix D. 5.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formation materials, and undocumented fill soils), and stripped of vegetation. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas proposed to receive structural fill or slopes with inclinations greater than 3 to 1 should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) prior to the placement of any additional fill soils. All areas proposed to receive non-structural fill soils (golf course areas, including the practice range and slopes with inclinations less than or equal to 3 to 1) should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-9 1) prior to the placement of additional fill soils. 5.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils In general, alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, weathered formational soils, and undocumented fill soils in areas of proposed-structural fill, should be excavated, moisture conditioned or dried back to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then compacted prior to placing any additional fill. These soils are anticipated to be porous and potentially compressible in their present state, and may settle appreciably under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. Removals in areas of proposed structural improvements should be projected downward at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to competent formational material (where prior to the placement of additional fill soils. In areas proposed to receive non- structural fill, these potentially compressible soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) prior to the placement of additional fill soils. $ -18- Leighton 4841363-006 In general, we estimate that the alluvial removals in the commercial area located in the southwestern portion of the site, (adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road) to be up to 18-20 feet in depth, and will be limited by the depth of ground water in this area. The colluvial removals will in general range from 3 to 7 feet, while removals of topsoil and near-surface soil will be on the order of 2 to 4 feet. It should be noted that deeper removals may be required in areas proposed for structural improvements due to localized thicker zones of compressible soils. In the central canyon area alluvial depths of approximately 50 feet were encountered. Other areas of undocumented fill although limited in extent may require complete removal and recompaction if structural improvements are proposed. 5.1.3 Excavations Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches) will be generated during grading (excluding Santiago Peak Volcanics). However, if oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed as fill in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. Due to the relatively high density characteristics and coarse nature of the onsite soils, . temporary excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in the onsite soils should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions. Trench operations should be performed in accordance with the most recent 051-IA requirements. For excavations deeper than 15 feet, specific recommendations can be made on a case by case basis. 5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted;fill. provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock. fragments larger than .6 inches in maximum dimension. Fill soils placed in areas of proposed structural improvements and/or slopes within inclinations greater than 3 to 1 should be brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91. The 90 percent relative compaction should extend a minimum often feet outside the structural improvement footprint and downward at a 1:1 -. projection (horizontal to vertical) to competent material. In areas proposed to receive non- structural fill soils (i.e. general course areas including the proposed practice range and fills with inclinations less than or equal to 3 to 1), fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 85 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. S 8' -19- Leighton 484 13 63-006 S Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix D. 5.1.5 Stability Fills Two proposed cut slopes will require the construction of stability fills due to the presence of adverse geologic conditions that will be exposed in the slope face. As shown on Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' and C-C', stability fills are recommended for these slopes. Stability fills should have a minimum width at the top of slope of 20 feet and a key depth of 5 feet below the toe of slope. The width of the bottom of the stability fill key shall be 20 feet for the slope shown on Cross-Section C-C' and 70 feet for Cross-Section A-A'. The base of stability fill key shall slope toward the back of the key at; a minimum of 2 percent. In addition, a subdrain should be provided at the base of the key. A typical detail for stability fill construction is included as part of Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. The lateral extent of the stability fills should be determined after review of final grading plans. In order to minimize the potential for instability of the stability fill backcuts during construction, work should be planned such that the backcuts remain exposed for only the minimum amount of time possible. As previously noted, special precautions shall be taken for grading operations performed in the area of the San Diego Gas and Electric metal towers. Buttress cuts or other excavations next to the poles or towers should start at least 20 feet from the structure and not be steeper than 1-1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 5.1.6 Transition Lots We recommend the areas of proposed structural fill be planned such that they are entirely underlain by competent formational soils or underlain by a uniform thickness of properly compacted fill. If this is not possible, in order to help minimize the potential for differential settlements, the entire cut portion of the area planned for structures in daylight areas should be overexcavated:to,:a1,Minimumi depth of 3 feet. below the bottoms of proposed foundations and replaced with properly compacted% fill; The overexcavations should laterally extend at least 10 feet beyond Ahe, building pad. Depth of overexcavation should be deepened when necessary to provide a uniform thickness of fill beneath the structure(s). 5.1.7 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters Based on previous preliminary investigations, it is our opinion that except for alluvial areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and the main canyon drainages, a permanent shallow ground water table does not currently exist at the site. The control of ground water in a hillside development is essential to reduce the potential for undesirable surface flow or seepage, hydrostatic pressure and the adverse effects of ground water on slope stability. S -20- Leighton 4841363-006 We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade each sheet-graded area, S such that drainage water is directed away from top-of-slopes. No ponding of water should be permitted. Drainage design is within the purview of the design civil engineer. Even with these provisions, our experience indicates that shallow ground water conditions can develop in areas where no such ground water conditions existed prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. We recommend that an engineering geologist be present during grading operations to observe and record possible future seepage. Canyon subdrains should be installed in the canyon bottoms that will be infihled and in the removal bottom of the undocumented fill removal areas in order to collect subsurface water and minimize the saturation of the fill soils. The locations for recommended subdrains should be made after review of final grading plans. Additional subdrains may be recommended based on observations made during site grading and review of final development plans. If seepage conditions occur in cut slopes or other areas of the tract, :shallow subdrains may be installed to collect the ground water and minimize problems associated with saturated soil. The subdrains should be installed in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. 5.1.8 Preliminary Foundation Design Considerations for Building Structures Proposed building types, final locations, and foundation loads were unknown at the time this report was prepared. For planning purposes, we anticipate the proposed structures will vary from one to two stories in height and will utilize both structural steel and concrete tilt- up construction. Assuming the pad grade soils have a very low to low expansion, the following foundation recommendations may be utilized. Final foundation plans should be reviewed by this office. 5.1.9 Footing Design for Building Structures The proposed buildings may utilize a combination of continuous perimeter footings and conventional interior isolated-spread footings for building support. Footings bearing properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted soil grade (24 inchesfor two stories).:At this depth, footings may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value of2,-500pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing pressure may be:increasedby 250 psf for each:additional foot of foundation embedment below 18 inches to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 15 inchesand should be reinforcedby placing at leastone No. 5 rebar near the top and one No. 5 rebar near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings. Utilizing these recommendations, total and differential settlement are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch and 1/2 inches, respectively, approximately one-half of this settlement is expected to occur during construction. Also see Section 5.1.6 for undercutltransitionlot recommendations. . ••• 4 -21- Leighton 4841363-006 5.1.10 Floor SlabDesign All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center (each way). Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to accommodate specific loading conditions should be designed by the structural engineer. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing, which is underlain by a 10-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier which, in turn, underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand to act as a capillary break. All laps and penetrations in the moisture barrier should be appropriately sealed. The spacing of crack-control joints should be designed by the structural engineer. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures.. Minor cracking is considerednormal; however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid. moisture, lossi. due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) will reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. A slip sheet or equivalent should be used if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tile, etc.) are planned directly on the concrete floor. Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings contractor test . the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of moisture sensitive flooring. "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. 5.1.1.1 Foundation Setback We.. recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all improvements (such as flatwork, retaining walls, building footings, bridges abutment footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face. ofaretaining wall) and-should have:a distance ofW2 where it is the height of the slope with a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum setback of 20 feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback.area possess.poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing to support . the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback recommendations described above. 5.2 Special Design and Grading Considerations for Fill Settlement Due to their inherent characteristics, fill soils tend to settle due to their own weight and increase in moisture content. The amount of settlement is proportional to the depth of fill and its relative compaction. Based on laboratory testing of the materials anticipated to be used as fill (Appendix C) . $ -22- Leighton 4841363-006 and our experience with similar materials, we estimate these soils (when compacted to ±90 percent S relative compaction) may settle on the order of 0.35 percent of the total fill thickness. In terms of differential settlement, 3/4 inch of settlement should be anticipated for each 20 feet of differential fill thickness. Relatively deep fill areas, placed on steep existing topography, are most likely to be impacted by the effects of differential settlement. In areas where the proposed structures cannot tolerate the amount of anticipated differential settlement mentioned above, special design and grading considerations may be required. These considerations may include: The proposed structures may be planned such that they are entirely founded into competent formational material. This may be accomplished by constructing the structure on the cut portion of the lot or by deepening foundation into the formational soils by the use of a pier and grade beam system or deepened footings. Geotechnical recommendations for these foundation systems may be provided based upon the proposed location and design..of the structures. The proposed structures may be located in areas of uniform:fill;thickness such that the anticipated differential settlement is within tolerate limits. In daylight areas, the cut portions should be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. The depth of the overexcavation will be based upon the amount of differential fill thickness and structural requirements. •• The potential differential settlements may be decreased by compacting the fill to a higher relative compaction (i.e., greater than 90 percent). Tentatively, if this alternative is chosen, the S fill should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91) in areas where the differential fill thickness is greater than 10 to 20 feet Additional structural consideration such as post-tensioned foundation and slab systems and additional concrete slab-on-grade/foundation depth and reinforcement may be required to mitigate the effects of differential settlement. We recommend the structural engineer consider the effects of differential settlement on the design of the proposed structures. 5.3 Expansive Soils/Presoak Based on laboratory testing of representative soils during the previous investigations, the majority of the soils on site have a low to very low expansion potential (Appendix C) Expansion testing of the actual soils placed at finish grade and recommendations concerning potentially expansive soils should be made after site grading has been completed. If soils other than very low (less than 20 per UBC 18-2) expansion potential are placed at pad grade, presoaking of slab subgrade soils will be recommended prior to concrete placement. 5.4 Retaining Wall Design Considerations Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed 4 -23- Leighton 4841363-006 for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil S cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soil, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water table and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential (less than 50 per UBC 18-2) is provided below. Soils with medium to very high expansion potential shall not be used as retaining wall backfill. Table 3 Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Condition Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 -- (maximum = 3ks1) The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D. Wall back cut excavations less than 4 feet in height can be -made near vertical. For back cuts greater than 4 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For back cuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure values in the previous table. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and -soil interface. These values may be -increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads.Thetotal resistance may be • taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistances provided- the. -passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. .• -• -24- Leighton 4841363-006 5.5 Foundation Design and Earthwork Requirements for Bridge Structures At the time of this report, structural plans and exact locations of the three bridges were not available. Our recommendations are based upon the borings and trenches indicated on plate 1 and the Grading Plan prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated August 7, 1997. Final plans shall be, reviewed by this office to verify our assumptions. Once final plans are completed, additional borings may be necessary for final site design recommendations. 5.5.1 College Bridge From our field study and review of the referenced grading plan, it appears that the western abutment will be underlain by approximately 16 feet of alluvium and the east abutment will be underlain by cut formational materials. With regard to a possible center span support founded in the medium, no subsurface exploration has been performed. Based on the pregrading topography, it appears that this is a cut area. However, it is also probable that fill soils of 2 to 3 feet in depth .were placed during the roadway. construction. It is also .'possible that underground utilities exist at this location. As a result, an additional boring will be necessary in the area of mid-span foundation if this design is selected. For preliminary design purposes, the pile capacities for the western 'abutment may be used for the mid-span support foundation. - Earthwork Grading and earthwork for the western abutment should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included as Appendix D. a Site Clearing Prior to grading, areas below and within 5 feet of the western abutment should be cleared of surface and buried obstructions. Voids resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extent below finished site grades should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. Asphalt and concrete should not be disposed of below the proposed abutments. ,Site Preparation and Removals Due to the relatively loose nature of the near surface onsite soils, we recommend that the alluvium to a depth of 3 feet below existing or proposed grade (whichever is greater) to be removed and recompacted to provide a uniform mat of compacted 'fill soils below the proposed western abutment. This removal and recompaction should be performed to a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) outside the perimeter of the roadway and the abutment, we recommend that the removal be performed to at least 20 feet in the roadway direction. The removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Even with these recommendations, ongoing differential settlement between the bridge abutment and approach soils (due to S $ -25- Leighton 4841363-006 vibrational loading) may most likely occur and will require ongoing maintenance. S All grading should be performed under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Structural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic materials, asphalt concrete, and debris. The abutments should be underlain by a minimum depth of 5 feet by soils within an expansion index of less than 51 (UBC 18-I-B). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater that 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils should be placed at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91) below and within the. areas specified above in the previous section. Placement and compaction of fill should beperformed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Pile Design We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the bridge loads. The west abutment of the bridge should derive its support for the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and underlying Santiago Formation. We recommend a minimum pile depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of 90 feet msl). Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and 14 inch square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 4. -26- Leighton 4841363-006 Table 4 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (College Bridge, West Abutment) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement (kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 45 28 12 90 12 70 28 12 85 12 100 28 12 80 14 60 40 13 90 14 95 40 13 85 14 120 40 13 80 NOTES: The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. Table 5 Pile Group Capacity Reductions Pile Spacing (Center-to-Center) Reduction in Axial and Lateral Capacity (Percent) 7 pile diameters 100 6 pile diameters 95 5 pile diameters 90 4 pile diameters 85 3 pile diameters 75 Recommended allowable single pile vertical loads may be used for dead loads plus frequently occurring live loads and. may be increased one-third to resist transient components such as wind or seismic loads. Uplift capacity may be taken as 40 percent of axial capacity. Total and differential settlement of piles or pile groups (with appropriate reductions, if necessary) upon loading may be taken as 0.75 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Pile settlement calculations do not consider pile concrete shortening. . 4 -27- Leighton 4841363-006 . Piles should be driven in a continuous operation to the required depth. Jetting is not recommended. Predrilling may be accomplished but not within 10 feet of the design tip elevation. In the event heaving should occur, the piles should be redriven. We suggest that the bidding contractors be required to bid on the design pile tip elevations and include add and deduct unit costs for pile lengths longer and shorter than those estimated utilizing the design tip elevations. The actual lengths for payment should then be determined subsequent to the installation of the indicator piles. The vibration associated with pile driving is anticipated to have an adverse affect on adjacent structures within 100 to 200 feet. The vibrations will cause differential settlement of the underlying sandy soils and settlement of the adjacent structures and improvements. The magnitude of this settlement is based on the proximity to existing. structures and the type of equipment used to drive piles. Based on the many variables, we recommend that the pile driving contractor evaluate and address the anticipated settlement. It is recommended that the soil engineer review the. final foundation plans and specifications to assure that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the contract documents. In addition, all pile driving operations should be performed under the observation of the soil engineer. 0 College Bridge, Eastern Abutment For the eastern abutment formation, a deepened footing may be utilized. We recommend .that.a deepened continuous foot extend a minimum depth of 3 feet below lowest adjacent grade into undisturbed formational materials. We provide the following allowable bearing capacity for spread footings founded into competent formational material Allowable Bearing Capacities— Spread Footings College Bridge-Eastern Abutment Embedment below Lowest Adjacent Grade in Cut Formational Material Allowable Bearing Capacity 36 inches 3,500 psf 48 inches 4,500 psf 60 inches 6,000 psf 72 inches 8,000 psf These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The above bearing capacity is based on a total and differential settlement of 3/4 and 1/2, respectiveljhcross the structure. This footing should be reinforced per the structural engineers requirements/recommendation. -28- Leighton 4841363-006 5.5.2 Eastern and Western Bridge Crossing Main Drainage Course S As previously mentioned, dynamic settlement resulting from liquefaction is a distinct possibility in the area of the proposed western and eastern bridge locations in the main drainage course. If the total and differential settlements provided in Section 2.7.2 Table 1, are acceptable or the risk is considered acceptable to the owner or owner's representatives, we provided herein shallow foundation recommendations for the eastern and western bridges over the main drainage course. Shallow Foundation Design We recommend that the foundation be designed in accordance with structural considerations and design differential settlement of 2 inches in 100 feet horizontally for the western bridge and 1 inch in 100 feet for the eastern bridge. Continuous footings (ribs or thickened edges) with a minimum width of 18 inches and a minimum depth of 36 inches below adjacent grade may be designed for. a. maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot if founded .into property compacted fill soils compacted and reinforced as recommended by : the project structural engineer. The allowable pressure may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. - Earthwork Site Clearing Prior to grading, areas below and within 5 feet of the abutments should be cleared of surface and buried obstructions. Voids resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extent below finished site grades should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. Utilities should be properly abandoned in accordance with appropriate local codes. Asphalt and concrete should not be disposed of below the proposed abutments. Site Preparation and Removals Due to the relatively loose nature of the near surface onsite soils, we recommend that the existing soils .to a depth of 5 feet .below existing or proposed. grade (whichever is greater). be removed and .recompactedto provide a uniform mat of compacted fill soils below the proposed abutments. This removal and recompaction should be performed to a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) outside the perimeter of the abutments. This removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) below the abutments. To help reduce the potential for vertical offset between the roadway and the abutment, we recommend that the removal be performed at least 20 feet in the roadway direction. The removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test method D1557-91). Even with these recommendations, ongoing differential settlement between the bridge abutment and approach soils (due to vibrational loading) may most likely occur and will . .qn -29- Leighton 4841363-006 require ongoing maintenance. All grading should be performed under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant Due to the low in-place density of the alluvial soils, special procedures will be necessary in preparing the removal bottom for the placement of fill soils. Upon removal of the upper 5 feet of soil, the removal bottom should be rolled with a roller. Vibration may or may not be helpful depending on the actual conditions encountered. This preparation shall be performed in all areas. Once the removal bottom has been processed, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the results prior to placement of fill. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, sand boils, and/or lateral spreading under the footprint of the abutments, we recommend two, layers of a geotextile such as AMOCO 2016 or Mirafi HP565 be placed on the removal bottom. If an equivalent material is used, it shall have a greater tensile strength and lower permeability. Once placed; backfill operations may- proceed. Caution should be taken such that track-mounted compaction equipment does not damage the geotextile material. - Utilities should be planned to be above the uppermost geotextile layer. Structural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic materials, asphalt concrete, and debris. The abutments should be underlain by a minimum depth of 5 feet by soils within an expansion index of less than 51 (UBC 18-I-13). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater that 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils should be placed at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91) within 5 feet vertically and 10 feet horizontally of the structure. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. 5.5.3 Deep Foundation Design, Eastern and Western Bridges If the design differential settlement of 1 inch and 2 inches for the eastern and western bridges respectively, or the potential damage resulting from liquefaction are considered unacceptable, we provide herein deep foundation design recommendations. . 4 -30- Leighton 4841363-006 0 - Earthwork All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with Section 5.5. • Pile Design, Western Bridge We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the western bridge loads. The abutments of the bridge should derive their support from the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and Santiago Formation. We recommend a minimum pile depth of 55 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of -13 feet msl). As previously noted, the pile depth provided herein are based on our exploratory borings in close proximity to the proposed western bridge. Actual pile depth may increase or decrease once the final abutment locations and final grades are determined. Final plans shall be reviewed by this office to verify our assumptions. Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and 14 inch square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 6. S 4 -31- Leighton 4841363-006 Table 6 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Western Bridge) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (Tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement (kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 28 30 14 -13 12 32 30 14 -18 12 40 30 14 -23 14 38 50 16 -13 14 43 50 16 -18 14 54 50 16 -23 NOTES: (3) The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). (4) Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. Pile Design, EasternBridge We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the eastern bridge loads. The abutments of the bridge should derive their support from the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and Santiago Formation. We recommend a. minimum pile depth of 35 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of 19 feet msl). Actual pile lengths should be determined after a review of final design grades. Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and .14: inch :square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in .accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 7. . $ -32- Leighton 4841363-006 Table 7 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Eastern Bridge) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement (kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 25 30 12 19 12 30 30 12 14 12 35 30 12 9 14 34 50 13 19 14 41 50 13 14 14 48 50 13 9 NOTES: The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. 5.6 Type of Cement for Construction Representative samples of the soils anticipated to be near finish grade should be obtained and tested for soluble sulfate content upon completion of rough grading in order to determine the type of cement for construction. However, tests performed on samples from adjacent sites indicated the soil possess a negligible to severe soluble sulfate exposure to concrete. As a result, for preliminary planning purposes concrete in contact with the onsite soils should be designed with Type II or V cement (or equivalent). 5.7 Corrosion Resistance Tests performed on similar soils during previous investigation on an adjacent site indicate that the soils have a mild to high potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for further evaluation of this potential if buried uncoated metal conduit is utilized. O -33- Leighton 4841363-006 is 5.8 Pavement Design Final pavement recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of roadway subgrade soils as final grades are achieved. For planning purposes, we have assumed the sandy onsite soils will have an R-value of 40. Utilizing assumed traffic indices of T.I. = 5.0., T.I. = 6.0, and T.I. = 7.0, the following structural pavement sections can be assumed for planning purposes. Table 8 Structural Pavement Design Assumed Design Recommended Structural Use Traffic Index R-Value - PavementDesign Parking and light T.I. = 5.0 R =40 3 inches of asphalt concrete over auto traffic 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base Drive Areas T.I. = 6.0 R =40 4inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches ofCaltransCiass2 base Truck areas and T.I. = 7.0 R=40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over fire lanes 7 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91. If fill is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. The aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Untreated Class 2 aggregate base should meet the requirements of Caltrans specifications. We recommend that the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and cart paths be designed by the civil engineer or structural engineer. We suggest control joints at appropriate intervals as determined by the civil or structural engineer be considered. We also suggest a minimum thickness of 4 inches for sidewalk slabs. To minimize cracking of cart paths in non-structural golf course areas, we recommend the cart path subgrade be proof rolled the upper 12 inches and compacted to at least 90 percent of the soils maximum dry density. In accordance with City of Carlsbad guidelines, concrete improvements within city right of ways should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base and subgrade. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. For loading areas subject to impact loading (i.e., trash trucks, delivery trucks bays, loading docks, etc.), we recommend a minimum 7 inch Portland Cement concrete pavement section. The Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) should be provided with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack- -34- Leighton 4841363-006 control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that crack-control S joints be spaced no more than 12 feet on center each way. If sawcuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of one-quarter the slab thickness and made within 8 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,250 psi mix may be utilized. Asphalt Concrete (A.C.), Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) and base materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. 5.9 Water Features We understand the proposed CMGC will incorporate several lakes/ponds into the design. The location and extent of these features are shown on Plate 1. For preliminary design purposes, we recommend that the ponds be lined with gunite lining having a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh. Structural considerations may increase the thickness and reinforcement of gunite/concrete . A 2 to 4-inch layer of clean sand(S.E. > 30) should be placed below the gunite to aid in curing. The sand layershould be underlain by a synthetic pond liner (60 to 80 mu) which is underlain by a layer of geofabric such asMirafi 140N or equivalent to protect the liner. A subdrain or sump system should also be constructed below the lake liner to collect seepage water, to inhibit uplift forces during pond cleaning, and to reduce the potential for infiltration of water into the subsurface soils. Final recommendations can be provided after completion of project plans. We note that the proposed lakes may be in non-structural areas where differential fill settlement is anticipated, and, thus additional reinforcement recommendations or deeper removals may be necessary; If settlement of pond areas or in general golf course areas (i.e. non-structural) cannot be tolerated, we recommend that the pond be treated as a structural improvement and the grading performed accordingly. S 4 -35- Leighton 4841363-006 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced exploratory borings, trenches and test pits. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton and Associates. We recommend that all cut areas and cut slopes be geologically mapped for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions and potential ground water seepage zones by an engineering geologist from Leighton and Associates during grading. All grading operations should be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final grading and development plans should also be reviewed by this office. [I S S 4 -36- Leighton 4841363-006 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Abbott, P.L., ed., 1985, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County; San Diego Association of Geologists Fieldtrip Guidebook, April 13, 1985. Albee, A.L., and Smith J.L., 1966, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity Southern California in Southern California, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966. Bodas Engineering, Undated, Grading Plan, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1 "=80'. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rom, Paper No. 292, pp. 1304-1313. dated June 1973. Bonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, inWiegel, R., Ed., Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 47-74. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975, Fault Map of California, Scale 1 "=750,000'. Eisenberg, L.I., 1983, Pleistocene Terraces and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California, San Diego State University Master's Thesis (unpublished), p. 386. 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County in Abbott, P.L., Editor, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 86-91. Geotechnics, 1992, Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0054-000 1 -00, dated September 25, 1992. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earthquakes in California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hannan, D.L., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego County, California in Ross, A. and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of Camp Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California, San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 56-60. Hart, 1988, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Hart, E.W., 1992, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conversation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. A-i 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, I January 1932 to 31 December 1972: California Institute of Technology Seismology Laboratory, Pasadena, California. ICG, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Map and Cross Section A-N, Plates 2 and 3, Job 05-7379-002-00-00, dated January 1988. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1991, Uniform Building Code. , 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume I-Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume 11-Structural Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume Ill-Material, Testing and Installation Provisions: ICBO. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 92-03, Scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Prediction of Earthquake Response Spectra, in Proceeding 51" Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California; Also U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-977, p. 16. is Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on Major Faults in Southern California, in Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., and Yelverton, C.A., Eds., 1973, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1985, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Huntington Palomar Business Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-02, dated April 5, 1985. 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Lot H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Partition Map No. 823, Northeast Corner of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8870059-01, dated February 17, 1987. 1989a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carltas Rancho Agua Hedionda Regional Shopping Center, Northeast of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 889155 1-01,dated September 29, 1989. 1991, Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract 85-17, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8841363-04, dated January 16, 1991 revised September 24, 1991. 1992, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, 84 Sheets, dated November, 1992. A-2 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) 1993, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Units I and II (Lots 1 through 7), Carlsbad Ranch, Phase 1, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-01, dated July 22, 1993. 1994a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch Phase II, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-03, dated March 23, 1994. 1994b, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Map Purposes, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-04, dated July 5, 1994. In-house unpublished data. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone: Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume 1, pp.679-688. Moore and Taber, 1987, Report of Geotechnical Services, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-46, Airport Business Center Unit No. 1, City of Carlsbad, California, Job No. 285-256, dated February 25, 1987. Ploessel, MR., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations From Earthquakes - is Important Design Criteria, California Geology, V. 27. Reichle, M.S., and Kahle, J.E., 1990, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 100. Rick Engineering, 1987, Site Development Plan, College business Park, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1"=lOO',Job No. 8495C, dated May 1, 1985, Revised September 4, 1987. 1985, Site Development Plan, College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1"=lOO', Job No. 8495C, dated May 1, 1985, Revised September 4, 1987. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 1987, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Fill Disposal Site - College Boulevard Extension, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 05-6657-001-00-10, dated May 12, 1987. Schnabel, R., and Seed, H.B., 1973, Accelerations in Rock from Earthquakes in the Western United States, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monogram Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, R.W., 1968, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SM5, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218. A-3 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) Singh, A., 1970, Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes, in Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, No. SM6, pp. 1879-1892. 1982, Recent Slope failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12, LA. 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3, 309p. U.S. Department of the Navy, 1969, Civil Engineering, DM-5. 1982, Foundations and Earth Structures, DM 7.2. 1986, Soil Mechanics, DM 7.1. United States Department of the Interior Geologic Survey, 1968, 7.5-Minute Encinitas Quadrangles, Scale 1:24,000, Photo Revised 1975. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego, California. is Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in Ziony, ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth - Science Perspective U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43-91. Date [ Source Flight No. PhotoNo. [ Scale 1978 San Diego County 210-15B 30 and 31 1"=1000' 4-11-53 USDA AXN-8M 99, 100, 101 and 102 1=2000' 1928 San Diego County 30 D1,D2,E1 and E2 V=1100' A-4 Date Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Drive Weight SElevation Top of Hole +1- ft. Ref. or Datum 4 FC WCo WW c tau; j cs" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By 0 Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay, silty clay, lean day CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay OL-OH Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures ML Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey silt with law plasticity Sample dicate fl( SPT i l 41 ______ MI-I CUML Inorganic silt; diatomaceous line sandy or silty soils; elastic silt Low plasticity clay to silt mixture Cal J/J•i ML-SM Sandy silt to silty sand mixture 1 Sample CL-SC Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture grsxi level at &bg k cates di d water time ol SC-SM SW Clayey sand to silty sand mixture Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines .-..-. 10— SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture SC Clayey sand; poorly graded sand-clay mixture . - OW Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Y . OP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture 15-0 GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture - - Sandstone Siltstoae aastone 20—a f Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-supported conglomerate) Aun Conglomerate (sounded gravel and cobble, clast-supported) Igneous granitic or granitic type rock Metavolcanic or metamorphic rock " ft Artificial or man-made fill 25— Asphaltic concrete Portland Cement Concrete &LAn Sheet 1 of 1 Project No. Type of Rig Drop in. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-la Date 11-17-97 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Project No. 841363-06 C riUing Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop _.L in. Elevation Top of Hole +/- 42 ft. Ref. or Datum - See Map 3.) 0 C Z -4- ._ .\• uV' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION W CO.) Q.O 0)w 0) .4- C')- .. (U_i C.. 0 - E - OO '-, 0) c . Logged By KTS -CD ° -° Sampled By KTS ML QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Op-1) - @ 0': Dark brown, moist, stiff, very fine to medium sandy SILT 40 - 5- 1 14 104.9 20.6 @ 5'-8': Bulk sample, same as above - Bag-2 35 - 10- 3 16 105.8 19.9 @ 10': Dark brown, moist to wet, stiff, very fine to medium sandy SILT; mica-rich 30 - 4 14 102.6 23.1 SM/ML @ 15': Light brown, moist to wet, stiff, very fine to medium sandy SILT/silty SAND; some coarse grained SAND 25- 20— 5 23 1015 22.8 @ 20': Light brown, moist, stiff, sandy SILT to silty SAND; very fine to coarse - grained sand 20- 25—'_ 6 19 98.8 25.2 @ 25': Light to dark brown, moist to wet, loose to medium stiff at silty portion, silty fine to medium sand grades to fine to very coarse SAND; some - . pebbles, iron-oxide staining - 15- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-la Date 11-17-97 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Project No. 841363-06 4vril ling Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop _Q in. Elevation Top of Hole + /- 42 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map C d . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION . .co 0.0 Lfl w C4- i rn_i ( .4- 0 Z - 0.co a) _U) .'-.. O.._ E . Logged By KTS Sampled By KTS m (1) 0 0 ° OD °" -.--=------- 7 33 107.2 21.4 SM/ML @ 30': Light to dark brown, wet, medium dense to very stiff, silty very fine to - • coarse SAND with SILTSTONE clasts (clasts up to 1' diameter, Consists of . light gray to orange, moist to wet, very stiff siltstone) 10- 35-- - 8 15 97.8 29.0 @35': Light brown wet, loose to medium dense with stiff areas, silty fine to - • medium SAND to SILT; layers of silt within sand, some iron-oxide staining. 5 40— - 9 21 100.7 25.1 ML-CL @ 40' Light brown, moist to wet, very stiff, clayey SILT; some fine SAND, mica-rich, rolls in fingers 0- - — SANTIAGO FORMATION (TsJ 45— @ 44': Brown to orangish tan, wet, very stiff, fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; 10 23 ML iron-oxide staining, some coarse sands, weathered bedrock -5- so—..-, . 11 34 SM @50': Brown to orangish tan, moist, hard, silty fine to medium SANDSTONE; •: iron-oxide staining, some gypsum -10 Total Depth = 52 Feet - Ground Water Encountered at 7 Feet 6 Inches at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/17/97 55- -15- 60 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2a Date 11-17-97 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development .ruhing Co. F&C Drilling ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Elevation Top of Hole + /a__54 ft. Ref. or Datum See Sheet 1 of 2. Project No. 841363-06 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Drop JO in. I I d . Di -4- X 01-1 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION _+. £+. -- .CO) 0.0 W .4- ci 30 C4- .4- ° - m...i L 0 co. U Z E ._ Logged By KTS Sampled By KTS 0 U C.O" CL QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @ 0': Dark brown, damp, hard, silty CLAY 50 - 5- 12 44 108.2 18.2 @ 5': Dark brown, damp, hard, silty CLAY; few very fine SAND, minor organics, rolls in fingers Bag-13 (7'-10') Bulk sample, same as above) 45 - 10- 14 28 104.5 18.6 ML @ 10': Brown, moist, very stiff, fine to medium sandy SILT; 1/2' diameter pebble 40 - 15- 15 21 96.3 25.9 @ 15': Light brown to brown, damp to moist, very stiff, fine sandy SILT; 1" diameter rock fragment 35 - 20- 16 33 108.1 19.7 @ 20': Light brown mottled, damp to moist, hard, fine to medium sandy SILT; - few pebbles up to 1/4", mottled black and orange portions 30 - 25—. . 17 42 104.8 20.5 SM -.- TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - -. ... . . @ 25': Light orange to mottled light brown, moist, medium dense to very stiff, medium to coarse sandstone grades to fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; gypsum, iron oxide, few organics 25 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2a Date 11-17-97 Sheet 2 of 2 Project CarlsbadMunicipalGolf Course/P&DDevelopment Project No. 841363-06 Wrill ing Co. F&CDrilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8in. Drive Weight 140pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole + /-_54 ft. Ref. or Datum SeeMap U z 01 _ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION .f-'-- E W ai 3.0 O WU 0.0 L C.D -4- z - co j 00. c Logged By KTS - C-) (1) Sampled By KTS 30— I 18 43 96.6 25.0 ML-CL @ 30': Olive-gray, damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; some gypsum, iron-oxide staining Total Depth = 31 Feet - Ground Water Encountered at 9 Feet at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/17/97 20- 35— is- 40- 10- - 45- 5- 50- 0- S5_ I 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3a Date 11-17-97 Sheet 1 of 2 Project CarlsbadMunicipalGolf Course/P&DDevelopment Project No. 841363-06 rilEng Co. F&CDrilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8in. Drive Weight 140pounds Drop J0 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/- 12W ft. Ref. or Datum SeeMap > !'-' W . .; W4(U W . € rn_i LA . 0 . CL - 0 0 0 0) L) ° Cn j GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KTS Sampled By KTS 0 ML-MH TOPSOIL (unmapped @ 0': Dark brown, damp, stiff to very stiff, clayey SILT; organics, clumpy, grass at / top - SM SANTIAGOFORMATION (Ts) @ 3': Light tan, damp, very dense, silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; moderate - cementation Bag-20 53/6" 102.8 7.9 10— 20 50/3" 93.7 10.6 @ 10': Light gray to white, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SANDSTONE; less cemented than above, include silt, few biotite crystals 21 65/6" 99.3 18.8 CL @ 15': Olive-green, dry to damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; moderate - Bag-23 cementation 15'-19 20- - : •- 22 50/4" 95.1 11.2 SM @ 20': Light tan to "ray, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SANDSTON; iron-oxide staining 25— 24 65/4" 102.4 5.5 @ 25': Light tan, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to coarse SANDSTONE with pebbles; pebbles up to 1/3" diameter, some siltstone clasts 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3a Date 11-17-97 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Project No. 841363-06 ,rifl ing Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30. in. Elevation Top of Hole + /- 120' ft. Ref. or Datum — See Map GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O. . .CO) w 0 LLWO c'- - 0 ( >4 !-' W4 °'CD 0.0 (lU 4- 0 - 0. z 0 - L 0. U1 05 Logged By KTS tu U) (L j Sampled By KTS 30— 25 50/4" 98.2 7.5 SM @30': Gray, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE Total Depth = 31 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfilled: 11/18/97 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60 - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4a Date 11-17-97 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Project No. 841363-06 Woilhing Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger le Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole + /:I 295 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map c O,. , U z o C - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION .CO) 0.0 LA W -I- U 0 C4- 00 C- 0 - 0 E 00 - Do. —U) - CD .j Logged By KTS Sampled By KTS Lii C/) 0 C) (J)'' 295 0 - ML TOPSOIL -. - SM/ML @0': Brown, dry, soflmediurn stiff, SILT;rass SAI'ffIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - - @ 1': Olive-gray, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining Bag-26 - . @2'-5' 290 5- 27 62/6" 109.1 16.2 @5': Same as above 285 10— - 28 66/6" 110.5 12.5 ML @ 10': Orange to gray, damp, very dense/ hard, fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; include sand from previous, iron-oxide staining 280 15- 29 63/6" 105.1 15.2 @ 15': Orangish olive-gray, damp, hard, SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining 275 20— - 30 80/5' 105.4 18.8 ML-MH @ 20': Orangish olive-gray, damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining, smears between tingers Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfitled on November 18, 1997 270 I - 25— p- _ 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES L GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5a Date 11-17-97 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Project No. 841363-06 grilling Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole +/- 230 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map U o C. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION E 0.0 to w - , :3 0 C 0)0 IL cu (l.J C. 0 0. — _, .f, Z E y ' c Logged By KTS ° C- (1)" Sampled By KTS SM/ML SANTIAGO FORMATION (Is) - @ 0': Reddish light brown, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE; gypsum veins 225 5- 31 93 103.7 17.5 @5': Same as above - : Bag-32 (Bulk sample at 7'-10' @7'-10' 220 10— - - 33 93 114.0 14.1 ML @ 10': Orangish tan, damp, hard, SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining 215 15 — - . - 34 87 112.5 9.1 SM/ML @ 15': Reddish light brown, damp, dense to very dense, silty fine SANDSTONE 210 20- 35 91 111.9 9.1 @ 20': Reddish light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty fine SANDSTONE Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfihled: 11/18/97 205 — 25 .10 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I . LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-1A Project Name:Carlsbad P&D Logged by:KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +/-270' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to S. Side of College UNIT USCS No. (Z) (pcf) I TOPSOIL Qal/ SM-CL Topsoil A @ 0-2': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey, ) silty, fine to coarse sand, common roots and root - casts throughout SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM T-1A sample B @ 2'-8': Light brown to tan, moist, dense to very dense, silty, #1 bulk fine to medium sand, scattered manganese oxide and iron oxide staining throughout Bulk sample from +/- 3 of Ts GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Face SCALE: it? = 5 SURFACE SLOPE: 4° TREND: N _IIII liii IIII____II III liii liii liii liii TOTAL DEPTH AT ' NO GROUND WATR8 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: —T-2A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +/-232' msl Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. () Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to Palomar Oaks Way GEOLOGIC UNIT ) - FILL A @ 0-16'6": Artificial Fill Undocumented: Moist, loose to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, visible lifts 8"-2' in thickness, no organics visible. Lifts vary in color from light tan to dark brown TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION B @ 16'6'-18': Light brown, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, manganese oxide and iron oxide staining visible Bulk sample taken of Afu @ 12' Afu Ts SM-ML SM T-2A Sample #1 Bulk GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0 TREND: N - - -__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 18' NO GROUND WATER BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 01 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: —T-3A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +/-250' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: NE Corner of Property UNIT USCS No. (Z) (pcf) ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED Afu SM-ML A @ 0-6': Dark brown to light tan, moist to wet, soft to loose, soft to loose, clayey, silty fine to medium sand to sandy silt, visible lifts 8'-2' thick JURRASIC SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS Jsp Basalt B @ 6'-7'6": Dark gray, crystaline fractured, olivine basalt GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 26W TREND: NS - - -- - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 7'6' - - - . ..- - - REFUSAL ON JSP - - LJ SP - NO GROUND WATER - BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-4A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +7-222' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 44 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC rATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: ±1-100' East Hidden Valley Rd. UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL Qcol/ SM-ML Topsoil A @ 0-i': Dark brown, moist, loose; slightly clayey, silty fine sand SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM B @ 1'-5': Light brown, damp, medium dense to very dense, slightly clayey silty fine to medium sand to sandstone, moderately fractured (random) upper 6"-10" highly weathered GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 22°E TREND: EW liii liii IIII II liii 1111 liii liii liii - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 5' - - - - NO GROUND WATER - - - BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 . . . LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-5A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +/-240' ms] Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: 200' E. of HVR Cul-de-Sac UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL Qcol/ SM-ML Topsoil A @ 0-1': Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, porous, clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, calcium carbonate visible - as stringers and laths SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM-SC B @ 1'6': Brown, moist, medium dense, blocky, clayey, fine to medium sand, very clayey, lenses 6"-10" thick visible, calcium carbonate stringers throughout SANTIAGO FORMATION Is SM-SC C @ 6'-8': Light brown, damp, very dense, silty to clayey, fractured, sandstone GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1".= 5' SURFACE SLOPE: U TREND: NS _rrC01110jI II ii III, III, liii liii 7 C 775) 7.1, -- - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 8' - - T NO GROUND WATER - - - - - - BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 . LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-6A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +7-115' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC 'ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: SW facing slope E. of River UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) TERTIARY SANTIAGO Ts SM A @0'-4': Light brown, damp, very dense, silty, fine to medium T-6A sandstone, upper 6" slightly to moderately weathered Sample #1 Bulk Bulk sample taken 0'-3' GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4°SW TREND: NS _IIII liii IIII___I liii liii Ilil__Illi IIII_ liii - - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 4' - - - - - NO GROUND WATER - - - - - BACKFILLED AND - WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 - LOG OF TRENCH NO. : T-7A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +1-111' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 44 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to S. Side of College UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL Qcol/ SM-ML Topsoil A @ 0-1': Dark brown, damp to moist, loose, clayey, silty fine sand TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM B @ 1'-6': Light brown, moist, dense to very dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sandstone GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1' = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: EW 1 1111 liii CoI/fpi! liii __ __ Ijili_lill III, 11111 :\.s.H::.:: - - _ .... - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 6' - - - - - NO GROUND WATER - - - BACKFILLED AND - WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-8A Project Name:Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +1-112'msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: JohnDeere710D4x4hoe Location:-Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: N. of River 400' UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) TERTIARYSANTIAGOSANDSTONE Ts SM A @ 0-6': Light brown, damp to moist, dense, randomly fractured sandstone, minor calcium carbonate deposited in fractures GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 12° TREND: EW - liii liii liii -- III liii liii liii --- IIlI liii III, - TOTAL DEPTH AT 6 - - - - - NO GROUND WATER - - - BACKFILLED AND WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 . . S LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-9A Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +1-265' ms] Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 44 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: 75' N. of College Avenue UNIT USCS No. (U (pcf) ALLUVIUM Qal SM-CL T-9A Sample 5 A @ 0-3': Dark brown, moist, soft, very clayey silty sand #1 Bulk ) - TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM-CL B @ 3'-7': Orange-brown, damp, very dense, silty to clayey fine sand Bag sample at 0-3' of Qal GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10°E TREND: EW _IIII liii IIII__ ___ liii liii Illi__Ilil III, IIII_ - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 7' - - - - - NO GROUND WATER - - - - BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T10A Project Name:Carlsbad P&D Logged by:KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-006 Elevation: +1-110' msl Sample Moist. Density Equipment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Location: Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC IATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to PAR X College UNIT USCS No. () (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM-ML A @ 0-1': Dark brown, clayey, moist, loose to soft, clayey, silty fine sand QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM Qal SW/SM B @ 1'-16': Mixed, dark brown to light brown, damp to moist, T-10A loose, friable silty, fine to coarse sand with Sample channeling visible #1 Bulk TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM C @ 16'-18': Light brown damp, dense to very dense, silty, fine to medium sandstone Bulk sample from 3'-8' in Qal GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°E TREND: EW I I I I I I I I I I. I I'tI I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I Oat I II I I I I I - - - - - TOTAL DEPTH AT 18' - - - / - - NO GROUND WATER - - \ - --/ @ 20 MINUTES OPEN / - - BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 S I GEOTECHN [CAL BORING LOG DATE 12,'10/."4 PROJECT Hunt nntori,Pa oular DRILLING Co L3r'Ive HOLE DIAMETER 30" ELE'/AT ION Top OF HOLE 223 DRILL HOLE No. B-I SHEET 1 OF _3 PROJECT No. 4841363-02 TYPE OF RIG llodel 45 DRIVE WEIGHT 0-21, 31flfl/28'-55', 2600#/56'-80', 1400# DROP 12 IN. REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION - uJ o - ._j. Li w _J ou-LLI - z _i w • O C - LOGGED BY SJ/HO SAMPLED BY HO W E 0 TOPSOIL: - - SC Medium brown, dry to damp, loose to inedium dense, - clayey fine sand. - - :1'.. ida- SANrIAGO FORMATION: tional 5— - SM Liqht brownish gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine - —. sand; abundant infilling of fractures 1/16"-1/8", - - - random, discontinuous, massive, moderately cementec. - :.• - (a 7 Staining along bedding, generally horizontal. .10 1 6 111.0 8.7 - @ 11.5'-16' Continuous infilled fracture. - is— - @ 16' Oxidation along bedding, discontinuous, - —: dipping 2°-3° NW. 20_ .•. . B:N30°14, 12'4 2 8 112.7 12.0 @21' Staining along bedding 77~ , @ 21.5' Cross-bedding, becomes fine- to umedium- - .. B:N42E. grained sand. • l:N27°E, • •.- 19°NW 25 - . - B:N70°14. @ 28' Staining on bedding. 7SW Gray to light brownish gray, damp to moist, very • - stiff, silt to very fine sand; massive, some iron -H [:..I25W. W 8 oxide staining. In "!A(1 l/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/10/84 DRILL HOLE No, B-i SHEET 2OF ______ PROJECT Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No. _484136302 DRILLING Co._Larive TYPE OF RIG Model45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27',3700#/28'-55',2600#/56'-80',1400# DROP 12 ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 228'± REF. OR DATUM MeanSeaLevel (_) 0 - (1)0 Ui ' <V) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION - X (D w W OLL - - Z • LL _ a. 0 I- D .J CL j W Uj >-. U) Ui — - LOGGED BY SJ/HO SAMPLED BY HO W E 30 —-: — - — 3 14 119.0 15.1 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) ML/SM Gray to light brownish gray, damp, medium dense, silt to very fine sand. @ 30.5' Becomes silty fine sand. L - 9 31' Oxidation along bedding, dipping 2°-3°SW. - F:N35°W, - vertical - 9 33' Infilled fracture ±2' long. 35 - / 9 36' Local dark brown mottling, 6"-8' across, west side of hole. - F-N70°E . 82°S 9 38' Becomes moist. B:Undu- @ 38.5' Iron staining along bedding, undulating iatory with 4' relief, near horizontal, dipping slightly . NE 20-30. 40— • ' F:N80°W, 4 9 115.2 165 9 40.5' Infilled fracture. vertical • F:N82°W, : N30-W, • — N52-W, vertical - 9 44' Highly fractured zone, some slightly filled - with clay, some iron stained. — L.T:iori zontal F:N9°W, - CL Gray to blue-gray, damp, very stiff to hard, silty - v'• 470IIE - clay; abundant iron oxide staining. -1--- N70-W, 620SW 9 47'-51' Continuous fracture, several subparallel - - -- - fractures. 50 — -J--.----CH @ 51 Gray, moist, stiff, clay seam; remolded, — 5 8 105.4 23.7 ±1" thick. - _-CS:N8°W, Below clay seam becomes very hard, no staining. - -. 140SW - — 0 55.5'-58' Fracture, nearly continuous, surfaces -/- F:N86°E, polished. - - - vertical - -0-0 9 58' Zone of calcium carbonate nodules, discon- - - tinuous, slightly softer +1.5" above. 0 59.5' Becomes sparsely fossiliferous to 75'. 60—_- --- SOSA(j 1/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/10/84 DRILL HOLE No. B-i SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT_Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No, 4841363-02 DRILLING Co. Larive TYPE OF RIG Model 45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27', 3700#/28'-55'. 2600#/56'-80'. 1400# DROP 12 IN ELEVATION Top OF HOLE_228± REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level >- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION = LU - w CQ LU OU_ " LU - I- j. L)L) LU u CZ1 <J - Cr >- .J i- Q- .J - LU - I- - ..JC/) LOGGED BY SJ/HO Q0 < W SAMPLED BY HO E 60— - _- 6 40/11" 116.5 16.7 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) CL Gray to blue-gray, damp, very stiff to hard, silty - - -- - clay. - 65 -0 . @ 65'.Zone of calcium carbonate nodules ±1 thick, - - discontinuous around hole. • S:approx -- MS to @ 68' Softer zone, 1/4" wide, dipping 2°-4° W/SW, - - - N450W, - shearing across bedding. Small calcium carbonate 2-40W/ nodules along bedding feature. 70 —-- SW 7 N/A 109.8 20.0 - S:approx. • @ 72' Feature similar to that at 68'. dipping 2°-4° - MS to /MW. - -._-: N450E, • 2-4°W/ NW . 75 -- -. Total Depth = 75' Geologically logged to. 73' - - Seepage at 40' 80 - O5A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/10/84 DRILL HOLE No. B-2 SHEET 1OF 2 PROJECT Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No, 4841363-02 DRILLING Co._Larive TYPE OF RIG Model _45 HOLE DIAMETER 30.1 DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27' _3700#128'-55',2600#/56'-80' ,1400# DROP 12" IN, ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 176± REF. OR DATUM MeanSeaLevel - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION I- - zw cow 10 U - i-z ••J W= W I- _J O J (I) W - -. I- J(/) LOGGED BY HO rZI SAMPLED BY HO W E 0 TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM: - - CL/CH Medium to dark brown, damp to moist, stiff, sandy - C:Grada - Yclay; _abundant _roots _and rootlets. - - ______ SANTIAGOFORMATION: tional - C:Gada- Olive to green-gray, damp to moist, very stiff, -1 - tional silty clay; blocky, very fractured in random directions. Light greenish-gray, damp to moist, medium dense, - :__,L' F:N60°E, - ML vertical silty fine sand; massive, moderately cemented. C:Hori- Becomes orayish white to white. zontal I Fracture infilled with dark minerals. F:N18°E, - L Pinkcolorinsand±2"abovecontact.vertical FcL Olive, damp to moist, stiff, silty clay; randomly - - . F.N48 E, - oriented, partinq, polished surfaces. Contact dip- - - ----vertical F:N75 W, (D ping 2°-4°NW. Highly fractured, very well develop- fractures - ed with small amount of clay infilling. - - vertical 10 F:N75°E, @ 8' Becomes highly fractured, all surfaces .L2. vertical 1 8 121.0 13.8 polished, one moderately well developed fracture, C:N65°W, all else are partinq surfaces very well developed, - 180SW large,purplestained. 470NE - ML Light gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine sand. @ 12.5'-14.5' Becomes friable. 15- - ... - @ 17' Dark mineral concentration along bedding, discontinuous, dipping 80N. Becomes fine- to medium-grained sand. 20 - B- @ 20 Faint bedding, coarse-grained layer, stained, : EN 2 8 118.8 6.7 with small clay grains. - TT Clay rip-ups, 2" diameter, staining along - TTB:Hori. . bedding, some dark minerals along bedding. zontl @ 22.5' Becomes fine-grained sand. Dark mineral concentration, discontinuous, west side of hole, dipping 260W. 25 - 1, ;:Hori- . zontal - CL Green, damp to moist, very stiff to hard, clay; Undu- - lating iron oxide staining along contact. :N7°W, —vertical 30 - -. ---- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/10/84 DRILL HOLE No. B-2 SHEET 2OF 2 PROJECT Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No. 4841363-02 DRILLING Co._Larive TYPE OF RIG Model45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27',3700#/28'-55',2600#/56_-80'•1400# DROP 12 IN. ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 176'± REF. OR DATUM MeanSeaLevel - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION = - w H la- z a. o Q W .J 0U. _J a.U., H Z W ) - LL. <- H I- LOGGED HO 9=1 F- Q0 CI->- BY SAMPLED BY HO W E < 30— SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) 12 1223 67 CL Green, damp to moist, very stiff to hard, clay. - - Total Depth .= 31.5' Geologically logged to 30' 35 - No ground water encountered at time of drilling 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 11 DATE 12/11/84 PROJECT Huntington/Palomar DRILLING Co._Larive HOLE DIAMETER 30" ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 198't GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE No. B-3 SHEET 1OF 2 PROJECT No. 484136302 TYPE OF RIG Model45 DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27',3700#/28'-55',2600#/56'-80',1400# DROP 12 IN, REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level >- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION * W W az 0.. <J C=1 Ll- >- LOGGED BY SJ/HO SAMPLED BY HO W E ________ - - TOPSOIL: - CL Medium brown, damp to moist, stiff sandy clay; - abundant rootlets in upper 6'. C:Grada- - • COLLUVIUM: ---- tional CL Medium to olive-brown, damp to moist, stiff, sandy C:Grada- clay;scatteredrootlets. - — — tional SANTIAGOFORMATION: - CL Medium red-brown, damp to moist, stiff, clay; mottled appearance. 5 - @ 5' becomes blocky, fractures randomly oriented, F:N46°E, 1/2"-2" blocks, parting surfaces, waxy appearance. vertical @ 6.5' Fractures with rootlets. 340S CH @ 8.5' Clay seam, ±1/4"-1/2" thick, green, moist, — - :S:N12°E, - medium stiff, clay; red staining ±6" above, 4' below 30°NW slightly remolded, nearly continuous. 10 -_ :N20E, @ 9' Becomes sandy. 1 vertical 1 6 119.3 13.9 .-t :N49°W, T-vertical @ 12' Becomes silty. :N16°E, .1. 'ertical --f-: :N4°E, 4_ 'ertical • :N220E, @ 14.5' Some shearing along bedding. rertical 15. • - Sc Gray, damp to moist, medium dense, fine sand. : - 9 16'-17.5' Continuous parallel banding, gray-brown, - • 400S . dipping 37°S. 9 18' Dark mineral concentration along bedding, :. - • dipping westerly. 9 20' Iron oxide staining along bedding, 1°-2°NW. 20 •• 2 8/10" 122.2 14.0 9 23' Abundant staining. 25 - F:N660E, •t 550NW ML 9 25'-28' Fracture, very well developed off-set • - sand against very fine sandy silt, below fracture /.±: highly stained. - j.:-.- . 9 28' Remolded clay seam, ±1/16"-1/4" thick, brown, moist, medium stiff, clay. Below fracture: Gray, damp to moist, medium stiff, TJF:N76°E, very fine sandy silt; highly stained. near ver- - 30 ;tical SOSA(1I/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES [I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/10/84 DRILL HOLE NO, B-3 SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT_Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No, 4841363-02 DRILLING Co. Larive TYPE OF RIG Model 45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27', 3700#/28'-55' , 2600#/56'-80' , 1400# DROP 12 IN, ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 198'± REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level U) I- - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION F- w - w UI oU- U) z UL u Z (..L) Q LI.. Q_ 0 I— D .J U,_ J Qf a.U) - F- .Jc LOGGED BY SJ/HO _ '. " SAMPLED BY HO W E 30 i 119.0 147 ML SA NT1AG0 FORMATION: (continued) 1 • —> F:N85°E, Gray, damp to moist, medium stiff, very fine sandy - 50°S - L silt; highly stained. Brown to gray, damp to moist, medium dense, fine sand; SC - : - massive, iron oxide staining. - - @ 33' Becomes reddish yellow. 35— - - . - @ 36' Becomes pink and reddish yellow. 40— @ 40' Dark mineral swirls. - - 4 16 103.0 7.4 45— CS:N60°W, - CH 0 47'-52' Clay seams, slightly remolded, 1/16-1/4" 490SW thick. 50 /..:.5 8 112.8 8.2 - Total Depth = 53' Geologically logged to 52' 55.. No ground water encountered at time of drilling 505A(1I/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12113/84 DRILL HOLE No. 8-4 SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT_Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No, 4841363-02 DRILLING Co. Larive TYPE OF RIG Model 45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27', 3700#/28'-55', 2600#/56'-80', 1400# DROP 12 IN ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 172± REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level o U) W o - n 0 w O i-<(J) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION - w ZLA UJU - uJ Lii - o_ o >- - I- ° z - -i&) - LOGGED BY HO < 0 0 SAMPLED BY HO W £ 0 - - CL TOPSOIL: - ---CG d - [Dirk to medium brown, dry to damp, medium stiff, - tional 1 '' silty clay; some rootlets, calcium carbonate blebs. • U = - - - SANTIAGO FORMATION: CL Olive-brown to medium red-brown, damp to moist, stiff • - - silty clay; completely mixed with calcium carbonate, - highly fractured, crumbly to blocky, blocks 1/2-2". - - 0- 5 -- -- - çQ Loose calcium carbonate. - - FN3O°E - 690SE Becomes stiffer, less crumbly. - F:N40°W, - —j--- vertical - -hz F20°W - @ 9' Fracture, very well developed with several HIE -near subparallel fractures, becomes siltier. vr- 10 - tical 1 7 125.0 12.2 - - ML Becomes medium red-brown and gray, damp, very dense, • -----. very fine sandy silt; massive, some iron oxide staining. ML Light brown to light gray, damp, medium dense, - "ai vertiC - silty fine sand. • -•..1 - @ 13' Manganese stained fracture. 15 - - 0 15' Heavy pink and iron oxide mottling, no - apparent bedding. - -. :N4°W, - : 85°SW • 0 18.5' Becomes siltier, harder. 20 - 2 8 122.2 13.7 @ 21' Manganese stained fracture. :N40°E, vertical - - 0 24' Becomes medium-grained sand. 25 - 0 25-26' Completely stained layer, golden color, bottom dip 20-30 to W. 30 5OSA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATE 12/12/84 PROJECT Huntington/Palomar DRILLING Co. Larive HOLE DIAMETER 30" ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 172'± GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE No. B-4 SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT No. 484136302 TYPE OF RIG Model 45 3700#/28'-55', 2600#/56'-80', 1400# DROP 12 IN. DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27', ________ REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level U) Uj - - Uj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION = - w * I- o 0 U) W J OLL .J L)L) W u. <1 °- _W =1 >- - '- __1(f) LOGGED BY HO W E C=1 I SAMPLED BY HO 3 11 118.1 10.5 - SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) ML Light brown to light gray, damp, medium dense, silty - - - j fine sand. 35 - Total Depth = 33.5' - Geologically logged to 33' - - No ground water encountered at time of drilling OSA(1l/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/12/84 DRILL HOLE No, B-5 SHEET 1OF 2 PROJECT Huntington/Palomar - PROJECT No. 4841363-02 DRILLING Co._Larive TYPE OF RIG Model 15 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3700#to28/260011to55' DROP 12 IN. ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 1761 REF. OR DATUM MeanSeaLevel U 0 I- (/)0 w ' v. <C.') GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION = - W ou- ZU. i- .j. _ u. Q.O <- J '- .J (/)W - I- .ic" LOGGED BY RLW W E >- SAMPLED BY HO/RLW TOPSOIL: - '-CUndu - CL I Mottled brown, gray and yellowish brown, damp, medium iatin j stiff, fine sandy clay; abundant rootlets, desicca- - B:N61°E, - SM Li'_ted cracks with openings to1/2" - FORMATION: SANTIAGO 34°SE - TLi.C:N70°E, - Yellow-brown to gray mottled golden brown, damp to 80SE moist, silty fine sand; some calcium carbonate - '-'---. B:N38°E, nodules, minor root development, scattered gypsum - 130SE crystallization, minor manganese staining. 5__ .. 9 SE • ML - Gray mottled golden brown, moist, stiff, fine sandy • silt; gypsum crystallization developing along con- - :N29°E, - tact with underlying silty sand unit. SM Gray to light brown.mottled light golden brown, - - .1 -l:N60E, - moist, medium dense, very silty fine sand; iron - 860SE 1 oxide stained joints, gypsum frequently developed 10 :N760W, along bedding surfaces, minor randomly oriented - 220SW 1 5 108.9 20.7 iron oxide stained closed structures. - --- :N29°E, 21° SE - .-•• - @ 13.5' Becomes more massive with less frequent - - bedding surfaces. - 15 - .• . - :N44°E, - - • 19°SE - 20 :.• 2 8 113.0 16.0 - @ 22.8' 6" diameter concretionary nodule. - 25 @ 25' 8" diameter concretionary nodule. - .:._ - @ 26' 2" diameter pod of uncemented calcium - carbonate. - - 0 27' Discontinuous ±1 thick concretionary - - nodule zone. - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE 12/13/84 DRILL HOLE No. B-5 SHEET 2OF 2 PROJECT_Huntington/Palomar PROJECT No, _1363-02 DRILLING Co. Larive TYPE OF RIG Model 45 HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3700# to 28'I2600# to 55' DROP 12 IN. ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 176'± REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION - - = oM w 9Q W OLL. (I) F- Z Q _ LL. o 0 F- - .J >- w - F- - LOGGED BY RLW " SAMPLED BY HO/RLW W E 30 3 14 113.3 16.7 SANTIAGOFORMATION: (continued) - SM Gray to light brown mottled light golden brown, moist - - medium dense, very silty fine sand. - :--. - @ 33' 0.7' thick layer of wet soil, appears to be - S:N28E, perched on underlaying clay seam. CL @33.7' ±1" thick silty clay seam, laminated. - 35i_ - 9 36.2' 4" diameter concretionary nodule. - 40 4 16 115.0 16.7 9 40' 4" diameter concretionary nodule. - ":Grada- SM Light brown to gray mottled light golden brown, tional - .. . dense, wet, silty sand; massive, no apparent bed- ding surfaces. 45_.T. . 9 47.2' Continuous 1'-1.5' thick concretionary - nodule zone. 50 20/9" 122.3 7.1 - Total Depth = 531 55 Geologically logged to 51' Ground water seepage at 37.5' - . No caving 60_'_ 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/12/84 Drill Hole No. _B-6 Sheet 1 o 1- • ProjectHuntington/Palomar Job No. _4841363-02 Drilling Co.Morrison Type of RigB-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Ton of Hole 106'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level U 0 >' 41 '4 0\10 41 . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4J +J p4 4) 4) 4) P..O t— 14 4-) 4) ZO .O 4)0 . O (I) 44 4)U 41 UU Loc'c'ed by RLW 4 -4k ,-(4.J .-II) Sampled by RLW 0 - - - ALLUVIUM: • o :: SM Medium brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine sand; scattered gravel- size sandstone clasts. - — ••- Sc Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey • fine sand 1 28 99.216.5 • ••;• SM! Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty - - Sc to clayey sand. 1 10 — 2 19 105.2 13.9 f se, slightly silty 4__ - _ - • .. SM Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, - ••. silty sand. 15 • 3 •_ 3 19 99.7 17.0 @ 16' Gravel-size clasts, 1.5' thick. - .•• SANTIAGOFORMATION: ; •. -. SM Light golden brown, damp to moist, medium 20— -. 4 41 )st i rbed dense, silty fine-grained sand. ... . . . . 25— • Total Depth = 30' • .. .• No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled 12/12/84 30 _____ 5179 104.5 7.1 _______ conA (7I77) 1 e,i,uh+r.r Q. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/12/84 Drill Hole No. B-7 Sheet 1of1 ProjectHuntington/Palomar Job No, 4841363-02 V Drilling Co. Morrison Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 6"Drive Weight140lbs. _Drop 30in. Elevation Top of Hole 95'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4) .Q)OL. )U 4-L)U • Logged by RLW U. C i4.) 3 -lC/) 0 E,Sampled by RLW ____ _____ - ALLUVIUM: - .-.. SM Medium brown, damp to moist, Medium - .-.-- dense, clayey silty..sand • 1 24 94.8 12.8 5 —. 10 — 2 N/A 96.6 9.7 - ML Gray-brown, damp, very stiff, fine sandy silt. © 3 36 100.711.5 15 SANTIAGO FORMATION: - : SM --.aand Medium brown, damp medium dense, silty- li e _qht-_y vg..4thared.- - - 2 - 4 28 91.5 10.9 SM Light golden brown, damp, medium dense silty sand. 25 - Total Depth = 25' No ground water encountered at time of drilling - No caving H. Backfilled 12/12/84 30_ - ____________________________ AAA ()/17 0 A S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 1.2/12184 _Drill Hole No. B-8 Sheet 1 o 1 Project Huntington/Palomar _Job No. 4841363-02 W Drilling Co. Morrison _Type of RigB-53Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 611 _Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. P1vatinn Tim nf Hn1 Th'+ Ref. or Datum Moan Sa Iv1 _ • 0 0 4.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 44-' 04 0 1r: 00 O "o 4-) 4) ..Q4) ZiO X O O. 9 44 0 4-UU 4J -4° Logged byRLW ,Sampled byRLW 0•• - ALLUVIUM: • . SM Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty • sand. * ------------------- CL! Very dark brown, very moist, stiff, fine Sc sandy clay to loose, clayey fine sand. 1 14 108-E 19.1 • - .-- -T- S @ 9' Becomes clayey sand. @ 9'-10' Lense of gravel-size clasts 10 060 2 32 Dist rbed to 1" in diameter. .o...o SW! Light brown, damp, medium dense, SM slightly silty sand. 15 - - : 3 19 Dist rbed @ 16' Becomes wet. 17 -- SM Brown, wet, loose, silty sand. 20- 4 9 106. SANTIAGO FORMATION: • .L, SM 18.5.. Light brown to brown, wet to saturated, 25— - •: dense, silty sand. 5 70 110. 17.4 • '•' Total Depth = 30' Ground water measured 12/13/84 7:30 a.m. at a depth of 18' No caving 30 .:. - _' _Backfilled12/12/84 'znnn (') /i7 1 0 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/13/84 _Drill Hole No. B-9 Sheet 1 o 1 • ProjectHuntington/Palomar Job No. __4841363-02 Drilling Co.Morrison Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation TOD of Hole 104'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level C) Ci • 4. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4.41 5O z 0 3c O 4-4 4Jl• p4 4) 4J .04) - Oi. - 4)0 4 4) QU Loied by RLW U.. C 4J C .l rl 4J - Cl) Sampled by RLW 0 -.... - • ALLUVIUM: SM I Medium brown, moist, medium dense to • .iT: dense, clayey silty sand. SANTIAGO FORMATION: 5 - 1 21 97 5.5 SM Light brown to medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand. 10- - • 2 30 102. 25.0 15—' @ 17' Becomes wet. - • : @ 19' Becomes slightly silty sand. 20 3. 26 .1104.3-15.5 . . . Total Depth = 21' • No ground water encountered at time of • drilling No caving 25— Backfilled on 12/13/84 'flflA (1/77) 1 S*,-r 9. AFSG. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/13/84 Drill Hole No, B-10 Sheet 1 o • ProjectHuntington/Palomar Job No. 4841343-02 Drilling Co.Morrison Type of Rig 8-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 611 Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Ton of Hole in'+ Ref. or Datum Mn I c1 U 4J 0\0 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4J 4J O z 4) O 44 1J.-40 p44) (- .0)Oz. )Q 4JQQ Logged byRLW ,Sampled by RLW 0—... ALLUVIUM: SC Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey - sand. - . SM Light brown to brown, moist, medium 1 28 lO2•4 2 dense, silty sand; slightly clayey, cal- • .. cium carbonate stringers. - SM! Dark brown, moist, medium dense,. silty 10— -..-- . sc to clayey sand. • 2 27 117.E 12.2 @ 10'-11' Tighter drilling. • SANTIAGO _FORMATION: - SM Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty sand. 15- 3 23 102.3 9.3 20 • • • •• . @ ±20' Becomes very moist . .. . - 25 4 24 106216.0 Total Depth = 26' No ground water encountered at time of • :driliing No caving 30 — — - - Backfilled12/13/84 1 rrr A I'll /-,-,' 1 e A - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/1/R4 Drill Hole No. B-li Sheet 1 o 1 Project Huntington/Palomar Job No. 4841363-02 W Drilling Co.Morrison Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 120'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 40 4J .0) O V. )Q 3J " ) L)U • Logged by RLW L. • ( I Q SampledbyRLW ____ ___ ALLUVIUM: • Sc Dark brown, moist, loose, silty clayey • —sand. -- SM Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, 1 13 94.0 11.6 silty sand; slightly clayey. 5 —: SANTIAGO _FORMATION: • .-- .. SM Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty 2 20 111.7 10.9 sand. 10— 3 17 98.9 13.9 15— - • Total Depth = 15' • No ground water encountered at time of - drilling • No caving Backfilled 12/13/84 20 - CI('IA (I77\ 1 L4... 0 A S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/13/84 Drill Hole No. B12 Sheet 1 o 1 • ProjectHuntington/Palomar Job No. __4841363-02 Drilling Co.Morrison Type of RigB-53 Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 611 Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Ton of Hole 19c'+ Ref. or Datum Mn a I v1 U .H fA 0 0 4-' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4J 41 .CbO O 10 0 ZUO 3C O (. 944 $(3(I 4J.-4 Q4 ) 4 Oi. Q)U 4J UU Logged by RLW Sampled by RLW 0 - ___ ALLUVIUM: SM Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, - - o silty sand; slightly clayey. • @ 4' Becomes dense silty sand. - 1 14 102.9 8.3 • .•T SANTIAGO FORMATION: SM Light brown, moist, loose to medium denst.. 10— '. 2 24 110.0 11.7 silty sand. • 3 17 96.3 11.6 15- - • Total.Depth=15' J No ground water encountered a time of drilling No caving Backfilled 12/13/84 20 - tflAA F71 1 0 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-13 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 169'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level • W 0 U__ __ .-' V) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION Logged by JB C.D 41 E ca 0 4J to CL t & . Sampled by JB SM ARTIFICIAL FILL: Light brown, damp, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand 5 — :-• ... 1 23 113.4 12.0 @ 5 Light brown-gray to gray, moist, - medium dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand 10 2 18 114.4 11.6 @ 10' Same as above —.-. 15— : 3 31 110.7 16.0 @ 15' Brown-gray to off-white, very moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to . medium-grained sand; trace ofH • clayey silt 20-... • -•:.: 4 23 112.8 14 ...SM' .@ 20' . .Light brown to gray, niois.t, ML medium dense, very silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; contains - • Y. small chunks of clayey silt- stone;, moderate organic odor present 25_:r • Sc • .. - 5 24 111.8 15.4 , @ 25 Medium gray-brown, moist, medium • : • dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; strong organic odor • present 30— Leighton and Associates, Inc. S S S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-13 Sheet 2 of _2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 169'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level >.t V) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1ION .0 r - 0 a) 0 0 4- (I.4-3 a +CD 1 0 4J . Logged by JB • Sampled by JB 30 - • -: ______ — 6 - 35/ 120.6 17.4 ML - ___________________________________________________________________ 4' SANTIAGO FORMATION: 50 Medium brown to gray-brown, moist, hard, • for -2" I sandy siltstone; moderately well- • y indurated Total Depth = 31 Feet 35 No Ground Water Encountered Backfilléd 111390 40- 45- 50- 55- 60— — — — — — Leighton and Associates, Inc. S I S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-14 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 1641 ± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level o > u b w -- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION 41 - Logged by JB 4, s..0 0 Sampled by JB 0-....... • : : SM ARTIFICIAL FILL: Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, • fine- to medium-grained sand 5- 1 26 115.1 13.6 0 5 Dark brown-gray to light brown- gray, moist, medium dense, silty, • fine- to medium-grained sand • .. 10- 2 18 111.8 12.7 0 10' Light gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine-.to medium-grained . sand 15-- 3 38 116.9 14.2 @ 15' As above; increase in density • 20 :--- __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 4 28 118.1 14.1 SC. @20' Mediumbrown-gray, moist,.-medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; organic odor detectable 25-::-':. • .-:. 5 32 112.2 15.2 , 0 25 Dark to light gray, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; micaceous; organic • :. odor detectable - .1. )t - -' - - Leighton and Associates, Inc. S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-14 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 164'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level .0 p. U Z 0 >1 V) . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION 4.) 0. .0 ) 0. 0 U .0 0) . 0 " a' " 0. .. . a' ) - ' Logged u S.- '- 0. ,.. , o 4-) 0 C.-) Sampled by JB . (I 30—...._. 6 28 118.8 11.7 SC ARTIFICIAL FILL -. (Continued): @ 30' Dark brown-gray, moist, medium • __ dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; strong organic odor CL- 7 27 113.9. 15.8 @ 35' Brown, and light brown, moist, ML very stiff, sandy clay to sandy silt — — - SANTIAGO FORMATION: 40— —— SP- @ 40' Sandstone: pink-gray to off-white — 8 88121.4 5.3 SM damp, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium-grained sandstone; • II massive; homogeneous Total Depth = 41 Feet • No Ground Water Encountered 45 Backfilled 11-13-90 50- 55- 60— — — — — — — - Leighton and Associates, Inc. - S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-15 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 180'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 1 . 0 0 4J w >) U) b . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION . " Logged by JB E 4J b E Sampled by JB • --•.• SM ARTIFICIAL FILL: Medium brown, damp to slightly moist, medium stiff, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand 5—..:—.- 1 24 114.3 10.9 0 5 Brown-gray, moist, medium dense, - silty, fine- to medium-grained sand - 10 SM- -- 2 44 102 3 24 - 0 10' Olive and brown-gray, very moist, • ---i- ML medium dense, fine, sandy, clayey - silt to silty, fine- to medium- grained sand - 15— 2. SM • 3 39 22 0 10 5 - 0 15' Gray to tan, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained • :•7: . sand with trace of silty clay - ARTIFICIAL FILL(?. I 20 @ 20' Light gray, damp, medium dense, - - - 4 26. 107.5 4.9 SP- • silty, fine- to medium-grained • :--'"- SM sand; homogeneous • I SANTIAGO FORMATION: - • Medium gray, moist, very stiff, clayey • :-. siltstone - 25—. Ui.? .2L 18.0 ML - 0 25' Olive-gray, moist, hard, clayey - siltstone; trace of fine-grained - - - • . sand present; moderately well - • ' indurated Total Depth = 26 Feet • No Ground Water Encountered 30.— - Backfilled 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 13, 1990 Drill Hole No. Project Huntington/Carlsbad Drilling Co. GepDrill Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. B-16 Sheet 1 of Project No. 8841363-04 Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Drop 30 in. Elevation lop of Hole 105'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level . 0 (l • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION -o 4J 4J w0 0,_ 04- a . . Logged by JB _ CM 4.) E W ), .. 0 E Sampled by JB 0 - - - - SC - UNDOCUMENTED FILL (?): Gray-brown, damp, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium-grained sand I . 1 50 118.8 6.3 @ 5' Gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; contains scattered gravels io . i SM 2 37 117.4 8.7 @ 10' Light gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand FILL/ALLUVIUM: - 4 f 15 - 3 @ 15' Brown-gray to gray-brown, slightly • ..-.. 98.5 8.3 SC moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- grained sand • .4 .-. (?). ]TALLUVIUM 20— -- @ 20' Light pink-gray to light tan-gray, -- • 4 27 106.9 10.3 - moist, medium dense, silty, fineSM ::.• grained sand • • :.-* SANTIAGO FORMATION: - r 25— - @25' Off-white to light gray, damp to 24/ - 112.0 - 8.1 5 slightly moist, dense to very 50 dense, silty, fine- to medium- 1 for [I _3" " grained sandstone; homogeneous Total Depth = 26 Feet No Ground Water Encountered • Backfllled 11-13-90 30- - - - - - Leighton and Associates, Inc. 10 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date November 19, 1990 Drill Hole No. B-17 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GèoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 115'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 0 4J o __ u GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP1 ION CL W Logged by JB . Sampled by JB • .: SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (?): Light to medium brown-gray, damp to • __• slightly moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to mediurn-grained sand 5- 10-::: 1 36 112.1 8.7 @ 10' Light brown to gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, • silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; trace of clay r IL A FILL/ALLUVIUM (?): 15— -- J @ 15' Light to medium gray-brown, moist. - 108.5 -. 10.2 2 24 medium dense, clayey, fine- to • ..-•.._ SC medium-grained sand • -y-7 ALLUVIUM: 20— -- .- -- -- I @ 20' Light gray, damp, medium dense, 3 18 112.5 3.7 s- slightly silty, fine- to medium- • :....:; SM grained sand; homogeneous • SANTIAGO FORMATION (?): -- T 25— j @ 25' Sandstone: Off-white, damp to 4 78 slightly moist, dense, slightly . . silty, fine- to medium-grained - sand; homogeneous Total Depth = 26 Feet - • No Ground Water Encountered • Backfilled 11-13-90 0 - - - - - - Leighton and Associates, Inc. S Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: . RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±89' TRENCH NO. T-1 Equipment:- JD-310Backhoe Location: See_Gotechnical_Map - CD rt 0 . '.-JrP 'CD '.d. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC _ ATTITUDES DATE:1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT • CD Qal SM ALLUVIUM C:Undulating Medium to dark brown, moist, loose, silty sand; slightly clayey, abundant rootlets in top 2' SANTIAGOFORMATION Ts SM © Very light brown to light olden brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand; @5' discon- tinuous lense of fine sandy silt Total Depth = 7' No grQtmd water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION NorthWall SCALE: 1" 4' SURFACE_SLOPE:Horjz.TREND:_47°W II'tIL_.__! L11I 11,/ti 'III liii ill -I- I)I - • liii I1I \_- '--1L. ----- - .•. . • ___ Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±90' TRENCH NO. T-2 ,- Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map .rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty Qal SM fine to:medium sand; brush covered, abundant rootlets C:Undulating in top 1.5' SANTIAGO FORMATION N78°W•65°NE (3 Light to medium golden brown, mottled medium brown, Ts SM moist, dense, silty fine to medium grained sand; jointed, B.• N710W 2°SW bedded surface is finely developed and generally dips to the SW 20-30 Total Depth = 5.1' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N420E, liii liii 1111 Jill i Jill 11111 fl S Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±26' TRENCH NO. 1-3 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 T5 GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM (13 Dark brown, very moist, medium dense to loose, silty fine Qal SM to medium sand; roots and rootlets © Very light gray-brown, very moist, loose to medium dense, Qal SM silty fine sand; very friable, caving common in this unit, abundant roots and rootlets © Medium brown to brown, very moist, medium dense, silty Qal SM fine to medium sand; ground water seepage at a depth of C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Medium golden brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine Ts SM sand Total Depth = 8.5' Ground water seepage at 3' Caving in top 1.6' Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE _SLOPE:HOriZ.TREND:N53°W i'\.iiI lilt liii liii tilt Jl #/I , \_ IiiI • - . .. :' 0 rr z z 0 CD Ir W. Cit Cit 0 C.) I— CD Cit fl Project Tame: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±106' TRENCH NO. T-4 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map .-.. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/14/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey Qal SC fine sand; abundant roots and rootlets throughout unit, very occasional gravel size clasts to 1" in diameter, clasts are generally subrounded C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Medium gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, clayey Ts SC fine to medium sand; scattered rootlets, poorly developed bedding surfaces, randomly oriented calcium carbonate flecks, weathered Total Depth = 7.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/14/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONW5t Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 5:1 TREND: N320E - - I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •!.1'.'. EE U, 0 a Project'me: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±116' TRENCH NO. T-5 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map . GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Dark to very dark, very moist, medium dense, silty fine Qal SM to medium sand; clayey, abundant roots in top 2', very C :Undulating homogenous throughout Very light gray-brown to tan, moist, firm, very fine Qal ML sandy silt Total Depth = 10' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North-Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N69°E I I tiT rr.f i i i i i I I I — I I I I I I I I I I I I . J7. —.1 CD I Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±128' TRENCH NO. T-6 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310Backhoe Location: SeeGeotechnicqi_Map Z o•. — CD ' '—'re 5z C> '-'. rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT CD ALLUVIUM ® Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium Qal SM sand; slightly clayey, rootlets to a depth of 1.5', con- tact with underlying Santiago Formation undulates but C:undulating generally dips 250-350 to the southwest SANTIAGOFORMATION 1 ® Light tan-brown, moist, dense, silty fine sand; poorly Is SM C:N-S, 8°W developed bedding ® Dark brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; un- Ts SM/CL CS:N46°W,18°SW derlain by 2"-3" continuous medium brown, silty clay seam, clay seam is randomly fractured ® Light gray-brown, moist, very dense, silty fine sand Ts SM Total Depth = 9' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled_1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION NorthWall SCALE: 1"=4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N69°W, III, II$I III, I t___1__iz_cni.I, • liii , .•.•:__ liii . hit liii • _____ _____ -:. • fl Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 484136302 Elevation: ±152' TRENCH NO. ' T-7 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: Se Gotechnial Map 0 ,. (D C) - C) -' ''H. rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT COLLUVIUM Dark brown, very moist, looseto medium dense, clayey Qcol SC fine to medium sand; slightly silty, abundant roots and rootlets throughout, abundant amount of dessicated crack- C:Undulating, ing with openings 1/8"-1/2" wide Gradational SANTIAGO FORMATION Medium golden brown, mottled red-brown, moist, dense, Ts SM silty fine to medium sand; massive, 'no apparent bedding surfaces, scattered randomly oriented closed fractures Total Depth = 9.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N540W fl Project Name: Huntington/Palomar. Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±144' TRENCH NO. T-8 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map ft . GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85. DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT COLLUV I UM Q3 Medium to dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very clay- Qcol SC ey fine to medium sand; abundant roots and rootlets throughout, abundant amount of dessicated cracking with C: Gradational openings hairline to 1/2" wide SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Medium golden brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium Ts SM C:N660E,91°SW sand; scattered randomly oriented clay in-filled fracture: ® Medium brown, damp to moist, stiff, silty clay; jointed, Ts CL J:N90W,79°SW manganese oxide staining developed along majority of joint surfaces C:N15°E,21°NW ® Medium gray-brown, moist, very dense, very silty fine sand Ts SM Total Depth = 7.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled_1/15/85 _ GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N460W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I C-, -4 I fl O fl Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW - - Project Number: 4841363-62 Elevation: ±182' TRENCH NO. T-9 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: - JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map Cn GEOLOGIC 1/15/85 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL c13 Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium Topsoil SM sand; abundant roots and rootlets, minor dessicated C:Undulating cracking SANTIAGO FORMATION © Very light gray-brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium Ts SM C:N1O°W,21°NE sand; scattered hairline clay in-filled fractures J•N48 OW 54°SW ® Medium gray-brown to medium brown, damp, very stiff, silty Ts CL clay; jointed, manganese oxide developed on majority of J:N86°E,75°NW joint surfaces Total Depth = 6.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" =4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3..5:1TREND: N75°W 0 Project Name: Huntington/Palomar. Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±140' TRENCH NO. !T- 10. ,-.. Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location:See Geotechnical Map - rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Dark brown, moist to very moist, dense, clayey fine to Qal Sc medium sand; slightly silty, abundant rootlets through- out C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium Ts SM sand; abundant clayey sand filled fractureimmediatei.y below contact with overlaying alluvium, massive, no apparent bedding Total Depth = 5.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: it, =4' SURFACE_SLOPE:HOriZ.TREND: N87°W • ). ___H___ fl Ah V. Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW w Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±120' TRENCH NO. T11 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310Backhoe Location: See.Geotechnical__Map - C . CI z Q' Ct) 0\0 t '.1 r H(I) ATTITUDES GEOLOGIC - DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM c Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium Qal SM sand; slightly clayey, abundant roots and rootlets though out, occasional shallow animal burrows C:Undulating SANTIAGOFORMATION B:N36°W22°SW Medium to light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to Ts SM medium sand; occasional iron oxide staining C:N37°W; 16°SW ® Mediumolivegreen, moist, stiff, silty clay; jointed, Ts CL manganese oxide staining along joint surfaces, randomly oriented, poorly developed sheared surfaces, very occa- sional blebs of calcium carbonate Total depth = 8' No ground water encountered No_ caving; _Backfilled_1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: HOriZ.TREND:N37°W till hit lilt liii liii lilt lit! —1 0 -Il Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±146' TRENCH NO. 1-l2 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map . crZA — CI)Ct O'PLI '—'re C) 4U) '-' I-" GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM D Dark brown, very moist, firm to moderately stiff, very Qal CL sandy clay; abundant roots and rootlets in top 2' C--Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; Ts SM massive, no apparent bedding surfaces, scattered gravel size clats at top of contact Total Depth = 8' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" =4' SURFACE SLOPE 101 TREND :N200E lit, lilt lilt liii liii liii liii 1: fl ProjectName: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±118' TRENCH NO. -13 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map . CD rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Q Very dark brown, very moist to wet, firm, very sandy clay, Qal CL abundant roots and rootlets in top 2' C:Gradational @J Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very clayey sand Qal Sc SANTIAGO FORMATION C:Undulating Light gray-brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty Ts SM fine to medium sand; slightly weathered, containing scattered calcium carbonate flecks Total Depth = 12' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE:1:10 .TREND:N150W • • \— 'c -. •• - .• Z—. ---- • • • \--.- •. '• -. . n Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±110' TRENCH NO. T14 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map Cn z JJ GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM 13 Dark brown, very moist, firm, -sandy clay to sandy silt; Qal CL minor desiccation cracking in top 18, well-developed ML roots and rootlets to a depth of 1', OcasThha1 pods of light tan silty sand C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION © Light to medium tan-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, Ts SM silty fine sand; clayey, massive, no apparent bedding surfaces Total Depth = V No ground water encountered No caving 8ckfil1ed 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: HOriz.TREND: N66°W till liii 1111 liii liii liii 0 C) 0 In -4 -4 n Project"'aine: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±114' TRENCH NO. T-15 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map V0 0 Id M GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85, DESCRIPTION: Cn UNIT COLLUVIUM c. Very dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, silty clay; Qcal CL sandy, minor desiccated cracking in top 6-8", well- developed root system to a depth of 18" C:Undulating & Gradational SANTIAGO FORMATION Medium olive-gray, moist, very stiff, clayey silt; ran- ' Is ML domly orientated closed fractures C:Undulating ,-' . u, Light olive-gray, damp, very dense, silty fine sand; Ts SM massive, no apparent bedding Total Depth = 6' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION' South Wal.l SCALE: 1" =4' SURFACE SLOPE:4.:i TREND: N820W • • . . th) / III Ii—t--IIII liii Il-Il fl Ah Project me: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±129' TRENCH NO. 1-16( ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backho.e Location: See Geotechnical Map c 0 40 - CD '—'r-P S.d. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM D Medium brown, very moist, mediUm desne, silty fine sand; Qal SM roots and rootlets to a depth of 15' C:Gradational Very dark brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, very Qal Sc clayey sand; silty C:Undulating & Medium gray-brown, medium dense, silty fine to medium Qal SM Gradational sand; slightly clayey C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Medium tan to light golden brown, moist, dense, silty fine Ts SM to medium sand. Total Depth = 11' No ground water encountered No caving, Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONNorth Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE Horiz.TREND:N82°E _SLOPE: III, liii Ah fl Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW - Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±146' TRENCH NO. 1-17 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map I GEOLOGIC rt GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM cj Medium to dark brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, Qal SM silty fine to medium sand; slightly clayey; roots and rootlets, to a depth of 2'.. C:Undulating & Gradational SANTIAGO FORMATION J Medium to light gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, Ts SM silty 'fine to medium sand; slightly weathered C: Gradational ® Very light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium Ts SM sand Total Depth = 9' No ground water encountered No caving, Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION.North Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N890E lilt P ill 1I1l1111 lilt llll H Project"iie: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±123' TRENCH NO. 1-18. Equipment: JD -310 BackhGe Location: See Geotechnical Map C Cl) z X 2. C) - -'rP -'- GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE:1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Dark brown, very moist, firm, very fine sandy clay; Qal CL slightly silty, abundant roots and rootlets in top 18" C:Gradational Medium gray-brown,:moist, medium dense, silty fine sand; Qal SM scattered flecks of calcium carbonate C:Gradational .J Dark brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey fine sand; Qal SC scattered flecks of calcium carbonate C: Undulating ® Medium gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, Qal SM silty fine to medium sand C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Medium, to light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to Ts SM medium sand; weathered Total Depth = 10', No ground water encountered No;cay.ing,.Backfillëd_1/1/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = _5' SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N570W liii III iII -I -IIII- 0 rl fl a J1 0 O n Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±150' TRENCH NO.-T-19! Equipment: JD -310 Location: See Geotechnical Map Cn !. rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, fine sandy clay; Qal CL roots and rootlets in top 12", derived from topsoil horizon C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; Ts SM top 8" of this unit is slightly weathered Total Depth = 7' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N760 E. IIII-IIiI liii 111± liii liii Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation:TRENCH NO. 1-20 —±169' ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map C U, z O - -• '—'r P-tCl) '-' GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT CD ALLUVIUM Very dark brown, very moist to wet, moderately firm, very Qal CL sandy clay; abundant roots and rootlets in top 12" C:Undulating ® Light to medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to Qal SM medium sand C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Light brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to Ts SM medium sand; slightly weathered ® Very light brown, moist, dense silty fine to medium sand. Ts SM Total Depth = 7' No grOund water encountered No caving Backf1.led 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5 SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N -S _lIli till lilt 0 T1 z N) 0 Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±170' TRENCH NO. T-21 Cn Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location:See Geotechnical Map - 0 -'r-P CD GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine sand; Qal SM clayey, roots and rootlets to a depth of 36" C:Undulating Gradational ® Medium gray-brown, very moist to wet, medium dense, Qal SM silty fine to medium sand; water seep at a depth of 6.7' Total Depth = 7.0' Seepage at 6' No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N20W lilt Itil liii lllt- liii Ah Project me: Huntinctpn/Palomar Logged By:.RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02. Elevation: ±141' TRENCH NO. - T-22 Cn Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map go 0 ç Id M - GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM D Medium golden brown to light tan, very moist, firm, very Qal ML C:Undulating fine sandy silt Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, fine sandy silt; Qal ML roots and rootlets to a depth of 24" C:Undulating Light gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to dense, Qal SM silty fine to medium sand; no apparent bedding Total Depth = 11' No ground water encountered No caving Backfil led 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: FIOriZREND. N430E • ___ _ ___ 41 Project ne: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±121' TRENCH NO.'\ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map J) 0.5 GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT Fill Q' Light golden brown, mottled light gray-brown, moist, Fill SM loose to medium dense, very silty fine to medium sand; C:Undulating created by road buildint to the east ALLUVIUM Very dark brown, moist, stiff, very sandy clay; sand Qal CL fraction ranges from fine to coarse, roots and root- lets to a depth of 20" SANTIAGO FORMATION Very light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to med- Ts SM ium sand Total Depth = 13' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled_1/17/85 1 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONNorthWall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N780W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project Name: Huntinton/Pplpmpr. Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±122' TRENCH NO. 1-24 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Q Medium brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey fine to medium sand; slightly silty, scattered gravel size clasts to 3" in diameter at contact with underlaying Qal SC C:Undulating lithologic unit, roots and rootlets to a depth of 24" ® Very dark brown, moist, firm to stiff, sandy clay; very homogeneous Total Detph = 11' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 Qal CL GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. South Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N47°W I_II Jji'I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I H -4 -4 (D I Project Name: Htintinton/Pa1ompr. Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±123' TRENCH NO.""T25 ' Equipment: - 3D-310 BckhoA Location: See Geotechnical Map C) 0 ''rt CD 1— GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Medium to dark brown, very moist, medium dense, clayey Qal SC fine to medium sand; roots and rootlets to a depth of 12" C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Light to medium gray, damp, very dense, silty fine to Ts SM medium sand; randomly jointed, locally sand is coarse Total Depth = 5' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N180W _ -.4 fl Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±161' TRENCH NO. T-26 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map ç '-. H. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM J:N34°W,82°SW D Dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, sandy clay; Topsoil/Qcol CL J:N68°W,vert. roots and rootlets to a depth of 12" B:N54°,21°SW SANTIAGO FORMATION Light olive-brown to light brown-gray, mottled red-brown, Is ML damp to moist, very stiff, sandy silt; very abundant jointing Total Depth = 6' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N180E 0 0 T1 - rn z z 0 C), 0 CD Jan n Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By:_ RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±164' TRENCH NO. T-27 - , Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map '- J - CD GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to Qal SM medium sand C:Undulating J:N19°E,vert. SANTIAGO FORMATION B:N85°W,15°SI C:Gra a iona Medium olive-gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, clayey Ts ML silt; very jointed, iron oxide and manganese oxide staining developed-along majority of jointed surfaces ® Medium gray to medium gray-brown, moist, dense to very Is SM dense, very silty fine sand Total Depth = 9' No ground water encountered No cavinlg Backfilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION. -South Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE _SLOPEI-loriz. TREND: N62°E Jill liii Ill, liii liii lll liii 4841363-006 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. The test results are presented in the test data. - Sample Location Friction Angle (degrees) Apparent Cohesion (ps B-1@15' 38 0 B-1@35' 43 0 B-2@10' 29 350 B-2@15' 27 230 B-2@20' 28 740 B-3@5' 30 150 Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Compacted Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-5@7'-10' Brown silty sandy clay 102.6 88 Medium B-3 @ 3' —6' Tan silty sand 112.6 19 Very Low Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. C-i 4841363-006 APPENDIX C (continued) Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 532. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location { pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) Corrosivity Category B-3 @ 3'-7' 5.73 450 Severely corrosive B-5 @ 7'-10' 8.14 260 Severely corrosive Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) ] Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack* B-la@ 5' 0.024 Negligible B-la@ 10' 0.021 Negligible B-la@30' 0.024 Negligible B-2a@ 10' 0.021 Negligible B-2a@ 15' 0.0225 Negligible B-3a@ 10' 0.024 Negligible B-5a@ 7'- 10' 0.0375 Negligible * Based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-3, prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1994). C-2 SON Eli ii; I II VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method ASTM D2435-90 Boring No. B-la Sample No. Depth (feet) 5.0 Soil Type Undisturbed U Before Adding Water After Adding Water Dry Density (pcf) 102.9 Moisture Content (%): Before 21.8 After 18.7 Type of Sample CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - Project No. 841363-06 Project Name Carlsbad Mun. Golf Course TTDate 1/22/98 4; 1; gig vii L VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 Boring No. 13-2p Sample No. 14 Depth (feet) 10.0 Soil Type Undisturbed $ Before Adding Water After Adding Water Dry Density (pcf) 103.5 Moisture Content (%): Before 21.2 After 19.1 L -] Type of Sample CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - Project No. 841363-06 Project Name Carlsbad Mun. Golf Course Date 1/22/98 TT 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) COHESION FRICTION SOIL NUMBER NUMBER (PS F) ANGLE TYPE At or near • B-i 1 10 250 29 SM peak Santiago Formation (silty sandstone) remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-78) LEIGHTON ana ASSOCIATES Project No. Alfflhk FC, 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS C-3 4000 3000 U- U) C- 1000 a 0 i000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMALSTRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near , B-i 2 20 0 47 SM peak Ultimate A B-i 2 20 0 36 SM In-situ Santiago Formation (silty sandstone) ASSOCIATES project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 4000 3000 1000 0 -I. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) COHESION FRICTION SOIL NUMBER NUMBER (PSF) ANGLE TYPE At or near peak B-1 3 .51-52 225 16 CL Santiago Formation remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-78) LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES I Project No. FA 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS C-5 i 4000 3000 Lu - CC U, 0 U, crj 2000 CC til 1000 n 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) COHESION FRICTION SOIL NUMBER NUMBER (PSF) ANGLE TYPE At or near B-i 5 50 1,200 41 CL peak Intact Santiago Formation sA.5QIATES i Protect No. Is 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS U---.. Di!! —=- 01 0 010101 11011111 ME INEE MENKE ME rnnmu— —am01011111 umu 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 4000 3000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near • B-3 1 5-9 150 29 CL/CH peak' Santiago Formation (claystone) remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78) LEIGHTON ana ASSOCIATES Project No. - 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS r-7 I 'I 4000 3000 U- U, C- 1000 01• 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 5000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PST) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near B-3 1 10 700- 29-33 CL peak 15050 In-situ Santiago Formation (claystone) t.EIGHTON .I ASSOCIATES I Pro1ect No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS w —J U) 4.0 F- z w 0 5.0 Lu 7.0 ch 9.0 10..0. STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT LII. IA IJ. RI II I!AI 'Ii MsonI1IiilIUIUIIIIHIIIIIUIHi IIIIIIIIIIiUIIH IiI1iUiiiUII IIiI1IIIUIIIiI MEMO mom MOM r IN uuuur_iiiiiiiii.iii IN kill Lin 011MOU ON MIN SIMON On noun mom 11 ON OR 011 IN now mom 11001 a.a.R$i WHINOW ___NOW NI ENO ____ m•ai - 1I!iIIiiUIkiII IHIIIIIEiiiIIIiI 1iIIhIIIIIIhIIllhIIINIIHiIIIAI 111!LHIIHiUIIHIIIIIUIIHg o FIELD MOISTURE BORING NO.: B-7 LEGHF1ON and ASSOCIAT ES Project No. 4841363-02 • SATURATED SAMPLE NO.: 2 L 0 LOADING DEPTH IFT): CONSOLIDATION TEST REBOUND SOILTYPE : SM/ML RESULTS L j9 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT I!log11 Omanin. on !0 4 I- z Ui cc 0. 0 27 -j 0 Cl) z 9 111111111111119jus an MINI all __ NOIJIIIUEDJIIIII miss HIHI ::: on Ll MEN Man= 0102 NUMININ MEN MEN . as an ONI MEN Emus iA!IIIIIEH an= k"M — UiIIIiIiD •• IHI IIiIEH!1IIIllUIIfi!IIiUIHflff Ru EiioIIhiUIIkIIIiiIIIIIIg II. M" E iuiiiii - FIELD MOISTURE BORING NO.: 8-6 Project No. • 4841363-02 SATURATED SAMPLE NO.: 3 15 DEPTH (FT) : ' LOADING REBOUND SOIL TYPE CONSOLIDATION TEST : SM RESULTS c-b' '1 - —3.0 —2.0 cn —1.0 Lu - 0 U- 0 4.0 I— z w 5.0 cc III (- z 6.0 0 I- 2 7.0 8. a° 9.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT o FIELD MOISTURE BORING NO.: B-8 LEHTON and ASSOCIATES Project No. 4841363-02 1 SATURATED SAMPLE NO.: LOADING DEPTH (FT): CONSOLIDATION TEST REBOUND SOIL TYPE : CL/SC RESULTS TEST NO. SAMPLE LOCATION INITIAL MOISTURE(%) cOMPACTED DRY DENSITY (PcF) FINAL UOISTURE(%) VOLUMETRIC SWELL (%) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL 1 B-i, 491 -50' 14.8 94.3 35.8 15.0 150 Very High 2 B-i, 50' 25.8 119.3 30.8 5.1 51 Medium 3 B-i, 10' 10.5 107.8 16.5 . 0 0 Low 4 B-3, 5'-9' 11.8 103.5 27.1 9.1 91 High Test No. 1 & 3: UBC 29-2 (remolded) Test No. 2 : Expansion test of in-situ sample with natural moisture content under 144 pounds per square foot load LEIGHTON $AQ ASSOCIATES Project No. 4841363-02 -- --- EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS C-13 ruaus OWLASTIC1hASflCTY LIMIT LIMIT J INDEX i.iouio Psfic LIMIT LIMITj LEIGWON and ASSOCIATES 1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS I GRAVEL 1 SAND re I Fine ioari Medium I ;,~e Coa FINES (Silt or Clay) 1 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3 1 1/2'3/4" 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 so Ii I 1 111(1 I I I 1 iIii 't1ii I I 11111 ii 1 1111(1111 IlliTi I. - B0 70 >- 60 W 60 z U-40 I- z LLj 30 C-) Cr w20 a- 10 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS (SYMBOL' BORING NUMBER ISAMPLE ] NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) I LIMIT J ILIQUID lPLASTIC LIMIT IPLASTICITY I INDEX SOIL I TYPE I • B-i 1 i0 I SM MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 1 B-i, 10.11 (silty sand) 118.0 12.0 2 B-i, 51152l (silty clay) 103.0 21.0 3 B-3, (clayey silt) 116.0 15.0 LEIGH1Ot arka ASSOCIATES Project No. iI[1 4841363-02 GRADATION AND MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS C-15 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Pagel of6 0 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 3030. 1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page of 0 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page of is 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavatedas specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavatiorr In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavatedto provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of 6 Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-9 1. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 5 of 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 3030. 1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 3030.1094 OUPACTED2. -=-_===--;— PROJECTED PLANE - I TO I MXIUUM FROM TOE - -- - - - ---- - - OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND - - - - --• - , - -- REMOVE UNSUITABLJ NATURAL --v TYPICAL MATERIAL GROUND riz CH BENCH HEIGHT 2' MIN. KEY LOWEST BENCH ur.run 1PACTED.? GROUND BENCH HEIGHT - -MH 19 ~Nl - UNSUITABLE MRL MATERIAL Lrw ST KEY DEPTH CUTFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE CUT FACE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT\ . NATURAL V GROUND / FILL SLOPE FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE I TO I MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUNDN OVERBUILT AND TRIM BACK - DESIGN SLOPE TYPICAL REMOVE MATERIAL For Subdrains See Standard Detail C 2' MIN.—KEY DEPTH - BENCH - z L.r........15' UI LOWEST BENCH HEIGHT BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET KEYING AND BENCHING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL EARThWORK AND GRADING Tj STANDARD DETAILS A REV. 4111/96 FINISH GRADE -------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------- --- -------------------- - - -- -------------------- SLOPE MIN.COMPACTED FILLr-- FACE ------------------- ---------------- - ------------------------------- H ft a r ------ - I- MM(:_-_ MIN.- - JE11ED OR FLOODED ----WINDROW - - _9RANULAR MATERIAL Oversize rock Is larger than 8 inches in largest dimension. Excavate a trench in the compacted fill deep enough to bury all the rock. Backfill with granular soil jetted or flooded In place to fill all the voids. Do net bury rock within 10 feet of finish grade. Windrow of buried rock shall be parallel to the finished slope fill. ELEVATION A-A' PROFILE ALONG WINDROW - JETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING Tj STANDARD DETAILS B 4/96 NATURAL GROUND / ---------------------------- REMOVE B _UNSUITABLE _ MATERIAL ------------------ --- 25 MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II \( PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC - (MIRAFII400R APPROVED COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM 60 DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION 6 MIN DESIGN FINISHED GRADE ><o' MIN. BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR 0 APPROVED o. EQUIVALENT) I _ 20' MIN. + NON-PERFORATED 51 MIN. #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER 6'4 MIN. FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. 101 CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS C IS.' MIN. • OUTLET PIPES 44 NON-PERFORATED PIPE, ------. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, ------- BACKCUT 1:1 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY OR FLATTER - - BENCHING -------------- - DEP / THI1t± ____ --2% MIN. - / • ~12' I_ ._ L 15' MIN. ..J 7 MIN. OVERLAP FROM ThE TOP 2 M KEY WIDTh POSITIVE SEAL HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT FILTER FABRIC THE JOItIT P (MIRAFI 140 OR V 'LV •.b L- APPROVED W 1 Ac)M E OUTLET PIPE QUIVALENT) (NON-PERFORATED)_-. - / T-CONNECTION FOR CALTRANS CLASS II / COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be Installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/41 to W if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM Dl 527, Schedule 40, or ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in soil of SE30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill. BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING Tj REPLACEMENT FILL SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAILS 45 U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/811 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT: RELATIVE COMPACTION* S -. lily OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE; -. (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 0 0 O 1 EQUIVALENT)** i1 ,t 3I4N..11I28 CLEAN GRAVEL** 0 00 r I :—:—:— 4'.(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED :--: PVC PIPE (ScHEDuLE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 0 0 ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED 10 MINIMUM 1PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS, FINISH GRADE. ---------------------------- --E-OMPACTED FILL------------------------ - WALL FOOTING MIN. COMPEfENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *BASED ON ASTM 01667 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE. GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3I4-11/2 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD. BE COMPACTED TO 90,, PERCE RELATIVE COMPACTION* NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS PRADRNN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN AUERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLSSS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORNED IN ACCORDANCE NTH ACThRERS SPEaACA11ONS. NOT TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL S S 4841363-006 S APPENDIX F SLTRFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation = 3.5 feet / = Slope Angle 26.6 degrees = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 130 pcf = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 25 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 250 pcf FS C+ otan = C (y - y)Z cos 2i tan 4 T Yt Z sin 1 cos 1 S FS = 1.8 Santiago Formation (claystone) 0 4841363-006 APPENDIX E SUICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation = 3.5 feet = Slope Angle = 26.6 degrees = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 13() pcf = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 32 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 175 pcf FS = C +(y - y,,)Z cos2i tan T .Yt z sin i cos i FS = 1.6 Santiago Formation (sandstone) E-2 4841363-006 0 APPENDIX E SURFICEAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation = 3.5 feet = Slope Angle = 26.6 degrees = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pci = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = [30 pct' = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 28 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 175 pcf PS = c ± citan = - y)Z. cos2i tan 4 T Yt z sin t cos i . FS = 1.5 Compacted fill derived from Santiago Formation (claystone and sandstone mix) 0 295 Q) 255 U) 4- 1 75 135 OECTA 1 1-22-98 16:23 0 0 P&D/XSECT.A= BLK 335 10 most critica surfaces, MINIM UM JANBU FOS = 1.683 o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 X—AXIS (feet) A PROFIL FILE: PDSECTA1 1-22-98 16:23 ft P&D/XSECT.-A- ELK 12 5 . .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 1 40.0 221.0 80.0 230.0 2 80.0 230.0 160.0 265.0 2 160.0 265.0 190.0 277.0 1 190.0 277.0 320.0 290.0 1 40.0 221.0 44.0 217.0 1 44.0 217.0 112.0 217.0 1 112.0 217.0 120.0 226.0 1 120.0 226.0 124.0 231.0 3 124.0 231.0 160.0 265.0 1 124.0 231.0 280.0 243.0 3 120.0 226.0 280.0 239.0 1 SOIL 3 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 WATER 1 62.40 4 .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 120.0 230.0 280.0 244.0 BLOCK . 100 2 5.0 123.0 229.0 140.0 231.0 3.0 175.0 232.0 250.0 237.0 3.0 0 A XSTABL File: PDSECTA1 1-22-98 16:23 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * ****************************************** Problem Description : P&D/XSECT.-A- ELK ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- • 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 1 2 40.0 221.0 80.0 230.0. 2 3 80.0 230.0 160.0 265.0 2 4 160.0 265.0 190.0 277.0 1 5 190.0 277.0 320.0 290.0 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 40.0 221.0 44.0 217.0 1 2 44.0 217.0 112.0 217.0 1 3 112.0 217.0 120.0 226.0 1 4 120.0 226.0 124.0 231.0 3 5 124.0 231.0 160.0 265.0 1 6 124.0 231.0 280.0 243.0 3 7 120.0 226.0 280.0 239:0 1 ISOTROPIC -Soil -Parameters- -------------------------- 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 120.0 130.0 2 120.0 130.0 3 120.0 130.0 Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 220.00 2 40.00 221.00 3 120.00 230.00 4 280.00 244.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 5.0. ft Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 123.0 229.0 140.0 231.0 3.0 2 175.0 232.0 250.0 237.0 3.0 **************************************************************** * * * * * * * * . - - WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the cl value. 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.27 241.49 2 109.44 240.83 3 113.83 238.45 4 117.42 234.96 5 121.31 231.83 6 124.87 228.31 7 186.14 233.84 8 187.58 238.63 9 191.05 242.22 10 193.88 246.35 11 197.28 250.01 12 199.79 254.33 13 202.08 258.78 14 205.40 262.52 15 208.73 266.25 16 212.19 269.85 17 215.36 273.73 18 218.87 277.29 19 220.88 280.09 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.683 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.03 241.82 2 108.45 240.47 3 113.33 239.39 4 117.78 237.12 5 121.85 234.22 6 125.41 230.71 7 175.21 230.90 8 177.90 235.12 9 180.22 239.55 1] 10 183.75 243.09 11 187.19 246.71 12 190.50 250.47 13 193.52 254.45 14 196.37 258.56 15 199.78 262.21 16 203.23 265.84 17 204.68 270.62 18 208.00 274.36 19 209.91 278.98 20 209.91 278.99 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.692 ** (Fo factor 1.087) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.27 241.93 2 109.22 240.10 3 112.96 236.78 4 117.92 236.12 5 122.19 . 233.53 6 126.27 230.64 7 197.22 234.18 8 200.72 237.75 9 204.12 241.41 10 206.47 245.83 11 209.90 249.46 12 211:93 254.04 13 214.04 258.57 14 216.68 262.81 15 219.33 267.05 16 221.10 271.73 17 224.64 275.27 18 228.10 278.87 19 228.99 280.90 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.702 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.33 239.33 2 103.81 237.19 3 108.73 236.30 4 113.73 236.28 5 117.72 233.27 6 122.43 231.60 7 126.41 228.57 8 222.89 235.73 9 226.08 239.58 10 226.85 244.52 11 228.79 249.13 12 232.01 252.95 13 235.46 256.57 14 238.27 260.70 15 241.50 264.52 16 243.91 268.91 17 247.44 272.45 18 250.84 276.11 19 253.49 280.35 20 256.54 283.65 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.737 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.75 240.83 2 105.58 240.50 3 109.81 237.85 4 114.80 237.54 5 119.77 236.99 6 123.42 233.58 7 127.34 230.47 8 175.75 233.24 9 178.75 237.25 10 181.85 241.16 11 185.32 244.77 12 188.78 248.37 13 191.11 252.80 14 193.48 257.20 15 197.01 260.74 16 199.33 265.17 17 199.73 270.15 18 202.75 274.14 19 206.09 277.86 20 206.58 278.66 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.743 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.70 239.06 2 102.81 236.96 3 107.81 236.95 4 112.71 235.95 5 117.09 233.55 6 122.09 233.41 7 126.48 231.01 8 131.41 230.18 9 201.58 232.59 10 205.12 236.13 11 207.80 240.35 12 211.22 243.99 13 214.21 248.00 14 217.15 252.05 15 220.36 255.88 16 220.50 260.87 17 223.98 264.46 18 227.15 268.33 . 19 230.68 271.87 20 233.59 27.5.94 21 235.81 280.42 22 236.62 281.66 ** Corrected JANPU FOS = 1.744 ** (Fo factor = 1.082) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.35 238.90 2 102.20 238.89 3 107.11 237.95 4 112.07 237.33 5 116.01 234.25 6 119.97 231.18 7 124.87 230.21 8 180.14 232.51 9 181.18 237.40 10 182.21 242.30 11 185.59 245.98 12 189.11 . 249.53 192.49 253.21 13 14 195.30 257.35 15 198.35 261.31 16 201.48 265.21 17 203.73 . 269.68 18 207.07 273.40 19 210.54 277.00 20 212.82 279.28 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.750 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 99.89 238.70 2 101.48 237.21 3 106.46 236.78 4 110.79 234.29 5 115.40 232.34 6 120.09 230.61 7 125.08 230.34 8 188.45 232.80 9 190.93 237.14 . 10 194.39 240.74 11 195.55 245.61 12 198.73 249.47 13 202.07 253.19 14 202.14 258.19 0 n 15 203.79 262.91 16 206.03 267.38 17 208.70 271.61 18 212.15 275.23 19 215.62 278.83 20 215.80 279.58 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.41 241.55 2 110.47 238.83 3 115.47 238.70 4 120.03 236.64 5 123.88 233.46 6 128.24 231.01 7 133.09 229.81 8 190.69 232.56 9 193.98 236.33 10 197.32 240.05 11 200.78 243.66 12 203.41 247.92 13 204.70 252.74 14 208.11 256.41 15 209.44 261.22 16 212.21 265.39 17 215.74 268.93 18 216.00 273.92 19 217.92 278.54 20 218.83 279.88 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.763 ** (Fo factor = 1.087) Failure surface No.10 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.71 240.81 2 109.26 239.87 3 113.11 236.68 4 118.10 236.27 5 122.45 233.82 6 125.99 230.29 7 130.93 229.50 8 202.85 234.11 9 205.94 238.03 10 208.04 242.57 11 211.37 246.30 12 213.80 250.68 13 214.67 255.60 14 218.10 259.24 15 221.05 263.27 16 224.22 267.14 17 226.96 271.32 18 230.24 275.10 19 230.45 280.10 . 20 231.01 281.10 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.766 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/XSECT.-A- BLIK Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.683 1.084 106.27 220.88 1.303E+05 1.692 1.087 107.03 209.91 1.215E+05 1.702 1.084 107.27 228.99 1.382E+05 1.737 1.078 101.33 256.54 1.646E+05 1.743 1.086 104.75 206.58 1.173E+05 1.744 1.082 100.70 236.62 1.520E+05 1.750 1.085 100.35 212.82 1.189E+05 1.757 1.086 99.89 215.80 1.226E+05 1.763 1.087 106.41 218.83 1.317E+05 1.766 1.084 104.71 231.01 1.416E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * 0 260 Ni o 225 U) 4- 155 120 *CTA 1-22-98 16:18 0 P&D/XSECT. =A 295 10 most critica surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.729 0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 X—AXIS (feet) 0 A PROFIL P&D/XSECT. -A- 12 5 .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 80.0 230.0 125.0 250.0 190.0 277.0 40.0 221.0 45.0 211.0 85.0 210.0 100.0 225.0 104.0 229.0 104.0 229.0 100.0 225.0 SOIL 3 120.0 130.0 250 120.0 130.0 175 120.0 130.0 100 WATER 1 62.40 5 .0 200.0 45.0 212.0 85.0 220.0 103.0 232.0 280.0 245.0 CLE 10 10 20.0 40.0 150.0 5.0 FILE: PDSECTA 40.0 221.0 1 80.0 230.0 2 125.0 250.0 2 190.0 277.0 1 280.0 290.0 1 45.0 211.0 1 85.0 210.0 1 100.0 225.0 1 104.0 229.0 3 125.0 250.0 1 280.0 243.0 3 280.0 239.0 1 30.00 .000 28.00 .000 10.00 000 195.0 220.0 .0 .0 1-22-98 16:18 ft A XSTABL File: PDSECTA 1-22-98 16:18 ****************************************** * XSTABL * w * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * Problem Description : P&D/XSECT.-A- ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- . 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 1 2 40.0 221.0 80.0 230.0 2 3 80.0 230.0 125.0 250.0 2 4 125.0 250.0 190.0 277.0 1 5 190.0 277.0 280.0 290.0 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 40.0 221.0 45.0 211.0 1 2 45.0 211.0 85.0 210.0 1 3 85.0 210.0 100.0 225.0 1 4 100.0 225.0 104.0 229.0 3 5 104.0 229.0 125.0 250.0 1 6 104.0 229.0 280.0 243.0 3 7 100.0 225.0 280.0 239.0 1 40 ISOTROPIC ------------------------- Soil Parameters 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. . (pcf) (pcf) 1 120.0 130.0 2 120.0 130.0 3 120.0 130.0 Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 200.00 2 45.00 212.00 3 85.00 220.00 4 103.00 232.00 5 280.00 245.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 40.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 195.0 ft and x = 220.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 150.0 ft 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined I 0 within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JPNEU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 38 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 40.00 221.00 2 44.84 219.74 3 49.72 218.64 4 54.63 217.71 5 59.57 216.95 6 64.54 216.36 7 69.52 215.93 8 74.51 215.68 9 79.51 215.59 10 84.51 215.68 11 89.50 215.93 12 94.49 216.36 13 99.45 216.95 14 104.39 217.71 15 109.30 218.64 16 114.18 219.74 17 119.02 221.00 18 123.81 222.43 19 128.55 224.01 20 133.24 225.76 21 137.86 227.67 22 142.42 229.73 23 146.90 231.95 24 151.30 234.31 25 155.62 236.83 26 159.86 239.49 27 164.00 242.29 28 168.04 245.23 29 171.98 248.31 30 175.81 251.52 31 179.54 254.86 32 183.14 258.32 33 186.63 261.91 34 189.99 265.61 35 193.23 269.42 36 196.33 273.34 37 199.30 277.36 0 Pi 38 200.04 278.45 ** Corrected JAMBU EQS = 1.729 ** (Fo factor = 1.062) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 38 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 40.00 221.00 2 44.56 218.95 3 49.21 217.10 4 53.93 215.45 5 58.71 214.01 6 63.56 212.77 7 68.45 211.74 8 73.38 210.93 9 78.35 210.32 10 83.33 209.94 11 88.33 209.77 12 93.33 209.81 13 98.32 210.07 14 103.30 210.54 15 108.25 211.23 16 113.17 212.13 17 118.05 213.24 18 122.87 214.56 19 127.63 216.09 20 132.32 217.82 21 136.93 219.75 22 141.46 221.88 23 145.89 224.20 24 150.21 226.71 25 154.42 229.40 26 158.51 232.27 27 162.48 235.32 28 166.31 238.53 29 170.00 241.91 30 173.54 245.44 31 176.92 249.12 32 180.14 252.95 33 183.19 256.91 34 186.08 260.99 35 188.78 265.20 36 191.30 269.52 37 193.62 273.95 38 195.44 277.79 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.730 ** (Fo factor = 1.074) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 42 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 40.00 221.00 2 44.72 219.36 3 49.50 217.87 4 54.32 216.55 5 59.18 215.39 6 64.08 214.39 7 69.01 213.55 . 8 73.97 212.88 9 78.94 212.38 10 83.93 212.04 11 88.93 211.87 12 93.93 211.86 13 98.92 212.02 14 103.91 212.35 15 108.89 212.85 16 113.84 213.51 17 118.77 214.34 18 123.68 215.33 19 128.54 216.48 20 133.36 217.79 21 138.14 219.27 22 142.87 220.90 23 147.54 222.69 24 152.14 224.64 25 156.68 226.74 26 161.15 228.99 27 165.53 231.38 28 169.84 233.92 29 174.06 236.61 30 178.19 239.43 31 182.22 242.39 32 186.15 245.48 . 33 189.97 248.70 34 193.68 252.05 35 197.28 255.52 36 200.77 259.11 37 204.13 262.81 38 207.36 266.62 39 210.47 270.54 40 213.44 274.56 41 216.28 278.68 42 217.78 281.01 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.741 ** (Fo factor = 1.066) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.78 220.94 2 42.34 218.90 3 46.98 217.03 4 51.69 215.35 5 56.45 213.84 6 61.28 212.53 7 66.15 211.40 . 8 71.06 210.46 9 76.00 209.71 10 80.97 209.15 11 85.96 208.78 12 90.96 208.61 13 95.96 208.63 14 100.95 208.85 15 105.93 209.26 16 110.90 209.86 17 115.83 210.65 18 120.74 211.64 19 125.60 212.81 20 130.41 214.17 21 135.16 215.71 22 139.86 217.44 23 144.48 219.35 24 149.02 221.43 25 153.48 223.69 26 157.85 226.12 27 162.13 228.72 28 166.29 231.48 29 170.35 234.40 30 174.30 237.48 31 178.12 240.70 32 181.81 244.07 33 185.37 247.58 34 188.79 251.23 35 192.07 255.00 36 195.20 258.90 37 198.17 262.92 38 200.99 267.05 39 203.65 271.29 40 206.14 275.62 41 208.24 279.63 ** Corrected JANBU FOB = 1.741 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 42 coordinate points Point x-surf y- surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35.56 220.89 2 40.34 219.43 3 45.16 218.11 4 50.02 216.95 5 54.92 215.93 6 59.84 215.07 7 64.79 214.36 8 69.76 213.80 9 74.75 213.39 10 79.74 213.14 11 84.74 213.04 12 89.74 213.10 13 94.73 213.31 14 99.72 213.67 15 104.69 214.19 16 109.65 214.86 17 114.58 215.68 18 119.48 216.66 19 124.36 217.78 20 129.19 219.05 21 133.99 220.48 22 138.73 222.05 23 143.43 223.76 24 148.07 225.62 25 152.65 227.62 26 157.17 229.76 27 161.62 232.04 28 166.00 234.45 29 170.30 237.00 30 174.53 239.68 31 178.66 242.49 32 182.71 245.42 33 186.67 248.48 34 190.53 251.66 35 194.29 254.95 36 197.94 258.36 37 201.50 261.88 38 204.94 265.51 39 208.26 269.24 40 211.47 273.08 41 214.56 277.01 42 217.49 280.97 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.749 ** (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 44 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35.56 220.89 2 40.23 219.10 3 44.95 217.47 4 49.73 216.00 5 54.55 214.68 6 59.42 213.53 7 64.32 212.54 8 69.25 211.71 9 74.21 211.04 10 79.18 210.54 11 84.17 210.21 12 89.17 210.04 13 94.17 210.04 14 99.16 210.20 15 104.15 210.53 16 109.13 211.02 17 114.09 211.68 18 119.02 212.50 19 123.92 213.48 20 128.79 214.63 21 133.61 215.93 22 138.39 217.40 23 143.12 219.03 24 147.79 220.81 25 152.41 222.74 26 156.95 224.82 27 161.42 227.06 28 165.82 229.44 29 170.13 231.97 30 174.36 234.64 31 178.50 237.44 32 182.54 240.39 33 186.48 243.46 34 190.32 246.67 35 194.05 249.99 36 197.67 253.45 37 201.17 257.02 38 204.55 260.70 39 207.81 264.49 40 210.94 268.39 41 213.94 272.39 42 216.80 276.49 43 219.53 280.68 44 219.92 281.32 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.751 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 43 coordinate points Point x-surf ysurf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35.56 220.89 2 40.34 219.44 3 45.17 218.13 4 50.03 216.97 5 54.93 215.96 6 59.85 215.10 7 64.80 214.38 8 69.77 213.82 9 S 74.75 213.40 10 79.74 213.14 11 84.74 213.02 12 89.74 213.06 13 94.74 213.25 14 99.73 213.59 15 104.70 214.08 16 109.66 214.72 17 114.60 215.51 18 119.51 216.44 19 124.39 217.53 20 129.24 218.76 21 134.04 220.14 22 138.81 221.66 23 143.52 223.33 24 148.18 225.13 25 152.79 227.08 26 157.33 229.17 27 161.81 231.39 28 166.22 233.75 29 170.56 236.23 30 174.82 238.85 31 179.00 241.60 32 183.09 244.47 33 187.10 247.46 . 34 191.01 250.57 35 194.83 253.80 36 198.55 257.14 37 202.16 260.60 38 205.67 264.16 39 209.07 267.82 40 212.36 271.59 41 215.54 275.45 42 218.59 279.41 43 219.99 281.33 ** Corrected JAJSBU EQS = 1.755 ** (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.67 220.67 2 31.37 218.97 3 36.13 217.44, 4 40.94 216.07 5 45.79 214.87 6 50.68 213.83 7 55.61 212.97 8 60.56 212.27 9 65.53 211.74 10 70.52 211.38 11 75.52 211.20 12 80.52 211.18 13 85.51 211.34 14 90.50 211.66 15 95.48 212.16 16 100.43 212.83 17 105.36 213.66 18 110.26 214.67 19 115.12 215.84 20 119.94 21.7.18 21 124.71 218.68 22 129.42 220.35 23 134.08 222.17 24 138.67 224.16 25 143.19 226.29 26 147.63 228.59 27 151.99 231.03 28 156.27 233.62 29 160.45 236.36 30 164.54 239.24 31 168.53 242.26 32 172.41 245.41 33 176.18 248.69 34 179.84 252.10 35 183.37 255.63 36 186.79 259.29 37 190.08 263.05 38 193.23 266.93 39 196.26 270.91 40 199.14 275.00 41 201.55 278.67 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.78 220.94 2 42.66 219.85 3 47.57 218.90 4 52.50 218.08 5 57.45 217.40 6 62.42 216.86 7 67.41 216.46 8 72.40 216.19 9 77.40 216.07 10 82.40 216.08 11 87.39 216.23 12 92.39 216.53 13 97.37 216.96 14 102.33 217.53 15 107.28 218.24 16 112.21 219.09 17 117.11 220.07 18 121.99 221.19 19 126.83 222.44 20 131.63 223.83 21 136.39 225.36 22 141.11 227.01 23 145.78 228.80 24 150.40 230.71 25 154.96 232.76 159.47 234.93 01 26 27 163.91 237.22 28 168.29 239.64 29 172.60 242.18 30 176.83 244.83 31 180.99 247.61 32 185.07 250.50 33 189.07 253.50 34 192.98 256.61 35 196.81 259.83 36 200.54 263.15 37 204.18 266.58 38 207.73 270.11 39 211.17 273.74 40 214.51 277.46 41 217.50 280.97 ** Corrected JANBLT FOS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) Failure surface No.10 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.78 220.94 S 2 42.18 218.57 3 46.67 216.38 4 51.26 214.39 5 55.93 212.61 6 60.68 211.03 S 0, F- 7 65.48 209.66 8 70.35 208.50 9 75.26 207.55 10 80.20 206.82 11 85.18 206.30 12 90.17 206.00 13 95.17 205.92 14 100.16 206.06 15 105.15 206.42 16 110.12 206.99 17 115.06 207.78 18 119.96 208.78 19 124.81 209.99 20 129.60 211.42 21 134.32 213.05 22 138.97 214.89 23 143.54 216.93 24 148.01 219.16 25 152.38 221.59 26 156.64 224.21 27 160.79 227.01 28 164.80 229.99 29 168.68 233.14 30 172.43 236.46 31 176.02 239.93 32 179.46 243.56 33 182.74 247.34 34 185.84 251.25 35 188.78 255.30 36 191.54 259.47 37 194.11 263.76 38 196.49 268.16 39 198.68 272.65 40 200.67 277.24 41 201.20 278.62 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.758 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description P&D/XSECT.-A- Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.729 1.062 40.00 200.04 2.010E+05 1.730 1.074 40.00 195.44 2.437E+05 1.741 1.066 40.00 217.78 2.850E+05 1.741 1.073 37.78 208.24 2.906E+05 1.749 1.063 35.56 217.49 2.701E+05 1.751 1.068 35.56 219.92 3.071E+05 1.755 1.063 35.56 219.99 2.771E+05 1.757 1.067 26.67 201.55 2.427E+05 1.757 1.057 37.78 217.50 2.387E+05 1.758 1.078 37.78 201.20 2.964E+05 165 M. 25 ODSECTC1 1 -21 -98 14:43 0 0 P&D/SECTION—C—BLK 200 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 2.087 0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 X—AXIS (feet) PROFIL FILE: PDSECTC1 1-21-98 14:42 ft P&D/SECTION-C-BLK XSTABIJ File: PDSECTC1 1-21-98 14:43 * X S T A B L * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-BLK ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 1 2 70.0 120.0 83.0 128.0 1 3 83.0 128.0 97.0 133.0 1 4 97.0 133.0 105.0 135.0 2 5 105.0 135.0 160.0 150.0 1 6 160.0 150.0 280.0 160.0 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 105.0 135.0 280.0 141.0 2 2 97.0 133.0 280.0 137.0 1 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) INo. 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, * *** * * * * * * * * * ***** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 120.00 2 70.00 120.00 3 105.00 136.00 4 280.00 142.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random . technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BYXSTABL * * * * * Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 9.0 ft Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 105.0 134.0 110.0 135.0 2.0 2 150.0 135.0 240.0 136.0 2.0 -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the tiCti value. ************************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 5 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21.1807 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The trial failure surface in question is defined by the following 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 103.78 134.69 2 105.17 133.32 3 150.83 134.40 4 151.24 143.39 5 152.11 147.85 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 6. coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 105.41 135.11 2 108.52 133.95 3 157.13 135.38 4 163.46 141.77 5 169.54 148.41 6 170.85 150.90 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.087 ** (Fo factor = 1.066) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.73 134.93 2 106.22 133.49 3 158.93 135.92 4 165.18 142.40 5 171.30 149.00 . 6 172.91 151.08 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.091 ** (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.73 135.47 2 109.27 134.14 3 156.07 135.81 4 162.19 142.41 5 167.70 149.52 6 168.13 150.68 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.140 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.87 134.97 2 . 3 105.82 134.58 161.43 135.11 4 166.39 142.63 5 171.60 149.96 6 171.65 150.97 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.234 ** (Fo factor = 1.070) Failure surface No. 5 specified by. 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 105.99 135.27. 2 107.33 134.71 3 152.27 134.53 4 156.51 142.46 5 162.87 148.84 6 163.03 150.25 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.280 ** (Fo factor = 1.074) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.14 135.58 2 109.17 133.96 3 174.15 135.63 4 180.19 142.31 5 186.54 148.68 . 6 189.75 152.48 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.284 ** (Fo factor = 1.062) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.12 135.31 2 109.97 134.48 3 160.38 135.49 4 166.07 142.46 5 168.85 150.74 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.307 ** (Fo factor = 1.072) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.99 135.00 2 105.79 134.44 3 160.52 136.08 4 164.39 144.20 5 169.18 150.77 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.325 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 105.48 135.13 2 107.18 133.44 3 159.90 135.77 4 164.54 143.49 5 165.93 150.49 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.330 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No.10 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) . 1 104.32 134.83 2 106.71 134.64 3 170.29 135.83 4 176.63 142.22 5 182.14 149.33 6 184.88 152.07 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.335 ** (Fo factor = 1.061) ******************************************************************** ** ** ** Out of the 100 surfaces generated and analyzed by XSTABL, ** ** 1 surfaces were found to have MISLEADING FOS values. ** ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following is a summary of the TEN mostcritical. surfaces Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-BLK Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 2.087 1.066. 105.41 170.85 2.326E+04 2.091 1.063 104.73 172.91 2.400E+04 2.140 1.068 106.73 168.13 2.168E+04 2.234 1.070 104.87 171.65 2.302E+04 2.280 1.074 105.99 163.03 1.909E+04 2.284 1.062 107.14 189.75 3.167E+04 2.307 1.072 106.12 168.85 2.198E+04 2.325 1.068 104.99 169.18 2.110E+04 2.330 1.073 105.48 165.93 2.048E+04 2.335 1.061 104.32 184.88 2.911E+04 * * * END OF FILE * * * S 0 165 25 OSECTC 1-21-98 14:34 0 0 P&D/SECTION—C—CIRC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS -- 1.954 0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 X—AXIS (feet) A PROF IL o D/SECTION-C-CIRC 8 6 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 83.0 128.0 97.0 133.0 105.0 135.0 160.0 150.0 105.0 135.0 97.0 133.0 SOIL 2 120.0 130.0 250.0 120.0 130.0 100.0 WATER 1 62.40 4 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 105.0 136.0 280.0 142.0 CIRCLE 10 10 50.0 69.0 40.0 .0 70 .0 83 .0 97.0 105 .0 160 .0 280.0 280.0 280.0 30.00 10.00 FILE: PDSECTC 1-21-98 14:35 ft 120.0 1 128.0 1 133.0 1 135.0 2 150.0 1 160.0 1 141.0 2 137.0 1 .0 .0 I EA A XSTABL File: P]JSECTC 1-21-98 14:34 . ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * * * * ** * * ******* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * **** ** * ** * * ** * Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 1 2 70.0 120.0 83.0 128.0 1 3 83.0 128.0 97.0 133.0 1 4 97.0 133.0 105.0 135.0 2 5 105.0 135.0 160.0 150.0 1 6 160.0 150.0 280.0 160.0 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 105.0 135.0 280.0 141.0 2 2 97.0 133.0 280.0 137.0 1 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ** * * ** * * * ** ** * * * * * ** * PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 120.00 2 70.00 120.00 3 105.00 136.00 4 280.00 142.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 69.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 83.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 40.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. 0 ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the uchi value. *** * * * **** ***** ******* ** ****************** ** ** **** ********* **** ** USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y- surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 64.78 120.00 2 68.26 118.03 3 71.91 116.40 4 75.71 115.14 5 79.61 114.27 6 83.58 113.77 7 87.58 113.67 8 91.57 113.97 9 95.51 114.65 10 99.37 115.71 11 103.10 117.15 12 106.67 118.95 13 110.05 121.09 14 113.21 123.55 15 116.10 126.31 16 118.72 129.34 17 121.02 132.61 18 122.99 136.09 19 124.61 139.74 S 20 124.83 140.41 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.954 ** (Fo factor = 1.080) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 13 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 69.00 120.00 2 72.62 118.29 3 76.45 117.15 4 80.41 116.59 5 84.41 116.64 6 88.36 117.29 7 92.16 118.53 8 95.73 120.33 9 98.99 122.64 10 101.87 125.43 11 104.29 128.61 12 106.21 132.12 13 107.50 135.68 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.966 ** (Fo factor = 1.080) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 56.33 120.00 2 59.66 117.78 3 63.18 115.88 4 114.30 40 66.86 5 70.66 113.07 6 74.56 112.18 7 78.53 111.65 8 82.52 111.49 9 86.52 111.69 10 90.48 112.25 11 94.37 113.17 12 98.17 114.43 13 101.83 116.04 14 105.33 117.98 15 108.64 120.22 16 111.73 122.76 17 114.58 125.56 18 117.17 128.62 19 119.46 131.89 20 121.45 135.36 21 123.11 139.00 22 123.48 140.04 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.971 ** (Fo factor = 1.081) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 23 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 64.78 120.00 2 68.58 118.77 3 72.46 117.77 4 76.38 117.01 5 80.35 116.49 6 84.34 116.22 7 88.34 116.20 8 92.33 116.41 9 96.31 116.88 10 100.25 117.58 11 104.13 118.53 12 107.95 119.71 13 111.69 121.13 14 115.34 122.77 15 118.88 124.63 16 122.30 126.71 17 125.58 128.99 18 128.72 131.47 19 131.70 134.14 20 134.52 136.99 21 137.15 140.00 22 139.59 143.17 23 140.64 144.72 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.987 ** n (Fo factor = 1.065) S Failure surface No. 5 specified by 24 coordinate points Point x- surf y- surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 66.89 120.00 2 70.65 118.63 3 74.48 117.50 4 78.38 116.61 5 82.33 115.98 6 86.32 115.60 7 90.31 115.48 8 94.31 115.61 9 98.29 116.00 10 102.24 116.64 11 106.14 117.53 12 109.98 118.66 13 113.73 120.04 14 117.39 121.66 15 120.94 123.51 16 124.36 125.58 17 127.64 127.86 18 130.78 130.35 19 133.74 133.03 20 136.53 135.90 21 139.13 138.94 22 141.53 142.14 23 143.72 145.48 24 143.78 145.58 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.991 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 31 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 58.44 120.00 2 3 61.97 65.60 118.12 116.43 4 69.32 114.95 5 73.10 113.66 6 76.96 112.59 7 80.86 111.73 8 84.81 111.08 9 88.79 110.65 10 92.78 110.43 11 96.78 110.43 12 100.78 110.65 13 104.75 111.09 14 108.70 111.74 15 112.60 112.61 16 116.45 113.69 17 120.24 114.98 18 123.95 116.47 19 127.58 118.16 20 131.11 120.04 21 134.53 122.12 22 137.83 124.38 23 141.00 126.81 24 144.04 129.41 25 146.93 132.18 26 149.67 135.10 27 152.24 138.16 28 154.64 141.36 S 29 156.87 144.68 30 158.91 148.12 31 159.87 149.96 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.991 ** (Fo factor = 1.075) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 56.33 120.00 2 59.99 118.37 3 63.76 117.05 4 67.64 116.06 5 71.58 115.40 6 75.57 115.07 7 79.57 115.09 8 83.55 115.44 9 87.49 116.13 10 91.36 117.14 11 95.13 118.49 12 98.77 120.14 13 102.26 122.10 14 105.57 124.35 15 108.67 126.87 16 111.56 129.64 17 114.19 132.65 18 116.57 135.87 19 118.25 138.61 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.000 ** (Fo factor = 1.072) 0 Failure surface No. 8 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y- surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.22 120.00 2 57.86 118.34 3 61.61 116.95 4 65.45 115.84 5 69.37 115.02 6 73.34 114.50 7 77.33 114.27 8 81.33 114.34 9 85.31 114.71 10 89.26 115.37 11 93.14 116.33 12 96.94 117.57 13 100.64 119.09 14 104.22 120.88 15 107.65 122.93 16 110.92 125.24 17 114.01 127.78 18 116.91 130.54 19 119.59 133.51 20 122.04 136.67 S 21 124.25 140.00 22 124.41 140.29 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.001 ** (Fo factor = 1.071) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 62.67 120.00 2 65.82 117.54 3 69.21 115.41 4 72.78 113.62 5 76.52 112.18 6 80.37 111.12 7 84.31 110.44 8 88.30 110.14 9 92.30 110.24 10 96.27 110.73 11 100.17 111.61 12 103.97 112.87 13 107.63 114.49 14 111.11 116.46 15 114.38 118.76 16 117.41 121.37 17 120.17 124.26 18 122.64 127.41 19 124.78 130.79 20 126.59 134.36 21 128.03 138.09 22 129.00 141.54 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.010 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No.10 specified by 32 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 60.56 120.00 2 63.99 117.94 3 67.53 116.08 4 71.17 114.43 5 74.90 112.98 6 78.70 111.74 7 82.57 110.72 8 86.49 109.92 9 90.44 109.34 10 94.43 108.98 11 98.43 108.85 12 102.43 108.95 13 106.41 109.27 14 110.38 109.81 15 114.30 110.58 16 118.18 111.56 17 121.99 112.76 18 125.73 114.18 S 19 129.39 115.80 20 132.95 117.63 21 136.40 119.66 22 139.73 121.87 23 142.93 124.27 24 145.99 126.85 25 148.90 129.59 26 151.65 132.50 27 154.23 135.55 28 156.64 138.75 29 158.86 142.07 30 160.89 145.52 31 162.73 149.07 32 163.26 150.27 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.013 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.954 1.080 64.78 124.83 4.946E+04 1.966 1.080 69.00 107.50 2.681E+04 1.971 1.081 56.33 123.48 5.585E+04 1.987 1.065 64.78 140.64 5.686E+04 1.991 1.068 66.89 143.78 6.286E+04 1.991 1.075 58.44 159.87 1.047E+05 2.000 1.072 56.33 118.25 4.002E+04 2.001 1.071 54.22 124.41 4.805E+04 2.010 1.085 62.67 129.00 6.586E+04 2.013 1.078 60.56 163.26 1.174E+05 END OFFILE 0 185 65 25 0 U 1-22-98 13:54 PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 225 10 most critical surfaces, MINI M UM JANBU FOS 1.642 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 X—AXIS (feet) ft 0 1 50.0 210.0 300.0 250.0 30.00 211.0 .0 1-22-98 13:54 100.0 1 180.0 1 180.0 1 FILE: PDCUT .000 280.0 .0 A PROFIL PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 3 3 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 210.0 180.0 SOIL 1 120.0 130.0 CIRCLE 10 10 15.0 49.0 50.0 10.0 0 A XSTABL File: PDCUT 1-22-98 13:54 * X S T A B L * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * ****************************************** Problem Description : PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 SEGMENT ----------------------------- ----------------------------- BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 2 50.0 100.0 210.0 180.0 3 210.0 180.0 300.0 180.0 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft and x = 49.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 211.0 ft and x = 280.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 10.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 23 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.67 100.00 2 47.56 98.52 3 57.51 97.59 4 67.51 97.22 5 77.50 97.41 6 87.48 98.16 7 97.39 99.47 8 107.21 101.34 9 116.92 103.75 10 126.47 106.70 11 135.85 110.19 12 145.01 114.19 13 153.93 118.70 14 162.59 123.71 15 170.96 129.19 16 179.00 135.13 17 186.69 141.52 18 194.02 148.32 19 200.96 155.53 20 207.47 163.11 S 21 22 213.56 219.19 171.05 179.31 23 219.60 180.00 ** Corrected JBU SOS = 1.642 ** (So factor = 1.060) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 24 coordinate points Point xsurf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.33 100.00 2 36.15 98.07 3 46.04 96.65 4 56.00 95.76 5 66.00 95.39 6 76.00 95.54 7 85.97 96.22 8 95.90 97,42 9 105.75 99.14 10 115.50 101.37 11 125.12 104.11 12 134.58 107.35 13 143.86 111.08 14 152.93 115.29 S 15 161.76 119.98 16 170.34 125.11 17 178.64 130.70 18 186.63 136.70 19 194.30 143.12 20 201.62 149.93 21 208.58 157.12 22 215.14 164.66 23 221.31 172.54 24 226.54 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU SOS = 1.674 ** (Fo factor = 1.061) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 24 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.78 100.00 2 28.66 98.50 3 38.61 97.49 4 48.60 96.97 5 58.60 96.95 6 68.59 97.42 7 5 8 78.54 88.43 98.39 " 99.85 9 98.24 101.80 10 107.94 104.24 11 117.51 107.15 12 126.92 110.53 13 136.15 114.37 14 145.18 118.67 15 153.98 123.41 16 162.54 128.58 17 170.84 134.17 18 178.84 140.16 19 186.54 146.55 20 193.91 153.30 21 200.94 160.42 22 207.61 167.87 23 213.90 175.64 24 217.08 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.686 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 23 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 100.00 2 58.63 97.30 3 68.42 95.28 4 78.34 93.96 5 88.32 93.34 6 98.32 93.43 7 108.29 94.21 8 118.17 95.70 9 127.93 97.88 10 137.52 100.74 11 146.87 104.27 12 155.96 108.44 13 164.73 113.25 14 173.14 118.66 15 181.15 124.65 16 188.71 131.19 17 195.80 138.24 18 202.37 145.78 19 208.40 153.76 20 213.85 162.14 21 218.70 170.89 22 222.92 179.95 23 222.94 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.693 ** (Fo factor = 1.071) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.87 98.38 3 34.80 97.22 4 44.78 96.53 5 54.77 96.31 6 64.77 96.55 7 74.74 97.27 8 84.67 98.46 9 94.54 100.11 10 104.31 102.23 11 12 113.97 123.51 104.80 107.82 13 132.89 111.29 14 142.09 115.19 15 151.10 119.53 16 159.90 124.28 17 168.47 129.44 18 176.78 134.99 19 184.83 140.94 20 192.58 147.25 21 200.03 153.92 22 207.16 160.93 23 213.95 168.27 24 220.39 175.93 25 223.50 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.693 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 24 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.11 100.00 2 39.55 96.69 . 3 49.19 94.05 4 59.00 92.08 5 68.91 90.79 6 78.90 90.20 7 88.90 90.29 8 98.86 91.08 9 108.76 92.56 10 118.52 94.72 11 128.11 97.55 12 137.48 101.03 13 146.59 105.16 14 155.39 109.91 15 163.84 115.26 16 171.90 121.17 17 179.54 127.64 18 186.70 134.61 19 193.37 142.07 20 199.50 149.97 21 205.07 158.27 22 210.05 166.94 23 214.42 175.93 24 216.06 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.707 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 26 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 26 228.90 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.727 ** (So factor = 1.066) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.33 100.00 2 35.69 96.47 3 45.25 93.55 4 54.99 91.26 5 64.85 89.60 6 74.80 88.58 7 84.79 88.20 8 94.79 88.48 9 104.74 89.40 10 114.62 90.96 11 124.38 93.15 12 133.97 95.97 13 143.36 99.41 14 152.51 103.45 15 161.38 108.07 16 169.93 113.25 17 178.13 118.98 18 185.94 125.22 19 193.33 131.95 20 200.27 139.15 21 206.73 146.79 22 212.69 154.82 23 218.11 163.22 24 222.98 171.96 25 226.80 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU SOS 1.737 ** (So factor = 1.073) Failure surface No.10 specified by 27 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.78 100.00 2 28.45 97.44 3 38.23 95.38 4 48.10 93.80 5 58.05 92.72 6 68.03 92.13 7 78.03 92.05 8 88.02 92.46 9 97.98 93.38 10 107.88 94.79 11 117.69 96.69 S 12 127.40 99.08 13 136.98 101.96 14 146.41 105.30 15 155.65 109.12 16 164.69 113.39 1 15.00 100 .00 2 24.70 97.55 3 34.51 95.61 4 44.40 94.19 5 54.36 93.28 6 64.35 .92.89 7 74.35 93.03 8 84.33 93.69 9 94.26 94.87 10 104.12 96.56 11 113.87 98.77 12 123.50 101.49 13 132.97 104.70 14 142.26 108.40 15 151.34 112.58 16 160.19 117.23 17 168.79 122.34 18 177.11 127.89 19 185.13 133.86 20 192.82 140.25 21 200.18 147.03 22 207.16 154.18 23 213.77 161.69 24 219.97 169.53 25 225.76 177.69 26 227.23 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.709 ** (Fo factor = 1.063) S Failure surface No. 8 specified by 26 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 . 15.00 100.00 2 24.58 97.12 3 34.30 94.77 4 44.13 92.95 5 54.05 91.68 6 64.02 90.95 7 74.02 90.77 8 84.01. 91.15 9 93.97 92.06 10 103.86 93.53 11 113.66 95.53 12 123.33 98.07 13 132.85 101.13 14 142.19 104.72 15 151.31 108.81 16 160.20 113.39 17 168.82 118.46 18 177.16 123.99 19 185.17 129.96 20 192.85 136.37 21 200.16 143.19 22 207.09 150.41 23 213.61 157.99 24 219.70 165.92 25 225.35 174.17 S fl 17 173.51 118.11 18 182.08 123.26 19 190.38 128.84 20 198.39 134.82 21 206.10 141.20 22 213.47 147.95 23 220.50 155.06 24 227.17 162.52 25 233.45 170.30 26 239.34 178.38 27 240.40 180.00 ** Corrected JANBU SOS = 1.749 ** (So factor = 1.063) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU SOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.642 1.060 37.67 219.60 3.120E+05 1.674 1.061 26.33 226.54 3.596E+05 1.686 1.057 18.78 217.08 2.826E+05 1.693 1.071 49.00 222.94 4.123E+05 1.693 1.057 15.00 223.50 3.154E+05 1.707 1.073 30.11 216.06 4.084E+05 1.709 1.063 15.00 227.23 3.940E+05 1,727 1.066 15.00 228.90 4.378E+05 1.737 1.073 26.33 226.80 4.829E+05 1.749 1.063 18.78 240.40 4.706E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * (0 OLL 1-22-98 16:13 0 0 PD/FILL SLOPE © 2:1 215 10 most critical surfaces, MINIM UM JANBU P05 1.505 ii; cn >< <110 >- 75 911 0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 X—AXIS (feet) A PROFIL PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1 3 3 S 100.0 50.0 100.0 200.0 175.0 SOIL 1 120.0 130.0 CIRCLE 10 10 15.0 49.0 50.0 5.0 50.0 200.0 280.0 175.0 28.00 220.0 .0 FILE: PDFILL 100.0 1 175.0 1 175.0 1 .000 .0 250.0 .0 1-22--98 16:13 ft 0 XSTABL File: PDFILL 1-22-98 16:13 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * Problem Description : PD/FILL SLOPE 0 2:1 ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 3 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 2 50.0 100.0 200.0 175.0 3 200.0 175.0 280.0 175.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 Water Surface No. 1 A critical failure surfabe searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. S 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft and x = 49.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 220.0 ft and x = 250.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 44 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.67 100.00 2 42.61 99.26 3 47.57 98.64 4 52.55 98.15 5 57.54 97.80 6 62.53 97.56 7 67.53 97.46 8 72.53 97.49 9 77.53 97.64 10 82.52 97.92 11 87.50 98.34 12 92.47 98.87 13 97.43 99.54 14 102.37 100.33 15 107.28 101.25 16 112.17 102.30 17 117.03 103.47 S 18 121.86 104.77 19 126.65 106.19 20 131.41 107.73 21 136.12 109.39 22 140.80 111.18 23 145.42 113.08 24 149.99 115.11 25 154.51 117.24 26 158.97 119.50 27 163.38 121.87 28 167.72 124.35 29 171.99 126.94 30 176.20 129.64 31 180.34 132.45 32 184.40 135.36 33 188.39 138.38 34 192.30 141.50 35 196.12 144.72 36 199.87 148.03 37 203.52 151.44 38 207.09 154.94 39 210.57 158.54 40 213.95 162.22 41 217.24 165.99 42 220.43 169.84 43 223.52 173.77 44 224.43 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.505 ** (Fo factor = 1.056) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.78 100.00 2 23.72 99.25 3 28.68 98.61 4 33.65 98.08 5 38.63 97.67 6 43.63 97.36 7 48.62 97.17 8 53.62 97.10 9 58.62 97.13 10 63.62 97.28 11 68.61 97.54 12 73.60 97.91 13 78.57 98.40 14 83.54 99.00 15 88.49 99.71 16 93.42 100.53 17 98.33 101.47 18 103.22 102.51 19 108.09 103.66 20 112.92 104.93 21 117.73 106.30 22 122.51 107.78 23 127.25 109.37 24 131.95 111.06 S 25 136.62 112.87 26 141.24 114.77 27 145.82 116.78 28 150.35 118.89 29 154.83 121.11 30 159.27 123.42 31 163.64 125.83 32 167.97 128.35 33 172.23 130.96 34 176.44 133.66 35 180.58 136.46 36 184.66 139.35 37 188.67 142.34 38 192.62 145.41 39 196.49 148.57 40 200.29 151.82 41 204.02 155.15 42 207.67 158.57 43 211.24 162.07 44 214.73 165.64 45 218.15 169.30 46 221.47 173.03 47 223.15 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.523 ** (Fo factor = 1.054) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.33 100.00 2 31.24 99.03 3 36.17 98.19 4 41.12 97.47 5 46.08 96.87 6 51.06 96.40 7 56.04 96.05 8 61.04 95.82 9 66.04 95.72 10 71.04 95.74 11 76.04 95.88 12 81.03 96.15 13 86.01 96.55 14 90.99 97.06 15 95.95 97.71 16 100.89 98.47 17 105.81 99.35 18 110.71 100.36 19 115.58 101.49 20 120.42 102.74 21 125.23 104.11 22 130.00 105.60 23 134.73 107.20 24 139.43 108.93 25 144.08 110.77 26 148.68 112.72 27 153.23 114.79 28 157.73 116.97 29 162.18 119.26 30 166.56 121.66 31 .170.89 124.17 32 175.15 126.79 33 179.34 129.51 34 183.47 132.33 35 187.52 135.26 36 191.51 138.28 37 195.41 141.40 38 199.24 144.62 39 202.98 147.94 40 206.64 151.34 41 210.22 154.84 42 213.71 158.42 43 217.10 162.09 44 220.41 165.84 45 223.62 169.67 46 226.74 173.58 47 227.81 175.00 ** Corrected JBU FOS = 1.538 ** S (Fo factor = 1.058) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 48 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 19.93 99.19 3 24.88 98.48 4 29.85 97.89 5 34.82 97.40 6 39.81 97.03 7 44.80 96.76 8 49.80 96.60 9 .. 54.80 96.56 10 59.80 96.62 11 64.80 96.79 12 69.79 97.08 13 74.77 97.47 14 79.75 97.97 15 84.71 98.58 16 89.66 99.30 17 94.59 100.13 18 99.50 101.06 19 104.39 102.11 20 109.26 103.26 21 114.10 104.51 22 118.91 105.88 23 123.69 107.35 24 128.43 108.92 25 133.14 110.60 26 137.82 112.38 27 142.45 114.26 28 147.04 116.24 29 151.58 118.33 30 156.08 120.51 31 160.53 122.79 32 164.93 125.17 33 169.27 127.65 34 173.56 130.22 35 177.79 132.88 36 181.96 135.63 S 37 186.08 138.48 38 190.12 141.42 39 194.10 144.44 40 198.02 147.55 41 201.86 150.75 42 205.64 154.03 43 209.34 157.39 44 212.96 160.83 45 216.51 164.36 46 219.98 167.95 47 223.38 171.63 48 226.35 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.543 ** (Fo factor = 1.054) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.11 100.00 2 34.83 98.35 3 39.60 96.85 4 44.41 95.50 5 49.27 94.31 6 S 54.16 93.27 7 59.08 92.40 8 64.03 91.68 9 69.00 91.11 10 73.99 90.71 11 78.98 90.47 12 83.98 90.39 13 88.98 90.47 14 93.97 90.71 15 98.96 91.11 16 103.92 91.67 17 108.87 92.39 18 113.80 93.27 19 118.69 94.30 20 123.54 95.49 21 128.36 96.84 22 133.13 98.34 23 137.85 99.99 24 142.51 101.80 25 147.11 103.75 26 151.65 105.84 27 156.12 108.09 28 160.52 110.47 29 164.83 113.00 30 169.07 115.66 S 31 173.21 118.45 32 177.26 121.38 33 181.22 124.44 34 185.08 127.62 35 188.83 130.92 36 192.48 134.34 37 196.01 137.88 38 199.43 141.53 39 202.73 145.28 40 205.91 149.14 41 208.96 153.10 42 211.89 157.16 43 214.68 161.31 44 217.34 165.54 45 219.86 169.86 46 222.24 174.26 47 222.61 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.564 ** (Fo factor = 1.070) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 43 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 100.00 2 53.81 98.65 3 58.67 97.46 4 63.56 96.43 5 68.49 95.57 6 73.44 94.87 7 78.41 94.33 8 83.40 93.95 . 9 88.39 93.75 10 93.39 93.71 11 98.39 93.83 12 103.38 94.12 13 108.36 94.57 14 113.32 95.19 15 118.26 95.98 16 123.17 96.92 17 128.05 98.03 18 132.88 99.30 19 137.67 100.73 20 142.42 102.32 21 147.10 104.06 22 151.73 105.96 23 156.29 108.01 24 160.78 110.20 25 165.19 112.55 26 169.53 115.04 27 173.78 117.68 28 177.94 120.45 29 182.01 123.36 30 185.97 126.40 31 189.84 129.57 32 193.60 132.87 33 197.24 136.29 34 200.77 139.84 . 35 204.18 143.49 36 207.47 147.26 37 210.64 151.13 38 213.67 155.11 39 216.57 159.18 40 219.33 163.35 41 221.95 167.60 42 224.43 171.94 . 43 226.05 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.566 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 49 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 19.85 98.78 3 24.72 97.67 4 29.63 96.69 5 34.55 95.83 6 39.50 95.10 7 44.46 94.48 8 49.44 94.00 9 54.42 93.63 10 59.42 93.39 11 64.42 93.28 12 69.42 93.29 13 74.41 93.42 14 79.41 93.68 15 84.39 94.06 16 89.37 94.57 . 17 18 94.33 99.27 95.20 95.95 19 104.19 96.83 20 109.09 97.83 21 113.96 98.95 22 118.81 100.20 23 123.62 101.56 24 128.39 103.04 25 133.13 104.64 26 137.83 106.36 27 142.48 108.20 28 147.08 110.15 29 151.63 112.21 30 156.13 114.39 31 160.58 116.68 32 164.97 119.08 33 169.29 121.59 34 173.55 124.20 35 177.75 126.92 36 181.88 129.75 37 185.93 132.67 38 189.91 135.70 39 193.81 138.82 40 197.64 142.04 41 201 .38 14.5. 36 42 205.04 148.77 . 43 208.61 152.26 44 212.10 155.85 45 215.49 159.52 46 218.79 163.27 47 222.00 167.11 48 225.11 171.03 49 228.11 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.568 ** (Fo factor = 1.060) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 46 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 41.44 100.00 2 46.42 99.52 3 51.41 99.14 4 56.40 98.87 5 61.40 98.70 6 66.40 98.64 7 71.40 98.69 8 76.39 98.84 9 81.39 99.10 10 86.37 99.46 11 91.35 99.93 12 96.32 100.51 13 101.27 101.19 14 106.21 101.98 15 111.13 102.87 16 116.03 103.86 17 120.91 104.96 18 125.76 106.16 . 19 130.59 107.46 20 135.39 108.87 21 140.15 110.38 22 144.89 111.98 23 149.59 113.69 24 154.25 115.50 25 158.87 117.40 26 163.45 119.41 27 167.99 121.51 28 172.48 123.70 29 176.93 125.99 30 181.32 128.38 31 185.67 130.86 32 189.96 133.42 33 194.19 136.08 34 198.37 138.83 35 202.49 141.67 36 206.54 144.59 37 210.54 147.60 38 214.47 150.69 39 218.33 153.86 40 222.12 157.12 41 225.85 160.46 42 229.50 163.87 43 233.08 167.36 44 236.59 170.93 . 45 240.01 174.57 46 240.41 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.580 ** (Fo factor = 1.050) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf S No. (ft) 1 33.89 100.00 2 38.78 98.95 3 43.69 98.02 4 48.63 97.22 5 53.58 96.55 6 58.55 96.00 7 63.53 95.57 8 68.52 95.27 9 73.52 95.10 10 78.52 95.05 11 83.52 95.13 12 88.51 95.34 13 93.50 95.67 14 98.48 96.13 15 103.45 96.72 16 108.40 97.43 17 113.33 98.26 18 118:23 99.22 19 123.12 100.31 20 127.97 101.51 21 132.79 102.84 22 137.57 104.29 23 142.32 105.86 24 147.03 107.55 S 25 151.69 109.36 26 156.30 111.29 27 160.87 113.33 28 165.38 115.48 29 169.83 117.75 30 174.23 120.14 31 178.56 122.63 32 182.83 125.23 33 187.04 127.94 34 191.17 130.75 35 195.23 133.67 36 199.22 136.69 37 203.12 139.81 38 206.95 143.02 39 210.70 146.34 40 214.36 149.74 41 217.93 153.24 42 221.41 156.83 43 224.81 160.50 44 228.10 164.26 45 231.31 168.10 46 234.41 172.02 47 236.65 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.585 ** (Fo factor = 1.059) Failure surface No.10 specified by 50 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 19.79 98.56 S 3 24.61 97.25 4 29.47 96.06 5 34.36 95.00 6 39.27 94.08 7 44.21 93.28 8 49.16 92.61 9 54.13 92.08 10 59.12 91.68 11 64.11 91.40 12 69.11 91.27 13 74.11 91.26 14 79.11 91.38 15 84.10 91.64 16 89.08 92.03 17 94.06 92.55 18 99.01 93.21 19 103.95 93.99 20 108.87 94.90 21 113.76 95.95 22 118.62 97.12 23 123.45 98.42 24 128.24 99.85 25 132.99 101.40 26 137.70 103.08 27 142.36 104.88 S 28 29 146.98 151.54 106.81 108.85 30 156.05 111.02 31 160.49 113.31 32 164.88 115.71 33 169.20 118.23 34 173.45 120.86 35 177.63 123.60 36 181.74 126.45 37 185.77 129.41 38 189.72 132.47 39 193.59 135.64 40 197.37 138.91 41 201.07 142.28 42 204.67 145.75 43 208.18 149.30 44 211.60 152.96 45 214.92 156.70 46 218.14 160.52 47 221.25 164.43 48 224.27 168.42 49 227.17 172.49 50 228.86 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.587 ** (Fo factor = 1.064) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1 Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU EQS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.505 1.056 37.67 224.43 2.952E+05 1.523 1.054 18.78 223.15 2.747E+05 1.538 1.058 26.33 227.81 3.240E+05 1.543 1.054 15.00 226.35 2.914E+05 1.564 1.070 30.11 222.61 3.900E+05 1.566 1.067 49.00 226.05 3.766E+05 1.568 1.060 15.00 228.11 3.5275+05 1.580 1.050 41.44 240.41 3.306E+05 1.585 1.059 33.89 236.65 3.757E+05 1.587 1.064 15.00 228.86 3.8705+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * 0 OILLB 1-22-98 16:53 S S 195 75 35 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 X—AXIS (feet) PD/FILL SLOPE © 2:1, H90 W/BNCH 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 235 1 .524 S 0 A PROFIL PD/FILL SLOPE 0 2:1, H=90 W/BNCH 5 5 S .0 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 120.0 120.0 135.0 130.0 130.0 134.0 240.0 240.0 190.0 300.0 SOIL 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 CIRCLE 10 10 15.0 49.0 255.0 50.0 10.0 .0 FILE: PDFILLB 1-22-98 16:53 ft 100.0 1 135.0 1 134.0 1 190.0 1 190.0 1 000 0 1 290.0 .0 A XSTABL File: PDFILLB 1-22-98 16:53 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 * ****************************************** Problem Description : PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1, H=90 W/BNCH ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 1 2 50.0 100.0 120.0 135.0 1 3 120.0 135.0 130.0 134.0 1 4 130.0 134.0 240.0 190.0 1 5 240.0 190.0 300.0 190.0 1 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 . A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. S S 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft and x = 49.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 255.0 ft and x = 290.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 10.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 27 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.67 100.00 2 47.56 98.52 3 57.50 97.47 4 67.48 96.85 5 77.48 96.68 6 87.48 96.95 7 97.45 97.65 8 107.39 98.79 9 117.26 100.37 10 127.06 102.38 11 136.76 104.82 12 146.34 107.68 13 155.78 110.96 14 165.08 114.65 15 174.20 118.75 S 16 183.14 123.24 17 191.86 128.12 18 200.37 133.38 19 208.64 139.00 S 20 216.65 144.99 21 224.39 151.32 22 231.85 157.98 23 239.00 164.97 24 245.84 172.26 25 252.36 179.85 26 258.54 187.71 27 260.18 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.524 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 28 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.78 100.00 2 28.66 98.50 3 38.60 97.38 4 48.58 96.66 5 58.57 96.34 6 68.57 96.41 7 78.56 96.87 8 88.52 97.72 9 98.45 98.97 S 1 0 108.31 100.61 11 118.10 102.63 12 127.81 105.04 13 137.41 107.83 14 146.90 110.99 15 156.25 114.53 16 165.46 118.44 17 174.50 122.70 18 183.37 127.31 19 192.06 132.28 20 200.54 137.58 21 208.80 143.21 22 216.84 149.16 23 224.63 155.42 24 232.17 161.99 25 239.45 168.85 26 246.45 175.99 27 253.17 183.40 28 258.69 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.538 ** (Fo factor = 1.055) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 28 coordinate points S Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.33 100.00 2 36.15 98.07 3 46 .03 96.56 4 55.97 95.48 5 65.95 94.82 6 75.95 94.60 7 85.95 94.80 8 95.93 95.43 9 105.87 96.50 10 115.76 97.98 11 125.57 99.89 12 135.30 102.22 13 144.92 104.97 14 154.40 108.12 15 163.75 111.68 16 172.93 115.64 17 181.94 119.99 18 190.75 124.72 19 199.35 129.82 20 207.72 135.29 21 215.85 141.11 22 223.72 147.28 23 231.32 153.78 24 238.64 160.60 25 245.65 167.73 26 252.35 175.15 27 258.73 182.85 28 264.15 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.549 ** S (Fo factor = 1.059) fl Failure surface No. 4 specified by 29 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.87 98.38 3 34.79 97.13 4 44.75 96.27 5 54.74 95.79 6 64.74 95.70 7 74.74 95.99 8 84.71 96.67 9 94.66 97.73 10 104.55 99.17 11 114.39 100.99 12 124.14 103.19 13 133.80 105.77 14 143.36 108.71 15 152.80 112.01 16 162.10 115.68 17 171.26 119.71 18 180.25 124.08 19 189.07 128.79 -- 20 197.70 133.85 21 206.13 139.23 22 214.34 144.93 23 222.34 150.94 24 230.09 157.25 25 237.60 163.86 26 244.84 170.75 27 251.82 177.92 28 258.51 185.35 29 262.39 190.00 ** Corrected JBU EQS = 1.551 ** (Fo factor = 1.055) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 28 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 41.44 100.00 2 51.40 99.03 3 61.38 98.43 4 71.38 98.18 5 81.38 98.30 6 91.36 98.78 7 101.33 99.62 8 111.26 100.82 9 121.13 102.38 10 130.95 104.30 11 140.69 106.57 12 150.34 109.18 13 159.89 112.15 14 169.33 115.46 15 178.64 119.11 16 187.81 123.10 17 196.83 127.41 18 205.69 132.05 19 214.38 137.00 20 222.88 142.26 21 231.18 147.83 22 239.28 153.70 23 247.16 159.85 24 254.82 166.29 25 262.23 173.00 26 269.40 179.97 27 276.31 187.20 28 278.80 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.572 ** (Fo factor = 1.050) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 30 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.70 97.55 3 34.49 95.53 4 44.36 93.93 5 54.29 92.76 . 6 64.27 92.03 7 74.26 91.73 8 84.26 91.87 9 94.24 92.44 10 104.19 93.45 11 114.09 94.89 12 123.91 96.76 13 133.65 99.05 14 143.27 101.77 . 15 152.77 104.90 16 162.12 108.44 17 171.31 112.39 18 180.32 116.73 19 189.13 121.46 20 197.72 126.56 21 206.09 132.04 22 214.21 137.88 23 222.07 144.06 24 229.65 150.58 25 236.94 157.43 26 243.93 164.58 27 250.60 172.04 28 256.93 179.77 29 262.93 187.77 30 264.45 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.577 ** (Fo factor = 1.062) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 27 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 100.00 2 58.63 97.30 3 68.39 95.14 4 78.26 93.53 5 88.21 92.47 6 98.19 91.97 7 108.19 92.02 8 118.17 92.63 9 128.11 93.80 10 137.96 95.52 11 147.70 97.78 12 157.30 100.58 13 166.73 103.92 14 175.95 107.77 15 184.95 112.13 16 193.69 116.99 17 202.15 122.32 18 210.30 128.12 19 218.11 134.37 20 225.56 141.04 21 232.63 148.11 22 239.29 155.57 23 245.53 163.38 24 251.32 171.53 25 256.65 180.00 26 261.50 188.74 27 262.11 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU EQS = 1.584 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) S Failure surface No. 8 specified by 29 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 33.89 43.67 53 .53 63.45 73.41 83.41 93.41 103.40 113.35 123.26 133.10 142.85 152.50 162.03 171.41 180.64 189.69 198.55 207.19 215.62 223.80 231.72 239.37 246.73 253.79 260.54 266.97 273.05 274.44 100.00 97.90 96.23 94.98 94117 93.79 93.85 94.33 95.26 96.61 98.39 100.59 103.22 106.26 109.72 11 .57 117.83 122.47 127.49 132.89 138 .64 144.74 151.18 157.95 165.03 172.41 180.07 188.01 190.00 S ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.586 ** (Fo factor = 1.060) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 28 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.11 100.00 2 39.55 96.69 3 49.15 93.91 4 58.90 91.66 5 68.75 89.96 6 78.68 88.79 7 88.66 88.18 8 98.66 88.11 9 108.65 88.59 10 118.60 89.63 11 128.47 91.21 12 138.25 93.32 13 147.89 95.98 14 157.37 99.16 15 166.66 102.86 16 175.73 107.06 17 184.56 111.76 18 193.12 116.93 19 201.38 122.57 20 209.32 128.65 21 216.91 135.16 22 224.13 142.08 23 230.96 149.38 24 237.37 157.05 25 243.36 165.07 26 248.89 173.39 27 253.96 182.01 28 258.08 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.592.. (Fo factor = 1.071) Failure surface No.10 specified by 30 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.58 97.12 3 34.27 94.68 4 44.08 92.69 5 53.96 91.16 6 63.90 90.08 7 73.88 89.47 8 83.88 89.31 9 93.87 89.62 10 103.84 90.38 11 113.77 91.61 12 123.63 93.29 13 133.40 95.42 14 143.06 98.00 15 152.59 101.02 16 161.97 104.48 17 171.19 108.37 18 180.21 112.68 19 189.03 117.40 20 197.61 122.52 21 205.96 128.03 22 214.04 133.93 23 221.84 140.18 24 229.34 146.79 25 236.53 153.74 26 243.40 161.01 27 249.92 168.60 28 256.08 176.47 29 261.88 184.62 30 265.34 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.597 ** (Fo factor = 1.065) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1, H=90 W/BNCH Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1.524 1.057 37.67 260.18 3.937E+05 1.538 1.055 18.78 258.69 3.672E+05 1.549 1.059 26.33 264.15 4.360E+05 1.551 1.055 15.00 262.39 3.907E+05 1.572 1.050 41.44 278.80 4.398E+05 1.577 1.062 15.00 264.45 4.772E+05 1.584 1.068 49.00 262.11 5.104E-i-05 1.586 1.060 33.89 274.44 5.074E+05 1.592 1.071 30.11 258.08 5.323E+05 1.597 1.065 15.00 265.34 5.255E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * S 1] Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY May 4, 2000 (Revised May 10, 2000) Project No. 4841363-006 To: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Mr. Dan Lee Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California References: Leighton & Associates, 1998, Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-006, dated January 23, 1998 (revised February 16, 1998) 2000, Response to Review Comments by City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No 4831363-006, dated February 12, 2000 P and D Consultants, Inc, 2000, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Grading and Improvement Plans, Carlsbad, California, Third Submittal, dated February 3, 2000 In accordance with your request, we have prepared this addendum to our preliminary geotechnical investigation. The purpose of this addendum is to minimize the adverse effects of potential differential settlement on proposed improvements. In general golf course areas such as fairways, rough, greens and tees, it is our understanding that some settlement of proposed fills is considered tolerable. As noted in the project geotechnical report, proposed fills in these areas should be placed at a minimum relative compaction of 85 percent as determined by ASTM D 1557. In areas where structural improvements including such items as the commercial area, the clubhouse, bridges, slopes steeper than 3 to I (horizontal to vertical), and other areas of settlement sensitive improvements such as major utilities or storm drains are proposed, we recommend that complete removals of potentially compressible material be performed. This would include topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, landslide deposits and weathered bedrock. We also recommend that proposed fills be placed at a minimum relative compaction of at least 95 percent in order to minimize the potential for future differential settlements. With these recommendations implemented, we would not recommend a settlement monitoring period, and construction of the proposed improvements could proceed immediately after the completion of fill placement. 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 S If however, complete removals of alluvium are not possible due to the presence of shallow groundwater, we would recommend that removals to within two feet of the water table be performed, and a settlement monitoring period implemented. Typically such a monitoring period would be on the order of six to twelve months. Where a proposed major utility or storm drain crosses an area of otherwise non-structural fill, the removal area should extend 20 feet on either side of the storm drain at the design finish grade, and be projected outward and downward at a gradient of ito 1 (horizontal to vertical) to the base of the removal. Because of the possibility of conflicts or misunderstandings due to non-structural fills and structural fills, we recommend that a meeting with the design team, the City, and the contractor be performed to make sure that all parties are aware of the grading recommendations for individual areas and that they are properly understood and implemented. If additional information regarding the depth of removals or the timing of anticipated settlement is desired some additional field investigation or analysis may be warranted. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4WC50~~_ Michael R. StewaR,-~G 1349 (Exp. 12/3 1/01) Vice President / Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) City of Carlsbad Attention Mr. John Cahill Leighton S Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY August 4, 2000 Project No. 4841363-006 To: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Mr. Dan Lee Subject: Remedial Quantity Estimate and Supplemental Recommendations,' Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California References: Leighton and Associates, 1998, Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-006, dated January 23, 1998 (revised February 16, 1998) 2000, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-006, dated May 4, 2000 (revised May 10, 2000) P and D Consultants, Inc., 2000, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Grading and Improvement Plans, Carlsbad, California, Third Submittal, dated February 3, 2000 P&D/CTE Engineers, Inc., 2000, Remedial Grading Plans, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, 6 Sheets Introduction In accordance with your request, this letter has been prepared to provide a summary of the remedial grading measures identified on the referenced remedial grading plans (P&D/CTE, 2000) and to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations or clarifications. Remedial Grading at Storm Drains As discussed in the referenced geotechnical documents (Leighton, 1998 and 2000), we have previously recommended that compressible soils be removed to competent bedrock or 2 feet above the ground water table beneath planned storm drains. Because of the up front costs associated with this approach, the City of Carlsbad has requested that a modified approach be implemented. In lieu of performing removals as discussed above, removals will be limited to 5 feet below the existing grade beneath storm drains that are 18 inches in diameter, or larger, and do not convey storm waters diverted from the public streets. For 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 4841363-006 pipes that convey waters diverted from the public streets, removals are required to extend to competent formational materials or to within 2 feet of the ground water table. Per the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, the minimum width at the bottom of the removal is required to be 12 feet. In consideration of this revised approach, the City recognizes that the proposed storm drain system may experience differential settlement that necessitates repair of the system. To mitigate the potential for differential settlement, the City may elect to install a geotextile stabilization fabric (Mirafi 500X, or equivalent) at the base of the removal where complete removals are not performed. Contractors bidding the grading should include an owner's optional unit rate price to provide and install the stabilization fabric. The unit rate should reflect a per foot cost of a fabric 12 feet in width. We anticipate that soils removed will be suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are free of oversize material, organics, or deleterious materials. Soils to be reused as fill should be moisture conditioned to attain a moisture content at or above the laboratory determined optimum moisture content. Fills within a 12-foot wide width underlying the golf course storm drains should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory determined maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Per the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, the 90 percent compaction is also considered applicable beneath golf course storm drains that convey waters from the public streets. Remedial Grading at Golf Course Structures Golf course structures where remedial grading measures are anticipated include the clubhouse, the maintenance building, the previously designated shooting range site, the two comfort stations (Fairways 5 and 15), and the abutments for the College Avenue bridge. Removals at these locations should extend to . competent formation or to within 2 feet of the ground water table. Removals should extend outside the building limits a distance equal to the depth of removal. Soils to be used as fill beneath these structures should possess an expansion less than 70. Fills should be moisture conditioned to attain a moisture content at or above the laboratory determined optimum moisture content. Engineered fills should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory determined maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Remedial Grading at Commercial Sites We anticipate that remedial grading measures will be necessary at two planned commercial sites. These commercial sites include the site at the northeast corner of Hidden Valley Road and Palomar Airport Road and the site north of Fairway No. 5 on the north side of College Boulevard. Removals at these locations should extend to competent formation or to within 2 feet of the ground water table. Soils to be used as fill within 5 feet of finish grade should possess an expansion less than 70. Fills should be moisture conditioned to attain a moisture content at or above the laboratory determined optimum moisture content. Engineered fills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory determined maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Remedial Grading at Embankment and Canyon Fills In order to prepare the area to create the access road embankment to the commercial site north of Fairway No. 5 and south of College Boulevard, removals should extend to competent formation or to within 2 feet of the ground water table. Fills should be moisture conditioned to attain a moisture content at or above the .. -2- 4 Leighton 4841363-006 laboratory determined optimum moisture content. Engineered fills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory determined maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). To create the pad and graded slopes proximal to the clubhouse, removals within an existing drainage feature and along the existing hillside will be required. Removals and proper benching should be performed to competent formation materials. Remedial Grading to Construct Stability Fills Stability fills are recommended north of Fairway No. 2 and northeast of Fairway No. 13. Removals at these locations should be performed according to the Stability Fill Detail provided on the Remedial Grading plans. It is noted that the stability fill configuration adjacent to Faraday Avenue will need to be modified so that excavation commences at least 5 feet from any existing improvements. Soils for use as fills within any graded slope or stability fill must meet the minimum strength requirements of 4 = 29 degrees and c = 200 psf. Fills should be moisture conditioned to attain .a moisture content near -the laboratory determined optimum moisture content. Engineered fills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory determined maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Excavation of Rock Materials Based on geologic mapping (Leighton, 1998), we anticipate that metavolcanic bedrock will be encountered proximal to the retention basin to be situated east of the 16th fairway. This unit is shown on the site geologic map as Jurassic-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics. Deep excavations in this area will likely . encounter very heavy ripping and/or possible local areas of unrippable rock. Oversize material may also be generated from deep cuts in this area. Oversize material may be disposed of in golf course fills over 10 feet in depth. Remedial Grading Plans The referenced remedial grading plans provide limits and depths of anticipated remedial removals based in large part on geologic inference. Because of the limited subsurface data available, actual limits and depths may vary from those depicted on the plans. Based on our analysis we roughly estimate the remedial measures depicted on the plans will amount to approximately 300,000 cubic yards of removals. -3- 4 Leighton 4841363-006 The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LEIGHTON AND AS 4C. Sean Director of Engineering ' Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349(Exp.12//01) Vice President/Principal Geologist I ~~M SAC/MRS Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) P&D Technolgies, Attn: Ms. Kirsten Lewis ED GS, R. ,S NO. 1349 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST S42 CAU91 I 7-. -4- Leighton SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED GOLF CART BRIDGES AT THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: P&D CONSULTANTS 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 610 San Diego, California 92108 Project No. 600488-001 January 18, 2005 4 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY S Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY January 18, 2005 To: P&D Consultants 8954 Rio San Drive, Suite 610 San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Chuck Moore Project No. 600488-001 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Golf. Cart Bridges at- the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted. a supplemental investigation for four proposed Golf Cart Bridges at the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) and south of Faraday Avenue. A previous geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed bridge over College Boulevard. Based on the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the development of the proposed improvements is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed improvements. The accompanying report presents a summary of our current supplemental investigation and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, ko LEIGHTON CONSULTING I 1 NO. 1349 2 CERTIFIED % GEOLOGIST / ENGINEERING No. 66161 Haze Rodgers, RCE 66161 Stewart, CEG 1349 "' Project Engineer Principal Geologist/Vice President CA Distribution: (3) Addressee (2) Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, Attention: Mr. Perry Schat 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 n San Diego, CA 92123-4425 8582928030 n Fax 858.292.0771 1sI.i:I:IsIsii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................. ..................................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2 1.4 PREvious INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................5 1.5 CURRENT EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING............................................................5 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................................................6 2.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................6 2.2.1 Topsoil (Unmapped)..........................................................................................6 2.2.2 Colluvium/Slope Wash (Unmapped) ....................................................................7 2.2.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) .............................................................................7 2.2.4 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt)....................................................................7 2.2.5 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - Jsp) ............................................ 8 2.2.6 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) ...............................................................8 2.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................................................................................................8 2.4 GROUNDWATER .........................................................................................................9 . 2.5 SCOUR POTENTIAL.......................................................................................................9 2.6 MASS MOVEMENT ................................................... ..................................................... 9 2.7 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOILS ..........................................................10 2.7.1 Expansion Potential ........................................................................................10 2.7.2 Soil Corrosivity ...............................................................................................10 2.7.3 Excavation Characteristics ...............................................................................11 2.7.4 Soil Compressibility.........................................................................................11 3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY.......................................................................................12 3.1 FAULTING ................................................................................................................12 3.2 SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................. 12 3.3 CALTRANS SEISMIC DESIGN .......................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture .................................................................................14 3.3.2 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................14 3.3.3 Earthquake-Induced Settlement.......................................................................15 3.3.4 Flow Failure and Lateral Spreading ..................................................................15 3.3.5 Tsunamis and Seiches.....................................................................................16 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................18 I Leighton [1iIsI:1:{sI.JI TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................19 5.1 EARTHWORK 19 5.1.1 Excavations....................................................................................................19 5.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction .........................................................................19 5.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE, EROSION, AND SCOUR....................................................................20 5.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................20 5.3.1 Axial Capacity of Driven Pile Foundations..........................................................20 5.3.2 Lateral Capacity of Driven Pile Foundations.......................................................23 5.3.3 Lateral Resistance of Cap! Grade Beam .............................................................24 5.4 SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................24 5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES .........................................................................................25 5.6 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW .......... . ................................................... 26 6.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ . .................... 27 TABLES TABLE 1 - SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS - PAGE 13 . TABLE 2 - ESTIMATED GROUND SURFACE DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT - PAGE 15 TABLE 3 - MAJOR TSUNAMIS RECORDED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY* - PAGE 17 TABLE 4 - PILE DATA TABLE - PAGE 22 TABLE 5 - PILE GROUP CAPACITY REDUCTIONS - PAGE 24 TABLE 6 - STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PcF) - PAGE 25 TABLE 7 - SUBMERGED EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PcF) - PAGE 25 FIGURES FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 4 FIGURE 2 - FARM BRIDGE FOUNDATION EXHIBIT - REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 3 - EAST BRIDGE FOUNDATION EXHIBIT - REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 4 - 15TH HOLE BRIDGE FOUNDATION EXHIBIT - REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 5 - GORGE BRIDGE FOUNDATION EXHIBIT - REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 6 - CT SEISMIC HAZARD MAP - REAR OF TEXT APPENDICES APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - BORING LOGS APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND TEST PROCEDURES APPENDIX D - SEISMIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX E - CIDH PILE AxIAL CAPACITIES . Leighton 600488-0001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of supplemental geotechnical investigation for the proposed golf cart bridges to be constructed at the proposed Carlsbad Municipal golf Course (CMGC), located in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our supplemental investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the bridge sites south of Faraday Avenue and provide preliminary conclusions and geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed bridge structures. We have also utilized data from our previous geotechnical investigation of the entire site and the bridge previously proposed over College Boulevard. Our scope of services included: Review of published and unpublished geotechnical reports and maps (Appendix A). Site reconnaissance and geologic mapping. Obtain boring permits from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, and coordinate with Underground Service Alert. Excavation, logging and sampling of 5 small-diameter borings. The boring logs are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration program. Results of these tests are presented in Appendix C, and are noted on the logs where appropriate. Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from our review, field investigation and laboratory testing (including seismic hazard and liquefaction analysis presented in Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively). Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations with respect to the design of the proposed bridges, including allowable foundation capacities, and lateral load deflection curves for Driven 12 and 14-inch Square Standard Caltrans Concrete Piles, and conventional spread footing design for the proposed Gorge Bridge. 1.2 Site Location and Description The site is located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The CMGC project is bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the south, the proposed extension of Faraday Avenue on the north and vacant land and -1- Leighton 600488-0001 commercial properties to the east. The Carlsbad Ranch / Legoland projects are located west of and adjacent to the CMGC site. Topographically, the site is characterized by numerous ridges and intervening valleys that connect with a main northwest trending drainage that flows north into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 20 feet mean sea level (msl) at the extreme northwest corner of the site in the main drainage, to approximately 321 feet mean sea level (msl) near the ridgeline along the southeastern edge of the property. Natural slopes on the site range from relatively steep (steeper than 1:1, horizontal to vertical) to relatively gentle (less than 3:1, horizontal to vertical. Existing improvements on site include those related to past agricultural activities on the site. Improvements associated with the agricultural fields include underground irrigation lines and valves, city water lines supplying the water reservoir to the west of the site, and minor cuts and fills associated with access roads. Other onsite improvements include: access roads associated with several SDG&E easements, a water main and graded pads present adjacent to the northwest side of College Avenue. In addition, fill slopes related to the construction of Faraday Avenue extend onto the site. These pads were created during the grading for College Avenue and the widening of Palomar Airport Road. Several deep erosional gullies were observed on the slope faces between these pads. Vegetation on site ranges from minor growth of grasses and weeds on the majority of the hillsides to shrubs and thick weeds in the ravines. Riparian trees and shrubs grow quite heavily in the main drainage trending northwest-southeast across the site. 1.3 Proposed Development Based on our review of preliminary grading and structural plans for the site prepared by P&D Consultants, Inc., 2004 and Moffat and Nichol, 2004, respectively, three of the proposed bridge structures (Farm Road, East, and 15th Hole Bridges) will span the drainage extending to Agua Hedionda Lagoon south of Faraday Avenue on the northern boundary of the CMGC project site. The remaining bridge (Gorge Bridge) will be located in the rocky hills on the eastern edge of the project site between the proposed tee boxes and green for hole number 16. . 4 -2- Leighton !iIiI:T:iIsIsJ1 According to the structural engineer Moffatt and Nichol, the Farm road, East, and 15th . Hole bridge abutments and bents will be founded on groups of 12-inch square driven precast concrete piles conforming to 45 and 70 ton capacity standard Caltrans piles (Caltrans, 2002), for the bridge abutments and bents located in the alluvial channel of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Gorge bridge and possibly the South abutment locations of the Farm Road and 15th Hole bridges will be founded on bedrock using conventional spread footings. . _ 44~~ -3- Leighton Ab MAI-': 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Carlsbad, California SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Project No. 600488-001 Date 0 January 2005 Figure No. 1 1jIsI:i:isIsIsji 1.4 Previous Investigation A previous geotechnical study has been performed by Leighton and Associates (Leighton, 1998). Borings and geologic mapping in the vicinity of the Farm Road, East and 15t11 Hole bridges indicates that the bridge sites are underlain by, alluvium, and Tertiary Santiago Formation. In the vicinities of the South Abutment locations for the Farm Road and 15th Hole bridges, outcrops of Tertiary Santiago Formation, and Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics have been mapped (Figures 2, and 4). The mapping also indicates that Santiago Peak Volcanics are present in the vicinity of the Gorge Bridge (Figure 5). The results of the previous investigation have been incorporated into the current investigation where appropriate. 1.5 Current Exploration and Laboratory Testing As part of our investigation, five small-diameter borings (Borings B-i and B-5) were excavated, sampled, and logged by a geologist from our firm. The borings were excavated to depths ranging from approximately 45 to 60 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were excavated utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. The purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the physical characteristics of the onsite soils, collect representative samples for laboratory testing, and assess the depth to competent material in the vicinity of the of the proposed bridge structure. Prior to our subsurface investigation, Underground Service he (USA) was contacted to coordinate the location and identification of nearby underground utilities and a well permit was obtained from the county of San Diego (Permit No. LMON 102369). The approximate location of the borings are shown on the bridge foundation exhibits (Figures 2 through 5). After logging and sampling, the excavations were backfilled with a bentonite grout. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the grain size distribution, consolidation characteristics, plasticity, and chemical characteristics of the subsurface soils. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. . 4 -5- Leighton [•IiI:f:sI,i,JI 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Geologic Setting The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today. 2.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface exploration, geologic mapping, and our review of geotecimical reports applicable to the subject site (Appendix A), the proposed bridge sites are underlain by Quaternary Alluvium, Topsoil, ColluviumlSlopewash, and bedrock units consisting of the Tertiary Santiago Formation and the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. Surficial units consist of alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, and documented and undocumented fill soils. The approximate areal distributions of the units are shown on the Bridge Foundation Exhibits (Figures 2 through 5). 2.2.1 Topsoil (Unmapped) Topsoil was encountered essentially covering the entire site but was not mapped. The topsoil was found to be generally light brown to dark brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sands with minor amounts of clay. The topsoil was generally ± 2 feet in thickness, contained minor amounts of decomposed organics and has been disturbed by the past and present agricultural activities on the northeastern portion of the site. This unit was evaluated to be potentially compressible under the loading of fill soils or improvements. 4 . -6- Leighton 600488-0001 2.2.2 Colluvium/Slope Wash (Unmapped) Holocene aged colluvium/slope wash was encountered mantling the lower valley slopes, throughout the project site. As encountered, the colluvium / slope wash typically consisted of poorly consolidated surficial materials derived from nearby soil and decomposed bedrock sources. This reworked debris is deposited along the flanks of the lower valley slopes by the action of gravity and surface water. Generally, the material was light brown to dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty to clayey sand that was generally 2 to 10 feet in thickness although locally it may be deeper. The colluvium I slope wash was typically porous and anticipated to be potentially compressible under the load of existing fills or improvements. In places, it was somewhat difficult to distinguish the sandier colluvial soils from the underlying weathered Santiago Formation. 2.2.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) Alluvium was encountered during our investigations for the proposed bridge structures in the low-lying drainage extending to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As encountered the alluvium generally consisted of potentially compressible, moist to saturated, loose to medium dense silty sands with some sandy silts and sandy clays. The alluvial deposits are on the order of 40 to greater than 60 feet thick. Unsaturated alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible and not suitable for the support of the structural loads from the bridge foundations or fill soils in areas of settlement sensitive improvements. These soils should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for structural improvements as part of site grading. 2.2.4 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits locally overlie the Santiago Formation and were encountered in the easternmost portion of the site along an isolated ridgeline above an elevation of approximately 300 feet (msl). As encountered during our previous investigations, these deposits generally consist of orange to red brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. The upper portion of the Terrace Deposits (generally the upper 3 to 8 feet) appeared to be highly weathered and are anticipated to be moderately to highly porous and compressible. In general, the Terrace Deposits have a very low expansion potential. With the exception of the upper weathered zone, the terrace deposits have favorable engineering properties. The weathered portion of the terrace deposits will require removal and recompaction if encountered in areas of proposed structural improvements or fill soils. These deposits were not encountered in the vicinities of the proposed bridges; however, they may be encountered during construction. S -7- Leighton 1-11111 M.-MIX111 0 2.2.5 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - isp) The Jurassic aged Santiago Peak Volcanics were encountered in the easternmost portion of the subject site. Typically the unit is hard and extremely resistant to erosion and forms topographic highs. Most of the rocks are dark greenish gray where fresh but weather light orange-brown to dark reddish brown. The soil developed on the Santiago Peak Volcanics is the color of the weathered bedrock and supports the growth of dense chaparral. It is anticipated that the Gorge Bridge will be founded on this formation. If deep removals are planned in this area, localized heavy ripping or blasting may be required 2.2.6 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) The bedrock unit underlying the majority of the site is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. In general, the unit consists of massive to weakly bedded sandstone with interbedded clayey siltstone and silty claystone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray, light brown, and light yellow-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and weakly bedded to massive. The siltstone consisted of brown and olive-brown, moist, stiff, clayey siltstones that were fissile to indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese-oxide and iron-oxide staining. The claystone typically was gray to brown, moist, stiff to hard, fine-grained, sandy to silty claystone that was moderately sheared. Where encountered, the upper 6 to 12 inches of the Santiago Formation appears to be moderately weathered, porous and potentially compressible. This layer should be removed and recompacted in areas of structural fill placement or settlement sensitive improvements. The piles for the Farm Road, East and the 15th hole Bridges are anticipated to be founded on this bedrock unit. 2.3 Geologic Structure The bedrock units encountered on the site were generally massive with no apparent bedding. However, based on our professional experience in the area, bedding of the underlying Santiago Formation is anticipated to be relatively gently dipping (i.e. 5 to 10 degrees) to the west. The Santiago Peak Volcanics are typically massive with random near vertical joint sets. Jointing and fracturing is greater in the highly weathered areas. 4 -8- Leighton 600488-0001 2.4 Ground Water 40 Ground water was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 7 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) during our previous site investigation (Leighton, 1998). However during this investigation groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 18 feet bgs at the time of drilling. Ground water levels will fluctuate during and following periods of high precipitation and as a result of development changes in the site vicinity. Due to the proximity of the proposed foundations to the drainage extending to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, we anticipate that ground water levels may rise slightly when water levels in the lagoon rise. As a result, foundation conditions will vary. 2.5 Scour Potential The stability of the embankments and the foundations for the proposed bridges may be significantly impacted if deep scouring occurs along the channel. Laboratory testing indicates the alluvium within the lagoon channel and immediate vicinities of Borings B-i and B-5, consists of erodible fine sands and silts. In general terms, scour depths may be roughly estimated to be on the order of 3 times the rise or increase in the river water surface elevation during peak flow events. Given the hydraulic constraints of the existing and proposed structures and characteristics, of the river flow relative to the ocean, we recommend that the project hydrologist characterize the channel bed configuration under scoured conditions and design measures to mitigate scour. Our analysis has assumed that soil will not be allowed to scour within a 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) projection extending downward from the bottom of the bents and abutments located near the drainage. 2.6 Mass Movement Based on our review of the previous geotechnical reports, available aerial photographs, geologic literature and maps, no indication of mass movements (such as landslides, surficial slumps, etc.) were observed within the areas of the proposed bridges although ancient landslides are present in other areas. Geologic mapping of all excavating in this area should be performed during site grading. Localized zones of weak claystone material are present in the Santiago Formation and may create localized areas that are prone to slope instability if exposed in a cut slope. -9- Leighton 600488-0001 2.7 Engineering Characteristics of On-site Soils Based on the results of our previous and current geotechnical investigations, previous laboratory testing of representative on-site soils, and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. 2.7.1 Expansion Potential The expansion potential of the on-site soil has been found to generally range from very low to medium. However, highly expansive soils may be present locally on the site. The bedrock material is anticipated to be in the very low to high expansion range. Expansive soils are not considered a design constraint for the proposed bridges. 2.7.2 Soil Corrosivity Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected from the site during our previous investigation indicate that the soils are of negligible soluble sulfate content, a pH ranging from 5.7 to 8. 1, and a severe corrosion potential for buried ferrous based on metals electrical resistivity. Some of these findings were . reinforced by the laboratory results from tests performed on a selected sample from this supplemental investigation. Laboratory testes performed on selected samples collected from the bridge foundation locations indicate that the soils are of negligible soluble content, have a neutral pH, low potential for chloride attack, and a moderate to high corrosion potential for buried ferrous metals. These findings indicate that the corrosive effects of the onsite soils in contact with steel components are expected to be moderate to high, and the affects to properly design and placed concrete are considered low. I -10- Leighton 600488-0001 0 2.7.3 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the majority of the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized loose alluvial soil zones, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques or placement of granular material to create a working platform for heavy equipment to prevent collapsing of the underlying alluvial material. Excavations in the Jurassic Santiago Peal Volcanics may require special excavation techniques such as heavy ripping, breaking or blasting. 2.7.4 Soil Compressibility The alluvial soils at the site are considered slightly to moderately compressible. The bedrock material was found to be very dense and has a very low compressibility characteristics. As the proposed bridge foundations are planned to be founded in bedrock, soil compressibility is not considered a design constraint. -11- Leighton 600488-0001 3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY S 3.1 Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Aiquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 1997 (Hart, 1997). The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Aiquist-Priolo Act. Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional fault is the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 kilometers) west of the site. Several inactive faults have been mapped on and adjacent to the site. The regional active faults pose the greatest risk from a seismic standpoint and have been utilized in our analysis. I 3.2 Seismicity The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern California. Table 1 (below) identifies potential seismic events that could be produced by the maximum moment magnitude earthquake. A maximum moment magnitude earthquake is the maximum expectable earthquake given the known tectonic framework. Site-specific seismic parameters for the site included in Tables 1 are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations as generated by the deterministic fault modeling software EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a) utilizing the attenuation relationships for soil and rock as developed by Sadigh, et. al. The fault parameters have been updated based on revisions by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2003). -12- Leighton 91tI;IsIs1øJI Table 1 Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 2000a and CGS. 2003) Maximum Peak Potential Distance from Moment Horizontal One Standard Causative Fault Fault to Site Magnitude Ground Deviation (g) (Miles/km) (Mw) Acceleration Soil (Rock) (g) Soil (Rock) Rose Canyon 5.3/8.5 7.2 0.36 (O.43) 0.18 (0.20) (Offshore) Newport- Inglewood 7.6/12.3 7.1 0.30 (0.34) 0.14 (0.16) (Offshore) Coronado Bank/Aqua 21.4/34.5 7.6 0.18 (0.17) 0.08 (0.08) Blanca Elsinore-Julian 23.7/38.2 7.1 0.12 (0.11) 0.06(0.06) As indicated in Tables 1, the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the 'active' fault considered having the most significant effect at the site from a design . standpoint (i.e. the design basis earthquake). A maximum moment earthquake of moment magnitude 7.2 on the fault could produce an estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration for soil and rock sites of 0.36g and 0.43g, respectively, at the site (with standard deviations as indicated). The offshore segment of the Rose Canyon fault is considered a Type B seismic source according to Table 16-U of the 2001 California Building Code (CBSC, 2001). Our seismic analysis is presented in Appendix D. The appropriate ground motions for the design of the proposed bridge structures is dependant upon the material beneath the proposed structures. The soil ground motions are appropriate for the abutments and bents located in the alluvial channel of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the rock ground motions are appropriate for the abutment and bent locations that will be founded on the Jurassic-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. 3.3 Caltrans Seismic Design In the case that the bridge structures will be designed according to Caltrans Methodology, we have utilized the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Seismic Hazard Map (Mualchin, 1996b) to provide the preliminary peak horizontal rock acceleration using Caltrans procedures. Caltrans considers the Newport Inglewood/ Rose Canyon fault -13- Leighton a strike-slip type seismic source capable of a maximum moment magnitude event of. M7.0. Utilizing deterministic contours shown of the seismic hazard map (Figure 6), a peak bedrock acceleration of approximately 0.40g is postulated at the sites. The soil profile type at the bridge sites underlain by the potentially liquefiable alluvial material is SF and Sc for the locations underlain by the Tertiary Santiago or Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics according to the Caltrans Seismic Design -Criteria (Caltrans, 2004). We performed a site specific seismic hazard analysis for the areas underlain by alluvial material, and it was concluded that the soil profile type 5D is appropriate for these areas. The standard ARS curves with the appropriate near corrections are considered to be appropriate for the design of the proposed bridge structures. Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. 3.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture No active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a mapped Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1997). As a result, shallow ground rupture due to a seismic event on a regional active fault is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. Several inactive faults have been mapped on and adjacent to the site and in our opinion are not a significant hazard. 3.3.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey material are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils where insufficient confining overburden is present over liquefied layers. Where sloping ground conditions are present, liquefaction- induced instability can result. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, geotechnical analysis and dynamic settlement calculations, it is our professional opinion that some bridge sites are underlain by potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. The maximum . 4 -14- Leighton [1JsIsi:I:sI.IsJi moment magnitude of M7.0, and a pga of 0.44 was considered for the ground motion. Our analysis indicates that the in-place alluvial soils in the vicinities of Borings B-i through B-5 are susceptible to liquefaction during a major seismic event on a regional active fault. A discussion on earthquake-induced settlement is presented in the following section and the results of the liquefaction analysis are presented in Table 3 and Appendix D of this report. The bedrock units, which may be below the water table at depth, are not considered liquefiable due to their over- consolidated condition. 3.3.3 Earthquake-Induced Settlement Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and the results of our analysis, a total dynamic settlement in the areas underlain by alluvial material of 4 to 13- inches could result from a maximum moment magnitude earthquake of M7.0 and the postulated maximum probable ground motion. Differential dynamic settlement is estimated at 2 to 7 inches. It is our understanding that the bridges in these areas will be founded on pile foundations, the proposed bridge structures are not anticipated to be affected appreciably by the dynamic settlement of the surrounding soil. The estimated, dynamic settlement of the ground surface at each boring location is presented in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated Ground Surface Dynamic Settlement Location Settlement (inches) B-i 13 B-2 7 B-3 5 B-4 4 B-5 4 3.3.4 Flow Failure and Lateral Spreading Empirical relationships have been derived by Youd and others (Youd, 1993, Bartlett and Youd, 1995, and Youd, et. al., 1999) to estimate the magnitude of lateral spreading due to liquefaction. These relationships include parameters such as earthquake magnitude, distance of earthquake from the site, slope height and angle, the thickness of liquefiable soil, and gradation characteristics of the soil. The potential for lateral spreading in the alluvial areas is considered high. The estimated magnitudes of permanent lateral displacement range from 1 to 6 feet. It 4 -15- Leighton I 600488-0001 is important to note that these estimates are order of magnitude estimates that are accurate within a factor of two. It is our understanding that the proposed bridge structures will be founded on groups of driven piles founded on formational material at relatively close spacings. It is our opinion that the pile driving process will desnify the soil immediately surrounding the pile groups sufficiently to resist liquefaction triggering, however the soil away from the pile groups will still be potentially liquefiable, and may displace laterally. Some resistance to lateral displacement will be provided by the proposed pile groups, however there is not an accepted and reliable way to estimate the effects of driven pile groups on estimated lateral displacement. Vertical settlements would be greatly increased if slope instability were to occur during an earthquake. The potential for seismically-induced slope instability, also referred to flow failure, is considered to be low, due to the relatively mild slope of the banks of Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the vicinities of the proposed bridges, and the depth of the potentially liquefying material beneath the existing ground surface. 3.3.5 Tsunamis and Seiches A tsunami is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic activity that displaces a relatively large volume of water in a very short period. Several factors at the originating point such as; earthquake magnitude, type of fault, depth of earthquake, focus, water depth, and the ocean bottom profile all contribute to the size and momentum of a tsunami (lida, 1969). Factors such as the distance away from the originating point, coastline profile (including width of the continental shelf), and angle at which the tsunami approaches also affect the size and severity of a tsunami. There have been over 500 tsunamis reported within recorded history, most of them occurring within the Pacific Ocean. Large tsunamis have been occurring somewhere in the Pacific Basin at an average rate of roughly one every 12 years. Table 8 presented below shows a number of great tsunamis representing each of the major generating zones within the Pacific Basin (Joy, 1968). . -16- Leighton 11 600488-0001 Table 3 Major Tsunamis Recorded in SanDiego County* San Diego La Jolla Arrival Wave Wave Event/Location Date Time Height Arrival Height (hour) (meters) Time (hour) (meters) Prince William 3/27/64 +6.2 1.1 +5.8 0.7 Sound, Alaska Southern -Chile 5/22/60 +14 1.4 +14 1.0 Aleutian 3/9/57 +6.9 0.5 +6.6 0.6 Islands Kamchatka 11/5/52 +9.6 0.7 +9.6 0.2 Aleutian 4/1/46 NR 0.4 +6.2 0.4 Islands Sanriku, Japan 3/3/33 NR Unknown NR 0.1 Cape Arguello, 11/4/27 NR 0.006 +0.98 0.006 California** * (Joy, 1968) ** This is the only well documented locally generated tsunami in California history. NR Not Recorded Tsunami wave heights and run-up elevations experienced along the Southern California coastline during the last 170 years (including the values presented in Table 12) have fallen within the normal range of tidal fluctuations. The Southern California coastline is not only favorably oriented (i.e. not directly in line with any of the major originating tsunami zones), it has a relatively wide (about 140 miles) and rugged continental shelf or borderland, which acts as a diffuser and reflector of remotely, generated tsunami wave energy (Joy, 1968). In addition, the existing geologic and seismic conditions (such as the abundance of strike-slip faults, and the scarcity of large submarine earthquakes) along the coastline also tend to minimize the likelihood of a localized tsunami. Based on experience with remotely generated tsunamis and the favorable geologic and seismic conditions along the coastline, there is little potential for catastrophic damage along the San Diego County coastline. However, minor problems such as flooding of low-lying coastal areas and material damage to some water front structures may occur due to high tides especially in conjunction with storm surges or high waves. 4 -17- Leighton 600488-0001 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our preliminary and supplemental geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are implemented during design and construction. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site. We anticipate that the weathered bedrock, alluvial soils, and artificial fills present on the site may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Heavy ripping and/ or special excavation techniques may be required in the foundation locations that are planned to extend in to the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics to accomplish foundation embedment into the bedrock. Laboratory test results indicate that the near-surface soils present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on concrete. The onsite soils are considered to have a moderate to high potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. These tests should be confirmed upon completion of the grading activities. Ground water was encountered at an elevation of approximately 4 to 18 feet bgs on the date of our supplemental investigation. Seasonal fluctuation is anticipated. Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The maximum anticipated bedrock ground acceleration on the site due to the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) bedrock ground motion is postulated to be 0.40g. The Abutments and Bents for the Farm Road, East, and 15 th Hole Bridges located in areas underlain by alluvial materials should be founded on driven piles to limit the amount of total and differential static and dynamic settlement, and lateral displacement. The Gorge Bridge may be founded on conventional spread footings embedded into the Jurassic-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics. -18- 4 Leighton 600488-0001 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Earthwork The primary earthwork operations anticipated for the construction of the proposed bridge structures consist of excavating trenching for the construction of the cap/grade beam along the top of the piles, excavations for spread footings in the bedrock units, and abutment wall backfill, and approach embankment construction. 5.1.1 Excavations Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches) will be generated during grading (excluding Santiago Peak Volcanics). However, if oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed as fill in accordance with the details presented in Appendix H. 5.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Fill soils placed in areas of proposed structural improvements and/or slopes within inclinations greater than 3 to 1 should be brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91. Fill material being placed as structure backfill for bridge abutment, bents, wing walls, and below vehicular pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. The 90 or 95 percent relative compaction should extend a minimum often feet outside the structural improvement footprint and downward at a 1:1 projection (horizontal to vertical) to competent material. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix H. -19- Leighton 600488-0001 is 5.2 Surface Drainage, Erosion, and Scour Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures should have appropriate drainage systems to collect runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structures toward suitable drainage facilities. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carlsbad grading ordinances. Scour of Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the areas of the proposed bridge structures may affect the proposed bridge structures. As discussed previously it has been assumed that soil will not be allowed to scour within a 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) projection extending downward from the bottom of the bents and abutments located near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Channel. 5.3 Foundation Design Considerations Based on our current understanding the proposed bridge structures will be supported by groups of driven 12-inch square concrete piles and capped with a grade beam or similar pile cap, in the alluvial areas and conventional spread footings for the locations in the bedrock units. The anticipated downward (compression) axial loads on each pile group were not provided for the preparation of this report. Based on a conversation with the structural engineers (Moffet and Nicol) the proposed piles are standard Caltrans Class 400 and 625 piles (46 and 70 ton structural axial capacity piles, respectively), the upward (tensile) or lateral design loads available at the time this report was prepared. The proposed pile foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. 5.3.1 Axial Capacity of Driven Pile Foundations Due to the loose condition of the alluvial material and the very dense condition of the underlying bedrock materials it is anticipated that the piles will be driven to bedrock. Appreciable embedment of the pile tips is not considered feasible. The ultimate and allowable axial pile capacities of 12 and 14-inch precast piles was determined by using information gathered from the exploratory borings performed in preparation for this report. The methodology outlined in the Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (Caltrans, 2003), and the computer program Apile 3.0 (Resse, et. al., 1998). The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix F of this report. -20- Leighton 600488-0001 . The following assumptions were made for the determination of the axial capacities of the proposed driven concrete piles. The soil profile would be relatively the same as that encountered during our supplemental investigation. The driven piles would extend to the underlying formational material. The driven piles will develop their geotechnical capacity from both skin friction and end bearing. No liquefaction mitigation will be performed. The structural design aspects of the piles such as pile cap and pile connections and structural section of the piles would be designed by the project structural engineer. Considering the proposed cutoff elevations and the depth to formational material the piles are anticipated to be approximately 48 to 56 feet long. These lengths will result in the design tip elevations in Table 4 referenced to mean sea level (msl) for the proposed driven piles: 21 $0 Leighton 600488-0001 Table 4 Pile Data Table Ultimate Axial Allowable Axial Cut Off Tip Compression Compression Location Boring Elev., Elev., Capacity, kips Capacity, kips feet msl feet, msl 12-inch 14-inch 12-inch 14-inch Farm Road Bridge Abutment No. B-1 36.5 -12 325 420 90 120 4 Pier No. 3 B-2 32.5 -23 440 565 125 160 Pier No. 2 B-4 32.5 -16.5 410 525 115 150 East Bridge Abutment No. B-3 45.5 +10 365 470 100 130 1 Abutment No. B-5 45.5 +9 450 585 130 165 2 The actual lengths and tip elevations may differ depending upon the subsurface conditions encountered during construction. The tip elevations for the 15 1h Hole Bridge could not be provided since the Abutment locations were not marked at . the time our supplemental investigation. Alluvial depths in this area are estimated to be on the order of 15 to 20 feet. The design tip elevation for Pier No. 3 of the Farm Road Bridge is also an estimate since bedrock was not encountered in Boring B-2. Due to the above-mentioned items, either a test pile program or additional subsurface investigation is recommended. Piles should be driven in a continuos operation to the recommended depths. Jetting is not recommended. Predrilling may be utilized, but not within 10 feet of the design tip elevations. In the event heaving occurs the piles should be redriven. The vibration associated with pile driving is anticipated to have an adverse affect on adjacent structures within 100 to 200 feet. The vibrations will cause settlement of the underlying soils and adjacent structures and improvements. The magnitude of this settlement is based on the proximity to the existing structures and the type of equipment used to drive the piles. We recommend that the pile driving contractor evaluate and address the anticipated settlement. In addition all pile driving operations should be performed under the observation of the soil engineer. . 4 -22- Leighton 600488-0001 The allowable uplift capacity can be taken as 40 percent of the allowable axial capacity in compression. These capacities are for an individual piles. Piles should not be placed closer than 3 pile diameters. If the recommended tip elevations cannot be obtained, or the pile spacing is closer than 3 pile diameters, additional foundation recommendations may be necessary. 5.3.2 Lateral Capacity of Driven Pile Foundations The lateral capacity of the 12 and 14-inch square driven concrete piles was evaluated using the computer program LPILE 4.0 (Reese et. al., 2000). The analysis assumed that there would be no mitigation for liquefaction, and the soil properties for the liquefiable material was reduced in accordance with the recommendations of recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridge. (ATC, 2003a, 2003b). The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix G of this report. The analysis of the piles considered the soil conditions encountered during our supplemental investigation, considered both free and fixed head conditions for the piles, and the following pile properties: . A concrete modulus of elasticity of at least 3,200,000 psi 0 . A gross moment of inertia's for a square sections of: 12-inch: 1728 in 14-inch: 3201 in The "gross cross section properties" (not cracked) No reinforcing steel was considered. . Maximum Lateral Displacement of ¼-inch. The curves presented in Appendix G are for individual piles. For pile groups the reduction factors presented in Table 5 should be used. If the piles are placed closer than three pile diameters then additional foundation recommendations may be necessary. . 4 -23- Leighton 600488-0001 Table 5 Pile Group Capacity Reductions Pile Spacing (Center to Center) Reduction in Lateral Capacity (percent) 7 Pile Diameters 100 6 Pile Diameters 95 5 Pile Diameters 90 4 Pile Diameters 85 3 Pile Diameters 75 5.3.3 Lateral Resistance of Cap! Grade Beam We have not included the passive resistance of the cap/ grade beam in this analysis. A passive resistances presented in Tables 5 and 6 are considered appropriate. 5.4 Shallow Foundation Recommendations Due to liquefaction potential in the areas of the proposed Farm Road, East and l5' Hole bridges, the use of conventional footings is not recommended in alluvial areas. For abutments and bents located on the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, or the Jurassic- aged Santiago Peak Volcanics, shallow footings bearing on competent formational material could be used for support of the structures. Conventional spread footings (i.e., continuous or isolated spread footings) should extend a minimum of 36 inches beneath the lowest adjacent soil grade and be founded in competent formational material and a setback from the face of slope of at least 4 feet (measured from the outside top corner of the footing). At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in competent formational material. (For the Gorge Bridge, if the final bridge location is within an area of massive dense rock, it will be possible to increase this value.) The bearing pressure for miscellaneous site retaining walls and other at-grade improvements should be limited to 2,500 psf. The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings -24- Leighton should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. Cut to fill transition should be reviewed once retaining wall plans are prepared. 5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values presented in Table 6 for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with on-site soils or approved granular material of very low expansion potential. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Dl 557). Retaining wall drains should also be installed, as needed. Table 6 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 (maximum 3.5 (ksf) 150 (sloping down) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 20 feet in height may be designed for an active equivalent fluid weights provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonyielding) such as abutment walls with perpendicular wing walls, the at-rest pressures should be used. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. For submerged conditions, Table 7 provides modified pressure values. In addition, a hydrostatic pressure equal to 62.4 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth should be applied as a normal force to the submerged element. Table 7 Submerged Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 18 18 At-Rest 28 33 Passive 200 75 Surcharge resulting from vehicular and seismic loading should be accounted for in wall (abutment) design utilizing Caltrans design procedures. Wall footings should be designed -25- Leighton 600488-0001 in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance the ultimate friction coefficient of 0.5 may be used at the concrete and granular soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two- thirds of the total resistance. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls not supported by deep foundations, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 10 feet. The geotechnical consultant should approve any backfill materials that will be utilized prior to the backfill placement operations. It is the contractors responsibility to provide representative samples of the selected backfill material. 5.6 Construction Observation and Plan Review A representative should observe all foundation operations (pile driving, excavations, etc.), and approve bottom clean-outs prior to concrete placement. Construction observation of pile driving, all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final project drawings and specifications should be checked by Leighton and Associates, Inc. before grading to see that the recommendations in this provided report are incorporated in project plans. -26- Leighton 600488-0001 6.0 LIMITATIONS The' conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. S • -27- Leighton ,.. For Legend see Figure No. 5. .-..-.55.. •••_. ---.5 .- ' _'•___.55 .. '5' 5P -.-- ..• __5__ 5- -5 _5___ C•SG - :;- - 77 7967 _ LIMITS OF Qal FA - \__'__ -_- DT_5 LIMITS OF RIPARIAN NORTH 0 40 80 Scale in Feet FARM BRIDGE FOUNDATION EXHIBIT Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Carlsbad, California Project No. 600488-001 Scale 1 11=40' Engr./Geol. HMRIMRS Drafted By KAM Date January 2005 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Figure No. 2 V T For Legend see Figure No. 5. Qal Z'e Co 43 7 / TD= / \ °: 61_8ig Qal LP /1 NORTH \ 0 40 80 \ \ ' Scale in Feet \ / Project No. 600488-001 EAST BRIDGE Scale 1"40' 4 Engr./Geol. HMRIMRS FOUNDATION EXHIBIT Drafted By KAM Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Date January 2005 Carlsbad, California Leighton Consultingj.nc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Figure No. 3 LEGEND Qal Quaternary Alluvium Tsa Tertiago Santiago Formation JSP Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics Approximate location of geologic contact — ..? (dashed where approximate, dotted where buried, queried where uncertain) Small diameter boring by Leighton and Associates (this investigation) 7 £'49ur EB N 1993259.73 E 6242093.47 15 E 6242076.27 Jsp NORTH 0 40 80 Scale in Feet FOUNDATION EXHIBIT Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Carlsbad, California GORGE BRIDGE Project No. 600488-001 Scale - 140' Engr./Geol HMRJMRS Drafted By KAM Date January 2005 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Figure No. 5 LEGEND: ) BASE MAP: CalTrans Seismic Hazard Map, Mualchin, 1996 0.7g Peak Acceleration Contour 0.6g Peak Acceleration Contour /V 0.5g Peak Acceleration Contour 0.4g Peak Acceleration Contour 0.3g Peak Acceleration Contour A/ 0.2g Peak Mcekradon Contour O.lg Peak Accera1ion Contour .."\/ Special Seismic Source (SSS) /V Faults with Fault Codes (MCE) 'State Highways /\J County Boundary Littilude & Longitude I Project No. 600488-001 CT SEISMIC HAZARD MAP Scale Not to scale Engr./Geol. HMR/MRS I Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Drafted By KAM I Carlsbad, California Date January2005 I Leighton Consulting, Inc. I ALEOHTON GROUP COMPANY Figure No. 6 600488-001 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Applied Technology Council (ATC)/Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), 2003, Recommendation LRFD Guideline for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Part I: Specifications, MCEERIATC-94. -, 2003, Recommendation LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Part II: Commentary and Appendices, MCEERIATC-94. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996, Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations. AASHTO, 2002, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridge, 17th Edition, 2002. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1996, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, 1996 Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995. Blake, 2000a, EQFAULT, Ver. 3.00b. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1990, Trenching and Shoring Manual, State of California Department of Transportation, Office of Structure Construction, dated January 1990. 1997, Foundation Manual, 1997. 2000, Memo To Bridge Designers 3-1, dated December 2000. 2001, Bridge Design Specifications Manual, 2001. 2002a, Guidelines for Foundation Investigations and Reports, dated June 2002. 2002b, 10-S Protection of Reinforcement Against Corrosion Due to Chlorides, Acids, and Sulfates, January 2002. 2002c, 2002 Dual Units Standard Plans, Sheet 132-5, 2002. I A-i [1iISI:f;SIsJ1 S APPENDIX A (Continued) 2003, Bridge Design Specifications, 2003. '2004, Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.3, dated February 2004 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Open-File Report 95-04. 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report, 96-08. 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, March 13, 1997. 1998, Maps of Known Active Faults Near-Surface Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, February 1998. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003. 5 CivilTech Corporation, 2001, Liquefy Pro, Version 3 Cooke H.G. and Mitchell, J.K., 1999, Guide to Remedial Measures for Liquefaction Mitigation at Existing Highway Bridge Sites, Technical Report MCEER-99-0015, dated July 26, 1999. County of San Diego, Orthotopo Maps, Sheets 374-1689, 374-1695. Frankel, A.D. and Lceyendecker, E.V.; Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra for the United States, Open File Report 01-436, United State Geologic Survey (USGS), 2001. Hannan, D., 1975, Faulting in the Vista, Carlsbad and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego County, California in Ross, A. and Dowlens, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of Camp Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 56-59. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. A-2 600488-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) lida, K., 1969, The Generation of Tsunami and the Focal Mechanism of Earthquake and Tsunami in the Pacific Ocean; Proceeding of the International Symposium on Tsunamis and Tsunami Research, University of Hawaii, East-West Center Press. Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1991, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp: 173- 188. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas; California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map 6, Scale 1:750,000. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Joy, J.W., 1968, Tsunamis and Their Occurrence Along the San Diego County Coast Prepared for the Unified San Diego County Civil Defense and Disaster Organization: Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Bedrock Lithologies, San Diego Coastal Area, California, in Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Association of Geologists Guidebook, A. Ross and R. J. Dowlen, eds., May, 1973, P. 9- 15. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1998, Geotechnical Investigation, for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-006, dated January 23, 1998. -, 1998, Geotechnical Investigation, For the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-006, dated January 23, 1998, revised February 26, 1998. In-house Unpublished and Published Data. Lindvall, S.C., and Rockwell, T.K., 1995, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, V. 100, No. B12, p. 24, 124-24, 132. Mualchin, L., 1996a, A Technical Report to Accompany the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map 1996 (Based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes), dated July 1996. .' A-3 600488-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) Mualchin, L., 1996b, California Seismic Hazard Detail Index Map 1996 Based on Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE). Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Counter Measures Against Soil Liquefaction, Technical Report MCEER 99- 0019, dated November 19, 1999. NCEER, 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Youd and Idriss editors, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, dated December 31, 1997. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sands, UGGE, April, 1998. Reese, L.C., Wang, S. T., Isenhower, W. M., Arrellaga, J. A., Hendrix, J., and Wang, S.T., 2000, Computer Program LPILE Plus Version 4.0 User's Guide, A Program for the Analysis of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Loads, Ensoft, Inc. Austin, Texas. Reese, L.C., Wang, S. T., and Arrellaga, J. A., 2001, Computer Program APILE Version 3.0, Ensoft, Inc. Austin, Texas. Reese, L.C., 1984, Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Load. Prepared for U.D. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Reese, L.C., Wang, S. T., and Arrellaga, J. A., 1998b, Computer Program APJLE Plus Version 3.0, A Program for the Analysis of the Axial Capacity of Driven Piles, Ensoft, Inc. Austin, Texas. Sadigh, K., 1997, Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. San Diego, City of 1992, Program Guidelines for Design Consultants, Corrosion Control Guidelines, February, pages 9-26. Seed, H.B., and Harder, L.F., 1990, SPT-Based Analysis of Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength, H. Bolton seed Memorial Symposium, 1990. A-4 600488-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) Seed, R.B., 1999, Engineering Evaluation of Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength, Proceedings; TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction Analysis, January 10, 1999. Short, A.R., 2001, ALTA!ASCM Land Title Survey of Lots 18-24, Tract No. 82-3, Vista, California, Project No. 101.71,2 sheets, dated June 25, 2001. Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association and Southern California Districts, Associated General Contractors, 1997, "Green Book" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction with 1999 Supplement. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02, Plate 1 of 2, Scale 1:24,000. Tan S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, 2 Plates. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pgs. 861-878. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), 1992, Engineering and Design Manual, EM 1110-1-1905, Bearing Capacity of Soils, pg 5-43, October 30, 1992. -, 1998, Technical Instructions: Seismic Design for Buildings, TI 809-04, December 1998. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego, California Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: National Center of Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. Youd, T.L., Hanson C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 1999, Revised MLR Equations for Predicting Lateral Spread Displacement, Proceedings of the 7 th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, November 19, 1999, pp. 99-114. A-5 Isi;fIi1 APPENDIX A (Continued) S Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., and Others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report form the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER!NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817 - 832. Weber, F.H., 1982, Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the Northern-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12LA, 77 p.. Youd, T. L., 1993, Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread Displacement, NCEL Tech. Note 1862, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California. Youd, T. L., Hanson C. M., and Bartlett, S. F., 1999, Revised MLR Equations for Predicting Lateral Spread Displacement, Proceedings of the 7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, November 19, 1999, pp. 99-114. Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in Ziony, ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth - 0 Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43-91. Aerial Photographs Photo Number Source Scale L AXN 8M-8 and 9, 1953 USDA 1:24,000 A-6 S GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Date Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Sheet 1 Project No. Type of Rig of 1 Drive Weight Location Drop > DESCRIPTION U) Z a) O - LL 0.0 CL EM [L > on Logged By U) I f - Sampled By Asphaltic concrete ,. Portland cement concrete CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; . sjitv clay: lean clay -—Or— ML Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity M1T Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt ML-CL Clayey silt to silty clay OW Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines - OP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines 10 1) 0 GM Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines - SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture SC _ _ Bedrock - Ground water encountered at time of drilling - B Bulk Sample 20— Core Sample C-i - Gl Grab Sample - R-1 Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 LD.) - SH - 1 Shelby Tube Sampler (3" O.D.) - 54 Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4" l.D.) 25— 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ' SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Date 7-12-04 Sheet 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. • Drilling Co. Tr-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Elevation 43' Location See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION 0. LL .2 23 E 0. 0.0 C1 CL 0 c = . ' o o Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM 0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oaf) @0': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to gray-brown, damp - to moist, loose 4 iø 5— R=1 13 107.2 20.4 @5': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist, loose PI,EI 35- @ 10': Silty fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray-brown, moist to wet, - 10- 01 R-2 17 CL very stiff 30 15- 15': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist to wet, SA - R-3 8 SC loose; some coarse grains 25 -.• 20— R-4 push ML @20': Clayey fine to sandy SILT: Gray to gray-brown, moist to wet, - 6 medium stiff; minor angular coarse grains 20- SP @23': Fine to coarse SAND: Light gray 25— R-5 push 102.6 23.8 SM @25': Silty fine SAND: Light gray, wet, very loose SA 15- S - 30-- AMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Date 7-12-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation Sheet 2 of 3 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 Tn-County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" 4 Location See Map DESCRIPTION g . =a, O - .!ci ILL U_ w 00. . CCl) M a.' i Logged By GJM CL Sampled By GJM I- 30— .:•. @30': Silty fine SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown, wet to - .•:. •. R-6 12 21.8 SM saturated, loose 10- 35—:. @35': No recovery - . . . .. 15 5- @ 40': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, moist -200 - 5-1 8 SC to wet, loose; with catcher P @45': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, moist SA S-2 10 to wet, loose; with catcher - @ 50': Fine to medium CLAY to AND: Brown to 11 CLJSC damp to (with catcher) 1TI TT:ITTs _10- 55— S3 S-4 50/6" SM TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) .. 55': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, - damp to moist, very dense (with catcher) -15- 60— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS P RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD 1. MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Date 7-12-04 Project •Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8 Elevation lop of Elevation Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tri-Cou Drive Weight 43, Location Sheet 3 of 3 Project No. 600488-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" See Map C 41 > DESCRIPTION U) Z 'U)O 5 - nco .CC)I- - 0. oLI U)WO. 0 CD E w a.o > o Logged By GJM 0. Cl) ci 0 Sampled By GJM I- 60— . .. . 5074" _6ff: No recovery - Total Depth = 60.5 Feet - - Ground water encountered at 4 feet at time of drilling Backfilled with bentonite on 7/12/04 -20 - 65— -25 - 70— 3O 75— -35 - 80— -40 - 85— -45 - 90-- SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 'SPLIT RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 7-12-04 Sheet 1 of 3 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 • Drilling Co. Tn-County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem er Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Elevation Top of Elevation 42' Location See Map O N S Z E. U) no oI : >, U) CL o w . (CCI) _u5 DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM _____ U) U) 'I- I— 0— CL QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal) @ 0': Fine to sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist, medium stiff; organic odor 40 - 5— R-I 17 116.3 19.7 CL @5': Fine medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist very ,CR B-I stiff t5' -12 35 - 10— 10': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist, very 30 s-i ii stiff 15— R-2 push 22.9 SC @ 15': Little recovery, clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown, wet to saturated, loose 25 - 20— S-2 push @20': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown, SA wet, loose 20 - 25— @25': No recovery 20 15- 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: P SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATERBURG LIMITS 4 - B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEII3HTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 7-12-04 Sheet 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. • Drilling Co. Tn-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Elevation 42 Location ) See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION w o .j G) ILL a OU m O on Logged By GJM N S1 i) a Sampled By GJM @30: Fine to coarse SAND grades to silty fine to medium SAND: SA S-3 19 SM Light gray to fight gray-brown, moist, medium dense 10 35—:@ 35: Silty fine to medium SAND: Light gray-brown, wet to SA - . R-3 16 20.9 SM saturated, loose (with catcher) 40— @40': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown; S-4 5 SC wet, loose; minor orange oxidation staining medium SAND Mottled gray and orange moist P1 R-4 14 268 50— 50': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Mottled, gray and orange, moist S-5 11 to wet, loose (with catcher) -10 No recovery, no catcher 15 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS PSPLIT RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 42' Date 7-12-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8' Elevation lop of Elevation of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Location See Map Carlsbad M Golf Course Sheet 3 Project No. Type of Rig g d DESCRIPTION U' . C, a) • Z a) O a wcn i..- a) ILL LL CLO o , U)W Q. _CO o E £fla, o o Logged By GJM CL a) (0 C.) CO'- IN Sampled By GJM I- 60— S6 19 @60: Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown to olive-brown, moist, medium dense -20 - Total Depth =61.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 12 feet at time of drilling Backfihled with bentonite on 7/12/04 65— -25 - 70— 30 75— -35 - 80— -40 - 85— -45 - 90— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS P SPLIT RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 7-12-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8' Elevation Top of Elevation Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Drive Weight 51' Location Sheet 1 Project No. Type of Rig 140 pound hammer See Map of 2 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" M 0L1 CL 0.o -J L S U) p — Z E (C co . (1)0 0L wo Q U) a CL ....+ 0 U) i DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM CA U) 0 C, 0. > I— - 0— ' QUATERNARY ALLUViuM (Qal) 50 @0': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to dark gray, damp to moist, stiff 1 5': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Black to dark brown, damp to CN 45 R-1 21 112.1 18.8 moist, very stiff 10— @ 10': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Brown to light brown, wet to loose 40 S-i 9 SC saturated, 15- 15': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Light brown to gray-brown, moist SA R-2 15 107.9 19.8 to wet, loose 20— @20': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Light brown to gray-brown, moist 30 S-2 14 15.1 to wet, loose (with catcher) 25— @ 25' Clayey fme to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, wet to SA 25 R-3 34 saturated, medium dense (with catcher) 30- S) PLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIUHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 7-12-04 Project .V rilling Co. ole Diameter 8' Elevation Top of Elevation Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tri-Cou Drive Weight 51' Location Sheet 2 Project No. Type of Rig 140 pound hammer See Map of 2 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" g DESCRIPTION cugj _ o. . 0.0 0 c'.- 00 I- >u.. u CL._j - 0. E - 00. W .-4-. 0 () - 0 20 i Logged By GJM 0. co Sampled By GJM I— ° 30': Clayey fine to coarse SAND to silty S: Light gray-brown, 20 - S-3 19 22.3 SC wet, medium dense (no catcher) 1/ @35': Fine to coarse SAND grades to gravelly SAND: Orane-brown . 0 Is - . R-4 74/11" SP/GP to brown, moist to wet, very dense; angular gravels up to 1' (no catcher) 40— •. . S-4 82/10" 10 - SM .. .:•: .. @41': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, - moist, very dense; slightly friable (with catcher) 45— R-5 50/4" 45': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, - \ moist, very deijellghtl friable (with catcher), little recovery / Total Depth = 45.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling Backfilled with bentonite on 7/12/04 50— 0 - 55— -5 60— AMPLE TYPES: TYPE SPOON G GRAB OF TESTS:: SPLIT SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS tT RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Carlsbad Municipal Tr-Co Drive Weight 38' Location Date 7-13-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8' Elevation Top of Elevation Sheet 1 of 3 Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 unty Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" See Map D.a, Li C.) 0.0 0 —I 00 Z U)O in- 60 >' >, U) 0 w '- . ('DCl) DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM U) U) a) I— a) >' I— o QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) Cd 0': Fine sandy CLAY: Black, moist, medium stiff 35 5— J 5': Fine sandy CLAY: Black, moist, medium, very stiff R-1 17 3. 10— @ 10' Clayey fine to medium SAND to to medium sandy CLAY: SA 12 24.3 25- fine SC Gray to gray-brown, moist to wet, medium dense 15— @ 15': No recovery, install catcher 22 20- 20-1 @ 20': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, very - S-2 22 CL stiff (no catcher) 15- 25— @ 25': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist to SA - R-2 18 16.9 CL wet, stiff; disturbed (with catcher) 10 - 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 40 SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 38' Date 7-13-04 Project Drilling Co. is Hole Diameter 8' Elevation Top of Elevation Sheet 3 of 3 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Location See Map g DESCRIPTION U) U) C) V Z w (flO o - w 0 E 0.U. U)Q) o - E mw o *5=i Logged By GJM Cl) () Cl)- I IN li Sampled By GJM 60--;- 30J5' SM TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsc) \@ 60: Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to yellow-brown, damp to moist. yrydiise (little recovery) Total Depth = 60.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling -25 - Backfihled with bentonite on 7/13/04 65- -30- 70- 35- 75- 40- 80- 45- 85- -50- 90-- SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATI'ERBURG LIMITS P 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date 7-13-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation 38' Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr -County Drive Weight Location i pound hammer See Sheet 2 Project No. Type of Rig of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Steger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION g LL U_ . 2~33 i Logged By GJM 0. I— S1 Sampled By GJMN Spush ST @30': Silty fine to medium SAND: Gray, wet to saturatred, loose 7 (with catcher-poor recovery) 5 18 21.4 SC @ 35': Silty fine to coarse SAND with interbedded clayey SAND: Gray to light -brown, wet, medium dense (with catcher) PI,-200 • - R-3 gray 40— @40': CLAY: Mottled gray to dark gray, moist, stiff (with catcher) - S-4 12 CL 4 5 45— push @45': Poor to no recovery (no catcher) 12 -10 - 50— S-5 push CL @50': CLAY to fine sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, stiff 12 -15 - @55': Clayey fine to medium SAND to sandy CLAY: Mottled, R-4 38 22.0 SC yellow-brown to light gray-brown, moist, medium dense (with 1'.•.• catcher) -20- 0 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Date 7-13-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Elevation 51 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Sheet 1 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. Tr-County Type of Rig Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Location See Map I! of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" - DESCRIPTION • Q) CL .. CL , >M 0 5 Logged By GJM CL Cl) C.) Sampled By GJM 1- 0 c QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal) so - @ 0: Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown to brown, damp to moist, medium dense R-I 21 5': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist, medium dense with catcher) EI,CR 5-i2 S-1 14 @ medium SAND Gray brown moist medium 40 15— IT: Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Light brown, moist, stiff (with SA 35 - R-2 13 CL catcher) 20— .. 20': Silty fine to coarse SAND grades to clayey fine to medium SA 30 - .:. S-2 15 SM SAND: Orange-brown, wet to saturated, medium dense 25 @25': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Orange-brown, wet to saturated, 25 - R-3 26 99.3 22.6 SC medium dense 301_ SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE 511 SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 7-13-04 Sheet 2 of 3 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 Drilling Co. Tr-Co Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Elevation Top of Elevation 51 Location See Map DESCRIPTION U) C) Z U)O U' 00 C, E Ou 0 C) . o i Logged By GJM _________0. __________ ________ N Sampled By GJM >,. I— TT @ 30': Clayey line to coarse gravelly SAND: Orange-brown (mottled) 20 - 0A R-4 76 (IC moist to wet, dense (with catcher) 35— @ 35': CLAY to fine sandy CLAY: Dark gray to gray, moist, very stiff 15 - R-5 25 28.6 CL (with catcher) 40— @40': Fine sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, very stiff (with SA 10 Ii - S-3 18 CL catcher) 45— R-6 25 CL/SC @45': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, moist, very still (with catcher) P1 5 - 50— S-4 16 @50': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, most, very stiff (with catcher) i 0 - 55— R-7 28 27.2 @55': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, moist, very still (with catcher) -5 - 60— SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: :4 RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT AUERBURG LIMITS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R.VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 7-13-04 Sheet 3 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. • Drilling Co. Tr-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Elevation 51 Location See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" a > DESCRIPTION U, 4-. .2 z W Oaw. 00 u,w U- 0.0 LL I.. - 0. E - mw 0. 0 1r .. M Z'o o Logged By GJM 0. (l) () (l) Sampled By GJM I- N s 60—'.* s5 100T11 TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) -10 - @60: Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, moist to very \ dense Total Depth = 61 Feet - Ground water encountered at 18 feet at time of drilling - Backfilled with bentonite on 7/13/04 65- -15- 70- -20- - 75- -25 - 80- -30 - 85- -35 - 90— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT AUERBURG LIMITS 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R.VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 9Ii:l;iIsJJ APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only the moisture content was determined from disturbed samples. Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Methods C136 or D422). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in both the test data and the boring and/or trench logs. The percent fine particles from these analyses are summarized below. Sample Location [_Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve B-1@15Feet 38 B-1@25Feet 26 B-1@40Feet 42 - B-l@45Feet 27 B-2@20 Feet 40 B-2@30Feet 14 B-2@35Feet 20 B-3 @ 15 Feet 38 B-3@25Feet 31 B-4@l0Feet 43 B-4@25 Feet 57 B-4@35Feet 23 B-5@l5Feet 57 B-5 @ 20 Feet 22 B-S @ 40 Feet 66 c-i sIsI:I:iI.jj APPENDIX C (Continued) Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples in accordance with Modified ASTM Test Method D2435. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1- inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented on the attached figures. Where applicable, time-rates of consolidation were recorded and presented below: Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and presented in the table below: Sample Description Liquid Limit (°"°) Plastic Limit (%) Plastic Index (%) USCS Soil Classification B-1@05Feet 32 10 22 CL B-2@45 Feet 38 11 27 CL B-4@35 Feet 41 15 26 CL B-5@45 Feet 44 14 30 CL Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2 and/or ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Compacted Dry Expansion Expansion Density (,pcf) Index Potential B-i, 5 - 10 Feet Brown Silty-Clayey SAND 108.0 22 Low (SM-SC) B-5, 5 - 10 Feet Brown Silty SAND (SM) 108.6 13 Very Low 0 Ift S APPENDIX C (Continued) Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422. The results are presented below: Sample Location [ Chloride Content, ppm Chloride Attack Potential* B-2 @ 5-12' 300 Threshold / Positive B-S @ 5-12' 300 Threshold I Positive *per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992. Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643 for Steel or CT532 for concrete and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Sample Description pH Minimum Resistivity Location (ohms-cm) B-2, 5-12 Feet Brown Silty SAND (SM) 7.69 B-5, 5-12 Feet Brown Silty SAND (SM) 1511 2336 F_ 7.75 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Sulfate Content Potential Degree of (ppm) Sulfate Attack* B-2, 5 -12 Feet Brown Silty SAND (SM) 180 Negligible B-5, 5-12 Feet Brown Silty SAND (SM) 210 Negligible * Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997). C-3 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course m. 50 40 30 20 4SITE 10 ri -10 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 1~ 0 *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * Version 3.00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 600488-001 DATE: 10-11-2004 JOB NAME: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course CALCULATION NAME: Carlsbad 1 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1316 . SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3008 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 0 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ------------------------------ Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE IINTENSITY I I ============== I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON I 5.4( 8.7)1 ========== 7.2 I 0.361 I IX NEWPORT-INGLEW000 (Offshore) I 7.6( 12.2)1 7.1 I 0.297 I IX CORONADO BANK I 21.4( 34.5)1 7.6 1 0.175 1 VIII ELSINORE (JULIAN) I 23.7( 38.2)1 7.1 I 0.120 I VII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 23.7( 38.2)1 6.8 I 0.100 I VII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 35.4( 57.0)1 6.8 I 0.062 I VI SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 38.1( 61.3)1 6.6 I 0.063 1 VI PALOS VERDES I 38.4( 61.8)1 7.3 I 0.081 I VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 41.8( 67.2)1 6.5 I 0.040 I V SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.5( 74.9)1 7.2 I 0.060 I vi SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.5( 76.5)1 6.9 I 0.046 I VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I . CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 48.8( 78.5)1 7.1 I 0.052 I VI 50.1( 80.6)1 6.7 I 0.047 I VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 51.1( 82.2)1 6.6 I 0.033 I V WHITTIER 1 53.6( 86.2)1 6.8 I 0.036 I V ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 55.6( 89.4)1 6.8 I 0.035 I V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 61.3( 98.6)1 6.7 I 0.028 I V PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 64.1( 103.1)1 7.1 I 0.046 I VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 64.2( 103.3)1 6.6 I 0.024 1 IV SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.5 I 0.047 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Whole N-la I 66.4( 106.8)1 8.0 I 0.069 I VI SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.055 I VI SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. N-2b I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.055 I VI SAN JOSE I 70.4( 113.3)1 6.4 I 0.022 I IV PINTO MOUNTAIN I 72.1( 116.0)1 7.2 I 0.033 I V C[JCANONGA I 72.3( 116.3)1 6.9 I 0.033 I V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella N-lc-5 I 72.8( 117.1)1 7.2 I 0.033 I V SIERRA MADRE I 73.1( 117.6)1 7.2 I 0.042 I VI NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE I (West) 76.3( 122.8)1 7.2 I 0.040 I V BURNT MTN. I 76.5( 123.1)1 6.5 I 0.017 I IV CLEGHORN I 79.0( 127.1)1 6.5 I 0.016 I IV UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 79.5( 128.0)1 6.4 I 0.019 I IV EUREKA PEAK I 79.7( 128.3)1 6.4 I 0.015 I IV SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 80.3( 129.3)1 6.6 I 0.017 I IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 80.8( 130.0)1 6.7 I 0.024 I IV SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj N-lb-1 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.046 I VI SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.046 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave N-lc-3 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.4 I 0.034 I V RAYMOND I 81.6( 131.4)1 6.5 I 0.020 I IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 82.5( 132.8)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE INTENSITY I I ========== I MAG. (Mw) I I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. I ELMORE RANCH I 84.0( 135.2)1 6.6 I ========== 0.016 I IV VERDUGO I 84.9( 136.6)1 6.9 I 0.026 1 V SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 85.0( 136.8)1 6.6 I 0.016 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA I 86.7( 139.6)1 7.0 1 0.022 I IV HOLLYWOOD I 86.9( 139.8)1 6.4 I 0.016 1 IV LANDERS I 87.2( 140.4)1 7.3 I 0.028 I V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 89.2( 143.5)1 7.3 1 0.027 I V SANTA MONICA 1 91.2( 146.7)1 6.6 I 0.018 I IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.8( 149.4)1 7.5 I 0.030 I V BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 93.5( 150.4)1 6.4 I 0.011 I III MALIBU COAST I 94.5( 152.1)1 6.7 I 0.019 I IV JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.1( 153.0)1 6.7 I 0.015 I IV EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 95.8( 154.2)1 7.0 I 0.019 I IV SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I . 97.9( 157.5)1 6.7 I 0.018 I IV NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) I 98.9( 159.2)1 7.0 I 0.023 I IV SAN GABRIEL I 99.7 ( 160.4)1 7.2 I 0.021 I IV ANACAPA-DUME I 99.9 ( 160.8)1 7.5 I 0.035 I V -END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.4 MILES (8.7 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3607 g *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 600488-001 DATE: 10-11-2004 JOB NAME: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course CALCULATION NAME: Carlsbad 2 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1316 S SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3008 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km CampbellSSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 S E S --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE IINTENSITY I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON I 5.4( 8.7)1 7.2 I 0.538 I X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 7.6( 12.2)1 7.1 1 0.443 I X CORONADO BANK 1 21.4( 34.5)1 7.6 1 0.262 I IX ELSINORE (JULIAN) 1 23.7( 38.2)1 7.1 I 0.180 I VIII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 23.7( 38.2)1 6.8 I 0.154 I VIII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 35.4( 57.0)1 6.8 I 0.096 I VII SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 38.1( 61.3)1 6.6 I 0.100 I VII PALOS VERDES I 38.4( 61.8)1 7.3 I 0.120 I VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 41.8( 67.2)1 6.5 I 0.065 I VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.5( 74.9)1 7.2 I 0.089 I VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.5( 76.5)1 6.9 I 0.070 I VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 48.8( 78.5)1 7.1 I 0:078 I VII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I • 50.1( 80.6)1 6.7 I 0.074 I VII SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 51.1( 82.2)1 6.6 I 0.052 I VI WHITTIER I 53.6( 86.2)1 6.8 I 0.056 I VI ELSINOE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 55.6( 89.4)1 6.8 I 0.053 I VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 61.3( 98.6)1 6.7 I 0.043 I VI PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 64.1('103.1)1 7.1 I 0.069 I VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 64.2( 103.3)1 6.6 I 0.038 I V SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.5 I 0.071 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Whole N-la I 66.4( 106.8)1 8.0 I 0.103 I VII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. N-lb-2 I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.082 I VII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.082 I VII SAN JOSE I 70.4( 113.3)) 6.4 I 0.037 I V PINTO MOUNTAIN I 72.1( 116.0)1 7.2 I 0.050 I VI CUCANONGA I 72.3( 116.3)1 6.9 I 0.050 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5 I 72.8( 117.1)1 7.2 I 0.049 I VI SIERRA MADRE I 73.1( 117.6)1 7.2 I 0.063 I VI NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 76.3( 122.8)1 7.2 I 0.059 I VI BURNT NTN. I 76.5( 123.1)1 6.5 I 0.027 I V CLEGHORN I 79.0( 127.1)1 6.5 I 0.026 I V UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 79.5( 128.0)1 6.4 I 0.031 I V EUREKA PEAK I 79.7( 128.3)1 6.4 I 0.024 I IV SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 80.3( 129.3)1 6.6 I 0.027 I V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 80.8( 130.0)1 6.7 I 0.037 I V SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj N-lb-1 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.069 I VI SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a I 80.8( 130.1.) I 7.8 I 0.069 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 1 80.8( 130.1)1 7.4 I 0.050 I VI RAYMOND I 81.6( 131.4)1 6.5 I 0.032 I V CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 82.5( 132.8)1 6.5 I 0.031 I V S ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ELMORE RANCH I 84.0( 135.2)1 6.6 I 0.026 1 V VERDUGO I 84.9( 136.6)1 6.9 1 0.040 I V SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 85.0( 136.8)1 6.6 I 0.025 I V LAGUNA SALADA I 86.7( 139.6)1 7.0 I 0.032 1 V HOLLYWOOD I 86.9( 139.8)1 6.4 I 0.027 1 V LANDERS I 87.2( 140.4)1 7.3 1 0.041 I V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 89.2( 143.5)1 7.3 I 0.040 I V SANTA MONICA I 91.2( 146.7)1 6.6 I 0.029 1 V LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.8( 149.4)1 7.5 I 0.045 I VI BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 93.5( 150.4)1 6.4 I 0.019 I IV MALIBU COAST I 94.5( 152.1)1 6.7 I 0.030 I V JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.1( 153.0)1 6.7 I 0.023 I IV EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 95.8( 154.2)1 7.0 I 0.028 I V SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 97.9( 157.5)1 6.7 I 0.028 I V NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) I S 98.9( 159.2)1 7.0 I 0.034 I V SAN GABRIEL I 99.7 ( 160.4)1 7.2 I 0.031 I V ANACAPA-DUNE I 99.9 ( 160.8)1 7.5 I 0.052 I VI -END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.4 MILES (8.7 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.5381 g 0 * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * * ** ** ** ***** * *** * * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 600488-001 DATE: 10-11-2004 JOB NAME: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course CALCULATION NAME: Carlsbad 4 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1316 S SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3008 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 21) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program F11eS\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE IINTENSITY I I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON I 5.4( 8.7)1 7.2 I 0.428 I X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 7.6( 12.2)1 7.1 1 0.339 I IX CORONADO BANK 1 21.4( 34.5)1 7.6 I 0.172 I VIII ELSINORE (JULIAN) I 23.7( -38.2)1 7.1 I 0.112 I VII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 23.7( 38.2)1 6.8 I 0.092 I VII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 35.4( 57.0)1 6.8 I 0.052 I VI SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 38.1( 61.3)1 6.6 1 0.047 I VI PALOS VERDES I 38.4( 61.8)1 7.3 I 0.068 I VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 41.8( 67.2)1 6.5 I 0.031 I V SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.5( 74.9)1 7.2 I 0.047 I VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.5( 76.5)1 6.9 I 0.035 I V NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 48.8( 78.5)1 7.1 I 0.040 I V CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I • 50.1( 80.6)1 6.7 I 0.033 I V SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 51.1( 82.2)1 6.6 I 0.024 I V WHITTIER I 53.6( 86.2)1 6.8 I 0.027 I V ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 55.6( 89.4)1 6.8 I 0.025 I V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 61.3( 98.6)1 6.7 I 0.019 I IV PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 64.1( 103.1)1 7.1 I 0.031 I V SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 64.2( 103.3)1 6.6 I 0.016 I IV SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.5 I 0.034 I V SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la I 66.4( 106.8)1 8.0 I 0.052 I VI SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.041 I V SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.041 I V SAN JOSE I 70.4( 113.3)1 6.4 I 0.014 I IV PINTO MOUNTAIN I 72.1( 116.0)1. 7.2 I 0.023 I IV CUCAMONGA I 72.3( 116.3) I 6.9 I 0.021 I IV SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5 I 72.8( 117.1)1 7.2 I 0.023 I IV SIERRA MADRE I 73.1( 117.6)1 7.2 I 0.027 I V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 76.3( 122.8)1 7.2 I 0.025 I V BURNT MTN. I 76.5( 123.1)1 6.5 I 0.011 I III CLEGHORN I 79.0( 127.1)1 6.5 I 0.010 I III UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 79.5( 128.0)1 6.4 I 0.011 I III EUREKA PEAK I 79.7( 128.3)1 6.4 I 0.009 I III SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 80.3( 129.3)1 6.6 I 0.011 I III NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 80.8( 130.0)1 6.7 I 0.014 I IV SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.032 I V SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.032 I V SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.4 I 0.023 I IV RAYMOND I 81.6( 131.4)1 6.5 I 0.012 I III CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 82.5( 132.8)1 6.5 I 0.011 I III 0 S DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I I MAG. (MW) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ELMORE RANCH I 84.0( 135.2)1 6.6 1 0.010 1 III VERDUGO I 84.9( 136.6)1 6.9 I 0.016 I IV SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 85.0( 136.8)1 6.6 I 0.010 I III LAGUNA SALADA 1 86.7( 139.6)1 7.0 1 0.014 I IV HOLLYWOOD 1 86.9( 139.8)1 6.4 I 0.009 I III LANDERS I 87.2( 140.4)1 7.3 I 0.018 I IV HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 89.2( 143.5)1 7.3 I 0.017 I IV SANTA MONICA I 91.2( 146.7)1 6.6 I 0.010 I III LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.8( 149.4)1 7.5 I 0.019 I IV BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 93.5( 150.4)1 6.4 1 0.007 I II MALIBU COAST I 94.5( 152.1)1 6.7 I 0.011 I III JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.1( 153.0)1 6.7 I 0.009 I III EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 95.8( 154.2)1 7.0 I 0.012 I III S SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 97.9( 157.5)1 6.7 I 0.010 I III NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) I 98.9( 159.2)1 7.0 I 0.013 III SAN GABRIEL I 99.7 ( 160.4)1 7.2 I 0.013 I III ANACAPA-DUME I 99.9 ( 160.8)1 7.5 I 0.021 I IV ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.4 MILES (8.7 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4275 g 0 *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 600488-001 DATE: 10-11-2004 JOB NAME: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course CALCULATION NAME: Carlsbad 3 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1316 40 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3008 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 21) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 -1 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 -------------------------------- IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON I 5.4( 8.7)1 7.2 I 0.626 I X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 7.6( 12.2)1 7.1 1 0.503 I X CORONADO BANK I 21.4( 34.5)1 7.6 I 0.251 I IX ELSINORE (JULIAN) I 23.7( 38.2)1 7.1 I 0.167 I VIII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 23.7( 38.2)1 6.8 I 0.142 I VIII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 35.4( 57.0)1 6.8 1 0.080 I VII SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 38.1( 61.3)1 6.6 I 0.075 I VII PALOS VERDES I 38.4( 61.8) I 7.3 I 0.099 I VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 41.8( 67.2)1 6.5 I 0.050 I VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.5( 74.9)1 7.2 1 0.069 I VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.5) 76.5)1 6.9 I 0.054 I VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I . CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 48.8( 78.5)1 7.1 I 0.060 I VI 50.1( 80.6)1 6.7 I 0.052 I VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 51.1( 82.2)1 6.6 I 0.039 I V WHITTIER I 53.6( 86.2)1 6.8 I 0.041 I V ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 55.6( 89.4)1 6.8 I 0.039 I V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 61.3( 98.6)1 6.7 I 0.030 I V PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 64.1( 103.1)1 7.1 I 0.046 I VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 64.2( 103.3)1 6.6 I 0.026 I V SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.5 I 0.050 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la I 66.4) 106.8)1 8.0 I 0.076 I VII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.059 I VI SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b I 66.4( 106.8)1 7.7 I 0.059 I VI SAN JOSE I 70.4) 113.3)1 6.4 I 0.023 I IV PINTO MOUNTAIN I 72.1( 116.0)1 7.2 I 0.034 I V CUCAMONGA I 72.3( 116.3)1 6.9 I 0.032 I V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-1c-5 I 72.8( 117.1)1 7.2 I 0.033 I V SIERRA MADRE I 73.1( 117.6)1 7.2 I 0.039 I V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 76.3( 122.8)1 7.2 I 0.037 I V BURNT MTN. I 76.5( 123.1)1 6.5 I 0.017 I IV CLEGHORN I 79.0( 127.1)1 6.5 I 0.016 I IV UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 79.5( 128.0)1 6.4 I 0.018 I IV EUREKA PEAK I 79.7( 128.3)1 6.4 I 0.015 I IV SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 80.3( 129.3)1 6.6 I 0.017 I IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 80.8( 130.0)1 6.7 I 0.022 I IV SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1 I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.047 I VI SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a I 80.8( 130.1)1 7.8 I 0.047 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 I 80.8(130.1)1 7.4 I 0.033 I V RAYMOND I 81.6( 131.4)) 6.5 I 0.019 I IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 82.5( 132.8)1 6.5 I 0.018 I IV fl DETERMINISTIC ----------------------------- ----------------------------- SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ELMORE RANCH I 84.0( 135.2)1 6.6 I 0.016 1 IV VERDUGO I 84.9( 136.6)1 6.9 I 0.024 I V SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 85.0( 136.8)1 6.6 1 0.016 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA I 86.7( 139.6)1 7.0 I 0.021 I IV HOLLYWOOD I 86.9( 139.8)1 6.4 I 0.015 1 IV LANDERS I 87.2( 140.4)1 7.3 I 0.026 I V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 89.2( 143.5)1 7.3 I 0.025 I V SANTA MONICA I 91.2( 146.7)1 6.6 I 0.017 I IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART--OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.8( 149.4)1 7.5 I 0.028 1 V BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 93.5( 150.4)1 6.4 I 0.011 I III MALIBU COAST 1 94.5( 152.1)1 6.7 I 0.017 I IV JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.1( 153.0)1 6.7 I 0.014 1 IV EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 95.8( 154.2)1 7.0 I 0.017 I IV SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I . NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) I 97.9( 157.5)1 6.7 I 0.016 I IV 98.9( 159.2)1 7.0 I 0.020 I IV SAN GABRIEL I 99.7 ( 160.4)1 7.2 I 0.019 I IV ANACAPA-DUME I 99.9 ( 160.8)1 7.5 I 0.030 I V ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.4 MILES (8.7 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6264 g 0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Hole No.B-1 Water DepthO ft Surface Elev.43 Magnitude7.0 AcceIeration0.44g Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement O LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Hole No.B-2 Water DepthO ft Surface Elev-42 Magnitude7 Acceleration0.44g I Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement 13 130 NoLq I—_109 125 38 E 1 —20 14 40 98 NoLq 93 NoLq Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 50 21 125 31 19 50 10 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Hole No. =B-3 Water DepthO ft Surface Elev.51 Magnitude=7 Acceleration=0.44g Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement NO SPT Weight % 0 ' 0.5 0 1 5 S=4.66in. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Hole No.=B-4 Water DepthO ft Surface Elev.=38 Magnitude7 Acceleration0.44g Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement (Ii) or, VVI&tIL 70 11 135 NoLq 10 12 130 43 14 130 43 II 20 22 135 NoLq 11 135 NoLq L30 7 130 26 L11 130 NoLq L40 12 135 NoLq 7 135 NoLq 50 12 135 NoLq L 24 130 40 E 0 60 120130 5 Co 70 UF D C C Co -C I- U V.0 I I I I I I I Al fs= I fs:1.30 / CRR— CSR— - Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential I 'UD 1!1 .EMEWEEMEEMEmuI wet — S =4.l6in. Project # 600488-001 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Hole No=B-5 Water Depth-O ft Surface E!ev.51 Magnitude7 Acceleration0.44g Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement LSPT Weight % 0 0.5 0 1 5 0 I I I I I 13 125 NoLq —10 14 57 8 57 [2Oi5fl L 16 30 30 47 10 15 NoLq F 40 18 NoLq 15 NoLq F L 50 16 NoLq 17 NoLq F 60 109 5 F —70 Wet— Dry S =4.09 in. Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Project # 600488-001 depth= 55.5 - 90; Sand 0 0 0 11) U) LO Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 v Skin Friction - a Tip Resistance • Total Capacity 0 (0 Farm Road Bridge B-4,12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -16.5 msl, Cutoff Elev.= +32.5 msl, Static Conditions Axial Load (kips) 0 ('4 C CD ('4 I I I I r I v Curve #11 Farm Road Bridge B-4,12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -16.5 msl, Cut off Elev. +32.5 msl, Static Conditions depth= 54.5 - 90; Sand Axial Capacity (kips) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 I I I II III II I I II liii II I \ • \ _____ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ A • f Skin Friction = o Tip Resistance = A Total Capacity East Bridge B-3, 12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +10 msl, Cut off Elev.= +45.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 0 C r Axial Load (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 I Curve #1 East Bridge B-3, 12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +10 msl, Cut off Elev. +45.5 msl, Static Conditions depth= 0 -4.5; Clay depth= 4.5- 19.5; Sand depth= 19.5-29.5; Sand depth= 29.5 - 35.5; Sand depth= 35.5 - 90; Sand S C C Lf 0 Q r Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 liii !!IIIlII liii liii III \ 'J \ \ v Skin Friction - o Tip Resistance - -Total Capacity 0 (0 East Bridge .B-5, 12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +9 msl, Cut off Elev. +45.5 msl, Static Conditions Axial Load (kips) C) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 I liii IIII liii 1111 liii i ns . . . depth= 54.5 - 90; Sand 2 0 U) Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev.= -12 msl, Cutoff Elev. +36.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 0 0 0 tilt lilt lilt lilt till till till lilt liii N \ J - Skin Friction - o Tip Resistance - Total Capacity Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Axial Load (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 (0 0 (0 0 vCurve#1 S Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -12 msl, Cut off Elev. +36.5 msl, Static Conditions NI C LC Cl C Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 ( o Tip Resistance vSkin Friction - - Total Capacity 0 Farm Road Bridge B-2,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -23 msl, Cut off Elev.= +32.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 CD Axial Load (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 C 4.. C I* Farm Road Bridge B-2,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -23 msl, Cut off Elev.= +32.5 msl, Static Conditions n 0 ----- (0 Farm Road Bridge B-4,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -16.5 msl, Cutoff Elev.= +32.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 0 LO 0 0 04 0 14 LO 0 LU W. W liii liii liii III IIl liii III liii liii \ - v Skin Friction - o Tip Resistance Total Capacity Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Axial Load (kips) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 W. 0 c'.j C, C, (1) (N (N (N I I I I I N Curve #1 l Farm Road Bridge B-4,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev.= -16.5 msl, Cutoff Elev. +32.5 msl, Static Conditions Q S Axial Capacity (kips) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Q ('4 I liii liii liii 1111 1111 -IIII liii \\ \ _Skin Friction = =A a Tip Resistance Total Capacity 0 East Bridge B-3, 14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +10 msl, Cut off Elev. +45.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 or [i Axial Load (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 CN CII C' Fjrve#1 East Bridge B-3,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +10 mst, Cut off Elev.= +45.5 msl, Static Conditions S --- Co East Bridge B-5,14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +9 msl, Cut off Elev.= +45.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 0 0 U) U) 0 14 iii! liii liii iii 1 iii iii 1 iii iii 1 iii 1 1 1 1 1 iii ii v Skin Friction - o Tip Resistance - Total Capacity Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Axial Load (kips) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 cD r 4-• c..J .E w C, Cl) - (N (N (N v Curve #1 0 East Bridge 6-5, 14-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. +9 msl, Cut off Elev.= +45.5 msl, Static Conditions II I III •I I I I I - kin Friction o Tip Resistance A TotaP Capacity 0 U) 0 (N 0 It 0 U) Axial Capacity (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -12 msl, Cut off Elev. +36.5 msl, Static Conditions 0 0 LI Axial Load (kips) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 vCurve#1 9 Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12-inch Precast Pile, Tip Elev. -12 msl, Cut off Elev. +36.5 msl, Static Conditions Lateral Deflection (in) 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 L() LO 0 CO 0 IT LO v 12 kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head S Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12" Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Bending Moment (in-kips) -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 12 Kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12" Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Shear Force (kips) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LC) Q LC) a ('I ! a CO 0 It v 12 Kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head '4, 0 Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12' Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Lateral Deflection (in) 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 L1 In 0 U) v 8 Kips Fixed Head 0 0 4.1 Kips Free Head LU 0 Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions r] Bending Moment (in-kips) -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 U) 0 U) 0 U) IT v 8 Kips Fixed Head 04.1 Kips Free Head Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions Shear Force (kips) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 0 ! 0 U) 0 U) O v 8 Kips Fixed Head 04.1 Kips Free Head Farm Road Bridge B-I, 12" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions Lateral Deflection (in) 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 V" 0 co 0 IT U, v 16 kips Fixed Head o 6 Kips Free Head 0, Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Bending Moment (in-kips) -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 OiIII'i-.4__III iIiIII1IlTIIIiIlIIIIIIIIIIIiII U) U) 0 v 16 Kips Fixed Head o 6 Kips Free Head U) is Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Shear Force (kips) n -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 If) o 0 0 CI) 0 '4, v 16 Kips Fixed Head 0 Q 6 Kips Free Head U, W] Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Static Soil Conditions Lateral Deflection (in) S 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 .F 0 c) to CO v 10 Kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head S Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions Bending Moment (in-kips) S.' -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 0 0 U) S v 10 Kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions Shear Force (kips) U) Q 0 04 U) M 0 It 0 U) S v 10 Kips Fixed Head o 5 Kips Free Head Farm Road Bridge B-I, 14" Concrete Pile, Liquefied Soil Conditions . . . Depth = 588 - 750; Sand Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 22, 2005 Project No. 600488-001 To: P&D Consultants 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 610 San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Chuck Moore Subject: Addendum to Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Golf Cart Bridges at the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2005, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Golf Cart Bridges at the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 600488-001, dated January 18, 2005 In accordance with your request, we have prepared this addendum to the above-referenced report. This addendum is prepared to address the proposed golf cart bridge at the 15th hole which is adjacent to the existing shooting range. At the time of our previous study, the bridge location was not staked and we were not able to advance borings at this location. We have recently revisited the site to observe the site geological conditions and prepared this letter of recommendation. As shown in the referenced report, the bridge site is underlain by both alluvial soils and what has been mapped as Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa); however, we were not able to confirm this with borings. After the recent rains, we performed a reconnaissance of the Bridge site and observed bedrock exposed in the drainage channel nearby. At this location, the bedrock consists of weathered Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp). Based on our recent observations, it appears that the bridge site is underlain by relatively shallow alluvial soils overlying dense bedrock. Considering the anticipated shallow depth of the alluvial soils at this location and relatively short bridge span (32 feet), it is our opinion that the bridge at this location may be founded on conventional spread footings. In order to prepare the site, we recommend the area of each bridge abutment and 10 feet outside be overexcavated to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of footing and be replaced with uniformly compacted fill soils. If bedrock or ground water is encountered, the excavation may be limited to this depth. Prior to placement of the fill soil, the base of the excavation should be covered with a layer of stabilization fabric such as Mirafi 600X (or 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 m San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 n Fax 858.292.0771 1sIiE:f:iIs)I equivalent). The fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soils maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. With the removal and recompaction as described above, the bridge foundations may be designed with a soil bearing value of 2,000 psf. The Bridge designer should also consider an estimated settlement of 2 inches (total and differential). If you have any questions regarding our letter, please do not hesitate to contact this appreciate this opportunity to be of service. R. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. FES 441V_~ %. R Haze Rodgers, RCE 66161 (1 No. 66161 Project Engineer Exp. NO. 134g cEimF,Eo J hIfMIvm. • Michael R. Ste"att, CEG 1349 Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, Attention: Mr. Perry Schacht Leighton -2— Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY March 1, 2005 Project No. 600488-001 To: County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health Well Permit Desk, Site Assessment and Mitigation Program P.O. Box 129261 San Diego, California 92112-9261 Attention: Ms. Veronica Tavizon Subject: Geotechnical Boring Completion Report, Well / Boring Permit No. LMON-102369 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, California In accordance with the requirements of Well / Boring Permit No. LMON-102369, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton), is submitting the following information regarding the geotechnical borings performed at the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project site: . . Site Location Map (Figure 1) Boring Location Map (Figure 2) Boring Logs B-i through B-5 (Appendix A) Well Permit No. LMON-102369 (Appendix B) Geotechnical Borings B-i through B-5 were performed on July 12, through July 13, 2004. All borings were backfilled with bentonite grout mix in accordance with Well / Boring Permit No. LMON-1 02369 (Appendix B). Boring locations are presented on geotechnical map (Figure 2). The volume of bentonite used to backfill each boring are as follows: B-i: 21.1 cubic ft. B-2: 21.5 cubic ft. B-3: 15.9 cubic ft. B-4: 21.1 cubic ft. B-5: 21.3 cubic ft. If there are any questions regarding our field activities, please contact the undersigned at (858) 292-8030. LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Glenn J. McDonald Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 Staff Geologist Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee . (i) John Cahill, City of Carlsbad 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 m San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.2928030 m Fax 858.2920771 bASt MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County NOT TO SCALE Project No. 4001 SITE Carlsbad Municipal I I 600488-001 • I I I Golf Course I LOCATION Date Carlsbad, California MAP January 2005 Figure No. 1 I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-County 8" Drive Weight 43' Location Date 7-12-04 Project - .Drilling Co. - Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole Sheet 1 Project No. Type of Rig 140 pound hammer of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION (I) 1 . P a. Logged By GJM I IN S _—_ Sampled By GJM OSU QUATERNARY ALLUVIIJMjQ1) @0 Clayey fine to medium SAND Light gray to gray brown damp to moist, loose 40- ' 13 1072 204 @ 5 Clayey fine to medium SAND Gray brown moist loose PT El J L 35- 10 @ 10': Silty fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray-brown, moist to wet, - R-2 17 CL very stiff 0- 15—;.*, @ 15': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist to wet, SA R-3 8 SC loose; some coarse grains 25 - 20 R-4 push ML @20': Clayey, fine to sandy SILT: Gray to gray-brown, moist to wet, - 6 medium stiff; minor angular coarse grains 20- SP @23': Fine to coarse SAND: Light gray R-5 push 102.6 23.8 SM @25': Silty fine SAND: Light gray, wet, vëiy loose SA 25— 15- 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 'SPLIT RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R VALUE r. B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Date 7-12-04 Sheet 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. .Drilling Co. Tn-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 43' Location See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION W o.' .Z 0) o. -o o w (5 . (5 U. (S_j - . u - m 0. , . _, 0 ( Logged By GJM N S1 (I) Sampled By GJM I- 30— . .: @30': Silty fine SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown, wet to - R-6 12 21.8 SM saturated, loose 10 - 35— @35': No recovery - -. . .. •. 15 5- 40 @40': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, moist -200 - S-I 8 SC to wet, loose; with catcher 0 i @45': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, moist SA - S-2 10 50— @50 Fine turnedwm sandy CLAY todayey SAND: Brown to 3 11 CUSC gray-brown, damp to moist, stiff, rip-up clasts (with catcher) _10- S S-4 50/6" SM TERTIARY SANTIAGO FOR (Tsa) - ...... @55': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, damp to moist, very dense (with catcher) -15 60— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 'SPLIT RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATFERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Date 7-12-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole Sheet 3 Project No. Type of Rig 140 pound hammer See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-County 91 - Drive Weight 43, Location 6 >. 0 . DESCRIPTION - g w Z 0 o O - C) — 0. WC.) ° j50 0UJI E ' o i Logged By GJM C) CL >, Sampled By GJM 60— . .... 5.074vr _60: No recovery Total Depth = 60.5 Feet - - Ground water encountered at 4 feet at time of drilling Backfihled with bentonite on 7/12104 -20 - 65— -25 - 70— 130 1 75— -35 - 80— -40 - 85— -45 - 90— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPUT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS P RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 7-12-04 Sheet 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 10 Hole Co. Tri-Cy Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 42 Location See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" .zo o.o $ _____ • o z w - E ___ o o' W 0 >' _ - > '- a' uw o C3 0. o () • DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM _______________ Sampled By GJM U) 4.. C, 0. I- ------- 0— QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @0': Fine to sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist, medium stiff; organic odor 40 - 5— R-1 17 116.3 19.7 CL @5': Fine medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist, very CN,CR B-I stiff dj5'-12 35 10— @ 10 Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to black, moist, very S-i 11 stiff , R-2 push 22.9 SC @ 15' Little recovery, clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to 7 light gray-brown, wet to saturated, loose 25 - 20— S-2 push @20': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown, SA wet, loose 20 - - 25— @25': No recovery 20 15 - 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS pSPLIT RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION PI ATFERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 7-12-04 Project .Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-Co Drive Weight Location Sheet 2 of 3 Project No. 600488-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" See Map 91 42' DESCRIPTION w O - w U.. U. a e °u- L. wCl a . O C o. - o '5=i Logged By GJM 0. (I) C.) U) Sampled By GJM I- 30 ..: @30': Fine to coarse SAND grades to silty fine to medium SAND: SA - . •. : S-3 19 SM Light gray to light gray-brown, moist, medium dense 10- . 35—: - @ 35': Silty fine to medium SAND: Light gray-brown, wet to SA R-3 16 20.9 SM saturated, loose (with catcher) 40— @40': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Light gray to light gray-brown; S-4 5 SC wet, loose; minor orange oxidation staining )0 @45': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Mottled gray and orange, moist PT R-4 14 26.8 to wet, loose (with catcher) 50— @50': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Mottled, gray and orange, moist S-5 I I to wet, loose (with catcher) _10- No recovery,no catcher 15 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 'SPLIT RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Sheet 3 of 3 Project No. 600488-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" Date 7-12-04 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course • Drilling Co. Tr-County Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight - 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 42 Location See M f g) C)a. a Z ) U) 0 WCI) wo i 4 DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM Cl) w C) 0. > I- 60— S-6 19 @60': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown to olive-brown, moist, medium dense -20 - Total Depth= 61.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 12 feet at time of drilling Backfihled with bentonite on 7/12/04 65— -25 - 70— 30 75— -35 - 80— -40 - 85— -45 - 90-- SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPUT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 7-12-04 Sheet 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. *Hole Drilling Co. Tn-County Type of Rig Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 51' Location See Map of 2 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" 0 w O 0 U.E w Z a. co ou- ma > >,. U,G, o () 0 =cq o CO— DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM CL Sampled By GJM U, 0 CD F- 0— OUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal) 50 @0: Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Dark brown to dark gray, damp to moist, stiff 5- 5': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Black to dark brown, damp to CN 45 18.8 moist, very stiff 10- 10': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Brown to light brown, wet to saturated, loose 40 S-I 9 SC 15- 15': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Light brown to gray-brown, moist SA R-2 15 107.9 19.8 to wet, loose 20— @20': Clayey fine to coarse SAND: Light brown to gray-brown, moist 30 S-2 14 15.1 to wet, loose (with catcher) 25— @25': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray to light gray-brown, wet to SA 25 R-3 34 saturated, medium dense (with catcher) 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATFERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 7-12-04 Sheet 2 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. is Drilling Co. Tr-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 51' Location - See Map -- - of 2 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" DESCRIPTION W O - . 0 -J ..2' a . . Logged By GJM CL co Sampled By GJM I- 30 . @30': Clayey fine to coarse SAND to silty SAND: Light gray-brown, 20 - 19 22.3 SC wet, medium dense (no catcher) 35 @35': Fine to coarse SAND grades to gravelly SAND: Orane-brown 15 -. R-4 74/11 SP/GP to brown, moist to wet, very dense; angular gravels up to 1' (no catcher) 40— _______ S-4 82/10" 10 SM ... @41': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, . moist, very dense; slightly friable (with catcher) 45 R-5 50/4" ,45' Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to off-white, - \ moist, very dense: slightiyiriable (with catcher). little recovery / Total Depth = 45.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling Backfilled with bentonite on 7/12/04 50— 0 - 55— -5 60— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 'SPLIT RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX I TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Golf Course Sheet 1 Project No. Type of Rig Carlsbad Municipal Tr-Cc Drive Weight Location 38' Date 7-13-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" See Map GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 g (W > Q•W0 a) 0 a M :- - 20 0 - a- - we a. , - Cl) i DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM I- 0 0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) - @ 0': Fine sandy CLAY: Black, moist, medium stiff 35- @5': Fine sandy CLAY: Black, moist, medium, very stiff R-I 17 10— @ 10': Clayey fine to medium SAND to fine to medium sandy CLAY: SA - S-I 12 24.3 SC Gray to gray-brown, moist to wet, medium dense 25 @ 15': No revery, install catcher 20 22 :IIII 20— @20': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, very - S-2 22 CL stiff (no catcher) 15- 25— @25': Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist to SA - R-2 18 16.9 CL wet, stiff, disturbed (with catcher) 10 - 30— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX I TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATFERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Date 7-13-04 Project • Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole 38' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Sheet 2 of 3 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. 600488-001 Tr-County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger - Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" - Location See Map a - DESCRIPTION U) 4- Z w o (flO - LL &L E c, OU U)CO. > 4 0 (9 o_ M o o Ld By GJM ogge 0. S co - 0 C,,— Sampled By GJM >, I- 30— ST push M @30': Silty fine to medium SAND: Gray, wet to saturatred, loose (with catcher-poor recovery) 5- 35— R-3 18 21.4 SC @ 35' Silty fine to coarse SAND with interbedded clayey SAND: Gray to light -brown, wet, medium dense (with catcher) PI,-200 gray 0- 40— @ 40': CLAY: Mottled gray to dark gray, moist, stiff (with catcher) - S-4 12 CL -5 - 45— push @ 45': Poor to no recovery (no catcher) - 12 _10- 50— S-5 push CL @50': CLAY to fine sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, stiff - 12 -15 - - 55- 55': Clayey fine to medium SAND to sandy CLAY: Mottled, R-4 38 22.0 SC yellow-brown to light gray-brown, moist, medium dense (with catcher) -20 - 60— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATTERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date 7-13-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Location See Map Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-County Sheet 3 Project No. Type of Rig 91 38 a - DESCRIPTION U) O .) a) E. E 5 °c a) o a Logged By GJM CL Cl) 0 > I S - Sampled By GJM I- - 60— ... 75r _IERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsc) - @60': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to yellow-brown, damp to moist, very denseIlittle recovery Total Depth = 60.5 Feet - Ground water encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling -25 - Backfilled with bentonite on 7/13/04 65- -30- 70- -35- 75- 40- 80- 45- 85- -50- 90-- SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS P RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX I TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 7-13-04 Sheet 1 Project Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project No. • Drilling Co. Tr-County Type of Rig Hole Diameter Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Elevation Top of Hole 51 Location See Map of 3 60048 8-00 1 Hollow-Stem Auger ____ Drop DESCRIPTION . a w 0 aw. . 3 O5 o Logged By .GJM Sampled By GJM 1- 0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) 50 - @0': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown to brown, damp to moist, medium dense 5_ R-1 21 @ 5': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist, medium EI,CR dense with catcher) 10— S-I 14 (with @ medium SAND: Gray-brown, moist, medium catcher) 40 IT: Fine to medium sandy CLAY: Light brown, moist, stiff (with SA 35 - R-2 13 CL catcher) 20— @20': Silty fine to coarse SAND grades to clayey fine to medium SA 30 - .:. •: S-2 15 SM SAND: Orange-brown, wet to saturated, medium dense 25— @25': Clayey fine to medium SAND: Orange-brown, wet to saturated, 25 - R-3 26 99.3 22.6 SC medium dense 391_ SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 0' SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION Pt ATERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 7-13-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-County Drive Weight 51 Location 140 pound hammer See Sheet 2 Project No. Type of Rig of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30" c? DESCRIPTION U) U' a, . t! i ã E ou a, ' o Logged By GJM CL I S CO Sampled By GJM > I— ___ ______________________________ _ r (IC @ 30': Clayey fine to coarse gravellySAND: Orange-brown (mottled) moist to wet, dense (with catcher) 20 - R-4 76 35- 35': CLAY to fine sandy CLAY: Dark gray to gray, moist, very stiff 15 - R-5 25 28.6 CL (with catcher) 40— @ 40' Fine sandy CLAY: Gray to gray-brown, moist, very stiff (with SA 10 'I - S-3 18 CL catcher) 45— @45': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, P1 ..• 5 - R-6 25 CL/SC moist, very stiff (with catcher) 50— 50': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, 0 - S-4 16 moist, very stiff (with catcher) 55— @55': Fine sandy CLAY to clayey SAND: Light gray to olive-gray, -5 - R-7 28 27.2 moist, very stiff (with catcher) 60— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS PRING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX I TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 ATERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 7-13-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Tr-County Drive Weight 51' Location Sheet 3 Project No. Type of Rig 140 pound hammer See Map of 3 600488-001 Hollow-Stem Auger Drop >s 0 . DESCRIPTION U) a, g , a, Z a v,o 0 : WO . 'I-. EU- oU. —C') .1 E M (L ' o Logged By GJM a, Cl) C.) CO— >' N S Sampled By GJM I- 60— ... 1U0711 lW TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) -10 - 60: Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, moist to very ueflse / Total Depth = 61 Feet - Ground water encountered at 18 feet at time of drilling - Backfilled with bentonite on 7/13/04 65- -15 - 70- -20 'I - 75- -25 - 80- -30 - 85- -35 - 90— SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS P RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY RV R-VALUE 4 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION P1 A1TERBERG LIMIT LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. PERMIT# LMON 102369 A.P.N. #212-010-15-00 EST# NONE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION MONITORING WELL AND BORING CONSTRUCTION AND DESTRUCTION PERMIT SITE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE SITE ADDRESS: FARADAY RD (N OF STEWART & COLLEGE BL) CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PERMIT TO: DRILL 6 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE: July 2, 2004 PERMIT EXPIRES ON October 30, 2004 RESPONSIBLE PARTY CITY OF CARLSBAD PERMIT CONDITIONS: All borings must be destroyed in accordance with Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90. Borings must be sealed from the bottom of the boring to ground surface with an approved sealing material. Placement of any sealing material at a depth greater than 30 feet must be done using the tremie method. All borings must be properly destroyed within 24 hours of drilling. This work is not connected to any known unauthorized release of hazardous substances. Any contamination found in the course of drilling and sampling must be reported to DEH. Within 60 days of completing work, submit a well construction report, including all well and/or boring logs and laboratory data to the Well Permit Desk. This report must include all items required by the SAM Manual, Section 5, Pages 6 & 7. All water and soil resulting from the activities covered by this permit must be managed, stored and disposed of as specified in the SAM Manual in Section 5, E- 4. (http://www.sdcounty.ca.qov/deh/Iwg/sam/manual quidelines.html). In addition, drill cuttings must be properly handled and disposed in compliance with the Stormwater Best Management Practices of the local jurisdiction. Within 60 days of completing work, submit a well construction report, including all well and/or boring logs and laboratory data to the Well Permit Desk. This report must include all items required by the SAM Manual, Section 5, Pages 6 & 7. This office must be given 48-hour notice of any drilling activity on this site and advanced notification of drilling cancellation. Please contact the Well Permit Desk at 338-2339. APPROVED BY: DATE: 07/02/2004 is ~RNESTO/.. ROFEJYA NOTIFIED: V/t -74vo DEH:SAM-9075 (4/03)