HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 99-07; RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE; UPDATE REPORT FOR GRADING AND SITE PLANS; 2001-01-09GEOCON
INCORPORATED
Project No. 05467-12-06
January 9, 2001
Simac Construction, Inc.
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, California 92127
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Richard Simis
RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
UPDATE REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
References: 1. Preliminary Grading Plan -Rancho La Costa Village, prepared by Stuart
Engineering, dated November 11,2000.
Gentlemen:
2. Albertsons Drug Store No. 9528, S. w.e. Rancho Santa Fe Rd. & La Costa Ave.,
Carlsbad, California, Sheet 1.1 (Site Plan), prepared by Courtney + Le
Architects, dated December 11, 2000.
3. Update Soil and Geologie Investigation, La Costa Village Retail Center,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 23,
1997.
In accordance with your request and our proposal No. LG-00684 dated December 11,2000, we have
reviewed the referenced grading plan and site plan. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the
currently proposed grading with respect to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the
referenced update soil and geologic investigation report, specifically regarding the design of the soil
shear key.
Based on our review of the revised grading and site plans, it is our opinion that the conclusions and
recommendations as presented in the previous update geotechnical report remain applicable to the
currently proposed project development. This includes the recommended dimensional configuration
of the soil shear key to be constructed for the buttress/stability remedial grading as well as the
recommended grading specifications provided as Appendix D of that report.
Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service,
please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
DavidF. Lea
RCE 22527
(2)
(2/del)
Addressee
Stuart Engineering
Attention: Mr. Stuart Peace
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159
'.
UPDATE SOIL AND
GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
LA COSTA VILLAGE
RETAIL CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
BYCOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~--~_O_~_P_~_R_~_T_~_D------------------------------GE-O-TE-C-HN-IC-A-L-C-O-NS-U-ITA~N-~·~
Project No. 05467-12-04
December 23, 1997
Bycor General Contractors, Inc.
6867 Nancy Ridge Drive, Suite A
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Rich Byer
'.
Subject: LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal dated December 17, 1997, we have reviewed
and updated our original soil and geologic investigation report for the subject .project (dated
August 17, 1987 Project No. D3930-H01). The accompanying report presents the findings of our
study and our conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical engineering aspects of
developing the project as presently proposed, including the stability analysis for remedial grading
along the southern property line.
If you have any questions regarding this report, of if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
RCE22527
DFL:AS:bas
(6/del) Addressee
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121·2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558·6159
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 2
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2
3.1. Previously placed fill (Qaf) ...................................................................................................... 2
3.2. Undocumented fill (Qudf) ........................................................................................................ 3
3.3. Compacted Fill (Qcf) ............................................................................................................... 3
3.4. Topsoils (unmapped) ................................................................................................................ 3
3.5. Slopewash (Qsw) ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.6. Alluvium (Qal) ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.7. Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf) ............................................................................................. 3
3.8. Torrey Sandstone (Tt) ................ ; ....................................................................................... : ..... 4
3.9. Delmar Formation (Td) ............................................................................................... , ............ 4
4. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES ............................................................................................................. 5
5 . GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................ 5
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................... 5
6.1. Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 5
6.2. Landslides ................................................................................................................................. 6
7. GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................... 6
8. STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 7
8.1. General ..................................................................................................................................... 7
8.2. Design Parameter Selection ............................................................................................ -......... 7
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... ; ... 8
9.1. General ..................................................................................................................................... 8'
9.2. Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 8
9.3. Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 8
9.4. Soil and Excavation Characteristics ....................................................................................... 10
9.5. Bulking and Shrinkage Factors .............................................................................................. 10
9.6. Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................ 10
9.7. Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 11
9.8. Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ........................................................................................ 13
9.9. Slope Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 15
9.10. Drainage ............................................................................................... ~ ............................... 15
9.11. Grading Plan Review ....................................................................................... : .................... 15
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Geologic Map
Figures 2-3, Geologic Cross Sections
Figure 4, Typical Shear Key Detail
Figure 5, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-I -A-9, Logs of Borings
Figures A-lO -A-17, Logs of Trenches
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture
Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results
APPENDIXC
SHEAR KEY AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIXD
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICA nONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of our soil and geologic investigation for the proposed La Costa
Village Retail Center in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this study was 10 evaluate
the investigation of surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and, based on the
conditions encountered, provide updated recommendations relative to the geotechnical engineering
aspects of developing the site as presently proposed. A site visit was performed on December 17,
1997. The property was observed to be in basically the same condition as reported in the original
geotechnical report with the exception of the southern boundary conditions that have changed during
the construction of the adjacent Parkview West project.
The scope of the investigation included a-review of the following:
1. Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad, California, Project
No. D-3930-H01, prepare by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 17, 1987.
2. Supplemental Slope Stability Analysis for Rancho La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad, California, Project
No. D-3930-H02, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, revised dated September 6, 1988.
3. Revised Supplemental Slope Stability Analysisfor Rancho La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 5, 1994.
4. Geotechnical Investigation for Park View West, Carlsbad, California, Project No. D-3641-M01,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 2, 1986.
5. Updated Report for Park View West, La Costa Area, Carlsbad, California, prepared' by Geocon
Incorporated, dated November 1, 1995.
6. Update Report, Rancho La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 05461-12-02,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 13, 1995.
7. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services for Park View West, Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated May 28, 1997.
The original field investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance by our project geologist, .the
drilling of five large-diameter borings and the excavation of 12 exploratory trenches. Laboratory
tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate pertinent physical properties of the soil
conditions encountered. Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing performed for the
project are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. Data collected during the construction of
the existing buttress fill along the southern property boundary, within the Parkview West project, has
also been utilized in the evaluation for this study.
Project No. 05467-12-04 - 1 -December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The base map used for this investigation consisted of a 40 scale grading plan prepared by Sillman
Wyman & Associates, dated November 19, 1997 (Figure I). The results of the field investigation
are compiled on Figure 1 depicting the site conditions and geology as well as boring and trench
locations. Geologic cross-sections are presented on Figures 2 and 3.
The recommendations presented herein are based on the analysis of the data obtained from the
exploratory excavations, laboratory tests and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The roughly triangular-shaped subjec~ site comprises approximately 6 acres of presently
undeveloped land located directly southeast of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La
Costa Avenue (see Figure 1). The site is characterized by moderate southeasterly sloping terrain,
with elevations varying from a high of approximately 310 feet above Mean Seal Level (MSL) in the
northern corner to a low of approximately 258 feet MSL along the southern boundary. Parkview
West project, which has recently been developed, borders the site to the south. The majority of the
property is undeveloped, with the exception of a few narrow dirt roads and trails. Fill soils
associated with a buttress fill and roadway fill occur at the extreme southwest, south, and southeast
portions of the site respectively. Vegetation consists of native grasses and scattered shrubs.
Project grading plan prepared by Sillman Wyman & Associates entitled La Costa Retail, dated
November 19, 1997 indicates that it is proposed to develop the site into one large sheet-graded
commercial lot with maximum fill slope heights of35 feet, at 2 to 1 slope inclinations or flatter. It is
anticipated that the site will be graded to receive a service station and a commercial complex
consisting of one-and possibly two-story structures.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Seven surficial general soil types and two geologic formations were encountered during the
investigation. These include, previously placed fill, undocumented fill, compacted fill, topsoil;
slopewash, alluvial soils, surficial landslide debris and formation materials associated with the
Torrey Formation and Delmar Formation. Each of the surficial and formational soil types are
described below.
3.1. Previously placed fill (Qaf)
Fill soils are present in the southeast corner of the site and comprise a narrow wedge of fill
associated with the existing La Costa Avenue roadway.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -2-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2. Undocumented fill (Qudt)
Small areas of end-dumped shallow, rocky, or trashy fill also exist along the slopes and in small
ravines in the southeast portion of the site.
3.3. Compacted Fill (Qct)
Compacted fill was placed in conjunction with construction of the buttress fill along the southern
boundary and under the observation and testing services of Geocon Incorporated during grading of
the Parkveiw West project.
3.4. Topsoils (unmapped)
Topsoils are present over the majority-of the project area and range in thickness from approximately
1 to 2 feet consisting of soft, dark brown silty to sandy clay. Due to the unconsolidated nature and
expansion potential of the surficial topsoils, removal and selective placement in deeper fills will be
required as recommended hereinafter.
3.5. Siopewash (Qsw)
Accumulations of soft sandy clays and loose clayey sands ranging in thickness from approximately 5
to 9 feet occur in the southeast portion of the site (see Figure 1) along the property boundary the
slopewash material becomes undifferentiated with surficial landslide debris which was encountered
during the construction of the buttress fill. Due to the unconsolidated nature of these deposits,
complete removal and recompaction will be required as recommended hereinafter.
3.S. Alluvium (Qal)
The alluvial soils are composed of loose, moist to saturated, medium to dark brown clayey sands and
soft, damp, dark brown, silty clays that have accumulated near the base of slopes or within gully
bottoms. Due to the unconsolidated nature of these deposits, removal and recompaction will be
required as recommended hereinafter.
3.7. Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf)
Relatively shallow surficial landslide features were encountered in the southeastern portion of the
site (see Figure 1). An arcuate-trending fracture system was observed bordering a small promontory
on a northeast-facing slope of approximate elevation 272 feet above MSL. Some of the fractures
showed a horizontal separation (within approximately one year) of approximately 2 inches. Te~t
Trench No.8 located in the upper central portion of the slide debris encountered soft sandy clays and
Project No. 05467-12-04 -3-December23,1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
loose, very clayey fine sands ranging from 4 to 6 feet in thickness. Adverse bedding planes and low-
angle sheared surfaces dipping out-of-slope, combined with saturated conditions induced by a
perched water table at the underlying Torrey SandstonelDelmar contact are suspected to be
responsible for the shallow landslide features. Due to the unconsolidated nature of these deposits,
removal and recompaction will be required as recommended hereinafter.
3.8. Torrey Sandstone (Tt)
The Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation consisting of dense, light tan to reddish-brown, siity
fine-grained sandstones interbedded with brown clayey siltstones, was encountered throughout the
majority of the site at elevations approximately between 266 to 312 feet above MSL. The
sandstones and siltstones are typically t~in-bedded and are near horizontal in attitude, although the
coarser-grained sandstones can be massive, or broadly cross-bedded.
The interbedded siltstone beds, which occur approximately between 280 and 300 feet above MSL,
contain cemented concretion beds with fossil shells. The majority of the excavation of this unit
should encounter little difficulty with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. However, some
localized areas of highly-cemented concretions may be encountered requiring heavy ripping to
facilitate excavation. Some oversize cemented chunks may be generated and should not be placed
within 3 feet of the finish grade
The majority of this unit is characterized by low-expansive san?y soils, but may contain interbedded
clayey siltstones, particularly across the central portion of the site, and may exhibit moderate to high
expansion potential. The clayey portions may require selective grading or specially designed
foundations. The moderately to highly expansive material generated from the claystones. should be
placed in the deeper canyon fills ..
3.9. Delmar Formation (Td)
The Tertiary-aged Delmar Formation consisting of soft to very hard, moist to saturated, greenish-
gray to dark gray claystones was encountered generally below elevation 266 feet MSL. Subsurface
observations of exploratory borings within the Delmar Formation in this area indicate the presence
of low-strength claystones between approximate elevations of 235 and 260 feet above MSL.
Inclinations of bedding plane shear zones within the claystones range from a few degrees to as much
as 35 degrees in south direction. Remolded clay gouge zones over one inch thick (Boring Nos. B-5
and B-7, D-3641-M01) and dipping 2-5 degrees southward were also along shears in the claystone
member. The claystones of the Delmar Formation often posses low shear strength and, as
encountered, exhibit both randomly oriented remolded clay seams and bedding plane shear zones.
Cut slope stabilization measures as well as deeper, wider fill keys should be anticipated for
Project No. 05467-12-04 -4-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
excavations within the low-strength claystones. Excavation of this unit should encounter little
difficulty with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment.
In addition to possessing relatively low-shear strength and adverse structures, the more clayey
portions of this formation are highly expansive and often require selective grading or specially
designed foundations. The moderately to highly expansive materials generated from the claystones
should be placed in the deeper fills.
4. GEOLOGIC 'STRUCTURES
Bedding attitudes within the Tertiary-aged sediments are generally horizontal with local variations in
dip of several degrees being caused by.hillside creep in claystone or distortions of strata near low-
angle shear zones or by drag near faults, A west-northwest striking fracture system was interpreted,
from aerial photos and apparent offsetS" of Tertiary-aged strata in the central portion of the site, to
represent a fault.
5. GROUNDWATER
A number of water seeps were encountered in a majority of the boring excavations, and in several of
the trench excavations. The seepage was especially notable along low-angle gypsum filled shears
within the Delmar Formation claystones, or in the sandstones near the base ofthe Torrey Sandstone
Formation. Elevations of the seepage ranged between approximate elevations of 250 and 280 feet
MSL (Mean Sea Level).
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1. Faulting and Seismicity
It is our opinion, based on our field investigation and review of aerial photographs andpubl~shed
geologic maps, the site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Rose Canyon and Elsinore Fault Zones, the closest active faults, lie approximately 7 and 24
miles to the west and northeast, respectively. As shown 'on Table 6.1, a Maximum Probable
Earthquake of Magnitude 5.9 occurring on the Rose Canyon fault could result in a peak site
acceleration of approximately 0.17g (Table 6.1). Other active faults listed on Table 6.1 are more
distant from the site and, hence, ground shaking from earthquakes on those faults will be less
intensive. It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in
the event of a major earthquake along any of the above-mentioned faults; however, the seismic risk
at the site is not considered significantly greater than the surrounding area
Project No. 05467-12-04 - 5 -December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6.1.
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULTS
(EQFAULT Computer Program-Blake 1996)
Approximate Maximum. Credible Event Maximum Probable Event
Abbreviated Distance Maximum Peak Site Maximum Peak Site
Fault Name (mi.) Credible Acceleration Probable Acceleration
(Mag.) (g) (Mag.) (g)
Casa Lorna-Clark (S. Jacinto) 48 7.00 0.04 7.00 0.04
Catalina Escarpment 41 7.00 0.05 6.10 0.03
Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 22 7.50 0.13 6.70 0.09
Elsinore 24 7.50 0.12 6.60 0.07
Glen Helen-Lytle Cr-Clremnt 52 7.00 0.03 6.70 0.03
La Nacion 17 6.50 0.10 4.20 0.03
Newport-Inglewood-Offshore t3 7.10 0.18 5.90 0.10
Rose Canyon 7 7.00 0.30 5.90 0.17
San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 32 7.50 0.08 6.20 0.04
6.2. Landslides
Our field exploration confirmed the presence of relatively shallow surficial landslides, (see
Figure 1. These relatively shallow features were encountered along the southerly property
boundary. Recommendations regarding treatment of encountered surficial landslide debris are
presented hereinafter.
7. GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
The results of the field investigation indicate that weak claystones containing bedding plane shear
zones and adversely dipping low-angle shear surfaces exist within the Delmar Formation that would
create instability conditions for cut slopes.
The cut slope located just south of the property within the Parkview West property has already been
buttressed due to the presence of such conditions, and possesses an adequate factor of safety.
However construction of the proposed fill slope along the southern property margin will create an
adverse impact on the integrity of this buttress.
Based on our analyses and experience with similar geologic features, this condition may be mitigated
by conventional grading techniques, including construction of shear key fill.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -6-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
.1
I
I
I
8. STABILITY ANALYSIS
8.1. General
The stability of the existing buttress along the southern property margin and the impact of proposed
grading including the fill slope and the surcharge from the proposed building was evaluated utilizing
the SLOPEIW computer program, based on the Simplified Jambu method of slices or Spencer
method. The analyses are summarized in Appendix C.
A review of the as-build conditions of the Parkview West buttress, the results of the subsurface
investigation, laboratory testing and existing and future topography were considered in performing
the stability analyses. The computer generated cross-sections included herein represent the most
critical configurations which were used tn the analyses. The cross-section presented on Figure 2 is
the original geologic sections from which the computer generated sections were derived.
8.2. Design Parameter Selection
The shear strength parameters used in analysis are based on the laboratory test result~ and experience
with similar soils and geologic conditions. The following table presents the soil strength parameters
utilized for this study.
TABLE 8.2.
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Soil Type Description Angle of Internal Cohesion
Friction <I> (degrees) c (pst)
Compacted fill-non-select (Qcfl) 20 300
Compacted fill -select (Qcf2) 30 450
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 30 400
Delmar Formation (highly fractured claystone) (Tdl) 20 200
Delmar Formation (massive claystone) (Td2) 25 500
Bedding Plane Shear (BPS) 5 200
The results of the evaluation indicates that in order to accommodate the grading as currently
proposed, a shear key fill with a minimum bottom width of 20 feet and a minimum penetration of 3
feet below the bedding plane shear is required. Select soils with specified strength parameters,
available on site, will be required for grading the shear hey. Details of the construction are discussed
in Section 9.6 below.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -7-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.1.
9.1.1.
9.1.2.
9.1.3.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
No soil or geologic conditions were encountered which, in our opinion, would preclude the
development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this
report are followed.
The site is underlain by surficial soils consisting of existing fill soils, topsoils, slopewash,
alluvium, surficial landslide debris and by two formational soil units. The surficial soils,
except compacted fill, are not considered suitable for the support of fill or structural loads
in their present condition and will require remedial grading.
A shear key should be constructed during grading along the southern boundary in order to
achieve an adequate factor of safety for the proposed fill slope as recommended
hereinafter.
9.2. Groundwater
9.2.1.
9.3.
9.3.1.
9.3.2.
9.3.3.
Active water seepage was encountered along the contact between the Torrey Sandstone
Formation and the underlying Delmar Formation. The recommendations that follow
provide for the installation of subsurface drains within the recommended shear-key fill
along the southerly property boundary to reduce the potential for groundwater buildUp.
Grading
All grading should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading
Specifications (Appendix D) and the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. Where the
recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix D, the recommendations of this
section take precedence.
Prior to commencing grading, a pre-construction conference should be held at the site with
the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
Site preparation should begin with the removal of all deleterious matter and vegetation.
The depth of removal should be such that material to be used in fills is free of organic
matter. Material generated during stripping operations and/or demolition should be
exported from the site.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -8-December 23,1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.3.4. The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted
in layers. In general, soils native to the site are suitable for reuse as fill if free from
vegetation, debris and other deleterious matter. Layers of fill should be no thicker than
will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, including backfill and scarified
ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at
approximately 2 percent over optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Procedure D1557-91.
9.3.5. Grading operations on the site should be scheduled so as to place oversize rock and
expansive soils in the deeper fills and to "cap" the building pads and fill slopes with
granular materials having a low expansion potential.
9.3.6. All potentially compressible surficial deposits including existing undocumented fill soils,
topsoil, slopewash, alluvium -and surficial landslide debris not removed by planned
grading operations should be removed to firm natural ground and properly compacted
prior to placing additional fill andlor structures. Deeper than normal benching andlor
stripping operations for sloping ground surfaces will be required where thicknesses of
potentially compressible surficial deposits are greater than 3 feet. The actual extent of
removals will be determined in the field by the soil engineer. Overly wet excavated
materials will require drying andlor mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction.
Extensive benching operations on the order of 10 feet horizontally should' be anticipated
where proposed fills are placed adjacent to the existing fill slope along La Costa Avenue.
9.3.7. The upper 3 feet of all building pads (cut or fill) and 12 inches in pavement areas should
be composed of properly compacted or undisturbed formational "very low" to "low"
expansive soils. The more highly expansive soils should be placed in the deeper fill areas
and properly compacted. "Very low" to "low" expansive soils are defined as those soils
that have an Expansion Index of 50 or less when tested in accordance with UBC Table 18-
I-B. Cobbles, cemented concretions, and small boulders greater than 12 inches in
maximum dimension should not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade.
9.3.8. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion
of cut/fill transition building pads be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly
compacted low expansive fill soils. The undercut should extend from the back of the pad
to the street and be graded at a gradient of at least 1 percent towards the street.
9.3.9. Special grading procedures for constructing the shear-key within the fill slope at the south
boundary are discussed below.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -9-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
9.4.
9.4.1.
9.4.2.
9.5.
9.5.1.
Soil and Excavation Characteristics
The soil conditions encountered vary from low expansive, silty fine sands derived from the
Torrey Sandstone Formation to the medium to highly expansive clayey soils of the Delmar
Formation and surficial deposits.
In our opinion, the surficial deposits can be excavated with light to moderate effort with
conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Excavation of the formational soils will
require moderate to heavy effort. Cemented chunks may be generated during the
excavation of each of the formational units.
Bulking and Shrinkage Fa~tors
Estimates of embankment b~lking and shrinkage factors are based on comparing
laboratory compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as
encountered in the test borings. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil
density, as well as in compacted fill densities, render shrinkage value estimates very
approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative
compaction of 90 percent or higher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the
contractor has approximately a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on
the limited work performed to date, in our opinion, the following shrinkage factors can be
used as a basis for estimating how much the on-site soils my shrink or swell (bulk) when
excavated from their natural state and placed as compacted fills:
TABLE 9.5
Soil Unit ShrinklBulk Factor
Surficial Deposits 10 to 15 percent shrink
Torrey Sandstone, Delmar Formation 4 to 8 percent bulk
9.6. Slope Stability
9.6.1. The slope stability analyses indicates that in order to create an adequate factor of safety for
the proposed fill slope along the southern property margins, a 20 feet wide shear key
should be constructed in this area. The shear key should penetrate at least 3 feet below the
bedding plane shear with a back-cut inclination of 1;1 (horizontal to vertical) see Figures 2
and 3.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -10-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.6.2.
9.6.3.
9.6.4.
9.6.5.
9.6.6.
9.7.
9.7.1.
A subdrain system consisting of a heel drain and panel drains should be installed within
the shear key to reduce the potential for groundwater buildup. It is understood that the
heel drain will be lower than the storm drain· inlets in the area. The drain may be
connected to the existing subdrain of the Parkview West buttress. A typical shear-key
(buttress) fill configuration is presented on Figure 4.
It should be recognized that the excavation for the shear key involves risk of back-cut
failure. In order to reduce the potential for back-cut failure, it is recommended that the
shear key be constructed in segments. With a 1:1 back-cut inclination, the, maximum
exposure at the bottom of the shear key should be limited to a length of 100 feet.
The stability analyses indicates that select materials with minimum soil strength
parameters of c = 450 psf and <l> = 30 degrees is required to fill the shear key to an
approximate elevation of270 feet MSL. It is our opinion that such material can be derived
from the sandy portion of the Torrey Sandstone Formation.
The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill
slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the
potential for surface sloughing. All fill slopes should be compacted by back-rolling with a
sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and should be track-walked at the
completion of each slope such that the fill soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction. Surficial Slope stability analysis is presented on Figure 5.
All slopes should be planted, drained and properly -maintained to reduce erosion.
Foundations
The foundation recommendations that follow are for one-to two-story commercial
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of
the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of
a particular building pad. The recommended minimum foundation and interiQr concrete
slab design criteria for each Category is presented below. These recommendations are
preliminary and will be finalized after the site is graded.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -11 -December 23,1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 9.7.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Footing Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Depth 1-to 2-Story Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Inches One No.4 bar top and bottom 6 x 6 -10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Inches Two No.4 bars top and bottom No.3 bars at 24 inches on
center, both directions
III 24 Inches Two No.5 bars top and bottom No.3 bars at 18 inches on
center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50.
Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 10 feet, or Expansion
Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent fmish grade.
3. All concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for
Category III.
4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least four inches of clean sand (or crushed rock).
5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a Visqueen moisture barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the
clean sand recommended in No.4 above.
9.7.2. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure
may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces.
9.7.3.
9.7.4.
No special sub grade pre saturation is deemed necessary prior to lacing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper
than 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations andlor design considerations are
recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -12-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
'I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I'
I
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened stich that
the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of
the slope.
• Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, tpe minimum horizontal distance
should be increased to Hl3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the
slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H
equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of
the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the .use of a
post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforce-
ment. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives
can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been
determined.
• For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3;'1 (hori-
zontal;vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height.
• Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
9.7.5. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may
be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in
particular, where re-entry slab corners occur.
9.8.
9.8.1.
Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface shOUld be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of30 pounds per cubic foot (pct). Where the, backfill will be inclined at no steeper
than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures
assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1; 1 plane
extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50.
For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or
Project No. 05467-12-04 -13 -December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.8.2.
9.8.3.
9.8.4.
9.8.5.
9.8.6.
where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should
be consulted for additional recommendations.
Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOlH at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform
pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in
feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure.
All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevertt the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is
not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact
the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described
are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3: 1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 3 00 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected
by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -14-December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.9.
9.9.1.
9.10.
Slope Maintenance
Slopes that are steeper than 3: I (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability.
The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and
usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigCltion, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recom-
mended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be
either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected
and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and
adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although
the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial
slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be nec~ssary to
rebuild or repair a portion ofthe project's slopes in the future.
Drainage
9.10.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
9.11. Grading Plan Review
9.11.1. The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans prior to
finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report ~nd
determine the need for additional comments, recommendations and/or analysis. The
recommended shear key fill should be shown on the final grading plans.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -15 -December 23, 1997
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I:
I
I
1.
2.
3.
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
This report is issued with the .understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contain~d herein are
brought to the attention of the-architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review
and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 05467-12-04 December 23, 1997
m
r m < l>
-i
o
Z
A
300'
280'
260'
240'
220'
, ,.
I:
it
11 {
\'1
I PROPOSED GRADE
BUILDING PAD ~ ~I PARKVIEW WEST PROJECT ~" «~'-------.
8-4 ---------....~ I
"~ QISf I ~ '--........~ -~,--....9Cf
I ~ . ~7""" LJl Td 1 ~
Tt
Td1
Td2 Td2 Td2
?=======:::=:::::::: ,0'
BEDING PLANE SHEAR (BPS) ?=~~=::::::::=:~==?~~==~===
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20' (HORIZ. = VERT.)
LEGEND
QCf ........ COMPACTED FILL
Qlsf ......... SURFICIAL LANDSLIDE DEBRIS
Tt .......... TORREY SANDSTONE
Td ......... DELMAR FORMATION
I I,'
I
I ,
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
lCARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
Td
AI
260'
240'
220'
GEOCON
INCORPORATED e
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE· SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92121·297.4
PHClN: 619 558-6900 • FAX 619 558·6159
PROJECT NO. 05467-12-04
FIGURE 2
DATE 12 -23 - 1997
8
300'
Tt
~ Ull-1 ~ T)V
....J w
260'
240'
220'
.. '0':·.' ."0 -_ :~. :." ., '." ~ ..•.. , . .: ...... . : ... ;.' i r ".-.>' ·:.:".0· ..... " ._.
I
I . LA C<DST A VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
!CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
-• l
I PROPOSED BUILDING PAD I '
PROPOSED GRADE
........................ / I-PARK VIEW WEST PROJECT • ......
Tt
......... ...... ............ ... , ......... ............ ...... ...... ............
Tt ~ .." ... , ..................
-n \~ Td2 Td2 1D
1 PROPOSED SHEARKEY ~ ~L-----------------B-E-OO-I-NG---P~ESH~(BPS) Td1 \ ?==~===~~~=~~?~===~==~~==~ \ . Td1' w, ,
, Td2
CROSS-SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20' (HORIZ. = VERT.)
LEGEND
QCf ........ COMPACTED FILL
Tt ......... TORREY SANDSTONE
Td ......... DELMAR FORMATION
iJ1 Td~----__ Qcf
1 ---... '<
Td1
~=~=~~=~=~=~
Td2
8'
260'
240'
220'
GEOCON
INCORPORATED o
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANCERS DRIVE· SANDEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121·2974
PHONE 619 558·6900 • FAX 619 558-6159
PROJECT NO. 05467 -12 -04
FIGURE 3
DATE 12 -23 -1997
I __ ----------------------------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I NOTES;
I 1-E=:aace. baci:z:izt ar: 1.0 m 1.0 fndinarina.,
~. Base of tbe marb:rsDaaJ4l)e-3 (ccbdalrdlaJatN:Kst.c:oaear2S'" liljii!i!d bysail.
.'gi"-c Sapia(.a ali"· Fin af5&pwCiiilCiIa ct...... " .. -, I ~ SJlar-kl:r-CO be g:""l'-~ of P''''4*ti, "."tN-' p:bP'fersail widt. .. sIIar: . :..... . .sa:eaagctLPWO'h '., Qc+"-&1!c.-~~. <-: .. : ... :;,., ':: .'.' ;.' ... ;.:: ........ .
. ~'.;: 4:. sz..: • .,. L ,c aa::aa:iaa&*-iIlbeptGiididwidt.l* " h j ,Jw. ,., .... ~
(Mif""'n;n. l"=-; a&"~'~:appc . ..,.3IJIIIK • a ..... _ ar,~
I by24-iadts.xsau.twidl1!br.iCi iwi ~NaIa~ A"""" .... clmiawlit.ZM(IIilwd
. wDare-uas of ""P'P mrci. • cL. D .. i '.' pIIIId:I.*-iILlIei i '. "111ra-:
!ram tbII-tDp of m.cmr ......... ciaa:\L .
I S-Ha: i i i'l to _l~ opcD'8I:adt:d;c:msizcd.radI: en d !)N!~ Draltappaoverd>l!JI:et1abtic::
(Mizadl4ON or~ . . .'
0.. CoiJ.el:l:!:pq.CObe~"·' 'Aih elf. 'i.Pctbi 1 .. rf;i.....,..!VC':sc:fiIerlpIe=.,
.or~am1Sapel:t.to cDiu.:l.paCiiiiLOh ..• h aupptUNd;:~ .'
I~---------------TY--p-IC-~...-~-S~H-~--·m-~-~---.~D~·~~·~:~~~·i~~.~-.. ~~~ .. ~ .. -.. ...-------~
I LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CI;NTER
CARJ,.SBAD, CALlFOR~IA
I ~~----------------··~------~~~ FIGURE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECTNO 05467-12-04
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Depth of Saturation
Slope Inclination
Slope Angle
= Infinite
= 3 feet
(Horizontal :Vertical)
= 26.5 degrees
Unit Weight of Water
Total Unit Weight of Soil
Angle of Internal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
H
Z
2:1
i
Yw
YI
= 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
= 135 pounds per cubic foot
= 30 degrees $
C = 200 pounds per square foot
Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face.
Seepage forces parallel to slope face
ANALYSIS:
FS= = 1.85 r I Z sini cosi
REFERENCES:
(1) Haefeli, R. The Stability a/Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second International
Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1,57-62.
(2) Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability a/Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc. Fourth
International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957,2,378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURES
, ,
~: I':' :"<-:" ':, , ..
:', ~. ," I' ..... ;. ,., " .' . ~.
-'.: :;.. , ':~. -:,
"'~"I-" .. ,';: -,:,;,:.> ." ", " "... ..
" ; :.: ... ; .... !.,,:
-',', ~;.
,", .. . . ;' .
-,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was perfonned during the period of July 22 through July 24, 1987, and
consisted of a visual site reconnaissance and the excavation of 5 large-diameter borings and 12
backhoe trenches. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and trenches are shown on
Figure 1.
The large-diameter borings were advanced to depths ranging from 31 to 39.5 feet below existing
grade using an E-IOO truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket auger.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch split-tube sampler 12 inches into
the undisturbed soil mass with blows from the drill rig Kelly bar. The sampler was equipped with I-
to 6-inch by 23/s-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Bulk samples were also
obtained.
The backhoe trenches were advanced to depths of 8 to 15 feet using a JD 555 trackhoe equipped. with
an I8-inch-wide bucket. Disturbed bulk and chunk samples were o~tained at selected locations in
the trenches.
The soils encountered in the borings and backhoe trenches were visually examined, classified, and
logged. Logs of the borings and backhoe trenches are presented on Figures A-I through A-17. The
logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were
obtained.
Project No. 05467-12-04 December 23, 1997
I
File No. D-3930-HOl
IAugust 17, 1987
a:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::: ... li:%w w-w o ...
-0
--
-2 ---
I-4 ----6 --.'
I-8 -
~ -
1-10-
~ -
... 12 -
--
~ 14 -
I--
-16 ---
-18 -
~ .
I-20 -
~ -
-22 ---
I-24 •
I--
I-26 • --
d z w .... ...
::l: ~
B1-1
Bl-2
Bl-3
Bl-4
Bl-5
Bl-6
Bl-7
>-I!! 8 ~ .... 0 0 % j!; ~ :l 0
Vf I I IX I I I' .' , xV
'. '/ .. ' . · ' ... · .
:-I·:/:·j·:
·r·lf · .... ....
:·fft .' . :-i':r
'l-r. ..
',:1'<1:: j~:
:'(('l " . :J:I:{
:--·I:J· ~:"·CI·:·.
:.fT:I::
':I:rl:' .' . ' '
/jl l~ % I I
J.X
1 1
~iii u cJ
.... cd -:;) ~-
CH
CL
,-
SM
CL-CH
~--,
'\
"
/ I
I
-28 ... lli 11)/ //
EII_~I~
/
.--.
B1-S
BORING 1
sw, ?: wI-j:ut: 311 7/23/87 ~~U! ~,.; a:..:
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED :;)%
tu!!l~ wcJ ~~
30" Bucket Rig ffi:ai5 eo: 0%
EQUIPMENT a: ::l:8 ... a:. c , ,
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, moist to wet, dark brown, Silty CLAY -
-
TORREY SANDSTONE 4 105.0 18.9
Hard, moist, orange-brown, Sandy ~ ~ULK. ~ AMPLE
CLAYSTONE l-
i\ ~
Dense, moist, light tan-white, Silty, -
fine SANDSTONE; massive ~,
I-
6
I--BULK :iAMPLE
--.
l-
I--6 112.9 17.0
~ontact/bedding nearly horizontal, -
±1-2° w/!s." thick gypsum layers -
DELMAR FORMATION
Stiff, moist, medium greenish-gray-brown, I-
Silty CLAYSTONE; 1/16-1/2" thick gypsum 3 106.7 20.0 ..
layers common ~ULK AHPLE --,-cemented zone 2-3" -
J _gypsum layers 1/8-1/2" very common as -r laminations 1-2" apart l-
I 0-
J ~rd, wet, medium to dark gray, very Clayey -.i. SILTSTONE; carbonaceous (lignitic);
(potential low pH) -
,_seepage along ~" thick gypsum layer -
lJ 9 1,17.2 16.4
Figure A~l, Log of Test Boring 1 CONTINUED NEXT ~AGE
I' SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPl.ING UNSUca:SSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPt.E
I1_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
il_CHUNK SAMPt.E
• :... DRIVE SAMPt.E (UNDISTURBEDI
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDtnONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED. ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTAnvEOFSUBSURFACECONDmONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
File No. D-3930-H01 I August 17, 1987
a: ~ 0 >
:x: ... z 8 ~ tzw w -' ... 0 z w-w a. o ... ~ i!: :::>
~ ::::; ~ CI I
-30
en ~;;; -'d (Jill ==s g-
BORING 1, CONTINUED
Sw. !; ~~t wl#
311 7/23/87 ~..: a:..,
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED a:~Us :::>z wtj "w tu~~ 011:
en __
30" Bucket Rig zen ... > gg
EQUIPMENT ~~CD a: 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I
I
B1-9 X/ dark gray, Clayey SILTSTONE; -BULK AMPLE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
-32 -
... -, ... 34 -
-..
... 36-
... ·
I-38·
... ·
I'"' 40 ---
--
... -
i--
I'"' ..
-· ... ---
l-· ... --·
I'"' ---
i--
l-·
I--
i---...
-..
Figure
'T ML Hard, moist,
i/ massive, carbonaceous (lignitic), possible -.... V low pH
/ ~
l/
~(: .. 1---.... --becomes sandy !-
.:;/. -:-: .' ' .. ~:'-.. · . / -
'.~."" -~' .. .
· . L'~ . . ~<' ' . i-· . .. :,:t ... .
I-
\ Very dense, moist, medium gray, Clayey
SILTSTONE: cemented zone with fossil shells ~ --
1
BORING TERMINATED AT 39.5 FEET l-
--...
-
I-
------...
...
---. -
A-2, Log of Test Boring 1, continued
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
18l_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMF't.E
I)_STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST
iii_CHUNK SAMF't.E
• _ PRIVE SAMF't.E (UNDISTUI;IBEDI
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OFSUBSURFACECONDInONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED. ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFAC ECONDInONSATOTHER LOCAnONSAND nMES.
I
File No. D-3930-H01 I August 17 , 1987
cr BORING 2
0 >-... rn
Z 8 i m-aw . ~ w#
J: .. '" _uti:
I tztj w ..J Q -0 296 7/23/87 ~~., ~&&; cr,.:
..J 0 u'" ELEVATION DATE DRILLED ~z
w-w CI. Z a;>-~ wo >-w
c ... ~ J: ::J =::J !a~
~ ... ~ ~-!ij!ao CC1:
~ 30" Bucket RiS zl/)..J >-~8 Cl EQUIPMENT wWIll a; Q.a; c
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I~ 0 /,1 I TOPSOIL --I~ CL Soft, damp, dark brown, Silty CLAY -
I I
2 -V. .. .. TORREY SANDSTONE I--I: ~~: ~: ML Stiff soft, B2-1 ;. to moist, medium-light brown, 2 108.2 19.3 ~
I: 4 --v~ :.
~~ , '
, ' '~ . ' -6 -" ;, "
I-~ ;,: " '/ , , , . ,~ -8 -' ,~
1 ~ -~: :: ',; " ' -. '. .~ '.
-10 -B2-2 i~: ' ' ..
1:12
-" :/ .... '~ -: -;~~' ' , . ' ' ,
~ -I ' . " .'/
'/ '
1-14 :. '~ , ' , . :' < ~~ , . --'. "
1 ' '/,
"'16 -, '~ -: . '.
X ' . --" :~
I t-18 .. .;.::-
>\: I' ,l"-
=--::(, :r'
I 1"20 -1:.1 ::1.:,' B2-3
f--"'1'1' I'
I -22 -::(1 :,,:~
I--:.r fl,
-24 -:rr,I~'
J f--: {{'I.:
-26 -. 'I: 1'.1'.
I I--'~r "I ::1>
-28 .. :-I~ " :-1': , , ' ,
I~ -',I' I' I'.
, I.' 1.'1,
Figure A-3, Log of
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS
Sandy, Clayey SILTSTONE
i-
i-----
ML Hard, moist, light brown, Sandy, Clayey 5 123.9
SILTSTONE
f-------cemented zone
SM Dense, moist to wet, reddish-brown,
Silty, fine SANDSTONE
-----becomes saturated
~ t--. ......
...... " strong seepage /~ ----1-' ........
Jr--nense , wet, light grayish-tan, Silty,
fine SANDSTONE ,-
SH
Test Boring 2
0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iI_CHUNK SAMPLE
---..
-.
-
;.
I--7 114.9 --. ----
~
--..
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
• _-DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIESONL Y ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED.ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDmONSATOTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES.
6.2
16.4
I
File No. D-3930-HOI II August 17, 1987
a: BORING 2, CONTINUED
0 >-w '" z 8 < ~;;; ,Zw ?:
::t: ... ~ Qut:
~zw w .... ....(.) 296 7/23/87 <~~ '" I .... u", w-w ... 0 z ELEVATION DATE DRILLED z..:
a ... ~ i: § =:::1 ~r!i~ W(.)
~-an;
~ ::::i 30" Bucket Rig z"' .... >-
C) EQUIPMENT ~~m a: a
If-30
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
".,-'.1-:1'", ... . :-1: ·1:-1:' l-
III-32 • ~ DELMAR FORMATION l-
I--
CL-CH Hard, moist to wet, medium greenish-gray, ~
I I Silty CLAYSTONE; massive, some fractures II-34 -:
l-
I-• :J} l-
t-36
I BORING TER}fINATED AT 36.0 FEET
l-· l-
I-· l-
I l-· I-
l-· l-
I l-· l-
I-· l-
I I--l-
t-· l-
I-· l-
I l-· I-
... · ...
I i--l-
I-· l-
I I--l-
i--l-
I: -to-
· I--
l-· "'" II--l-
I--l-
I: -l-
· I-
II--I-
Figure A-4, Log of Test Boring 2, continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPt.ING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPt.E
[I_STANDARD PENEmAnON TEST
"_CHUNK SAMPt.E
• _ DRIVE SAMPt.E (UNOISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OFSUBSURFACECONomONSSHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCAnONAND
ATTHE DATE INOICATED.ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTAnVEOFSUBSURFACE CONomONSATOTHER LOCAnONSANO nMES.
wI-a:,.: :::Iz "'w "' ... ~8
-
I File No. D-3930-HOl
I August 17 1987 ,
• cr BORING 3
d >-~ en Z ~ Z 8 ~ en_ Q~t:: w#
I :r ... ~III
li:z'" w .... 0 (.)cJ 286 7/23/87 ~z ~&&: cr..,
.... 0 Z .... 111 ELEVATION DATE DRILLED IZ:~~ j:!z
w-w CI. WcJ
o ... ::E ;: :> -:> ti~o 0,.; ",j!:!
;:; ::; !f ~-. 30" Bucket Ri~ zll)iiI >-~8 <!I EQUIPMENT ~l!! IZ: Q
I 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
i-/-'-' -TOPSOIL : " .' .' . .. .. 0, --:< :./: CL Soft, damp, medium brown, Sandy CLAY -
,0 ..... " " ••
I -2 --I' .'. ., .... ", TORREY SANDSTONE
r--B3-1 i .... ::: ML Hard, moist, light tan, Sandy SILTSTONE; -
I
~ ..... ' trace of clay, gypsum 6 105.3 9.2
i-4 -...... -• I • ': ..
i"--.' ., -
\ ,
~ 6 -. , I .' . -I ,-
I -, . ' . . ---, " . . . · '
to-8 ' t, . --" ,
I I' ' . .. , ,
~ , ' -, " I r -i-1O -B3-2 J .... , " 6 18.8 12.7
I "
i--, I -
I I
~ 12 -, • I ' , -. ' ' , ----I v ' --:. c · ., fossil shells, cemented zone 4-6" thick -Co .' " ~--I. . '
1-14 -. .. ~ -· -I -i--I
,
I
-16 -I •• -
"0°, "\
.1 .' . ---I
' , , , ~ ...............
~18 -, 'I' '\. ,\" -. " . " SM Dense, moist to wet, light grayish-tan --. \' 1',' . with orange bands, Silty, very fine i-
, ',,':,1 :',',: I -20 -" . SANDSTONE -'.' 1::1:,1' ' ---c:: ::-:...;> Break in Log -
I -24 -" (:\'."1".: -
--":'(1':1:: ,r--contactlbedding nearly horizontal (°1_2°) -;:~ :-tl.:· !. -
-26 -~ -
I DELMAR FORHATION
~ -.J. Q:::~~-~ Hard, moist to wet, medium greenish-gray, ..
"28 -1 \ Silty CLAYSTONE; gypsum layers 1/8-{/2" ~
I I thick common --Z: I -
1 I :
1 I seepage along 1/2" thick gypsum layer
-30 .. '---
I -I v
BORING TERMINATED AT 31.0 FEET
Figure A-5, Log of Test Boring 3 I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETAAnON TEST
~_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED!
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONSSHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFIC80RINGORTRENCH LOCAnONAND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED,ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATlVEOFSUBSURFACECONDmONSATOTHER LOCAnONSAND nMEs.
I
File No. D-3930-H01
ugust 17, 1987
a:
d
::J: Z
~z~ '" ..... w-'" CL Q u.. ~ ~
8 ~ ;;: ..... Q 0 z i: :J
::i lil (:J
0
22
24
26
28
<Il <Il_ <rn ..... u Urn ~::; &1-
SM-SC
SM
BORING 4
ELEVATION 278 DATE DRILLED 7/23/87
EQUIPMENT 30" Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
T PSOIL
Soft, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY
TORREY SANDSTONE
Dense to medium dense, moist, light brown
to tan, very Silty, very fine SANDSTONE
to SILTSTONE; some clay in fractures,
thin beds'
Dense to medium dense, moist, light
brown-grayish tan', Silty, fine SAND
becomes wet
r-strong seepage
I
DELMAR FORMATION
Soft to stiff, saturated, medium to dark
greenish-gray, Silty CLAYSTONE; fractured
\L_ remolded zone 1/4" thick gough; E-IV,
\ 5-rS
\
L_ slickensided fractures N40-50W, 30-35°SW;
·water seeps along these surfaces
L-_ slickensided fractures N25W, 18°SW;
grooved
,_ slickensided fractures E-W, 20-25°S
Stiff to hard, moist, dark greenish-gray,
Silty CLAYSTONE; more massive, less
fracturing, but still randomly oriented
discontinuous slickensided surfaces
generally dipping southward
3 109.0 16.3
3 106.5 18 .. 0
2 101.8 22.6
BULK AMPLE
2 103.8 22.5
3101.723.9
Figure A-6, Log of Test Boring 4 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
1:82_ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IiiJ _ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACECONDmONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I File • A ugus
No. D-3930-H01
t 17 1987 ,
• tr >-W 0 ~ z 8 J: ...
I !i:z'" W .... 0 .... 0 w-w 0.. Z o ... ~ j!: ~ ~ :J <:J
I!-30 /,1 I -I I I -~ r-32 -100 _
B4-7 0 1:34
-
J: ----
I !--
i--
I I--
100 -
I ~ ..
l--
~ -J I----
I I-..:
F--
I ... -
'"" ---I l--.. .
I~ ..
l-.
I: ..
-..
'" BORING 4, CONTINUED
"'-<01 ....0 ELEVATI0 N..--1.7 S 7/23/87 °01 DATE DRILLED =~ g-30" EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-L
Hard, moist, dark greenish-gray, Silty
CLAYSTONE; massive~ some fractures
·BORING TERMINATED AT 34.0 FEET -
I~
Figure A-7, Log of Test Boring 4, cont~nued
~w . ?: _0t;: <z ...... '" z"; e:a3! Wd
ll:1iiig QQ; >-... WIII tr o..tr '0
'~ -
~
5 106.5 i-
.-
.-
.-
~ ..
.-
--
~
.-
..
--
~
i-..
-.. -
' ..
---..
-
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I)_STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST
IW_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED.ITlS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONSATOTHER LOCAnONSANDl1MES.
w# tr..: ~z ~~ OZ :lEg
19.9
I
File No. D-3930-H01 I August 17, 1987 a:
BORING 5
d > ~ ~_ Zw
J: .... ~ \. § ~ <Ul Q0t: ~ ",oj!
I !ii?!:::l ~ 0 0 d~ ELEVATIONL. __ ...:2"-'7r...7!..-___ DATE DRILLED, __ ..t.7..t./.=.2.:t4..t./:¥8..t.7__ !C~ii} ~..; §i
Q ... ~ i: 5 52 --------~!2i~ ~~ ~I!! ~ ::::; g r/) zU)~ >-OZ ~----~----~----+=~~----~E~Q~U~I~P~M~E~N:T~::~3:0:"::B~U~C:k~e:t::R~i~~::::::::::::::::::::~~!~:~:m~-!~~~-=~~8~
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I-0
V· ..... SLOPEWASH .<~ ... : .. : !cL-CH Soft, moist to wet, medium to dark brown, ·
I ~ 2 •
I--BS-1
I ~ 4 -
~ -
I-6 -I~ ·
I-8 -II--
1-10 -BS-2 -BS-3 -
-
-
-1-18 -
~ .
BS-4
·
. .. :.. Sandy CLAY
10·:{··<:: ... -.. -... . . ' ..
r~ ~! I:~ fi:~ /Ii
I' ~/.
SC-SM
SM
Loose, moist, light orange-brown,
Silty, Ciayey, fine SAND
TORREY SANDSTONE
Medium dense to dense, moist to wet, light
tan-orange, Silty, fine SANDSTONE
r---nearly horizontal, very soft clay zone
I with gypsum, wet to saturated
1-_ II _::::->f.S
1-----n DELJ.'1AR FORHATION
CH,CL I Soft to stiff, wet, dark to medium
I green-gray-yellow, Silty CLAYSTONE; gypsum
\ along fractures, extremely fractured,
I almost brecciated; can punch pick in wall
I several inches
I
1-.__ abundant gypsum
r--1-2" thick remolded zone
I NSOW, SOSW; throughgoing
1---1-1 shear; wet to saturated
of clay-gouge
bedding-plane
l-
I-
I-_ 1
-
~
l-
I-
~
~
.-
I-
~
l-
I--
I-
~
2
2
~:
I ,"' i I ~ '" ~26 •
109.2
1l0.S
IBULK
19.2
10.4
AMPLE
rn~ i, Hard, moist, dark greenish gray, Silty
1-28 • I I CLAYS'J;ONE;massive, blocky with fewer ~
~. I CL fractures I~ ___ .B_S_-_S ___ I.y __ ~ ___ ~ _____________________________________________________ .~ ___ 6 ___ ~ ___ ~ ___ ~
Figure A-8, Log of Test Boring 5 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
I
I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPl.E
Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
,,_ CHUNK SAMPl.E
• _ DRIVE SAM~E (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONOITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION ANO
ATTHE OATE INOICATEO.ITIS NOTWARRANTEOTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONomONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
File No. D-3930-H01
I August 17. 1987
a:: BORING 5, CONTINUED
d >-w '" >-
:z: ... Z 8 ~ ~iij
1 ~ZLU W ... 0 "'0 277 ... 0 Z u'" ELEVATION DATE DRILLED w-w ... o ... ::e ;: :;) :::!:;)
~ ~ ~ 0-'" 30" 0 EQUIPMENT ~lJs::k.et Ri~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1--30 ~V ... -
I I
I ,.. 32 BORING TERMINATED AT 32.0 FEET
~ -
I I--
I--
I--
I --.
I--
I I--
F--
I I--
I--
--I I--
I--
I I--
I--
I I-M
"--
I r--
I--
I--I ~ --·
I ~ · -·
I I--
"--
I !--
Figure A-9, Log of Test Boring 5, continued
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I1_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iiJ _ CHUNK SAMPLE
Zw ~ Qut
7/24/87 ~~U! ~....: W(j >-"'~ w-o Co;
z"'''' ?i wWm (La:: C
~:
l-
...
0-
--
.1-
i-
l-
.-
--
0-
--
-
-
0-
-----
l-
I-
l-
...
l--
•. _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDisTuRBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR'SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOGOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIESONL Y ATTHESPECIFICBORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
AJTHE DATE INDICATED-ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATlVEOFSUBSURFACECONDI:rJONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
w# a::,.: :;)z S!i~ OZ ::e8
I
File No. D-3930-HOl
t 17,1987
d z
III ..J 0.. :::E ~
Tl-l
Tl-2
'" Ul_ <u:l -'u Uo1 =:::l g-
TRENCH 1
ELEVATION 290 DATE DRILLED 7 /22/87
EQUIPMENT Trackhoe
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
. Medium hard, damp, light brown, Sandy SILT
H
Very soft, wet, medium to dark reddish-
brown, Silty CLAY; slickensides on random
surfaces; creep
TORREY SANDSTONE
~~~~~-----+~ Hard, moist, green-gray-brown, Clayey,
Tl-3
SM
Sandy SILTSTONE; in-place with gypsum
\ bedded layers 1/2-1" every 12 to 18"
~-----------------------------------
Hard, moist, green-gray-mottled yellow,
Clayey SILTSTONE
horizontal to 2°± attitude of bedding
Very dense, damp, medium brown, highly
cemented (CaC03-Si02) fossiliferous concretion
layer; gastropods, 10-12" thick
Dense, moist, light grayish-brown, Silty
fine SANDSTOME
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
Figure A-lO, Log of Test Trench 1
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
181_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ_STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST
IW_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)·
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFIC80RINGORmENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INOICATEO. ITiS NOTWARRANTEOTO BE REPRESENTAnVE OF SUSSURF ACECONOITIONSATOTHERLOCAnONSANOnMEs,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-3930-H01
August 17, 1987
~
~
J: ... tzw w-w a ...
0
·
--2 -
~ -.. 4 -
I--
~ 6 .
~
I-8
~
-10 -
--12
l-
1-14
...
-16
-
·
· -
--
·
·
·
-
· --
----
·
·
·
·
·
d z w .... Cl. ~ ~
12-1
> 8 .... 0 J: ... :;
VI I I
I i.l 1/1
a: ~ a z ::l !f "
TRENCH 2 rn ~w . rn_ ~ wI-<., _ut:
~t.l 302 7/22/87 i~0 rn a:..:
urt.l ELEVATION DATE DRILLED z..: ::lz =:::l :U!!l~ wt.l "'w
&)-OQ; a:Z Trackhoe zrn .... >
EQUIPMENT wwcn a: . ~8 Cl.a: Q
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Medium hard, damp, dark brown, Silty CLAY CL
ML TORREY SANDSTONE
MIl Medium, moist, orange, Sandy Clayey SILTStONE -
-~\ -SM I\~ ________________________________________ -+ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~
I Hard, moist to wet, brown green gray, very
Clayey SILTSTONE; slickensided discontinuous I shear surfaces lL-:= horizontal bedding contact
Dense, moist, white to light tan, Silty
fine SANDSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
..
I-
---.. ~ULK ~ AMPLE
I-..
---
I-
~
I-----
I-
0-
I-
... II ~I-.... _-L-__ .... ~ __ .... ~~ .... -L--.... --------............ ------------.... --........ --.... --~ .... ~~~~--~
I
I
Figure A-ii, Log of Test Trench 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
181_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iI_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED'
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INOICATEO.ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACECONOmONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
File No D-3930-H01 I 'August
.
17, 1987
cr TRENCH 3
0 >-~ '" z"" ~ z 8 "'-will I 1: ... <'" Qot li:z"" "" .... 0 .... 0 301MSL 7/22/87 ~z~ '" cr,.: .... 0 0", ELEVATION DATE DRILLED zu; :::>z ",,-w 0.. Z cr~ o ... ~ i!: :::> =:::> :u~o W(j ~~ ~ 0-00.; ~ ::l '" Trackhoe z"' .... >-Oz CI EQUIPMENT ~~m cr :::1:8 0
I.-MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1" MH TOPSOIL It-' I--:y I."':' Soft, damp, dark yellow-brown, Clayey SILT I-
I~ I-2-:.('-T. SM
~ --: I ~'I", (, TORREY SANDSTONE I: 4-',I-'!>I: Dense, moist, light tan white, Silty, fine --: f:I-} : 1----1\, SANDSTONE; massive r-
I: 6 -"J'~{' r--",1.'1.-1: L_ beddin,g N60-70W, 2-4°SE 1 -: .1:: I. '.":: l-
I-8-l-
I I .. ML Hard, moist, medium to light green gray, .. Sandy SILTSTONE massive in-place ,~
I-lO-r-
I .. -TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.0 FEET
I--I-
'I .. -I-
~ . ~
I~ 0 TRENCH 4 Elev. 308HSL
~ . , '0 FILL
I--O.Oj~ Loose, dry damp, medium brown, Clayey SAND l-
I '·0 ;):",~
J-2 -• oX • " ' and BOULDERS; oversize fill and trash l-I-~'O" I--... , .. ~:
1 a. 4 :,,: "I< /" '. TORREY SANDSTONE --I·i·,:: SM Dense, moist, light banded with orange -l tan, --:1'·1:.1> red, Silty fine SANDSTONE -
I r 6 -".,\.,:. 1------nearly horizontal bedding -:·1:('(' .. -I--.. Hard, moist, light brown, Sandy Clayey I-8 -~ ML ...
I T4-1 . / ~MlPLE I ~ .. ~~ SILTSTONE BULK
.. -., .. ---n -J ' ...
1-10 v,' ... L_ bedding N80E,2-4°SE --" " .
J
' . ":~.
t-. ' . 1;.-:' ' .
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11.0 FEET
-12 -I-
I~ -I-
Figure A-12, Log of Test Trenches 3 and 4
, , I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
!81_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IW_ CHUNK SAMPLE =f -WATER TABLE'OR SEEPAGE 'I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED,ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
File No. D-3930-HOl I ugust l7, 1987
0 >-8 J: ... Z
I Q:zW w ..... ..... 0 w-w 0.. J: o ... :::!: ... ~ ;;;
I~ 0 :1:)(1"
~ -;.:(:,-: I::
I: 2 -:',:T.;):':-
"J:' ·1:' .. . >:, . .. . . .
I: 4 .. • * •• .. .. . . .. . . . . , ..
i-6 .. ' .
I ''.1':'':1 :: I--"'I :'1-:1 :--8 -:t',I'.1 .-
I '.'I".I·.t·.·
I--l!:I··I·'· " .. " .. -lO .. ~ I I-.. .. , I ...... ".
... l2 .. ~:'I:,:ly
I ...
-l4 ---I I-..
I J. 0 .. /.. . V" .'. ' .. --V. I 2 -
Oo .. " 0.
I-........
.. • .. 0°
Ia -: .. " .. °0 .: .... (
~ 4 -.. /. .
I ~ I--if I-6 -
I t -Ily
i-8
I I--
!:. 10-
II-..
I
F:gUre A-13, Log of
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
0: TRENCH 5 w rn ... rn_ ~w , ~ ~ <'" _ut:
0 ""'0 289MSL 7/22/87 !<~;,;; ~~ z u'" ELEVATION DATE DRILLED :::) =:::) ~!ii~ W(j Oa; ~ ~-Trackhoe zC/) ..... >-I!l EQUIPMENT ~~m a: 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ALLUVIUM
Loose, dry damp, medium brown, Silty Clayey ~
SM-SC fine SAND i-
TORREY SANDSTONE
ML Hard, moist, light brown, very Sandy -
SILTSTONE -
l-\L bedding horizontal
l-
SM Dense, moist, tan white, Silty fine
SANDSTONE, massive --
CL Hard, moist, medium greenish gray with -
yellow layers, Sandy Silty CLAYSTONE, ,l-
massive, blocky
l-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT l3.0 FEET -.--
TRENCH 6 Elev.258MSL
ALLUVIUM
SC-CI Loose to medium dense, damp, medium brown, ...
very Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY --
l-
-DELMAR FORMATION CL-CE Hard, moist, dark greenish gray, Silty ~
CLAYSTONE, massive, moderate fractures l---
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8.0 FEET I-
Test Trenches 5 and 6
0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCl:SSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IW_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE 'I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTH ESPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
AT!HE DATE INDICATED.ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
w~ 0:,.: :::)z ... w rn ... o,z :::!:8
I
File No. D-3930-H01 I August 17, 1987
I
:t: .... !i:zw w-w Q ...
0
-
2-
-
0 z w ... CI. ::I: ~
> 8 ... o ~ ::;
~:~ .. '.:
l/
cr w ~ C z ::> ~ Cl
en TRENCH 7 en_ <'" ..... u 268MSL 7/22/87 u'" ELEVATION DATE DRILLED =::> 0-Trackhoe r.tJ EQUIPMENT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SLOPEWASH
Loose, damp, medium brown, very Clayey
SC-CL fine SAND to Sandy CLAY
4-
...... : ->
:-./.' '+, --+--.-f-------------------"--------
-
6-
-
8-
I~ -
:.U:r
:·1·:1· J:
."\""'.j'.
<I :J:'I':
>1:-1'.:( .... ....
SM
CL-CH
TORREY FORHATION
Dense, mQist, light brown, very Silty finel SANDSTONE
Hard, moist, dark greenish gray with yellow
bands, Silty CLAYSTONE
. ~w . ~ w# _ut ~z_ en cr..: cr~~ z..: ::>z wu .... w t;j!!lo Co: ~~ zen ... > ~8 ~~m cr Q
~
I-
... -
~
~
I-
~
l-
i-
... I
: 10: r: :1
l{1L ~ 124---~~~~+----+--------~ __ ----------------------------~---r---;--~ TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12.0 FEET
I ~
~ 14-
-~
~
I
I
TRENCH 8 Elev.268MSL
SURFICIAL LANDSLIDE
Soft, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; fractured ~
CL disturbed (insipient backs carp surface ring ~
~-;"-/'o~~-.-\. crack 2-3" wide _
~----------------------.-----~ --SC Loose, moist, medium brown very Clayey fine
__ ~ SAND; fractured disturbed and brecciated
CH ~ contact dips 1-50 out-of-slope
DELMAR FORMATION ..
. --~ Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled white,
CL-CH \ orange green gray, Silty CLAYSTONE; fractured -
~-----+-'---+~------h\ and weathered with gypsum and random slickens'~ed
Hard, moist, dark greenish-gray, Silty
CLAYSTONE; less frac·tured and more massive
in-place
-
..
st: rfacel
Figure ~14, Log of Test Trenches 7 and 8 TRENCH TERMIN~TED AT 10.0 FEET
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
jgJ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
Il_STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST
iI_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDIstuRBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREONAPPLIESONL Y ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AN'D
ATTHE DATE INDICATED. ITIS NOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTAnvE OFSUBSURFACECONDmONSAToTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
File No. D-3930-HOl
I August 17, 1987
d >
l: .... z 8 I !i:zw w -' -' 0 w-w <1-o ... ::f J: .... ~ ::;
a:: TRENCH 9 ~ Ul ,Zw ~ Ul_ ~ w# <en g~t 0 -'tj 255 7/22/87 Ul §..: z uen ELEVATION DATE DRILLED ~~iiJ zu.: ::l ~:; tu!!l~ wu .... ~
~ g-OQ; cr. ...
Trackhoe z"'-' ?c oz
0 EQUIPMENT ~I!!ID ::f8 0
I~ o~----~~~-7----~------------------------------------------r----+----+---~ ~~'f j',:(T' ALLUVIUH
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I--:'1,'1, SM-SC Loose, moist to saturated, medium brown,
Ir-2 -T9-1 ' ,y. Silty, Clayey, fine SAND
-
I-BULK SAlfPLE
~
II'" 4· 1 .~ seepage, caving
" ..... ----..
... -~:':f:~~: f---,---probe penetrates 3' with body weight
. I--' 1 I' I ............ .......
I
I-I-6. -~ ':' ~--+-D-E-LMAR--F-O-RMA--T-I-O-N---------------f---I----+-~
1 1 CH Hard, wet" dark greenish-gray, Silty
~I CLAYSTONE; fractured moderately, but
l-
i-
I-8 -massive ..
I~ 1 1
-10 -
TRENCH TERHINATED AT 9.0 FEET -
I-
I-
--
i-
i-
TRENCH 10 EL. 276 v: : ',' SLOP EWASH
~~~~ __ C_L_~_S_O_f_t_'_d_am_p_'_d_a_r_k_b_r_own __ ,_s_a_n_d_y_CL_A_Y _____ -r: __ ~-~~--_4
>1"1' ,I.: TORREY SANDSTONE -
I ~ 10 -
:.. -
... 12 -
I: 14-
.'1>1:,1', SM Dense, moist, light tan, Silty, fine
'.:1:: 1'-'1:: SAND STONE
':1 :,1 ::1:-
Y'L·I:: __ _
r-becomes wet
J
CH-CI DELMAR FORHATION r-_-.... Hard, moist to saturated, dark greenish-~---~ gray-brown, Silty CLAYSTONE
L-__ cemented fossiliferous concretion-zone
6-8"
~ _ seepage, caving
---
..
--
I-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13.0 FEET
I ... -----~-----~----~~~--~-----------------------------------------------~---~,~----~----~ Figure A-IS, Log
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS
of Test Trenches 9 and 10
0_ SAMPLING UNSUCC£SSFUL
r81_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ_STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST
ii_CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE I\,INDISTURBEOI
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOGOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED,ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTAnVE OFSUBSURFACECONDmONSATOTHER LOCAnONSAND nMEs.
I
File No. D-3930-HOl I August 17, 1987
a: TRENCH 11
d >-w '" aw , z 8 !< "'-~
:c .... ~ <Ul _UI;:
I w ..... ej ~u; !i:zw ..... ..... C uUl ELEVATION 282 7/22/87 ~z_
0 z DATE DRILLED o:~~ w-W Q. iE =:::l Wej
Q .... ::!! :::l &! Sl-t;j!!!o Ca;
~ :::; Trackhoe z"' ..... >-
<!l EQUIPMENT ~~CD a: C
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 ~I ALLUVIUM -... I~ CL Soft, damp, dark brown, Silty CLAY -
'I J I
i-2 --
<1"1 '·1:'
i-->.1:: I:: 1-: TORREY SANDSTONE
I "'" 4 -"1'·1'.1" SH Dense, moist, light tan, Silty, fine -.. I'
"'" -:I.f: : SANDSTONE -
-6 -: :1."1 :."1:: L horizon:tal bedding -
I :.I':I:{· --.}'.I -:1': -. .
i-8 -:-, :.1 :., .. SM Dense, moist, medium orange, Silty, fine -
I i---:1'·1.\' SANDSTONE; massive -'.1",'.,' . . . . . -"'"10 -
I «I·J· SM Dense, moist to wet, grayish-tan, Silty, --·fl'·'< -fine SANDSTONE (laminated)
-12 -'''I':I~' (. -
:/. t:I.-
I i-TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13.0 FEET
1-14 -"" -i--I i---. ---
I ---
... -l-
I ---
I ----I --------.: ----0--
'1---------
-Figure A-16, Log of Test Trench 11
I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
1l_'~T~~~ARD PE~~~~ON TEST
~_ CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFlCBORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED.ITIS NOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATOTH ER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
wI-0:,..: :::lz ~~ Oz
::!!8
-
I
File Nq. D-3930-HOl IA 17 98 Ugust . 1 7
a: TRENCH 12
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l I
I
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d > w rn .. 5w .
J: .. z 8 ~ ~iii _uti: ?;
!i:zw w ..J 0 ..JcJ 270 7/22/87 ~z ...... en
..J 0 Uuj ELEVATION DATE DRILLED z...:
w-w 11. Z l:~~ o ... ::!l ~ ~ =;:) WcJ 00,;
~ 5)-w-o :::; Trackhoe zrn..J >
Cl EQUIPMENT wWG) a: 11.a: Q
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -a V. . . · . ".-TOPSOIL -.. · "' ... CL Soft, moist, dark brown, -./ Sandy CLAY · .. -2 · ..... ..
· .1'.1< 1 '.
f-... '·1'·1"1'·
>1"":-1:' SM TORREY SANDSTONE
f-4 .. · . .-l\ Dense, moist, orange, Silty, very fine -
~ .. -:U·J· SANDSTONE -
~ 6 ... J'I}: L --:1:1 :t SM -.. .J-:I:.I·: ~--\ Dense, mo'ist, light tan, Silty, fine ..
I-8 .. '.(1.'., :: SANDSTONE I-
\ ~ .. >1,".1" f L-horizontal -
',1'.1 }. bedding
I-10 .. -
:.. .. Jf':: ..
-12 .. -:1:.1-".1:-..
',1'-1'.,<
I-.. · ...
~I ~ DELMAR FORK~TION
I-14 .. 'W" 1-_'"'::".:> h Hard, wet to saturated, dark greenish-brown, -
I I I f---
l-I Silty CLAYSTONE -\
\ ..
!-16 .. \ -.. L_ cemented fossiliferous concretion layer; -
seepage follows this zone --..
I-..
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET -I-.. -I-..
. .. I-.. --.. -' -I-..
I-... I-
-.. I-
--.. --..
:.. .. -
Figure A-17, Log of Test Trench 12
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0_ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
181_ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
I]_;!T~~PARD PE~ETR,ATlON TEST
il_CHUNK SAMPLE
• _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ _ WATER TASLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICA TEo..lTIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACECONomONSATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
w# a:,.: ;:)z .. w rn .. ~8
I'
. '
. , .. ,
.. ".
-:.-I,. -.
~ -.'
,',
. " "', .
.. '::.-' , .,.-.
"
.',
. "~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected,
relatively undisturbed, drive samples were tested for their in-place dry density, moisture content, and
shear strength. A residual shear strength test was performed to assist in the determination of
appropriate soil strength parameters for slope stability analyses.
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected bulk samples 'were determined
in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-78. Portions of the bulk samples were then
remolded to selected densities and subjected to direct shear and expansion tests.
The results of our laboratory tests are presented in tabular form hereinafter. In-place density and
moisture characteristics are presented on the logs of the exploratory boring logs.
Sample
No.
Bl-4
B4-4
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-78
Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Density (pet) Content (% dry wt.)
Gray, white, Silty, very fine to fine SAND 116.2 14.3
Green, Silty CLAY 112.8 16.8
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Moisture Content Dry -
Sample No. Before Test After Test Density Expansion Classification
(pet) Index (%) (%)
Bl-2 14.6 30.5 94.3 43 low
Bl-4 12.1 36.9 102.8 153 very high
Bl-7 13.4 28.1 98.2 46 low
B4-4 15.1 35.2 92.4 95 . high
Project No. 05467-12-04 -B-1 -December 23, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
(pet) (%) (pst) Resistance (degrees)
BI-4* 104.3 14.6 310 32
B4-2 106.5 18.9 570 40
B4-3 101.8 22.6 1390 4
B4-4* 101.7 16.6 420 15
B4-7 106.5 19.9 320 37
Soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative density at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 05467-12-04 -B-2-December 23,1997
'1"> "
. ~".'
. " .ro " '.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
SHEAR KEY AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SLOPEIW VERSION 3
for
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT 05467-12-04
-------------------
~ ~ "-'"
~ o
.~
~ ;>
Q)
~ ~
Project No. 5467-12-04
30
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CROSS SECTION A -A'
Graded Conditions with Bldg. Surcharge Pressure
As Proposed -No Shear Key
50 100
Factor of Safety = 1.239 •
PL
150 200 250 300
Distance( ft) File: RLCA1.slp Soil * Unit Wt (pet) ~ (deg) Cohesion (pst) !
Qefl 125 20 300
Qefl 125 30 450
Tt 125 30 400
Tdl 120 20 200
Td2 120 25 500
B.P.S. 110 5 200
* For description see Table 8.2 Figure C-l
-------------------
~ ~
"'-" o o • P""'4
~ > 0)
~
~
Project No. 5467-12-04
30
Soil
Qefl
Qet2
Tt
Tdl
Td2
B.P.S.
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CROSS SECTION A -A'
Graded Conditions with 20 ft. Shear Key using
Low Strength Fill & Bldg. Surcharge Pressure
50
Unit Wt (pet)
125
125
125
120
120
110
Factor of Safety = 1.292 • PL
Building
100 150 200 250
Distance( ft)
9 (deg) Cohesion (pst)
20 300
30 450
30 400 ,
20 200
25 500
5 200
~
300
File: RLCA2a.slp
Figure C-2
-------------------
~ '--"
~ o • ,.....,-t
~ :> Q)
..--4
~
Project No. 5467-12-04
o
Soil
Qcfl
Qct2
Tt.
Td1
Td2
B.P.S.
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CROSS SECTION A -A'
Graded Conditions with 20 ft. Buttress using
Higher Strength Fills to Elevation 270 ft. (MSL)
& Bldg. Surcharge Pressure
Factor of Safety = 1.517
IYe-f I • PL
50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance(ft)
File: RLCA2f.slp Unit Wt (pct) ~ (deg) Cohesio.n (pst)
125 20 300
125 30 450
125 30 400
120 20 200
120 25 500
110 5 200
Figure C-3
- - - - - - -_.-- - - - - - - - - -
,.,-,.
~ '--'"
~ o • '1""'4 ~ > (])
~ ~
Project No. 5467-12-04
Soil
Qefl
Qcf2
Tt
Tdl
ITd2
B.P.S.
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CROSS SECTION A -A'
Graded Conditions with 20 ft. Buttress using
Higher Strength Fills to Elevation 270 ft. (MSL)
& Bldg. Surcharge Pressure
Factor of Safety = 9.298 • PL
Building
Qefl
50 100 150 200 250
Qef2 ~
300
Distance(ft) File: RLCA2.slp Unit Wt (pet) ~ (deg) Cohesion (pst)
125 20 300
125 30 450
125 30 400
120 ·20 200
120 25 500
110 5 200
Figure C-4
-------------------
~ ~ "'-"
~ o
.~
~ :> (])
~ ~
Project No. 5467-12-04
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CROSS SECTION A -At
Temporary 1:1 Backcut
Factor of Safety = 0.788 •
PL
50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance( ft) File: RLCA3.slp Soil Unit Wt (pet) ~ (deg) Cohesion (pst) I
Qefl 125 20 300
Qefl 125 30 450
Tt 125 30 400
Tdl 120 20 200
T~2 120 25 500
B.P.S. 110 5 200
Figure C~5
"
"I " ,
. ,..", . ." -,.. --' ~' .
, " ' ..... :., , "
.. ,~-,
"
r._.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I.
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATION
for
LA COSTA VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT 05467-12-04
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1 GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork
and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in
the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance wit!1 the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and
these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing
and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was
performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work
schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of
the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor
moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a
quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be
empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be
stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.
2 DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the
grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have
grading performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil
Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying
and verifying as-graded topography.
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting
firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the '
Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil
Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and
test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist
retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during
the site grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addendums) which may
include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared
specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading
Specifications are intended t? apply.
MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in
construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock
fills or rock fills, as defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defmed as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than
4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to
allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard
lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material
greater than 12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3-
feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined
as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines
shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials
as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30,
Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The
Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential
presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration
cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may
request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area.
Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the
Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defmed by
applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed
of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may
extend to the slope face,: provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1
(horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the
face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is
acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.
3.5 Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the
laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture
content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation
characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the Significance of the unanticipated condition.
4 CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist
of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation,
man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps,
roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be
graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1:'112 inches in diameter shall be-
removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be
grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.
4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of
reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with
Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report.
The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a
representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified
to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that
would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal:vertical),
or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
NOTES:
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
NO SC~L.s:
(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or
sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction
equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal,
or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or
unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational
material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the
depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by
the Consultant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should
be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods.
The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content,
and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5 COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-
steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other
types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a desig~ that
it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative
compaction at the specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6 PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in. layers that, when compacted,
should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and
shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and
moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly
level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall
be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated.-
by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the
moisture content is within the range specified.
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be
thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 .
percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expres:sed in percent) of
the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry
density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall
be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make
sufficient passes so that the specified minimum density has been achieved
throughout the entire fill.
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I'
I
I
,I
I
I
I
6.2
6.1.6 Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used iIi fills if
placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted' at a
moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture
content for the material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by
at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with
a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D.,8
dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at
least twice.
Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in
accordance with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area
measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below
finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, roc~ or
rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using
similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet
in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading, as specific cases arise
and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to
allow for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around ,and beneath rocks
should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 oc
greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed
utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this'
method should first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses
shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
J
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
6.3
6.2.6 All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his,
representative.
Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope
of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward
suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with
subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not,
develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage
facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by
rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the
currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate
seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement.
Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift
face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction
equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a
20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable
energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in
Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will be
determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been
covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil
fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-64, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number
of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of
passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the reslj.lts
of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the
deflection variation with number of passeS. The required number of passes of...
the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing
deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted
soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations
to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water
is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each
approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state
that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large
rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing'
will not be required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying
soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above
the uppennost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below
the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to corpmencing grading.
The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the
rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be
submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded
filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7 OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perfonn tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet
in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field
density test being perfonned within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field
density test shall be perfonned for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill
placed and compacted.
7.2 The Consultant shall perfonn random field density tests of the compacted soil or
soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material
is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be perfonned in the compacted materials
below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer
of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perfonn plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for...
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient
moisture has been applied to the material. If perfonned, plate bearing tests will be
perfonned randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests
will be perfonned to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock
fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in
Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil
fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion
thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in
areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be
as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
7.5 The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage
devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project
specifications .
7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of
Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow
Depth).
7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4 Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2,
Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2 Rock Fills:
7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977)
Standard Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of
Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and
Design of Airport and Highway Pavements.
8 PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to
provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water
shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the
site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded
areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been
installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in
accordance with th~ Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9 CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the
Civil Engineer stating that the lots and! or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot
vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes
are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After
installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its
location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil
Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should
ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist,
indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial
conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
Gcocon Incorporated Form, Revision date: 08/93
~ __ ' . ~: f' ~"""
~.J! • .,:' ." J l' ~
I
I
I'
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it...;;
------.' --.. ,
,
;' \ .'
I , , ..
"
I
I
I
-f---
, I·
'. "~.'
•
I /
/
. I '"
.'
•
'~~ '-?>U-,~-_.,L
/ , /.
\
/ /
/
/ .
GRADING PLAN
SCALE: , .. -40'
,/
/
2':j6.
I _ .-..
Tt
,. . '. ,.
• ". ~>' -.~
I
I
/ / ,
\~ .
<..'
,/
c'
.
~ I, i'
------~ ----
" \ '-'---, ,
'\ B-4ffi Td \ \I7
~1. ",
\ ,
tJ ~)4;'6.8()
E J7I296
[LEV ~ J 1j :'0
\
\
,
,/.
----
-''0''''
• , ,
-----
" "
. \.~'
, \'
~ .' \' ~. "
......... "---~ ,
NORTH
\
\
, , .
.
\
''-iN
, I
)
. I ;' \; (' , i '/-'11
,_C'1I5~ ,
REVISION DESCRIPTION, OlIO,
: .. ,; . ", '., . ,::',
. -': , "', J. j • "
GEOCON LEGEND,'
Qal .. _ . .PRCVIOUSLY PI.ACF.D ':'IU.~ O~
Qcf. .... _COMPACTED FlU. :'.' : -' <,~ .' -~.
, ,I . '\,_
Qudf_._ .. UNDOCU",EtfTED .F1~, ":
Qsw.,._ .. SL.OPEWJ.SH :
"
,.-, .
/
,' ...
:'.-
• .......,. . #w ...
"" 'V. ,._ >.1: , _ ....
" . -~ .. ,. '-" .-. , .•... -'
., .., .
. ,',
.... /'
" "
"
.. I" • ;"', .. .., ..
.'
.' ".,
'AS BU.IL T'
-' ~ .
.J'
tXR. __ -_
" -' ,'.-....
:-.-.
DATt '"
. " ,.: . '. .