Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDP 96-14A; LEGOLAND CARLSBAD; Planning Commission
I ..1 AL • I Al \ 4 I ig I 4 1 r H' ' Ji •....S................................................. I U U Lru( U U LJrr *S S LW U i000.;s - U NC, S t*S2C St LEGOLA D LEGOLAND Development, USA CLUSTER Designer: 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad,CA,USA 9200$ Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 760 $04 7959 Web site httFlI Scale CONIDNTAJTY JoTc: Dr.w1Nvibur WC CONTENTS CS1flC, F555 ECSNC ESTSTC,, A,C AW/OR OSSSC, ItCO tNflTCS ANY PARIS SICOWS 5555 OQCSAACSAI SOCS 50 RI CPRASSONCO AIlS ACOECS IRA? 14RIEORAATIIR SORER 555CC AOl AC COPsCS?E5 5 OR PA PARS. NSA OSCLC%5 55 OSSOAS 555051 SRI tORPESS PRIOR RR?1CN CPRPWPI 01 LOSPEPPAS ESTATES. A5 )lack linework to follow brick proportions tion AA . tEC.Ob nr$s tSflc • DEVELOPt\EN/1 LEGOLAND Development, USA t914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92M Tel 76091$5300 Fax 7" 804 759 Web site httpll www.l1d5346.com CONflDENTAUTY NOTICE S€ COESSS OF SO'00CLIKEN1 CONSMUTE PROPRIETARY THPOPAIAT4N LOUS0 £5PUU -4 UP/OR CSSR LSGO COSSS pV PUPPy RECVOUNO PUPS OCUMUPUT SOPS SO P CSOSO€NCP PP.0 UCR(ZS THAI PUP CUPPOUPO PUPSU OUPUS NOT UP OUUUCUPCO PU USP5 CUP P UPRP POP OSOSPP 10 OIUPPI UUOUP PUP OUPPOPS POPUP OTPU CP.OPP1 UP LEMAND 051015$. PS R a F.W OW 44 I!! 60 DEVE LOP/°\E r'JT LEGOLAND Development, USA 1914 Palomar Oaki Road C~ CA, USA 92001 Tel 740 918 5300 Fax 740 804 7959 Web site htqrj! www.fld5344.com CONPDENflAUTY NOTICE t O RZ1P1 WOR.A710% Or AND/OR aR L109 9flttt y PTV tCEC OOS SO CCS WDOGRESS oo SR .0i'TWO REOGS 94051 4401 05 0505110150 0 440059 94 04'W" NCR 05050050 10 0105440 40051 lot CRESS .0W10 0040051 94 051054440 5050150 59 Bat Graphic 1 I • • • tS 4ECQ 1 • '1 0 LEGOLAdDPEVE LOP /A ENT LEGOLAND Development, USA It 14 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 760 804 759 Web alte httpll www.11d5346.com CONflDENTAJTY NOT -,E 'E CO'S OF tRS DOCUMENT CCRStCflC RRCRflCv ROR,RcR OF LCcMC CSTArC, A 0 RO/CR OTHER LCGQ thCIRC ANY PARTY C$ XRC SC N tOWIONCE AND AWES THAT THE NFORMATtOk SC V SSCSCS SR 55 PART, 5CR '0 00500 WHOUT 0 00SS 0C> 5SR CCR5SS SC L00OSCSO E51.15. SC CLUSTER ner. Scale: . . . 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 S S Tower panel with LEGO skeleton LltYE1tOW • U 0t & tt& (RT tF:&tt &A$C&&t Graphic 3 LEGOLA D LEGOLAND Development, USA CLUSTER 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 760 804 7959 Web site httpdl www.fld5346.com Scale: CCNDENTAUTY NOTICE Ompoflflt && c't or ROTRV & Or oco&.&o &O &'D/Or OOtO j00 £ttTOS 4r PmTv &&tM DOC,,Eril COOS SC 5 CC5FOO111 CO SCRCtS 0500 T5( 00510500 IkIlE. 50500 501 50 505000150' 55055 50 50 550t 5050 00050510 000151505505051 150 5505050 ORtIS 5001550505050150 S0CS5055 Y501E 05 Turret detail 4 U U U U LEGOLA ENT LEGOLAND Development, USA CLUSTER besigner 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Cv6bad, CA, USA 9200$ Tel 709185300 Fax 70 804 759 Web site http!I www.11d5346.com Scale: CONFOENTAUTY NOTICE MWEIISI TW5 COLT E1t LtGO T$ PTV DQCOT O CEN O ,.Wn,SM 'O S.OS( O OR C& LEGOLAND Development, USA 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Car'sbad, CA, USA 92008 1.1 760 918 5300 Fax 7608047959 Web site httpdl www.ffd5346.com CONFDEN1AU1Y NOTICE fl5 CStth flS 00 04t C0SYUTE PRE0RS 0F0S00G OF L0. £S000 00 000 .CG0 000$ v 000 000UM0S 0000 00 0 000000 000 0000(0 1001 000 0000000 00010000 0000 9000 001 00 0000,0000 0008 00 0 000 00(00000 10 00000 010900 100 0000000 00(0 00800 000080 (0 O0(90000 001090 00 PEVE LOP/'\E NIT CLUSTER jfler Scale: • wL ,_ X- S • • Shade structure 5 LEGOLA D P EVE LEGOLAND Development, USA CLUSTER besigner: 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 9200$ Tel 7609185300 Fax 7608047959 Web site http!I www.l1d5346.com Scale. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -ECCNTW-S OF LTEH6 .0 ET,T% OCEI c''u PjARY . SI(t AG D/Q GtP tG NflTtG v PRT GtNG GOCU ODDS SO H CDOGENCG 050 000GOS 500' 000 000550005 05005(0 O 50000 058E000000'GO 'H *000 05 5 0050 005 00000505 70 000(05 *550 '00 00050500500 55050 0055050 5 0(000*0 1050 00 Color entry sign P4C1 W R Gnre. • LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA F SPELL BREAKER COLOR DOCUMENT(- L R LLCOE1 S tst)S tics S U U IO t€rc it' E *c. V I U -- - fJtJPIO on MCI IU U : J - U NGSS/Y! .IL31 I LEGOLA D E CASTLE/ :: LDelopinent, USA rJE1 1914 Palomar Oala Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 SOUTH Tel 7609185300 Fax 7608047959 ELEVATION Web site httpjl www.ildS346.com COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO CON [)ENT AU r 'o;CE Ci !OS fJOCuurNI CGSi(Utt f{PTh[1AkV rac4wArc. Ca ,'S,A D/CR OnCH 1ZGO EMl!S ml PW1Y 005 50(0M(lT Sas SO 94 C011r:OfOc( ISO •CR5 THAI r:N1014410194 594911110941(1. S1a '40111 04940511(011 1,01 C 4 1119 404 545045510 4 0401[(( '95011 41191194 5540(41 4; 41454140 04194545. 15 caIe: ru go -Component DraMng Number LL3-00-0301 EAST ELEVATION Go , P'ELOPf'\EN/T LEO 84U€ NCS S 30 R9OU R ICGO RED S NOS ¶LU8YR tEOOYE1LOW 0689 M LEGO GREEH NOS S%sGlOY U LEGO TEC SLOE NcsS3oR8oa U LEGO3LACK NGS S ON LEGOWNITE NOS SCIOO M NOS YXIS S 05W TI LEGOUGHTGREY J NGS S 3602 S U LEGO DARN GRE'( NCS S O2 V U IEGO E1OW NSS72OV5O DUPLO UGHT BLUE NOS SO3OB COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO LEGOLAND Development, USA CASTLE! LL3JE/Ta Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 ___ Tel 7609185300 Fax 7608047959 Web site httpdl www3ld5346.com Scale: NTS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Component DrawlngNumbor SO CONTENTS SO SOS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTE PROPOTORV INFORMATION SO LCSOO ESTATES, A.G. SOD/SO 01550 LEGS CNMS, ANY POSTS YESSING THIS OOCUNSTLT DOSS SO 0 ISOT 05555 AND OGRESS TROT THE YYFGRTTATTGR 1.3-00-0302 CSOTTSEO TEOSTO 501St TOT 05 05ROCATEO TI STIES SO I POST. 1500 000.0500 TO OTHERS 015105? TIlt STOI0550 PRIOR 011100 OONSENT SO 1500550 SITYTES 55 -.... _. black linework brick proportions ration AA I - L--O tit ut U LLGO BID N(IS S a. 7riR 1EC)Y€u()W NCSSc( U EFOGLLN - C! Oy - F )TE(.1 - - - - MITE u; scx U DUPW Cc1N:;1 - CS S C&t) YTT L[GO UG4T (' tcsSoG U U E -O 14)?N CS S i(Ii) MJI 3 t COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO WEST ELEVATION LEGOLAND LEGOLANDDevelopnient, USA CASTLE! LL3 JE/TB Cartsbad,CA,USA 92008 - - Tel 760 91$ 5300 Fax 760 804 7959 Web site httpdl www.11d5346.com Scale: NT Component - - 1DrswkIgNumb.r b COCCM(41 hSTCtJ! RR:E!APY NrCyA1CqA fl 'C AAAS A C 'DjO OrR tCO Aflr 'AV PT A(cAAAC L1.3-00-0303 nhAAS MFJ' Ac CJNcccPPCP MAC [PA ,[CP! 01 :pCCtAflO 'CYANC A C LEeOBLUE NGS S 30 R9OD LEGO RED cs s im LEGO YELLOW NCS S t&' LEGO GREEN NOS *SSOY LEGO TEC*NIC SLOE NCS S t3O ROD LEGO BLACK NGSSQcON LEGO WHITE NGS S cc DUPlO O5WGE NOS S ow YWR LEELO U43H1 OAEY NGSS3SO2G LEGO DARK GREY NGS S we V LEGO 8IOW NCSS72OY6O DUPLO UGIfF BLUE NCSSOOB U I U a I COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO LEGOLM 4D LEGOLAND Development, USA 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 7608047959 Web site httpl! www.11d5346.com CONflOENTIALITY NOTICE Tht CEMENTS OF 1S D0uN1 cSflTUZ Pt1Y NFORklAtIal OF CD ZTA? O0/01kOTHER GO HI5 MY PARTY liS CVuE1 WES SO N cosrocE SOS AGSOS THAT SC VFORMATIM ERE" VU 001 81 0000CMEO 8 000.5 58 8 FORT, 058 055.0580 05558085 efllGJI 10€ 5808555 P858 1811150 5005105 58 LOSOJRO £550155 k VN Desiqnerl CASTLE! LL3 JEITB BAT Scale: NTS GRAPHIC compwwvt Drwng Number LL3 00 0304 (i~ (2) I t LEGOSLUE NOS S2tROB U LEGO RED NOS S wayg ip LEGO YELLOW NCSSOW LEGO GREEN N$5X5f31Y I LEGOT€*MC8LUE CSS&%OR&43 R LEODtJGK NCSSQoN LEGO WHITE U NOS SOQO I DUKO ORANGE NGS S 05W Y3Cf LEGO UG{T GREY NOS SY2G I LEGO OARX GREY NCS S 66M V I LEGO BROWN NOS ?(2O YO S OUPLO LIGHT BLUE NGSSW3OB COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO LEGOLAIID I> LECOLAND Development, USA CASTLE! LL3 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92000 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 7608047959 STANDARD Web site httpWwvrw.Ud5346.com Scale: NTS PANEL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Component DrawthgNumber ,HE CONTENTS Gr THIS oocmcr cossn'utc tmv onmn zGyImo 5tMt . /OR OTHER LtGO ENTITIES my PARTY RCCTRTC THIS DOCUMENT TOTS SO 5 CTOTOSNC( 550 yGRtS TnT TNT nFORNATTTO LL3-00-0305 CORT55NQ 5555TR 9555 NOT 85 885X5T50 N 55505 OR N P555. SOTDISCLOSED TO 00050 MTTSCOT THE TORRESS 585CR WTI TEN TOOTHS TN STCORSS TS550 - I •1I• otw I LEGOSWE NCSSOMon I LEGO REt) NCS$18Y)IR LEGO YELLOW t LEGO GREEN NGSSX*cG1OY R LEGO 1EcHc 8UJ€ NGSSD3OR9GII . LEGO DLAQ( NOS $ ocoN LI LEOOW8ITE NOS sco I OfJPLO ORANGE v3cI NOS s COW LEGO 10141 GREY L_J Ncs S 35LV C I LEGO DARX GREY NOS S65Q2Y I LEGO8ROWN NGS S IWO Y50 UPLO LIGHT fl1Ut NOS S1o9 COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO LEGOLA D 1> LEGOLAND Development, USA CASTLE! LL3 JEIrB Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 ____ Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 760 804 7959 1 TOWER PANEL Web site httpdl www.1145346.com Scale: NTS wI LEGO SKELETON CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Component DrewngP4umber tKE c1vs OF oCot1 C0Sfl1U1 PO0CRY FoRmATON OP Lco $1IZS M,O/M (GO ENTITIES kT OT MEGG0UG (OS OGO1JMGMI DOES SO M COOSGSC( (00 MCSOES (0*0 (MC 0100*05(0 1.1-3-00-0306 C(MUOtD (0010 SHOt ((07 (1 0(0000(75 0 00U (00 0(07, (CM 0*0.5510 (0 050*5 057(07 X. 1(00(55 057CR ,(01(SM 0*0*1(7 OF L(0*.u(0 05(0750 10 LECOBWE NCS S 30 RB LEGO RED NCSS i88Y18 LEGO YELLOW NCSSOS8 LEGO GREEN NOS 53066 GIOY LEGO TEGHM BLUE NcsS.o3R&Lli LEGO OLAX NCS $ ocoN LEGO WHITE NOS S ccO OUPLO 41ANGE NOS Sc68oY3ct LEGO 14HT GREY NcS S 3.W2 G LEGO DARK GRE? NOS S 6602 Y LEGO8AOWN NGSS7020Y5O OUPLO IJGHT RIUE NGS$030B a LI I COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO I LI) 15 IA LEGOLAND LOP PA ENT Designer; CASTLE! LL3 JE/TB TURRET Scale: NITS DETAIL Component Drawing Number LL3-00-0307E LEGOLAND Development, USA 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 7608047959 Web site httpW www.11d5346.com C0NflDENTAUTY NOTICE SOS SSE1SS!S Or EnS DOCUMENT SCEESEFEJES PROPnETMZY INFORMATION C LZGEO SETESES, AC, O/En STEER LESS E.nKS E PORTE RECEIING TEES DOCUMENT DOES SO FE SOE COSECS ORS EGRESS TEnT TEE RFQRWTCFE COETntQ ERROR STEELS TEST RE SOPOCETED EL eRRS SE EL PORE. 050 SSCSOSES TO TELLERS CREREE THE 550055 PERSE HEEL TEEL CRELELSELT ER UCERROLD 5555155 HG I LEGO 810€ 4CSSOROU U LEGOREt MOSS ivR - tEeoyaiow MCSSO584 U LEGOGtEEN MCS)65G1O' I LEGO T*,(, BLUE NOS SC&)3OROU R LEGO t3LACK NOS Soco'4 [1 LEGO WHITE L_J NCSSSO I OUI'LO ocw4GE NOS S LEGO UGI4T GREY NOS S5O2G S LEGO DARK GS'EY NOB S 66Cc V R LEt3O 8ROW4 NOS S 72OYSO OUPLO UGI1I SLUE NOB S 1030 B FRONT ELEVATION LI1] LEGOLAND PEVE LOP /\ENT LEGOLAND Development, USA 9 1914 Palomar Oaks Road CASTLE! LL3 L' Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 ______ Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 760 804 7959 Shade Web site httpll www.1ld5346.com Scale: NITS Structure CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Component DrawlngNumber 0€ CGOTGOIS or THIS rocrHorr C005IUUTG rRHrtTRy O€C€A0ON or .GC€.O £5OTES. €0 000/OR OTHER (GO 000000 €10 P00TH R000000 110$ 00000001 000$ $0 IN orHonelco AND OGO000 IROT rot nr00000co L1.3-00-0308 00010000 00010 00000 001 80 80100081000 88000 00 80 PORT 0000 805000000 TO 01800$ 8000001 1100 000(00 1000 80011010 00000800 10 0000.800 05101(0 kG COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO I LEGO8IUE NCS SJO MOB . LEGO RED NCSS78YlR IEOOYELLO\V NOS SC60 I LEGO GREEN NCS S O6 010? I 1100 TECHW 8UJE NOS S6O30R03 S LEGOZ31AK LII LEGOVMITE NCSSO6EO I OUPLOOANGE NCSSo60Y3cf1 1100 LIGHT GREY 3602 I LEGO DARK GRE? NOS S €02 V I LEG0R0WN 7020 Y60 NGSS DUPLO LIGHT I3LLIE NOS S30B ! _ •--1 r- riiflrgI COLOR SAMPLES AND MATCHES TO BE APPROVED BY LEGO PEV Z LOPt\E NIT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 1HZ CONTENTS OF 11HZ DOCUHONI C0110IIIUZE H 11ZTURH INFORMAT04 OF LUGUIHUD 00101011. 00 MID/CO 011100 LOGO (1101100 01111 PMITV 1100(10110 THIS 000010101 0005 SO HI CCHICOOHCZ 0110 000(05 11101 1110 11F01001111101 01011011W 11011011 10010 NOT 110 0000011100 11 00000 10 11 PORT. 1100 100001100 10 0111(115 1110101111HZ 0)00050 1111100 MIlTON 0011001 00 1(000000 011111100 05 LEGOLAND Development, USA 1914 Palomar Oaks Road Carlsbad, CA, USA 92008 Tel 760 918 5300 Fax 7608047959 Web site httpJl www.11d5346.com I Designer: CASTLE! LL3 JE/TB COLOR ENTRY Scale: NTS SIGN Comoonnt I Drawn, Number _c - (4 II : • 'Lf .r'" tt - ( - ' ' ( 777 40 ,.-.h •- .'_j. 1J.•,'4 .';'t. -. ' ••-: •- I .?• • C / - - - • - T 4 -• fr- •-'j-" ' -' e--" - -1 71t, It Mo. / BAT FLYER SITE PLAN & BUILDING HEIGHTS CASTLE HILL 0 8'16' 82' 1• AAM g7mbmn M, 11 NINE, V WA SPUN ETA -, L* fi*tI1*'*W.•f• A / .. [0 - HEIGHT 0 CASTLE WALLS ELEV. 215.50 —L-. FLOOR ELExj. 183.50 ion wa MAI ksni ikS =- MA&W VA ai*1 %1aa A A le wA 2O 230 . -1.agl ••JR1 j]fl • - _____________________________ oomu 111111111m MAI ml wit ELEVATION A - BUILDING HEIGHTS BAT FLYER ATTRACTION 220 210 200 Ie 30 rio I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROPOSED EAST EXPANSION AREA, LEGOLAND THEME PARK, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ProjectNo. 960151-010 December 10, 1999 Prepared For LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Leighton and Associates A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #B205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425 (858) 292-8030 • FAX (858) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com Distribution: (2) Addressee (4) R.W. Apel, Landscape Architect 1 I I I SAC/MRS I I C NO. 54033 EXP. i2./349 LEIGHTON AND TES, INC. IcjIC Se 0 Iwl IL Se or r En ineer Michael R. Stewart, CE 349 (Exp. 12/31/9,9) Vice President/Principal Geologist I I Leighton and Associates I A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS [1 December 10, 1999 I Project No. 960151-010 To: Legoland California I One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 I Attention: Mr. Jim Fend Subject: Update Geotechnical Report, Proposed East Expansion Area, Legoland Theme Park, I Carlsbad, California I In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a geotechnical review for the proposed east expansion area at the Legoland theme park in Carlsbad, California. Our review was performed to provide a summary of the as-graded geotechnical conditions present at the site. Based on the I results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be improved to receive the proposed improvements. The accompanying report presents a summary of our current investigation and provides planning-level I geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. I Respectfully submitted, I 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #13205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425 (858) 292-8030 • FAX (858) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com I 9902 17-00 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1 1 .1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................... 1 I 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 1 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS....................................................................................4 I 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING..................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2.1 Documented Fill (Map Symbol -,4f) ............................................................................................... 4 I 3.2.2 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol-Afu) ............................................................................................ 5 3.2.3 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) ............................................................................ 5 1 3.2.4 Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts)............................................................................. 3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 5 6 I 3.4 LANDSLIDES AND SURFICIAL FAILURES ...................................................................................... 3.5 GROUNDWATER.......................................................................................................................... 6 6 3.6 CUT-FILL TRANSITIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 I 3.7 ExPANSIVE SOILS........................................................................................................................ 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ................................................................................................................... 7 8 4.1 FAULTING.................................................................................................................................... 8 I 4.2 SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................................. 8 4.21 Shallow Ground Rupture................................................................................................................. 9 I 4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement........................................................................................... 4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches. ................................................................................................................... 10 10 5.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 12 6 .1 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................................. 12 1 61.1 Site Preparation............................................................................................................................ 12 61.2 Excavations and Oversize Material ................... ....... ... .. ... .............. .... ............ ... . ... ............. ... ........ 12 I 61.3 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................................. .. 61.4 Removal of Unsuitable Soils ...................................................................................... .................... 13 13 61.5 Transition Mitigation ............................................................................................................. . ...... 14 1 6.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 14 I 62.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations ........................................................................................... 62.2 Floor Slabs................................................................................................................................... 14 15 62.3 Settlement..................................................................................................................................... 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 990217-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYsTEM ................................................................................... 16 6.4 MAT FOUNDATION ................................................................................................................... 17 6.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES..................................................................................................... 17 6.6 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 18 6.7 SLOPE STABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 18 67.1 Deep-Seated Stability.................................................................................................................... 18 67.2 Surficial Slope Stability................................................................................................................. 19 6.8 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ........................................................................................... 19 6.9 ADDITIONAL SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................. 20 6.10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION.................................................................................................. 20 6.11 PLAN REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 20 7.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................21 Tables Table 1 - Seismic Parameters for Active Faults - Page 8 Table 2 - Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations - Page 17 Table 3 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 18 Figures Figure 1 -. Site Location Map - Page 2 Plate Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ii __ maw" 960151-010 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope I This report presents the results of our geotechnical review of the proposed east expansion area within the Legoland theme park in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our review was to identify and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide preliminary I conclusions and geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services included: • Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geotechnical literature and maps. References cited are listed in Appendix A. I . Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechnical conditions. • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the literature review, and field i reconnaissance. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations with respect to the as-graded geotechnical conditions and design and I construction of the proposed improvements. 1 1.2 Site Location and Description The site is situated within the Legoland theme park in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1, page 2). The I proposed improvements will occur within the easterly portion of the park as shown on the conceptual grading plan prepared by R.W. Apel, Landscape Architect (Plate 1). I Topographically, the site consists of a mildly sloping sheet-graded pad. Elevations range within the site range from approximately 182 feet mean sea level (msl) within the northeast portion of the expansion area to approximately 154 feet msl along the south side. The existing attractions of the Legoland campus are situated immediately to the north and east of the proposed east expansion area. The existing Legoland administration building is adjacent to the expansion area to the south. A landscape maintenance building, water tank, and agricultural or open-space parcels are situated east of the site. The site is unimproved and is currently being utilized as storage for landscaping items (numerous trees, shrubs, and decorative plants) and parts for a future entertainment feature, with some landscaped areas along the perimeter of the site. A stockpile of undocumented loose fill is present within the central portion of the site. I I I hH LI I I SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 960151-010 Date December 1999 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BASE MAP: Thomas Bros. GeoFinder for Windows, San Diego County, 1995, Page 1126 LEGOLAND California East Expansion Area One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 0 1000 2000 4000 1"=2,000' Scale in Feet fig Figure No. 1 I 960151-010 1.3 Proposed Development I Based on our review of the preliminary plans (Apel, 1999), we understand the Legoland expansion will include the construction of a restaurant structure, a retail structure, and six new theme park rides. Structures are anticipated to be of wood construction with slab-on-grade floors. The rides I are expected to include a water boat ride, four spinning rides, and a roller coaster. Specifics on the construction materials and structural loads for the rides were not available at the time this report was prepared. Landscaping, sidewalks, and utilities are also anticipated as part of the proposed improvements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I -3- __AIM LI 960 15 1-0 10 I 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Geologic Setting I The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of I marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarme sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today. 3.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the east expansion area is underlain by Quaternary Terrace Deposits which are underlain by the Tertiary Santiago Formation. Undocumented Fill and Documented Artificial Fill were also encountered on the site. A brief description of the geologic units encountered on the site is presented below. The approximate locations of the geologic contacts between the units are mapped on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 3.2.1 Documented Fill (Map Symbol - AlE) Documented fill placed during previous grading under the observation and testing of Leighton is present along the west, east and south boundaries of the expansion area (Plate 1). These fill soils were derived from onsite or adjacent sites and as encountered during grading, generally consist of orange-brown to light gray, slightly clayey to silty, fine to medium grained sand. Based on the mapped locations of these fills, we expect they will be generally be outside the planned footprints of the proposed structures. The existing fill along the west boundary of the expansion area may encroach beneath the planned footprints of the Aqua Drag and Caterpillar rides. If encountered beneath the planned footprint of the rides, measures to mitigate the transition from cut to fill are recommended (Section 6.15). I Li I [I I [11 I I I I I I I 1 -4- 1 960151-010 3.2.2 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol-Afu) ' A stockpile of undocumented fill was observed during our reconnaissance of the site. We suspect these soils were generated during construction activities within the park and are expected to be suitable for reuse on site. These materials should be tested for I pertinent properties prior to use as fill on site. In addition to the stockpiled materials, any backfill within existing utility trenches that transect the expansion area are considered undocumented, as Leighton was not on site to observe or test the I previously placed backfill. As such, these soils are not considered suitable for support of proposed improvements and will require removal and recompaction where encountered beneath planned improvements. I _ m_ 3.2.3 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) I Quaternary Terrace Deposits stratigraphically overlie the Tertiary Santiago Formation in most areas of the site. As encountered during previous grading, these I deposits generally consisted of orange to reddish brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. These soils are expected to generally exhibit very low to low expansion potential and favorable engineering properties for foundation support. The upper 1 to 2 feet of these materials is I expected to be disturbed and will require removal and recompaction. 1 3.2.4 Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) The bedrock unit underlying the entire site is the Tertiary Santiago Formation. As I encountered during grading operations, the unit consisted of massive to poorly bedded sandstone with interbedded clayey siltstone and silty claystone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray to light brown, and light yellow-brown, I moist, dense, silty fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and massive. The siltstone consisted of medium brown and olive brown, moist, stiff, clayey siltstones that were fissile to I indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese oxide and iron oxide staining. The claystone was typically gray to brown, moist, stiff to hard, fine- grained, sandy to silty claystone that was moderately sheared. El I I I I &N zzt h 'I -5- 1 960151-010 3.3 Geologic Structure I Based on our review of the geologic mapping completed during the rough-grading operations, literature review and our professional experience on nearby sites, bedding on site is slightly dipping (on the order of 5-10 degrees) to the west southwest. Localized steeper bedding which can be attributedto cross bedding can be observed in areas. Based on our field explorations and a review of published geologic maps of the site and vicinity, no active faults have been mapped or were encountered on or immediately adjacent to the site. The significance of faulting is discussed in the following section on Faulting and Seismicity. I 3.4 Landslides and Surficial Failures Based on our review of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our geologic mapping I during rough-grading, indications of landslides or other surficial failures within the graded portions of the subject property were not observed. 1 3.5 Groundwater I A localized perched groundwater condition was exposed during previous grading for the Service Administration Area and a subdrain was installed to direct water away from this area and into the main canyon subdrain running parallel to Hidden Valley Road. The drain consisted of a 6 inch ' perforated PVC pipe and approximately 9 ft 3/ft of 3/4 inch gravel wrapped with Mirafi 140N geofabric. Where saturated conditions made installation of this drain impractical and/or unsafe, the drain was placed as a minimum ten foot deep trench backfilled with 3/4 inch gravel to 5 feet below finish grade and a layer of Mirafi 140N geofabric was placed over the gravel prior to continued I backfihling with compacted native soil. An additional area of seepage was noted south and west of the proposed expansion area. This seepage was observed along a clayey bed within the relatively porous Terrace deposits near the relatively dense (less permeable) Tertiary Santiago Formation. A subdrain was installed at the base of a temporary 1:1 cut at the approximate location shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) I located at the rear of the text. This drain consisted of 6 inch schedule 40 PVC perforated pipe, 3 ft3Ift of gravel wrapped in a layer of Mirafi 140N geofabric. A panel drain consisting of Miradrain 6000 was placed horizontally along the backcut at the elevation of the seepage and extended I downward to tie into the subdrain. The subdrain was outletted into the storm drain collection box located immediately west of the proposed expansion area as shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). I The proposed site development will include shallow cuts extended to near the anticipated water level. As a result, to further mitigate the potential for accumulation of a shallow perched I groundwater condition, we recommend additional subdrains be installed during site grading. The locations of the proposed subdrains should be determined after additional field investigation. I Li JIA 1 -6- 960 15 1-0 10 3.6 Cut-Fill Transitions Based upon the conceptual grading plan, shallow cuts and fills are anticipated. Remedial measures to mitigate these conditions are discussed in Section 6.1.5. 3.7 Expansive Soils Based upon our review of previous geotechnical reports, on site Terrace Deposits are expected to generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. Soils generated from excavation in the Santiago Formation are expect to possess a low to high expansion potential. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -7- __ I I I I I I 960151-010 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Faulting I Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has had surface I displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by I the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and as subsequently revised in 1997. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault I Zones as created by the Aiquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1997). Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional fault is the I Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 4.8 miles west of the site. 1 4.2 Seismicity The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of southern I California. Site specific evaluation of the earthquake hazard was performed using a deterministic and a probabilistic approach. The earthquake source data used for deterministic and probabilistic evaluations of the design ground motion was obtained from the California Division of Mining and I Geology (CDMG, Open File Report 96-08). A summary of our deterministic evaluation is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 1996 and 1998, CDMG, 1996) Distance Maximum Magnitude Earthquake Moment Peak Ground Acceleration Fault from Fault to Site (Miles) Magnitude (g) Rose Canyon 4.8 6.9 0.50 Newport- Inglewood 7 6.9 041 Coronado Bank 21 7.4 0.24 hH U I I I I L I 1 -8- I 960151-010 Based on a deterministic approach, Table 1 presents the peak ground accelerations that we predict could be produced by the an earthquake of the maximum moment magnitude on the respective fault. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake is defined as the maximum event that a fault is capable of producing considering the known tectonic setting. Site-specific seismic parameters reported are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected peak ground accelerations. As indicated in Table 1, the Rose Canyon fault zone is considered to have the most significant affect at the site from a design standpoint. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake is expected to produce a peak ground surface acceleration at the site of 0.50g. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a type B seismic source according to Table 16-U of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). From a probabilistic approach, the design ground motion for this project (ICBO, 1997, Section 1629) is the ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. This ground motion is referred to as the maximum probable ground motion (CBSC, 1998). A maximum probable ground motion of 0.31g is predicted for the site. The upper bound earthquake ground motion is the ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 100 years. The upper bound ground motion is predicted to be 0.40g. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code and I state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 as designated by the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997, Figure 16-2). The soil profile designation for the site is estimated to be type Sc per the 1997 I UBC, Table 16-J. However, we recommend deep borings be performed to confirm the soil profile type. In lieu of performing deep borings, a soil profile designation of SD may be assumed in design. Near source factors Na and Nv for the site equal to 1.0 and 1. 1, respectively, are appropriate based I on the seismic setting and criteria of Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 UBC. If dynamic analysis is to be performed, a response spectrum can be provided upon request. I Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. 4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture I Ground rupture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the absence of known active faults. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. I I I I I I I [1 M~&R I 1 -9- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 960151-010 4.2.2 Licjuefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to liquefy. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. The Terrace Deposits are not considered liquefiable due to their physical characteristics and unsaturated condition. The Santiago Formation, which may be below the water table at depth, is not considered liquefiable due to its very high-density characteristics and indurated nature. 4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be very low. 911111 M&R man I 960 15 1-0 10 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our planning-level geotechnical review of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. • Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. • A peak ground acceleration of 0.50g is predicted as a result of the maximum moment magnitude earthquake along the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. By probabilistic methods, a peak ground acceleration of 0.3 ig is predicted as the maximum probable ground motion. The upper bound earthquake ground motion is estimated to be 0.40g. • Based on previous subsurface exploration of the formational materials, artificial fills, and surficial soils present on the site, we anticipate that these materials should be generally rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. • The undocumented fill soils stockpiled on site are not suitable for support of structural loads or fill soils in their present condition. Remedial grading measures will be necessary to mitigate this condition (Section 6.1.4). • Based on previous testing, onsite Terrace Deposit materials are expected to generally possess a very I low to low expansion potential (expansion index less than 50). • Based on previous testing, onsite soils are expected to have a low to moderate potential for sulfate I attack on concrete and moderate potential for corrosion of buried metal piping. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for recommendations for mitigation of corrosion. I . The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as compacted fill provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum I dimension. • To address the potential for accumulation of a shallow perched groundwater condition and obtain data on shallow geotechnical conditions, we recommend a supplemental subsurface investigation be I performed. • Surficial soils throughout the site are generally disturbed and desiccated. Surficial soils will require I remedial grading measures (Section 6.1.4). Additionally, soils near the mapped contact between the Terrace Deposits and the artificial fill will likely require overexcavation and recompaction if encountered beneath distress-sensitive structures. I • Where earthen berms are proposed, fills should be properly benched prior to raising grades. I Li I Z*A% I I I I I I Fll~ I 960151-010 1 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS I 6.1 Earthwork I We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, and fill operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough I Grading included in Appendix B. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix B. 1 6.1.1 Site Preparation I Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removals should extend the I competent formational soils. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method I D1557-91. I 6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with I conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Localized heavy ripping or breaking may be required if cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper excavations. I Shallow, temporary excavations, such as utility trenches with vertical sides, in the engineered fill and formational materials should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions or seeps. In I accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or be laid back to if workers are to enter such excavations. Temporary sloping gradients should be determined in the field by a "competent person" as defined by OSHA. For I preliminary planning, sloping of surficial soils at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be assumed. Excavations greater than 20 feet in height will require an alternative sloping plan or shoring plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer. I P, I & 1 -12- MOON I 960151-010 Although we do not anticipate that oversize material will be generated during onsite excavations, recommendations for treatment of oversize material are included in the attached General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix B). In addition, oversize material may be utilized in approved surface applications or hauled off site. 6.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction All fill soils should be brought to a moisture content at or above the optimum and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91. In pavement and hardscape areas, the upper 12 inches of subgrade and all aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. The onsite surficial soils typically possesses a moisture content below optimum and may require moisture conditioning prior to use as compacted fill. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into competent formational soils as indicated in the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix B. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix B. 6.1.4 Removal of Unsuitable Soils All undocumented fill soils and surficial soils should be removed before placement of additional fill or surficial improvements. Removals made in these areas should extend to competent Terrace Deposits or engineered fill materials. Throughout the site, the uppermost 1 to 2 feet of the surificial soils are expected to be desiccated or loose and will require removal and recompaction. Additionally, loose and weathered soils at the cut to fill transition should also be removed and recompacted prior to placement of additional fills or surface improvements. Existing backfill in utility trenches, if present, on site, are considered undocumented and should be identified, excavated, and recompacted. I Li I I Li 1 F1 I I I I I I I 1 960 15 1-0 10 1 6.1.5 Transition Mitigation I From review of the conceptual grading plan (Apel, 1999), shallow cuts and fills are anticipated to fine grade the building pad and ride footprint areas. Where transitional conditions are present, we recommend the pad areas be overexcavated at least 1 foot below I the deepest footings. All overexcavation should laterally extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the building foundation and all associated settlement-sensitive structures. Alternatively, footings may be deepened to bear in formational materials. 6.2 Conventional Foundation and Slab Considerations 1 Shallow-spread footings or post-tension slabs are considered suitable for support of the restaurant and retail structures. Preliminary foundation loading information was not available at the time of I this report for the four amusement rides. Specific foundation design data should be developed for these structures once loading conditions are better known. I Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a very low to low potential for expansion with an expansion index less than 50. i I 6.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations The proposed structures may be supported by conventional, continuous perimeter, or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches beneath the I lowest adjacent finish grade. At these depths, footings founded in properly compacted fill soils may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short I duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements I and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 4 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). I We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a I retaining wall) and should be a minimum of W2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 10 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and I improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. I MUM mom 1 I 960151-010 1 6.2.2 Floor Slabs The slab-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 rebars 18 inches on center each way (minimum), placed at mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean crushed gravel. The sand or gravel layer should be additionally underlain by a visqueen moisture barrier underlain by an additional 2 inches of sand or gravel. Sand or gravel should possess a sand equivalent of 30 or greater. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Prior to placement of the vapor barrier, the upper 18 inches of slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content at or above the laboratory determined optimum. The potential for slab cracking may be further reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack- sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. 1 6.2.3 Settlement I The recommended allowable-bearing capacity for the restaurant and retail structures is based on maximum total and differential settlements of 3/4 inch and 1-1/2 inch, respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing I pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. I 1 I I I I I I I I F1 1 I 1 -15- LI 960 15 1-0 10 I 6.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation System I We recommend that the post-tensioned slabs be designed in accordance with the following design parameters presented in Table 2 and the criteria of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997). Table 2 Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations Design Criteria Expansion Index (UBC 18-2) E.I. >50 Edge Moisture Variation, em Center Lift: 5.5 feet Edge Lift: 4.5 feet Differential Swell, Ym Center Lift: 1.0 inches Edge Lift: 0.4 inches Differential Settlement: 1/2 inch The post-tensioned foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Slabs should be at least 5 inches thick. Continuous footings (ribs or thickened edges) with a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches below adjacent grade may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot if founded in properly compacted fill soils. The perimeter edge should extend at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable pressures may be increase by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) which is in turn underlain by a vapor barrier and 2 inches of clean sand. The vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. We recommend that the floor covering installer test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting applications of the flooring. "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. A slip-sheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. The upper 18 inches of subgrade beneath the slab should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content at or above of the laboratory determined optimum I I I I 1 ZOO Li I I I I I I I I I I 960 15 1-0 10 6.4 Mat Foundation I Although use of mat foundations are not anticipated, the following parameters are provided for consideration during planning. A soil modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch is recommended for design of mat foundations. Mat foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer I utilizing parameters outlined for post-tensioned slabs and an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. Lateral Earth Pressures For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low (El < 50) expansion potential. Select materials should be used within the zone defined by a 1:1 plane extending up from the base of the wall. Table 3 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pci) Conditions } Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 85 Passive - 300 (Maximum of 3 ksf) 150 (sloping down) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 10 feet in height should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonyielding), the at-rest pressures should be used. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psi). Surcharge from heavy moving trucks can be analyzed by this office once design traffic loads are determined. The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and water is not allowed to accommodate behind walls. A typical drainage design is contained in Appendix B. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1 557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 10 feet. 1 6.5 I I I I I I I I I U I I I 1 -17- I 960151-010 Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. 6.6 Geochemical Considerations Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates I can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Results of previous testing indicated a negligible soluble sulfate content. Uniform Building Code Table 19-A-4 provides minimum concrete design requirements based on sulfate exposure conditions. Although I test results indicate negligible exposure according to Table 19-A-4, we recommend moderate exposure be assumed. Additional testing of the finish grade soils should be performed. I The site soils are believed to present a moderate potential for corrosion, of buried uncoated metal conduits and pipes. Further analyses by a corrosion engineer is recommended where buried metal is being considered. I 6.7 Slope Stability I We understand the finish slopes up to 10 feet in height are planned at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The proposed configuration was analyzed for gross stability. 6.7.1 Deep-Seated Stability I Analysis of the proposed slope configuration was performed using the computer program GSlope. Based on our field observations and previous testing of similar materials, strength parameters of 4 = 32 and c = 200 psf were used for Artificial Fills. Our analysis I indicates that the proposed slopes have a calculated factor of safety of 1.5 or greater, with respect to potential deep rotational failure We recommend that the geotechnical consultant document and geologically map all excavations during grading. The purpose of this mapping is to substantiate the geologic conditions assumed in our analysis. Additional investigation and stability analysis may be required if unanticipated or adverse conditions are encountered. I ri I I I hA 1 -18- Anon 960151-010 I 6.7.2 Surficial Slope Stability Methods of slope stabilization should be implemented as soon as practical to reduce the I potential for erosion. Erosion and/or surficial failure potential of fill slopes may be reduced if the following measures are implemented during design and construction of the i slopes. - Selective Grading of Fill Materials I We recommend against the exclusive use of either highly expansive, clayey soils or poorly graded sands in the face of the fill slopes. Highly expansive soils are generally known to be subject to surficial failures when exposed in slope faces. I Poorly graded sands utilized in slope faces may be subject to excessive erosion and tilling. A thorough mixture of onsite soils is recommended. We recommend I in that mixture of soils be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement fill slopes. I - Slope Face Compaction and Finishing We recommend slope faces be compacted by backrolling with a sheepsfoot roller generally at 2- to 3-foot intervals of slope height. Slope finishing should be I achieved by trimming and/or track rolling. I - Slope Landscaping and Drainage We recommend that all graded slopes be landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible to minimize the potential for erosion. I Erosion control measures should be considered while vegetation becomes established. In addition to the site drainage recommendations outlined in Section 6.3, design of surface drainage provisions are within the purview of the project I civil engineer. I 6.8 Surface Drainage and Erosion Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures should have I appropriate drainage systems to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structures toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from the I structures. Below grade planters should not be situated adjacent to structures or pavements unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to structures or pavements. I I I -19- __ I 1 I I 6.9 I I 960 15 1-0 10 To help reduce the potential for excessive erosion of graded slopes, we recommend berms and/or swales be provided along the top of the slopes and lot drainage directed such that surface runoff on the slope faces is minimized. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carlsbad grading ordinances. Additional Site Investigation Following preliminary planning, we recommend additional subsurface studies be performed to investigate shallow soil conditions, facilitate design of subdrains, and, if desired, to explore upgrading the assigned soil profile type. Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information, our experience during rough grading and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. We recommend that cut slopes be mapped by a geologist during grading for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions. 6.11 Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be checked by Leighton and Associates before grading to see that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. I I I LI I I I hA LI 6.10 III I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 960 15 1-0 10 7.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotecimical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. I I I I I I I I I I -21- I 960 15 1-0 10 El APPENDIX A I REFERENCES Blake, 1996, EQFAULT, Version 2.2. 1998, FRISKSP, Version 3.01. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 1998, California Building Code. CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report 96- 08. I Hart, 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and I Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume I- Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume 11-Structural I Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume 111-Material, Testing and Installation Provisions: ICBO. I , 1997, Uniform Building Code. Leighton and Associates, Inc. Inc., 1995, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park and I Pointe Resorts, Lots 17 and 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4950294-001, dated October 5, 1995. , 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 496015 1-001, dated July 23, 1996. 1998, Final As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, Lego Family Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960151-003, dated February 10, 1998. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, San Luis Rey and San Marcos Quadrangles. PLANS R.W. Ape!, Landscape Architect, 1999, Site Development Plan Amendment for East Expansion Area, Legoland California, dated September 16, 1999. El I I I I I E I I I I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 1 of I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING I 1.0 General I 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the I geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the I recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant ofRecord. Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall I employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical I report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the commencement of the prior grading. I Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. I During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the I interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be I geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. I The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to I the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. I I I 3030 $094 I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 2 of 6 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, I - -experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these I Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a I work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical I Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware I of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and I agency ordinances, these Specifications,- and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, I inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until I the conditions are rectified. I 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing; Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. I The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. I Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the I affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. I As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids I onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. I 3030.1094 I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page of 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the - -Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavatjoit In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, fliapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the I 3030 1094 I I I I L-1 1 I I I I I 1-1 I F", n 1 I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of 6 Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitabilitycan be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1 557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91 - 4.5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. I 3030.094 I I I I U I I I I I I I I I U LI I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page of I 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate -elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the I Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 1 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the I grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for I line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 1 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the I Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut I slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. I 7.0 Trench Backfihls 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material I shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit 1 to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical I Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. I 3030.1094 I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 I 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall—not exceed those allowed in the. Standard - Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. I I Li I I I I I I P1 I Li I 3030.1094 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I ----------- - PROJECTED PLANE - - I TO MAXIMUM FROM TOE ----FILL SLOPE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND ------- REMOVE -p--- 4i UNSUITABLE NATURAL -- MATERIAL GROUND BENCH EBENCH HEIGHT 2' MIN. -J 'LOWEST BENCH KEY DEPTH NATURAL GROUND - - I LOWEST L j-- Ir 2'MIN. KEY DEPTH OVERBUILT AND TRIM BACK N DESIGN SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1101 MAXIMUM FROM . TOE OF SLOPE TO - -- - APPROVED GROUND - 4' TYPICAL TBENC J- BENCH i4L- 2' MIN. / L0.._15' MI LOWEST BENCH KEY DEPTH ,vv.. FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE -4' TYPAL BEN ' E BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL cur FACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT\ NATURAL GROUND / CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE For Subdrains See REMOVE Standard Detail C NSUITABLJ MATERIAL HEIGHT BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS A REV. 4/11/96 ELEVATION A-A' I FINISH GRADE I SLOPE - .j 0' MIN. COMPACTED FILL -- FACE - - - JETTED OR FLOODED --_--WINDROW -:-:------ GRANULAR MATERIAL • Oversize rock Is larger than 8 inches In largest dimension. • Excavate a trench In the compacted tilt deep enough to bury all the rock. • Backfill with granular soil jetted or flooded In place to fill all the voids. • Donot bury rock within lo feet o( finish grade. • Windrow of buried rock shall be parallel to the finished slope fill. PROFILE ALONG WINDROW I I [1 I LI I ri 1 I I I I I LI JETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL LI I OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B [PI 4/95 I NATURAL GROUND / REMOVE BENCHING MATERIAL 40 0 g o 12' MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP • HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT.3IFT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM 6' DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 0 PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION 6'+ MIN. DESIGN FINISHED GRADE 10' MIN. BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC 2% . o o APPROVED EQUIVALENT) p 20' MIN. 4.- L...NON-PERFORATED 5' MIN.\,#2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER 6'$ MIN. FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. I I I CANYON SUBDRAINS SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING Tj STANDARD DETAILS C 4/95 I I I I I Li I I I I I I I I I I , KEY DEPTHJ_ -----_L2% MIN.-'- 2' MIN - 15' MIN. KEY WIDTH 2% I ir MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP POSITIVE SEAL (HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET SHOULD BE j \ PROVIDED AT FILTER FABRIC THE JOI1)IT - : (MIRAFI 140 OR V 5 .0 APPROVED OUTLET PIPE a EQUIVALI) EN (NON-PERFORATED) T-CONNECTION FOR CALTRANS CLASS II COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC I I 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES 4'$ NON-PERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX O.C. HORIZONTALLY, BACKCUT 1:1 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY -------- OR FLATTER BENCHING - - - - -2%-- - • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnicai consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4U O 'AlIf drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet • SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or ASTM D3034, SDR 235, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. • All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in soil of SE30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill. BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING REPLACEMENT FILL SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAILS 4/95 I 1 I Li I I 1 I I 1 I I I U U I :.- 1m: 01 d OVERLAP'- FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE - l3 (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 0 EQUIVALENT)** 0 p 0 3/41_1.1/21 CLEAN GRAVEL** 1' MIN. o 0 • ::: 4`-(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPESCHEDULE 40 OR o EQUIVALE.NT) WITH PERFORATIONS o • ORIENTED. DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET o O—q... RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS FINISH GRADE I I ---COMPACTED FILL-E---E I I I I I I RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL I I SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* I I I II 1-tU 31 MIN. I NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 *BASED ON ASTM D1557 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4°11/2" GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION * NOTE:COMpOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I M MUM A GTG Company SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, LEGO FAMILY PARK, CARLSBAD RANCH, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA July 23, 1996 Project No. 4960151-001 Prepared For: NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 304 San Diego, California 92123 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #B205, San Diego, CA 9213-4425 (619) 292-8030 • FAX (619) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS M Mown Leighton and Associates A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS July 23, 1996 Project No. 4960151-001 To: Nolte and Associates, Inc. 5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305 San Diego, California 92123 Attention: Mr. Jim Hettinger Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation of the proposed Lego Family Park site in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our study was to further evaluate the extent of necessary remedial grading and provide additional design recommendations for the site development. Site grading plans were not available for use during this study. We have incorporated our previous data into this study to provide one comprehensive report for the Lego Family Park site. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Joseph . Franzone, Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 (Exp. 12/31/97) Direçtor of Engineering Director of Geology I I I 1 JGF/MRS/kar Distribution: (6) Addressee G 0 s R. Qr No. 1349 CERTIFIED )'! ENGINEERING - .P GEOLOGIST . Z9P C I Li I I U 1 I 1 I 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #13205, San Diego, CA 9213-4425 (619) 292-8030 • FAX (619) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com 1 I 4960151-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................I 1.1 Purpose and Scope .................................................1 1.2 Site Description ...................................................3 1.3 Proposed Development ..............................................3 1.4 Previous Site Investigations ...........................................4 1.5 Current Site Investigation ............................................5 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ...........................6 2.1 Regional Geology ..................................................6 2.2 Site Geology ......................................................6 2.2.1 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) .............................6 2.2.2 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) ...............................6 2.2.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) ....................................7 2.2.4 Colluvium (Map Symbol - Qcol) ...................................7 2.2.5 Topsoil (Unmapped) ...........................................7 2.2.6 Documented Fill (Map Symbol - Afd) ..............................8 2.2.7 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Mu) ............................8 2.3 Ground Water ....................................................10 2.4 Geologic Structure .................................................11 2.5 Mass Movement ...................................................11 2.6 Faulting and Seismicity ..............................................11 2.7 Seismic Considerations ..............................................12 2.7.1 Ground Shaking ...............................................12 2.7.2 Liquefaction/Dynamic Settlement ..................................12 2.8 Existing Slope Conditions ............................................12 2.9 Expansion Potential ................................................13 2.10 Sulfate Content, Minimum Resistivity and pH .............................13 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................14 Ii I H I I I I [] I L I [1 [ii I I I I I I I 4960151-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................16 4.1 Earthwork .......................................................16 4.1.1 Site Preparation ...............................................16 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils ............16 4.1.3 Excavations ..................................................17 4.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ...................................18 4.1.5 Transition Lots ................................................18 4.1.6 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking .....................................19 4.2 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters ............................19 4.3 Slope Stability .....................................................20 4.3.1 Graded Slopes ................................................20 4.4 Preliminary Foundation Design Considerations ............................21 4.4.1 Footing Design ...............................................21 4.4.2 Floor Slab Design .............................................21 4.4.3 Foundation Setback ............................................22 4.5 Special Design and Grading Considerations for Fill Settlement ................22 4.6 Proposed Development in Undocumented Fill Areas .......................23 4.7 Expansive Soils/Presoak .............................................24 4.8 Retaining Wall Design Considerations ..................................24 4.9 Type of Cement for Construction ......................................25 4.10 Corrosion Resistance ...............................................26 4.11 Pavement Design ..................................................26 4.12 Water Features ....................................................27 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ......................................28 I Figure Figure 1 - Site Location Map .................................................... I I I I ZZ FA I I I I I I I I I I Li I I 4960151-001 I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Plates Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map ..........................................Rear of Text Plate 2 - Removal Map ..............................................Rear of Text (reduced copies of Plates 1 and 2 are located at the rear of text) Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring and Trench Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results and Test Procedures Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E - Slope Stability Calculations 'Ii I I I I I I I I I I I [11 I I I I - iii - El 4960151-001 [1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope I This report provides a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the onsite soil and geologic conditions to be utilized for site development purposes. In preparation of this report we have utilized the 100-scale tentative map (dated March 1995) I prepared by O'Day Consultants, an undated 100-scale topographic map provided by Nolte and Associates, a conceptual site development plan prepared by Sasaki and Associates, and the previously issued geotechnical reports relative to the Carlsbad Ranch project. We understand I that the grades shown on the project tentative map will likely change through the planning process. I The purpose of our study was to specifically evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the Lego Resort site and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to site development based on the additional data and conceptual development plans. The main objective was further evaluation of site remedial grading. The scope of our services during the evaluation I included the following: Review of geotechnical literature and aerial photographs pertaining to the general vicinity ' of the site and geotechnical reports pertaining specifically to the site. A list of the items reviewed is included in Appendix A. 0 Field reconnaissance of the site and general vicinity. • Subsurface investigation of the site conditions, including the drilling, logging and sampling of 24 additional small diameter borings and 26 additional backhoe trenches. All borings were logged by our geologists and backfilled on completion. The logs of all previous borings and trenches are included in Appendix B and were utilized in preparation of this report. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the onsite soils. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to the proposed development. Our report includes the results of the previous subsurface exploration studies and laboratory data applicable to this portion of the Carlsbad Ranch project. I Li El I I I I I El I -1- __ awn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •1 (I ¼ I \ \I Park Ity Pk 'SITE LOCATION \. \ \ •0 \ \ ¼ '¼ \I _RTC 60 --------- 9000 PALOMAR¼ 0 \ °Chf 0,v of Hwys MnLen.nce statun)ç 1/ \\ 0 /2( I I . - 24 Evans ) I Point ,A 0 — ---- ----- -.. — -N- ii; ......•ui 0 2000 4000 feet Base Map: Aerial Foto-Map Book, San Diego County, 1986-87, Aerial Graphics, Page 8D & 9D Approximate Scale LEGOLAND SITE Project No. LOCATION 4960151-001 [ln CARLSBAD,CA. MAP Date 7/23/96 FIGURE 1 BLUEPRINT SOURCE & SUPPLY 163050 I 4960151-001 1 1.2 Site Description The site is located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo del Norte within the Carlsbad Ranch in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). Carlsbad Ranch, is an irregular-shaped parcel encompassing approximately 548 acres. Carlsbad Ranch is bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the south, Car Country Carlsbad and the proposed realignment of Paseo del Norte on the west, Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north and Hidden Valley road and agricultural land on the east. The Lego Family Park will be constructed on Lot 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch. Lot 18 encompasses :L-132 acres and is located in the southeast corner of the Carlsbad Ranch. Topographically, the site is characterized by northwest-southeast trending ridges and intervening valleys. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 70 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) in a drainage adjacent to Palomar Airport Road on the south side of the property to approximately 204 feet m.s.l. near the ridgeline along the eastern edge of the property. Natural slopes on the site are relatively gentle, however, man-made cut and fill slopes (locally with slope inclinations up to 1:1 [horizontal to vertical]) are present in places around the perimeter of the tract and in developed areas within the tract. I Existing improvements on site are generally related to past and present agricultural activities on the site. Improvements associated with the agricultural fields include underground irrigation lines and valves, maintenance and storage yards, city water lines supplying the water I reservoir on the east side of the site, and minor fills. Improvements associated with the now removed agricultural packing/distribution plant located in the south-western portion of the site include a relatively large fill area creating the building pad, parking and storage areas, and man-made cut and fill slopes. A smaller maintenance and vegetable packing facility remains I in operation in the central portion of the site. In the southern portion of the site, one of the north-south trending canyons had been infilled with undocumented fill soils placed during the site farming activities and in several phases including during the grading of Car Country Carlsbad in the late 1980's and the improvements of Palomar Airport Road in the early 1990's. As encountered during our Phase II environmental study performed in 1989, a moderate amount of trash (including vegetation, plastic sheeting and tubing, paper, etc.) was encountered in the undocumented fill soils in this vicinity (Leighton, 1989b). 1.3 Proposed Development Our review of the conceptual development plan prepared by Sasaki and Associates, and our understanding of the project, future use of the site will include the construction of the Logo Family Park, including several lakes and ponds, numerous buildings and improvements associated with the Lego Family Park, and large parking areas. A precise grading plan for site development has not yet been prepared. Based on our review of the site tentative map, proposed grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and fills creating sheet-graded areas for the building pads, parking areas and other improvements within the tract. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be constructed at slope I I I I I ri I I I I I I I -3- __own I 4960151-001 inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Maximum depths of cut and fill are on the order of ±40 feet from the existing site elevations. While some changes from this plan I are anticipated, the overall site grading is not likely to differ significantly. 1.4 Previous Site Investigations A number of previous site investigations have been performed for the Carlsbad Ranch project I and the adjacent parcels (which have been annexed to Carlsbad Ranch). The geotechnical investigations which were reviewed and their findings, conclusions and recommendations incorporated into this report include the following: I • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Agua Hedionda (1987 through 1989) by Leighton and Associates. This report evaluated the parcel of land north of Car Country Carlsbad between the proposed Cannon Road extension and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to I the north. • Results of Near-Surface Soil Sampling for Hazardous Materials at Carlsbad Ranch (1989) I by Leighton and Associates. This Phase II environmental report mainly evaluated potential sources of hazardous materials on the site as the result of the past agricultural activities. However, as part of this investigation, the undocumented fill area in the I southeastern portion of the site was partially evaluated. • Preliminary and Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation of the Proposed College Business I Park (1984 through 1991) by Leighton and Associates. These evaluations covered the property east of Carlsbad Ranch (of which an approximate 22-acre parcel was annexed to Carlsbad Ranch). I • Phase I Geotechnical Investigation of Carlsbad Ranch (1992) by Geotechnics Inc. This limited investigation provided a preliminary evaluation of the Carlsbad Ranch project. As part of this study, the previous investigations performed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants I in 1987 and by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants in 1988 were reviewed. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Units I and II (Phase I) of Carlsbad Ranch 1 (1993) by Leighton and Associates. This investigation specifically evaluated the geotechnical conditions of Units I and II of Carlsbad Ranch (including a portion of the proposed Research and Development/Commercial Park, the Gemological Institute of I America Museum site and the specialty retail complex). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Unit III (Phase II) of Carlsbad Ranch (1994) I by Leighton and Associates. This study covered Unit III of Carlsbad Ranch (including a portion of the Research and Development/Commercial Park, a portion of the Lego Family Park complex and the hotel and retail site). ZZ I I I -4- __ 4960151-001 • Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Map Purposes, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, (1994), by Leighton and Associates. This report was a compilation ofprevious reports and covered the entire Carlsbad Ranch. Utilized in conjunction with - the tentative map submittal. I . Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park and Pointe Reports, Lot 17 and 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, (1995), Leighton and Associates. A preliminary investigation of the Lego and Pointe sites. This report addressed, in general, I the anticipated remedial site grading without benefit of a site development plan. Previous investigations included the excavation of large- and small-diameter borings, I exploratory backhoe trenches and test pits. The boring trench and test pit logs applicable to Lots 17 and 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch are included within Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings, trench and test pits are shown on the Geotechnical Maps (Plate 1). In addition and also included, the previous site investigations included laboratory testing of I representative soil samples collected during the subsurface investigations. Laboratory test results relative to the Carlsbad Ranch project are included in Appendix C. The laboratory testing included Atterberg limits, direct shear, expansion index, moisture/density I determinations, maximum dry density, soluble sulfate content, and minimum resistivity and pH tests. Brief descriptions of the laboratory test procedures and the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. The test results of the moisture/density determinations are I presented in the boring logs included in Appendix B. I 1.5 Current Site Investigation The current site investigation included the drilling, logging and sampling of 24 small diameter I exploratory borings and 26 exploratory trenches. The small diameter borings and trenches were drilled predominantly in existing fill areas, alluvial areas, and proposed building areas up to 51 feet in depth. All borings and trenches were logged and sampled by our geologists and I backfilled on completion. The small diameter borings drilled in conjunction with this study have been designated B-i through B-24, the trenches have been labeled as T-1 through T-26. Logs of these borings and trenches, as well as those from previous studies are included as Appendix B. The locations of all exploratory excavations are indicated on Plate Nos. 1 and 2, I Geotechnical Map and Removal Map. Representative samples of the soils encountered were returned to our laboratory for testing. I Laboratory tests performed included in-place moisture and density and consolidation testing. The results of the laboratory tests performed are presented on the boring and trench logs and in Appendix C. I I I I I -5- __ 4960151-001 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS I 2.1 Regional Geology I The subject site is located within the coastal subprovidence of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Providence, near the western edge of the southern California batholith. The topography at the edge of the batholith changes from rugged landforms developed on the I batholith to the more subdued landforms which typify the softer sedimentary formations of the coastal plain. I The subject site is underlain by terrace deposits formed by sea level changes during late Quaternary time. These soils were deposited on wave cut platforms in the underlying Santiago Formation. 1 2.2 Site Geology I As encountered during previous site investigations and our review of geotechnical reports applicable to the tract (Appendix A), the Lego site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the Santiago Formation and Terrace Deposits and surficial units comprised of alluvium, I colluvium, topsoil, documented and undocumented fill soils. The areal distributions of the units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and on the Removal Map (Plate 2). Reduced copies of both of these plates are included at the rear of this text. 2.2.1 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) I The bedrock unit underlying the entire site is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. In general, the unit consists of massive to poorly bedded sandstone with interbedded I clayey siltstone and silty claystone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray, light brown, and light yellow-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and massive. The siltstone consisted of medium brown and olive-brown, moist, stiff, I clayey siltstones that were fissile to indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese-oxide and iron-oxide staining. The claystone typically was gray to brown, moist, stiff to hard, fine-grained, sandy to silty claystone that was moderately I sheared. Where encountered, the upper 6 to 12 inches of the Santiago Formation appears to be moderately weathered, porous and potentially compressible. This layer should be removed and recompacted in areas of fill placement or improvements. 2.2.2 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) I Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits locally overlie the Santiago Formation in most areas of the site (especially along the ridgelines). As encountered during the investigations, these deposits generally consist of orange to red brown, damp to moist, I JilL -6- __ 4960151-001 medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. The upper portion of the Terrace Deposits (generally the upper 3 to 8 feet) appeared to be highly weathered and/or I disturbed by the agricultural activities of the site and are anticipated to be slightly porous and potentially compressible. In general, the Terrace Deposits have a very low expansion potential. With the exception of the upper weathered zone, the terrace deposits have favorable engineering properties and are suitable to receive the proposed improvements. The weathered portion of the terrace deposits will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed improvements or fill soils. 2.2.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) 1 Alluvium was encountered during our investigation of the proposed development in the low-lying southerly flowing drainages adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road. As encountered the alluvium generally consisted of potentially I compressible, moist to saturated, loose to medium dense silty sands with some sandy silts and sandy clays. In the area adjacent to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road, alluvium depths are greater than the total depth explored I (36.5 feet). North of Palomar Airport Road alluvial depths remain relatively thick as evidenced by approximately 28 feet of alluvium in boring LB-4. I In the central canyon area south of the existing fill area, alluvium was encountered to a depth of 12 feet at boring SD-1. These areas were not accessible with the drilling equipment utilized in this investigation. I Unsaturated alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible and not suitable for the support of fill and or structural loads. These soils should be removed and recompacted as part of site grading. I 2.2.4 Colluvium (Map Symbol - Qcol) Colluvium was encountered in the low-lying areas within and adjacent to the tract, on the lower hillsides north of Palomar Airport Road and in the tributary canyons. As I encountered, the colluvium typically consisted of dark red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty to slightly clayey sand that was generally 2 to 22 feet in thickness although locally it may be somewhat deeper. The colluvium was typically porous and I anticipated to be potentially compressible under the load of existing fills or improvements. In places, it was somewhat difficult to distinguish the sandier colluvial soils from the underlying terrace deposits. 2.2.5 Topsoil (Unmapped) I Topsoil was encountered essentially covering the entire site but was not mapped. The topsoil was found to be generally dark red-brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sands with minor amounts of clay. The topsoil was generally ±2 feet in thickness, I I -7- _WANU I 4960151-001 contained minor amounts of decomposed organics, and has been disturbed by the past and present agricultural activities on the site. This unit was evaluated to be potentially compressible under the loading of fill soils or improvements. 2.2.6 Documented Fill (Map Symbol - Aid) Compacted fill soils are currently being placed along the alignment of Armada Drive. Documentation of the placement and compaction of these soils is being performed by Leighton and Associates. 2.2.7 undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Mu) A relatively large amount of undocumented fill soils are present on the site in various locations. The major fill areas are designated on the geotechnical map as Areas 1 through 5. Minor amounts of unmapped fill soils are also present on the site as dirt roadways and utility trench backfihls. Each of the major fill areas is discussed below. • Area 1 I Undocumented fill Area 1 consists of a broad fill area in the southwestern portion of the site. This area was previously graded in conjunction with site access roads and a flower/vegetable packing facility that has since been removed. As encountered, the undocumented fill consisted of numerous soil types, but typically the fill soils were orange-brown, medium brown and gray, moist to very moist, loose, silty sands and clayey sands. In the vicinity of the agricultural packing and distribution plant, starting at a depth of between 8 and 10 feet, and in the fill area at the southeast portion of the site in the lower portion of the fill, the undocumented fill contained a moderate to abundant amount of partially decomposed organics, pieces of wood and brush, trash, plastic and construction-type debris (eg. concrete, asphalt, rebar, bricks, etc.). In a number of borings located south of the existing agricultural packing and distribution plant, refusal (due to abundant chunks of concrete and asphalt) occurred at depths ranging from 15 to 17 feet below existing grade. Borings to the east and north of the packing plants encountered some trash and debris, but generally the fill soils consisted of relatively clean silty sands. Adjacent to Palomar Airport Road these fill soils extended to depths greater than 33 feet (Boring B-6). Evaluation of the total depths of fill were not possible due to caving conditions in the borings and the presence of a significant amount of ground water. Recent removals during the grading of Armada Drive were on the order of 10 to 15 feet in depth along the edge of Armada Drive. The majority of this removal did not encounter a significant amount of rubble, although a large underground storage tank and associated piping was removed from this area. A large amount of concrete and rubble was removed during recent removals adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. -r -8- I I I I I. I I I I I I I I Li I I I 4960151-001 H • Area Area 2 consists of the largest area of undocumented fill encountered on the site. In this area large amounts of fill soils were apparently placed on at least 3 different occasions. The timing of the first event is unknown, but based on a review of previous geotechnical reports (ICG, 1988), approximately 20 feet of fill soils existed on the westerly flank of the canyon area prior to 1988. This material was likely generated from onsite farming activities. Fill soils were then apparently placed in the canyon area to an elevation of ±138 feet MSL. This material was imported during rough grading operations on the nearby Car County Carlsbad. Disposal grading plans indicated that an excess of 176,000 cubic yards of material was to be disposed in the canyon area. Existing site elevations in the canyon area vary from ± 140 feet in the central portions of the canyon to ± 150 feet on the sides of the canyon. The source of this additional layer of fill is unknown. We understand however, the area may have been utilized as a disposal site during the improvement of Palomar Airport Road. As encountered during our investigation, the fill soils are up to 34 feet in thickness (Boring LB-1). The upper portions of the fill soils are moderately well compacted, clean soil. However, abundant amounts of trash and debris were encountered in the lower portion of the fill. This debris consists primarily of larger clumps of plastic debris (visqueen), some pvc pipe and minor amounts of wood and other inert debris. No documentation of the placement and compaction of any of this fill soil exists. In addition, as shown by ICG (1988) and as encountered in our borings, the fill soils are underlain by potentially compressible alluvium, in the center of the canyon with a thickness of approximately 20 feet. I In Trench T-7, the soils were noted to have strong odors. Samples were retained and scanned with a PID (photoionization detector) with no evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons noted. Area 3 consists of a small dam or desilting basin berm located south of fill area 2. I This fill area has a maximum depth on the order of ± 15 feet and is also underlain by potentially compressible alluvium. The upper ±2 feet of this fill appears highly weathered and disturbed. This fill area is also undocumented. Area 4 I • ____ I Area 4 is located in the same general area as 2 and 3. This fill is labeled as having debris in the fill. We have been informed by several sources that this area contains trash and debris. The debris is largely anticipated to be plastic pipe and visqueen although one of the onsite farmers believes there may be an abandoned car contained within the fill soils. Observation of this fill area indicate some plastic and debris on the surface. Previously, in an attempt to quantify how much trash exists in Area 4, Boring LB-2 was drilled. This boring encountered 8 feet of relatively I - -9- __ I I I I I] I I I 4960151-001 clean fill soils overlying bedrock materials of the Santiago Formation with no appreciable trash. During this phase of the investigation, Trenches T-11 and T-12 I were excavated in this area and encountered a significant amount of trash. The trash consists primarily of plastic irrigation tubing and visqueen. I Area Area 5 consists of another relatively small fill area created by onsite farming I activity. The fill soils in this area are less than 10 feet in maximum fill thickness and obviously uncompacted. I With the exception of the grading currently being performed along Armada Drive, all of the fill soils encountered on the site are undocumented and therefore considered uncompacted. In addition, the major fill areas are also underlain by potentially compressible alluvium and contain an unknown amount of trash and debris. It is I impossible to quantify the amount of trash that is present, however based on our observations and previous experience, we anticipate that trash may account for up to 5 percent by volume of the undocumented fills. In our opinion, the onsite fill and I alluvial soils are not suitable to receive additional fill and/or structural loads in their - present condition. In addition, due to the presence of the presence of the trash and trash and non-uniformity of the fill, potential differential settlement cannot be I quantified. Therefore, considering the types of developments now 'proposed, we recommend the existing undocumented fill and underlying alluvium be completely removed and recompacted as part of site grading. The attached Plate No. 2 (Removal I Map) illustrates the anticipated depths of removal below existing site grades. Proposed design grades are not shown on this plan and need to be taken into account. 2.3 Ground Water I Ground water was encountered within several of the onsite drainages in the lower elevation particularly adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. The presence of ground water in these areas is anticipated to limit some of the removals of alluvium and undocumented fill that are I proposed. Ground water was also encountered in borings B-22, LB-5 and LB-6 at respective depths of 18 feet 5 inches, 31 feet and 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The ground water I appears to be perched on the contact between the overlying Terrace Deposits and underlying Santiago Formation. Because of its depth and localized nature, ground water is not anticipated to be a constraint to site development provided the recommendations of this I report are adhered to. I E I ZZ - 1i -10- __i i ~ I I 2.4 I I 2.5 I • 2.6 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 4960151-001 Geologic Structure Faulting and Seismicity Our discussion of the faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zone Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not located within any earthquake fault zones as created by the Aiquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1992). Our review of available geologic literature indicated that there are no known active or potentially active faults that transect Carlsbad Ranch. However, inactive fault zones were encountered in a number of places within and adjacent to Carlsbad Ranch during previous investigations. In addition, during recent site grading, features were observed within the terrace deposits that may be indications of past episodes of liquefaction on the site. These features include a series of irregular fractures that have been infilled with a clean sand. In addition to these features, inactive fault zones were encountered in the cut slope along the north side of Palomar Airport Road during previous geotechnical work performed at the site (Geotechnics, 1992) and in the eastern portion of the site (Weber, 1982 and Leighton, 1991 and 1992). The location of the proposed development can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of southern California. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone which is located approximately 3.5 miles to the west of the site is considered to have the most significant seismic effect at the site from a design standpoint. A maximum probable earthquake of moment magnitude 6.25 on the fault could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately 0.30g at the site. For design purposes, an effective ground acceleration of 0.40g based on the Uniform Building Code criteria (ICBO, 1991) may be assumed. zz The bedrock units encountered on the site were generally massive with no apparent bedding. - However, based on our professional experience in the area, bedding of the Terrace Deposits and underlying Santiago Formation is anticipated to be relatively gently dipping (ie. 5 to 10 degrees) to the west. Mass Movement Based on our review of the previous geotechnical reports, available geologic literature and maps, and aerial photographs, no indication of mass movements (such as landslides, surficial slumps, etc.) were observed within the subject site. L 4960151-001 2.7 Seismic Considerations I The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking and/or seismically induced liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The probability of damage due to ground rupture is I considered minimal since active faults are not known to cross the site. Ground lurching due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout the southern California region. 1 2.7.1 Ground Shaking I The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major regional faults. As discussed above, a maximum credible event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (considered the design earthquake for I this site) could produce a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration at the site of 0.30g and an effective ground acceleration of 0.40g. 2.7.2 Liquefaction/Dynamic Settlement I Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the I stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Due to the relatively dense nature of the onsite Terrace Deposits and Santiago Formation and the absence of a near surface ground water table, the potential for liquefaction I on the site due to the design earthquake is anticipated to be very low. However, due to the presence of perched ground water conditions within the loose and potentially compressible alluvium, colluvium and undocumented fill soils, liquefaction and dynamic I settlement of these soils may occur as a result of the design earthquake. As a result, remedial measure such as removal and recompaction are recommended to mitigate this liquefaction potential. 2.8 Existing Stone Conditions I A number of existing graded slopes have been constructed along Palomar Airport Road, and in the vicinity of the agricultural packing and distribution plant within south-central portion of Carlsbad Ranch. These slopes have inclinations ranging from 1:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to I vertical) or flatter. In general, the 1:1 cut slopes are present around the packing and distribution plant. Fill slopes associated with the undocumented fill slopes are also present on the site at slope inclinations of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Slopes havinginclinations steeper than 2:1 should be considered temporary slopes and should be regraded at maximum slope inclinations of 2:1 (unless properly designed with a retaining wall structure). In addition, we understand the area of existing undocumented fill slopes adjacent to Palomar Airport Road may be protected because of the presence of endangered plant I -12- __MUM I I I 2.9 I I I I I I LI 2.10 I I 4960151-001 species. If these soils are not removed and recompacted as part of site grading, some surficial slope instability may be experienced. In addition, a structural setback may be required at the top of slope for settlement-sensitive improvements. Expansion Potential The expansion potential of the soils encountered within the subject site are described as follows: • Undocumented Fill: Low expansion potential for the majority of the soils. Minor amounts of silty sand/clayey sand soils may have a moderate expansion potential. • Alluvium and Colluvium: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. • Topsoil: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. • Terrace Deposits: Very low to low expansion potential. • Santiago Formation: Low expansion potential for silty sandstone, medium to high for sandy to clayey siltstones and high to very high for the silty claystones. Expansion testing of representative finish grade soils in proposed building areas should be performed upon completion of rough grading to better assess the expansion potential of the finish grade soils so that final foundation recommendations can be provided. Sulfate Content, Minimum Resistivity and pH The test results from the site investigations performed for the Carlsbad Ranch project and adjacent tracts indicate the onsite soils possess a negligible to minor soluble sulfate content and a very mild to high potential for corrosion. Laboratory testing of finish grade soils at grade or in contact with concrete and/or buried metal conduits should be performed once site- specific plans are developed and/or construction is planned. I I I I I I -13- __ 4960151-001 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the preliminary tentative tract map and the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development of the Lego Family Park is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the tract. The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors which may affect development of the site. • Based on the previous subsurface investigations, the site is underlain by the Santiago Formation, Terrace Deposits, alluvium, colluvium, topsoil and undocumented fill soils. • The topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formational material and undocumented fill soils are porous and/or potentially compressible in their present state and will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed development. If complete removals are not made, settlement should be anticipated. • Based on the previous subsurface investigations of the formational soils and surficial soils present on the site, we anticipate that these materials will be rippable with heavy-duty-construction equipment. However, localized concretions and cemented layers within the Santiago Formation if encountered, may require heavy ripping during excavation. • Abundant trash and construction debris were encountered in the existing undocumented fill soils between Palomar Airport Road and the agricultural packing and distribution plant with a large amount of agricultural debris, plastic pipe and other debris in the north-south trending canyon in the southeast portion of the tract. Removal of these deleterious materials will be required in order to utilize the undocumented fill soils during site grading. • Laboratory testing results and our previous experience in the area indicate the soils present on the site have the following soil engineering characteristics: - very low to high expansion potential - negligible to minor sulfate content - adequate shear strength in both existing formational soils or as properly compacted fill soils - mild to high potential for corrosion to buried metal conduits • The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable for use as fill material provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Perched ground water conditions were encountered within the tract in a number of places. These perched ground water conditions were encountered in, 1) the undocumented fill soils between Palomar Airport Road and the agricultural packing and distribution plant; 2) within the alluvium located in the southeast corner of the site; and 3) in the northeast portion of the tract. Ground water is not considered a constraint to development, however, ground water seepage or shallow ground water conditions may occur in areas where ground water did not previously exist. This is especially true where a relatively impermeable material such as a claystone or cemented layer I I I I I I I I I r~ ~1 I I 1 I I I I 4960151-001 underlies a relatively permeable material such as sandstone or sandy fill soils. After removal of undocumented fill and alluvium, canyon subdrains should be installed to avoid a future buildup ofwater. Additional subdrainage may be required depending our review of final development - plans and conditions encountered during site grading. I . Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the Carlsbad Ranch project. However, inactive faults and other seismic features have been mapped and/or observed transecting the tract. The peak horizontal ground acceleration on the site due to the design earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone of moment magnitude 6.25 is estimated to be 0.30g with an effective ground acceleration of approximately 0.40g. Based on our evaluation, the potential for liquefaction of the site soils is considered very low. However, due to the perched ground water conditions and presence of potentially compressible alluvium, colluvium and undocumented fill soils in some areas of the tract, the potential for liquefaction is considered significant unless remedial measures are undertaken to remove and recompact the saturated and potentially compressible soils. Mass movements such as landslides, surficial slumps, mud flows, etc. were not observed onsite. o The existing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter cut slopes present on the south and west sides of the tract are considered surficially and grossly stable from a geotechnical standpoint. However, due to the coarse and somewhat friable nature of the onshe soils, ruling and gullying of the slopes is anticipated to be significant. Grading of the subject site may result in a transition condition (cut/fill) in proposed building areas. Section 4.1.5 provided recommendations to mitigate this condition. LI L] LI I I I Li] I -15- __ I I I LII I LI I I 4960151-001 I 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, removal I and recompaction of potentially compressible soils, fill placement, and backfill. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Carlsbad grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and I Grading Specifications included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix D. 1 4.1.1 Site Preparation I Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formation I materials, and undocumented fill soils), and stripped of vegetation. Based on this and previous subsurface investigations, the undocumented fill soils contain a significant amount of trash and construction and farming debris. Vegetation and debris should be removed from the existing fill soils and property disposed. Holes resulting from I removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to I near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils I In general, alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, weathered formational soils, and undocumented fill soils not removed by the planned grading, should be excavated, I moisture conditioned or dried back to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then compacted prior to placing any additional fill. Typically, these soils including near-surface soils in areas that have been farmed in the past are anticipated to be porous and potentially compressible in their present state, and may settle appreciably I under the surcharge of fills or foundation loadings. In areas that will receive fill or other surface improvements, these potentially compressible soils should be removed I down to competent formational materials and recompacted. Plate No. 2 illustrates the anticipated depth from the existing ground surface to competent material. These depths do not take into account the proposed design I grades and should be adjusted accordingly in cut areas. In the southeast corner of the tract, our investigation indicated in excess of 36.5 feet of alluvium with the ground water table at approximately 64 feet msl. I -16- ~__ I 4960151-001 Ground water was also encountered at an elevation of 4-74 feet MSL in the undocumented fill area on the western edge of the site. Ground water may also be I present in the central canyon area adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. We recommend that alluvium be either completely removed to competent formational material or to within ±2 feet of the static ground water table. If saturated alluvium I is left-in-place, settlement should be anticipated. I monuments Based on the conditions encountered during site grading, the installation of settlement and a monitoring may be recommended. period Perched ground water was also encountered in boring SD-6 and SD-9 at respective 1 depths of 5 and 7 feet. Complete removals of the topsoil, fill and alluvium in these areas should be performed. I In general, we estimate that the alluvial removals in the southern portion of the site to be up to ±30 feet in depth, the colluvial removals will in general range from 3 to 7 feet, while removals of topsoil and near-surface soil disturbed by farming will be on the order of 2 to 4 feet. It should be noted that deeper removals may be required in I areas due to localized thicker zones of compressible soils. In addition, the undocumented fill soils were found to contain organics, trash, and construction debris. This material should be separated from the soils and disposed of off site. Small I fragments of plastic sheeting and irrigation tubing maybe incorporated into the fill soils. However, all clumps of this material should be removed and disposed of off site. I Removals of the undocumented fill and underlying alluvium are recommended in the central canyon area. In this area, removal depths are anticipated to have a maximum ' depth of approximately 50 feet. The extent of the undocumented fill and underlying alluvium are shown on the Plate Nos. 1 and 2. Due to the abundance of concrete chunks within the undocumented fill located south I of the agricultural packing and distribution plant, the drill rig was unable to penetrate the undocumented fill. As a result, our investigation was not able to determine the undocumented fill thickness in all locations. However, based on pregraded I topography, the fill soils are estimated to be a minimum of approximately 35 feet in thickness. Removals of this material adjacent to Palomar Airport Road will also be I limited by the presence of ground water. Other areas of undocumented fill although limited in extent also require complete removal and recompaction. 4.1.3 Excavations I Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions I - -17- __ I 4960151-001 greater than 6 inches) will be generated during grading. However, if oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed as fill in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. Due to the relatively high density characteristics and coarse nature of the onsite soils, temporary excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in the onsite soils should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions. However, in accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations between 5 and 15 feet in depth should be shored or laid back to inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such excavations. For excavations deeper than 15 feet, specific recommendations can be made on a case by case basis. Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix D. Transition Lots We recommend the proposed structures be planned such that they are entirely underlain by competent formational soils or underlain by a uniform thickness of properly compacted fill. If this is not possible, in order to help minimize the potential for differential settlements, the entire cut portion of the area planned for structures in daylight areas should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottoms of proposed foundations and replaced with properly compacted fill. The overexcavations should laterally extend at least 10 feet beyond the building pad. Depth of overexcavation should be deepened when necessary to provide a uniform thickness of fill beneath the structure(s). Please refer to Section 4.5 for recommendations should structures be planned in areas of the site where relatively large differential fill thickness exists and extensive overexcavation is not considered feasible. I I I j I 4.1.4 I I Li I H Fi 4.1.5 I I I I I I I 4960151-001 4.1.6 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking I The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction as fill is expected - to vary with materials and location. Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock material vary significantly in natural and compacted density, and therefore, accurate earthwork I shrinkage/bulking estimates cannot be determined. However, the following factors based on the results of our geotechnical analysis are provided as guideline estimates. I If possible, we suggest an area where site grades can be adjusted be provided to utilize as a balance area. • Topsoil/Upper 2 feet of site where farming has occurred: 10 to 15 percent I shrinkage, below 2 feet: 5 to 9 percent shrinkage • Undocumented fill: 5 to 15 percent shrinkage Colluvium/Alluvium: 5 to 10 percent shrinkage I . Terrace Deposits: 0 to 5 percent bulking • Santiago Formation: 4 to 7 percent bulking (assuming the majority of the Santiago I Formation is sandstone, bulking may be greater in areas of siltstone or claystone). * In addition, an unknown quantity of trash and debris is incorporated within the I undocumented fill soils on site. This material will require export from the site and will influence the overall dirt balance. 4.2 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters I Based on previous preliminary investigations, it is our opinion that except for alluvial areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and the perched ground water conditions encountered in various locations within the tract, a permanent shallow ground water table does not currently I exist at the site. The control of ground water in a hillside development is essential to reduce the potential for undesirable surface flow or seepage, hydrostatic pressure and the adverse effects of ground water on slope stability. I We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade each sheet-graded area, such that drainage water is directed away from top-of-slopes. No ponding of water should be I permitted. Drainage design is within the purview of the design civil engineer. Even with these provisions, our experience indicates that shallow ground water conditions can develop in areas where no such ground water conditions existed prior to site development, I especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. We recommend that an engineering geologist be present during grading operations to observe and record possible future seepage. Canyon subdrains should be installed in the canyon bottoms that will be infihled and in the removal bottom of the -19- __ 4960151-001 undocumented fill removal areas in order to collect subsurface water and minimize the saturation of the fill soils. The locations for recommended subdrains should be made after I review of final grading plans. Additional subdrains may be recommended based on observations made during site grading and review of final development plans. If seepage conditions occur in cut slopes or other areas of the tract, shallow subdrains may be installed I to collect the ground water and minimize problems associated with saturated soil. The subdrains should be installed in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. 4.3 Slope Stability 1 4.3.1 Graded Slopes Based on our professional experience in the area and knowledge of similar soils, it is I our opinion that the existing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter manufactured slopes should have an adequate factor-of-safety against surficial deep-seated or gross stability, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and I construction of the site. Site-specific grading plans were not available for review at the time this report was I prepared. As a result, the height of proposed cut and fill slopes is presently unknown. However, where free of adverse geologic structures, cut and fill slopes to maximum heights of approximately 20 to 30 feet should be grossly and surficially stable I at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. It should be noted that manufactured slopes on site may be subject to ruling and erosion due to a granular nature of the onsite soils. For planning purposes, we have preliminarily evaluated the I stability of cut and fill slopes to a maximum height of 20 feet at a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). We have attached our calculations in Appendix E. The engineering characteristics of the site soils were based on our laboratory testing I (Appendix C) and our experience with similar soils. Our calculations indicate that cut and fill slope to a maximum height of 20 feet at inclinations no steeper than 2:1 are grossly and surficially stable. Temporary slopes for underground utilities, retaining I walls and other structures may be excavated at a grade of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to heights of 20 feet, where free of adverse geotechnical conditions. Additional recommendations can be provided after review of final grading and development plans. I We recommend that all excavations and cut slopes be observed and mapped by an engineering geologist during grading operations to verify that the soil and geologic conditions encountered do not differ significantly from those assumed in our analysis. I Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine grading and construction unless supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation as soon as possible after grading to minimize potential erosion. In slopes where seepage is present, drainage should be provided as shown in Appendix D. Slopes which require special drainage features can .-. -20- __ I LI I I I I I 4.4 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 4960151-001 be evaluated and recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Preliminary Foundation Design Considerations Proposed building types, final locations, and foundation loads were unknown at the time this report was prepared. For planning purposes, we anticipate the proposed structures will vary from one to three stories in height and will utilize both structural steel and concrete tilt-up construction. Typical column loads are assumed to be on the order of 200 kips. Assuming the pad grade soils have a very low to low expansion, the following foundation recommendations may be utilized. Final foundation plans should be reviewed by this office. 4.4.1 Footing Design The proposed buildings may utilize a combination of continuous perimeter footings and conventional interior isolated-spread footings for building support. Footings bearing properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted soil grade (24 inches for three stories). At this depth, footings may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of foundation embedment below 18 inches to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and should be reinforced by placing at least one No. 5 rebar near the top and one No. 5 rebar near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings. Utilizing these recommendations, total and differential settlement are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch and 1/2 inches, respectively, approximately one-half of this settlement is expected to occur during construction. Also see Section 4.1.5 for undercut/transition lot recommendations. 4.4.2 Floor Slab Design All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center (each way). Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to accommodate specific loading conditions should be designed by the structural engineer. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing, which is underlain by a 6-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier which, in turn, underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand to act as a capillary break. All laps and penetrations in the moisture barrier should be appropriately sealed. The spacing of -.--- -21- __ 4960151-001 crack-control joints should be designed by the structural engineer. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potentialfor drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time I of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, thy, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump I concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) will reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. A slip sheet or equivalent should be used if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tile, etc.) are planned directly on the concrete floor. I Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings I contractor test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of moisture sensitive flooring. "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. 4.4.3 Foundation Setback I We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all improvements (such as flatwork, retaining walls, building footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or I to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of 10 feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback recommendations described above. I 4.5 Special Design and Grading Considerations for Fill Settlement Due to their inherent characteristics, fill soils tend to settle due to their own weight and I increase in moisture content. The amount of settlement is proportional to the depth of fill and its relative compaction. Based on laboratory testing of the materials anticipated to be used as fill (Appendix C) and our experience with similar materials, we estimate these soils may settle on the order of 0.2 percent of the total fill thickness. In terms of differential I settlement, 1/2 inch of settlement should be anticipated for each 20 feet of differential fill thickness. Relatively deep fill areas, placed on steep existing topography, are most likely to I be impacted by the effects of differential settlement. In areas where the proposed structures cannot tolerate the amount of anticipated differential settlement mentioned above, special design and grading considerations may be required. I These considerations may include: I -22- __ 1 4960151-001 The proposed structures may be planned such that they are entirely founded into competent formational material. This may be accomplished by constructing the structure I on the cut portion of the lot or by deepening foundation into the formational soils by the use of a pier and grade beam system or deepened footings. Geotechnical recommendations for these foundation systems may be provided based upon the proposed I location and design of the structures. • The proposed structures may be located in areas of uniform fill thickness such that the I anticipated differential settlement is within tolerate limits. In daylight areas, the cut portions should be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. The depth of the overexcavation will be based upon the amount of differential fill thickness and I structural requirements. • The potential differential settlements may be decreased by compacting the fill to a higher relative compaction (i.e., greater than 90 percent). Tentatively, if this alternative is chosen, I the fill should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557-91) in areas where the differential fill thickness is greater than 10 to 20 feet. . Additional structural consideration such as post-tensioned foundation and slab systems and additional concrete slab-on-grade/foundation depth and reinforcement may be required to mitigate the effects of differential settlement. We recommend the structural engineer consider the effects of differential settlement on the design of the proposed structures. I 4.6 Proposed Development in Undocumented Fill Areas Two major undocumented fill areas exist on the site. The westerly most area is adjacent to I Palomar Airport Road in the south-central portion of the site. This is the area previously utilized partially for the now removed packing facility. Our investigation of this fill area indicated that at least in localized areas it contains an extensive amount of debris derived from a variety of sources and was likely filled in over a long period of time. Our experience I indicates that on other sites with similar histories, canyon areas such as this were utilized as a dump site for excess dirt and debris. The compaction of the materials encountered in our borings varied from loose to medium dense. The material is considered to be potentially I compressible and not suitable for the support of structural loads. As a result, the area may be prone to differential settlement particularly if water is introduced into the fill soils. Because of the nonuniform nature of these fill soils and the presence of organic material, the amount I of future settlement is difficult to predict and may be in excess of several inches. I I .1 I -23- __ 4960151-001 Development along the westerly portion of this fill area includes the proposed alignment of Armada Drive. In this area, removal of the undocumented fill soils has recently been I completed. A 15-foot wide stability fill has also been constructed for a portion of the slope north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Armada Drive. While this reduces the potential for surficial slope instability, the undocumented fill remains in place behind this slope. In this I area, a structural setback or use of deepened foundation will be required if the undocumented fill is left in place. I In order to minimize the potential for differential settlement of parking areas, we recommend that removal of undocumented fills be performed. An alternative to complete removals would be the removal and recompaction of a minimum of the upper 5 feet of soil below existing I grade. Additional fills could then be placed and the parking lots constructed. It should be understood that even with the partial 5-foot removal, significant amounts of settlement should still be anticipated and there will likely be cracking/separations and increased maintenance I costs for the parking areas. In addition, because of the potential for settlement, no settlement-sensitive utilities such as water, sewer, storm drain, etc. should be constructed in this area without special design to tolerate these potentially significant differential settlement. We also recommend that landscaping/irrigation be severely restricted or eliminated in areas I of partial removals so that consolidation triggered by the infiltration of water is kept at a minimum. If future development of settlement-sensitive improvements are proposed, complete removal and recompaction, special design considerations or use of deep foundations I will be required. The undocumented fill area in the southcentral portion of the tract is also extensive. The fill I area is again undocumented, underlain by alluvium and as a result may also be considered potentially compressible. However, the canyon fill is also believed to contain an unknown quantity of debris. The upper portions of the fill appear to be relatively uniform. However, I we also understand that major improvements will be proposed in this area. Therefore, we recommend that the entire fill area and underlying alluvium, be removed and recompacted. 4.7 Expansive Soils/Presoak Based on laboratory testing of representative soils during the previous investigations, the I majority of the soils on site have a low to very low expansion potential (Appendix C). Expansion testing of the actual soils placed at finish grade and recommendations concerning potentially expansive soils should be made after site grading has been completed. If soils I other than very low (less than 20 per UBC 18-2) expansion potential are placed at pad grade, presoaking of slab subgrade soils will be recommended prior to concrete placement. 4.8 Retaining Wall Design Considerations I Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, I it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the I ZZ -24- __ I 4960151-001 shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soil, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water table and backfihled with soils of very low to low expansion potential (less than 50 per UBC 18-2) is provided below. Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Condition Level } 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 -- The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D. Wall back cut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For back cuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For back cuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure values in the previous table. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one- third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistances provided the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. I 4.9 I I I TypeofCementforConstruction Representative samples of the soils anticipated to be near finish grade should be obtained and tested for soluble sulfate content upon completion of rough grading in order to determine the type of cement for construction. However, the preliminary tests performed during the previous investigations indicated the soil possess a negligible soluble sulfate content (Appendix C). As a result, concrete in contact with the onsite soils can most likely be normal Type II cement (or equivalent). El I I I I 1 I I I I I Li Li -25- _Mfi I I 4960151-001 4.10 Corrosion Resistance I Samples of the representative onsite soils were tested for minimum resistivity and pH by California Test Method 643 during the previous investigations at the subject site. The results of this testing (Appendix C) indicate that the soils have a mild to high potential for corrosion I to buried uncoated metal conduits. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for further evaluation of this potential if buried metal conduits are proposed. 4.11 Pavement Design Final pavement recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of roadway subgrade soils as final grades are achieved. For planning purposes, we have assumed the sandy onsite soils will have an R-value of 40. Utilizing assumed traffic indices of T.I. = 5.0., T.I. = 6.0, and T.I. = 7.0, the following structural pavement sections can be assumed for planning purposes. Assumed Design Recommended Structural Use Traffic Index R-Value Pavement Design Parking and T.I. = 5.0 R = 40 3 inches of asphalt concrete over light auto traffic 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base Drive Areas T.I. = 6.0 R = 40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base Truck areas and T.I. = 7.0 R = 40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over fire lanes 7 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base I The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91. If fill is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be I performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. The aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. I Untreated Class 2 aggregate base should meet the requirements of Caltrans specifications. We recommend that the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be designed by the civil engineer or structural engineer. We suggest control joints at appropriate intervals as determined by the I civil or structural engineer be considered. We also suggest a minimum thickness of 4 inches for sidewalk slabs. I In accordance with City of Carlsbad guidelines, concrete improvements within city right of ways should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy 1 I I I I I hL -26- __ I 4960151-001 landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base and subgrade. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. For loading areas subject to impact loadings (i.e., trash trucks, delivery trucks bays, loading docks, etc.), we recommend a minimum 7 inch concrete pavement. The Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) should be provided with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that crack-control joints be spaced no more than 12 feet on center each way. If sawcuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of one-quarter the slab thickness and made within 24 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,250 psi mix may be utilized. Asphalt Concrete (A.C.), Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) and base materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACT) codes. 4.12 Water Features We understand the proposed Lego Family Park will incorporate several water features into the design. The location and extent of these features are as yet unknown. For pond areas, we recommend that the ponds be lined with gunite lining having a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh. The possibility of impact loading may increase the thickness and reinforcement of gunite/concrete. A 2 to 4-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. > 30) should be placed below the gunite to aid in curing. The sand layer should be underlain by a synthetic pond liner (60 to 80 mu) which is underlain by a layer of geofabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent to protect the liner. A subdrain or sump system should also be constructed below the pond liner to collect seepage water, to inhibit uplift forces during pond cleaning, and to reduce the potential for infiltration of water into the subsurface soils. Final recommendations can be provided after completion of project plans. We note that several ponds may be in areas of anticipated differential fill settlement, and, thus additional reinforcement recommendations may be necessary. I I I I I I _27- __ama I d I I I I I I I I I I 4960151-001 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced exploratory borings, trenches and test pits. The interpolated subsurface I conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton and Associates. We recommend that all cut areas and cut slopes be geologically mapped for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions and potential ground water seepage zones by an I engineering geologist from Leighton and Associates during grading. All grading operations should be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final grading and development plans should also be reviewed by i this office. I LI I LI I P H 1 I I LI I ZZ -28- __ I I I I : :•\\ • . :• ' :• • . • ; , :' . '' L' I \\ \ \ \ ' ' IV \ SIT p' — \\ BOU . -c---- NDA R Y I I E B3 Tfl * I \ b j dr 00 4 \ \ I \ c \\\ V 60 - \% ç6\\\ wT- 41 T2OA 9k0% tz I Af I -- ® 4\\ u 1. '1 -,, IT, I 22A I I LEGEND 1 I I I Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc 9/11/95) —111 Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc. 3/23/94) -2' Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc.. 7/23/96) 4B Approximate location of large diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc.. 9/11/95) Approximate location of exploratory trench (Leighton & Assoc. 3/23/94) ti-24 Approximate location of exploratory trench (Leighton & Assoc.. 7/23/96) Approximate location of exploratory test pit excavated by Geotechnics (9/26/62) GEOLOGIC UNITS ( circled where buried Afu Undoucumented Artificial Fill (Areas 1-5) AM Compacted Fill (Documented by Leighton & Assoc.) Q(31 Quaternary alluvium QcoI Quaternary Colluvium Qj Quaternary terrace deposits Ts Tertiary Santiago formation Prclect No. 4960151 291 ___ I LEGOLAND GEOTECHNICAL PLATE 1 CARLSBAD. CA. 'A A 5,o(kd or I I • :T 1. ' 45 U :i I -- I K I V, Y V ~ 1 5,11"1 2y- Al I I - LEGEND Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc. 9/11/95) 199 Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc. 3/23/94) Approximate location of small diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc.. 7/23/96) Approximate locaton of large diameter boring (Leighton & Assoc., 9/11/95) Approximate location of exploratory trench (Leighton & Assoc. 3/23/94) tl4 Approximate location of exploratory trench (Leighton & Assoc., 7/23/96) trr..x Approximate location of exploratory test pit excavated by Geolechnics (9/26/92) .7 Approximate limits of estimated removals with depth indicated. (contour interval 10 feet except where noted and shown as dashed line) S Estimated removal depth based on exploratory trench I I I I y7. •)1'• N lf ii • -' ix- NOTE: Removal Removal depths shown are below existing site grades. Design grade NOT shown. I, LEGOLAND CARLSBAD, CA. REMOVAL MAP Preteol No. 12SS!' -ow PLATE 2 Svolr ri (00ff ed By I 4960151-001 I APPENDIX A I REFERENCES I Eisenberg, L.I., 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County i n Abbott, P.L., Editor, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, Field Trip Guidebook, i pp. 86-91. I Geotechnics, 1992, Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project I No. 0054-0001-00, dated September 25, 1992. Hannan, D.L., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego County, California in Ross, A. and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of I Camp Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California, San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 56-60. I Hart, E.W., 1992, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo Special studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conversation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. I ICG, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Map and Cross Section A-A', Plates 2 and 3, Job 05-7379-002-00-00, dated January 1988. I International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1991, Uniform Building Code. I Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California: California Division of Mines and I Geology, Open File Report 92-03, Scale 1:750,000. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1985, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Huntington I Palomar Business Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4841363-02, dated April 5, 1985. 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Lot H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Partition Map No. 823, Northeast Corner of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8870059-01, dated February 17, 1987. 1988, Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 7 of Carlsbad Tract 87-3, Car Country Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8881329-01, dated September 26, 1988. 1989a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carltas Rancho Agua Hedionda Regional Shopping Center, Northeast of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8891551-01, dated September 29, 1989. A-i I I El I I 1 I 4960151-001 APPENDIX A (continued) , 1989b, Results of Near-Surface Soil Sampling and Analysis for the Presence of Volatile Organic Compounds, Herbicides, Pesticides, Organic Pesticides, and Total Petroleum at the Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8891800-01, dated November 28, 1989. I , 1991, Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract 85-17, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8841363-04, dated January 16, 1991 revised September 24, 1991. I , 1992, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, 84 Sheets, dated November, 1992. I , 1993, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Units I and 11 (Lots 1 through 7), Carlsbad Ranch, Phase 1, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-01, dated July 22, 1993. I , 1994a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch Phase II, Carlsbad, california, Project No. 4930489-03, dated March 23, 1994. I , 1994b, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Map Purposes, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-04, dated July 5, 1994. I , In-house unpublished data. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, TX., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised: I New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone: Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume 1, pp. 679-688. I O'Day Consultants, 1993, Grading Plans for Carlsbad Ranch, Phase I, 9 Sheets, Scale 1"=100', dated May 27, 1993. I , 1995, Master Tentative Tract Map for Carlsbad Ranch, Scale 1"=100', Job No. 89-104, dated March 31, 1995. I , undated, Revised Grading Plans for Carlsbad Ranch, Unit 111,3 Sheets, 1"100', undated (received March 9, 1994). I , undated, Site Plan, Carlsbad Ranch, Scale 1=300', undated (received June 20, 1994). Reichie, M.S., and Kahle, J.E., 1990, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana I Metropolitan Area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 100. I Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monogram Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California. I A-2 1 I I I I 4960151-001 LI APPENDIX A (continued) I Weber, F.H., Jr., 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3, 309p. 1982, Recent Slope failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12, LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego, California. Ziony, J.L, and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential i n ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth - Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43-91. Date Source } Flight No. Photo No. Scale j 1978 SanDiegoCounty 210-15B 30 and 31 1=1000' 4-11-53 USDA AXN-14M 17,18and19 11t=2000 4-11-53 USDA AXN-8M 99,100,101and102 111=2000' 1928 San Diego County 30 D1,D2,E1 and E2 1"=1100' I I I I I I I I I I Li] I I U I 1 0 I I c; I i—It I I Jw L0j u.i1 4—i.! 1-iwo I c's- 4 C 0 1 I SI - CD in oI?"I (I)j IcIc, a E] GEOTECJ-INICAL BORING LOG KEY I Li 1 I I I I 1 I I I 505A(1 1177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I Date Sheet _j of 1 Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Project No. Drilling Co. Type of Rig Hole Diameter Drive Weight Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- ft. Ref. or Datum co GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Cn'' Sampled By CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean clay CII Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay OL-OH Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures ML Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or claycy fine sand clayey silt with low plasticity ME! Inorganic silt diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt CL-ML Low plasticity clay to silt mixture ML-SM Sandy silt to silty sand mixture CI-SC Sandy clay to claycy sand mixture SC-SM Qaycy sand to silty sand mixture SW Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture SC Qaycy sand; poorly graded sand-clay mixture OW Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines OP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture GC Qaycy gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture Sandstone Siltstone Mystow Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-supported conglomerate) Conglomerate (rounded gravel and cobble, clast-supported) Igneous granitic or granitic type rock Metavolcanic or metamorphic rock Artificial or man-made fill Asphaltic concrete Portland Cement Concrete I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-i Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Trpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__163 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level (a W 11 w W W 1-1 110 (LJ CD .f 0 w W .*— .... 0 r- C.) to 3d (f) j Cfl' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB 0—: 1 19 113.5 6.0 SM TOPSOIL @ 0': Brown to reddish brown, moist, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND 160 : tighter drilling reported at 3 feet 2 23 @5': As above, sample disturbed (3 rings) 50/5" SM TERRACE DEPOSITS - Very hard @ 6 feet, reddish brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND 155- - 10— 3 33 123.9 11.8 @ 10': Reddish brown, damp to moist, very dense, silty, fine to medium SAND 50/4" 150 15 - 4 15 @ 15': As at 10 feet with dark green-gray, fine to medium SAND, stringers 1515" throughout 145 @ 181: Rocks in boring reported by driller 20— 5 29 @ 20': As at 15 feet 5015- Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/5/96 140 25- 135 - - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I SI I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Irpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-_168 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level .#-. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z Cn Logged By KAB C.) j CJ)' Sampled By KAB 1 45 1133 4.4 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL @ 01: Reddish brown, damp to moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 165- —:: 2 52 127.9 7.9 @5': Brown, damp to moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND \6 ighterdri1lin TERRACE DEPOSITS (O t) 160 - 10 : 3 75 SM @ 101: Reddish brown, damp to moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to coarse SAND 155- - I 4 5016" SM/CL @ 151: Light brown, moist, dense, clayey, silty, fme to coarse SAND 150 - 20- 5 50/5" 119.4 103 SM/CL sAmAGOFoRMAoNs @ 201: Very light gray, damp, dense, clayey, fine to coarse SAND - Total Depth = 21 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 615196 145 - 25- 140 - - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 1 I 1 I $ I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Irpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 176 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level M 0) !'-' W Go >c W ' . g føJ . 0 0. IV Q 4 .....° C-) (fl j en" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By K" Sampled By KAB 0 : — — SM Tilled topsoil to 4 feet, brown, moist, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND 175 - 1 23 88.7 11.9 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt ' :: : :. 5015" @5': Orange-brown, damp to moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND 170. 10 2 27 120.4 12.6 @ 10': As at 5 feet 165' - -: 5015" 15 3 23 @ 15': Orange-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with manganese : : : 5016" staining 160_ - 20— 4 71 111.8 8.2 SP @ 20': Light brown with black staining throughout, moist, dense, medium SAND 155 Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/5/96 25- 150 - - in 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop , in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__174 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 31 p GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION °' c' z to (1 Logged By KAB C1 C.) Cfl" Sampled By KAB 0 : - SM @ 0': Tilled topsoil to 4 feet: Brown, dry at surface to moist, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND 170 - SM 1PS(Ot' • ,'. •:•. @ 41: Orange-brown, moist,' dense, silty, fine to medium SAND Bag-2 31 120.2 13.8 @5'-7' 50/4" 165 10 3 39 @ 10': As at 5 feet 5014" 160 –: is : - 4 32 123.3 123 @ 15': Orange-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with minor clay - •.. 5015" component as thin stringers scattered throughout 155 - 20— 5 31 @ 20': As at 15 feet with slightly coarser sand component 5015 Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfihled: 6/5/96 150 - 25- 145 - - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Irpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8111. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__162 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z Logged By KAB W cn j cn' Sampled By KAB 0 : 1 82 SM @ 0': Brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND with abundant roots - :-. and debris 160 - 3 35 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt ) -. :• Bag-2 50/3" @5': Orange-brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine SAND; slightly @51-7 porous 155- - : 10— 4 56 SM-CL @ 10': Mixed orange-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND with green-gray, moist, stiff clay to sandy clay 15 - @ 13': Driller reports difficult drilling •..- 5 5016" SM-CL - SANTIAGO FORMATION irs) \@ 1516": Very light gray to almost white, damp to moist, dry dense, clayey, ____ 145 - medium to coarse SAND Total Depth = 16 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/5/96 20- 140 - 25- 135 —Q=_ - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 142 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level W Z Cl) L CS j &' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB • •27 - TOPSOIL - • @ 0': Tilled field: brown, dry to moist, loose silty fine to medium SAND 140 --: -••/. 5— -.7;. ./ 1 25 1163 15.2 SM-CL COLLUVIUM(Ocofl - :• - 5014" @5': Brown, moist, dense to stiff clayey fine to medium SAND 135 - -. —.... Bag-2 10— (;.. @9'-ll' 3 22 119.1 14.4 SM @ 10': Orange-brown to gray, moist to very moist dense, silty, fine to medium 5015 SAND 130- - : @ 13': Rocks in borehole 4 5015" 124.1 7.6 SM SANTIAGOFORMATION(Ts' • :-. @ 15': Mixed orange-brown and green-gray, moist, dense, silty fine to medium - • ••- SAND with very light gray, clayey, medium to coarse SAND at tip of sample tube 125 - 20 : : E S 5015" 1223 7.8 @ 20': Light brown, moist, very dense, silty fine to coarse SAND, light gray to tan at tip Total Depth = 21 Feet 120 - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/5/96 25- 115 - - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Irpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole -1-!- 154 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z .-' -' j Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB W U) cS & SM @ 01: Tilled topsoil, brown, thy to moist, silty fine to coarse SAND 150- - . - 1 60 122.1 13.4 SM-CL TERRACEDEPOSITS - @ 51: Weathered orange-brown to brown, damp to moist, dense, clayey, fine to - medium SAND with manganese staining throughout 145 : 1 2 25 SM @ 10': As at 5 feet with scattered stringers of green-gray silty SAND 50/3" io - 15— 3 5016" 126.1 10.9 @ 151: Orange-brown, moist to very moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with - : :• . scattered gravel clasts @ 181: Rocks encountered (Santiago?) 135 20— 4 5016" SM SANTLAGOFORMATION(T&) @ 20': Olive green-gray, moist, very dense, silty fine to coarse SAND Total Depth = 21 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/5/96 130 - 25- 125 --Q=_ - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8 Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .L in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level ,- DESCRIPTION h GEOTECHNICAL %_1 CD ..-' 61 CU CL 31 C j Logged By KAB W Cl) 0 Cfl" Sampled By KAB 0 1 26 1330 4.0 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL - : 50/4' @ 01: Brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 7. 2 24 117.8 11.6 SM-CL QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Oafl - - @ 5': Orange-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty fine to coarse SAND - :4 @ 8': Difficult drilling encountered (Santiago Formation) 3 50/5" 120.4 11.6 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) @ 10': Very light gray, damp, very dense, silty fine to coarse SAND 4 5015" 114.4 8.3 @ 15': As at 10 feet Total Depth = 16 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/5/96 20- 25- - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date 6-6-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop. 30 . in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-___143 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level W4- W C3 4- L z 0. Cl) co L Ci U ' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By K" Sampled By KAB SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu) . - @ 0': Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to - medium SAND - : 1 37 128.4 10.1 @ 21: Orange-brown, damp to moist, dense, silty fine to medium SAND 140. :: 50/4" 2 50/4" 122.7 5.9 @5': Brown to dark gray at tip of sample, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SANE Bag-3 with dry grass and weeds throughout @5'-8' 135 –: 10 : - 4 62 125.7 8.6 SM-CL @ 10': Brown to orange-brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND 130 15— 5 32 1132 14.5 @ 15': Brown to green-gray, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty fine to coarse SAND 125- 20-4 6 37 SM @ 20': Green-gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with several rings all plastic sheeting, trash in spoils (plastic wood, piping, etc.) 120 i 7 12 86.3 30.9 @ 25': As at 20 feet with slightly less plastic sheeting 115 - : 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date 6-6-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .L in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L43 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ! L z 0. L 4- !'-' 01-11 CD E to W 31 C Logged By K" Sampled By KAB cS c' 30— 7.. 8 45 1036 24.2 SM-CL ARTIFICIAL FILL (Continued) @ 30': Green-gray, moist, dense, clayey, silty, fine to coarse SAND with plastic - ~x sheeting common 110 -. - . 9 23 99.7 18.9 @ 35': As at 30 feet, no visible plastic sheeting, rubber debris in sample 105 - 10 25 97.4 25.9 @40': Green-gray, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND with - - scattered rubber debris 100 - / 11 5016" 117.1 11.3 SM-SW SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) . @ 45': Very light gray to white, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, fine to coarse - sr-w 95- :.: 50 :.: :- 12 5016" 116.9 13.9 250': As at 45 feet saturated - Total Depth = 51 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 48'6" at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/6/96 90 - 55- 85 - - 60— 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-b Date 6-5-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 150 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level p GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z W 11 CL j Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB C1 ' 150 0--. - SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Mu) @ 0': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND with scattered - : :- •. trash and debris 145 1 5015" 116.0 11.5 SM-CL @5': Orange-brown, damp to moist, dense, silty fine SAND to gray-green, - Bag-2 slghtiyc1ayey,fineto coarse SAND @5.5-8 SM-CL SANTIAGO FORMATLON(Ts' - @ 6': Gray-green, moist, slightly clayey, silty, fine to coarse SAND (bulk) 3 5015" 1223 10.4 SM @ 10': Light gray, damp to moist, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND 135 15— 4 5016" @ 151: As at 10 feet Total Depth = 16 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/6/96 130 20- 12525- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-li Date 6-6-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .. in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L52 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level a GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION -,. Z Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB u o cn'' - - SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu) @ 0': Brown to dark brown, moist, silty fine to coarse SAND iso SM-CL QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oafl - @ 31: Brown, damp to moist, clayey, silty fine SAND 1 55 122.1 12.4 @5': Dark brown, moist to very moist, dense, clayey, silty, fine SAND; slightly porous 145 - : 10— 2 5014" 120.3 13.4 SM-CL SANTIAGOFORMATIONs) @ 10': Olive green-gray, moist, dense, clayey, fine to coarse SAND, weakly to - moderately indurated 140 15 : '• : 3 50/4" 112.6 12.7 @ 15': As at 10 feet 135 - Total Depth = 16 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/6/96 20- 130 - 25- 125 - —= 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 Date 6-6-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Tpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop _LO_ in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__157 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level W X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z Logged By KAB U1 U) j 0 Cfl" Sampled By KAB SM @ 0': Tilled topsoil: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND 155 - - ; SM-CL SANTIAGO FORMATION Ifs) @3': Olive green-gray, damp, dense, clayey, siltyfine to coarse SAND 1 37 @5': Olive green-gray, damp, dense, clayey, medium to coarse SAND - -.- . 50/3" 150 10— : 2 5014" @ 10': As at S feet with large gravel clast in tip of sample tube; no recovery 145 15 4 / 3 5015" ML-CL @ 15': Olive green-gray, damp, dense, siltstone to claystone 140 - / 20--. / 4 5015" SM @ 20': Light gray to off-white, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND Total Depth = 21 Feet 135 - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/6/96 25- 130 - - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 Date 6-6-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 153 ft. Ref. or Datum — Mean Sea Level i . w o € ta_i (D . 0 Z w Jfi O. 31 !W C 0 cJ j co GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB SM @ 0': Tilled topsoil: Brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND iso - 1 45 114.9 9.7 SM QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oafl @5': Dark orange-brown, damp, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND 145 - 10— E. 2 55 124.3 7.6 @ 10': Dark brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND 140' - -, 3 28 126.0 10.2 @ 15': Dark brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND 50/6" 135 20— 4 28 1273 10.1 @ 20': As at 15 feet slightly more moisture Bag-5 , 5015" 20'-2 130 25 : 6 56 @ 25': Olive green-gray, damp, dense, clayey fine to coarse SAND 125 -: MJILL 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 Date 6-6-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 153 ft. Ref. or Datum . Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m 0. . CU) 0.0 U 4- - 3 0 0 Ut) .. 4-C -. 0 >4 W, W D., (0-1 0 ..... Cl) Logged By KAB Ui cn (3 cnw Sampled By KAB 30— - 7 23 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts' 5015" @ 30':0 11 tly weathered, moist, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND ti 120 8 50/6" SM/CL @ 35': As at 30 feet rock in top of sample with slough slightly clayey Total Depth = 36 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/6/% 115 - 40- 110 - 45- 105 - 50- 100 - 55- 95 - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-14 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 . in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__196 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION . Z Logged By KAB j U' CS Sampled By KAB 0 - - - SM @ 0': Tilled topsoil: Orange-brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND 195 - 1 73 1235 113 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Ot . - @5': Orange-brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND 190 - with black manganese staining throughout 10 E 2 60 SM-CL @10': As at 5 feet with some free water 185- 3 57 @ 151: As at 10 feet 180 - I 20— 4 66 SM-CL @ 201: Orange-brown, moist, dense, clayey, silty fine to medium SAND with manganese staining throughout 175 - : E7. 5 35 SM @ 251: Orange-brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND 5014' 170 - E :1: 1 s ¶)— - 505A(1 1/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-14 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L96 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION p. :E w Z ' -' QQ j Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB ' C-) C/h' 30— 6 I 30 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Continued) :: :•. I 50/4" @ 301: Tan to orange-brown, damp, dense silty fine SAND 165 - : 35— 71 7 5016" SP @351: Tan to black, moist, dense fine SAND (Beach?) 160 -: 40— 8 48 ML-CL @40': Mottled light green-gray to brown, damp, stiff, silty clay to clayey SILT 155- - 45— - / 9 59 @ 45': No recovery, ground water 150 - - ___ ____ _______________________________________ Total Depth = 46 Feet - Ground Water Encountered at 43 Feet - Backfihled: 6/6/96 50- 145 - 55- 140 - --= 60 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop _. in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 202 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level i;i -. t..ii; 034.. a'-' € .J . 0 U Q 31 1-11 . 0 5() U) j 03) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB 0 @ 0': Tilled Topsoil: Brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND with - : organic debris from recent crop throughout 200 - 1 54 119.5 13.9 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Ot) .. •:.. @ 51: Reddish brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND, - slightly porous 195 - Bag-2 - : •. : @8'-10' 10— •. 3 23 SM @ 101: As at 5 feet 5015" 190 - 15 : 4 29 @ 15': As at 10 feet still porous with black manganese staining throughout 5015" 185 20— : : s 28 @ 20': Orange-brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND 5015 180 - •. 25— 6 22 @ 25': As at 20 feet - : -: •E- : 58/5" 175 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ..L in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__,202 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION E w g . a j Logged By KAB U) C) CI) Sampled By KAB 30— T-. 7 28 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Continued) J. 5015" @30': Orange-brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND 170 - : 8 29 @35': As at 30 feet 5015" 165 - : 40- 9 5016" SP @40': Light brown to tan, moist, dense, fine SAND (Beach?) - :. -:•. @41': Rocks in boring 160- - @ 43': Refusal (large rocks) Total Depth = 43 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/7/96 45— 155 - 50- 150 - 55- 145 - _Q=_ 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 144 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 2 to Z z a) (t C-) j Cfl" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KAB Sampled By KAB SM ARTIFICIAL FILL - : @ 0': Brown, moist, silty fine SAND 140 - : 1 49 123.0 8.0 @5': Dark brown, moist, dense, silty fine SAND 135 - 2 26 @ 10': Rock no recovery 50/6" Bag-3 @ 12': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND 12'-15 130 -: 15— 4 17 @ 15': Sample tube empty dark brown, moist to wet, silty fine SAND in spoils, - :- strong organic odor 5 24 109.0 14.9 @ 17': Dark brown with green-gray mottling, wet, slightly clayey, silty fine SAND 125- - : 20—. : 6 18 @ 20': No recovery retainer added to sample tube 7 13 95.5 17.6 SM-CL @ 22': Mottled gray-green to dark brown, moist, soft to medium dense, clayey, silty SAND 120 - - - • :,/ 8 41 96.9 13.9 @ 25': As at 22 feet to 25 feet 6 inches then olive-green damp, dense, clayey fine -. tocoarse SAND (Weathered Santiago ?) SM-CL SANTIAGO ORMATION (Ts) F - * • . @ 26': Olive-green-gray, damp to moist, dense, clayey fine to coarse SAND 115 -..:.. 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .j in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__144 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION . .ca) U LL . d !' D Z Logged By KAB U) j C) CI)' Sampled By KAB 30— - 9 5016" 118.4 11.4 SM-CL SANTIAGO FORMATION - . @ 301: Olive green-gray, moist, dense, clayey fine to coarse SAND @ 32': Very hard drilling 110 10 5016" SM @ 35': As at 30 feet with slightly more coarse SAND component Total Depth = 36 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/7/96 105 - 40- 100 - 45- 95 - 50- 90 - 55- 85 - - 60— 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L34 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level C >c .W Wc -' o (U...J to 0 • z w c. M co L ,. c. •1'. cn j L ogged GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION By KAB Sampled By KAB 0 SM QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Ocol) Bag-1 @ 2'-5': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND @2'5' 130 - . - 2 48 107.5 9.2 @5': As at 2 to 5 feet, dense 125 10 - 3 42 111.2 16.2 SM-ML @ 10': Light brown, damp, dense, fine sandy SILT to silty fine SAND 120 - 15— 4 36 106.0 15.8 @ 151: As at 10 feet 115 - - 20— 5 48 107.3 19.5 ML-CL @ 20': Light brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND to brown, damp, dense clayey - / silt to silty clay at top 110 - / _2 6 5015" 116.3 12.0 ML @ 25': Light brown, damp to moist, very dense fine sandy SILT to silty fine - SAND 105 - - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 1)pe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 134 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° Z Logged By KAB U' 0 0 Cfl" Sampled By KAB - -fl 7 5015" 116.3 13.6 SM-ML QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Continued) - - - - - - as) - SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 30'6": Light brown damp, very dense, SANDSTONE, well indurated 8 5015" 114.9 12.6 ML @ 33': Refusal light.brown; damp, very dense SILTSTONE 100 - -- Total Depth = 34 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/7/96 95 - 40- 90 - 45- 85 - 50- 80 - 55- 75 - -= 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 6-7-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'Trpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 113 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level C too) •d .2 CD JP • z ! IL M 0 L Me% ' ,- L o zC ci .,-' to. 9 ci' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By KBC Sampled By KBC SM OUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Ocofl @ 0': Brown damp, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND 110 - 1 23 111.6 8.8 @5': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND 105 - : - 10 2 26 106.2 16.5 SM-ML @ 10': Light brown with light gray mottling, moist to wet, fine sandy SILT to silty - fine SAND 100 - – 3 50/6" 115.0 16.6 ML SANTLAGO FORMA-HON (Ts) - @ 15': Brown, moist, dense, fine sandy SILT; moderately to well indurated 95 - 20— 4 5015" 117.4 11.9 @ 20': Light brown, damp, very dense, fine sandy SILTSTONE 90 - 25- 85 - - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop . in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 170 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION to ta Logged By KBC W Cl) 8 & Sampled By KBC 170 0: - SM QUATERNARY COLLUVITJM (Ocofl @ 0': Brown, dry, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND; organic material common 165 : •. : 1 69/12" 111.8 8.8 @5': Red-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly clayey, moderately cemented, one near-vertical fracture in sample - E @ 61: Drilling became more difficult (per driller) 160 10 2 50/6" 113.5 15.8 SM SANTIAGOFORMATLON(Ts') - - @ 10': Very light green to off-white, moist, very dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly clayey, moderately cemented 155 15— I. Q/L - @ 151: Very light green to off-white, moist very dense, silty, fine to medium - \ SAND; slightly clayey, well cemented Total Depth = 15 Feet 5 Inches No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 6/10/96 150 20- 145 25- 1p- 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 170 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level .° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION to C Z Logged By ;KBC j Ci U)-' Sampled By KBC 170 0 : SM OUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Ocol) - : :•. @ 0': Light brown, dry, loose, silty, fine SAND; organic material common @ 2': Drilling became more difficult (per driller) 165 5—... •. 1 81/10" @5': Red-brown, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND; slightly clayey, micaceous, - : - few fine pores 160 10 2 49/12" @ 10': Light reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine SAND; - : - micaceous • - - 3 77/12" 108.0 10.1 @ 15': Light brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; micaceous weakly cemented 150 20— : : -: -- : 4 68/12" @ 20': Very light green and light orange-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to - :• . medium SAND; micaceous, weakly cemented - - - 22 Drilling became more difficult (erdnlle) SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 145 25— : : I: s @ 25': Light green-gray, moist, very dense, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND; well cemented Total Depth = 25 Feet 5 Inches - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling 3fj Backfilled: 6/10/96 1 140-1 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 1rpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L23 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION !-' %S Z Logged By KBC ILl Cl) C) C.) Cl)' Sampled By KBC 0 : - SM QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) Bag-1 @ 1': Gray-brown, damp, loose, silty fine SAND; organic material common 120 5— 2 33/12 107.0 12.0 SC @5': Light brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine SAND 115 - 10— - 3 40/12" @ 10': No recovery 110 - = 15— 4 55/12" 102.7 113 ML-SM J SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - - @ 15': Light green-gray, moist, stiff, silty CLAY and light green-gray, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND; weakly cemented 105 - 20— : 5 105111" @ 20': Olive-green, moist, hard, silty CLAY and light green, moist, very dense, silty, fine SAND, moderately cemented, rare charcoal present 100 - 25— Total Depth = 25 Feet 11 Inches - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/10/96 95- — I lo 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 110 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level !'-' W . °'-' U ' t 0 U GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Log ged By ,KBC Sampled By KBC 110 0 .7' : SC-SP QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @ 01: Brown, moist, loose, slightly clayey, fine to medium SAND; organic material present 105 5—.1 :.-.* 1 19/12" 108.4 16.6 SP @5': Brown, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous 100 10— 2 23/12" 105.3 20.7 SC @ 10': Brown, wet, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND; charcoal - - fragments common - @ 12': Drilling became more difficult (per driller) 95 15 3 71/12" SC-CL @ 15': Olive-green and light brown, moist, dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND : and fine to medium sandy CLAY; few fine gravels - @ 18'5": Groundwater encountered 90- 20- 4 38/12" SM @ 20': Light green, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine SAND; micaceous -: •:- @ 21': Drilling became more difficult (per driller) 5 34/12" @ 25': Light brown, wet-saturated, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; micaceous 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop_. _ in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 110 ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level d GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ' j LoggedBy KBC cS &' Sampled By KBC 80 30 6 84/11" SW @ 301: Orange-brown, wet, very dense, fine to coarse SAND; few fine gravels @ 32': Drilling became more difficult (per driller) ' 7 50/6" SA1dOFÔiA1'i5NThfs) \ @35': Light gray to light gray-brown, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, fine to — \ medium SAND; micaceous Total Depth = 35 Feet 6 Inches - Ground Water Encountered at 18'5" Backfilled: 6/10/96 70 40- 65 45- 60 50- 55 1 50-1 55- 60 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Date 6-10-96 Sheet I of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 85 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level W X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z Logged By KBC j C) U) Sampled By KBC 85 0 : ;• — Sc QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oaf) - @ 01: Light brown, damp, loose, clayey, fine SAND; organic material common 80 5—.. :j. Bag-2 52/12" 1173 11.9 SC-CL @5': Brown to dark gray-brown, moist, dense, clayey, fine SAND to sandy fine - ,'•• / @51-8' CLAY; organic rich 75 10 3 38/12" 111.7 13.0 SC @ 10': LIght brown, damp, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND 70 15— 4 20/12" 93.8 12.9 SM @ 15': Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine SAND; charcoal fragments common 65' 20— 5 42/12" 108.7 17.4 CL @ 20': Green-gray with orange-brown mottles, moist, hard, fine sandy CLAY; / abundant charcoal fragments @ 24'5": Ground water encountered F 6 50/12" SM @ 25': Light gray-green, saturated, dense, silty fine to medium SAND; micaceous 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Trpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ... in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 85 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level - w GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z Logged By KBC Cl) j 0 C-) (fl' Sampled By KBC 55 30—.. 1711" SP @ 30': Gray, saturated, very dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous 50 - 8 23/12w @ 35': Gray, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous @ 38': Drilling became more difficult (per driller) 45 40—:*:'., : 9 50/12' @40': Gray, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; slightly clayey, micaceous 40 45—Y - 10 38/12 CL @45': Greenish brown, wet, hard, fine sandy, CLAY; micaceous T:I:T T1TTTT 35 Si 11 SM 50/4! SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) @50': Light greenish brown, damp, very dense, silty, fine SAND to fine sandy - \ SILT Total Depth = 50 Feet 4 Inches - Ground Water Encountered at 24 Feet 5 Inches - Backfilled: 6/10/96 30 55- -- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-24 Date 6-10-96 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland Project No. 4960151-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 144 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION -. . !'-' O. j Logged By KBC Sampled By KBC cn ( ' 0 SM OUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (OcoD - - @ 0': Reddish brown, damp, loos, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND; -: - micaceous; organic material common 140 1 37/12" 107.6 8.6 @5': Red-brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND; micaceous 135 10— 2 40/12" 110.9 17.5 SC @ 10': Light brown to greenish gray, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sandy - - CLAY; charcoal fragments common 130 15- 3 30/12 1095 13.5 SW @ 15 , : Gray-brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, fine to coarse SAND; micaceous 125 20— 4 46/12" 112.2 13.9 SM @ 20': Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine SAND; - -. micaceous 120 :1 71 s iTh SAG FORMATION (M) '\@ 25': Light pinkish brown, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium - \ SAND; moderately to well cemented Total Depth = 25 Feet 5 Inches - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 6/10/96 115- - - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-1 Project Name: Legol and Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±144' mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM @ 1.5': Light brown, damp, loose (tilled),silty fine to medium sand TERRACEDEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse sand; moderately indurated Total Depth = 8 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfill ed: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 6° TREND: N60E liii IIII,...!JIIII 11111111 liii liii 01 C -I C Cc C r CD 0 0, 0, 0 C, -4 CD 0, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MM - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-2 Project Name: Leoland Logged by: KAB Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: ±160 1 mean Equipment: Backhoe Location: sea level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty fine sand with scattered organics TERRACEDEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, medium dense to dense silty fine to coarse sand with pockets of light gray to greenish gray silty fine to coarse sand; upper 1.5 to 2.0 feet is weathered and slightly porous with scattered open pores visible Total Depth = 9.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfill ed: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 30 TREND: N5°E 4--?fI _ I_I _ _ - _III _I _II 0 0 Cc C r CD 0 (0 (0 0 C) CD (0 01 C -1 C cc C r Ct 14 C p ) (C C C a C, MM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mm - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-3 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: ±150 1 mean sea level Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Light brown to reddish brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium sand (tilled) TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, loose at upper 1 foot to medium dense; becoming dense at bottom of trench, silty fine to coarse sand with greenish gray, pockets of fine to coarse sand, porous at upper contact, becoming less so with depth Total Depth = 12 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4°W TREND: NS liii _lIII IIII_ - LLTh±tI •. . . _IIII till liii 01 C - -a C 1-1 cc C r 0 (M C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-4 Project Name: Lecioland Project Number: 4960151-01 Equipment:Backhoe Logged by: Elevation: Location:_______________________ KAB ±174'meansealevel ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TERRACE DEPOSITS Light reddish brown, damp, very w/310C), fine to coarse sand Total Depth = 3.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfill ed: 5/30/96 dense (near at Time of refusal Drilling Qt SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: p TREND: N5°W - -r -T I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W" MM - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-5 Project Name: Leol and Logged by:KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±172 1 mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Light brown in upper 6 inches then reddish brown, damp, loose silty fine to medium sand T-5 7 68 1120 TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown to dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense to T-5@4' 12.1 99.9 dense, silty fine to coarse sand with gray fine to coarse sand pockets throughout becomes denser near bottom of trench ,. i -.o 12.5 125.9 Total Depth = 13 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: N20E liii liii - - .... .. . till C -1 C (C C r C ) C C cr (I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-6 Project Name: Leoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: ±165' mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) Surface 2 to 3 inches: A.C. broken weathered then; Asphalt AC TERRACEDEPOSITS Reddish brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse sand becomes very dense at base of trench Qt SM Total Depth = 4.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:2°S TREND: NS i i_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I _I I_I I __ _ _ _I_I_I I II I_I_I_I I_I_II 01 C - C Cc C r CD 0 'I) Ca) 0 C) -4 CD (a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-7 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±156'mean sealevel Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location: GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TERRACEDEPOSITS Topsoil SM Reddish brown, slightly damp, very dense, silty fine to coarse sand SANTIAGOFORMATION Ts SM-CL Olive green-gray, moist, medium dense to dense sandstone to claystone 4 to 6 inches thick, cobble layer at contact with Qt Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: itt = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:10°SW TREND: N20W 1 1111 liii liii 11111111 liii 11111 C - C Cc C r CD 0 ) 0 C, CD G4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-8 Project Name: Legoland Project Number:4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: KAB Elevation: ±164 1 mean Location:_______________________ sea level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium sand TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM Dark reddish brown, damp, very dense, silty fine to coarse sand, moderately to well indurated Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4°SW TREND: N27° I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I 0 C Cc C r CD 0 ) 0) 0 C Fn CD 0) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-9 Project Name: Legoland Logged by:KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation:±158' mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location: GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM T-9 @ 2' 116 110.2 Light brown to brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine to medium sand ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED Afu SM 6 to 20 inch lifts of dark brown to light gray, silty fine to coarse pebbly sand with scattered debris (plastic sheeting, wood, concrete, etc.) at approximately 10 feet very strong organic odor, wood debris with petrochemical odor bagged and retained for tests TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp to moist, dense, silty fine to coarse sand Total Depth = 15 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfill ed: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 8°SW TREND: N20E I I I I I I I I I I I I i1I .: 1I'II .1 - . - : •.i :•..••..• .•. -- ____ I 14- ,•• (7' C C Cc C r CD '-4 0 (0 (0 0 C) '-I CD (0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-10 Project Name: Legol and Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±150' mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Brown to dark brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium sand with abundant organic debris (green leafy matter from recent strawberry harvest) TERRACEDEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse sand, massive, with scattered pockets of gray silty fine to medium sand Total Depth = 4.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfill ed: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°SW TREND: N25°W -I •_I_I_I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I_- -______ _ ...I. I 01 C - 'a -I C Cc C r CD 14 0 ) Cn C C 14 (V (V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-11 Project Name: Legoland Project Number: 4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: KAB Elevation: ±130'meansealevel Location: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM 4 inch thick brown, damp, loose, ARTIFICIALFILLUNDOCUMENTED silty fine to coarse sand Afu SM-CL Dark gray to dark brown, damp to moist, silty to clayey fine to coarse sand with abundant 2 foot thick layer of organic debris debris and organics, with extremely strong odor at contact with: SANTIAGOFORMATION Ts Olive green-gray, damp to moist, sandstone to claystone very dense, fine to coarse Total Depth = 9 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:15°SE TREND: N75°E i IIII_ 11111111 liii (7 C -I 'a -I C (C C r Ct (C C 9 ) ( CC C C Ct (I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-12 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation:±110' mean sea level Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/30/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT ARTIFICIALFILLUNDOCUMENTED Afu SM Dark gray to brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse sand with abundant debris mostly plastic sheeting and strapping material throughout, spoils are mostly plastic debris SANTIAGOFORMATION Ts SM-CL Olive green-gray, damp to moist, silty, fine to coarse sandstone to claystone, massive Total Depth = 11 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/30/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:12°E TREND: EW - - c---- _i -. -------•. - _ .. i_i 01 C -& - C Cc C r CD Co -I 0 0, Co 0 C) CD 0, 0 —& 0 (C C .- r CD Co -4 0 ) 0, C,, 0 C -I CL, 0, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-13 Project Name: Leaoland Project Number:4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: KAB Elevation:±92' mean Location: sea level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM Light brown to dark gray, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium sand, minor plastic debris at approximately 3 feet depth SANTIAGO FORMATION Gray to olive green-gray, moist, stiff to dense; silty to fine sandy clay to clayey sandstone Total Depth = 19 Feet 6 Inches No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 Afu Ts SM-CL ML-CL T-13 @ 3 10.8 101.9 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 51 SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N35°E %----= • V -.---.- =7 --:.. . • •. ••,'..._'•.:' • • —:----------.--- ': -.• .• .7 - - ••••-. • ;—;--. ______ 77 -- lawn- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-14 Project Name: Leoland Logged by: KAB Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±104' mean Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ sea level' ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM Light brown to dark gray; moist, medium dense, slightly Qal SM-CL 1-14 @ 5' 10.2 102.1 clayey, silty fine to coarse sand, weakly bedded to laminated SANTIAGOFORMATION Is SM-CL Olive green-gray, moist, dense, clayey, fine to coarse sand to sandstone (weakly to moderately indurated) Total Depth = 15 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backf ii led: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:10°SW TREND: N25°E liii liii liii liii liii iiii -- _ liii liii liii C -I C (C C r CD -4 0 94 ) 0, C C -4 CE 0, (7 C 1 'a -J C -S (C C r cr cc C cl C C Cr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-15 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±136 1 mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse sand with roothairs and organic litter throughout COLLUVIUM Qcol SM-CL Light brown to dark brown, moist, weakly bedded, silty fine to coarse sand and minor clay SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM-CL Olive green-gray, moist, dense, clayey, fine to coarse sand, weakly indurated, minor reddish brown, oxidation lining fractures and coating grains Total Depth = 15 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time-of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: P = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 6 0 SW TREND: N40°W - - j-:-: ------ -- - I I I I I I I I I I -. -- - - - I I . \:I•::-1•I.I. .\.•:----:-,. - 1'• _:._:I_::i...I . ___ F.-t_I-_I •l I I I I -- I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-16 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±140' mean sea level Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ Sample Moist. Density GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse sand with scattered organic debris and roothairs COLLUVIUM Qcol ML-CL Light brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey silty fine to medium sand; weakly bedded SANTIAGOFORMATION Ts SM-CL Olive green-gray to light brown, moist, stiff to dense claystone to sandstone; slightly weathered at upper contact Total Depth = 12 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE:18°SE TREND:N46°W liii liii liii till -_.--t.- _ -- - till liii lilt 31 -4 C .4 D n .1 C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-17 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±136'meansealevel Equipment:Backhoe Location:______________________ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Brown, damp, loose, slightly clayey, silty, fine to coarse sand with abundant rootlets and organic litter COLLUVIUM Topsoil Qcol SM-ML SM-CL T-17©2' 9.6 101.4 Mixed brown to yellow-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty fine to coarse sand; weakly bedded SANTIAGO FORMATION Is SM-CL Olive green-gray to blue-gray, moist, medium dense to dense, clayey, fine to coarse sand to coarse sandy claystone; scattered slickensides in clayey portions from shrink/swell Total Depth = 9 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 6°S TREND: EW _III liii lill__Illi I!II_ liii 31 .4 .4 C D .4 .4 C — — — — — — — — — — — — — on MM — MM LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-18 Project Name: Legoland Project Number:4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: KAB Elevation:±150' mean sea level Location:_______________________ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered roots and grass litter SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM-CL Light brown to light gray, damp to moist, silty, slightly clayey, fine to coarse sand; moderately indurated Total Depth = 5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 5°E TREND: NS liii IIII__..II liii tilL 11111111 LIII liii C D •1 I, •1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-19 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: ±90 1 mean sea Equipment: Backhoe Location: level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Light brown, damp to moist, loose, silty sand ALLUVIUM Qal ML-CL A Dark brown, moist, stiff, silty clay to clayey silt; B near top in drainage area Light brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, SM silty fine to coarse sand; weakly bedded and laminated sands Total Depth = 18 Feet 6 Inches No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 *Alluvium to total depth excavated GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°SW TREND: N55°E - - - - I I I I I I I I - - I I I I ----- : - - -- - - - -,----- -_ .z" -7 r1:•1 - - - -__ - :- - I - -\:::.: - - ..•.'•..••" i i i i - -- -- i - i , i i I I I - -1 -I C C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-20 Project Name: Leo1 and Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Elevation: ±110' mean sea level' Location:_______________________ USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT ALLUVIUM Qal SM-CL Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty to slightly clayey, laminated fine to depth of 17.5 feet coarse sand to total Total Depth = 17.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfill ed: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°SE TREND: NS _IIIl III, .. -.--- . tIII -. -= liii till till -. .. -==---=: MM - - MM LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-21 Project Name: Leoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: ±84 1 mean sea level Sample Moist. Density Equipment: Backhoe Location: GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered cobbles and gravel clasts COLLUVIUM Qcol SM Light brown to gray, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand, weakly bedded and laminated with cobbles at contact with Ts below SANTIAGO FORMATION Is SM-CL Olive green-gray to light gray, slightly clayey, silty fine to coarse sand; weakly to moderatley indurated Total Depth = 10 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4°SW TREND: N18E - - . - 5- — — — — — — — — — — — — — an — — — — — LOG OF TRENCH NO.:T-22 Project Name: Legol and Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±167.9' mean sea 1ev Equipment:Backhoe Location:_______________________ USCS Sample - No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand with very slight organic odor; trench is located at edge of plowed field TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered pockets of light green-gray fine sand, minor clay Total Depth = 9 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°S TREND: N41°E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii :1 — — — — — — — — Me — — —, _; AN — — — — — LOG OF TRENCH NO.: 1-23 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960:151-01 Elevation: ±178'meansealevel Equipment: Backhoe Location: Sample Moist. Density GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, moist, loose, silty fine to medium sand with abundant organic litter (strawberry plants) TERRACEDEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp to moist, dense, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered light green-gray, fine to medium sand Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 5°SW TREND: N50W _IIII III, 11111111 liii :\7 .........I lIII LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-24 Project Name: Leoland Logged by: KAB Project Number:4960151-01 Elevation: t194' mean Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ sea level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Dark brown, moist, loose, silty fine to medium sand with scattered organic litter (strawberry) TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM-CL Reddish brown, damp to moist, dense, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered pockets of light green-gray, fine to medium clayey sand Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 5°W TREND: NS ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7. 5-~7 I I I liii I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: 1-25 Project Name: Legoland Logged by: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4960151-01 Elevation: ±140'meansealevel Equipment: Backhoe Location:_______________________ Sample Moist. Density GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf) TOPSOIL Topsoil SM Light brown to dark brown, damp, medium dense; silty fine to coarse sand TERRACEDEPOSITS Qt SM Reddish brown, damp, very dense, silty fine to coarse sand; moderately to well indurated Total Depth = 4 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: NS _IIII liii liii 11111111 liii till ___ ____ Jr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-26 Project Name: Legoland Project Number: 4960151-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: KAB Elevation: ±143' mean Location:_______________________ sea level ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 5/31/96 DESCRIPTION: Test Pit GEOLOGIC UNIT TOPSOIL Brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine to medium sand Topsoil SM TERRACEDEPOSITS Reddish brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, fine Qt SM to coarse sand Total Depth = 4 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 5/31/96 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°S TREND: NS U 4960151-001 APPENDIX B LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF SMALL AND LARGE-DIAMETER BORINGS EXCAVATED DURING THE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LEGO FAMILY PARK AND POINTE RESORTS (Leighton, 1995) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (18 borings) 110 I I Date GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Drive Weight Elevation Top of Hole +1- ft. Ref. or Datum I >2f W, w € . o Z ! Cl) - - oa. 0 •...w U : u' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By 0— / - - - — CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay, sandy clay; silty clay; lean'clay CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay OL-OH Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures ML Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey sift with low plasticity MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils elastic silt CL-ML Low plasticity clay to silt mixture ML-SM Sandy silt to silty sand mixture CL-SC Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture K SC-SM Clayey sand to silty sand mixture SW Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines —77 SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture SC Clayey sand; poorly graded sand-clay mixture *. •0•s OW Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines o C OP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture 74 GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture - . Sandstone Siltstone _____ 20—, f Breccia ______ Claystone (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-supported conglomerate) - Conglomerate (rounded gravel and cobble, clast-supported) Igneous granitic or granitic type rock Metavolcanic or metamorphic rock Artificial or man-made fill 25— Asphaltic concrete Portland Cement Concrete LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I 505A(11/77) I I I I I I I I I I I I F~ Sheet 1 of 1 Project No. Type of Rig Drop - in. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-1 Date 9-11-95 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop_. 30L in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__82 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level o GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Z j Logged By SCB ci cn" Sampled By SCB SM ALLUVIUM - -i-i- @ 0-11: Light brown, dry, loose, silty SAND with trash debris SM-CL @ 1'-5': Orange/brown, moist, loose, silty SAND with gray silty CLAY 1 16 109.5 16.3 ML-CL @5': Dark gray with rust nodules, moist, stiff silty CLAY to clayey SILT with - small root hairs 75 - - 10- / 16 ML @ 101: Dark gray, moist, stiff dense, clayey SILT with small pebbles 70 - - - 2 23 105.6 20.2 ML WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 121: Light gray, wet, medium stiff SILT with fractured SILTSTONE rip-up clast 15— - 3 31 106.1 16.7 ML @ 15': Pinkish gray, moist, medium dense, fine sandy SILT with small interclast of SIL1ONE 65 - 20— 4 50/6 14.8 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION - @ 211: Pinkish gray, moist, very dense, fine sandy SILTSTONB 25— S 73/11w 114.9 15.9 - @ 26': Gray to light brown, damp, very dense SILTSTONE with dark magnesium staining and some fractures - Total Depth = 263 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfilled on September 11, 1995 _n— - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES H GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-2 Date 9-11-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company 'l)rpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 78 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level B O o Ct) 1; :: ' L' 8 41u j cs" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB 0 : - SM .EILL - :. .. @ 0-51: Tan to yellow, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with slight clay binder (Roadway Fill) 75- - 1 22 1072 15.9 SM @5': Dark brown, moist, medium dense silty SAND ML ALLUVIUM - @ 6': Dark brown, moist, medium dense SILT with small pebbles 70 - 10— 2 22 107.3 17.6 - @11': Same asat6feet 65 - @ 13.5': Driller reports change in material 3 25 115.6 16.1 SM @ 161: Tan to brown, wet, medium dense silty SAND - SM-SC @ 18': Tan to brown, wet, medium dense silty SAND with clay binder 20— 4 14 106.1 21.8 @ 201: Same as at 18 feet 55 -.: 25— - • 5 21 100.5 23.8 SM-ML @ 26':Y with orange staining, wet, medium dense, fine silty SAND to sandy SILT 50 - - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-2 Date 9-11.95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop. _Q in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L8 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION i .c-. tt . MW J Logged By SCB 0 Cl' Sampled By SCB 30 ff - 6 13 102.9 23.4 - CL-SM @ 311: Brown to tan with dark staining, wet, soft, sandy CLAY interbedded with - ••. tan silty medium to coarse SAND 45 -/:•. 35 / 7 22 104.6 21.8 @36': Same as above - Total Depth = 36.5 Feet 40 Ground Water Encountered at 16 Feet - Hole Backfilled on September 11, 1995 40- 35 - 45— 30 - 50- 25 - 55- 20 - 60 - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-3 Date 9-11-95 Sheet 1 of 1 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Tpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter Sin. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ..L in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 182 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level a ta GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ' 'i " J Logged By SCB Cl) C.) Cl)" Sampled By SCB SM TERRACE DEPOSI1/FILL?? @0-2': Light reddish brown, dxy, loose silty SAND 180 - 771 - . 1 31 124.8 10.7 @ 2': Orange-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, fine silty SAND with iron oxide staining and manganese staining 2 46 124.0 11.2 @6': Same as above 175 - Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled on September 11, 1995 10— 170 - Is—. 165 - 20— 160 - 25- 155 - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-4 Date 9-11-95 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop-,30 Elevation Top of Hole +1- 142 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level !'-' W 4V M CL C3 j CO h GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB 0 SM .EILL @ 0-11: Brown, thy, loose, silty SAND Sc @ 1'-51: Dark brown, moist, medium dense clayey SAND 140- 1 23 121.4 10.6 @ 51: Brown, tan and gray (mottled), moist, medium dense, silty clayey SAND with small pebbles to 1/8 inch diameter 135- 2 27 SP/ML @ 10': Orange medium- to coarse-grained SAND with gray clayey SILT. - SM/SC @ 11': Orange and gray, moist, medium dense, silty clayey SAND 130 - 15- 3 32 118.2 6.1 SM @ 151: Orange to rust, moist, medium dense, poorly graded silty SAND 125 -. 20— •. 4 27 116.2 11.9 @ 201: Orange and gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with decomposing -: vegetative debris, small weed husk 120 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION 25— • :. @ 24': Gray, damp, dense, poorly graded, fine to medium coarse silty : •:.: 5 57 SANDSTONE 115 - Total Depth = 263 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - - - = Hole Backfilled on September 11, 1995 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-5 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .Q. in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 145 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 4dw >4.. Cl4.. .5 Q.O tU.J + 0 Z ! 11) O WI) L +_ C Cl 0 C..)0 j cif' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB 145 0— - SM fiLL @ 0-23': Tan, thy, loose, silty SAND SM - @23' -Orange-brown,-moist,-medium dense, silty SAND with clay binder @ s-' Same as above 140 •. 1 47 128.9 83 @5': Grayish black (olive), damp, dense, fine to medium coarse silty SAND Bag-2 @5'-9' 135 10— 3 ss 131.2 8.2 @ 10': Orangish dark brown, damp, dense, fine to medium coarse silty SAND 4 83 134.5 7.9 @ 12': Driller reports harder drilling. Dark brown/olive, damp, very dense, fine to medium coarse silty SAND 130 5 28 112.6 14.7 - SC @ 16'6*: GraY..peenmoistmediumdense clayey SAND with piece of black Bag-7 : th18'-2 125 20--.- 6 18 102.1 13.8 SM ALLUVIUM @ 213': Black, wet, medium dense, fine to medium coarse silty SAND; organic LJ.J odor and decomposing organic debris - 27. 8 29 123.2 12.8 SC @ 23': Gray, moist, medium dense, coarse-grained clayey SAND 120 25— :,:..• 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-5 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/ Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 145 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 0 W X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION i ii f . w J Logged By SCB ci cn" Sampled By SCB 115 30 : 9 38 - - SM/SC ALLUVIUM - 30 @ 30': Gray and brown, moist, medium dense, silty, clayey, coarse-grained SAND 110 35— - 11 53/61 -.:i• - - oi \@ 361: Gray, moist, very dense, fine silty SAND - - Total Depth = 36.5 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfilled on September 8, 1995 105 40- 100 45- 95 50- 90 I R51 55- - - 60 _ - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [I GEOTECFINICAL BORING LOG SD-6 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 1 of 1 I Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter Sin. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 148 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Z Ci j 'if' h GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB SM TOPSOIL/FILL @0-3': Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND SM/SC ALLUVIUM @3': Orange-brown, (with gray and black areas), moist, medium dense, silty : SAND with clay binder @ 3'-10': Orange-brown, wet, medium dense, silty SAND with clay binder 1 38 117.8 14.4= - •.. Bag-2 @5-8' 140 10 3 13 93.1 29.0 @ 10': Gray, and orange-brown, wet, loose to medium dense, silty clayey coarse SAND 15 4 23 112.0 18.9 @ 15': Gray and orange-brown, wet, medium dense, silty clayey SAND 5 5015" 121.1 13.8 SM/SC SANTIAGO FORMATION 130 - : dense, SAND @ 171: Gray, wet, very silty clayey Total Depth = 18 Feet 6 Inches Ground Water Encountered at S Feet at Time of Drilling 20— Hole Backfilled on September 8, 1995 125 - 25- 120 _1- - 505A0 1177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG SD-7 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop - in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__L46 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level >c W W tU10-1 0 o. E 1V L CL p .W X:ci j cn'' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB SM FILL/TOPSOIL 145 - :: @ 0-18": Tan to orange-brown, thy to damp, loose, silty SAND SM FILL @ 18"-81: Orange-brown, moist, medium dense silty SAND 5- 140- - - : •:.: 1 70 @ 81: Brown to olive and orange (uniform color) damp, very dense silty SAND with small pieces of glass 10- 135 - @ IS': Plastic/Visqueen recovered in sampler with dark olive silty SAND matrix io - 20— N/R 18 125 - •. .. @ 211: Plastic recovered in sampler SM SAN11AGO FORMATION @ 23': Gray, moist, very dense, fine silty SAND 88 124.1 10.0 120 - Total Depth = 263 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfillcd on September 31, 1995 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-8 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 1 of 1 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .... in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 148 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level !— ow CD M W 31 0 L3 &' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB SM IILL - : @ 0-8': Dark brown, moist, medium dense silty SAND 145 - N/R 77 SM @5': Orange, damp, medium dense silty SAND 140 - 10 :. 1 45 119.6 6.5 - . SC @ 12': Gray, moist, medium dense clayey SAND 135 N 2 35 112.4 11.9 SM/SC @ 15': Fill comprised of Santiago and Terrace deposit materials with corroded / inetalic debris, gray, brown and orange, moist, medium dense, silty clayey SAND 130 - @ 19': Same as at 15 feet; piece of white plastic found in sample 20—'. 3 50 1133 12.7 - - - - SM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SANTIAGO FORMATION - - @ 20': Gray, moist, dense, fine silty SAND 125 - 25— - Total Depth = 26.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling 120 — - 10 Hole Backfilled on September 3, 1995 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P_~ GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-9 Date 9-8-95 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Legoland/CarlsbadRanch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge'sDrillingCompany Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8in. Drive Weight 140pounds Drop j in. Elevation Top of Hole +1-_165 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level I .2^ . CD !'-' E U j U GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SCB Sampled By SCB 165 • - - Asphalt 0—i k- SM .PJLL .. @ 1/4"-2': Dark brown, moist to damp, loose, fine- to medium-coarse silty SAND SW-SM TERRACE DEPOSIT @ 2'-6': Brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse, slightly silty SAND - 1 22 113.1 7.3 1 - Bag-2 22 @6': Orange-brown, wet, medium, slightly silty SAND 3 27 113.8 12.9 SM @7.5': Orange-brown with some dark brown to black areas of stainin& wet, medium dense silty SAND with small pebbles to 1/8 inches 155 10— 4 68 123.2 11.9 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 10'6": Gray-tan with black staining, moist, very dense, coarse-grained silty SANDSTONE iso 5 55/6" 127.0 12.0 @ 15'6": Same as above - Total Depth = 163 Feet Perched Ground Water at 7 Feet at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfilled on September 8, 1995 145 20- 14025— LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I 505A(1 1/77) I I I I I 11 J I I ri I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SD-1 Date 941-95 Sheet 1 of 1 I Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Company Type of Rig Truck Mounted Hole Diameter Sin. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop .. in. Elevation Top of Hole -I-I. 182 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION i D L Z •4 9 w CD o.. 1 y Looped By SCB C.) cn' Sampled By SCB 0 - SM TOPSOIL llltSAND SM TERRACE DEPOSITS 180 - : .:• @ 1'.5': Orange-brown, damp, dense, silty SAND with trace of clay binder, slightly cemented 1 67 118.3 12.3 @5': Same as above 175 - 10 5015w 127.7 12.1 @ 10': Same as above 170 Total Depth = 11.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Hole Backfilled on September 11, 1995 Is- 165 - 20— 160 - 25- 155 - 30— 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I GEOTEC1-INICAL BORING LOG LB-1 Date 9-26-95 Sheet 1 of 3 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27=4,500#; 27-52=170009 Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole 139 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Q1 411 #A C.) j Cl) GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF 0: - - - - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Brown and reddish brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse silty SAND with fine gravel Bag-1 - @ 7: Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium silty SAND 10—; :: Bag-2 SP @ 11': Dark brown, moist, loose, fine to medium SAND; small pieces of plastic strong organic smell - @ 12': Piece of metal 12 inches by 8 inches Bag-3 SM @ iS': Dark brown to gray-green; moist, medium dense, silty SAND @ 181: Piece of wood; burned approximately 16 inches long 20— : •.: Bag-4 @20': Dark brown, moist, fine to medium silty SAND with some gray-green coloration - : @ 21': Large clumps of plastic debris (visqueen) 25-1 Bag-5 SC @ 251: Brown to gray-green, moist, fine to medium clayey SAND with occasional fine gravel; some pieces of wood; organic odor @ 28'-29': Large pieces of plastic/visqueen, clumps of debris 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1 i n t U cn" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF I ° - @ 30': As above Sc @ 31': Dark gray with iron oxide staining very moist, medium dense, fine to ii medium clayey SAND; organic odor 35— - Bag-6 ALLUVI SM @36': Light yellowish-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium silty SAND : Bag-7 SM-SE @40': Grayish brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium clayey silty SAND SM @41': Light yellowish brown, very moist, fine to coarse silty SAND Bag-8 SP @ BIVWII, moist, loose, fine to medium SAND @45': As above with chunks of gray clay - Sc @46': Grayish green, moist, fine to medium clayey SAND 50—' @50': As above; faint bedding (Weathered Santiago Formation) @53' Grades to fine to coarse clayey SAND CL SAAGO FORMATION @ 56': Pale olive, damp, hard CLAY; faint laminations 2 SM @ 58': Light gray, saturated, dense, fine to coarse silty SAND 60— 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date 9-26-95 Sheet 2 of 3 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop j2. in. f Elevation Top of Hole 139 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level I - 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG LB-1 Date 9-26-95 Sheet 3 of 3 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop _12 in. Elevation Top of Hole 139 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level D rn_i L CD w •- 4- W - (6 OLL Dl 4- W C.) ._j Cf GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF 60— @ 601: Olive, damp, CLAYSTONE, randomly oriented shears/parting I surfaces @ 60':Stopped drilling due to severe caving from perched water - Total Depth = 60 Feet Seee at 58 Feet Bac i led on September 26, 1995 65- 70- 75- 80- 85- 90- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ri I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Date 9-26-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 'I Drilling Co. Daves Drilling pe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 =3,700# Drop .j in. Elevation Top of Hole ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level I- 0i cc to 0 8 &' GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF Bag-1 - - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL - Brown, thy, loose, fine to medium silty SAND; metal and plastic debris I SC @ 8': Tan, very moist, loose, fine to medium clayey SAND; occasional coarse SAND; plastic debris SM SANTIAGO FORMATION - :• @ 12': Driller indicated hard drilling; light gray, damp, dense silty • -: • SANDSTONE 15 :: Bag-2 20— @ 20': Tan, moist, fine to coarse silty SAND, SANDSTONE; grades from above - @ 231: Occasional fine gravel, rounded, quartzite pebbles 25— : - : @ 29': As above 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES LII I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Date 9-26-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294.001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4.500#; 27-52 =3,700# —Drop_ 12 Elevation Too of Hole ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level cn L 0 0 ci cn" GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF 30— - : @34': As above 35—- Total Depth = 35 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled on September 26, 1995 40- 45- 50- 55— = 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG LB-3 Date 9-26-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling 1pe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop jj. in. Elevation Top of Hole - ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 0. wf . w Cl) L c. cn" - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MU Sampled By MLF 0 - Bag-1 - - ML TERRACE DEPOSITS - Reddish yellow with iron oxide staining; damp, loose, SILT with fine SAND @5': Driller reports harder drilling 2 5 SM @ 10': Yellowish red with iron oxide staining moist, dense, silty fine SAND 20 3 6 @20':Asabove LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I 505A( 11/77) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 Date 9-26.95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Trpe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop - .11 in. Elevation Top of Hole ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION :E M : Logged By MLF cs) j &' t5 U Sampled By MLF 30:.•: SM 35_:.- 4 8 @ 3S': pale brown, with iron oxide staining, moist, dense, silty fine 40-- : 5 7 @40': As above; last feet completed on September 27, 1995 Total Depth = 41 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfihled on September 27, 1995 45- 50- 55— tcn— 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I GEOTECIINICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Da'ves Drilling 'Ipe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27= 4,500#; 27-52 =3,700# Drop .JL in. Elevation Top of Hole 103 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level I LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 505A(11/77) I (D E cs 0) 31 ' C C j &' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF Bag-i - SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM - : H @0-5' Brown, damp, silty fine SAND SM ALfuvluM @5': Pale yellow, moist, silty fine SAND with iron oxide staining 10— : : : Bag-2 @ 10': Light olive-brown, moist, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND with - : :•• •.• minor iron oxide staining - - •• r SC/SM @ 12': Increase in clay content; clayey silty fine SAND - CL @ 14': Gray, moist, soft silty CLAY with minor iron oxide staining 15— Bag-3 P20- 25 Bag4 SP/ML @ 251: Gray, very moist, loose, fine to medium SAND with SILT; occasional - rounded gravel (caving) @ 26': Rounded cobble 14 inches by 10 inches quartzite - @ 28': Ground water encountered I I I I I I 1 L I I I I r I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27=4,S00#; 27-52=3,700# Drop 12 in. Elevation Top of Hole 103 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level a U' 0 j co " GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF 3° - - - CL SATflTAGO FORMATION (Continued) - "7/,' @30': Pale brown and light tan, silty CLAY with pieces of very hard, dl)', CLAY approximately .5 to 1 inches in diameter /// Bags Stopped drilling due to being in bedrock and caving due to ground water Total Depth = 32 Feet - Perched/Ground Water at 28 Feet Caving at 28 Feet - Backfilled on September 27, 1995 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Li GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Date 9-27.95 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling 1rpe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop 12 in. Elevation Top of Hole 260 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Z_ . 0 j Co GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF Bag-1 - - SP TOPSOIL :.. Red-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium SAND, trace of - SILT; micaceous §NT TB]ACBDBPOSITS @4': Yellowish brawn, moist, medium dense silty SAND 2 7 SP @ 10': As above; with trace of SILT 5- 3 8 SP @20': As above; dense 25— : - : 4 6 SP @ 29': As above; dense LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I--•L. 505A(11177) Li Li I I I LI LI I I I I LI LI P I I I GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27= 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# Drop _.- in. Elevation Top of Hole 260 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Li . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION . ! CD 4- ' t Logged By MLF Ct) 0 Ct Sampled By MLF 30:•• SP-SM - @ 32': Yellowish red, wet, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel ______ , and cobbles; rounded, up to 6 inches diameter quartzite Stopped 32 feet due to caving caused by Ground Water Total Depth = 32 Feet - Ground Water Encountered at 31 Feet Caving at 31 to 32 Feet 35— Backfilled on September 27, 1995 40- 45 50- 55— - = LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES _ I -I- 505A(11/7'7) I I Li I I I I I I I I I I I I Li Date 9-27-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27= 4.500#: 27-52 =3,700# Drop .j. in. Elevation Top of Hole 228 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level o . Cs) 0 o j cn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF Bag-1 - - SP TERRACE DEPOSITS :- :•. Yellowish red, moist, fine to medium SAND; trace of SILT; micaccous - upper 1 to 2 feet disturbed by fanning 10— 17 7 2 push - 101: Slight amount of seea&e just above the clayer FORMATION SANTIAGO @ 10': Light olive-gray, moist, CLAY; laminations; randomly oriented - shears/parting surfaces 15- - @ 181: Driller indicated drilling became hard 3 4 SP @ 201: Light gray, micaceous, damp, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; slightly - : • :•:: : @ 26': Becomes damp, driller having trouble keeping sand in bucket, friable SAND 1 GEOTEC1-INECAL BORING LOG LB-6 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 2 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling 'l)rpe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 = 3,700# —Drop_. 12 in. Elevation Top of Hole 228 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 0 0.0 CD w V +- I.- +- in O LL :t tn .- C4- WC) 00. 0 wS C UW 0 C.. — Ci 0) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF 30— Total Depth 30 Feet Due to No Recovery - Seepage at 10 Feet - Backfilled on September 27, 1995 35- 40- 45- 50- 55— 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I Li I I El I I I Li I I I I I I El GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 505A01/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I Date 9-27-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/ Carlsbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500;K--2-7.52 = 3,700# Drop 12 in. f Elevation Top of Hole 186 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level a L U) 0^ L L j u' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF SM TOPSOIL @ 0': Dark brown, moist, silty fine to medium SAND Encountered abandoned-steel water line at -4 feet, moved 10 feet north and reriled Bag-1 SM TERRACE DEPOSIT - : @5': Yellowish red, moist, dense, silty fine to medium SAND 10— : 2 4 SP @ 101: Yellowish red, moist, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; slightly - :• :• micaceous 20— :•::.: 3 4 @20': As above 25 - 10 I fl bi GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,S00#; 27-52 3,700# Drop_ j in. Elevation Top of Hole 186 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level •° . 0 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION to ' D ' !t j Logged By MLF C.) U* Sampled By MLF 30—.. 4 10 SP SANTIAGO FORMATION @30': Very pale brown, moist, dense, fine to medium SAND @ 30': Driller indicated hard drilling 35- 40— 5 8 CL @40': Light olive-gray, damp, very stiff CLAY Total Depth = 41 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled on September 27, 1995 45— so- 55— LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I 505A( 11/77) I I I [1 I I I I I Li I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling 'I)rpe of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 in. Drive Weight 0-27= 4,500#: 27-52 =3.700# Drop 12 in. Elevation Top of Hole ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level . . .! C.) CO GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By MLF Sampled By MLF SM Jul - . Reddish brown, moist, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine rounded gravel, plastic Bag-1 ML/SP @ 7': Dark brown, moist, sandy SILT with fine SAND - TERRACE DBPOSITS @ 9': Yellowish red, moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND 2 1 SM @10': As above 20-- : 3 3 SP @ 20': Yellowish red, very moist, fine to medium SAND; trace of SILT 25— - :•.-. Driller indicated hard drilling - SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 26': Light gray, damp, fine to medium SAND; trace of SILT; occasional cobbles - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I p i I L V Ell U I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8 Date 9-27-95 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Legoland/Carisbad Ranch Project No. 4950294-001 Drilling Co. Daves Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Auger Hole Diameter 24 In. Drive Weight 0-27 = 4,500#; 27-52 =3,700# Drop iL in. Elevation Top of Hole ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level W X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION M w ' 31 t Logged By MLF U) ci cn' Sampled By MLF 'I @ 30': As above; dense 35—.:. 40— S 12 @40': As above 50—.: 6 12 @50': As above - Total Depth = 51 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling - Backfilled on September 27, 1995 55- -1- LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 60 505A(11/77) I F1 I $ I I, I I I I LI •1 I I I LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF LARGE-DIAMETER BORINGS EXCAVATED DURING THE CARLSBAD RANCH PHASE II INVESTIGATION (Leighton, 1994) B-6 ID 33' (6 borings) I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-i Date 2.24-94 Sheet 1 of 1 Project CarltasJCarlsbad Ranch Phase H Project No. 4930489-03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 In. Drive Weight 0-271 2,290#, 24421 1,445# Drop j . in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__109 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical Map GEOTECI-INICAL DESCRIPTION . . ! 't iE 3C >! W( O U.J • 0 - 0. ,' . U Logged By RKW W j ci cn" Sampled By R SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL @ 0': Orange to medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained SAND; - :•: : scattered pieces of plastic sheeting, asphalt, and cemented sandstone chunks Bag-1 105 - : SM/SC @4': Contains fill lifts of dark brown olive-green clayey SAND and sandy CLAY I ush/12 89.5 25.7 @ 8': Contains medium to dark gray slightly silty to clayey SAND fill lifts with noticable organic odor 100 -: 10— . 2 ush/12 109.0 13.9 SC @ 10': Medium to dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; scattered chunks of asphalt, decomposed pieces of wood and angular gravel and - Bag-2 : cobbles 95. 15i 3 1 100.9 14.7 @16.5': Abundant chunks of concrete? Refusal at 17 feet _ Total Depth = 17 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered 90 - Geologically Logged to 16 Feet on Backfllled 2/24/94 20- 85 - 25- 80 - 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 2-24-94 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase U Project No. 4930489-03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 In. Drive Weight 0-271 2,290#. 24421 1,445# Drop Jim. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 109 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechulcal Map U GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Z E 0) 31 j Logged By RKW - U) L U % u' Sampled By RKW SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL • .. • @ 0' Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty tine SAND; abundant asphalt • • chunks; scattered concrete, brick and other construction debris- (no evideno - of wood or plastic); appears to have 4 to 6 inch thick fill lifts 105. - : @ 61: Fill lifts are 2 to 4 inches thick and near horizontal 100- - F • F.: 10— • .•• – SC @ 10.5': Medium and dark gray, moist to very moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; scattered organics; moderate organic odor - @ 12': Dark gray moist, to very moist, medium stiff clayey SAND; scattered chunks of asphalt; rather homogeneous 95- 15— SC/SM @ 16. Contains lifts of soft to very soft very moist, plastic clay and medium-dens - • ..• silty SAND; scattered organics (not decomposed) 90 :h. 20— 4 1 5 1193 13.1 SM @ 20': Gray-brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey SAND; homogeneous, - • •. . - - scattered rootlets possibly topsoil layer, about 6 to 8 inches thick; :. •:: SM SANTIAGO FORMATION - • : : @ 20': Light brown to off-white, moist, dense, silty, tine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE; massive; light brown randomly oriented infihled joints, - • . : decreasing with depth; gradational upper contact dipping approximately 25 • . degrees to the west 85 25— 2 13 122.6 12.0 - Total Depth 26 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Geologically Logged to 24 Feet - Backfilled on 2/24/94 80 - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date 2-24.94 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase II Project No. 4930489.03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling — Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight 0-27'2,290#, 2442' 1,445# Drop jj in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 109 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical Map GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION j Logged By RKW (1) U CO Sampled By RKW SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL 4@ 0': Orange-brown and medium gray-brown, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained SAND SM/SC @ 2': Contains off-white silty SAND and orange-brown clayey SAND lifts; - t : scattered asphalt chunks 105 - 1 6 N/A 5.5 @5': Contains abundant concrete chunks - : SM @ 8': Contains abundant pieces of wood, asphalt and partially decomposed pieces : : of brush in black silty SAND; strong organic odor oo - 10— ••. - •. 2 4 N/A N/A @ 11': Material in sampler is loose and most likely highly disturbed - : @ 14': Abundant concrete debris \@ 15': Refusal on concrete chunks? Total Depth = 15 Feet - • No Ground Water Encountered Not Geologically Logged Due to the Strong Organic Odor and Loose Nature of - the Fill Soils - l3ackfilled on 2/24/94 90 - 20- 85 - 25- 80 - 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date 2-24-94 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase II Project No. 4930489.03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight 0-271 2,290#, 24.42 1,445# Drop 12 Elevation Top of Hole +/-__118 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical Map 0 !'.' - W 0 in Z U) 31 a in ci cn" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By RKW Sampled By RKW - - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL . @ 0': Orange-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained SAND; - scattered rounded gravel and asphalt pieces 115 - : :.: •. : @ 3': Contains lifts of off-white silty fine- to coarse-grained SAND @4': Contains cloth rags, plastic sheets and styrofoam pieces 1 2 116.8 9.8 110 - SW @ 9': Light brown to light gray, very moist, loose silty to clayey fine- to 10— :::: coarse-grained SAND 2 ush/1 110.7 13.7 105- @ 13': Dark brown to very dark gray, moist, medium dense clayey fine- to coarse-grained SAND; scattered decomposed organics; occasional lifts of light gray fine sand and off-white clay fine- to coarse-grained sand; free water in silty sand Lifts between 13 and 15 feet 15— : 3 3 1023 9.0 SM @ 16.2': Medium brown, moist, loose, silty fine-grained SAND; near horizontal bedding; very friable; sharp lower contact SM 100 - : - SANTIAGO FORMATION 20— :. . @ 191: Light brown, slightly moist to moist, dense, silty fine- to coarse-grained 4 10 119.2 12.7 SANDSTONE; massive; abundant quartz grains - Total Depth = 21 Feet No Ground Water Encountered, Free Water Encountered at 13 to 15 Feet 95 Geologically Logged to 19 Feet - Backfilled on 2/24/94 25- 90 - tin— 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-5 Date 2-24-94 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase H Project No. 4930489.03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 In. Drive Weight 0-27' 2290#4 2442' 1,445# Drp jj in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-_125 ft. Ref. or Datum - See Geotechnical Map o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION J Logged By RKW 0 120 C-, Z &' Sampled By RKW 125 0— - SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL @ 0' Orange-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained SAND; @ 1': Contains lifts of light brown silty fine- to coarse-grained SAND 1 3 117.2 11.2 W sAdoFöR1ioN @ 33': Light gray to light brown, slightly moist, dense silty fine- to coarse-grained : SANDSTONF4 massive; sharp horizontal upper contact Total Depth = S Feet - No Ground Water Encountered - Geologically Logged to 5 Feet Backfilled on 2/24/94 115 10- 110 15- 10520- 10025— _25 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG B-6 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I Date 2-24-94 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase If Project No. 493048903 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight 0-271 2,290#. 24421 1,445# Drop iL in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-__107 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical .Map . ...4- IV 4) .i-4- 0. .CO 0.0 01 - 0) 30 oU C4- wo ,- +. U .,-' - cs' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By RKW Sampled By RKW - - SM UNDOCUMETffED FILL - : @ 0': Orange-brown, moist, medium dense silty fine- to medium-grained SAND ios –: - : SM/SC @4': Contains light brown and medium-gray silty to clayey SAND; scattered • - .. rounded cobbles 100 - 10- - : @ Ii': Light to medium gray, moist, medium dense silty to slightly clayey fine : SAND; relatively homogeneous 95. - is- 90- - SM @ IT: Medium gray-brown, moist, loose to medium dense silty fine- to • .•••. medium-grained SAND Bag-i 20— 1 1 104.3 10.4 - •. : @ 22': Dark gray to black mottled light gray, moist to very moist, loose, clayey • :. . SAND and silty SAND; scattered organics, plastic sheeting, concrete chunks, and pieces of wood; strong organic odor 80 - • ___ ____ ___________________________________ 505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date 2-24-94 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Phase II Project No. 4930489-03 Drilling Co. San Diego Drilling Type of Rig Bucket Aguer Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight 0-27'2,290#. 2442 1 1,445# Drop ii. in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 107 ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical Map U d 4- -I - C.. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4-*"" +• E 0.0 a, - I- Z w o wo ao. Logged By RKW W Cn = L a = 0 C Co Sampled By RKW - _ =_______________ FILL (Continued) 75- 2 N/A @ 32': Contains slightly silty fine- to coarse-grained SA; moderate seepage no sample recovered \ @ 33': Becomes loose saturated running sands; boring keeps filling in with \ saturated sands unable to drill any deeper due to hole caving - Total Depth = 33 Feet 35— Ground Water Seepage/Perched Ground Water at 32/33 Feet Not Geologically Logged Due to the Strong Organic Odor, Loose Nature of the Fill Soils, and raving of the Boring at 32133 Feet - Backlilled on 2/24/94 70 - 40— 65 - 45..... •60 - 50— 55 - 55- 50 - 505A(1 1/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES IJI1 APPENDIX B (continued) LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF SMALL-DIAMETER BORINGS EXCAVATED DURING THE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK INVESTIGATION (Leighton, 1991) tj - - (1 boring) GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 12/12/84 Drill Hole No. Sheet 1 o 1 Project Huntington/Palomar _Job No. 4841363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison _Type of Rig 8-53Hollow .StemAuger Hole Diameter- 611 _Drive Weight 140lbs. _Drop 30in. Elevation Top of Hole 78'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Q • 4J & GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4J 4J 4) 0 Z 4) .0 4) 3t o 0 . 44 4) U 4. 4J.-l• U U Logged by RLW - • I 3 ,Sampled by RLW ___ ____ 0 ALLUVIUM: SM Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty • sand. CL! Very dark brown, very moist, stiff, fine - --.-- 1 14 108.1.; 19.1 Sc sandy clay to loose, clayey fine sand. 10 • 15 •... 2 3 32 19 Dist Distilrbed rbed SW! SM @ 9' Becomes clayey sand. @ 9'-10' Lense of gravel-size clasts to 1" in diameter. Light brown, damp, medium dense, slightly silty sand. @ 16' Becomes wet. 20- 25— -: 4 5 9 18.5 . •17.4 SM Brown, wet, loose, silty sand. SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light brown to brown, wet to saturated, dense, silty sand. 106.: 110. 70 SM • • 30_ •' . • •' - - - - Total Depth = 30' Ground water measured 12/13/84 7:30 a.m. at a depth of 18' No caving Backfilled 12/12/84 SOOA (2/77) Leighton & Associates I I I I I 1 I zIJI APPENDIX B (continued) LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF SMALL-DIAMETER BORINGS EXCAVATED DURING THE PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF CARLSBAD RANCH (Leighton, 1989b) B-5 TD 10' (5 borings) I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECI-INICAL BORING LOG Date Drill Hole No. 13t Sheet LofJ Project (-'i.si Job No. Drilling Co. 4.F. Type of Rig LF-,:s Hole Diameter 8 Drive Weight i'10 Ib._ —Drop in. - Elevation Top of Hole Ref. or Datum Toa4o Co ve.,40%- e4 : U - 0 • 0 z tn o 4.J - in & ' ' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION J 0. 0) 0.0 c3 ... ' 0) 0) 3 0 0 Cz. = 44 0 U ° Z 4J 4- 4 S U U Logged by ZK U. o_ "I >- •.-1 S o Sampled by st4 U (I) SM - • a?p ) 1b0. 4 p1Ae.ct LL4 i F, v% e. - '-- S-& es+b o%1 mot'k me4- - \IF f - •. • flL0 F,i4taw • ' 8te-c, tA-, 1ooS +0 ce4 - -: zo• c + 3OL+Q • bti cietrm pos eA Jc— • 3- ct-- tS+c (4 be.it • • - Y4L#1 OD)t -4-c. 'Ye.c\ tL4 d e4te tjet • :-:. c-' +e i,te tCA- he-e) • ve.- s# ttc 4-o ectw det1 teLL rt,'c1e4 Si.e QL~1 - v4LcèA_ ccLrC ID c - lot u-k. • fr k + bec. I no e&ø-t.. \ ' bt d eA&) 1$ eV £o-c+e c • v -rbhJ cIef' •= iq 25— • bLC \j4( tc4-etc w<AUeA -o 4è • . ircpL • - I I 1 I I I L I L -I I SOOA (2/77) Leighton & Associates 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. 3' -j SheetJ_ofJ ,Date Project c-i+a Job No.BBcU800.o1 Drilling Co. t4. F. D - 11 Type of Rig F1( LYt F-to (it. S. A: 1 Hole Diameter " Drive Weight 1'-!o Drop 30 in. Elevation lop of Hole - Ref. or Datum I I C • > I. 0 Z UO Cfl I • as tn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION T+J l~. I SC ) .0 ) O 0 . 4.4 ) u gged by 4J I U U Q U) Logged I C 0.•r- . g 0 Sampled by SK •::I _T IFLLL SP LDoe. t4-t.1 S 1 L a eAa.ke • - Cè.rb a- (4 0-) o d ee L4 +0 lot-1 YoI.1 IooQ. - - meciu - ck.t, T% v-, e. +o • . .•• _____ - no øct ' • •. : s? ct4yA bye'.0 . . 1ocYbt __cltwsè -cl ro*ote • Te.ee_ t+s. !€_ sp A bø.it. o t teo-wes wed iu 5w\- 1 @10' PSI o1 k4 c--t )Y b L43 Y\ ..c_ 1e noHodec 1 I I: 1 ' I .4A (2 I - £ To-f.A dt+' = 10' ow 1JO cv L.)e4-e,'r b ?_e_k_4t1keck 4o twr4et O()tU (10 CI Vbu..4) b to/10 I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 10110/0I Drill Hole No. SheetJ_ofJ Project f- Job No. __Qoô.-t Drilling Co. .4, F. TDrt [hv Type of Rig.3tLviF-1 Hole Diameter Drive Weight !-Ic lbs Drop 3o in. Elevation Top of Hole - - Ref. or Datum • 4.' 04 /) 0 Z 4.' U O •.-i 'fl tfl • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 1.J4J oo (+ .4) 0(. 44 4)C) iJ 4J - . U 00. u14) .' -I Lo gged by SK — pled by SK ,, -. .F.LLL SM cas4c Lbb sItk'1 Sè.-c1 r -. 2 ' • sc - -i - - - - - 4t' t\- J (' o4l1e oae. )cOtv' r'trf e..cl IL Lk w- de- e. L4-'1 4, • :•.-- _____ H So - \ $ e ' ett,M r> V sA vctevfe. • SO +0 Ca.vst S I 14-i saAck , fl I) oct - I -r+ de4" = tcY 16 t'3o YOLL\A ~)çeC ee.ce.c 50 1*Th ,'LeA +D X4t L.L4 ou-) ov. pql 0 e-0, Lil SOOA (2/77) 1 Ainhtnn k I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I I 4930489-05 APPENDIX B (continued) LOGS BY GEOTECHNECS OF TEST PITS EXCAVATED DURING THEIR CARLSBAD RACNH INVESTIGATION (Geotechnlcs, 1992) TP-16 TD T (16 trenches) TEST PIT NO. 1 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 138 DEPTH DESCRIPTION 1 ft. Fill: Silty sand (SM), medium grained, 20% non-plastic silt, dark brown, moist, very dense scattered plastic netting and sheets, weakly cemented 2 ft. 6' of clay (CH), highly plastic, reddish gray, very moist, firm, old OCI horizon aft. 4 ft. Qin: Sandy clay and clayey sand (CLSC), 20%-80% fine to medium grained sand, 20%-80% medium plastic clay, dark red sand, medium gray clay, moist, hard to 5 ft. dense; sand is mottled with clay 6ft. 7ft. Bulk Sample from 3'-6' 8 ft. Total Depth 6' 9 ft. No Water, No Caving Backfilled 9/26/92 lOft. TEST PIT NO.2 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 168' DEPTH DESCRIPTION 1 ft. Topsoil: Silty sand (SM), medium grained, 15% non-plastic silt, dark brown, moist, very dense weakly cemented 2 ft. Grades to 3 ft. Qin: Silty sand (SM), fine to medium grained, 15% non-plastic silt, dark reddish brown, 4 ft. moist, very dense, Indistinct lenses and vertical zones of pale yellow, clean sand 5 ft. 6ft 7 ft. Bulk Sample 0'-6' 8ft. Total Depth 6' No Water, No Caving 9 ft. Backfilled 9/26/92 loft. I PROJECT NO. 0054-001 -00 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT FIGURE: B1J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 163' DEPTH DESCRIPTION Topsoil: Poorly graded sand (SP), fine to medium grained, non-plastic, dark brown, damp, 1 ft. very dense, weakly cemented 2 ft. Qin: Poorly graded sand (SP), fine to medium grained, trace of plastic clay, dark red brown, moist, very dense 3 ft. 4 ft. Sft 6 ft. 7 ft. 8 ft. 9 ft. Total Depth 8' No Water, No Caving loft. Backfilied 9/26/92 TEST PIT NO.4 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JO 510) Elevation: 165' DEPTH DESCRIPTION Topsoil: Silty sand (SM) fine grained, 15% non-plastic silt, damp, very dense, weakly 1 ft. cemented 2 ft. Qln: Poorly graded sand (SP), trace of plastic clay, medium red brown, very moist, very dense; red sand is mottled with pale yellow ,fine grained, -clean sand, minor 3 ft. indistinct horizontal Iamanae 4 ft. 5 ft. 6ft. 7 ft. 8 ft. 9 ft. - Total Depth 8' No Water, No Caving loft. Backfilled 9/26/92 I PROJECT NO. 0054-001-00 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT FIGURE: B-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JO 510) Elevation: 127' DEPTH DESCRIPTION - Topsoil: Silty sand (SM), fine grained, 20% non-plastic silt, brown, dry, very dense, weakly 1 ft. cemented 2 ft. Clay (CH), plastic, brownish gray, moist, firm - 3 ft. Gradational Contact 4 ft. isa: Sandy clay (CH), 20% medium grained sand, plastc, brownish gray, moist, firm 5 ft. 6 ft. At 6' grades to clayey sand (SC), medium grained, 20% plastic clay, brownish gray wet, dense; seepage in sand 7 ft. 8 ft. Bulk Samples at3' and 4'-7' 9 ft. Total Depth 7' Seepage at 6', No Caving loft. Backfilied 9/26/92 TEST PIT NO.6 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/1 6/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 116' DEPTH DESCRIPTION Topsoil: Clayey sand (SC), fine grained, 20% plastic clay, dark brown, dry, loose 1 ft. 2 ft. isa: Clayey sand (SC), medium grained, 20% plastic clay, grayish yellow, very moist, dense-very dense, massive 3 ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. Bulk Samples at V-5' 7ft. Total Depth 5' No Water, No Caving 8 ft. Backfilled 9/26/92 9 ft. loft. I PROJECT NO. 0054-001-00 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT FIGURE: B-3 I 'I I . I I I I I I . I I. I. I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. 7 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16192 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 109' DEPTH DESCRIPTION Topsoil: Clayey sand (SC), fine grained, 20% plastic clay, dark brown, dry, loose 1 ft. 2 ft. Tea: Clayey sandstone (SC), medium grained, 20% plastic clay, yellow gray, moist very dense, moderately cemented; discontinuous lenses of gray clay (CH) with 3 ft. brittle fracture at 2' spacing 4 ft. 5 ft. 6ft. 7 t Total Depth 6' No Water, No Caving 8 ft. Backfilled 9/26/92 9 f loft TEST PIT NO.8 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 143' DEPTH DESCRIPTION 1 ft. Topsoil: Silty sand (SM), fine grained, 20% non-plastic silt, dark brown, damp, very dense weakly cemented 2 ft. 3 ft. Qal: Clayey sand (SC), fineto medium grained, 10% plastic clay, dark red brown, moist dense 411 511 6 ft. Total Depth 5' No Water, No Caving 7 ft. Backfllled 9/26/92 811 9 ft. lOft DROJECTNO 0054-001 -00 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT FIGURE: B-4 I TEST PI1 NO. 13 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 161' DEPTH DESCRIPTION 1 ft. Topsoil: Silty sand (SM), fine grained 10% non-plastic silt, trace of plastic clay, dark brown dry, dense, weakly cemented 2 ft. 3 ft. at 2' becomes moist-very moist, red brown 4 ft. Gradational Contact 5 ft. Gin: clayey sand (SC), fine-medium grained, 10% plastic clay, dark red brown, very, moist, dense 6 ft. Total Depth 5' No Water, No Caving 7 ft. Backflhled 9/26/92 8 ft. 9 ft. loft. TEST PIT NO. 14 Logged by: WLV Date: 10/16/92 Method of Excavation: Backhoe (JD 510) Elevation: 160' DEPTH DESCRIPTION 1 ft. Topsoil: Silty sand (SM), fine grained 15% non-plastic silt, dark brown, dry, dense, weakly cemented 2 ft. 3 ft. 4 ft. Gin: Clayey sand (SC), fine-medium grained, 20% plastic clay, dark red brown, very moist, dense, friable. 5 ft. 6 ft. 7 ft. Total Depth 5' No Water, No Caving 8 ft. Backfilled 9/26/92 9 ft. 10 ft. PROJECT NO. 0054-001 -00 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT FIGURE: B-7 * I I I r1l I I I 1 I I LI I I 1 I I I Is(,IsJ'1 APPENDIX B (continued) LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES EXCAVATED DURING THE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK INVESTIGATION (Leighton, 1991) T-2 H-I TD 7 (2 trenches) KM - - - - - MM - - —. - - - - - - - MM Project Nani': Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±89' TRENCH NO. 1-1 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See GeotechnicaLMap 0 Id CD ft in d (•j •—• I-• GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT • CD Qal SM ALLUVIUM C:Undulating tD Medium to dark brown, moist, loose, silty sand; slightly clayey, abundant rootlets in top 2' SANTIAGO FORMATION Ts SM © Very light brown to light golden brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand; @5' discon- tinuous lense of fine sandy silt Total Depth =7' No grQund water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: Horjz.TREND: J47 °W I1% IltI lilt lilt lilt tltl IIII'\LI___.L_J ---- 771— IJJIl 0 14 CD rt 0 0 C) ri CD cJ 0 C) 0 m z C-) z 0 I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Huntington/Palomar . Logged By: RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±90' TRENCH NO. 1-2 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map ri CD rt rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ALLUVIUM Medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty Qal SM fine to medium sand; brush covered, abundant rootlets C:Undulating in top 1.5' SANTIAGO FORMATION 7 •650NE J.N 8 W, (J Light to medium golden brown, mottled medium brown, Is SM moist, dense, silty fine to medium grained sand; jointed, , B.Nil W,2 W bedded surface is finely developed and generally dips to the SW 20-30 Total Depth = 5.1' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: itt 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 10:1 TREND: N420 E liii till Ilti liii lilt liii 1111 III tn C -1 CD rt 0 0 () I-.. rP CD 0 C 0 z C z 0 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I LOGS BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES EXCAVATED DURING THE CARLSBAD RANCH PHASE I AND PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS (Leighton, 1993 and 1994) APPENDIX B (continued) (36 trenches) T-36 TD 10' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Caritas/Carlsbad Ranch Logged By: RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Proj ect Number: 4930489.01 Elevation: 161 feet TRENCH NO. T-4 Q -Th (D Equipment: JD 410 Extend-a-hoe Location: see Geotechnical Map cj z - • r • • '.-' rt c '-' • GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: July 12,1993 DESCRIPTION: UNIT It TOPSOIL SM AT Dark red-brown, moist, loose, silty fine-grained sand; massive; disturbed; approximately 2' 129 120.7 18 inches thick TERRACE DEPOSITS B] Orange-red-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand; slightly clayey, Qt SM massive; slightly porous a) 4' 12.0 116.3 Total Depth = 5.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered BackfiRed on July 12 1993 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" ' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: N15W* -liii 1(11 liii liii lI1 0 C) 0 -x1 -. z z 0 Proj ect Name: Carltas/Carlsbad Ranch Logged By: RKW - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Proj ect Number: 4930489-01 Elevation: 151. feet TRENCH NO. T-5 C= 0 .- tj(D Equipment: ID 410 Extend-a-hoe Location: we Geotechnical Map . GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC 9 ATTITUDES DATE: July 12,1993 DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL SM Dark red-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; massive; disturbed; @ 2' 12.1 125.1 approximately 18 to 24 inches thick WEAThERED TERRACE DEPOSITS if] Dark orange-red brown, moist, medium dense to dense, slightly clayey silty fine-grained sand; Qt SM D) massive; scattered block carbonized organic blebs; slightly porous @ 4' 13.9 116.7 TERRACE DEPOSITS Qt SM • Orange-red-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand; massive Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfihled on July 12, 1993 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: N70E- I I I I I I I I I I ICT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 -n - z c-i = z 0 (-'1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: —Caritas/Carlsbad Logged By: - RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489-03 Elevation: ±128' TRENCH NO. T-17 co 0 10 CD Equipment: Case 450BBackhoe Location: SeeGeotechnical Map z CD rt rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2125i94 DESCRIPTION: - UNIT CD A UNDOCUMENTED FILL Red-brown, orange-brown and medium brown, moist, medium Afu SMIC dense, silty to clayey fine-grained sand; scattered pieces of plastic sheeting; 2 to 6 inch thick fill lifts; numerous rootlets B SANTIAGOFORMATION: Light gray to off-white, slightly moist, dense, silty fine- to Ts SW coarse-grained sandstone; massive; slightly cemented Total Depth = 5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfihled on Z25i94 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = ' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:N25°W 1111 -liiI 1111 B. 0 0 z Z 14 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,- - - - Project Name: Caritas/Carlsbad Logged By: RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489-03 Elevation: ±132' TRENCH NO. T-18 Equipment: Case 450B Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map ' GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC . CD C ATTITUDES DATE: 2/25j94 DESCRIPTION: UNIT CD A TERRACE DEPOSITS: Orange-brown, slightly moist to moist, dense, silty fine-grained Qt SM sand; massive, homogeneous; upper 6 inches is disturbed and contains scattered chunks of asphalt, concrete and pieces of trash (plastic, paper, etc.) B SANTIAGO FORMATION: light olive-green, moist, dense, silty fine- to coarse-grained Ts SW sandstone; massive; contains abundant quartz grains Total Depth =83 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled on 2f25,4 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWall SCALE: 1" = ' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N40°W ii 0 0 -u —3 rn Z C-) Z 0 - - - - - - - - MIM - - - MM - - - Project Name: Caritas/Carlsbad Logged By: iucw ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489-03 Elevation: ±136' TRENCH NO. T-19 Equipment: Case 450B Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map Z .9 2. rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC 0 c rt ATTITUDES DATE: 2/25j94 DESCRIPTION: UNIT rn COLLUVIUM: Orange-brown mottled dark brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, Ocol SM silty fine-grained sand; scattered roots; slightly porous @ 2': Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; homogeneous; slightly 1 @5' porous 3 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Orange to red-brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained Qt SM sand; massive @ 9': Contains rounded gravel and fine cobbles SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light olive-green, moist, dense, silty fine- to coarse-grained Ts SW sandstone; massive Total Depth = 10 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled on 2125j94 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = ' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N58°W I I I I ' II I I I I I I I I I I I I I tTti I I I I I I I I 0 C) 0 -n -3 z C, z 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: r2rIt,cartcd Logged, By: - RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: Elevation: +ic' TRENCH NO. T')fl ca 0 11Z M Equipment: Case 450B_Backhoe Location: See Gentechn _ . CD GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2P_54 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ,. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Medium brown, mottled orange- and red-brown, very moist, Qt SM 1 @ 0' medium dense; silty fine-grained sand; scattered roots; slightly porous, upper; 12 to 18 inches is disturbed @ 3'-5': Becomes medium brown in color Total Depth = 10.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfllled on 2(25i94 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACESLOPE:00 TREND:N50°W t-. C C) 0 -n —3 rn z z 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: carltas/Carlsbad Logged By:_ RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489-03 Elevation: ±156' TRENCH NO. T-21 Equipment: Case 450B Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map C • Cl) ) 0 - ti(D ___________ • 0 • - \O j) '.- F-P pt/) d . GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2/25i94 DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL: Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; massive; porous; Topsoil SM scattered roots I TERRACE DEPOSiTS: Orange-red brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty fine- Of SM grained sand; massive; slightly porous in upper 12 inches SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light to medium olive-green, moist, dense, silty fine- to Ts SM medium-grained sandstone; massive; slightly micaceous Total Depth =63 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled on 2f2594 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N5°W 0 c- 0 rn z z 0 -i-I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Carltas/ar1sbad Logged By: pjw - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489-03 Elevation: ±115' TRENCH NO. T-22 - 0 10 (D Equipment: Case450BBackhoe Location: SeeGeotechnicalMap ft rP GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2/254 DESCRIPTION: UNIT - A TOPSOIL Dark red-brown, very moist, loose to medium dense silty fine-grained sand; Topsoil SM homogeneous; abundant roots B COLLUVIUM: Light gray to off-white, moist, medium dense, silty to slightly clayey fine Qcol SM/CL 1 @ sand and light olive-brown, moist, stiff, silty clay layers; day appears to be discontinuous, 2'-4' plastic and sheared C SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light gray to off-white, moist, dense, silty fine- to coarse- Ts SW grained sandstone; massive; abundant quartz grains Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfiiled on 2f2594 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND:N15°W I_I_I _I I_I_ I I_I_I_I I_I_I_I 1_i i _ 1 _ - 0 0 -n - rn z Z 0 TI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: —Caritas/Carlsbad Logged By: RKW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 4930489.03 Elevation: ±139' TRENCH NO. T-23 - Equipment: Case 450B Backhoe - Location: See Geotechnical Map rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2t25/94 DESCRIPTION: UNIT A TOPSOIL Dark red-brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; scattered Topsoil SM roots; slightly porous B TERRACE DEPOSITS: Orange-brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty fine- Qt SM grained sand; massive @ 6': Becomes medium brown mottled orange-brown in color Total Depth = 10 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfihled on 2f2594 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWaII SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: N750E 0 0 11 rn Z cm = z 0 - - - - - MM - - - . - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Caritas/Carisbad Logged By: p,j,r ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 490489-03 Elevation: ±142' TRENCH NO. T-24 Equipment: Case 450B Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Ma Z '- GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 2f254 DESCRIPTION: UNIT ____ _____ CD _____ TOPSOIL: Dark red-brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; scattered Topsoil SM roots; slightly to moderately porous 3 COLLUVIUM: Medium brown and orange-brown, mottled dark brown, very moist, Qcol SM medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; occasional zones of slightly clayey sand; slightly porous TERRACEDEPOSiTS: Orange-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand; Qt SM massive; very gradational upper contact Total Depth = 10 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled on 2/25,94 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WWall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND:N35°W _ _ JIli '1 0 0 Ab -n rn z z — — — — — —, — — — ON — — on — — — — — — I 4960151-001 APPENDIX C I Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Moisture and Density Determinations Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were I performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in both the test data and the boring and/or trench logs. Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D423 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and are presented in the table below.. Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plastic Index (%) USCS Soil Classification #4 @ 26' 68.0 ___7 40.9 7B-i 27.1 [ rvm Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads with a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test results are presented in the test data and summarized below: Sample Location Type of Sample Friction Angle (degrees) Apparent Cohesion (psi) B-2 #1 @ 20' Undisturbed 48 1,400 B-4 #1 @ 10' Undisturbed 27 150 T-2 #1 @ 2' Remolded 42 60 T-6 #1 @ 1' Remolded 33 100 B-i #2 @ 11' Undisturbed 29 350 B-2 #3 @ 18.5' Undisturbed 20 1,040 B-3 #2 @ 15' Undisturbed 28 160 B-5 #2 @ 25' Undisturbed 15 640 B-7, 5' - 6' Undisturbed 43 450 I I I LI I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I C-i I 4960151-001 APPENDIX C (continued) I Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78 (five layers). The results of these tests are presented in the test data. Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pci) Optimum Moisture Content (%) B-i #2 @ 13'-14' Gray silty to clayey sand 128.0 9.0 B-4 #1 @ 10,-11' Dark brown clayey sand 125.0 9.5 T-2 #1 @ 2' Terrace Deposits (silty sand) 124.5 8.5 T-3 #2 @ 3' Colluvium (silty sand with clay) 127.0 10.0 T-6 #1 @ 1' Topsoil (silty sand) 133.0 9.0 T-2 #i @ 1.5'-3' Medium brown sandy clay 117.0 13.0 T-5 #1 @ 2'-7' Orange-brown silty sand 121.0 11.0 T-6 #1 @ 4'-7' Orange-brown silty sand - 122.0 12.0 Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion I Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter I specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Compacted Dry Density (pci) Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-4 #1 @ 10,-11' Clayey sand 115.2 35 Low T-3 #2 @ 3' Colluvium 106.6 0 Very Low T-8 #1 @ 3' Topsoil 113.8 0 Very Low T-19 #1 @ 5' Silty sand 120.6 0 Very Low T-1 #1 @ 0'-3' Slightly silty sand 125.1 0 Very Low T-2 #1 @ 1.5'-3' Sandy Clay 113.5 98 High TP-5 # 1 @ 3' Clay N/A 127 High TP-6 #i @ 4' Clayey Sand N/A 15 Very Low TP-12 #1 @ 2'-6' Medium Sand N/A 12 Very Low B-iO, 6'- 8' Medium Sand 108.6 22 Low B-15, 8' - 10' Medium Sand 113.0 10 Very Low [1 I I I I I I Fi I LI I Ej I Li] C-2 Li 4960151-001 I APPENDIX C (continued) Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. I The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented in the test data. Samples that were tested for hydroconsolidation only are presented below: Sample Location % Hydroconsolidation B-22, 11' 0.03 B-23, 16' 0.15 B-24, 16' 0.03 B-9, 11' 0.02 B-17, 16' 0.02 B-18, 6' 0.08 B-18, 11' 0.03 B-13, 16' 0.01 B-13, 11' 0.02 B-9, 26' 0.08 B-9, 3' 0.0 B-20, 16' 0.02 B-21, 6' 0.07 B-22, 16' 0.02 B-17, 11' 0.03 B-6, 6' 0.35 B-6, 11' 0.02 B-13, 6' 0.14 I I El I I I Li Fill I El I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4960151-001 APPENDIX C (continued) Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack T-10 #1 @ 0.5' 0.024 Negligible T-13 #1 @ 1' less than 0.015 Negligible T-20 #1 @ 0' less than 0.015 Negligible T-28 #1 @ 0.5' less than 0.015 Negligible T-1 #1 @ 1'-3' less than 0.015 Negligible T-5 #1 @ 2'-7' less than 0.015 Negligible B-3 #1 @ 10' less than 0.015 Negligible B-5 #1 @ 20' less than 0.015 Negligible Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) T-1 #1 @ 1' 6.9 2,900 T-13 #1 @ 1' 7.4 5,000 T-20 #1 @ 0' 6.6 5,800 T-28 #1 @ 0.5' 6.5 8,900 T-1 #1 @ 1'-3' 7.5 53,000 T-5 #1 @ 2'-7' 6.3 53,000 B-3 #1 @ 10' 8.1 26,700 B-5 #1 @ 20' 7.5 33,400 C-4 • Based on the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 26-A-3, prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1991). Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below: I. 1 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lea [Ii; Boring No. SD-i Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 6.5 Soil Type Sc Dry Density (pcf) 105.0 Moisture Content (%): Before 17.4 After 17.5 Type of Sample Undisturbed Project No. 4950294-001 Project Name Legoland/Carisbad Ranch 0 Date 1013195 Figure No. CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - I I I I I i:i no Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1*- VERTICAL STRESS (ksO Type of Sample - Undisturbed Boring No. SD-2 Sample No. 4 Depth (feet) 21.5 Soil Type SM-ML Dry Density (pcf) 103.7 Moisture Content (%): Before 22.5 After 20.4 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4950294-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Date 1013195 Figure No. 2 II] 1 I I I I I I I U Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I 111— Boring No. SD-2 Sample No. 6 Depth (feet) 31.5 Soil Type ML-CL VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Dry Density (pcf) 102.2 Moisture Content (%): Before 23.2 After 18.7 Type of Sample Undisturbed Project No. 4950294-001 Project Name Legoland/Carisbad Ranch [1 E Date 1013195 Figure No. 3 CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - I I I I I I I I I I •1 I I lOf JLIr1 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method ASTM 02435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water 1 I I I Type of Sample Undisturbed Boring No. SD4 Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 6.5 Soil Type SM-SC Dry Density (pcI) 121.2 Moisture Content (%): Before 10.0 After 13.9 I CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4950294-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Leg oland/Carisbad Ranch 1 Date 1013195 Figure No. 4 I I II 1 I I I 3 ill- VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) I - Test Method ASIM D243 1 5-90 • Before Adding Water S After Adding Water Boring No. SD-5 Dry Density (pcf) 100.0 Sample No. 6 Moisture Content (%): Depth (feet) 21.5 Before 10.3 Soil Type SMSP - After 22.8 Type of Sample Undisturbed I I I I I I. I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4950294-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Leg oland/Carisbad Ranch Date 1013195 Figure No. 5 Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111- VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Type of Sample Undisturbed Boring No. SD-6 Sample No. 3 Depth (feet) 11.5 Soil Type SM-SC Dry Density (pof) 104.1 Moisture Content (%): Before 22.2 After 19.2 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4950294-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland/Carisbad Ranch 0 Date 1013195 Figure No. 6 U lol lii- VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 I Before Adding Water 0 After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I Boring No. SD-8 Sample No. 2 Depth (feet) 16.5 Soil Type SM Dry Density (pcf) 117.1 Moisture Content (%): Before 9.7 After 13.6 Type of Sample Undisturbed Project No. 4950294-001 Project Name Legoland/Carisbad Ranch [1 0 Date 1013195 Figure No. 7 CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - U Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lii- 51— Boring No. SD-9 Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 4.5 Soil Type SM VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Dry Density (pcf) 110.8 Moisture Content (%): Before 7.4 After 13.8 Type of Sample Undisturbed Project No. 4950294-001 Project Name Legoland/Carlsbad Ranch Trq Date 1013195 Figure No. 8 Lid CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - 'I 1 Test Method ASTM D2435-90 I Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Kim 8 9 10 11 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Boring No. B-il Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 6.0 Soil Type SM CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE - Dry Density (pcf) 120.1 Moisture Content (%): Before 12.9 After 12.9 Project No. 4960151-001 Project Name Legoland Date 7123/96 Figure No. Type of Sample Undisturbed I Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 I Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I RZ •I I I I VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Type of Sample Undisturbed Boring No. B-16 Sample No. 7 Depth (feet) 23.0 Soil Type SC Dry Density (pcf) 95.6 Moisture Content (%): Before 17.8 After 20.9 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4960151-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland Date 7123/96 Figure No. 2 L 1 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I will Type of Sample Undisturbed 8 9 10 11 10 Boring No. B-23 Sample No. 5 Depth (feet) 21.0 Soil Type CL Dry Density (pcf) 108.6 Moisture Content (%): Before 17.7 After 19.0 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4960151-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland Date 7123/96 Figure No. 3 Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 I Before Adding Water S After Adding Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tJ 1•I VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Type of Sample Undisturbed Boring No. 6-8 Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 1.0 Soil Type SM-SC Dry Density (pcf) 123.1 Moisture Content (%): Before 10.7 After 16.2 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4960151-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland El Date 7123/96 Figure No. 4 I Test Method: ASTM D2435-90 I Before Adding Water • After Adding Water I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Ec1 go VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Type of Sample Undisturbed Boring No. B-8 Sample No. 2 Depth (feet) 6.0 Soil Type SM Dry Density (pcf) 115.9 Moisture Content (%): Before 11.5 After 13.7 CONSOLIDATION Project No. 4960151-001 - PRESSURE CURVE - Project Name Legoland Date 7/23/96 Figure No. 5 I I ri I I I [1 I I I I 1~ I I F, Li I rl I I I I I I Li I I I LI I I I I I I I F1 00 e0 500 500 1000 1500 2000 25 NORMAL STRESS (psf) 2500 ON 4- (A 0. Cl) Cl, W I-Cl) WI U) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Trench Symbol Boring No. T-2 Depth (if) 2.0 Sample No. 1 Soil Type SM Type of Sample Remolded Friction Angle (deg.) 42 Cohesion (psf) 60 DIRECT SHEAR Project No. 4930489-01 TEST RESULTS Project Name Carttas/Carlsbad 0 Date 7121193 Figure No. 3 q.. U.' 0. C', C,) w I-U) w U) ooe L500 .000 500 01 500 1000 1500 2000 25 NORMAL STRESS (psf) Trench Symbol Boring No. T-6 Depth (ft) 1.0 Sample No. I Soil Type SM Type of Sample Remolded Friction Angle (deg.) 33 Cohesion (psf) 97 DIRECT SHEAR Project No. 4930489-01 TEST RESULTS Project Name Caritas/Carlsbad Date 7/21193 Figure No. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [1 -1 -- • Iu.RURUM•m•...uuuuuupu••mmu• ____ _____ • _____ MENEM • [•:•• -;.:.:. too #so 090 Project No. 8870059-01 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Figure No— 5 - I I DESCRIPTION I SYMBOL I BORING I SAMPLE I DEPTH (FEET) I I COHESION FRICTION SOIl. I NUMBER NUMBER (PSF) ANGLE TYPE Ldisturbed • B-i 2 10.5' - ill 350 29 SM I ndisturbed I 1 I B-2 3 I 18' - 18.5' 1,040 I 20 I SM I I SoN Deacdoe—wr Fine Sands Type of &m0o: []Remokled to Relative Coqmction MX Umlisturbed 0.005 Loading Rate: in./ — - _—'- _____I-I 14 MEMO _____ I a- a. 'I 20CX 0) w cr qC 15OC 0, I. Boring Symbol e Sample Location Symbol 8-3 #2@ 15' B-5 #2@ 25' NORMAL STRESS. psi Average Moisture Contents Before After Friction AngI 7.4 N/A 28 0 28.3 N/A 19° Cohesion l6Opsf 64Opsf Remarks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Project No. 8891551-01 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project Nam Carltas/Carlsbad Figure No. 6 3015 1088 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.0 0.1 05 to 5,0 IQ.0 50.0 - —2.0 > —(.0 LU 0 C,) LU (.0 z LU -J a. U. I- z 4.0 LU 0. 2 -J 0 Cl) z 8 &° 9.0 10.0 Boring Symbol o FIELD MOISTURE BORING NO.: 6-8 LEIGHTON $flø ASSOCIATES Project No. 4841363-02 • SATURATED SAMPLE NO.: 1 IILi1 LOADING DEPTH (FT) : 5 CONSOLIDATION TEST REBOUND SOILTYPE CL/SC RESULTS Figure No. 7 —3.0 TTT I. :tH.:T±:::::; J:::4. z 1+J.:: 4-1 .; ___ _______ --.-±•.•.-..I•.•. .................................................................................... 1•- . . .t .............-....--.- ............. i. .-. 2.0 3.0 NiCl) 5.0 : ____ 6.0 ____ 7.0 rm — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11111_u____ 111111 tIIIlIIR _iiiii _iiiiiiiu _11111R____ aIR _ flu_a 111111 IIIIINIR II1IlIR iliuillu IRa____ 11111 hula____ uhiIia---iuuuilu _ iiivau____ 111111 II1I1IIR___ HhlIb _Iliuilla _ mivaa___ 111111 1111111R _IIIIlI _iIIiiil Ia ____iiiil_u____ II. 111111 __I1I1IIIR _IIIIlIII iiiuuiia 11111u____ ia 111111 lililliR I1Ii1iIR111I1IIR _ mu_u lu 111111 liliullu _miuiiuiimuiaa _ _ muu____ l.a 111111 H1IIIIU illiuila NII ____0h1 U 111111 hUllS 11111115 _ l.a IIIIIIIR____ IHU R____ 111111 hulls____ 1111115 hulls _mua____ 15 111111 11111115 IRS_111111__11111115 hula_11111115 IIU1IIR_hillillu muu____ 11111u____ "IRa_111111 hullS____ hulls hhhilila____ ni_u____ •!1 _!N! 1111115 11111115 iuuiiiu unuu — iiIT EXPLORATION ELEVATION PLOT NUMBER OR DEPTH SYMBO UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONJ Trench Symbol - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION PLASTICrTY - IL PL F TP!-1 2-6 ' 0 Sc Clayey sand - GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 0054001...0p FIGURE 8 — — — — — — — — w — — — — — — — — — — rr i ia 111111 iiiuivaa iuiiiia ouia _ iN111111 __IIIUIIR _-IIIIIiN _ IIIHIIN _IiiIIRM____ III1II1N IIIIIiN IllilliN 1111_N uN 111111 IlilihiR __ 1IIIIIR _ ililihla hR_111111 __ _IIIIIMN____ 111111 __niivae___ iiuita _ Ilillula _ mua___ _111111 hR __IlilihiR _ IIIlIhii _ IllilhiR _iiiiiaa____ illuuia IIIIIIIR .IIIR ia_111111 IiIivaa mua IllilhiS Iuihh•aLIil1uhia Hill_a hiS 111111 111111 hulls _ iniiiiswnil.____ __ _ .115_ __ _ ni_s____ uS111111 11111115 1101115 hIlIiR 11111_a____ 111111__11111115 1115_ _11111115_11111115 15_111111 ihIula _ _11111115_ilIuiula _11111_a____ _11111_a____ 115111111__11111115 _ 'Ii._111111__11111115 _lililhiS_11111115 _11111115_11111115 _11111_a____ _mua____ 15111111 nulls____ "115_111111 hulls____ ilulia____ onus____ iiiuuia_iiiiivaa mia____ _1101_a !15 113jJ! U!!hlR hlhilhiR 11111115 H111R EXPLORATION ELEVATION PLOT NUMBER OR DEPTH ISYMBO UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION Trench Symbol - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION PLASTICITY - U. Pt. P1 TP..12 26' 0 sc Clavey sand GEOTECI-INICS INCORPORATED PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 0054-00140 FIGURE 9 - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Suvs P4umb.ri Hydrometer S C S. C S U S. 11 S I S 0 U C S U S S. Grain SIs. In Mflimssu,s -- -.-- Gravel I Sand Cobbles I Coats, I Fin* Coeca. I Medium I cm. I Sill of Clay 1 EXPLORATION ELEVATION NUMBER OR DEPTH PLOT SYMBO UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION Trench Symbol _______ SAMPLE DESCRIPTION PAS112IY - ft pt. P1 TP-2 0-6' 0 Sc Clayey sand - GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 0054-001-40 FIGURE 10 4950294-001 I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Cont'd.) I The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on - specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be I allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical I consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are I broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 1 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the I geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. I 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried- back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to I a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. I 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as I evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the I geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior I to fill placement. I 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant I prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. I I 4950294-001 I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Contd.) I 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the I geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densifled fill. Oversize materials should not be placed I within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. 1 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the I geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction I 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of 1 material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, I as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 53 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and I mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to I efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in additional to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments I of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face I should be at least 90 percent. 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. The location and I frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in I vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of the slope. I I I 1 4950294-001 I APPENDIX D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General Intent I These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the I geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the I recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications as well as the geotecimical report and approved grading plans. I 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility çf the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. 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 and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. i, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test Method ASTM D1557. 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies, and the geotechnical consultant. I I Li LI I 1 I I LI Li I I 1 I 6.0 I I I 7.0 I 8.0 1 I I I I I I I I I 4950294-001 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Contd.) Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. D-4 - - - - - - - - = _p - - - - - - - - - TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT EXISTING ---------------- :J: 36" MIN.* IDA~ - - - -"' (OVE "" - ------ -- COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED K BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT (I IT I (T EXISTING GROUND SURFACE I Li I I I .--cREMOVE -UNSUITABLE - _--- MATERIAL J > OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT 5'J MIN.1 36" MIN.* *NOTE: Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavatlon and recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered and locations of proposed improvements I I I 1 I I I I I LI I I I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS / 1 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE -jCOMPACTED BENCHING \It :--4t '-- - REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I I I I .' SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE ,-6" MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED / EQUIVALENT)* \ 6 MIN. 6' CLEAN COVER COVER l GRAVEL 4" MIN. BEDDING (aftAt. MIN.) I I I LI I 6' MIN. OVERLAP 3/42-1-1/2" CLEAN' GRAVEL (9ftPlft. MIN.) I —6" 0 MIN. - PERFORATED PIPE *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE- OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED I DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4 11 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 I I Li DESIGN FINISH GRADE-... SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE ABOVE 0' -PERFORATED 15' MIN. PJ5'MIN __—P 0 MIN. PIPE PFAATPfl A' Of 4J Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the g.ot.chnlcai consultant. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION SubdraIn pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed. SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125, SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. 1 I I I ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL I El FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE OfMIN ---------- =-- _-COMPACTED FILL ------- 6" MAX. -- LZ ~:U_M__: -0. :----- i--:- - OVERSIZE WINDROW - -- - GRANULAR SOIL (SE. 30) TO BE I DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL I 1 I TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of Jinish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever Is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4-feet should not be utilized In fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - ..- ,,-FINISHED CUT PAD I KEY .--:COM PACTED _-:-:-:--:-:-fLL---:- - EW,t - BENCH I I I -2% MIN.-E-E FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF r-" OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I I ........ PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I I SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL I ' T ''l'/lliUJ 2' 15' MIN. _-COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MIN. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED KEY BENCH ( BY THE GEOTECHNICAL DEPTH (KEY) CONSULTANT I I I NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions I I I I 11 KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS I I FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO I LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - - REMOVE / KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING - GROUND SURFACE"\\ - 2% 2:Hi5'N4U=E LOWEST BENCH DEPTH (KEY) MATERIAL KEY CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) /-,,- EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL / - PLACEMENT) UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO 1 'MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL '-BENCH f k-15 MIN -' 2' MIN.' LOWEST I KEY DEPTH BENCH NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH -COMPACTED2 IiIó BENCH -SEE 1-CONNECTION 6' MIN. 7 DETAIL OVERLAP I 3/46-1-1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL (3ft 3/ft. MIN.). 4'Ø NON-PERFORATED PIPE .,, - - - FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* S I 'II 6' COVER 4' 0 PERFORATED PIPE 5%MIN. 4' MIN. BEDDING ENCH DETAIL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL --_ iflul•4II OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, ---- - 30' MAX 0.C. VERTICALLY - BACK CUT ---:-:-Lit 1:1 OR FLATTER tt - BENCH --:-2 % M IN SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD / BE SITUATED AS LOW AS - / POSSIBLE TO ALLOW - SUITABLE OUTLET KEY DEPTH MIN. -- - KEY WIDTH AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS' 15' MIN. U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing its 100 3/4U 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 NOTES: For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and. subdraln may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION -Subdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylon trile Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. f' 10' MIN. PERFORATED EACH SIDE PIPE I CAP I NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE T-CONNECTION DETAIL * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAYBE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL I I RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Li I SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* I I I RETAINING WALL I i=it- --- - - - 01 0 01'f 1 I I OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE o0 0 (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)** 1' MIN. 314'-11/2' CLEAN GRAVEL o 0 0 • 4a.(MINJ DIAMETER PERFORATED 1 PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS o 0 ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT o TO SUITABLE OUTLET (f 38 MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT I I I [I LI I WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS -_ FINISH GRADE ---:--COMpAcTED FILL E WALL FOOTING NOT TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 *BASED ON ASTM D1667 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 314-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION * NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS lvIRADRAIN OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. I I I I I mm - - - - - - - - - - - - mm- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4950294-001 APPENDIX E STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR HOMOGENEOUS EARTH SLOPES Design Parameters and Assumntions Type of Slope: 2:1 cut slope 'l)rpe of Soil Materials: Santiai o Formation Sands H = Height of Slope = 20 feet Il = Angle of Slope =26 degrees = Total (wet) Unit Weight = 130 pcf 4) = Angle of Internal Friction =34 degrees C = Cohesion = 150 psf • No seepage forces • Total shear strength parameters are used in lieu of effective strength Analysis Dimensionless Parameters = = H tan = 12 C Stability Number (from Figure 10 of Reference 2) = N = 36 Minimum Factor of Safety = F.S. (ma) = N C H = 2.0 (21.5 O.K.) References 1. Bell, J.M., Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. SM5, September 1966. 2. Janbu, N., Discussion for (Reference - 1), Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. SSM6, November 1967. E-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4950294-001 APPENDIX E (continued) SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS • 2:1 Cut Slope • Santiago Formation ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation = 3 ft. i = Slope Angle = 26 degrees = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 130 pcf 4) = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 34 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 150 pcI FS = C + (,tan 4) = C +(y - y)Z co0i tan 4) T Yt z sin i Cos i FS = 1.7 (> 1.5; o.k.) E-2 4950294-001 APPENDiX E (continued) STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR HOMOGENEOUS EARTH SLOPES Design Parameters and Assumutions Type of Slope: 2:1 Fill Slope Type of Soil Materials: Sandy soils from Santiago Formation H = Height of Slope = 20 feet = Angle of Slope =26 degrees Yt = Total (wet) Unit Weight = 125 pcf 4) = Angle of Internal Friction =32 degrees C = Cohesion = 125 psf • No seepage forces • Total shear strength parameters are used in lieu of effective strength Analysis 4) Dimensionless Parameters = = ___________ = 12 C Stability Number (from Figure 10 of Reference 2) = N = 36 Minimum Factor of Safety = F.S. = N C = 1.7 (2:1.5 O.K.) References 1. Bell, J.M., Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. SM5, September 1966. 2. Janbu, N., Discussion for (Reference - 1), Journal. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. SSM6, November 1967. E-3 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 4950294-001 APPENDIX E (continued) SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS • 2:1 Fill Slope • Sandy soils from Santiago Formation ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation = 3 ft. i = Slope Angle = 26 degrees = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 125 pcf 4) = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 32 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 125 pcf FS = c +Utan 4, = C (i - y,)Z co0i tan 4' T yt z sin i Cos i FS = 1.5 (.~t 1.5; o.k.) E-4