geotechnical investigation future athletic complex …

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FUTURE ATHLETIC COMPLEX AT PALOMAR COLLEGE

1140 WEST MISSION ROAD SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 1140 WEST MISSION ROAD

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 CTE JOB NO.: 10-12831G MARCH 7, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 3

3.1 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 4

4.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5

4.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill ................................................................. 5 4.2.2 Quaternary Undocumented Fill ..................................................................... 5 4.2.3 Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits ......................................... 6 4.2.4 Residual Soil .................................................................................................. 7 4.2.5 Cretaceous Tonalite ....................................................................................... 7 4.2.6 Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock Undivided ................................... 7

4.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................... 8 4.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................... 9

4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 9 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting .......................................................................... 9 4.4.3 Historic Seismicity ....................................................................................... 11 4.4.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation ........................................ 12 4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ................................................................. 13 4.4.6 Flooding ....................................................................................................... 13 4.4.7 Landsliding .................................................................................................. 13 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils .............................................................. 14 4.4.9 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................. 15

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 16 5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 16 5.2 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Bedrock Terrain ........................................................................................... 16 5.2.2 Undocumented Fill Soil and Residual Soil Terrain ..................................... 17 5.2.3 General ......................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................... 19 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 20 5.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................... 21 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................. 22 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................................................... 23

5.7.1 Shallow Spread Foundations ....................................................................... 23 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................. 25 5.7.3 Foundation Setback ...................................................................................... 25 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ............................................................... 25

5.8 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 26 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ...................................................................... 27

5.10 Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 30 5.11 Vehicular Pavements ................................................................................................ 30 5.12 Drainage .................................................................................................................... 32 5.13 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 33 5.14 Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 35 5.15 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 35

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 35 FIGURES

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC/ EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2A GEOLOGIC/ EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

FIGURE 4 CROSS SECTION A-A' FIGURE 4A CROSS SECTION B-B' and C-C' FIGURE 5 REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP FIGURE 6 CONCEPTUAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL

APPENDICES APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS LOGS APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX E GEOPHYSICAL TESTING

Geotechnical Investigation Future Athletic Complex at Palomar College 1140 West Mission Road, San Marcos, California March 7, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-12831G

\\Esc_server\projects\10-12831G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation, performed by Construction Testing

and Engineering, Inc. (CTE), and provides preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the

proposed Future Athletic Complex at the existing Palomar Community College campus in San

Marcos, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with the terms of CTE

proposal G-3538, dated August 6, 2015.

CTE understands that the proposed improvements include a football stadium, softball field, practice

field, two swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, spectator stands, Kinesiology & Training

Center, and ancillary structures. Other improvements are anticipated to consist of new parking lots

throughout the complex area, a plaza, landscaping, flatwork, and utilities. Preliminary

recommendations for excavations, site preparation, fill placement, and foundation design for the

proposed improvements are presented herein.

CTE’s understanding of the proposed improvements is based upon conceptual plans that lack

topography and detailed elevations and/or building locations. Therefore, the exploration locations

are based upon extrapolation from the conceptual plans. As such, CTE should review additional

project plans as they are developed.



Page 2

Attached appendices include:

Appendix A, References; Appendix B, Boring Logs; Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results; Appendix D, Standard Specifications for Grading; and, Appendix E, Geophysical Survey.

1.2 Scope of Services

The scope of services provided included:

Review of referenced geologic and soils reports. Coordination of utility mark-out and location for Underground Services Alert (USA) and a

private utility locating company. Obtaining a San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Boring Permit. Performing 10 seismic traverses that include eight multi-channel analyses of surface wave

(MASW) lines and two seismic refraction lines. Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig and

limited-access manually advanced augers. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples. Description of the geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. Engineering and geologic analysis. Preparation of this summary report.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed improvement area is located at 1140 West Mission Road on the campus of Palomar

Community College in San Marcos, California (Figure 1). The improvement area is bounded to the

south by Comet Circle, to the east by Borden Road, to the north by undeveloped land, and to the

west by existing campus buildings and improvements. The general layout of the subject site and

proposed improvements is shown on Figures 2 and 2A. The proposed improvements are to be

constructed throughout the northeastern portion of the existing campus in an area that currently



Page 3

supports Student Parking Lot #9, Staff Parking Lot #8, a recently constructed (new) baseball field,

utilities, maintenance buildings, and other ancillary structures.

Based on the recent reconnaissance and review of area topography, the improvement area is located

at the confluence of south and southwest descending drainages. Improvement area elevations range

from approximately 680 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northern portion of the site to

approximately 627 feet above msl to the southwest.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

CTE conducted field investigation on January 8, 11, and 12, 2016, which included visual

reconnaissance and excavation of 60 exploratory borings in accessible and limited access areas. The

borings were excavated with a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter,

hollow-stem augers that extended to a maximum depth of approximately 25.2 feet below the ground

surface (bgs) in Boring B-18. Due to limited access, explorations B-6, B-27, B-41, B-42, and B-43

were excavated utilizing a manually operated three-inch diameter auger to a maximum depth of

approximately 4.0 feet bgs in Boring B-43. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were collected

from the cuttings, and by driving Standard Penetration Test and Modified California samplers.

The soils were logged in the field by a CTE Certified Engineering Geologist and were visually

classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions

have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Boring logs, including



Page 4

descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the

borings are presented on Figure 2 and Figure 2A.

Geophysical testing, which was conducted by Southwest Geophysics, Inc. at representative locations

throughout the proposed improvement area, included ten seismic traverses consisting of eight

Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) surveys and two seismic refraction surveys. The

results of the geophysical testing and evaluation are summarized in the Southwest Geophysics report

presented in Appendix E.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate

physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: In-Place Moisture

and Density, Expansion Index (EI), Grain Size Gradation, Atterberg Limits, Consolidation,

Resistance “R”-Value, Direct Shear, and Chemical Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory

test results for the selected soils are included in Appendix C.

4.0 GEOLOGY

4.1 General Setting

San Marcos is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by

northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending

regional faults. The San Diego Region can be subdivided into the coastal plain area, central

mountain–valley area and eastern mountain valley area. The project site is located within the central



Page 5

mountain-valley area that is characterized by a locally eroded basement surface consisting of

Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks.

4.2 Geologic Conditions

Based on the regional geologic map prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2005), the near surface geologic

unit underlying the site consists of Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits over Cretaceous

Tonalite and Late Jurassic to early Cretaceous Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rock

undifferentiated (Figure 3). Based on recent site explorations Quaternary Previously Placed and

Undocumented Fills, and Residual Soil are also present at the site. Descriptions of the geologic

units observed during the recent investigation are presented below. Surficial geologic materials are

depicted on Figure 2 and Figure 2A, and generalized geologic cross-sections are presented on

Figures 4 and 4A.

4.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill

Quaternary Previously Placed Fill was encountered in Boring B-44 located in the area of the

new baseball field on the north margin of the improvement area. Where encountered, this

unit was observed to consist of medium dense, reddish brown, silty fine grained sand with

gravel. This unit was placed under engineering observation during the recently performed

grading that was conducted to create a level pad for the new baseball facility.

4.2.2 Quaternary Undocumented Fill

Quaternary Undocumented Fill was encountered throughout the site. Where encountered,

this unit was observed to consist of loose to medium dense, dark reddish brown, silty to



Page 6

clayey fine to medium grained sand with trace gravel. This unit was found to thicken at the

base of the drainages. Isolated areas with deeper fill may be encountered during grading and

construction. The time and conditions of fill placement are unknown and as-graded

documentation has not been obtained for this unit. Therefore, for the purposes of this report

this fill is considered to be undocumented. As such, it is recommended that the

Undocumented Fill be overexcavated and properly processed and compacted beneath

proposed improvement areas. This material, where competent and undisturbed, may be

suitable for support of improvements should proper engineering documentation of

observation and testing become available.

4.2.3 Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits

Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits, as mapped by Kennedy and Tan (2005), were

encountered in the north-south trending drainage on the western portion of the subject site.

Where observed, this unit was found to consist of medium dense to dense, moist to wet,

reddish brown, silty to clayey fine to medium grained sand and sandy silt. This unit may

also be encountered along the southern limit of the site near the central portion of the

southwest trending drainage. This unit was observed to have a weakly developed soil profile

development indicating a degree of lithification. Due to medium dense to dense conditions

this material at this site is considered by CTE to represent a consolidated pre-Holocene

deposit. Where unweathered and undisturbed this material is considered suitable for support

of improvements, subject to confirmation by CTE geotechnical personnel during grading

and/or site preparations.



Page 7

4.2.4 Residual Soil

Residual Soil was encountered in the majority of the borings. Where encountered, this unit

was observed to consist of medium dense to dense, reddish brown, silty to clayey fine

grained sand. This unit was observed have developed on the underlying Tonalite and

Metamorphic rock. Where undisturbed, this material is generally considered suitable for

support of improvements, subject to confirmation by CTE geotechnical personnel during

grading and/or site preparations.

4.2.5 Cretaceous Tonalite

Cretaceous Tonalite comprises the bedrock unit underlying the western portion of the site.

Where encountered, this unit was found to consist of highly to moderately weathered, very

dense, light reddish brown Tonalite that excavates to silty to clayey fine to medium grained

sand. This unit was encountered at depths ranging from near the surface on the western

topographic highs to approximately 23 feet bgs at the base of the western drainage. Based

on the investigation findings, this material is considered suitable for support of

improvements subject to confirmation by CTE geotechnical personnel during grading and/or

site preparations.

4.2.6 Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock Undivided

The Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock-Undivided (Metamorphic Rock) comprises

the bedrock unit underlying the eastern portion of the site. Where encountered, this unit was

found to consist of highly to moderately weathered, very dense, light reddish brown



Page 8

Metamorphic Rock that excavates to silty to clayey fine to medium grained sand. This unit

was encountered at the surface in the northeastern portion of the site and at a depth of

approximately 13 feet bgs at the base of the southern drainage. Based on investigation

findings, this material is considered suitable for support of improvements, subject to

confirmation by CTE geotechnical personnel during grading and/or site preparations.

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-18 and B-9 at depths of approximately 19 feet and 11.5

feet, respectively. These borings are positioned near the axis of a north-south oriented drainage

trending through the western portion of the site. Groundwater occurrence in crystalline bedrock

terrain such as the site may be controlled by preferentially oriented joints and fractures. As such,

widespread and/or localized groundwater occurrence in excavations cannot be precluded.

Subdrainage devices may be recommended should groundwater be encountered during excavation.

Groundwater conditions are anticipated to vary, especially during and after periods of sustained

precipitation or irrigation. Therefore, subsurface water may impact excavations or earthwork during

the proposed development, and removal of collected water from the excavation and drying of site

soils may also be necessary.

Site drainage should be designed, installed, and maintained as per the recommendations of the

project civil engineer. However, once detailed grading and/or improvement plans have been

developed, CTE could potentially recommend conceptual subsurface cutoff, blanket, and/or



Page 9

subdrains, but actual locations and elevations would likely be determined in the field during grading

and construction, as necessary.

4.4 Geologic Hazards

Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated

based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It appears that geologic

hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking from earthquake-generated

ground motions. The following paragraphs discuss the geologic hazards considered and their

potential risk to the site.

4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture

Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not within a

State of California-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone or Local

Special Studies Zone and no known active fault traces underlie, or project toward, the site.

According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays

evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant, revised 2007). Therefore, the

potential for surface rupture from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed

improvements is considered to be low.

4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting

The California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)

broadly group faults as “Class A” or “Class B” (Cao, 2003; Frankel et al., 2002). Class A

faults are generally identified based upon relatively well-defined paleoseismic activity, and a



Page 10

fault-slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm/yr). In contrast, Class B faults have

comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a fault-slip rate

less than 5 mm/yr. The nearest known Class B fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is

approximately 19.7 kilometers west of the site (Blake, T.F., 2000). The nearest known Class

A fault is the Julian segment of the Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 29.4

kilometers northeast of the site. The following Table 4.4.2 presents the known faults nearest

to the site, including estimated magnitude and fault classification. The attached Figure 4

shows regional faults and seismicity with respect to the site.

TABLE 4.4.2 NEAR-SITE FAULT PARAMETERS

FAULT NAME

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM

SITE (KM)

MAXIMUM ESTIMATED

EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE

CLASSIFICATION

Rose Canyon 19.7 7.2 B

Newport-Inglewood 23.4 7.1 B

Elsinore-Julian 29.4 7.1 A

Elsinore-Temecula 29.5 6.8 A

Coronado Bank 44.1 7.6 B

Earthquake Valley 55.9 6.5 B

The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any

of the faults listed above or other faults in the southern California or northern Baja California

area.



Page 11

4.4.3 Historic Seismicity

The level of seismicity within recent history (last 50 years) of the San Diego area is

relatively low compared to other areas of southern California and northwestern Baja

California. Only a few small to moderate earthquakes have been reported in the San Diego

area during the period of instrumental recordings, which began in the early 1900s. Most of

the high seismic activity in the region is associated with the Elsinore Fault Zone and the San

Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately 29 and 65 kilometers northeast of the site

respectively. In the western portion of San Diego County a series of small-to-moderate

earthquakes in July 1985 were reportedly associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone

(Reichle, 1985). The largest event in that series was M4.7, which was centered within San

Diego Bay. A similar series of earthquakes in coastal San Diego occurred in 1964 (Simons,

1979).

Review of the USGS Earthquake Archives (http://earthquake.usgs. gov/earthquakes/search/)

for significant earthquakes within 100 kilometers of the site with magnitudes greater than

M5.5 are provided in Table 4.4.3.



Page 12

TABLE 4.4.3 Regional Earthquake History

EARTHQUAKE DATE

(yr-mo-day)

EARTHQUAKE TIME (UTC)

MAGNITUDE ESTIMATED

DEPTH (km)

GENERAL LOCATION

1918-04-21 22:32:29 6.7 10.0 Southern California




1986-07-13 13:47:08 5.8 10.0 Gulf of Santa

Catalina

2010-07-07 23-53-33 5.5 14.0 Southern California

4.4.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation

Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths

during earthquake-induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of

point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction

potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable

intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without

liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils.

The proposed structural improvements are underlain at shallow depths by very dense

crystalline bedrock. Loose near-surface soils in the structural improvement areas are to be

overexcavated and compacted as recommended herein. Additionally, seepage and free water

observed during the recent investigation was isolated within the narrow base of the western

drainage beneath medium dense to dense alluvial deposits. Based on the investigation



Page 13

findings, the potential for liquefaction or significant seismic settlement at the site is

considered to be low.

4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation

According to State of California Emergency Management Agency mapping, the site is not

located within a tsunami inundation zone based on distance from the coastline and elevation

above sea level. Damage resulting from oscillatory waves (seiches) is considered unlikely

due to the absence of nearby confined bodies of water.

4.4.6 Flooding

Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping (FEMA 2012), site

improvement areas are located within Zone X, which is defined as: “Areas determined to be

outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain”.

4.4.7 Landsliding

According to mapping by Tan (1995), the site is considered “Generally Susceptible” to

landsliding. However, no landslides are mapped in the site area and no evidence of

landsliding was encountered during the recent field exploration. Based on the site conditions

and investigation findings, landsliding is not anticipated to be a significant geologic hazard

within the subject site.

Observation of adjacent slopes did not indicate topographic features typical of gross

instabilities. However, scattered boulders are present on these slopes and locally could



Page 14

possess the potential for instability and/or rockfall hazards due to erosion typical of a native

hillside area or seismic event. Potentially unstable boulders on hillside areas potentially

affecting the site should be evaluated as project plans are developed and during site grading.

Boulders susceptible to movement should be removed or restrained in place, as practical. In

addition and/or as an alternative, debris walls may be recommended at locations potentially

affected by destabilized boulders, as practical.

4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils

Based on observations and testing, the disturbed near surface, Undocumented Fill and upper

portions of the Alluvium and Residual Soil regolith in hillside areas are considered to be

potentially compressible in their current condition. Therefore, it is recommended that these

soils be overexcavated to the depth of competent underlying natural materials, and properly

compacted as recommended herein. Based on the site observations and testing, the

underlying dense alluvium and weathered bedrock units are not anticipated to be subject to

significant compressibility under the proposed loads.

Based on observation and laboratory testing, soils at the site are generally anticipated to

exhibit a Very Low to Low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less). Therefore,

expansive soils are not anticipated to present adverse impacts to site development. However,

additional evaluation of potential expansion of near-surface soils may be recommended

based on field observations during grading activities.



Page 15

4.4.9 Corrosive Soils

Chemical testing was performed to evaluate the potential effects that site soils may have on

concrete foundations and various types of buried metallic utilities. Soil environments

detrimental to concrete generally have elevated levels of soluble sulfates and/or pH levels

less than 5.5. According to American Concrete Institute (ACI) Table 318 4.3.1, specific

guidelines have been provided for concrete where concentrations of soluble sulfate (SO4) in

soil exceed 0.1 percent by weight. These guidelines include low water: cement ratios,

increased compressive strength, and specific cement type requirements.

Based on the results of the Sulfate and pH testing performed, onsite soils are anticipated to

generally have a negligible corrosion potential to Portland cement concrete improvements.

As such, Type II Portland cement is anticipated to be appropriate for proposed site

improvements, subject to the review and determination of the project Structural Engineer(s).

A minimum resistivity value less than approximately 5,000 ohm-cm, and/or soluble chloride

levels in excess of 200 ppm generally indicate a corrosive environment to buried metallic

utilities and untreated conduits. Based on the obtained resistivity values ranging from 1,860

to 19,700 ohm-cm and soluble chloride levels ranging from 9.3 to 108 ppm, onsite soils are

locally anticipated to have a moderate to severe corrosion potential for buried

uncoated/unprotected metallic conduits. Based on these results, at a minimum, the use of

buried plastic piping or conduits would appear applicable, where feasible.



Page 16

The results of the chemical tests performed are presented in the attached Appendix C.

However, CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, a corrosion engineer or

other qualified consultant could be contacted if site specific corrosivity issues are of concern.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

The proposed improvements at the site are feasible from CTE’s geotechnical standpoint, provided

the recommendations in this report are incorporated into design and construction of the project.

Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements are included in the following

sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those

presented in Appendix D, should variations exist. These recommendations should be further

evaluated as project plans are further developed.

5.2 Site Preparation

Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of any existing building materials or improvements that

are not to remain. Objectionable materials, such as construction debris and vegetation, not suitable

for structural backfill should be properly disposed of offsite. Site preparation is dependent upon

siting of proposed structures with respect to geotechnical terrain as follows:

5.2.1 Bedrock Terrain

Distress sensitive structures in bedrock areas, such as the Kinesiology Building east of the

proposed football field, should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 24 inches below pad



Page 17

grade to allow uniform compacted fill soil placement for support of overlying improvements.

Overexcavation should extend at least five feet beyond the building perimeter, where

feasible. In addition, the overexcavation bottom should be inclined at a minimum two

percent gradient in a downslope direction, and be extended to intersect downgradient fill

and/or native soils so as to mitigate the potential for rising water in the localized building

footprint area.

Utility corridors in bedrock terrain should be overexcavated to at least one foot below invert

elevation so as to utilize heavy duty equipment in an open environment. Alternatively,

utility corridors may be left as bedrock, but very difficult excavation should be anticipated

during trenching activities.

It is not generally necessary to overexcavate below subgrade for pavements and hardscape in

competent crystalline bedrock areas. However, rising water or seepage areas could require

overexcavation, as necessary, to place cutoff, blanket, and/or subdrains to control and

convey collected water to an appropriate dispersal area.

5.2.2 Undocumented Fill Soil and Residual Soil Terrain

Undocumented fill soils should be overexcavated to the depth of suitable native soils in areas

of distress-sensitive structures or facilities. Overexcavation for distress-sensitive structures

or facilities located entirely on residual soils should extend to a depth of at least two feet

below pad grade. However, structures located on transition between residual soil and



Page 18

crystalline bedrock, such as at the softball field area, should be overexcavated to a depth of

five feet below pad grade to allow uniform soil conditions below foundations. Such

overexcavation should extend at least five feet beyond the improvement limits and be sloped

at two percent down gradient, where feasible.

For other proposed improvements, such as pavement and hardscape areas, existing soils

should be excavated to the depth of competent materials, or to a minimum of 24 inches

below proposed subgrade elevation, subject to recommendations by CTE during grading.

Subdrainage devices may be recommended should rising water or seepage be encountered

during excavation or should it be considered likely to occur based on the conditions

observed.

5.2.3 General

Exposed subgrades should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted, as

described below, prior to placement of compacted fill.

Overexcavations adjacent to existing structures should generally not extend below a 1:1

plane extended down from the bottom outer edge of the existing building footings that are to

remain or as recommended during grading based on the exposed conditions. Depending on

the depth and proximity of existing building footings to remain, alternating slot excavations

could be recommended during earthwork.



Page 19

Existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around proposed structures. Existing

utilities at an elevation to extend through the proposed footings should generally be sleeved

and caulked to minimize the potential for moisture migration below the building slabs.

Abandoned pipes exposed by grading should be securely capped or filled with minimum

two-sack cement/sand slurry to help prevent moisture from migrating beneath foundation

and slab soils.

An engineer or geologist from CTE should observe the exposed bottom of overexcavations

prior to placement of compacted fill or improvements. Overexcavation should extend to a

depth of suitable competent soil as observed by a CTE representative. Deeper excavations or

overexcavations may be necessary depending upon encountered conditions.

5.3 Site Excavation

Generally, excavation of site materials in fill soil, Younger Alluvium, and residual soils may be

accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. However, review

of the geophysical survey attached in Appendix E indicates very difficult excavation should be

anticipated in bedrock terrain such as at the building east of the proposed football field, and for the

swimming pool excavation(s). Seismic Lines SL-1 and SL-2 of the geophysical survey generally

indicate very difficult excavation and possible required blasting below a depth of five feet. As

shown on attached Geologic Cross Section C-C’, Figure 4A excavation of the slope for the building

east of the football field could extend to a depth of 20 feet below surface grade, which would likely

require specialized very hard rock excavation techniques or similar. Deeper excavations for



Page 20

proposed swimming pools may also encounter hard difficult to excavate bedrock. Additionally,

large rocks may randomly occur as boulder masses within the Younger Alluvium.

Large rock disposal and/or crushing of oversize boulders generated from excavation of the site

bedrock should be anticipated. Irreducible materials greater than three inches encountered or

generated during excavation or grading should generally not be used in shallow fills (within three

feet of proposed grades) on the site or as recommended by CTE during grading. Special grading and

disposal of large oversize irreducible rock outside the improvement areas may also be necessary.

5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

Following recommended overexcavation of loose or disturbed soils, areas to receive fills or

improvements should be scarified a minimum of nine inches, moisture conditioned, and properly

compacted. Granular fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95

percent at a moisture content of at least two percent above optimum, as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.

The optimum lift thickness for fill soil will depend on the type of compaction equipment used.

Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose

thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance with local

ordinances.



Page 21

5.5 Fill Materials

Properly moisture-conditioned very low to low expansion potential soils derived from the on-site

excavations are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill on the site if prepared and placed as

recommended herein. Soils should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than

three inches in maximum dimension, as recommended. Irreducible materials greater than three

inches in maximum dimension generally should not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of

proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes.

Imported fill beneath structures and flatwork should have an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM

D 4829) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Proposed fill soils for use in structural

or slope areas should be evaluated by CTE before being imported to the site.

It is anticipated that imported soils will be screened, sampled, and tested (by others) in accordance

with applicable guidelines including those presented by the State of California Department of Toxic

Substances Control for clean imported fill soils for public school sites.

Retaining wall backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the heel of the wall

should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30

percent passing the No. 200 sieve. On site soil gradation and Atterberg Limit laboratory tests

indicate that localized site soils may not meet these recommendations. As such selective grading

and/or import of select soil could be necessary. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill could

consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The

project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall backdrains, including gravel



Page 22

drain zones, fills, filter fabric and perforated drain pipes. A conceptual wall backdrain detail is

provided in Figure 5.

5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes

The following recommended temporary slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated

failure, but may experience localized sloughing. On-site soils are considered Type B and Type C

soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 5.6.

TABLE 5.6 RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS

SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO

(Horizontal: vertical) MAXIMUM HEIGHT

B (Competent Tonalite and Metamorphic Rock)

1:1 (OR FLATTER) 20 Feet

C (Previously Placed Fill, Undocumented Fill, Young

Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits and Residual Soil)

1.5:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet

Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while

excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping

recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic,

equipment or materials. Joints and fractures in all temporary and cut slopes should be evaluated for

stability by CTE, and could modify temporary slope ratios shown on Table 5.6. Appropriate

surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes.



Page 23

5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations

The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These foundation

recommendations should be re-evaluated after review of the project grading and foundation plans,

and after completion of rough grading of the building pad areas. Upon completion of rough pad

grading, Expansion Index of near surface soils should be evaluated, and recommendations updated,

as necessary. Lightly loaded upright structures such as flagpoles and other supports may be

designed in accordance with the current California Building Code, or applicable standards assuming

code minimum design values or as per the recommendations provided herein.

5.7.1 Shallow Spread Foundations

Foundation recommendations presented herein are based on the anticipated very low to low

expansion potential of site soils (Expansion Index of 50 or less).

Following the recommended preparatory grading, continuous and isolated spread footings

are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. It is anticipated that the proposed footings

in Younger Alluvium and residual soil areas will be founded entirely in properly engineered

fill placed and compacted as recommended herein. Footings should not straddle cut-fill

interfaces in which case cut grade areas would be overexcavated and a compacted fill placed.

Foundations for structures in crystalline bedrock terrain should be placed totally on cut

materials.



Page 24

Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing value of

2,500 pounds per square foot for footings founded in suitable compacted fill materials and

embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent rough subgrade elevation. If

utilized, continuous footings should be at least 15 inches wide. Isolated footings should be

at least 24 inches in least dimension.

Foundations placed totally on cut crystalline bedrock should be at least 18 inches deep and

15 inches wide. Isolated foundations should be at least 24 inches in least dimension. An

allowable bearing value of 3,500 pounds per square foot is recommended for foundations

placed totally on crystalline bedrock.

The above bearing values may be increased by 250 psf for each additional six inches of

width or embedment beyond the minimums recommended, for an additional increase of up to

1,000 psf. The above bearing values may also be increased by one third for short duration

loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.

Minimum footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5

reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom, or as per the

project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing

reinforcement. Footing excavations in fill areas should be maintained at, or be brought to, a

minimum moisture content of two percent above optimum prior to concrete placement.



Page 25

5.7.2 Foundation Settlement

The maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of one inch and the

maximum differential static settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch over a

distance of approximately 40 feet. Due to the absence of a shallow and uniformly distributed

groundwater table and the dense to very dense nature of underlying materials, dynamic

settlement is not expected to adversely affect the proposed improvements.

5.7.3 Foundation Setback

Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of

adjacent slopes to the outer edge of footings is at least 10 feet. In addition, footings should

be founded beneath a 1:1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent

trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of

attaining the prescribed setbacks.

5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

Concrete slabs should be designed based on the anticipated loading, but measure at least five

inches thick. Slab reinforcement should at least consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars, placed on

maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at or above mid-slab height, but with proper concrete

cover.

Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased

reinforcement. A 175-pci subgrade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design of



Page 26

minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade. Slab on grade areas should be

maintained at a minimum two percent above optimum moisture content or be brought to two

percent above optimum moisture content just prior to placement of underlayments or

concrete.

In moisture-sensitive floor areas, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with

all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated crushed

aggregate or gravel (with SE of 30 or more) should be installed, as per the 2013 CBC/Green

Building Code. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar material may be placed

above the vapor retarder to help protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement.

This recommended protection is generally considered typical in the industry. If proposed

floor areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional

recommendations from a specialty consultant could be obtained. CTE is not an expert at

preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced

professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concern.

5.8 Seismic Design Criteria

The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the

ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2013 CBC. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on

the soil properties at the site, and then calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the

United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application using the site coordinates of



Page 27

33.15328 degrees latitude and -117.18083 degrees longitude. These values are intended for the

design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake generated ground motions.

TABLE 5.8

SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES

PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE (2013)

Site Class C ASCE 7, Chapter 20

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SS

1.021 Figure 1613.3.1 (1)

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1

0.400 Figure 1613.3.1 (2)

Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.000 Table 1613.3.3 (1)

Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.400 Table 1613.3.3 (2)

MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS

1.021 Section 1613.3.3

MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1

0.560 Section 1613.3.3

Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Parameter SDS

0.681 Section 1613.3.4

Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Parameter SD1

0.373 Section 1613.3.4

PGAM 0.389 ASCE 7, Equation 11.8-1

5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures

Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the

supporting compacted fill soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is

used, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of

friction multiplied by the dead load) is recommended for concrete cast directly against compacted

fill. A design passive resistance value of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a

maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can



Page 28

be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive

resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance.

Retaining walls up to approximately 20 feet high and backfilled using granular soils may be

designed using the equivalent fluid weights given below.

Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be

calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral thrust against a properly

drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as:

PAE = PA + ΔPAE

For non-yielding (or “restrained”) walls, the total lateral thrust may be similarly calculated

based on work by Wood (1973):

PKE = PK + ΔPKE

Where PA = Static Active Thrust (determined via Table 5.9) PK = Static Restrained Wall Thrust (determined via Table 5.9) ΔPAE = Dynamic Active Thrust Increment = (3/8) kh γH

2

ΔPKE = Dynamic Restrained Thrust Increment = kh γH2

kh = *½ Peak Ground Acceleration = ½ (PGAM) H = Total Height of the Wall

TABLE 5.9 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS

(pounds per cubic foot)

WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:

VERTICAL)

CANTILEVER WALL (YIELDING)

30 48

RESTRAINED WALL 60 75



Page 29

γ = Total Unit Weight of Soil ≈ 130 pounds per cubic foot *It is anticipated that the 1/2 reduction factor will be appropriate for proposed walls that are not substantially sensitive to movement during the design seismic event. Proposed walls that are more sensitive to such movement could utilize a 2/3 reduction factor. If any proposed walls require minimal to no movement during the design seismic event, no reduction factor to the peak ground acceleration should be used. The project structural engineer of record should determine the appropriate reduction factor to use (if any) based on the specific proposed wall characteristics.

The increment of dynamic thrust may be distributed triangularly with a line of action located at H/3

above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013).

These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Some onsite soils may

not be suitable for use as wall backfill. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup

behind all retaining walls. Figure 5 attached herewith shows a conceptual wall backdrain that may

be suitable for use at the subject site. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, subterranean structure walls adjacent to the streets or

other traffic loads should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. This is the

result of an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is

kept back at least 10 feet or a distance equal to the retained soil height from the subject walls,

whichever is less, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The project architect or structural

engineer should determine the necessity of waterproofing the subterranean structure walls to reduce

moisture infiltration.



Page 30

5.10 Exterior Flatwork

To reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork caused by minor movement of subgrade

soils and typical concrete shrinkage, it is recommended that such flatwork be installed with crack-

control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect, and measure a minimum

4.5 inches in thickness. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least

number 3 reinforcing bars on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-height of slab but

with proper concrete cover. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes

driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. Doweling of flatwork joints at critical pathways or

similar could also be beneficial in resisting minor subgrade movements.

Before concrete placement, all subgrade preparation and soil moisture conditioning should be

conducted according to the earthwork recommendations previously provided. Positive drainage

should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained

at, or be elevated to, above optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement.

5.11 Vehicular Pavements

The proposed improvements include paved vehicle drive and parking areas. Presented in Table 5.11

are preliminary minimum pavement sections utilizing laboratory determined “R”-Value and

estimated Traffic Index Values.



Page 31

TABLE 5.11 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS

Traffic Area

Assumed

Traffic Index

Preliminary Subgrade

“R”-Value

Asphalt Pavements

Portland Cement

Concrete Pavements On Subgrade Soils

(inches)

AC Thickness (inches)

Aggregate Base Thickness (inches)

Moderate to Heavy Drive Areas & Fire

Lanes

6.0 20+ 4.0 8.0 7.5

Parking & Light Drive Areas

5.0 20+ 3.5 6.0 6.5

* Caltrans class 2 aggregate base or “Greenbook” Processed Miscellaneous Base ** Concrete should have a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi ***Alternative asphalt concrete sections can generally be proposed by substituting 0.5 inches of asphalt for 1.0 inch of aggregate base, if desired.

Following rough site grading, CTE recommends laboratory testing of representative at-grade soils

for as-graded “R”-Value as laboratory testing of collected samples can indicate a variation of R

value results. The local public agency, as applicable, should be involved in the design and

construction of any improvements within their respective rights-of-way, and for onsite pavements as

required.

Overexcavations in proposed pavement areas should be conducted to a minimum depth of two feet

below proposed or existing grades, or to competent underlying materials, whichever depth is greatest

in areas underlain by soil deposits. However, it is not necessary to overexcavate in areas underlain

by competent crystalline bedrock. Overexcavation extent and depth, including crystalline rock



Page 32

areas, may be increased in areas of seepage or rising water. All subgrade and aggregate base

materials beneath pavement areas should be compacted to 95% relative compaction in accordance

with ASTM D1557, at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content.

Asphalt paved areas should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the

recommendations of the Asphalt Institute or other widely recognized authority. Concrete paved

areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the American

Concrete Institute or other widely recognized authority, particularly with regard to thickened edges,

joints, and drainage. The Standard Specifications for Public Works construction (“Greenbook”) or

Caltrans Standard Specifications may be referenced for pavement materials specifications.

5.12 Drainage

Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate

erosion-reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed

improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements and slope areas at a

gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil

engineers should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water

from affecting the site.

Generally, CTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes

and improvements. Additionally, onsite soils are generally anticipated to have poor infiltration or

percolation rates due to their high densities or relative compaction. However, we understand that



Page 33

some agencies are encouraging the use of storm-water cleansing devices. Therefore, if storm water

cleansing devices must be used, it is generally recommended that they be underlain by an

impervious barrier and that the infiltrate be collected via subsurface piping and discharged off site.

Rising water and seepage is not uncommon in crystalline bedrock terrain such as at the site, and is

known to exist in the site area. As such, seepage areas may be encountered during grading that

necessitate the installation of subdrainage devices as may be recommended by CTE. Additionally,

localized groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 18 feet in soil borings advanced

in the Younger Alluvium drainage channel. Excavation to that depth is not anticipated by current

conceptual plans. Variations in groundwater level should be anticipated due to seasonal variations

and irrigation as the site is developed.

5.13 Slopes

Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, fill and cut slopes should be constructed at slope

ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of

safety greater than 1.5.



Page 34

Cut slopes for the structure east of the proposed football are anticipated to expose crystalline

bedrock. Joint and fracture orientations should be evaluated during grading to evaluate stability.

Additionally, local boulders are located on natural hillside terrain sloping to the proposed

improvements, and should be evaluated for potential instability related to erosion or seismic events.

Potentially unstable boulders should be reduced in place, restrained, or removed, depending upon

potential impacts to the planned development. Debris walls or a suitable alternative could also be

recommended to protect structures and improvements.

Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be

somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of

slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities.

Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along

the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. CTE recommends against building distress-

sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests.

As indicated, site slopes are generally considered to be stable provided site drainage is implemented

as described herein and is constructed and maintained in accordance with the recommendations of

the project Civil Engineer



Page 35

5.14 Plan Review

CTE should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans, and the grading or

earthwork specifications (as applicable), prior to commencement of earthwork. Recommendations

contained herein may be modified depending upon development plans.

5.15 Construction Observation

The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the

proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the explorations performed. The

interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction as necessary.

Foundation and pavement recommendations may be revised upon review of development plans and

completion of grading and as-built laboratory test results.

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION

The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been

conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable

geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or

implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report.

Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered

during construction.



Page 36

The recommendations presented herein have been developed in order to reduce the potential adverse

impacts of differential bearing and slope conditions associated with moderate to steep hillside

grading and development, as well as unpredictable and potentially shallow groundwater conditions.

However, even with the design and construction precautions herein, some differential movement and

associated distress can occur and should be anticipated. In addition, observation, evaluation, and

update recommendations provided during grading and construction are absolutely essential and CTE

cannot accept responsibility for conditions not observed during grading or construction if such

services are provided by others.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a

property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works

of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards

may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the

findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.

Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

CTE’s conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If

conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, this office should be notified

and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided.

This report is prepared for the project client as described. It is not applicable to any other site. No

other party can rely on this report without the express permission of CTE.



Page 37

The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding

this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.

Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Jay F. Lynch, CEG# 1890 Vice President, Principal Principal Engineering Geologist

Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Project Geologist AJB/GFR/DTM/JFL:nri

SITE SITE

NEW BUILDING

POOL

POOL VOLLEY BALL

SP

EC

TA

TO

R

SE

AT

IN

G

PLAZA

TICKETS

FOOTBALL

FIELD

S

P

E

C

T

A

T

O

R

S

E

A

T

I

N

G

S

P

E

C

T

A

T

O

R

S

E

A

T

I

N

G

S

U

P

P

O

R

T

SOFTBALL

FIELD

SPECTATOR

PRACTICE

FIELD

B-8

B-6

B-1

B-16

B-7

B-2

B-15

B-9

B-3

B-5

B-13

B-12

B-19

B-20

B-18

B-22

B-17

B-25

B-4

SEATING

B-21

B-40

B-10

B-41

B-23

B-42

B-24

B-43

B-32

B-26

B-27

B-44

B-28

B-29

B-31

B-33

B-34

B-35

B-36

B-37

B-38

B-30

B-39

B-11

B-45

Mzu

Qudf

Mzu

Qudf

Qya

Mzu

Qudf

Qya

Mzu

Mzu

Qppf

Qppf

Qppf

Qya

Qudf

Qya

Qudf

C

C'

A'

A

B

B'

Qudf

Qya

?

?

? ?

?

Kt

Kt

Kt

Kt

Kt

Kt

M

L

-

8

M

L

-

1

M

L

-

2

M

L

-

3

M

L

-

4

M

L

-

5

M

L

-

7

S

L

-

1

S

L

-

2

B-14

Qudf

Kt

B-60 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

LEGEND

QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL

Qudf

Tt

APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT

Qya

Qppf

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL OVER

QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIUM OVER

TERTIARY TONALITE

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC

Mzu

ROCK UNDIFFERENTIATED

APPROXIMATE BURIED GEOLOGIC CONTACT

C C'CROSS SECTION

GEOPHYSICAL LINE

ML-7

VOLLEYBALL

TENNIS COURTS

POOL

B-46

B-47

B-49

B-50

B-51

B-52

B-53

B-54

B-55

B-56

B-57

B-58

B-59

B-60

B-48

B-45

B-40

B-39

Qudf

Mzu

Mzu

Qudf

Mzu

NEW BUILDING

B-41

B-42

B-32

B-33

B-37

B-38

B-43

B-31

B-30

Mzu

Qudf

Mzu

POOL

M

L

-6

Qudf

Mzu

SEE FIGURE 2 FOR LEGEND

APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION

Klh

Tsa

Kmm

Mzu

Kgb

NOTE: Base Map by Kennedy and Tan, 2005, Geologic Map of the

Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California.

LEGEND

Young Alluvial Flood Plain DepositsQya

Kt Tonalite Undivided

Leucogranodiorite of Lake HodgesKIh

Monzogranite of Mirriam MountainKmm

Metasedimentary and MetavolcanicMzu

Rocks Undivided

Kgb Gabbro Undivided

Alluvial Flood Plain DepositsQa

Mzu

Residual Soil

Qudf

Qya

Kt

Kt

590

ELE

VA

TIO

N (F

EE

T)

100

DISTANCE (FEET)

CROSS SECTION A-A'

0 50

570

560

550

580

150 200 250

A

600

610

300

540

620

630

640

350 400 450 500 550

650

660

670

A'

?

590

570

560

550

580

600

610

540

620

630

640

650

660

670

TD=6.3'

Proposed

Seating

TD=10.2'

TD=25.2'

TD=15.1'

TD=11.2'

TD=10.5'

Proposed

Seating

Proposed

Seating

B-15

Proj.~23'SW

B-14

Proj.~54'SW

B-18

Proj.~58'SW

B-23

Proj.~14'NE

B-24

B-28

B-B'

Proposed Football Field

QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILLQppf

LEGEND

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILLQudf

QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITSQya

CRETACEOUS TONALITEKt

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK UNDIVIDEDMzu

APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT

APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

610

ELE

VA

TIO

N (F

EE

T)

100

DISTANCE (FEET)

CROSS SECTION B-B'

0 50

590

580

570

600

150 200 250

B

620

630

300

560

640

650

660

350 400 450 500 550

670

680

690

B'

Qudf

Qal

Kt

Qya

Kt

Qppf

TD=20.2'

TD=25.2'

TD=21.5'

610

590

580

570

600

620

630

560

640

650

660

670

680

690

Proposed Limits of Football Field

B-19

B-18

B-17

Residual Soil

Existing Grade

A-A'

660

ELE

VA

TIO

N (F

EE

T)

100

DISTANCE (FEET)

CROSS SECTION C-C'

0 50

640

630

620

650

150 200 250

C

670

680

300

590

690

700

710

350 400 450 500 550 600

720

730

740

Mzu

B-43

MzuResidual Soil

Qudf

Proj.~40'SEB-42

Proj.~9'NW

B-36

Proj.~17'SE

B-30

Proj.~7'NW

B-31

Proj.~35'NW

B-29

Proj.~33'SE

Proposed Structure

TD=15.1'

TD=17.2'

TD=7.3'

TD=2.0'

TD=4.0'

Qya

C'

660

640

630

620

650

670

680

590

690

700

710

720

730

740

Proposed

Pool

Existing Grade

Proposed grade

610

600

610

600

TD=15.2'

SEE FIGURE 4 FOR LEGEND

APPROXIMATESITE LOCATION

LEGEND

HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS)

HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11,700 YEARS)

LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS)

QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED)

PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS)

>

7.0

6.5-6.9

5.5-5.9

5.0-5.4

PERIOD

1800- 1869- 1932-

1868 1931 2010

LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5

EARTHQUAKE YEAR

MA

GN

IT

UD

E

1' MIN

3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 14O N, OR EQUIVALENT) -OR- PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE BOARD

RETAINING WALL

FINISH GRADE

4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM 1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET

WALL FOOTING

12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION

SELECT GRANULAR WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION

�

�

WATERPROOFING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ARCHITECT

CTE JOB NO:

DATE: FIGURE:

SCALE:

02/16

NO SCALERETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL

10-12831G

6

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2005, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and

Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2. ASTM, 2002, “Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Modified Effort,” Volume 04.08 3. Blake, T.F., 2000, “EQFAULT,” Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and

Software. 4. California Building Code, 2013, “California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2

of 2,” California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 “Digital Images of Official Maps

of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region,” compiled by Martin and Ross.

6. California Emergency Management Agency/California Geological Survey, “Tsunami

Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning."

7. FEMA, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 793 of 2375 Map Number 06073C0793G, San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas.

8. Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker,

E.V., Wesson, R. L., Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., Rukstales,K.S.,2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002-420, 39p

9. Hart, Earl W., Revised 2007, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.

10. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas” with

Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions.

11. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2005, “Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California”, California Geological Survey, Map No. 2, Sheet 1 of 2.

12. Reichle, M., Bodin, P., and Brune, J., 1985, The June 1985 San Diego Bay Earthquake

swarm [abs.]: EOS, v. 66, no. 46, p.952.

13. SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls,” Article 09.10.010, October 2013.

14. Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, “Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic

Loads,” in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

15. Simons, R.S., 1979, Instrumental Seismicity of the San Diego area, 1934-1978, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils, San Diego region: San Diego Association of Geologists, prepared for Geological Society of America field trip, November 1979, p.101-105.

16. Tan, Siang S., 1995 “Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of The San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Relative Landslide Susceptibility and Landslide Distribution Map, San Marcos Quadrangle”, Map No. 35, Plate 35B.

17. Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05.

Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.

APPENDIX B

EXPLORATION LOGS

DEFINITION OF TERMSPRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURESLITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OF NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,NON-PLASTIC FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,PLASTIC FINES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NOFINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES

INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTYOR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GRAIN SIZESGRAVEL SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200

CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

ADDITIONAL TESTS(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)

MAX- Maximum Dry Density PM- Permeability PP- Pocket PenetrometerGS- Grain Size Distribution SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash AnalysisSE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct ShearEI- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined CompressionCHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Value MD- Moisture/Density Content , pH, Resistivity CN- Consolidation M- MoistureCOR - Corrosivity CP- Collapse Potential SC- Swell CompressionSD- Sample Disturbed HC- Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities

REM- Remolded

FIGURE: BL1

GW

SILTS AND CLAYSLIQUID LIMIT ISLESS THAN 50

SILTS AND CLAYSLIQUID LIMIT IS

GREATER THAN 50

SANDSMORE THAN

HALF OFCOARSE

FRACTION ISSMALLER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

GRAVELSMORE THAN

HALF OFCOARSE

FRACTION ISLARGER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

CLEANGRAVELS

< 5% FINES

GRAVELS WITH FINES

CLEANSANDS

< 5% FINES

SANDSWITH FINES

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF O

F

MA

TE

RIA

L IS

LA

RG

ER

TH

AN

N

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E S

IZE

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

SM

OR

E T

HA

N H

ALF

OF

M

AT

ER

IAL

IS S

MA

LLE

R

TH

AN

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

SIZ

E

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTS AND CLAYSCOBBLESCOBBLESBOULDERS

PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: ofCTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:

Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foot

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests

DESCRIPTION

Block or Chunk Sample

Bulk Sample

Standard Penetration Test

Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)

Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample

Groundwater Table

Soil Type or Classification Change

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)]

"SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soilsexist in situ as bedrock

FIGURE: BL2

PROJECT: SHEET: of

CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:


Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

"SM"Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, moderately

50/1"

Total Depth: 5.1'No Groundwater Encountered

B-1

weathered.

CHMCRETACEOUS TONALITE:

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, light olive gray, silty fine grainedSAND with gravel.

Asphalt: 0-4"Base Material: 4-6"

MM RING, SPT and BULK ~639 FEET

BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests

1

10-12831G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 1/11/2016

PALOMAR COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

"SM"

50/5"


PALOMAR COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 1 1




Asphalt: 0-4"Base Material: 4-6"RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, light olive gray, silty fine grainedSAND with gravel.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, moderatelyweathered.

B-2

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

"SM"

50/3"




AJB RING, SPT and BULK ~636 FEET


Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-11"CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, moderatelyweathered.

B-3

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

161818

"SC"

50/4"






Asphalt: 0-2"Base Material: 2-8"RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, light reddish brown clayey fine grainedSAND, oxidized.

Becomes dark reddish brown

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, moderatelyweathered.

B-4

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"

Total Depth: 3.8' (Refusal in dense bedrock)No Groundwater Encountered

PALOMAR COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS DRILLER: AJB 1 1

10-12831G HAND AUGER 1/12/2016

MM BULK ~630 FEET


QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown clayey fine to mediumgrained SAND.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, dark reddish gray tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, moderatelyweathered.

B-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

50/5" "SM"

50/1"






Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-5"RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense to dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown siltyfine grained SAND with trace fractured rock, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, moderatelyweathered.

B-6

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

SC

50/2"

Total Depth: 6.0' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered





Asphalt: 0-4.5"Base Material: 4.5-8"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown clayey fine grainedSAND.

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine grained SAND, oxidized.

Gravel or cobble

B-7

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

SC/SM

269

"SM"

50/2"






Asphalt: 0-6"Base Material: 6-10"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, clayey fine grainedSAND, oxidized.RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, clayey to silty fine grained SAND, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severelyto moderately weathered.

B-8

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

SC

Total Depth: 6.5' (Refusal on rock)No Groundwater Encountered





Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Medium dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown silty fine grainedSAND.

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, clayey fine grained SAND, oxidized.

Cobble

B-9

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

Total Depth: 4.0' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered





Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown silty fine grainedSAND.

Cobble

B-10

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

CL

SM

50/5"

"SM"151821

50/3"






Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Stiff, moist, dark olive brown fine grained sandy CLAY.

EI

RESIDUAL SOIL:Dense, slightly moist, reddish brown silty fine to medium grainedSAND, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severelyweathered.

B-11

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

SM

577

"SC/SM"

1020

50/3"






Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material: 3-5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty fine grainedSAND with gravel and trace clay.

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, silty fine to medium grained SAND with gravel, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown tonalite that excavatesto clayey to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-12

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

"SM"

50/3"






Asphalt: 0-2"Base Material: 2-5"RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown silty fine grainedSAND, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severelyto moderately weathered.

B-13

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

SCLoose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to

SC RESIDUAL SOIL:

111315 116.0 12.6

"SM"

50/2"






Asphalt: 0-4"Base Material: 4-7"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown silty fine grained SANDwith trace clay.

Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, clayey fine to mediumgrained SAND.

medium grained SAND.

MD, CN

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavatesto clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severelyweathered.

B-14

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

SC RESIDUAL SOIL:

"SC"

1929

50/3"


B-15

Becomes moderately weathered

to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severelyweathered.

grained SAND.CRETACEOUS TONALITE:

Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to medium

Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavates

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, silty fine grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

CL

101113

SC RESIDUAL SOIL:

CL/SC

91116

"SC"

2750/4"


B-16

Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavatesto clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severelyweathered.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:

Very stiff or medium dense, moist, reddish brown fine grained sandy CLAY/ clayey SAND, oxidized.

Medium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine to mediumgrained SAND, oxidized, few coarse grains.

Gravel

Medium stiff to stiff, moist, dark grayish brown fine grained sandyCLAY.

Asphalt: 0-4"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:





0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

141318 121.9 11.7

CL

ML121535

SM QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIUM:

99

12

"SC"

152030


B-17

Backfilled with Bentonite chips capped with concrete

to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severelyweathered.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavates

silty fine grained SAND.Medium dense, slightly moist to moist, gray with oxidized mottling

Dense or hard, slightly moist, olive brown sandy SILT. GS

Stiff, moist, dark brown fine to medium grained sandy CLAY. AL

Increased silt contentMD, DS

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, brown silty to clayey fine tomedium grained SAND.

Asphalt: 0-2"Base material: 2-5"





0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

CL

SC QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIUM:

91621

SM

61012

SC

51318 119.8 14.1

SC151613

"SC/SM"

50/2"severely weathered.

B-18

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavatesto clayey to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense to dense, very moist to wet, reddish brown clayeyfine grained SAND, oxidized.

Groundwater encountered at approximately 19'

MD, CN

Medium dense, moist to very moist, reddish brown clayey fine tomedium grained SAND with trace fine gravel, oxidized.

SAND, oxidized.Medium dense, moist, reddish brown silty fine to medium grained

Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to mediumgrained SAND, oxidized, manganese nodules.

CLAY.

Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown clayey fine to mediumgrained SAND.Stiff, moist, dark reddish brown fine to medium grained sandy






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

50/2" "SC/SM"

Total Depth: 25.2'Groundwater encountered at approximately 19'

2


PALOMAR COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 2

Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavates



to clayey to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

Backfilled with bentonite chips capped with concrete

B-18

25

30

35

40

45

50

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

SM/SC QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIUM:9

1224

SC

867

ML

101015

SC

"SC/SM"

50/2"

Total Depth: 20.2'

B-19

Backfilled with Bentonite chips capped with concreteGroundwater encountered at approximately 11.5'

Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavates toclayey to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severely to moderately weathered.

fine grained SAND, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense to dense, very moist to wet, reddish brown clayey

GS

Very stiff or medium dense, very moist, reddish brown fine grainedsandy SILT with lenses of fine gravel.

Groundwater encountered at approximately 11.5'

Medium dense, very moist, light reddish brown clayey fine tocoarse grained SAND with gravel and manganese nodules.

mottling silty to clayey fine grained SAND with trace fine gravel,manganese nodules.

Medium dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, gray with oxidized

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown silty fine to mediumgrained SAND with trace clay.

Asphalt: 0-2"Base material: 2-4"





0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

Becomes reddish brown with fine to medium grained sand and gravel.

98

25

SM RESIDUAL SOIL:

121635 115.2 10.0

"SC/SM"

4450/1"


B-20


AL

weathered.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, moist, light reddish brown tonalite that excavates tosilty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severely

MD, CN

silty fine to medium grained SAND with fine gravel.Dense to very dense, dry to slightly moist, reddish brown

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark olive brown, siltyfine grained SAND with trace clay.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown to dark brown

Total Depth: 3' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered



Asphalt: 0-2"



silty fine grained SAND with gravel and cobbles, trace clay.

B-21

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty to clayey

CL QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSIT

92042

111923

SC RESIDUAL SOIL:

"SM"50/4"






fine grained SAND.

Asphalt: 0-3"

Very stiff, moist, reddish brown fine grained sandy CLAY, oxidized,manganese nodules.

Becomes hard

AL

Dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown tonalite that


excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severely weathered.

B-22

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty to clayeyfine to medium grained SAND.

CL

81157

SM QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSIT

161724

"SM"

50/1"






Asphalt: 0-2.5"

CHM

GS

Very stiff, moist, dark grayish brown fine to medium grained sandyCLAY with trace gravel.

Dense or hard, slightly moist, olive gray with oxidized mottlingfine grained silty fine SAND.

GS

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-23

Base Material: 2.5-4.5"


0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty to clayeyfine to medium grained SAND.

SM

523

SM

"SM"50/5"

50/2"






Asphalt: 0-2.5"Base Material: 2.5-5.5"

QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITLoose, slightly moist, reddish brown silty fine grained SAND.

Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown to brown siltyfine grained SAND with trace gravel.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely to moderately weathered.


B-24

RESIDUAL SOIL:

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SMQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty finegrained SAND.

SC/CL

456

SM/ML QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSIT

141416

"SM"50/3"







Medium dense or very stiff, slightly moist, olive brown to grayish brown clayey fine grained SAND/ sandy CLAY.

Dense or hard, slightly moist, olive gray with oxidized mottlingsilty fine grained SAND/ sandy SILT.

CRETACEOUS TONALITE:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish gray tonalite thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, severely to moderately weathered.


B-25

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown silty to clayeyfine grained SAND.

11106

SM QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSIT

2650/4" 116.1 10.9

SM

1450/3" "SM"






Asphalt: 0-2"Base Material: 2-5.5"

Very dense, dry to slightly moist, light brown, silty fine grainedSAND, manganese nodules.

MD, DS

RESIDUAL SOIL:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown to brown siltyfine grained SAND with trace gravel.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.


B-26

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

CL"SC" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:



10-12831G HAND AUGER 1/12/2016

MM BULK ~643 FEET



METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-27

Medium stiff to stiff, moist, dark brown fine to medium grainedsandy CLAY.

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown, clayey finegrained SAND.

SM/SC

799

"SC"

50/5"







RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown silty to clayey fineto medium grained SAND, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-28

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown clayey fine grainedSAND with trace gravel.

SC

71725

"ML"

151824

"SM"

50/1"







RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense to dense, slightly moist, reddish brown fine to medium grained sandy CLAY, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Hard, slightly moist, reddish olive fine grained sandy SILT,severely weathered, oxidized.

AL

excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized, moderatelyweathered.

B-28

Very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown metamorphic rock that

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine grained SAND.

SM

45

11 SC

"ML"

101520

"SM"

50/2"







RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fine to mediumgrained SAND, oxidized.

Medium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine to medium grained GSSAND, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Hard, slightly moist, olive fine grained sandy SILT.

Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-30

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to coarse grained SAND.

SC

557

19 "SC"50/3"

1950/2"

50/2"

Total Depth: 17.2' (Refusal in bedrock)No Groundwater Encountered






RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine to medium grainedSAND, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-31

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SP-SCQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown poorlygraded fine to medium grained SAND with clay.

57

12

SC

3250/5"

"SC"

50/3"

50/3"




CK RING, SPT and BULK ~656 FEET



RESIDUAL SOIL:Dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to medium grainedSAND, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized,severely weathered.

B-32

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SMQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown silty fine to medium grained SAND.

57

39 "SP-SC"

50/1"







Brick and wood debrisMETASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, gray metamorphic rock that excavates to poorly graded SAND with clay, oxidized, severely weathered.

B-33

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SMRESIDUAL SOIL:

"SM"







METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light gray metamorphic rock that excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-34

Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown silty fine to medium grained SAND, oxidized.

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC/CL QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:

SC

47

11

"SC"

50/3"




Asphalt: 0-3"



to medium grained SAND/ sandy CLAY.

EI

Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown clayey fine

RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to medium grained clayey SAND, oxidized.

GS

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered

B-35

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:

CL

"SC"

50/5"

50/3" SP






Asphalt: 0-2"

Loose to medium dense, moist, brown clayey fine to medium grainedSAND.RESIDUAL SOIL:Very stiff, moist, dark reddish brown fine to medium grained sandy CLAY, oxidized.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light gray metamorphic rock that excavates toclayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock thatexcavates to poorly graded medium to coarse grained SAND withclay, moderately weathered.

B-36

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

"SC"

183942






Asphalt: 0-2.5"

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Base Material:2.5-5.5"

Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown silty fine grained SAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto clayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-37

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SC"

1729

50/3"






Asphalt: 0-3"Base Material:3-5.5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey finegrained SAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto clayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-38

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC"SM"






Asphalt: 0-5"Base Material:5-8"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty medium to coarse grained SAND, severelyweathered.

B-39

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"

50/2"






Asphalt: 0-4.5"

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine grainedSAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty fine to coarse grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-40

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"

Total Depth: 2' (Refusal in dense bedrock)No Groundwater Encountered


10-12831G HAND AUGER 1/12/2016

MM BULK ~687 FEET


RESIDUAL SOIL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND, oxidized.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-41

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"



10-12831G HAND AUGER 1/12/2016

MM BULK ~670 FEET


RESIDUAL SOIL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND, oxidized.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-42

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"



10-12831G HAND AUGER 1/12/2016

MM BULK ~675 FEET


RESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND, oxidized.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rock that excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely

B-43

weathered.

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

3850/4"

Total Depth:7.0' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered





Asphalt: 0-4"Base Material: 4-10"QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown silty finegrained SAND with gravel.

B-44

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SC"

2950/5"






Asphalt: 0-4.5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey finegrained SAND.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto clayey fine to coarse grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-45

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

1250/5" "SM"






Asphalt: 0-3.0"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey mediumto coarse grained SAND.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavate

B-46

to silty fine to coarse grained SAND, severely weathered.

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"

50/6"






Asphalt: 0-4"Base Material: 4-6"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.Becomes moderately weathered

B-47

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC"SM"

50/2"






Asphalt: 0-4.5"Base Material: 4.5-6.5"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rock that CHMexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

B-48

0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

SM37

50/3"

"SM"

50/1"


B-49



Dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown silty fine to mediumgrained SAND, oxidized.

RESIDUAL SOIL:

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC/CL

458

Total Depth:7' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered

B-50

AL

RV

Loose to medium dense or stiff, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine grained SAND/ sandy CLAY.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

SM/SC

111920

"SM"

50/2"


B-51



RESIDUAL SOIL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND.







0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

7 SM6

12

"SM"

50/1"


B-52

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fine tomedium grained SAND with gravel, oxidized.

RESIDUAL SOIL:

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, olive brown silty to clayeyfine grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

SM

131623

"SM"

50/4"


B-53

to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateMETASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:

RESIDUAL SOIL:Dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fine grained SAND withtrace coarse sand and gravel, oxidized.

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark brown silty to clayeyfine grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

SM

152525

"SM/SC"

50/5"


B-54

Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rockthat excavates to silty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND,severely weathered.

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:

RESIDUAL SOIL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fineto medium grained SAND with gravel, oxidized.

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark olive brown silty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND with gravel.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

49

12 SM

50/4"

"SM"

50/2"

50/5"


B-55

Very dense, slightly moist, light reddish brown metamorphic rock that excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severelyweathered.


RESIDUAL SOIL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fine tomedium grained SAND with trace gravel.







0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

"SM"

3750/3"


B-56

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light gray metamorphic rock thatexcavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SC

SC

"SM"

50/4"


B-57

grained SAND, oxidized.METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.

RESIDUAL SOIL: RVMedium dense, moist, reddish brown clayey fine to medium

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fineto medium grained SAND.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM/SC

Total Depth: 4' (Refusal on large rock)No Groundwater Encountered

B-58

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, olive brown silty to clayey fineto medium grained SAND with trace gravel.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SM

SM

1650/6"

"SM/SC"


B-59

Very dense, slightly moist, light brown metamorphic rock that excavateto silty to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.


grained SAND with gravel, oxidized.

RVRESIDUAL SOIL:Medium dense to dense, moist, dark reddish brown silty fine

QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, dark olive brown silty fine tomedium grained SAND with gravel.






0

5

10

15

20

25

PROJECT: SHEET: of



Dep

th (

Feet

)

Bul

k

Sa

mpl

e

Dri

ven

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

6"

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Moi

stur

e (%

)

U.S

.C.S

. Sym

bol

Gra

phic

Log

DESCRIPTION

SMQUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:

SC101417

1163

CL

61112

50/6" SC

"SC"

2250/3"


B-60

METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK:Very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown metamorphic rock thatexcavates to clayey fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered

Very dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to medium grained SAND with trace coarse sand and gravel, oxidized.

RESIDUAL SOIL:

CLAY.Stiff, moist, dark reddish brown fine to medium grained sandy

grained SAND with trace coarse sand.

Loose to medium dense, moist, brown silty fine to medium grainedSAND.Medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown clayey fine to medium






0

5

10

15

20

25

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. In-Place Moisture and Density To determine the moisture and density of in-place site soils, a representative sample was tested for the moisture and density at time of sampling. Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to ASTM D 4829. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422. Atterberg Limits The procedure of ASTM D4518-84 was used to measure the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of representative samples. Consolidation To assess their compressibility and volume change behavior when loaded and wetted, relatively undisturbed samples of representative samples from the investigation were subject to consolidation tests in accordance with ASTM D 2435. Resistance “R” Value The resistance “R”-value was measured by the California Test. 301. The graphically determined “R” value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch is the value used for pavement section calculation. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity.

LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSIONPOTENTIAL

B-11 39 LOWB-35 3 VERY LOW

LOCATION % MOISTURE DRY DENSITY

B-14 12.6 116.0B-17 11.7 121.9B-18 14.1 119.8B-20 10.0 115.2B-26 10.9 116.1

LOCATION

B-50B-57B-59

LOCATION RESULTSppm

B-1 45.5B-23 311.2B-48 30.7

LOCATION RESULTSppm

B-1 8.3B-23 108.9B-48 9.3

LOCATION RESULTS

B-1 7.03B-23 7.99B-48 7.19

DEPTH(feet)

0-5

0-50-5

DEPTH(feet)

0-5

0-5

p.H.

0-5

DEPTH(feet)

0-5

0-5

CHLORIDE

0-5

DEPTH R-VALUE(feet)

0-5 23

SULFATE

4144

EXPANSION INDEX TESTASTM D 4829

IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY

DEPTH

DEPTH(feet)

0-50-5

5

10

0-50-5

(feet)

5

15

8

RESISTANCE "R"-VALUECALTEST 301

LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-12831G

LOCATION RESULTSohms-cm

B-1 16,200B-23 1,860B-48 19,700

LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION(feet)

B-17 5-10 30 18 CLB-20 15 24 5 CL-MLB-22 0-15 27 13 CLB-29 10 25 5 CL-MLB-50 5 28 13 CL

RESISTIVITY

ATTERBERG LIMITS

0-5

CALIFORNIA TEST 424DEPTH

(feet)

0-5

0-5

LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-12831G

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSISSample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Index Classification

B-17 10 - - CLB-19 15 - - CLCTE JOB NUMBER: 10-12831G FIGURE: C-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G (

%)

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

2" 1" 3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 100

200

1.5"


B-23 5 - - SCB-23 10 - - CLCTE JOB NUMBER: 10-12831G FIGURE: C-2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G (

%)

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)


2" 1" 3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 100

200

1.5"


B-30 5 - - SC/CLB-35 5 - - SCCTE JOB NUMBER: 10-12831G FIGURE: C-3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G (

%)

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)


2" 1" 3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 100

200

1.5"

FIELD MOISTURESAMPLE SATURATEDREBOUND

Project Name:Project Number: 10-12831G Sample Date: 12.6

Lab Number: 25940 Test Date: 14.3Sample Location: Tested By: 116.0

Sample Description: 121.9Moderate Brown Silty Sand

Initial Moisture (%):Final Moisture (%):

Initial Dry Density (PCF):Final Dry Density (PCF):

Swell/Consolidation Test ASTM D2435

B-14 @ 5.0'1/25/2016RJP

Athletic Complex at Palomar College 1/8/2016

1.58%

2.27%

2.80%3.22%

4.13%

5.28%

6.82%6.82%6.66%6.23%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

11.00%

12.00%

13.00%

14.00%

15.00%

16.00%

17.00%

18.00%

19.00%

20.00%1000 10000 100000

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

(%

)

VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)




Sample Description: 127.0B-18 @ 15.0'

1/25/2016RJP


Moderate Brown Silty Sand




1.43%1.86%

2.36%2.43%

3.11%

4.21%

5.66%5.66%5.46%

4.94%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

11.00%

12.00%

13.00%

14.00%

15.00%

16.00%

17.00%

18.00%

19.00%

20.00%1000 10000 100000

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

(%

)





Sample Description: 118.4B-20 @ 10.0'

1/25/2016RJP


Moderate Brown Silty Sand




1.51%

2.16%2.58%2.83%

3.62%

4.74%

6.24%6.24%6.06%

5.58%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

11.00%

12.00%

13.00%

14.00%

15.00%

16.00%

17.00%

18.00%

19.00%

20.00%1000 10000 100000

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

(%

)


SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080

Job Name:

Project Number: 10-12831G

Lab Number: 25940

Sample Location: Tested by:Sample Description:

B-17 @ 5.0'

Sample Date:

Test Date:

1/8/2016

Dark Brown Silty Sand Angle Of Friction: 33.9

Cohesion:

Athletic Complex at Palomar College

740 psf

Initial Dry Density (pcf): 121.9

Initial Moisture (%): 11.7

Final Moisture (%): 17.0

RJP

1/28/2016

0.031

0.031

0.032

0.032

0.033

0.033

0.034

0.034

0.035

0.0350.1 1 10 100

ST

RA

IN

(in

ch

es

)

TIME (minutes)

PRECONSOLIDATION

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

ps

f)

STRAIN (%)

SHEARING DATA

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

SH

EA

RIN

G S

TR

ES

S (

ps

f)

VERTICAL STRESS (psf)

FAILURE ENVELOPE

dr=0.1200 mm./min

VERTICAL STRESS

1000 psf3000 psf5000 psf

SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080

Job Name:

Project Number: 10-12831G

Lab Number: 25940

Sample Location: Tested by:Sample Description:

B-26 @ 8.0'

Sample Date:

Test Date:

1/8/2016

Reddish Brown Silty Sand Angle Of Friction: 34.9

Cohesion:

Athletic Complex at Palomar College

540 psf

Initial Dry Density (pcf): 116.1

Initial Moisture (%): 10.9

Final Moisture (%): 20.4

RJP

1/27/2016

0.029

0.030

0.030

0.031

0.031

0.032

0.032

0.033

0.033

0.034

0.0340.1 1 10 100

ST

RA

IN

(in

ch

es

)

TIME (minutes)

PRECONSOLIDATION

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

ps

f)

STRAIN (%)

SHEARING DATA

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

SH

EA

RIN

G S

TR

ES

S (

ps

f)

VERTICAL STRESS (psf)

FAILURE ENVELOPE

dr=0.1200 mm./min

VERTICAL STRESS

1000 psf3000 psf5000 psf

APPENDIX D

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING

Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 1 of 26

Page D-1

Section 1 - General

Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein.

Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel

The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements.

Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting

A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner’s representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.

Section 4 - Site Preparation

The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.



Page D-2

Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.

Section 5 - Site Protection

Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.



Page D-3

The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures.

Section 6 - Excavations

6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.

Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended.



Page D-4

6.2 Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical).

The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant.

When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope.

6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading, especially where deep or drastic transitions are present.

For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended.

Section 7 - Compacted Fill

All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant.

7.1 Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined.



Page D-5

Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site.

7.2 Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions.

When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from



Page D-6

the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill.

Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated.

Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein.

Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane.

It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement.



Page D-7

The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client.

Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.

7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical).

Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface.

At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore.

During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not



Page D-8

exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled.

For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two percent.

Section 8 - Trench Backfill

Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas.

Section 9 - Drainage

Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with CTE’s recommendations during grading. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications.



Page D-9

Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales). For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.

Section 10 - Slope Maintenance

10.1 - Landscape Plants To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration.

10.2 - Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces.

Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall.

10.3 - Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting.

If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation.



Page D-10

In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face).

APPENDIX E

GEOPHYSICAL TESTING

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY PALOMAR COLLEGE

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR: Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.

1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026

PREPARED BY: Southwest Geophysics, Inc.

8057 Raytheon Road, Suite 9 San Diego, CA 92111

February 18, 2016 Project No. 115627

February 18, 2016 Project No. 115627

Mr. Jay Lynch Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026

Subject: Geophysical Survey Palomar College San Marcos, California

Dear Mr. Lynch:

In accordance with your authorization, we have performed geophysical survey services pertain-ing to the proposed Athletics Complex project located on the Palomar College campus in San Marcos, California. The purpose of our study was to develop subsurface velocity profiles of the areas surveyed, and to assess the apparent rippability of the subsurface materials through the col-lection of seismic surface waves and P-waves. This report presents the survey methodology, equipment used, analysis, and findings. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions related to this report, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Sincerely, SOUTHWEST GEOPHYSICS, INC.

Patrick F. Lehrmann, P.G., P.Gp. Principal Geologist/Geophysicist

Hans van de Vrugt, C.E.G., P.Gp. Principal Geologist/Geophysicist

HV/PFL/hv Distribution: Addressee (electronic)

Palomar College February 18, 2016 San Marcos, California Project No. 115627

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................1

4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS....................................................................2 4.1. Multi Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)...................................................3 4.2. Seismic P-wave Refraction Survey ..............................................................................4

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................5 5.1. MASW Survey..............................................................................................................5 5.2. Seismic P-wave Refraction Survey ..............................................................................5

6. LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................5

7. SELECTED REFERENCES ....................................................................................................7

Tables Table 1 – Rippability Classification ................................................................................................3 Table 2 – MASW Array Geometry .................................................................................................4 Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Line Location Map Figure 3a – Site Photographs, ML-1 through ML-4 Figure 3b – Site Photographs, ML-5 through ML-8 Figure 3c – Site Photographs, SL-1 and SL-2 Figure 4a – S-Wave Section, ML-1 Figure 4b – S-Wave Section, ML-2 Figure 4c – S-Wave Section, ML-3 Figure 4d – S-Wave Section, ML-4 Figure 4e – S-Wave Section, ML-5 Figure 4f – S-Wave Section, ML-6 Figure 4g – S-Wave Section, ML-7 Figure 4h – S-Wave Section, ML-8 Figure 5a – P-Wave Profile, SL-1 Figure 5b – P-Wave Profile, SL-2


1

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with your authorization, we have performed geophysical survey services pertain-

ing to the proposed Athletics Complex project located on the Palomar College campus in San

Marcos, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to develop subsurface velocity pro-

files of the areas surveyed, and to assess the apparent rippability of the subsurface materials

through the collection of seismic surface waves and P-waves. This report presents the survey

methodology, equipment used, analysis, and findings.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our scope of services included:

• Performance of eight Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) profiles, ML-1 through ML-8.

• Performance of two seismic P-wave traverses, SL-1 and SL-2. • Compilation and analysis of the data collected. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings and conclusions.

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located along the north side of Comet Circle near the north end of the Palomar

College campus in San Marcos (Figure 1). The study area primarily consists of paved parking

lots and work areas, as well as an undeveloped hillside. Figures 2 and 3a through 3c depict the

general site conditions in the area of the seismic traverses.

Based on our discussions with you it is our understanding that the proposed project includes the

construction of new buildings, ball fields, volleyball and tennis courts, swimming pools, and

spectator stands. It is also our understanding that your office is conducting a geotechnical evalua-

tion of the site, which includes the excavation of exploratory borings.


2

4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

As previously indicated, the primary purpose of our services was to characterize the subsurface

site conditions at pre-selected locations through the collection of seismic data. Specifically,

seismic surface wave data were collected in asphalt-paved areas and seismic P-wave refraction

data were collected in unpaved areas. In general, the collection of P-wave refraction data is the

preferred method for evaluating the rippability characteristics of the subsurface materials. How-

ever, the presence of asphalt pavement can produce a velocity inversion condition (high velocity

materials overlying materials with a lower velocity), which can result in misleading or incorrect

characterization of the subsurface. The surface wave method, on the other hand, is not suscepti-

ble to the same velocity inversion condition and therefore was performed in the paved areas.

In general, seismic P-wave velocities can be correlated to material density and/or rock hardness.

The relationship between rippability and seismic velocity is empirical and assumes a homoge-

nous mass. Localized areas of differing composition, texture, and/or structure may affect both the

measured data and the actual rippability of the mass. The rippability of a mass is also dependent

on the excavation equipment used and the skill and experience of the equipment operator.

P-wave rippability values presented in Table 1 are based on our experience with similar materials

and assume that a Caterpillar D-9 dozer ripping with a single shank is used. We emphasize that

the cutoffs in this classification scheme are approximate and that rock characteristics, such as

fracture spacing and orientation, play a significant role in determining rock rippability. These

characteristics may also vary with location and depth. For trenching operations, the rippability

values should be scaled downward. For example, P-wave velocities as low as 3,500 feet/second

may indicate difficult ripping during trenching operations. As a general rule of thumb, Shear-

wave velocities are on the order of 0.4 to 0.6 that of P-waves velocities depending on the nature

of the subsurface materials.


3

Table 1 – Rippability Classification

Seismic P-wave Velocity Rippability 0 to 2,000 feet/second Easy

2,000 to 4,000 feet/second Moderate 4,000 to 5,500 feet/second Difficult, Possible Blasting 5,500 to 7,000 feet/second Very Difficult, Probable Blasting

Greater than 7,000 feet/second Blasting Generally Required

It should be noted that the rippability cutoffs presented in Table 1 are slightly more conservative

than those published in the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (Caterpillar, 2011). Accordingly,

the above classification scheme should be used with discretion, and contractors should not be

relieved of making their own independent evaluation of the rippability of the on-site materials

prior to submitting their bids.

The following sections provide an overview of the surface wave and P-wave methodologies used

during our study.

4.1. Multi Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Surface waves (specifically Rayleigh waves) were recorded along seismic lines ML-1 through ML-8, which are located in paved areas (see Figure 2). The surface waves were generated by a hammer and plate (shot), and were recorded using a 24-channel Geometrics Geode seismograph and 24 4.5-Hz vertical component geophones. The geophones were in-stalled in ¼-inch diameter holes drilled approximately 1 inch into the asphalt. The geophones were spaced 3 feet apart and shots were conducted 15 feet from the end of the lines. Prior to the collection of surface wave data near and far field effects were evaluated for several shot offset distances. The results indicated that an offset of 15 feet was optimum for our study. Three records 1 second long were recorded at each shot location and then the shot location and geophones were moved 6 feet longitudinally along the profile direction and the line was reshot. The number of shots and the spread length for each line are presented in Table 2. In some cases the length of the line was limited by surface obstructions. The recorded data were processed using SurfSeis® (Kansas Geological Survey, 2012), a Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) software program. One dimensional (1-D) Shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles were generated for each shot location, which corre-spond to the middle of the geophone array. A two dimensional color gradient model was then created from the 1-D models using the SurfSeis® interpolation scheme. It should be emphasized that the 2-D profile represents the area between the midpoint of the first shot lo-


4

cation and the midpoint of the last shot location. The actual model section length and start and end stations for the sections are also listed in Table 2. Due to poor data quality for the last nine shots on ML-5, these data were removed from our analysis resulting in a total model section length of 66 feet. The cause of the poor quality is attributed to unusual background noise at the time of our survey, the source of which is un-known.

Table 2 – MASW Array Geometry

Line No. No. of Shots

Total Spread Length(feet)

Profile Length/Start and End Stations(feet)

ML-1 26 219 150/35-185 ML-2 18 171 102/35-137 ML-3 24 207 138/35-173 ML-4 26 219 150/35-185 ML-5 21 189 120/35-101* ML-6 26 219 150/35-185 ML-7 26 219 150/35-185 ML-8 25 213 144/35-179

*Actual profile length is 120 feet, but due to poor data quality the length was reduced to 66 feet (35 feet + 66 feet = 101).

4.2. Seismic P-wave Refraction Survey Seismic P-wave refraction data were collected along lines SL-1 and SL-2, which were lo-cated in an unpaved/undeveloped area (see Figures 2 and 3c). P-wave arrivals were generated using a hammer and plate and recorded using the instrumentation described above except that 14-Hz geophones were used. The geophones and shots were spaced 5 feet apart. Seven shots were conducted along the lines at the ends, midpoint and intermediate points be-tween the ends and midpoint. Collected P-wave data were processed using SIPwin (Rimrock Geophysics, 2003) a layer-based seismic interpretation program and analyzed using SIPwin and SeisOpt Pro (Optim, 2008), a seismic tomography program. SeisOpt Pro uses first arrival picks and elevation data to produce subsurface velocity models through a nonlinear optimization technique called adaptive simulated annealing. The resulting velocity model provides a tomography image of the estimated geologic conditions. Both vertical and lateral velocity information is contained in the tomography model. Changes in layer velocity are revealed as gradients rather than discrete contacts, which typically are more representative of actual conditions.


5

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following is a summary of our findings from our seismic evaluation:

5.1. MASW Survey The results of the MASW surveys are presented on Figures 4a through 4h as 2-D Shear-wave velocity models. Several of the Shear-wave models reveal the presence of low velocity materials in the near surface underlain by higher velocity materials at depth. The low veloc-ity materials are presumed to be soils (fill, alluvium, residuum, etc.), which is underlain by weathered granitic bedrock or metasedimentary/metavolcanic bedrock. The possible contact between the soil materials and the bedrock is indicated on the shear wave models. The loca-tion of the contact is based on the velocity contrasts presented in the models and nearby boring log information provided by your office. It should be emphasized that the contact is approximate and should be confirmed. Significant lateral velocity variations are also present indicating inhomogeneous conditions.

5.2. Seismic P-wave Refraction Survey The P-wave results for lines SL-1 and SL-2 are shown in Figures 5a and 5b. The P-wave ve-locity models also reveal the presence of low velocity materials underlain by higher velocity material. Lateral velocity variations are present on the models suggesting the possible pres-ence of remnant boulders. In addition, some scatter was observed in the arrival data further indicating the presence of inhomogeneities.

Based on the seismic results, variability in the excavatability (including depth of rippability) of

the subsurface materials should be expected across the project area. Furthermore, blasting may

be required depending on the excavation depth, location, equipment used, and desired rate of

production. In addition, oversized materials should be expected. A contractor with excavation

experience in similar difficult conditions should be consulted for expert advice on excavation

methodology, equipment and production rate. Moreover, prospective contractors should not be

relieved of making their own independent evaluation of the rippability and depth of the on-site

materials prior to submitting their bids.

6. LIMITATIONS

The field evaluation and geophysical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in

general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by consultants per-

forming similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the

conclusions and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to re-


6

veal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described

in this report may be present. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced

through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface surveying will be performed

upon request.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is

designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Southwest Geophys-

ics, Inc. should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions

regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is

intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or

recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole

risk.


7

7. SELECTED REFERENCES

Burger, H.R., Sheehan, A.F., and Jones, C.H., 2006, Introduction to Applied Geophysics; Ex-ploring the Shallow Subsurface, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Kansas Geological Survey, 2010, SurfSeis, Multi Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW), V-3.16.

Mooney, H.M., 1976, Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, dated February.

Optim, 2005, SeisOpt ReMi Analysis Software, V-3.0.

Rimrock Geophysics, 2003, Seismic Refraction Interpretation Programs (SIPwin), V-2.76.

Saito, M., 1979, Computations of reflectivity and surface wave dispersion curves for layered media; I, Sound wave and SH wave: Butsuri-Tanko, v. 32, no. 5, p. 15-26.

Saito, M., 1988, Compound matrix method for the calculation of spheroidal oscillation of the Earth: Seismol. Res. Lett., v. 59, p. 29.

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied Geophysics, Cam-bridge University Press.

Xia, J., Miller, R. D., and Park, C. B., 1999, Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave: Geophysics, v. 64, p. 691-7.

SIT

E L

OC

AT

ION

MA

PF

igu

re 1

Pa

lom

ar

Co

lleg

eS

an M

arc

os,

Ca

lifo

rnia

SO

UTH

WE

ST

GE

OP

HY

SIC

S I

NC

.

Pro

ject

No.: 1

156

27

Date

: 0

2/1

6

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

LIN

E L

OC

AT

ION

S

Co

met

Cir

cle

Comet Circ

le

LIN

EL

OC

AT

ION

MA

PF

igur

e 2

Pal

omar

Col

lege

San

Mar

cos,

Cal

iforn

iaS

OU

THW

ES

TG

EO

PH

YS

ICS

IN

C.

Pro

ject

No.:

11

562

7D

ate

: 02

/16

app

roxi

mat

e sc

ale

in f

eet

30

015

00

0

150

0

150

MA

SW

Lin

e

Ref

ract

ion

Line

ML

-80

213

LEG

EN

D

0150

SL

-2

Co

met

Cir

cle

Comet Circ

le

geotechnical investigation future athletic complex …

Documents