HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 2019-0016; ST ELIZABETH SETON; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS THIRD PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW (FIRST); 2021-05-18'0 0 CTE INC
May 18, 2021
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
CTE Job No. 10-15840G
St. Elizabeth Seton Parish
Attention: Fr. Michael Robinson
6628 Santa Isabel Street
San Diego, California 92009
Telephone: (760) 438-3393 Via Email: frmicliaelrob(à)grnail.com
Subject: Response to Comments
Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First)
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
Project ID: GR2021-0008/CD2019-0016
Hetherington Engineering, Inc. Project No. 9338. 1, Dated April 21, 2021
References: At End of Document
Fr. Robinson:
As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced plan
check comments. CTE reproduces and provides responses to comments below:
Comment Issue No. 1: The Consultant should provide an updated geotechnical map/plot
utilizing the latest grading plan for the project clearly show (at a minimum), a) existing site
topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) locations of
the subsurface exploration, e) geologic contacts, and f) remedial grading limits, etc.
CTE Response No. 1: An updated geotechnical map/plot utilizing the latest grading plan for the
project showing existing site topography, proposed structures/improvements, proposed finished
grades, locations of the subsurface exploration, geologic contacts, and remedial grading limits is
provided as Figure 2A, attached.
Comment Issue No. 2: The Consultant should provide a detailed description of proposed site
grading, structures/improvements, foundations type, etc.
CTE Response No. 2: CTE understands that currently proposed is a two-story residential
structure (rectory) with attached garage. Additionally, as part of the improvements, alternate
access to an existing SDGE transformer will be constructed. CTE understands from the client
that no significant development has occurred at the subject site since the date of CTh's
Response to Comments Page 2
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
May 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
I referenced geotechnical reports (Cm, 2004 2006), with the exception of the recent construction
of a solar parking array (Cm, 2018). Grading for the building pad is to consist of removal of . undocumented fill materials to the depth of competent native materials (anticipated to be
approximately eight feet in depth from existing grade). The upper four feet of building pad
backfill should consist of an imported, low Expansion Index fill. Typical shallow spread and
continuous footings are recommended for the site.
5 Comment Issue No. 3: The Consultant should clarify if all undocumented fill will be removed
in the areas of proposed improvements. If not, the Consultants should demonstrate the ability of
the undocumented fill to support the proposed improvements.
CTE Response No. 3: CTE recommends that undocumented fills soils beneath the building
S footprint (to a minimum lateral distance of five feet, where possible) be overexcavated to the
depth of competent native materials and replaced as engineered fill. Additionally, at a minimum
it is recommended that soil be imported to provide a cap of approved granular Low El soils (El
5 50) a minimum of four feet in thickness or such that a minimum of two feet of Low El fill
underlies proposed building foundations, whichever is thicker.
Comment Issue No. 4: The Consultant should provide a statement regarding the impact of the
proposed grading and construction on adjacent properties and improvements.
CTE Response No. 4: Based on CTE's review, the proposed grading and construction shown on
the project grading and structural plans is not anticipated to detrimentally impact adjacent
properties or improvements, provided CTE's previous and future (provided as necessary and as
S requested) geotechnical recommendations are implemented.
Comment Issue No. 5: The Consultant should address expected total and differential settlement.
CTE Response No. 5: Provided the recommendations provided herein and in previous CTE
documents for the subject project are implemented, CTE anticipates the total static settlement to
5 be on the order of 1.0 inches and the static differential settlement to be on the order of 0.5 inches
over 40 feet.
5 Comment Issue No. 6: The Consultant should specify the sulfate exposure (ACI 318) based on
5 soluble sulfate testing and provide recommendations for sulfate resistant concrete, if necessary.
CTE Response No. 6: Previously provided (Cm, 2006) chemical testing results indicate that
near-surface soils at the site generally present a negligible corrosion potential (ACI category So)
for Portland cement concrete. Based on resistivity and chloride testing, the site soils have been
S interpreted to have a moderate corrosivity potential to buried metallic improvements. Based on
the results of the limited testing performed, it may be prudent to utilize plastic piping and
conduits where buried and feasible. However, CTE does not practice corrosion engineering.
Therefore, if corrosion of metallic or other improvements is of more significant concern, a a qualified corrosion engineer could be consulted. •
S 5:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 5-18-21.doc
Response to Comments Page 3
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
May 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
Comment Issue No. 7: The Consultant should provide the Risk Category and Seismic Design
Category.
CTE Response No.7: The Seismic Design Category is D. The Risk Category should be
determined by the project architect, structural engineer, or other licensed professional.
Comment Issue No. 8: The Consultant should provide a list of recommended observation and
testing during the site grading and construction.
CTE Response No. 8: CTE recommends that, at a minimum, CTE observes the bottom of all
excavations and footing bottoms; that engineered fill be tested for relative density and moisture
content during placement; that import soil samples be submitted to CTE for laboratory testing (or
an adequate geotechnical report from the source site) for review prior to import and placement;
and that CTE verify the dimensions of footings prior to concrete and steel placement. CTE
reserves the right to modify these recommendations based on conditions encountered in the field.
This letter is subject to the same limitations as other CTE geotechnical documents issued for the
subject project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions or
need further information please do not hesitate to contact this office.
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
ESSI
;i ....
GEOLOGIST ENGINUMNG
L.) No.84406
RTIFIED
2ay F. Lynch, CEG #1890 Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406 '
Principal Engineering Geologist Senior Engineer OFC
CJTKIJFL:ach
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURE 2A Exploration Location Map
5:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\1O-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 5-18-21.doc
Response to Comments Page 4
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
May 18. 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
REFERENCES:
Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First)
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
Project ID: GR2021-0008/CD2019-0016
Hetherington Engineering, Inc. Project No. 9338. 1, Dated April 21, 2021
Update Geotechnical Letter
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-15840G, dated December 22, 2020
Update Geotechnical Investigation
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church Solar Array
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California
CTE Job No. 10-14445G. dated July 31, 2018
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-8436G, dated May 25, 2006
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Social Hall
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-7423G. dated January 10, 2004
S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 5-18-21.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Update Geotechnical Letter, CTE, 2020 (w/ Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Report, CTE,
2006 attached)
/
..•.•.••..•. ..•,•........•..•• .......•.••...
I . / .17 1JJflTJ /
ppf \(7 [lli[J
EXISTING KIOSK /
V1zu_ [O
I —4 E;S
II
... *--
IFuFH
\1_14 1-I I i }I I NI
/)
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL OVER x' /
MESOZOIC METASEDIMENTARY &
METAVOLCANIC ROCK UNDIVIDED .
I Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. I EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP 10-15840G
I
1441 MoneI Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 74fi-4955 SAINT ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH - 80'
6628 SANTA ISABEL STREET DATE:
run: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 5/21 2A
CTE INC
March 10, 2021
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
CTE Job No. 10-15840G
St. Elizabeth Seton Parish
Attention: Fr. Michael Robinson
6628 Santa Isabel Street
San Diego, California 92009
Telephone: (760) 438-3393 Via Email: frmichaelrob(d)gniail.corn
Subject: Response to Comments
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
References: At End of Document
Fr. Robinson:
As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced plan
check comments as well as the referenced structural plan sheets. CTE reproduces and provides
responses to geotechnically relevant plan check comments below:
Plan Check Comment 16. Provide a copy of the project soil report. The report shall include
foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings & shall comply with
Section R401.4.
CTE Response 16. Please see Attachment A, which provides the updated project soils report.
Plan Check Comment 17. Please update the soils report to address the new criteria as per ASCE
7-16, Section 11.4.8 regarding the Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedure as related to this
project.
CTE Response 17. The updated project soils report provided in Attachment A is updated to
address the new criteria as per ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8 regarding the Site-Specific Ground
Motion Procedure as related to this project.
Plan Check Comment 18. Where Site Class D is selected as the default site soils, ASCE 7-16,
Section 11.4.4 requires a Fa = 1.2. Show how this is reflected in the soils report and the lateral
design calculations.
Response to Comments Page 2
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009 0
March 10, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
CTE Response 18. A Site Class C was determined appropriate for the site due to the presence of
near-surface, very dense and hard tertiary Santiago Formation materials.
Plan Check Comment 19. Site Specific Ground Motion Procedure, for Site Class D, E & F
sites. ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8. Please provide a site response analysis, as per ASCE 7-16,
Sec. 21.1. Otherwise, show compliance with one of the exceptions, as noted in ASCE 7-16, Sec.
11.4.8.
CTE Response 19. A Site Class C was determined appropriate for the site due to the presence of
near-surface, very dense and hard tertiary Santiago Formation materials.
Plan Check Comment 21. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the
foundation/grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined
that the soils report recommendations are properly incorporated into the construction documents.
CTE Response 21. CTE has reviewed the referenced structural and grading plans from a
geotechnical perspective to assess conformance with our recommendations. Based on our
review, the structural and grading plans are in substantial conformance with CTh' s geotechnical
recommendations provided in the referenced documents. The followingwas noted:
On grading plan Sheet C-100, Grading Notes, Note 1, CTh's referenced updated
geotechnical report should be referenced.
On grading plan Sheet C-100, Grading Notes, Note 2 should also indicate that grading
shall be in accordance with the project soils report (CTE, 2020).
On grading plan sheet C-600, all references to compaction of the upper 12 inches of soil
subgrade and aggregate base should call for 95 percent relative compaction, not 90
percent.
This letter is subject to the same limitations as other CTE geotechnical documents issued for the
subject project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions or
need further information please do not hesitate to contact this office.
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
(
eN
(c> No.84406
Cohn J. Kenny, RCE #84406 '(EDP, 9/30/21
Senior Engineer
OF
2ay F. Lynch, CEG #1890
Principal Engineering Geologist
CJK/JFL:cjk
S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 3-10-21doc
Response to Comments Page 3
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
March 10, 2021 CTh Job No. 10-15840G
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A Update Geotechiiical Letter, CTE, 2020 (w/ Update to Preliminary
Geotechnical Report, CTh, 2006 attached)
S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 3-10-21.doc
Response to Comments Page 4
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
March 10, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
REFERENCES:
Plan Check Comments
Plan Check #.: CBR2021-0440
6620 Santa Isabel Street
New Rectory for St. Elizabeth Ann Catholic Parish
Prepared by EsGil, dated March 5, 2021
Structural Plans, Sheets S-100, S-1 10, & S-300
Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church
New Rectory
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
Prepared by George Soultanian & Associates, Inc., dated February 15, 2021
Update Geotechnical Letter
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-15840G. dated December 22, 2020
Update Geotechnical Investigation
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church Solar Array
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California
CTE Job No. 10-14445G, dated July 31, 2018
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-8436G, dated May 25, 2006
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Social Hall
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-7423G. dated January 10, 2004
5:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Response to Comments 3-10-21.doc
S
•
S
ATTACHMENT A
Update Geotechnical Letter, CTE, 2020 (w/ Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Report, CTE,
2006 attached)
S •
CTE INC
December 22, 2020
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
CTE Job No. 10-15840G
St. Elizabeth Seton Parish
Attention: Fr. Michael Robinson
6628 Santa Isabel Street
San Diego, California 92009
Telephone: (760) 438-3393 Via Email: frniicbaeIroh'gmai.Lcom
Subject: Update Geotechnical Letter
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
References: At End of Document
Fr. Robinson:
As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced
geotechnical reports and performed a limited subsurface investigation at the subject site with
respect to the proposed construction. CTE understands that currently proposed is a two-story
residential structure (rectory) with attached garage. Additionally, as part of the improvements,
alternate access to an existing SDGE transformer will be constructed. CTE understands from the
client that no significant development has occurred at the subject site since the date of CTE's
attached geotechnical reports (CTE, 2004 2006), with the exception of the recent construction of
a solar parking array (CTE, 2018). Based on the proposed construction and previous
investigation findings, the recommendations in the documents provided in Attachment A remain
generally appropriate and applicable to the proposed project, except where superseded herein.
CTE advanced one hand-augered boring on December 18, 2020. Based on that boring, the soil
underlying the proposed improvement area consists of a previously placed clay fill extending to
approximately eight feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Expansion Index (El) testing of a
sample from the boring indicates the clay exhibits a High El (El> 90).
Figure 1 provides a Site Index Map and Figure 2 provides a Geologic & Exploration Location
Map. CTh's referenced 2006 report (with the 2004 report as its attachment) is provided as
Attachment A, a boring log is included as Attachment B, and laboratory results are provided in
Attachment C.
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 2
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
1.0 SITE PREPARATION
Prior to grading, the proposed improvement areas should be cleared of existing improvements
that are not to remain. Objectionable materials, such as construction debris, vegetation and other
materials not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of off-site. Based on the
estimated depth of fill and High El exhibited by site soils in the improvement area it is
recommended that soil be imported to provide a cap of approved granular Low El soils (El 50)
a minimum of four feet in thickness or such that a minimum of two feet of Low El fill underlies
proposed building foundations.
In areas to receive other distress sensitive improvements such as flatwork or pavements, existing
fills and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed to a minimum depth of 18 inches below
existing or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. Excavation bottoms should be observed and
approved by CTE prior to scarification, moisture conditioning, and fill placement. Scarification
should extend a minimum of nine inches deep.
A CTE geotechnical representative should observe the exposed excavations prior to placement of
fill or structural foundations, to document and verify the competency of the encountered
subgrade materials.
2.0 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
Concrete slabs for lightly-loaded non-traffic areas should be designed based on the anticipated
loading, but measure at least 5.0 inch thick slab reinforcement should at least consist of No. 4
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 125-pci uncorrected subgrade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design
of minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade. Slab on grade areas should be
maintained at a minimum three percent above optimum moisture content or be brought to three
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 CBC/Green Building
Code. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar material could be placed above the vapor
retarder to help protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. However, per ACI
guidelines, better protection from moisture intrusion would be expected from the concrete being
placed directly upon the vapor retarder. 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.
5:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letter.doc
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 3
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. Therefore, a qualified
architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more
significant concern.
3.0 SEISMIC PARA1VIETERS
The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the
ASCE 7-16 Standard that is incorporated into the 2019 California Building Code. This was
accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil properties at the site, and
calculating site coefficients and parameters using the using the SEAOC-OSHPD U.S. Seismic
Design Maps application. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the
effects of earthquake ground motions for the site coordinates 33.1084870 latitude and -
117.239717° longitude, as underlain by soils corresponding to site Class C.
TABLE3.0 - SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES (CODE-BASED)
2019 CBC AND ASCE 7-16
PARAMETER VALUE 2019 CBC/ASCE 7-16
REFERENCE
Site Class C ASCE 16, Chapter 20
Mapped Spectral Response 0.937 Figure 1613.2.1 (1) Acceleration Parameter, Ss
Mapped Spectral Response 0.343 Figure 1613.2.1 (2) Acceleration Parameter, Si
Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.2 Table 1613.2.3 (1)
Seismic Coefficient, F 1.5 Table 1613.2.3 (2)
MCE Spectral Response 1.124 Section 1613.2.3 Acceleration Parameter, SMs
MCE Spectral Response 0.515 Section 16 13.2.3 Acceleration Parameter, SM1
Design Spectral Response 0.750 Section 1613.2.5(1) Acceleration, Parameter SDS
Design Spectral Response 0.343 Section 1613.2.5 (2) Acceleration, Parameter SD!
Peak Ground Acceleration 0.489 ASCE 16, Section 11.8.3
PGAM
S:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letterdoc
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 4
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
4.0 LATERAL PRESSURES
Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the
supporting soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used,
allowable coefficients of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of
friction multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill is
recommended. A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth
(with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral
resistance can 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.
If proposed, retaining walls up to approximately eight feet high and backfilled using granular
soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 4.0 below.
TABLE 4.0
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (Gh)
(pounds per cubic foot
SLOPE BACKFILL
WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:
VERTICAL)
CANTILEVER WALL 60 80 (YIELDING)
RESTRAINED WALL 80 115
5 Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be
S 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 S expressed as:
I •
S For non-yielding (or "restrained") walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly
calculated based on work by Wood (1973): •
S
Where:
PA/b = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH2/2
PK/b = Static Restrained Wall Earth Pressure = GhH2/2
AP/b = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh yH2 •
S 5:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical
I •
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 5
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
1PyWb = Dynamic Restrained Earth Pressure Increment = kh -yH2
b = unit length of wall (usually 1 foot)
kh = 1/2* PGAm (PGAm given previously Table 3.0)
Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (given previously Table 4.0)
H = Total Height of the retained soil
= Total Unit Weight of Soil = 135 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 in both cases should be distributed trapezoidally (essentially an
inverted triangle), with a line of action located at 1/311 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC,
2013).
These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be
taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include
free-draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to
an appropriate off-site location. Figure 4 shows a conceptual wall backdrain detail that may or
may not be suitable for walls at the subject site. Any waterproofing should be as specified by the
project architect.
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMIENDATIONS
Following the recommended preparatory grading, continuous and isolated spread footings are
anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should
be based on allowable bearing values of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for minimum 15-inch
wide footings embedded a minimum of 24-inches below lowest adjacent subgrade elevation.
Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches in minimum dimension. No increase in bearing for
deepening of footing is recommended. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-
third for short-duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Based on
the recommended preparatory grading, it is anticipated that all footings will be founded entirely
in properly compacted fill materials. Footings should not span cut to fill interfaces.
Minimum 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. An uncorrected subgrade
modulus of 130 pounds per cubic inch is considered suitable for elastic foundation design.
S:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letter.doc
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 6
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
The structural engineer should provide recommendations for reinforcement of spread footings
and footings with pipe penetrations. Footing excavations should generally be maintained above
optimum moisture content until concrete placement. Exposed soils and potential expansion
characteristics should be evaluated at the time of grading to verify that conditions are as
anticipated by the preliminary findings.
6.0 CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIALS (CLSM)
Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) may be used in lieu of compacted soils below
foundations, within building pads, and/or adjacent to retaining walls or other structures, provided
the appropriate following recommendations are also incorporated. Minimum overexcavation
depths recommended herein beneath bottom of footings, slabs, flatwork, and other areas may be
applicable beneath CLSM if/where CLSM is to be used, and excavation bottoms should be
observed by CTE prior to placement of CLSM. Prior to CLSM placement, the excavation should
be free of debris, loose soil materials, and water. Once specific areas to utilize CLSM have been
determined, CTE should review the locations to determine if additional recommendations are
appropriate.
CLSM should consist of a minimum three-sack cement/sand slurry with a minimum 28-day
I compressive strength of 100 psi (or equal to or greater than the maximum allowable short term
soil bearing pressure provided herein, whichever is higher) as determined by ASTM D4832. If
re-excavation is anticipated, the compressive strength of CLSM should generally be limited to a
maximum of 150 psi per ACT 229R-99. Where re-excavation is required, two-sack cement/sand . slurry may be used to help limit the compressive strength. The allowable soils bearing pressure
and coefficient of friction provided herein should still govern foundation design. CLSM may not
I be used in lieu of structural concrete where required by the structural engineer.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the
and the subsurface conditions observed in the previously performed exploratory borings. The
extrapolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to
document that conditions are as anticipated.
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that
CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. Earthwork should be
observed and tested to document that grading and excavations have been performed according to
the recommendations contained within this report. A CTE geotechnical representative should
evaluate all foundation excavations before reinforcing steel placement. The recommendations are
provided to help mitigate the effects of soil settlement and expansive soils. However, some post-
construction movement should be anticipated.
S:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letterdoc
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 7
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis presented in the geotechnical
reports 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.
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.
This letter is subject to the same limitations as other CTE geotechnical documents issued for the
subject project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions or
need further information please do not hesitate to contact this office.
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
/ay F. Lynch, CEG #1890
Principal Engineering Geologist
CJKIJFL:ach
Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406
Senior Engineer
,IJ No.84406 4
EXP. 9/30/21 )
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURE 1 Site Index Map
FIGURE 2 Exploration Location Map
ATTACHMENT A Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Report, CTE, 2006
ATTACHMENT B Exploration Logs
ATTACHMENT C Laboratory Results
S:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letter.doc
Update Geotechnical Letter Page 8
Proposed Rectory at Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
December 22, 2020 CTE Job No. 10-15840G
References:
Update Geotechnical Investigation
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church Solar Array
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California
CTE Job No. 10-14445G. dated July 31, 2018
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-8436G, dated May 25, 2006
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Social Hall
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Job No. 10-7423G, dated January 10, 2004
S:\Projects\10-15840G\Ltr_Update Geotechnical Letter doe
-
z t
-
4
Al
-
4
I
-
Ow Ilk
it 2
I
•
4 4
*4 4 M;lv?
_J• - •.-
1441 Monfiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4~ 55
!Jp:iinu: AS SHOWN
______________
/
/
/1
/
/
-
/
FF;
El 17
£0151/MG KIOSK
[2
I /
/
/
Z ;S P051/1/S
95 SPACKS)
/
80'O 40' 80'
1 inch = 80 ft. EXPLANATION
B-i APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
Qppf QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL OVER
Mzu MESOZOIC METASEDIMENTARY &
METAVOLCANIC ROCK, UNDIVIDED
ATTACHMENT A
Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Report, CTE, 2006
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA SACRAMENTO, CA N. PALM SPRINGS, CA
1441 Manuel Road 12155 Magnolia Ave. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242W. Larch 3628 Madison Ave. 18020 N. Indian Ave.
Suite 115 Suite BC Suite 107 SuIte F Suite 22 Suite 2-K
Escondido, CA 92026 Riverside, CA 92503 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, OP. 95376 N. Highlands, CA 95660 N. Palm Springs, CA 92258
(760) 746-4955 (051) 352-6701 (805) 486-6475 (209) 839-2890 (916) 331-6030 (760) 329-4677
(760) 746-9806 FAX (951) 352-6705 FAX (805) 486-9016 FAX (209) 639-2605 FAX (916) 331-6037 FAX (760) 328-4896- FAX
May 25, 2006
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
Attention: Mr. Donald E. Coleman
6628 Santa Isabel Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
CTE Project No. 10-84360
Subject: Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad, California
Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
6628 Santa Isabel Street
CTF. Project No.: 10-7423G, dated January 10, 2004
Mr. Coleman:
In accordance with your request, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has performed
a reconnaissance of the subject site, and has reviewed the previously prepared report referenced
above. Based on our review, CTE has found the recommendations in the referenced report to be
in compliance with common geotechnical engineering practices. Therefore, the
recommendations presented in the referenced report are considered suitable and appropriate,
without revision, for use during preliminary project design. However, CTE reserves the right to
modify recommendations, as necessary, as project design and construction progress. CTE shall
also review the precise project grading and foundation plans, as soon as available, in order to
confirm foundation elements will bear in appropriate formational materials as anticipated by the
referenced document.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have questions,
please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TES
r,*k
dIIIIIII 7
No.2665
Dan T. Math, G-E# 2665 ul 12131/06
Principal Engineer
G, INC.
Martin Siem, CEG# 2311
Certified Engineering Geologist
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CO ION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VEN1URA, CA TRACY, CA SACRAMENTO, CA N. PALM SPRINGS, CA
1441 Manuel Road 12155 Magnolia Ave. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242W. Larch 3626 Madison Ave. 19020 N. Indian Ave.
Suite 115 Suite SC Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Suite 2-K
Escondido, CA 92028 Riverside, CA 92503 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95375 N. Highlands, CA 95060 N. Palm Springs, CA 92258
(160) 746-4955 (951) 352-6701 (805) 486-6475 (209) 829-2890 (916) 331-6030 (760) 32941677
(760) 746-9806 FAX (951) 362-0795 FAX (805) 486-0016 FAX (2(19) 839-2895 FAX (916) 331-6037 FAX (760) 3264899- FAX
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL
ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH
6628 SANTA ISABEL STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SAN DIEGO
ATTENTION: MR. JOEL. KING
P.O. BOX 85728
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92186
PREPARED BY: --
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G
ESCONDIDO, CA 92029
CTh JOB NO. 10-7423G JANUARY 10, 2004
GEOTECHNICAL t ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
SECTION ............... ..
SU
.......................................................... .........................................................PAGE
IN V E AO STIGTIN MMARY................................................................................ ................. 1
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................2
• 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2
1.2 Scope of Services...........................................................................................................2
• 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................3
• 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS................................................................3
• 3.1 Field Investigation.........................................................................................................3
3.2 Laboratory Investigation................................................................................................4
• 4.0 GEOLOGY................................................................................................................................4
O 4.1 General Setting...............................................................................................................4 . 4.2 Geologic Conditions ......................................................................................................5
4.2.1 Undocumented Fill................................................................................................5
• 4.2.2 Santiago Formation...............................................................................................6
• 4.2.3 Santiago Peak Volcanics.......................................................................................6 . 4.3 Groundwater Conditions................................................................................................7
4.4 Geologic Hazards...........................................................................................................7
• 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation................................................................7
• 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting.................................................................................7 . 4.4.3 Site Near Source Factors and Seismic Coefficients..............................................8
4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation and Seismic Settlement Evaluation...............................8
• 4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation..........................................................................9
• 4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding...................................................................................9
4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils ............... . ..................................................... 10
• 4.4.8 Corrosive Soils....................................................................................................10
• 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 10 . 5.1 General.........................................................................................................................10 5.2 Site Preparation............................................................................................................10 • 5.3 Site Excavation............................................................................................................11
• 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction...................................................................................12 . 5.5 Fill Materials................................................................................................................12
5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ..................................................................................13
• 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations....................................................................14
• 5.7.1 Foundations.........................................................................................................14 . 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement........................................................................................15 5.7.3 Foundation Setback.............................................................................................15
• 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs .......................................................................................15 5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures........................................................................16 . 5.9 Exterior Flatwork.........................................................................................................17
5.10 Drainage.....................................................................................................................17
• 5.11 Vehicular Pavements .................................................................................................18
• 5.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement..............................................................................18
5.11.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements..............................................................18
• 5.12 Slopes.........................................................................................................................20
• 5.13 Construction Observation..........................................................................................20 •
S
21
21
5.14 Plan Review .
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 INDEX MAP
FIGURE 2 SITE MAP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED
APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 1
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 4, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Our investigation was performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for the
proposed Social Hall for St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church located at 6628 Santa Isabel
Street, Carlsbad, California. It is our understanding that the proposed development will
consist of a one- to two-story social hail structure with basement and associated
improvements. Based on the results of our investigation, laboratory testing, and
engineering evaluation, the proposed project is feasible provided the recommendations
presented in this report are implemented.
Based on our preliminary geotechnical investigation, the soils beneath the site include a
thin veneer of topsoil (turf), and up to three feet of undocumented fill consisting of
medium dense, yellowish gray, fine sandy silt. These soils overlie Tertiary-aged
Santiago Formation deposits that consist of hard, yellowish-gray to gray, moist, clayey
siltstones and silty claystones, which in turn overlie a sequence of hard, light-gray to
greenish gray, fine sandy siltstones and silty sandstones interpreted to be part of the
Jurassic/Cretaceous-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics.
Groundwater was not observed in our excavations to the maximum explored depth of
approximately 19.5 feet below existing grade (fbg). Groundwater levels may fluctuate
with seasonal precipitation levels and areas of local saturation may be encountered.
However, we do not anticipate that groundwater will affect the proposed development,
provided appropriate surface drainage is designed, constructed, and maintained.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 2
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
San Diego County is an area of known moderate to high seismic risk, but no specific
significant geologic and seismic hazards to the site were identified during this
investigation. Based on the geologic findings and reference review, no active surface
faults are known to exist at the site.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and provides
conclusions and geotechnical engineering criteria for the proposed development.
Proposed improvements are to consist of a one- to two-story social hail structure with a
basement and associated improvements including pavement areas. Our investigation
included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, and
engineering analysis. Specific recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and
foundation design for the proposed improvements are presented in this report. Cited
references are presented in Appendix A.
1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services provided included:
A review of available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent
areas.
An exploration of subsurface conditions by excavating three exploratory borings with
a hollow stem drill rig, collection of undisturbed and disturbed soil samples, and
geologic logging of the borings.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the
geotechnical design characteristics of the soils.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 3
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the
site.
Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements.
Preparation of this summary report of the investigations performed including
geotechnical construction recommendations.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site currently consists of a relatively flat lawn covered lot that is surrounded
by existing structures associated with the St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church. The
existing sanctuary is located to the east of the subject site and is at a similar elevation. A
parking lot exists to the west of the subject site at elevation approximately 10 feet lower.
To the north the site is bounded by Alga Road. Figure 1 shows the general location of the
subject site. The general configuration of the subject site, including purposed buildings
and exploratory boring locations, are depicted on the attached Figure 2.
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Field Investigation
Our field explorations were conducted on December 14, 2004, and included a visual site
reconnaissance and the advancement of three soil borings within accessible areas to
evaluate the condition of the underlying soil materials. The borings were excavated using
a CME-75 Hollow Stem drill rig with eight-inch augers. Select "undisturbed" soil
samples were collected using a modified California sampler and disturbed soil samples
were collected with a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, and as bulk samples that
were collected from the drill cuttings and stored in burlap sample bags.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 4
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-74230
Soils were logged in the field by a geologist from CTE and visually classified using the
Unified Soil Classification System. Samples were transported to CTE Certified
Geotechnical Laboratory in Escondido, California for analysis. The field descriptions
have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Exploration logs
including descriptions of the soils encountered are included in Appendix B.
3.2 Laboratory Investigation
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification
purposes and to evaluate soil physical properties and engineering characteristics. Soil
samples were analyzed for Particle-Size Analysis, Modified Proctor, Direct Shear,
Hydrometer, Expansion Index Testing, and Chemical Analysis. Test method descriptions
and laboratory testing results are included in Appendix C.
4.0 GEOLOGY
4.1 General Setting
The Site lies within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province, which is characterized
by its northwest trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominately
northwest trending active regional faults. The San Diego Region can be further
subdivided into the coastal plain area, a central mountain—valley area and the eastern
mountain valley area. The project site located at the juncture between the eastern margin
coastal plain area and the central mountain area. The coastal plain subprovience ranges in
elevation from approximately sea level to 1200 feet above mean sea level and is
characterized by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded
basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks. The central -
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 5
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. I0-7423G
mountain area ranges in elevation from approximately 500 to 5000 feet above mean sea
level and is characterized by Cretaceous and Jurassic crystalline ridges and mountains
with intermontane basins that are generally underlain with moderate thickness of
alluvium and residual soils.
Specifically, the site is located in foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains at an approximate
elevation of 520 feet above mean sea level. The surface gradient slopes to the west
towards a southerly draining tributary canyon that feeds San Marcos Creek, which flows
westward to Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2).
4.2 Geologic Conditions
By correlation to published mapping (Tan and Kennedy, 1996), site soils consist of
Tertiary Santiago Formation, with adjacent undifferentiated meta-volcanics,
volcaniclastic, and interbedded sedimentary rocks of the Jurassic/Cretaceous Santiago
Peak Volcanics Formation, which form bedrock highs located to the east, north and south
of the site. Observations from our work indicate that a thin layer of topsoil
/undocumented fill overlies the Santiago Formation deposits, which in turn overlies the
Santiago Peak Volcanics at this site.
4.2.1 Undocumented Fill
These soils were generally encountered within the upper half foot of the existing
surface to a maximum depth of three feet below existing grade. These materials
generally consist of loose, moist, turf and loose to medium dense, moist,
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 6
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
yellowish-gray fine sandy silt topsoil deposits. These materials are not
considered suitable for support of the proposed improvements primarily because
of their high organic content. However, these materials are anticipated to be
removed during construction grading activities for the proposed buildings.
4.2.2 Santiago Formation
Claystones and siltstones of the Santiago Formation (as mapped by Tan and
Kennedy, 1996) were encountered across 'the entire site from the near surface to
depths interpreted to be approximately five to 15 fbg. The claystones and
siltstones were typically, hard, moist, olive-green to yellowish gray, and massive.
These materials are suitable for support of proposed improvements, as
recommended herein.
4.2.3 Santiago Peak Volcanics
The Santiago Peak Volcanics were interpreted to be present at approximately five
fbg in B-2 and approximately 15 fbg in B-i and B-3. This interpretation is based
on the increasing percentage coarse sand to fine gravel sized angular pieces of
volcaniclastics, within hard, moist, light gray to greenish—gray to yellowish-gray,
fine sandy siltstone, and silty fine sandstone that is massive to weakly laminated,
and fractured with occasional rust to orange staining along and adjacent to the
fractures. This interpretation is consistent with observations made in a previously
completed investigation for the adjacent new sanctuary. In that study,
"unweathered" Santiago Peak Volcancis were identified at 7.5 fbg in the southeast
corner of the sanctuary (Benton Engineering, Inc., 1993).
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 7
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
4.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings to the maximum explored depth
of approximately 19.5 fbg. While groundwater conditions will likely vary, especially
during periods of sustained precipitation, groundwater is not expected to affect the
improvements if proper site drainage is maintained.
4,4 Geologic Hazards
4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation
From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily
limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground
motion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement
beneath the proposed structures should be considered low.
4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting
Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our exploratory soil borings, and
a review of appropriate geologic literature, it is our opinion that known active
faults do not lie structurally beneath the site nor do active fault traces cross the
site. Additionally, the site does not lie within a State of California Aiquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone.
The Rose Canyon and Elsinore Fault systems are the closest known active faults
(Jennings, 1987). Other principal active regional faults include the Coronado
Banks, San Clemente, Palos Verdes, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults (Blake,
1996). According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 8
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant,
1997).
4.4.3 Site Near Source Factors and Seismic Coefficients
In accordance with the Uniform Building Code 2001 edition, Volume 2, Figure
16-2, the referenced site is located within seismic zone 4 and has a seismic zone
factor of Z=0.4. The nearest active fault, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, is
approximately 11.5 kilometers to the west and is considered a Type B seismic
source. Based on the distance from the site to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, near
source factors of Ny=1.0 and Na=l.O are appropriate. Based on the shallow
subsurface explorations and our knowledge of the area, the site has a soil profile
type of SD and seismic coefficients of C=0.64 and Ca=0.44.
4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation 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.
Because of the generally hard nature of underlying materials and the lack of an
observed shallow groundwater table, it is our opinion that the potential for
liquefaction damage to proposed improvements should be considered low.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 9
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10,2004 Job No. 10-7423G
Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify
during seismic events. As indicated in the preceding discussions, any loose
surficial soils should be mitigated during recommended site grading. Therefore,
in our opinion, the potential for seismic settlement resulting in damage to site
improvements should be considered negligible.
4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation
According to McCulloch (1985), the tsunami potential in the San Diego County
coastal area for one-in-100 and one-in-500 year tsunami waves are approximately
four and six feet. This suggests that the site is not subject to damage due to the
elevation (approximately 520 feet above msl) and distance (more than 4.5 miles)
from the ocean. The site is not near any significant bodies of water that could
induce seiche damage.
4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding
Per mapping by Tan and Griffen (1995), the site is in an area that is considered
generally susceptible to landsliding. This is primarily based on the Santiago
Formation being historically prone to landsliding. Several landslides within the
Santiago Formation have been mapped several thousand feet to the north of the
site, however no landslides are mapped at the site or in the immediate area (Tan
and Griffen, 1995). In addition, no geomorphic features indicative of landsliding
were recognized from existing topographic maps of the area, and during our site
visits. Therefore, the potential for landsliding or rocksliding to affect the site is
considered low.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 10
Proposed Social Rail
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils
Based on our geologic observations and laboratory testing, the soil materials
located at the proposed structure foundation level consist of hard siltstones and
claystones that is generally non-compressible and has a medium expansion index
(expansion index of alluvium is 63). Therefore, the site soils are considered
suitable for support of the proposed improvements provided the recommendations
presented herein are followed.
4.4.8 Corrosive Soils
Based on analytical laboratory testing, onsite materials have a low potential to
corrode buried concrete improvements and a moderate potential to corrode buried
ferrous metals. A corrosion specialist shall be consulted for additional
recommendations, if deemed necessary by the project coordinators or the
governing authority.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design
and construction of the project. Recommendations for the design and construction of the
proposed improvements are presented in the subsequent sections of this report.
5.2 Site Preparation
Before any grading occurs, the site should be cleared of existing debris and other
deleterious materials. In areas to receive shallow founded structures or distress-sensitive
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 11
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
improvements, all undocumented fills and expansive, surficially eroded, desiccated,
burrowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be removed to the depth of the
competent native materials. CTE recommends the removal of the generally loose to
medium dense and unsuitable debris containing soils at the surface of the site. Organic
and other deleterious materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed
offsite at legal disposal site. Where basement improvements are proposed,
overexcavation and recompaction is not required as foundations will be extended to bear
at depth in competent native materials.
Proposed slab-on-grade areas shall be scarified 12 inches and recompacted for uniform
support at a minimum four percent above optimum moisture content. Over excavations
should extend a minimum of five feet laterally bcyond the limits of the proposed
improvements, where feasible.
Organic or oversize materials (greater than three inches in maximum dimension) not
suitable for structural backfill within three feet of proposed grade should be disposed of
off-site or placed in non-structural planter or landscape areas.
5.3 Site Excavation
Based on our observations, shallow excavations in site materials will generally be
feasible with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. An engineer
or geologist from CTE should evaluate the subgrade to verify that mitigative measures
(removal of inadequate soils) have been properly carried out. Irreducible materials
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 12
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 ____ ____ _____ Job No. 10-7423G
greater than three inches in maximum diameter encountered during excavations should
not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades) on the site. In utility
trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes.
5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred
before fill placement occurs. Following removal of loose, disturbed soils, areas to
receive fills or improvements should be scarified nine inches, moisture conditioned, and
properly compacted. Pill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent (as evaluated by ASTM D1557) at moisture contents greater
than three percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be
dependent on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be
placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Backfill
placement and compaction should he done in overall conformance with geotecimical
recommendations and local ordinances.
5.5 Fill Materials
The moderately expansive index soils derived from the onsite materials are considered
suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be
screened of organic materials and materials greater than three inches in a maximum
dimension. If encountered, clayey, inorganic, native soils may be blended with granular
soils and reused in non-structural fill areas. Irreducible materials between three and six
inches in maximum dimension may be placed, as directed by CTE, at depths greater than
three feet below proposed grades.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 13
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index
less than or equal to 30 (per UBC 18-I-B) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200
sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the
soils engineer to determine strength characteristics before placement on the site.
5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes
Sloping recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided. The
recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may
experience localized sloughing. Onsite soils are considered Type B soils with
recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 1 below.
TABLE I
RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS
SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT
(Horizontal: vertical)
B (Siltstones and 1:1 (MAXIMUM) 10 Feet
Claystones)
B (Fractured Volcanic and 1:1 (MAXIMUM) 10 Feet
Volcaniclastic Rock)
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
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 14
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be
maintained from the top of all unshored slopes.
5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations
The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These
foundation recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthworks.
5.7.1 Foundations
Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However,
footings should not straddle cut/fill interfaces; we anticipate all structural footings
will be founded entirely upon competent native materials a minimum three feet
below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Foundation dimensions and
reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 3,000 pounds per
square foot (psi). The, allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for
short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.
Footings should be at least 12 and 15 inches wide for one- and two-story
improvements, and founded at least 36 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior
subgrade. Reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four #4
reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The
structural engineer should provide recommendations for reinforcement of any
deepened spread footings and footings with pipe penetrations. Foundation
excavations shall be maintained at above optimum moisture content until concrete
placement.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 15
Proposed Social Hail
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
5.7.2 Foundation Settlement
In general, for the proposed construction, the maximum post-construction
compression settlement is expected to be less than 1.0 inch. Maximum
differential settlement of continuous footings is expected to be on the order of 0.5
inches over a distance of approximately 50 feet.
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 the footing is a minimum of 10
feet. Excavations for utility trenches within 10 lateral feet should not encroach
within a 1:1 plane extending downward from the closest bottom edge of adjacent
footings.
5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs
Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading, but
be a minimum of 4.5 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of
#4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch centers, respectively, each way at mid-slab
height (or with equivalent prefabricated reinforcement). In moisture sensitive
floor areas, a vapor barrier of ten-mil visqueen (with all laps sealed or taped),
overlying a two- to three-inch layer of consolidated aggregate base (Sand
Equivalent greater than 30) should be installed. A one- to two-inch layer of
similar material may be placed above the visqueen to protect the membrane
during steel or concrete placement. Slab areas subject to heavy loads or vehicular
traffic may require increased thickness and reinforcement. This office should be
contacted to provide additional recommendations where actual service conditions
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 16
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job NoJ0-7423G
warrant further analysis. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at a minimum
four percent above optimum moisture content until concrete or slab underlayment
placement.
5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site.
Foundations placed in firm, well-compacted fill material may be designed using a
coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction
times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 300 pounds per square foot per
foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1500 pounds per square foot) may be used. The
allowable lateral resistance can 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 iesistance. Retaining walls up to 10 feet high and backfilted using granular
soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS
(pounds foot) _per _cubic
WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL:
VERTICAL)
CANTILEVER WALL 35 60
(YIELDING)
RESTRAINED WALL 55 90
The values above assume non-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures
should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 17
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
measures should include free draining backfill materials and perforated drains. These
drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location.
5.9 Exterior Flatwork
To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of
foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints
at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Additionally, we recommend
that flatwork be installed with at least minimal reinforcement. Flatwork, which should be
installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural
features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations
previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and
maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at a minimum
four perce1t above optimum moisture content until concrete placement.
5.10 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 at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. The
project civil engineers should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary
provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 18
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
5.11 Vehicular Pavements
The upper twelve inches of pavement subgrade and all aggregate base materials should
be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum at a minimum four
percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557.
5.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement
Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on an estimated
Resistance "R" Value for materials on this site. The asphalt pavement design is
based on California Department of Transportation Highway Manual and on traffic
indexes as indicated in Table 3 on the following page. Upon completion of finish
grading, "R1' Value sampling and testing of subgrade soils may occur and the
pavement section modified if necessary.
TABLE 3
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
Traffic Area Assumed Traffic Estimated AC Class 2
Index Subgrade Thickness Aggregate Base
"R" Value (inches) Thickness
(inches)
Auto and Light 5.5 15 3.5 9.0
Truck Drive
Areas
Auto and Light 4.5 15 3.0 7.0
Truck Parking
Areas
5.11.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements
We understand that parking and drive areas may be paved with concrete
pavements. We recommend driveway entrance aprons and trash bin loading and
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 19
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
storage areas be paved with concrete pavements. The recommended concrete
pavement section for drive areas have been designed assuming light
industrial/commercial traffic loads of single axle loads of 15 kips, 10 repetitions
per day. Corresponding pavement designs presented in the Table 4 below may
not be adequate for larger axle loads and traffic volume. Concrete used for
pavement areas should possess a minimum 600-psi modulus of rupture.
Pavements should be constructed according to industry standards.
TABLE 4
CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN
Traffic Area Subgrade R-Value PCC Thickness (inches)
Driveways/Trash Areas 15 7.0
Auto and Light Truck Parking
and Drive Areas
15 6.0
Pavements should be constructed according to industry standards. To control the
location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, it is recommended that crack
control joints (weakened plane joints) in square or nearly square patterns be
included in the design. The project civil engineer shall specify jointing and other
specific details for pavement design. However unreinforced concrete pavement
joints shall not be spaced more than 24 times the pavement thickness.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 20
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
5.12 Slopes
Significant slopes are not anticipated at the site. Based on anticipated soil strength
characteristics, fill 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.
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. We do not
recommend distress sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of
slope crests in fill areas or that thickened edges be employed.
5.13 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design
information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in the
exploratory boring locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked
in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 21
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10, 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption
that CT"E will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork
should be observed and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed
according to the recommendations contained within this report. The project engineer
should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement.
5.14 Plan Review
CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement
of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this
report.
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.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed
conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,
our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be
provided upon request. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page 22
Proposed Social Hall
St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Carlsbad, California
January 10. 2004 Job No. 10-7423G
you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1013
12/31/06 CERHM
!.?
I 17°1fn1WI \Ai
C')
W(/14 1 170 1 CUU W
TOPth map printed on OL/C,'U from 'Californ&tpo" and 1-11-ltitlecLtp(3
11/' 1/.ula1' W ii LO.IJ.J.1 VV Wtj'tjJ. 11 / t:..IJLJIJ V
I / I r /
- .. -' .....-.. -- . . 1. . -1 ...'•• -
-.-
)
.:. .. ... ..-
-
sa s 'A U H 0 1 0 N 1)1 k
.
?g-(-
'
(2 pr
. . .
•-:
1/
:ri
q.
I-I
••• •.:; :: •• .
..
Nxi
IM 4'-
-:.f.y.-J. '"i'•
- •• _•4. - ,Ii
r I I •• , - -- ¶,4_. '_n" %,•;ji - --
.
fi .5 I MIII
JO fill 9 - — • II f411tfe
rLuItIa LIoroTOPOl e12000 TA acluloWli PI'xlIchans (w.top000)
CD
H-•• to
p.
I
r
'
11-,11rlrIrI' &'
TN'JMM
vI 0
20 FOOT CONTOUR ELEVATIONS
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES CITED
REFERENCES CITED
Blake, T.F., 1996, "EQFAULT," Version 2.20, Thomas F. Blake Computer
Services and Software.
Benton Engineering, Inc. (1993), Soils Investigation for St. Elizabeth Seton
Church, Proposed Sanctuary Building 6628 Santa Isabel Street, Carlsbad,
California, Dated October, 1, 1993.
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 1997, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake
Fault Zones Maps," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Publication 42.
Jennings, C. W., 1987, "Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes,
Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells."
McCulloch, D.S., 1985, "Evaluating Tsunami Potential" in Ziony, J.I., ed.,
Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth-Science
Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360.
Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the
San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Landslide Hazard
Identification Map", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines
and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04, State of California, Division of Mines and
Geology, Sacramento, California
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of
San Diego County, California, Plate 1, Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis
Rey, and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County, California", State of
California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02.
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORINGS LOGS
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORINGS LOGS
Soil Boring Methods
Relatively "Undisturbed" Soil Samples
Relatively "undisturbed" soil samples were collected using a modified California-drive
sampler (2.4-inch inside diameter, 3-inch outside diameter) lined with sample rings.
Drive sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D-3550. The steel
sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound
weight falling 30-inches. Blow counts (N) required for sampler penetration are shown on
the boring logs in the column "Blows/Foot." The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4
inches in diameter, 1.00 inch in height). The samples were retained and carefully sealed
in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the Construction Testing & Engineering
("CTE") geotechnical laboratory.
Disturbed Soil Sampling
Bulk soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis using two methods. Standard
Penetration Tests (SF1') were performed according to ASTM D-1586 at selected depths
in the borings using a standard (1.4-inches inside diameter, 2-inches outside diameter)
split-barrel sampler. The steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with
successive drops of a 140-pound weight falling 30-inches. Blow counts (N) required for
sampler penetration are shown on the boring logs in the column "Blows/Foot." Samples
collected ih this manner were placed in sealed plastic bags. Bulk soil samples of the drill
cuttings were also collected in large plastic bags. All disturbed soil samples were
returned to the CTE geotechnical laboratory for analysis.
Aw CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
kE\GEOTECISNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION
___ 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE 6 ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DiVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAVELS CLEAN WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
MORE THAN GRAVELS IjQW. : LITTLE OR NO FINES
Z HALF OF <5% FINES iet. GP LITTLE OF NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,
(IS
0 0 w FRACTION is SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,
l) C N GRAVELS I1PE.GM NON-PLASTIC FINES
U. COARSE
I
- _______________________________________
- LARGER THAN WITH FINES NO. SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,
_______________ ___________________ PLASTIC FIN ES --
SANDS CLEAN WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
w MORE THAN SANDS --... FINES
ce POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR c 0 HALF OF <5% FINES SP NO FINES 02 COARSE
U FRACTION IS SANDS :[:I.[jfI:1.. SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES
SMALLER THAN WITH FINES NO.4 SIEVE NO. SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
SILTS AND CLAYS OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS
P'Z"
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
o - LIQUID LIMIT IS
LESSTI-IAN50 .11 GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY HOLH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
C4 Z SILTS AND CLAYS /
MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
IJ4 LIQUID LIMIT IS c INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, GREATER THAN 50
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND I
COARSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM 1 171—N-17]SILTS AND CLAYS
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 Penetrometer
GS- Grain Size Distribution SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash Analysis
SE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear
El- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits RDS- Repeated Direct Shear
CHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Value UC- Unconfined Compression
Content , pH, Resistivity UN- Consolidation lvii)- Moisture/Density
COR - Corrosivity CP- Collapse Potential M- Moisture
SD- Sample Disturbed HC- Hydrocollapse SC- Swell Compression
REM- Remolded 01- Organic Impurities
FTGURE:I BLI
/ \CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECIINICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION
2414 VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955
GINEEEEG6C.
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
.5 '3
- BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
- - - Block or Chunk Sample -4--- - - -
- -
- - - - - Bulk Sample
-5-
- Standard Penetration Test - -
10- -
- - -4-- - Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) - - - -
- I - - Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample - - -
(5-
- - Groundwater Table ----- -
-
I
Soil Type or Classification Change
-20-
Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried(?)]
Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils
25- exist in situ as bedrock
FIGURE: I BL2
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAI. AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION e 1414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE 0 ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955
ENERIM2.INC
PROJECT: SOCIAL HALL ST. ELIZABETH DRILLER: BAJA EXPIATION SHEET: I of
CTE JOB NO: 10-74230 DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 12/14/04
LOGGED BY: a RIES SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION:
.2
BORiNG: B—i Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
- - - - -
- 0-0.2' TURF
- 0.2-3' EIi,k;
ML Medium dense, moist, yellowish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).
El
CHEM
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Hard, moist, Light yellowish gray, silty CLAYSTONE to clayey
SILTSTONE (CL to ML) massive with rusty orange stained
coatings.
12 CI
/ 24 to HA
_40 ML
10 @ 10' With fine to very fine SAND, occasional medium grains.
19
F 4 ML 15' Becomes hard, moist, light gray, very fine sandy SILTSTONE
13 with clay (ML), massive.
L 23
fl 20 I 26
L 35 1 1 1
Total Depth 19.5'
No Groundwater Observed
Borehole Backifiled with Native Soil
25 ____
- - B-i
Boring B-1
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. f 000TECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION
2414 VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE U ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4905
EKGIS4EERE'014C
PROJECT: SOCIAL HALL ST. ELIZABETH DRILLER: BAJA EXPLATEON SHEET: I of
CTE JOB NO: I0-7423G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 12/14/04
LOGGED BY: D. RIES
- - SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION:
.9 06
BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
0 - - -
- 0-0.2' TURF
SANTIAGO FORMATION: -
- Hard, moist, yellow gray, sandy SILTSTONE.
ML
' V 'o SAtfAWAkV1iW
- 12 Hard, moist, light yellowish gray, gray, rusty orange brown, sandy GS
L 21 SILTSTONE with very hard meta-volcanic rock fragments.
Rusty staining, with white powdery material within fractures.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ivfl.
7 29 Hard, moist, greenish gray with abundant rusty brown staining,
- - 50 fine sandy SILTSTONE, fractured.
15 30 Becomes dark gray.
L so
- Total Depth 18.5'
29 No Groundwater Observed
Borehole Backfihled with Native Soil
-25
13-2
4\CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. / \% GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION
___________ 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE 0 ESCONDII3O CA. 92021 (760) 746-4950 GDIWGJ7IC
PROJECT: SOCIAL HALL ST. ELIZABETH DRILLER: BAJA EXPLATION SHEET: I of
CTE JOB NO: 10-7423G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 12/14/04
LOGGED BY: D. RIES SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION:
.2
' BORING: B-3 Laboratory Tests
0
.9 m
DESCRIPTION
0- - - -
- 0-0.2' TURF
- - 0.2-2' FILL:
- Medium dense, moist, Yellowish gray, fme sandy SILT (ML). MAX
DS
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
-
- V i.
- - A Hard, moist, gray, SILTSTONE with clay, massive.
7 13
- ( 44 110.5 15.0
50
5.
ML Hard, moist, medium gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).
I 20
L29
15- r 15 _
I 23 SM Hard, moist, brown, gray, reddish gray, silty fine SANDSTONE
L 40 - to sandy SILTSTONE with meta volcanic rock fragments.
ML
--TI 20
49 1
20 Total Depth 19'
No Groundwater Observed
- - Borehie Backfihled with Native Soil
- - -
12
B-3
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
I
• APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
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.
• Particle-Size Analysis
Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to
• ASTM
• Modified Proctor
To determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, a soil sample was
• tested in accordance with ASTMD-1557.
• Expansion Index Tesling
Expansion index testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the onsite
soils accotding to Building Code Standard No. 29-2.
• Chemical Analysis
• Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and
Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity.
• Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples
S recompacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum value overall. Direct shear testing was
performed in accordance with ASTM D3080-72 to evaluate the shear strength
characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to
represent adverse field conditions.
S
S •
I
S • • •
S
S
• CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECUNICAL. AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINES RING TESTING AND INSPECTION
C9 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE U ESCONGIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746.4931
G1NECGU.DIC
• EXPANSION INDEX TEST
I UBC18-2
LOCATION DEPTH EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION
• (feet) POTENTIAL
B-i 1-4 63 MEDIUM
• MAXIMUM DENSITY
• (MODIFIED PROCTOR)
LOCATION DEPTH OPTIMUM MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
• (feet) (%) (pci)
• B-3 1-4 15.0 110.5
• SULFATE
LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS
• (feet) ppm
• B-i 1-4 137
• CHLORIDE
I
LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) ppm
S B-i 1-4 45
CONDUCTIVITY
CALIFORNIA TEST 424
LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) us/cm
B-I 1-4 250
RESISTIVITY
CALIFORNIA TEST 424
LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) ohms/cm
B-i 14 3590
LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-7423G
PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA
0.000
1750 -
0.050--
--
11111 l600-----
20m---
lUll
I0
.100--
1250
12
°'°
-
11
1000
--
760
-- i-Il--- 0.200 Boo
-
250 0.250-- ffljfl-- --
0.300
-
- 2
-
20 16 4 6 6 10 12 14 16
- - -
1
- -
10
-
100
-
1000 STRAIN (0/6)
[VERTICAL STRESS -- 3000 psi
flflnI
TIME (minutes)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
5000-
4000 -
CO
3000
111
I-. U) C,
2000 -
1000
d=0.l2mrnJrnin
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST
Samp!c Designation Depth (It) Cohesion Angle of Friction Sample Description
M'O psf 123 Remolded Light Yellowish Green Clay
Initial Moisture (%): 15.0% Initial Wet Densityjpc. 114.4 cTB JOB NO: 10-7423
Final Moisture (%): 35.6% Final Wet DensUy (pd 134.8 FIGURE No: C-2
........................................... U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE - -
— C-4 r4
100 -----
90
80
70
60 ------
C.,
In
50
z
40
----
-7
::
30 ----- __ ----- __
20
1: 1111 WLH
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
4CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Sample Designation Sample OqMh (feet) Sytnbol LiquId Limit (%) Plasticity Index Classification
B-2 5.0 - - GM
000TEC9INICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPSCTION
2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONO1DO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955 ___________ CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-7423 FIGURE: C-I
........................................... B-i @ 5'
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
17 111[
10 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
,CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECKNICAI.. AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION
___________ 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE 0 ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746.4955
SNG2W6Q4C.
Sample SampIEDepth(t) i
SymboL
B-i 51
I I i
CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-7423 C- 3
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
APPENDIX D
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Appendix D Page D-1
Standard Specifications for Grading
Section 1 - General
The guidelines contained herein represent Construction Testing & Engineering's 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 assure
that geotechnical construction is performed in 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 should be 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 shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the
grading contractor, the design engineer, the 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.
Appendix D Page D-2
Standard Specifications for Grading
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.
Appendix D Page D-3
Standard Specifications for Grading
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations.
Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g.,
backeuts) 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.
Appendix D Page D-4
Standard Specifications for Grading
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
replacd 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.
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.
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
Appendix D Page D-5
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 inspect the area to
receive fill. After inspection 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
the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to
placement of fill.
Appendix D Page D-6
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 5 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 11 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.
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.
Appendix D Page D-7
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 1556-82, D 2922-81. Tests should be conducted at
a minimum of 2 vertical feet or 1,000 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 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
exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment,
whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled.
Appendix D Page D-8
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 2
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 backfihled 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.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be
installed in accordance with the specifications.
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).
Appendix D Page D-9
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 and 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 -Inigatjn
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 - Repjr
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.
APPENDIX B
SOILS INVESTIGATION
BY BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. DATED OCTOBER 1, 1993
11/16/2004 10:48 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES FOo2/o27
SOILS INVESTIGATION
ST. ELIZABETH SETON
CATHOLIC CHURCH
PROPOSED SANCTUARY BUILDING
6628 SANTA ISABEL STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
93-9-8A OCTOBER 1, 1993
11/16/2004 10:48 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES Q003/027
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOILS INVESTIGATION Page
Introduction --------------------------------------------------1
Field investigation -------------------------------------------1 and 2
Laboratory Tests ----------------------------------------------2, 3, and 4
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion of Soil Strata -------------------------------------4 and 5
Site Preparation ----------------------------------------------5, 6, and 7
Foundation Design ---------------------------------------------7
Resistance to Lateral Loads -----------------------------------7 and 8
Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ---------------------------------------8
Retaining Walls -----------------------------------------------8 and B
Excavation ----------------------------------------------------9
Pavement Section Recommendations ------------------------------9, 10,
and 11
Inspection During Grading -------------------------------------11
DRAWING TITLE Drawing
Location of Test Borings --------------------------------------1
Summary Sheets:
Boring -------------------------------------------------2
Boring2 -------------------------------------------------3
Boring3 -------------------------------------------------4
Boring4 -------------------------------------------------5
Consolidation Curves ------------------------------------------6
Typical Fill Prism --------------------------------------------7
APPENDICES
Unified Soil Classification Chart -_A
Standard Specifications For Placement of
Compacted Filled Ground ---------------------------------------AA
Sampling, Shear Tests, Consolidation Tests and
Expansion Tests -----------------------------------------------B
11/16/2004 10:48 FAX 619 692 9394 DOWNY & ASSOCIATES IM 004/027
PHILIP FIENKIND RENTON
CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 10332
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER NO. 138
BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS - FOUNDATIONS
5540 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
ESTABLISHED 1956
SOILS INVESTIGATION TELEPHONE (6191565-1955
FAX 1619)565-8719
Introduction
This report presents the results of a soils investigation conducted
at the site of the proposed Sanctuary Building for the St. Elizabeth Seton
Catholic Church. The Sanctuary Building site is located northeasterly of
the existing church.
It is understood that the Sanctuary Building-will be single level with
wood-frame construction and concrete slabs-on-grade. The footprint of the
building is approximately 140 feet by 180 Feet. It is also understood that
two site retaining walls are planned at the easterly side of the proposed
parking area.
In order to determine the general subsurface conditions of the site
and physical properties of the soils, four (4) exploratory borings were drilled.
Pertinent soil parameters will be presented for the design of the proposed
building and retaining walls.
Field Investigation
A total of four (4) exploratory borings were drilled 30 inches in diameter,
with a truck-mounted, rotary, bucket-type drill rig outside the footprint
of the proposed building. The approximate locations of the borings are shown
on the attached Drawing 1 entitled "Location of Test Borings." Each boring
was drilled to a depth of 10 feet. A continuous log of the soils encountered
in the borings was recorded by our Certified Engineering Geologist, at the
time of drilling and is shown in detail on Drawings 2 through 5 each
11/16/2004 10:49 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES IJ005/027
-2-
entitled "Summary Sheet.'
The soils were visually classified by field identification procedures
in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Chart. An abbreviated
description of this classification system is presented in Appendix A.
Undisturbed soil samples were obtained at intervals of 2 to 3 feet in
the soils ahead of drilling. The drop weight used to drive the sampling
tube into the soils was the "Kelly" bar of the drill rig which weighed 2218
pounds and the average drop was 12 inches. The drive energies in sampling
are shown on the Summary Sheets and are given in foot-kips/foot. Represen-
tative loose bulk samples were also obtained including a CBR sample near
the center of the proposed parking area. The general procedures used in
field sampling are described under "Sampling" in Appendix B.
Laboratory Tests
Laboratory tests were performed on each undisturbed sample in order
to deterinin the dry density, moisture content, and shearing strength. The
results of these tests are presented on Drawings 2 through 5. Consolidation
tests were performed on representative samples in order to determine the
S load-settlement characteristics of the soils and the results of these tests
are presented graphically on Drawing 6 entitled "Consolidation
• Curves.
The general procedures used for the laboratory tests are described
briefly in Appendix B.
S Expansion tests were conducted on two (2) representative clayey soil
samples found near the surface to determine their vertical expansion
;
characteristics with change in moisture content. The undisturbed samples
were allowed to dry in the air at 105°C for two. days, then saturated while
I confined under a unit load of 500 pounds per square foot. The recorded
•-
•
•
•
S
11/16/2004 10:49 FAX 619 692 9394 DOWNY & ASSOCIATES I006/027
3-
expansions are presented below:
Boring Sample Depth Percent
No. No. in Feet Soil Description Expansion
1 1 2.0 Silty Clay 6.00
2 1 2.0 Clay 7.23
The clayey soil samples encountered within the upper subgrade have medium
expansion potential characteristics.
Direct shear tests were performed on a representative undisturbed sample
in order to determine the minimum angle of internal friction and apparent
cohesion of the soil. The sample was saturated and drained prior to testing.
The results of the test are presented below:
Maximum angle of
Normal Shearing Internal Apparent
Load Load Friction Cohesion
jps/Sg.Ft. jjpsJSg.Ft. Degrees Lbs/SQ.Ft.
Boring: 3 0.5 2.10 33.5 1400
Sample: 1 1.0 2.12
Depth: 2.0' 2.0 3.11
In addition to the above laboratory tests a California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) test was conducted on a bulk soil sample obtained within the upper
one foot of subgrade within the area of the planned southern parking lot.
The test was performed in accordance with City of San Diego standards.
The test results are tabulated below:
Molded Initial
CBR Dry Moisture
Sample Density Content
No. Lb/Cu.Ft. % Dry Wt,
118.2 16.2
Pene- Load in Percent Percent
tra- Pounds on CBR Expansion Moisture
tion 3 Sq.Inch % of After After
Inch Plunger Std. Soaking Penetration
0.1 97 3.2 5.82 27.9
0.2 169 3.8
0.3 214 3.8
0.4 252 3.7
0.5 277 3.6
A CBR of 3.2 will be used for preliminary pavement design. The clayey
soils encountered within the upper subgrade are unfavorable for pavement.
The general procedures used for the laboratory tests are described
S
11/16/2004 10:49 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES EJ007/027
4-
in appendix B.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5 The following conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions
that are based upon the above field investigation, laboratory test results,
and engineering analyses and calculations. These opinions have been derived
in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed
or implied.
The field investigation and laboratory test results indicate that,te
fti edlt in the
test borings In addition, "exiPain W.
C mi
t
no
:
Discussion of Soil Strata
Loose silty fine to medium sand fill soils were encountered within
5 the upper 0.5 foot at Boring I. Natural, very firm, silty clay was observed
below the fill soils to a depth of 5.0 feet, which was underlain by very
firm silt to 10.0 feet, the depth of investigation.
The log of Boring 2 indicates that natural, medium firm, clay was encountered
to a depth of 0.5 foot and underlain by very firm clay to 10.0 feet, the
limit of excavation.
Natural, medium firm, silty clay was logged to a depth of 0.7 foot
at Boring 3. Very firm, silty clay was encountered between the depths of
, 0.7 foot and 8.0 feet, and was underlain by very firm clayey silt to 10.0
; feet, the depth of investigation.
Fill soils were observed to a depth of 3.0 feet at Boring 4. The fill
soils consisted of loose, gravelly silty fine sand to 0.6 foot, and compact
clay to 3.0 feet, Natural, very firm, silty fine sand was logged below
•
S •
11/16/2004 10:50 FAX 619 692 9394 DOfiLINY & ASSOCIATES J 008/027
-5-
3.0 feet to a depth of 10.0 feet, the extent of excavation.
The natural soils encountered within the borings appear to be products
of volcanic rock. Genera1ly, the volcanic rock has weathered. However,
at Boring 4 the volcanic rock was determined to be unweathered below 7.5
feet.
The borings were drilled on September 21, 1993. Free ground water
was not encountered in any of the borings drilled.
Site Preparation
Natural, very firm soils were encountered at depths of 0.5 foot, 0.5
foot, 0.7 foot, and 3.0 feet, respectively, at Borings 1 through 4. However,
these soils are not suitable for support of foundations or concrete slabs-on-
grade, since they possess significant expansive characteristics. These
soils are described as silty clay and clay.
S
L-1Wnexp.ans1ve.1 mpn..sw1
0
We planne4. ten*-•ecommende:df:
A minimum 3 foot thickness of compacted filled ground soils shall be
provided throughout the building prisms. Horizontal benching is required
for slopes steeper than 10 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). The first bench
shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and extend a niininiurn of 2 feet into
the firm natural soils. A typical fill prism is presented on Drawing 7.
it depicts the minimum key and benching requirements for slopes steeper
than 10 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). It also shows the minimum compacted
11/16/2004 10:50 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES IM 009/027
am
filled ground thickness in the building area. The compacted fill prism
includes the footprint of the building and a minimum of 8 feet beyond the
perimeter footings.
The excavation of the loose to medium firm soils and expansive clayey
soils shall include the footprint of the building and a horizontal distance
equal to 5 feet plus the depth of fill beyond the perimeter footings of
the building. Once the removal of the upper three (3) feet of soils is
performed, then the exposed soils in the bottom of the excavation shall
be scarified to a depth of 6 inches. These scarified soils shall be dried
or moistened to achieve optimum moisture content. Then the exposed soils
shall be compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density
as determined by ASTM 0 157-78. Select, nonexpansive imported silty sand
soils shall be placed and compacted within the upper three (3) feet of subgrade.
It is recommended that all filled ground be placed and compacted in accordance
with the "tandard Specifications For Placement of Compacted Filled Ground"
in Appendix AA. The maximum vertical thickness of lifts shall be 6 inches
after compaction.
All compaction shall be done under continuous engineering inspection
with reliable field density tests taken at intervals not to exceed 1.0 foot
vertically and 100 feet horizontally. All field density tests shall verify
that the soils are uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum
dry density. Select, imported nonexpansive silty sand soils shall be used
to cap the upper three (3) feet of subgrade which meet the following
specifications:
Gradation: 100 percent passing the 3-inch sieve.
At least 50 percent passing the No. 4 sieve.
Not more than 40 percent passing the 200 sieve,
Angle of Internal Friction: Not less than 35 degrees.
Apparent Cohesion: Not less than 250 pounds per square foot.
11/16/2004 10:50 FAX 619 892 9394 WHINY & ASSOCIATES 1010/027
Expansion: Less than 2.0 percent.
Maximum Dry Density: Not less than 118 pounds per cubic foot.
Note: The angle of internal friction and apparent cohesion of the soils are
determined in direct shear tests of samples remolded to 90 percent of
maximum dry density, and saturated and drained prior to testing. The
expansion is determined by remolding a soil sample to 92 percent of
maximum dry density at optimum moisture content, air-dried for
two days, then Subjecting the sample to a vertical load of 500 pounds
per square foot and saturating it.
Foundation Design
the lowest adjacent compacted filled ground
surface
rn the lowest adjacent compacted
filled ground surface may be designed using an allowable soil bearing value
of 2OD faYefodt. The allowable bearing values are for live
and dead loads and may be increased one-third for combined live, dead, wind
or seismic loads. The values above assume that select imported soils will
be provided as fill. The settlement of a one foot wide continuous footing
founded as recommended above, is estimated to be on the order of 1/8 to
1/4 inch under a load of 2000 pounds per square foot. The estimated settlement
of a 4 foot wide square footing founded in the same manner and loaded to
2500 pounds per square foot is on the order of 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch.
Resistance to Lateral Loads
Lateral forces may be resisted by the passive soil pressure against
the poured in-place vertical faces of the footings and by the sliding friction
of the bottom of the footings. The passive soil reaction may be computed
by assuming an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot for
the compacted filled ground soils.
The resistance to sliding friction may be determined by assuming a
slidin friction of 0.40 for the select compact filled ground soils.
11/16/2004 10:51 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES IO11/027
Passive and sliding resistance may be used together, but it is recommended
that the sliding coefficient be reduced to 0.27 when combined with passive
soil pressures.
Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade shall have reinforcement as recommended by
the Structural Engineer. A four-inch (4") thickness of clean
sand shall underlay the slab and a suitable vapor barrier shall be placed
at rnidheight within the sand. Regular control joints shall be provided
to minimize shrinkage cracking.
Retaininci Walls
Cantilever retaining walls backfilled with the selects imported silty
sand soils and placed and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of maximum dry
density, in accordance with the methods and inspection methods described
in the uSite Preparation" section of this reports may be designed using
an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. A three (3) foot
wide minimum width of select silty sand or pea gravel must be provided behind
the wall in order to use this equivalent fluid density. The soil parameter
given is for a level backfill condition and must be increased for sloping
backfill conditions. If a 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) sloping condition
exists,then an equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot shall
be used for design.
To ensure that hydrostatic pressures do not develop behind the walls,
an adequate drainage system must be installed behind the walls. This may
be done by placing perforated pipe drains behind the wall and at least 1.0
foot below the proposed lowest adjacent finished elevation. The perforated
pipe should be hackfilled with gravel a minimum of 1.0 foot around the pipe
horizontally and 2.0 feet above the pipe vertically. A geotextile fabric
is recommended to surround the gravel and drainage pipe. The drain system
11/16/2004 10:51 FAX 619 692 9394 DO11INY & ASSOCIATES [a 012/027
ST
should discharge into a suitable outfall or drain. Weep holes at minimum
intervals of 5 feet and pea gravel backfill may be used for exterior retaining
walls if drainage can be appropriately controlled.
The active pressures for the retaining walls shall be increased if
the drainage provisions described above are not included.
The above pressures for design of retaining walls must be increased
if surcharge loads are caused by placement of stockpiled materials, equipment,
or building loads near the tap of the retaining wall that are located a
horizontal distance from the top of the wall that is less than 1.5 times
the height of the wall, or if the soil becomes saturated.
Excavation
It is recommended that temporary excavations be sloped at a ratio not
exceeding 3/4 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) up to a height of 8 feet from
the bottom of the excavation. Safety requirements established by OSHA or
other regulatory agencies may limit the type of excavation. It is assumed
that no surcharge loads, such as stockpiled materials, equipment or crane
loads will be placed closer to the top of any slope than a horizontal distance
equal Co the depth of excavation during construction. It is also assumed
that the excavated slope will be prevented from being saturated during construction,
and that free surface water will not be allowed to drain across the face
of the slopes. Any field conditions deviating from these assumptions may
require shoring.
Pavement Section Recommendations
A -California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was conducted on a representative
subgrade soil sample in the area of the planned parking lot. The CBR test
results indicated a design value of 3.2. The cl a yey soils do not possess
favorable subgrade characteristics. The recommended asphaltic concrete
pavement and base sections for proposed paved areas are based on a CBR value
11/16/2004 10:51 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES 191013/027
-10-
of 3.2 or greater. The pavement design for the automobile parking areas
will be based on a wheel load of 4000 pounds. A design wheel load of 10 ,000
pounds is assumed for the traffic lane where heavy loads are anticipated.
Light Auto Traffic Lane
Design Wheel Load - Pounds 4,000 10,000
Asphaltic Concrete 2¼"
Base Course Materials
(Caltrans Class II
aggregate base grada-
tion with a minimum
CBR of 80 at 95 percent
of maximum dry density).
On-site soils having a 611 5"
minimum CBR of 6.0
excaVated and recornpacted
to at least 95 percent of
maximum dry density.
During construction, the proposed paving areas should be uniformly
excavated to a depth equal to the combined total thicknesses of Lines (a).
(b), and (c) shown above.
The exposed surface should then be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
moistened or dried as necessary to an optimum moisture content and uniformly
compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by
the ASTh D 1557-78 method. All compaction shall be done under continuous
engineering inspection, with reliable field density tests taken at intervals
not to exceed 1.0 foot vertically and 100 feet horizontally. All field
density tests shall verify that the soil is compacted to the specified minimum
requirements. The maximum vertical thickness of lifts shall be 6 inches
after compaction. Next, the on-site soils shall be placed as described
above and each layer shall be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent
of maximum dry density up to the base course level. The babe course shall
then be imported and compacted at optimum moisture content to at least
11/16/2004 10:52 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES II 014/027
-11-
95 percent of maximum dry density, prior to the placement and compaction
of the asphaltic concrete.
Inspection During Grading
During the grading of the site, the field conditions encountered may
differ from those encountered in the limited locations explored and sampled
in this investigation. It is important to anticipate that the conditions
and soil types encountered in the course of construction may differ from
those encountered in this investigation. It is, therefore, necessary
that all footing excavations be inspected before placement of reinforcement
to verify that soil types encountered are similar to those described in
this investigation, and to verify that footings are placed to adequate depths
in suitable bearing soils that are described in this report.
If you have any questions regarding this report please contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
By/74&1
--j n H. Benton ell
No. 772
Reviewed by
Shu, Citil Engineer or Ch Geotecnnical Engineer No 772
Distribution: (2) St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
Attention: Mr, Ron Larose
(4) Dominy and Associates
JHJSHS/jer Mr. Wayne Holtan
EjO15/O27 11/16/2004 10:52 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES :J?fjrj - • 7) - - ---- --- S : - - -'1 ..
: \ '
I . ah \ \
V
:- -I -
I' /
:
- -----
- w
' a - \\li
* ' /
W
d1t \
- I - -
:
0
0000
<
00 0
ol
•
I r - • • • . . • •
0
11/16/2004 10:52 FAX 619 692 9394 DOTILINY & ASSOCIATES 0016/027
121e13
L/1612004 10:53 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES LO17/027
0
W 0 SUMMARY SHEET . W4 av-
zz 0W!b BORING NO. 2 wO
0 CC
3 - Dry, Medium Firm
Merges
Olive, Moist, Very Firm,
Maroon Color Streaks 4.4 25.6 97.4 0.98
4-0
0
6.7 24.0 104.5 2.65
CLAY
-
11.1 198 108.0 2.54 7:
10d@ 8
. 1
20.31107.012-631
Stop at 10
PROJECT NO.nAWINQ ENGINEERING, INC. _BETON NO.
939_5J
121813
11/16/2004 10:53 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES IjO1S/027
Z
SUMMARY SHEET
6 BORING NO.3 w
eoz •
cl
~
Gray Brown , Dry, Medium
Firm
Slightly Moist, Very Firm
Moist
4.4122.61 96.915.72
Gray Brown, Moist, Very
Finn, Some Very Fine Sand
Size Grains
Stop at 10'
SILTY CLAY
CLAYEY
SILT
6.71 21.81100.71 3.93
8.9131.2196-812-99
PROJECT NO.
939-8A I3ENTON ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWING NO.
L.
11/16/2004 10:53 FAX 619 692 9394 DO]1INY & ASSOCIATES IJ019/027
..........•. •.............•..•........•....
TYPICAL FILL PRISM
FOR CUE/FILL CUNULTION
SELECT ON-SITE
SILTY SAND (SM) SOILS "G 8
- UPPER 3 FEET -
5't Depth af COMPACTED 31 Fi 11. i n Feet
I fiIchever is
PROJECTED PLANE ,_r:.____._.._i greater
I to 1 Maximum from Toe
of Slope to Approved Ground REMOVE
I UNSUITABLE
NATURAL MATERIAL
GROUND 4' MIN. BENCH
HEIGHT LEVEL (typical ) VARIES
21 MIN I I5 MIN.
KEY - r LOWEST BENCH
DEPTH (KEY)
PROJECT NO. BENTON ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWING
7
SUITABLE 'BEARING SOILS
iz
ii -U
Iiifi II Ii
lvil 11
V
IM
0
1=
U
0
11/16/2004 10:54 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES 02 2/027
APPENDIX A
-j
: '0 0, ;
i - oii,t E
2 • -All a
I
-c 9
o•_. •. _..:ii• 6-•O.•' ha
- •-;- i_•
V
. •1
9i
t•:
tip - tic uUCuj
- 9• _•••=_•ij za 9 0
(,c Oic po._-
ji
a
4u oa
ei "—t:a iiMt_c=
9
9 tt 969
j.c
o v •
z gz :•#
-
=
.,
#8t9
11/16/2004 10:55 FAX 610 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES Ej023/027
ENTQN ENGINEERING, . APPLIEDSOIL MECHANICS- FOUNDATIONS
5540AUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 . ESTABLISHED 1956
APPENDIX AA
PHILIP HENKIHGDENTON STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT TELEPHONE (O19)565-1955
CtVL ENGINEER NO. iD.a FAX (619) 5656719
GEOTECHNIGAL ENGINEER NO. 138 OF COMPACTED FILLED GROUND
1. General Description The objective is to assure uniformity and adequate
internal strength in filled ground by proven engineering procedures and
tests so that the proposed structures may be safely supported. The
O procedures include the clearing and grubbing, removal of existing structures,
preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, the spreading, and
compaction of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes
as shown on the accepted plans. . The recommendations contained in the preliminary Soils Investigation report
for this site and/or in the attached special provisions are a part of these
specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in . the case of a conflict. The owner shall employ a qualified soils engineer
to inspect and test the filled ground as placed to verify the uniformity
of compaction of filled ground to the specified 90 percent of maximum
dry density. The grading contractor shall have the responsibility of
notifying the soils engineer 4.8 hours or more in advance of the start of . any clearing or site preparation so that the soils engineer and/or his
field representative will be able to schedule the manpower for the required
inspections. The soils engineer shall advise the owner and grading contractor
immediately if any unsatisfactory conditions are observed to exist and
shall have the authority to reject the compacted filled ground until such . time that corrective measures are taken necessary to comply with the
specifications. It shall be the sole responsibility of the grading
contractor to achieve the specified degree of compaction.
No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except if amended
by written instructions signed by the responsible soils engineer.
2. Clearing, Grubbing, and Preparing Areas to be Filled
(a) All brush, vegetation and any rubbish shall be removed, piled and . disposed of either off site in a legal disposal pit or in a specified
permanent approved landscape area so as to leave the areas to be
filled for approved structural support free of vegetation and debris.
Any soft, swampy or otherwise unsuitable areas shall be corrected S by draining or removal, or both.
(b) All loose fill, topsoil, alluvial deposits or other unsatisfactory
soil shall be removed to the limits determined by the soils engineer.
Subdrainage systems shall be installed in the bottom of all canyon S areas and in areas 'whenever ground water conditions are likely to
develop beneath the compacted fill soils. •
S
(8/27/87)
S • •
11/16/2004 10:56 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES E024/027
APPENDIX AA
-2-
The natural ground which is determined to be satisfactory for the
support of the filled ground shall then be plowed or scarified to
a depth of at least six inches (6's), and until the surface is free
from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features which would tend to
prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas, greater
than 10 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm
undisturbed natural ground in order to provide both lateral and
vertical stability. This is to provide a horizontal base so that
each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The
initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in
width on firm undisturbed natural ground at the elevation of the
design toe stake placed at the natural angle of repose or design
slope. Offset stakes shall be provided to leave in as reference
stakes for the construction of the filled ground slopes. The soils
engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding
benches which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness
of slope.
After the natural ground has been prepared, it shall then be brought
to a moisture content at a few percent above optimum moisture and
compacted to not less than ninety (90%) percent of maximum density
in accordance with ASTM ID 1557-78 method that uses 25 blows of a
10 pound rammer falling from 18 inches on each of 5 layers in a
4-inch diameter cylindrical mold of a 1/30th cubic foot volume.
3. Fill Materials and Special Requirements - The fill soils shall consist
of select materials so graded that at least 40 percent of the material
passes a No. 4 sieve. This may be obtained from the excavation of banks,
borrow pits or any other approved sources and by mixing soils from one
or more sources. The material used shall be free from vegetable matter,
and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks, or lumps,
or cobbles of greater than 8 inches in diameter. If excessive vegetation,
larger diameter cobbles, rocks and boulders, or soils with inadequate
strength or other unacceptable physical characteristics are encountered,
these shall be disposed of in waste areas as shown on the plans or as
directed by the soils engineer. If, during grading operations, soils
not encountered and tested in the preliminary investigation are found,
tests on these soils shall be performed to determine their physical
characteristics. Any special treatment recommended in the preliminary
or subsequent soil reports not covered herein shall become an addendUm
to-these specifications.
The testing and specifications for the compaction of subgrade, subbase,
and base materials for roads, streets, highways, or other public
property or rights-of-way shall be in accordance with those of the
governmental agency having jurisdiction.
(8/27/87) BENTON ENGINEERING. INC.
11/16/2004 10:66 FAX 619 692 9394 DOWNY & ASSOCIATES IlO25/027
APPENDIX AA
-3-
8. Placipreadiriq, and Compacting Fill Materials
For mass grading, suitable fill material shall be placed in loose
layers, moistened to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content,
and which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches (611). Each
layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thorougly mixed during
the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture in
each layer.
For compacted filled ground placed and compacted for subgrade support,
for base and pavement under roadways and parking areas, the 6-inch
thick layers of compacted filled ground to be placed and compacted
within the upper 2 feet of finished grade shall be moistened to
optimum moisture content, based on the ASTM D 1557-78 method and
each layer shall be compacted to at least either 90 or 95 percent
of maximum dry density as specified in the accompanying soils
investigation report or specific project specifications, or as
specified by the governmental agency.
When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified
by the soils engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content
is at the moisture as specified by the soils engineer to assure
thorough bonding and uniform densification during the compacting
process
When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified
by the soils engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by biading
and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content
is at the moisture as specified by the soils engineer.
After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall
be thoroughly compacted to not less than ninety (90%) percent of'
maximum density in accordance with ASTM 0 1557-.78 method as described
in 2(e) above. Compaction shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot
rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other apprOved
types of compaction equipment, such as vibratory equipment that is
specially designed for certain soil types. Rollers shall be of
such design that they will be able to compact the fill material: to
the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the:
fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of.
each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller
shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has
been attained. The entire areas to be filled shall be compacted.
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or
other suitable equipment. The sloping surface shall be cat-tracked
daily while the fill soils are still at field moisture conditions,
2 to 4 percent above optimum.. Compacting operations shall be
continued until materials within the outer 1.5 feet are uniformly
compacted to 85 percent of maximum dry density or greater, unless
(8/27/87)
GENTON ENGINEERING. INC.
11/16/2004 10:57 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES IJ026/O27
APPENDIX AA
-4-
a different relative degree of compaction is specified by the
local governing agency. Compacting of the slopes shall be
accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 3 to
5 feet in elevation gain or by other methods producing satis-
factory results.
Field density tests shall be taken by the soils engineer for
approximately each foot in elevation gain after compaction, but
not to exceed two feet in vertical height between tests. Field
density tests may be taken at intervals of 6 inches in elevation
gain if required by the soils engineer. The location of the tests
in plan shall be so spaced to give the best possible coverage and
shall be taken no farther apart than 100 feet. Tests shall be
taken on corner and terrace lots for each two feet in elevation
gain. The soils engineer will take additional tests as considered
necessary to check on the uniformity of compaction of the exposed
slope areas as well as in the building prism areas. Where sheepsfoot
rollers are used, the tests shall be taken in the compacted material
below the disturbed surface. No additional layers of fill shall be
spread until the field density tests indicate that the specified
density has been attained.
The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6") compacted
layers as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the
finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans.
5. Inspection - Sufficient inspection by the soils engineer shall be
O maintained during the filling and compacting operations so that the
specified inspection and field density tests can be reported to the
governmental agencies upon the completion of grading.
6. Seasonal Limits - No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled
I
if weather conditions increase the moisture content above permissible
limits. When the work is interrupted by rain, fill operations shall',
I not be resumed until field tests by the soils engineer indicate that-
the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously
specified.
I 7. JUT reconnendations presented in the "Conclusions" section of the
attached (preliminary) soils report are a part of these specifications.
(8/27/87) BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
11/16/2004 10:57 FAX 619 692 9394 DOMINY & ASSOCIATES fJ027/02
S
BENTON ENGtNEERING,
S APPLIED SOILMECHANICS FOUNDATIONS . SS4ORUFFINROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
ESTABLISHED 156 I
PHILIP HENKING BCNTON APPENDIX B TELEPHONE (619) 565.1956
CIVIL ENGINEERNO. 10332 FAX (819) 56"719
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER NO 38
Sampling
The undisturbed soil samples are obtained by forcing a special sampling tube into the . undisturbed soils at the bottom of the boring at frequent intervals below the ground
surface. The sampling tube consists of a steel barrel 3.0 inches outside diameter,
with a special cutting tip on one end and a double-ball valve on the other and with
a lining of twelve thin brass rings, each one inch long by 2.42 inches inside diameter. I The sampler, connected to a twelve inch long waste barrel, is either pushed or driven
I approximately 18 inches into the soil and a six-inch section of the center portion of
the sample is taken for laboratory tests, the soil being still confined in the brass
rings, after extraction from the sampler tube. The samples are taken to the laboratory
I in close-fitting waterproof containers in order to retain the field moisture until
completion of the tests. The driving energy is calculated as the average energy in
foot-kips required to force the sampling tube through one foot of soil at the depth at
which the sample is obtained.
Shear Tests
The shear tests are run using a direct shear machine of the strain control type in which
the rate of deformation is approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The machine is so S designed that the tests are-made without removing the samples from the brass liner rings
I in which they are secured. Each sample is sheared under a normal load equivalent to the
weight of the soil above the point of sampling. In some instances, samples are sheared
S under various normal loads in order to obtain the internal angle of friction and cohesion.
Where considered necessary, samples are saturated and drained before shearing in order S to simulate extreme field moisture conditions.
Consolidation Tests
The apparatus used for the consolidation tests is designed to receive one of the one-inch I high rings of soil as it comes from the field. Loads are applied in several increments . to the upper surface of the test specimen and the resulting deformations are recorded at
selected time intervals for each increment. Generally, each increment of load is
maintained on the sample until the rate of deformation is equal to or less than 1/10000
I inch per hour. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each
specimen o permit the ready addition or release of water.
Epansion.Tests
I One-inch high samples confined in the brass rings are permitted to air dry at 105° F for
at least 48 hours prior to placing into the expansion apparatus. A unit load of 500
pounds per square foot is then applied to the upper porous stone in contact with the,top
of each sample. Water is permitted to contact both the top and bottom of each sample
through porous stones. Continuous observations are made until downward movement stops.
Ihe:dial reading is recorded and expansion is recorded until the rate of upward movement
W is less than 1/10000 Inch per hour.
ATTACHMENT B
Exploration Logs
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. CTEi,/v(.- 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS I SYMBOLS I SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAVELS CLEAN I I.p''-J,, "
GW I WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
MORE THAN I j
)ol -.o <, , -. LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS I'z .9 - 4 ,174,GP N POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, z co <HALF OF <5% FINES
COARSE 41 LITTLE OFNO FINES
GRAVELS I1 zir 11 j? GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,
NON-PLASTIC FINES
00 N FRACTION IS
-J W Cj) LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES • CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,
Z W GC ..tI -a - PLASTIC FINES
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO I SANDS CLEAN
W w <
ci
MORE THAN
HALF OF
SANDS
<5% FINES
- FINES
SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND LITTLE OR
NO FINES COARSE SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES C) 2 FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
SANDS
WITH FINES CLAYEY SANDS SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
w ML 1W INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SAND ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
0 U- SILTS AND CLAYS ORCLAYEYRNESANDS,SIJGHTLYPLASTICCLAYEYSILTS
INORGANIC CLAYSOFLOWTO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, -JO.j(')
Li. -J w LIQUID LIMIT IS
co _j / LESS THAN 50 GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS I ORGANIC S LTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
ZZW O 'dL III 1111
[MH I INORGANIC SILTS, M I CACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
Ow0 SILTS AND CLAYS _______ SANDY OR SILTY SILTS _SOILS, _ELASTIC
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS w l:I::WZ z o z LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50 64 ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
____ ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS FEATAND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
GRAVEL I SAND I
BOULDERS COBBLES I SILTS AND CLAYS COARSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARES! EVE 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 Penetrometer
GS- Gran SizeDistribution SG- Specific Graiity WA- Wash Analysis
SE- Said Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Sheer
El- Expansion Index AL-Att&bg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression
CHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Val MD- Moiure'Deity
Content, pH, Resistivity CN- Consolidation M- Moisture
COR- Corroavity CP- Col I apse Pbteiti al SC- Swell Compress on
SD- SanpIeDisturbed HC- HydrocoIIse 01- Organic Impurities
REM- Remolded
FIGU RE: I BL1
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. C ....... 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
r
2
C6 C) U
.
BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION •
- 101 - - - - Block or Chunk Semple
- -
- - - Bulk Sanple
-5-
-
- - - Stmdad Penetration Test
10- -
- / -
- Modified Split-Bard Drive SaTIPIa (Cal Sampler)
- -
- I -a--- - Thin WdledArmy Corp. of EngineasSaTlple - -
15-
- - Groundwa TdI e -
-
- Soil TvpeorCl assi ficionChage
20-
1 Formion Change [(Approximat e boundaries queried (?)1
Quotes aeplaced around dsficions where the s3ils
25 exist in situ as bedrock
- - - - - - - FIGU RE: l BL2
49~~- Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc CTEi
—
1441 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760)746-495 5
PROJECT: SAINT ELIZABETH DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION SHEET: 1 of 1
CTE JOB NO: 10-15840G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 12/18/2020
LOGGED BY: AB SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: —516 FEET
I BORING: B-i Laboratory Tests
0 L)
DESCRIPTION
- - - - - -
- Gravel: 0-6'
CL QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:
- Stiff, slightly moist, olive brown, fine grained sandy CLAY.
El
•
- - - - - - MESOZOIC METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCAMC R
Very dense, slightly moist, olive brown, metavolcanic rock that - \ excavates to silty fine to medium grained SAND, severely weathered.
Total Depth: 8.2' (Refusal on bedrock) -10
- No Groundwater Encountered
-15
-26
-25-
B-1
ATTACHMENT C
Laboratory Results
v1TEIM~.
Job Name: St. Elizabeth
Job No: 10-15840G Tested By: KN
Lab No: 31613 Date Sampled: 12/18/2020
Soil Location: B-i @ 0-5' Date Tested: 12/21/2020
Soil Description: CL
LAB WORK SHEET EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D 4829
TEST RESULTS
Initial Final
WET WEIGHT (g) 185.6 352.0
DRY WEIGHT (g) 163.5 277.0
% MOISTURE (%) 13.5 27.1
WEIGHT OF RING & SOIL (g) 729.3
WEIGHT OF RING (g) 365.3
WEIGHT OF SOIL (lbs.) 0.8025
VOLUME OF RING (ft. 3) 0.0073
WET DENSITY (pcf) 110.4
DRY DENSITY (pcf) 97.2
%SATURATION (%) 50.0
EXPANSION READING
DATE TIME: INITIAL READINGINCH
10.01181 VERY LOW 0-20
LOW 21-50
MEDIUM 51 -90
FINAL READING HIGH 91-130
10.11011 VERY HIGH 130>
EXPANSION INDEX______
I 98 I
NOTES: Equipment Id: 2A
El at saturation between 48-52%
Measured El: 98.3
Measured Saturation: 50.0
El at 48-52% Saturation:I 98 1