HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-128_20220608_FJ-Shuttle Lot-Newport Beach-Environmental Information FormC ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 1
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
Environmental Information Form
To: City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor/Bay B
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(p) 949.644.3204
From: Austin Hahn, CaliChi Design Group (CDG)
CC: Shawn Dettrey, Fletcher Jones Management/Jones 2192 Bristol, LLC
Deeg Snyder, Gensler
Date: 5/13/2022
Re: Supplemental Info: Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle
C. Environmental Setting
1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography,
soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe and
existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site.
CDG Response: The site is currently a paved, parking lot featuring 93 standard stalls and 4
accessible stalls. Existing elevations generally range from 54’ to 56’. Other than the limited
perimeter parking lot landscaping, there are no existing plants/animals on site. CDG is also
not aware of any cultural, historical or scenic aspects to the site. The existing structure on
site is a 676 single-story airport shuttle facility which will remain.
2. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any
cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.),
intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale
of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of vicinity.
CDG Response: The existing land use to the East is a commercial quick-serve restaurant (El
Pollo Loco). The existing land use to the West is a commercial car rental Facility (Beverly
Hills Rent-A-Car). The existing land use to the South is single-family residential.
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 2
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
D. Potential Environmental Effects
I. AESTHETICS
Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private
views? Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to
reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties.
CDG Response: No impacts to existing scenic vistas or open views to the public are anticipated.
The site is currently developed as a parking lot, and the height of the proposed car-wash structure
is 20’-0”.
II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES
Describe any agricultural and/or forest land resources presently located at the project site. Describe
any changes to this resource as a result of the implementation of the proposed project.
CDG Response: Not Applicable. Site is completely paved in current condition.
III. AIR QUALITY
Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during
construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions.
CDG Response: None.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed.
Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabits the site.
CDG Response: Not Applicable. Site is completely paved in current condition.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site.
Could the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or
object having historical, cultural, or religious significance?
CDG Response: CDG is not aware of any archaeological or paleontological surveys performed
for the site.
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 3
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Describe any greenhouse gas emissions that could result from the project, including emissions
during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. Please include
a description of energy and water conservation features or practices proposed (i.e, low-energy
lighting, use of ENERGY STAR appliances/fixtures, LEED Certification, drought-tolerant
landscaping).
Gensler Response: Project will use all LED lighting, drought-tolerant native landscape
selections, carwash will have reclaim tanks to reduce water usage.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and
the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical
or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed
topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices.
CDG Response: The Geotechnical Evaluation performed for the site is included as Appendix A.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations,
or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that
the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed
to eliminate the hazard or contamination? Is the project located in a flood hazard zone?
CDG Response: No ESA Phase I performed.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion
and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface
water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater or surface water.
CDG Response: The results of the geotechnical investigation indicate that percolation through
the existing soils will not be sufficient to provide bioinfiltration solutions (Appendix A). As such,
five (5) bioretention flow-through planters are proposed on site to provide Code-compliant
stormwater treatment.
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 4
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the
project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
CDG Response: The existing land use for the site today is a parking lot intended to support an
airport shuttle service for Fletcher Jones customers. The existing land use to the East is a
commercial quick-serve restaurant (El Pollo Loco). The existing land use to the West is a
commercial car rental Facility (Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car). The existing land use to the South is
residential. Since the car wash is not intended as revenue-generating (only operated by
customers), there is not anticipated to be any negative impact on site’s compatibility with
surrounding existing land uses.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Describe the affect on any adopted energy conservation plan, use of nonrenewable resources and
whether the project will result in the loss of any known mineral resource of future value to the region
and residents of the State.
CDG Response: None Anticipated.
XII. NOISE
Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating equipment that will be
utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise
impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed?
Proposed car wash will generate noise at discharge location. In order to reduce noise a vehicular
vestibule will be provided at the exit. There will also be an exterior detail vacuum on the building,
the property line parallel to this side has an existing CMU wall to reduce noise impact.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing
policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Identify the number of bedrooms
per unit and the expected average household size? What is the projected sales price or rent of the
units? If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses
and the estimated number of employees.
CDG Response: Not Applicable.
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 5
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and
utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written
confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers.
• Fire protection
• Police protection
• Schools
• Maintenance of Public facilities, including roadways
• Other Government Services
CDG Response: Fire flow test results for the nearest hydrant to the site and are included in
Appendix B. The proposed development should not require any additional capacity in terms of
police protection, schools, maintenance, or any other governmental service.
XV. RECREATION
Describe the impact of the project on the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other
recreational facilities and any affect on existing recreational opportunities.
CDG Response: None.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Please identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of
the project (including pedestrian and bicycle paths, and public transit).
CDG Response: None.
XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and
utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written
confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers.
• Natural gas
• Communications Systems
• Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities
• Sewer systems or septic tanks
• Storm water drainage systems
• Solid waste and disposal Police protection
• Local or regional water supplies
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 6
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
CDG Response: A new water service line, electrical service and pad-mounted transformer, and
sanitary lateral (including proposed clarifier, oil/water separator, and oil/sand separator) are
required to supply the proposed car wash. The Southern California Edison utility atlas and the
results of a private utility locate survey are included in Appendix C.
Thank you for your assistance on this project,
Austin Hahn
Principal
CaliChi Design Group
(513) 265-6397
austin@calichi.com
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 7
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
Appendix A
Geotech Report
PA2022-128
1938 Kellogg Avenue • Suite 103• Carlsbad, California 92008-7207 • Ph: 760-431-3747 www.eeitiger.com
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle Project
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street
Newport Beach, California 92660
EEI Project No. AAA-73198.4
April 15, 2022
PA2022-128
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Subject Property Description ..................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Topography…............ .................................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Local and Regional Groundwater ............................................................................................... 3
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................... 3
Table 1 – Nearby Active Faults ......................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................................................ 4
Table 2 – ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Values ..................................................................................... 4
3.2 Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture ............................................................................ 5
3.3 Landslides Slope Stability ........................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.5 Flooding...... ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.6 Expansive Soil ............................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................ 6 4.1 Field Exploration ......................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Laboratory Testing and Classification......................................................................................... 7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 7
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 8
6.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Site Preparation and Grading ..................................................................................................... 8
6.2.1 Import Fill and Select Backfill Material... ...................................................................9
6.3 Earthwork Operations ................................................................................................................ 9
6.4 Yielding Subgrade Conditions ................................................................................................... 10
6.5 Shrinkage and Bulking .............................................................................................................. 10
6.6 Temporary Site Excavation ....................................................................................................... 11
6.7 Slopes ....................................................................................................................................... 11
7.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 11
7.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 11
7.2 Shallow Conventional Foundations .......................................................................................... 11
7.3 Footing Setbacks ....................................................................................................................... 12
7.4 Interior Slabs-on-Grade ............................................................................................................ 12
7.5 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................................................... 13
PA2022-128
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.6 Conventional Retaining Walls (If Proposed) ............................................................................. 13
7.6.1 Foundations .............................................................................................................. 13
7.6.2 Lateral Earth Pressure .............................................................................................. 13
7.7 Corrosivity ................................................................................................................................ 14
8.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 15
Table 3– Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations .......................................................... 15
9.0 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 16
9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting...................................................................................... 16
9.2 Site Drainage ............................................................................................................................ 16
9.3 Site Runoff – Storm Water Disposal Systems ........................................................................... 16
9.3.1 Percolation Testing ................................................................................................... 16
9.4 Utility Backfill ............................................................................................................................ 17
10.0 PLAN REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 17
11.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 18
12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Aerial Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 – Geotechnical Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Soil Classification Chart and Boring Logs
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C – Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via electronic copy)
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Geotechnical Evaluation was to provide geotechnical information to CaliChi Design
Group, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “Client”), regarding the proposed car wash expansion project
(“Project”) at the Fletcher Jones shuttle facility located at 2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street, Newport
Beach, California. The information developed in this evaluation is intended to provide Client with an
understanding of the physical conditions of site-specific subsurface soils, groundwater, and the regional
geologic setting which could affect the cost or design of the proposed Project (Vicinity Map-Figure 1;
Aerial Map-Figure 2).
This Geotechnical Evaluation has been conducted in general accordance with the accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and in general conformance with the approved CaliChi Design Consultant
Contract, executed by EEI on February 17, 2022.
EEI conducted onsite field explorations on March 17, 18 and 21, 2022 that included coring, private utility
clearance, drilling, logging and sampling of four (4) hollow stem auger (HSA) geotechnical borings for the
proposed car wash expansion project. Additionally, EEI conducted preliminary percolation testing in one
boring location. This Geotechnical Evaluation has been prepared for the sole use of Client. Other
parties, without the express written consent of EEI and Client should not rely upon this geotechnical
study.
1.2 Project Description
The overall subject property is located at 2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street, located approximately 200
feet southeast of the intersection of Bristol Avenue and Birch Street, in the City of Newport Beach,
California.
Base on a “FJ Airport Shuttle Redevelopment; Concept Plan 3” prepared by Gensler, dated 2/22/22, we
understand that the proposed development will include demolition of the existing improvements on the
site, and construction of a roughly 4500 square-foot new car wash facility of conventional slab-on-grade
construction with underground utilities, paved parking/drive, and other associated improvements.
Foundation loads are not provided at the time of preparation of this report. However, column and wall
load on the order of 100 kips and three kips per lineal foot, respectively are anticipated. The site is
nearly level and only minor grading (cuts and fills less than two feet, exclusive of remedial grading) are
anticipated to provide site drainage. The approximate limits of the proposed improvements are depicted
on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 4).
1.3 Scope of Services
The scope of our services included:
• A review of readily available data pertinent to the subject property, including published and
unpublished geologic reports/maps, and soils data for the area.
• Conducting a geotechnical reconnaissance of the subject property and nearby vicinity.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
2
• Coordination with Underground Service Alert and property personnel to identify the presence of
underground utilities; subcontracting a private utility company to clear proposed boring
locations.
• Subcontracting of concrete coring for proposed boring locations to allow drilling to proceed.
• The drilling and logging of four (4) hollow stem auger (HSA) borings to depths of approximately 8
to 51.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the subject property boundaries. The
approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 4 (Geotechnical Map). Boring logs
are shown in Appendix A.
• Installed perforated 3-inch PVC piping and gravel pack in boring B-2 for the purpose of
performing a Percolation test to provide preliminary information to evaluate the feasibility of
the installation of an onsite storm water disposal system.
• An evaluation of seismicity and geologic hazards at the site.
• Completion of laboratory testing of representative earth materials encountered onsite to
determine their pertinent soils engineering properties, including corrosion potential
(Appendix B).
• The preparation of this report which presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Subject Property Description
The proposed Project site is located at 2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street, in the City of Newport Beach,
California. The subject property is located roughly 200-feet southwest of the intersection of Bristol
Street South and Birch Street and is situated within an area characterized by a mix of commercial and
residential developments. Current access to the property is from Bristol Street South, which bounds the
northern side of the property. The property is bound to the east and west by commercial properties,
and on the south by residential developments. The subject property is developed with 2 one-story
commercial buildings, a small car wash, and asphalt/concrete parking and driveways. The subject
property is approximately situated at 33.6596° north latitude and 117.8730° west longitude
(GoogleEarth®, 2022).
2.2 Topography
The subject property is relatively flat, with approximate elevation of 55 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
(GoogleEarth®, 2022). Surface drainage would be expected to be northward.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
3
2.3 Geologic Setting
The subject property lies within the extreme northwest portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province of California. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, one of the largest geomorphic units
in western North America, extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los
Angeles Basin, south to Baja California. It is bound on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the
Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are
essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks (CGS, 2002). Major fault zones and
subordinate fault zones found in the Peninsular Ranges Province typically trend in a northwest-
southeast direction.
The City’s updated EIR (City of Newport Beach, 2006) states that: “The central and northwestern
portions of the Planning Area are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San
Joaquin Hills. Commonly known as Newport Mesa, this upland has been deeply dissected by stream
erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary…The nearly flat-
topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at the northern end of the estuary in
the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and
Eastbluff areas”.
Regional geologic maps of the subject property and vicinity published by the U.S. Geological Survey
indicate that the site is underlain at depth by Pleistocene-age old paralic deposits that are overlain by
thin, Holocene-age alluvial fan deposits (Qopf) that are typically composed of silts, sands, and gravels
that were deposited by the migrating Santa Ana River channel (Figure 3) (Morton and Miller, 2006).
Artificial fill overlies parts of the subject property and surroundings due to commercial development.
2.4 Local and Regional Groundwater
Based on our review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998; CGS,
2001), the historic high groundwater depth in the vicinity of the subject site is between 10 and 30 feet
below the existing ground surface.
Within the subject property, groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a measured depth of 32-
feet below grade. It should be noted that fluctuations in subsurface water (including perched water
zones and seepage) may result from variations in the ground surface topography, subsurface
stratification, precipitation, irrigation and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of
our subsurface exploration.
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The portion of Southern California that includes the subject property is considered to be seismically
active. Due to the proximity of the property area to several nearby active faults, strong ground shaking
could occur at the property as a result of an earthquake on any one of the faults. Our review indicates
that there are no known active faults crossing the property (Jennings, 1994) and the property is not
within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). It is our opinion, therefore,
that the likelihood of surface fault rupture at the property is low.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
4
The closest known active fault to the site is the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 2.18 miles
of the property. This fault is thought to be capable of a maximum 7.10 moment magnitude earthquake.
The major faults that are likely to affect the site are listed below in Table 1.
1. USGS Online Fault Search (2008)
3.1 Seismic Design Parameters
EEI utilized seismic design criteria provided in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC, 2019)
and ASCE 7-16. Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the
structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected building response, and desired
level of conservatism. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral
response accelerations in accordance with ASCE 7-16 are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 1
Nearby Active Faults
Fault Distance in Miles (Kilometers)1 Maximum Magnitude1
San Joaquin Hills 2.18 (3.51) 7.10
Newport Inglewood Connected alt 2 4.68 (7.53) 7.50
Newport Inglewood, alt 1 4.80 (7.72) 7.20
Newport-Inglewood Connected alt 1 4.80 (7.72) 7.50
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 5.31 (8.55) 7.00
Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) 14.87 (23.93) 6.90
Palos Verdes 16.29 (26.22) 7.70
Elsinore (W+GI+T+J+CM) 17.21 (27.70) 7.85
Table 2
ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Values (ATC, 2022)
Parameter Value
Site Coordinates Latitude : 33.6596°
Longitude : -117.8730°
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Value at Short Period: Ss 1.302g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Value at 1-Second Period: S1 0.465g.
Site Soil Classification D
Short Period Site Coefficient: Fa 1.000
1-Second Period Site Coefficient: Fv 1.835
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral
Response Acceleration at Short Period: SMS 1.302g.
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral
Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period: SM1 0.853
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
5
3.2 Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
Based on the geography, topography and site-specific geotechnical conditions encountered during our
geotechnical evaluation at the subject property, we consider the potential for ground lurching or
shallow ground rupture at the property to be low; however, due to the active seismicity of California, this
possibility cannot be completely ruled out. In light of this, the unlikely hazard of lurching or ground-rupture
should not preclude consideration of “flexible” design for onsite utility lines and connections.
3.3 Landslides and Slope Stability
Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after
earthquakes. However, due to the very low on-site gradient, the potential for seismically induced
landsliding to occur is very low.
Additionally, per the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Tustin Quadrangle (CGS, 2001), the site is not
mapped within a zone of potential seismically induced landsliding.
3.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a sudden loss of strength of saturated, cohesionless soil caused by cyclic loading (e.g.,
earthquake shaking). Generally, liquefaction occurs in predominantly poorly consolidated granular soil
where the groundwater depth is less than 50 feet.
Due to the presence of dense to very dense nature alluvial deposits underlying the site, the potential for
liquefaction at the site is considered to be very low. Additionally, according to the Seismic Hazard Zone
Map for the Tustin Quadrangle, the site is also not mapped within a zone of potential liquefaction. It is
also our opinion that seismically- induced settlement at the site can be considered negligible.
3.5 Flooding
The subject property is not located within a Tsunami Evacuation Area; therefore, damage due to
tsunami is considered low.
EEI reviewed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Map online database to
determine if the subject property was located within an area designated as a Flood Hazard Zone.
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map No. 06059C0286J, effective December 3, 2009,
the subject property is located within an area of minimal flood hazard, identified as Flood Zone X.
Table 2
ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Values (ATC, 2022)
Parameter Value
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods: SDS 0.868g.
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period: SD1 0.569
Peak Ground Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class Effects:
PGAM 0.614g.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
6
Additionally; the potential for earthquake-induced flooding at the site, caused by the failure of dams or
other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes is considered very low. The risk of seiches
affecting the site during a nearby seismic event is also considered low.
3.6 Expansive Soil
The near-surface onsite soils encountered in our borings were characterized by silts/clays on the eastern
and southwestern portion of the subject site (borings B1, B2, and B3) and sands on the northwestern
portion (B4) of the subject property. Lab testing data indicates that the expansion potential of these
materials is not considered to pose a hazard for the proposed site development.
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Field Exploration
Borings were advanced on March 21, 2022 for our Geotechnical Evaluation. A total of four (4) hollow
stem auger borings were advanced on the subject property. Boring depths ranged from approximately 8
to 51.5 feet bgs and were logged under the supervision of a registered geologist. The approximate
locations of the borings are shown on Figure 4.
Blow count (N) values were determined utilizing a 140 pound automatic hammer, falling 30-inches onto
a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-spoon sampler and a Modified California split-tube sampler. A
truck mounted hollow stem auger (HSA) drill rig was used during fieldwork. The blows per foot required
to advance the 18-inch long SPT and 18-inch long Modified California split-tube samplers was measured
at various depth intervals, recorded on the boring logs, and are presented in Appendix A. Relatively
“undisturbed” samples were collected in a 2.42-inch (inside diameter) California Modified split-tube
sampler for visual examination and laboratory testing. The soils were classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM, 2008). Representative bulk samples were also collected for
appropriate laboratory testing.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface materials encountered in our exploratory borings consisted mostly of paralic deposits
that extended to the maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet. Artificial fill was encountered in the eastern
part of the property in Boring B-1 to a maximum depth of 7.5 feet bgs. The fill consisted of silty clay and
clayey silt that was medium to grayish brown, slightly moist, and stiff to very stiff at the time of our
subsurface investigation. Paralic deposits underlie the fill in the eastern half of the property and underlie
asphalt surface in the western part of the property. The paralic deposits consist mostly of silty sand,
poorly graded sand, and clayey sand that was brown to light gray, dry to wet, and dense to very dense at
the time of our subsurface investigation. A silty clay layer was encountered in Boring B-1 at a depth of
50 feet bgs. The clay was dark gray, moist, stiff, had a high plasticity, and contained abundant shell
fragments. Boring logs are included as Appendix A.
Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-1 at a depth of 32-feet bg. However, it should be noted that
fluctuations in groundwater may result from variations in the ground surface topography, subsurface
stratification, precipitation, irrigation and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of
our subsurface exploration.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
7
4.3 Laboratory Testing and Classification
Selected samples obtained from our borings were tested to evaluate pertinent soil classification and
engineering properties and enable development of geotechnical conclusions and recommendations.
The laboratory tests consisted of:
• Moisture Content and Dry Density
• #200 Wash
• Expansion Index
• Direct Shear
• Corrosivity
The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B. It should be understood that the results
provided in Appendix B are based upon pre-development conditions. Verification testing is
recommended at the conclusion of grading on samples collected at or near finish grade.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering and geologic analysis, it is our opinion
that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and
geologic viewpoint; however, there are existing geotechnical conditions associated with the property
that will warrant mitigation and/or consideration during planning stages. If site plans and/or the
proposed building location are revised, additional field studies may be warranted to address proposed
site-specific conditions. As a result, EEI is providing the following conclusions:
• According to our review of readily available regional geologic reports and maps, the subject
property is underlain at depth by Holocene and late Pleistocene-age old paralic deposits (map
symbol Qopf) and are typically composed of silts, sands, and gravels.
• A total of four (4) exploratory hollow stem auger (HSA) borings were advanced within the
subject property during this evaluation. HSA boring depths ranged from 8 to 51.5 feet bgs.
Undocumented artificial fill up to 7.5 feet thick of silty and clayey soils was encountered in the
eastern half of the property in Boring B-1. Paralic deposits underlie most of the property,
consisting mostly of silty sand and poorly sorted sand.
• Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-1 at an approximate depth of 32 feet bgs.
• The subject property is located within an area of California recognized as having a number of
active and potentially-active faults located nearby. Our review of pertinent geologic literature
indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the property and the property is not
located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest active fault is the San
Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 2.10 miles of the property.
• Based on EEI’s evaluation, earth materials underlying the subject property are not considered
susceptible to liquefaction.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
8
• The potential for ground lurching or shallow ground rupture at the property is considered low.
However, it should not preclude consideration of “flexible” design for onsite utility lines and
connections.
• The expansion potential of the near surface soils is not considered to pose a hazard for the
proposed site development.
• The existing fill soils and alluvial deposits appear to be suitable for use as a structural fill
provided that they are moisture conditioned (as needed) and meet EEI’s recommendations
(Section 6.2) and are properly compacted.
• A conventional shallow foundation system appears to be suitable for the support the proposed
improvements.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
The proposed site development should be constructed in general conformance with the guidelines
presented herein, as well as the California Building Code (CBC 2019) and the requirements of local
jurisdictions. Additionally, general Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided herein as
Appendix C.
During earthwork operations, removals, and reprocessing of loose or unsuitable materials, as well as
general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed, and the fill placed should be tested by
representatives of EEI. If any unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be
reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations
will be offered. Specific guidelines and comments pertinent to the planned development are provided
herein.
The recommendations presented herein are based on the preliminary information provided to us
regarding site development. EEI should be provided with grading and foundation plans once they are
available so that we can determine if the recommendations provided in this report remain applicable.
6.2 Site Preparation and Grading
When grading is conducted, it should be performed in accordance with good construction practice,
applicable Code requirements, and the following recommendations.
Debris and other deleterious material, such as organic soils, tree root balls and/or environmentally
impacted earth materials (if any) should be removed from the subject property prior to the start of
grading. Areas to receive fill should be properly scarified and/or benched in accordance with current
industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the CBC (2019) and the requirements of the
local jurisdiction.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
9
Abandoned trenches should be properly backfilled and tested. If unanticipated subsurface
improvements (utility lines, septic systems, wells, utilities, etc.) are encountered during earthwork
operations, the Geotechnical Engineer should be informed, and appropriate remedial recommendations
would then be provided.
Based on the observed subsurface conditions, we anticipate that the onsite fill and alluvial soils can
generally be excavated with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good operating condition.
The existing on site soils appears to be suitable for use as structural fill provided, they are free of any
deleterious material, oversized materials larger than 6-inches in largest dimension and are properly
moisture conditioned (as needed) and re-compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
(based on ASTM D1557).
If import soils are planned, the earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed fill materials are
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to use. Representative soil samples should be made
available for testing at least ten (10) working days prior to hauling to the property to allow for
laboratory tests. Import fill soils (if planned), should conform to the following specifications:
6.2.1 Import Fill and Select Backfill Material
The import fill and select backfill material should be free of perishable material and
should meet the following criteria:
a. Maximum particle size 1 inch
b. Maximum Liquid Limit (LL) 20%
c. Maximum Plasticity Index (PI) 10%
d. Maximum percentage passing No. 200 sieve 30%
Minimum sand equivalent 30
e. Maximum Expansive Index (EI), (ASTM D-4829) 20
f. Maximum Soluble Sulfate Concentration ≤1,000 ppm
6.3 Earthwork Operations
Prior to the start of grading operations, utility lines within the project area, if any, should be located and
marked in the field so they can be rerouted or protected during the site development. All debris and
perishable material should be removed from the site.
The area of site preparation should extend at least five feet beyond any proposed improvements
(e.g., building footprint, appurtenant structures, sidewalks, walkways, pavement areas, etc.). Any
existing fill soils, remnants of past construction debris, perishable materials, and existing soft and
disturbed alluvial deposits should be excavated to contact with the firm underlying natural alluvial
deposits. These removals should extend to at least three feet below the bottom elevations of the
proposed foundation systems. When excavations deeper than five feet are made, temporary
construction slopes should be no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary construction
slopes, sheeting and bracing and/or temporary shoring should be provided by the contractor, as
necessary, to protect workers in the excavation. Where excavations undermine existing improvements,
temporary structural support should be provided to reduce risk of damage resulting from undercutting.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should not be constructed steeper than 2:1.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
10
Where fill is to be placed, the upper 6 to 8 inches of surface exposed by the excavation should be
scarified, moisture-conditioned to 2 percent to 4 percent over optimum moisture content and
compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction1. The fill soil should then be placed in layers
less than 8 inches in loose thickness and moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent over optimum moisture
content and compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction. If localized areas of relatively
loose soil prevent proper compaction, over-excavation and re-compaction will be necessary. The onsite
soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill and trench backfill.
6.4 Yielding Subgrade Conditions
The soils encountered at the subject property can exhibit “pumping” or yielding if they become
saturated. This can often occur in response to periods of significant precipitation, such as during the
winter rainy season. If this occurs and to help stabilize the yielding subgrade soils within the bottom of
the removal areas, the contractor can consider the placement of stabilization fabric or geo-grid over the
yielding areas, depending on the relative severity.
Mirafi 600X (or approved equivalent) stabilization fabric may be used for areas with low to moderate
yielding conditions. Geo-grid such as Tensar TX-5 (or approved equivalent) may be used for areas with
moderate to severe yielding conditions. Uniform sized, ¾- to 2-inch crushed rock, should be placed over
the stabilization fabric or geo-grid. A 12-inch-thick section of crushed rock will typically be necessary to
stabilize yielding ground.
A filter fabric should be placed over the crushed rock/gravel to prevent migration of fines into the gravel
and subsequent settlement of the overlying fill. Fill soils, which should be placed and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations presented herein, should then be placed over the filter fabric
until design finish grades are reached. The crushed rock/gravel and stabilization fabric or geo-grid
should extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the limits of the yielding areas. These operations should
be performed under the observation and testing of a representative of EEI in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of these measures and to provide additional recommendations for mitigation, as
necessary.
After preparation of the subgrade by removal and replacement with compacted fill, we do not anticipate
that any significant subgrade yielding will occur except for normal settlement due to the applied loads.
6.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
Several factors will impact earthworl balancing on the subject proerty, including shrinkage, bulking,
subsidence, trench spoils from utilities and fotting excavations, and final pavement section thickness as
well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage, bulking, and subsidence are primarily dependent upon
the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction.
For planning purposes, on a preliminary basis, shrinkage factor on the order of 5 percent for the
fill/surficial soils to be re-utlilized as engineered fill is estimated. Subsidence is estimatedto be on the
1 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material, as
determined by the ASTM (D1557) test method. Optimum moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM (D1557) test method.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
11
order of 0.1 foot. It must be realized that these factors for earthwork balancing of the sote are difficult
to define and flexibiity in design is recommended. Losses from the site clearing and removal of existing
site improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculation and should be considered.
It is recommded that the site development be planned to include an area that could be raised or
lowered to accommodate final site balancing.
6.6 Temporary Site Excavations
It is anticipated that excavations in the onsite materials can be achieved with conventional earthwork
equipment in good working order. Temporary excavations within the alluvial materials (considered to be
a Type C soil per OSHA guidelines) should be stable at 1H: 1V inclinations for short durations during
construction, and where cuts do not exceed 10 feet in height. Some sloughing of surface soils should be
anticipated. Temporary excavations 4 feet deep or less can be made vertically.
The faces of temporary slopes should be inspected daily by the contractor’s competent person before
personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Any zones of potential instability, sloughing or raveling
should be brought to the attention of the Engineer and corrective action implemented before personnel
begin working in the excavation.
Excavated soils should not be stockpiled behind temporary excavations within a distance equal to the
depth of the excavation. EEI should be notified if other surcharge loads are anticipated so that lateral
load criteria can be developed for the specific situation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during
the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of slopes to prevent runoff water from
entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.
6.7 Slopes
Permanent slopes should be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 H: V or flatter. Faces of fill slopes
should be compacted either by rolling with a sheep-foot roller or other suitable equipment, or by
overfilling and cutting back to design grade. All slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and
erosion. Water should not be allowed to flow over the top of slopes. Additionally, slopes should be
planted with vegetation that will reduce the potential for erosion.
7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
The foundation recommendations provided herein are based on the proposed development Information
provided by the Client. EEI should be provided with Grading and Foundation Plans once they are
available so that we can determine if the recommendations provided in this report remains applicable.
Recommendations by the project's Structural Engineer or Architect may exceed the following minimum
recommendations. However, if analyses by the Structural Engineer result in less critical details than are
provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted.
Based on our analysis we judge that a conventional “Continuous Interconnected Shallow Foundation
System” founded in the properly compacted fill soils could provide the most reasonable foundation
system for the proposed improvements.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
12
7.2 Shallow Conventional Foundations
Foundation support for the proposed structures could be derived by utilizing a conventional, shallow
foundation system embedded within the properly compacted fill soils in accordance with the following
criteria:
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
13
• Minimum depth measured from lowest adjacent grade ......................................................... 2 feet
• Minimum footing width ........................................................................................................... 2 feet
• No isolated footing is allowed • Allowable bearing capacity (pounds per square foot), (FS > 3)
a. Sustained loads ................................................................................................ 2,000 psf
b. Total loads (1/3 allowable increase for wind and seismic) ............................. 2,650 psf
• Resistance to lateral loads
a. Passive soils resistance (pounds per cubic foot) ................................................ 200 psf
b. Coefficient of sliding friction ................................................................................... 0.35
Footings can be designed to resist lateral loads by using a combination of sliding friction and passive
resistance. The coefficient of friction should be applied to dead load forces only; and Passive resistance
should be reduced by one third. For foundations with no sliding friction at the base (foundations
resisting uplift loads), 100% of passive resistance could be utilizes. The upper one foot of passive
resistance should be neglected where the soil is not confined by the slabs or pavement.
For the properly constructed foundations in accordance with the foregoing criteria, total static post-
construction settlement from the anticipated structural loads is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch.
Differential settlement on the order of ½ of total settlement should be anticipated over a distance of
40 feet.
7.3 Footing Setbacks
Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened to extend below a 1:1 projection
from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from
buildings or appurtenances.
Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of
the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 10 feet, nor need to be greater than 40
feet.
Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales or underground utilities (if any) should be deepened to a
minimum of 6-inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale or utilities. This distance is
measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation
7.4 Interior Slabs-on-Grade
The project structural engineer should design the interior concrete slab-on-grade floor. However; as a
minimum, it is recommended that a minimum of 5-inch thick slab, reinforced with No. 4 bars located at
18 inches on center, both ways, be constructed. A layer of free draining, clean (washed) ¾ -inch crushed
rock, at least 6 inches thick layer should be placed below the slab. Subgrade materials should not be
allowed to desiccate between grading and the construction of the concrete slabs. The floor slab
subgrade should be thoroughly and uniformly moistened prior to placing concrete. A moisture vapor
retarder/barrier should be placed beneath slabs where moisture sensitive floor coverings will be
installed. The vapor barrier should comply with the requirements of ASTM E1745 (Class “A”) and should
be installed in accordance with ASTM E1643. The vapor barrier should be at least 15-mil thick and
should be sealed at all splices, around the plumbing, and at the perimeter of slab areas, Every effort
should be made to provide a continuous barrier and care should be taken not to puncture the
membrane.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
14
Current construction practice typically includes placement of a 2-inch-thick sand cushion between the
bottom of the concrete slab and the moisture vapor retarder/barrier. This cushion can provide some
protection to the vapor retarder/barrier during construction and may assist in reducing the potential for
edge curling in the slab during curing. However, the sand layer also provides a source of moisture vapor
To the underside of the slab that can increase the time required to reduce moisture vapor emissions to
limits acceptable for the type of floor covering placed on top of the slab. The slab can be placed directly
on the vapor retarder/barrier. The floor covering manufacturer should be contacted to determine the
volume of moisture vapor allowable and any treatment needed to reduce moisture vapor emissions to
acceptable limits for the floor covering installed. The project team should determine the appropriate
treatment for the specific application.
7.5 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade
It is recommended that a minimum 4-inch thick slab reinforced with No.3 bars located at 12-inches on
center, both ways, be constructed.
Slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints. Joints should be placed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Proper control joints should be provided to reduce the
potential for damage resulting from shrinkage. Subgrade materials should not be allowed to desiccate
between grading and the construction of the concrete slabs. The floor slab subgrade should be
thoroughly and uniformly moistened prior to placing concrete.
All dedicated exterior flatwork should conform to standards provided by the governing agency including
section composition, supporting material thickness and any requirements for reinforcing steel. Concrete
mix proportions and construction techniques, including the addition of water and improper curing, can
adversely affect the finished quality of the concrete and result in cracking and spalling of the slab. We
recommend that all placement and curing be performed in accordance with procedures outlined by the
American Concrete Institute and/or Portland Cement Association. Special consideration should be given
to concrete placed and cured during hot or cold weather conditions.
7.6 Conventional Retaining Walls (If Proposed)
7.6.1 Foundations
The recommendations provided in the foundation sections of this report are also applicable to
conventional retaining walls.
7.6.2 Lateral Earth Pressure
The following parameters are based on the use of low-expansion potential backfill materials
within a 1:1 (H: V) line projected from the heel of the retaining wall.
The active earth pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level
backfills can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 40 pcf. The at-rest earth
pressure for the design of restrained earth retaining structures with level backfills can be taken
as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 60 pcf. An additional 20 pcf should be added to
these values for walls with a 2:1(H: V) sloping backfill. The above values assume a granular and
drained backfill condition. Higher lateral earth pressures would apply if walls retained expansive
soils.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
15
An increase in earth pressure equivalent to an additional 2 feet of retained soil can be used to
account for surcharge loads from light traffic. Surcharge due to other loading within an
approximate 1½:1 (H: V) projection from the back of the wall will increase the lateral pressures
provided above and should be incorporated into the wall design.
Where required, seismic earth pressures can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid
weighing 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The resultant force will be acting at 1/3 H feet from top
of the wall. This value is for level backfill conditions and do not include a factor of safety. The
seismic pressure is in addition to the static lateral earth pressures.
Retaining walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures or be provided with a back-
drain to reduce the accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Back-drains may consist of a two-
foot-wide zone of ¾-inch crushed rock. The back-drain should be separated from the adjacent
soils using a non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. A perforated pipe
(Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed at the base of the back-drain and sloped to discharge to a
suitable storm drain facility. As an alternative, a geo-composite drainage system such as
Miradrain 6000 or equivalent placed behind the wall and connected to a suitable storm drain
facility can be used. The project architect should provide waterproofing specifications and
details.
7.7 Corrosivity
One sample of the onsite soils was tested to provide a preliminary indication of the corrosion potential
of the onsite soils. The test results are presented in Appendix B. A brief discussion of the corrosion test
results is provided in the following section.
• The sample tested had a soluble sulfate concentration of 0.004 percent, which indicates the
sample has a low sulfate corrosion potential relative to concrete. However, we recommend that
type II cement with maximum 0.50 water/cement ratio in accordance with California Building
Code (CBC) standard 1904 (Durability Requirements) be utilized. Concrete mix design, materials,
placement, curing, and finishing should be in conformance with the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction “Green book”, and American concrete Institute (ACI) specifications.
• The sample tested had a chloride concentration of 0.001 percent, which indicates the sample
has a low chloride corrosion potential relative to metal.
• The sample tested had a minimum resistivity of 1800 ohm-cm, which indicates the sample is
highly corrosive to ferrous metals.
• The sample tested had a pH of 8.7, which indicates the sample is alkaline in nature.
Additional testing should be performed after grading to evaluate the as-graded corrosion potential of
the onsite soils. We are not corrosion engineers. A corrosion consultant should be retained to provide
corrosion control recommendations if deemed necessary.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
16
8.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments,
and any other unsuitable yielding materials encountered during grading should be removed. Once
compacted fill and/or native soils are brought to the proposed pavement subgrade elevations, the
subgrade should be proof rolled to check for a uniform firm and unyielding surface. Representatives of
the project geotechnical engineer should observe all grading and fill placement.
The upper 24-inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified; moisture conditioned to at least
2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory
standard (ASTM D1557). If loose or yielding materials are encountered during subgrade preparation,
evaluation should be performed by EEI.
Aggregate base materials should be properly prepared (i.e., processed and moisture conditioned) and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. All
pavement section changes should be properly transitioned. Although not anticipated, if adverse
conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods
may need to be employed. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should be present for
the preparation of subgrade and aggregate base. For preliminary design purposes, we have assumed an
R-Value of 6 for the materials likely to be exposed at subgrade. For design purposes we have assumed a
Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for the parking stalls and a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 for drive areas. This assumed
TI should be verified as necessary by the Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer.
TABLE 3
Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations
Traffic Index (TI) / Intended Use Pavement Surface Aggregate Base Material (1)
5 3.0-inches Asphalt Concrete 10.0-inches
6 3.0-inches Asphalt Concrete 13.0-inches
Concrete Pavement Section 6.0-inches Portland Cement Concrete 6.0-inches
(1) R-Value of 78 for Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base
The recommended pavement sections provided in Table 3 are intended as a minimum guideline. If
thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could
be expected. If the actual traffic index (TI) increases beyond our assumed values, increased
maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Final pavement design should be
verified by testing of soils exposed at subgrade after grading has been completed. Thicker pavement
sections could result if R-Value testing indicates lower value.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
17
9.0 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water is known to decrease the physical strength of earth materials, significantly reducing stability by
high moisture conditions. Surface drainage away from foundations and graded slopes should be
maintained. Only the volume and frequency of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be
applied.
Consideration should be given to selecting lightweight, deep rooted types of landscape vegetation which
require low irrigation that can survive the local climate. From a soils engineering viewpoint, “leaching”
of the onsite soils is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If landscape soils are processed for
the addition of amendments, the processed soils should be re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM D1557).
9.2 Site Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled over
slopes. Runoff should be channeled away from slopes and structures and not allowed to pond and/or
seep uncontrolled into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward an acceptable outlet.
Consideration should be given to eliminating open bottom planters directly adjacent to proposed
structures for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be
utilized, with a properly designed drain outlet placed in the bottom of the planter.
Final surface grades around structures should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from
structures and toward appropriate drainage facilities. The ground around the structure should be
graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general, we
recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure slope away at a gradient of at least 2 percent.
Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least
5 percent within the first 5 feet from the structure. Roof gutters with downspouts that discharge
directly into a closed drainage system are recommended on structures. Drainage patterns established
at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed structures.
9.3 Site Runoff - Stormwater Disposal Systems
Client requested percolation testing to confirm the potential (or lack thereof) of an engineered onsite
subsurface water retainage feature and/or permeable paving. Our testing and findings are summarized
in the following sections.
9.3.1 Percolation Testing
Following the drilling of our exploratory borings, a 3-inch diameter perforated polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe was placed in Boring B2, and gravel was placed around the pipe to prevent caving.
The test hole was presoaked to evaluate whether percolation testing could be initiated
immediately (fast percolation) or whether we would return after 24 hours (slow percolation).
The test hole was observed periodically while completing field drilling over 8 hours. No
percolation was observed. Therefore the test was terminated. Upon conclusion of testing, the
perforated pipe was removed from the test hole and the test hole was backfilled. Based on our
observations at Boring B2, onsite infiltration is not feasible at the location tested.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
18
Due to the lack of any discernable percolation, the percolation test was terminated. The PVC was
removed and the test well was backfilled and sealed at the surface with concrete, matched to grade.
9.5 Utility Trench Backfill
Fill around the pipe should be placed in accordance with details shown on the drawings and should be
placed in layers not to exceed 8-inches loose (unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical engineer)
and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with
ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The geotechnical engineer should approve all backfill material.
Select material should be used when called for on the drawings, or when recommended by the
geotechnical engineer. Care should be taken during backfill and compaction operations to maintain
alignment and prevent damage to the joints. The backfill should be kept free from oversized material,
chunks of highly plastic clay, or other unsuitable or deleterious material. Backfill soils should be non-
expansive, non-corrosive, and compatible with native earth materials. Backfill materials and testing
should be in accordance with the requirements of the local governing jurisdiction.
Pipe backfill areas should be graded and maintained in such a condition that erosion or saturation will
not damage the pipe bedding or backfill. Flooding trenches backfill is not recommended. Heavy
equipment should not be operated over any pipe until it has been properly backfilled with a minimum of
2 to 3 feet of cover. The utility trench should be systematically backfilled to allow maximum time for
natural settlement. Backfill should not occur over porous, wet, or spongy subgrade surfaces. Should
these conditions exist, the areas should be removed, replaced and recompacted.
10.0 PLAN REVIEW
Once detailed site and grading plans are available, they should be submitted to this office for review and
comment, to reduce the potential for discrepancies between plans and recommendations presented
herein. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations
would be provided. Additional field studies may be warranted.
11.0 LIMITATIONS AND CONTINUITY
This Geotechnical Evaluation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices. Findings provided herein have been derived in accordance with
current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject
to change with time. This report has been prepared for the sole use of CaliChi Design Group (Client),
within a reasonable time from its authorization. Site conditions, land use (both onsite and offsite), or
other factors may change as a result of manmade influences, and additional work may be required with
the passage of time.
This Geotechnical Evaluation should not be relied upon by other parties without the express written
consent of EEI and the Client; therefore, any use or reliance upon this Geotechnical Evaluation by a party
other than the Client should be solely at the risk of such third party and without legal recourse against
EEI, its employees, officers, or directors, regardless of whether the action in which recovery of damages
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
19
is brought or based upon contract, tort, statue, or otherwise. The Client has the responsibility to see
that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractor, and building official, etc.
are aware of this report in its complete form. This report contains information that may be used in the
preparation of contract specifications; however, the report is not designed as a specification document,
and may not contain sufficient information for use without additional assessment. EEI assumes no
responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. In addition, this report may be subject
to review by the controlling authorities.
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide
testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation
and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are
incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If
another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during
construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the
regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations
concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of
their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform
additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
20
12.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE Document ASCE/SEI 7-16.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2015, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
04.08, Construction: Soil and Rock (I), Standards D 420 - D 5876.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) Hazards by Location website,
https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=33.5551&lng=-117.2081&address=, accessed February
2021.
California Building Code (CBC), 2019, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin 7.5-
Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California”, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 012, dated 1998, 57 p.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997, revised and re-adopted
September 11, 2008.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2001, “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Tustin
Quadrangle, Official Map”, scale – 1:24,000.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36, Electronic Copy,
Revised December 2002.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, 2006
Earth Consultants International, “Seismic Hazards Map, Newport Beach, California” 2008.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood
Insurance Rate Map 06059C0286J, dated December 3, 2009.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A. (Hart and Bryant), 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines
and Geology (CDMG), Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Morton and Miller, 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles,
CA”, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217, 199 p.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,”
American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
21
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Online Fault
Database Search, web address -
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm, accessed February 2021.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2022, Tustin, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle, scale –
1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2022, Newport Beach, CA 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle,
scale – 1:24,000.
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
FIGURES
PA2022-128
FIGURE 1
LEGEND
0 500 �1,000 �2,000 �
Scale: 1” = 1,000 feet
Note: All Loca�ons Are Approximate
SITE VICINITY MAP
CaliChi Design Group
Proposed Commercial Development
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street
APN: 439-352-15, 439-341-14, -15
Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
EEI Project Number AAA-73198.4
Source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Topographic Map, Newport Beach and Tus�n Quadrangles, CA, 2022-01-03
SUBJECT PROPERTYNewport Beach QuadrangleTus�n QuadranglePA2022-128
SW Birch StreetBri
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
o
u
t
h
Co
r
o
n
a
D
e
l
M
a
r
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
SW Cypress StreetFIGURE 2
LEGEND
0 50 �100 �200 �
Scale: 1” = 100 feet
Note: All Loca�ons Are Approximate
AERIAL SITE MAP
CaliChi Design Group
Proposed Commercial Development
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street
APN: 439-352-15, 439-341-14, -15
Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
EEI Project Number AAA-73198.4
Source: GoogleEarth, 2021
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PA2022-128
FIGURE 3
LEGEND
0 1000 �2,000 �4,000 �
Scale: 1” = 2,000 feet
Note: All Loca�ons Are Approximate
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
CaliChi Design Group
Proposed Commercial Development
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street
APN: 439-352-15, 439-341-14, -15
Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
EEI Project Number AAA-73198.4
Source: Morton and Miller, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’x60’ Quadrangles, CA, U.S. Geological Survey
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PA2022-128
FIGURE 4
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
Note: All Loca�ons Are Approximate
100 � 0
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
CaliChi Design Group
Proposed Commercial Development
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street
APN: 439-352-15, 439-341-14, -15
Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
EEI Project Number AAA-73198.4
B-4 Approximate location of exploratory
hollow stem auger boring
Approximate location of proposed
carwash building
Source: Google Earth, 2022
LEGEND
B-2
B-3
B-1
B-4
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
APPENDIX A
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND
BORING LOGS
PA2022-128
South Melr o se
DriveSYMBOLSGRAPHLETTERTYPICAL DESCRIPTIONSMAJOR DIVISIONSGWGPGMGCSWSPSMSCMLCLOLMHCHOHCOARSEGRAINEDSOILSGRAVELANDGRAVELLYSOILSCLEANGRAVELS(LITTLE OR NO FINES)GRAVELS WITHFINES(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONRETAINED ON NO.4 SEIVEWELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- CLAY MIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR NO FINESCLEAN SANDS(LITTLE OR NO FINES)(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)SANDS WITH FINESSANDANDSANDYSOILSMORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONREATINED ON NO.4 SEIVEMORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVESIZEPOORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY-SANDS, SAND – SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDS, SAND – CLAY MIXTURESFINEGRAINEDSOILSSILTSANDCLAYSLIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50SILTSANDCLAYSLIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVESIZEINORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITYORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTSSAMPLER TYPESSPTModified California (2.5" I.D.)BulkShelby TubeRock CoreOTHER TESTSCOR – Corrosivity)CD – Consolidated Drained TriaxialCON – ConsolidationDS – Direct ShearRV – R-ValueSA – Sieve AnalysisATT – Atterberg Limit (Plasticity Index)TV – Torvane ShearUU – Unconsolidated Undrained TriaxialPLASTICITY CHARTPlasticity Index (%)00Liquid Limit (%)1020304050607080102030405060708090100110120CL-MLCL“A” LINECHOH & MHWater LevelPENETRATION RESISTANCE(Recorded As Blows/Foot)SAND & GRAVELSILT & CLAYRelative DensityVery LooseLooseMedium DenseDenseVery DenseBlows/Foot* N0-44-1010-3030-50Over 50ConsistencyVery SoftSoftMedium StiffStiffVery StiffBlows/Foot* N0 - 22 - 44 - 8Over 308 - 15Hard15 - 30Strength**(KSF)0 – 0.50.5 – 1.01.0 – 2.0Over 8.02.0 – 4.04.0 – 8.0* Number of blows of 140LB hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) split barrel sampler the last 12 inches of an 18-inch drive (ASTM-1586 Standard Penetration Test)6060** Undrained shear strength in kips/sq. ft. As determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test, pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observationUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487-98)Geotechnical & Environmental SolutionsLEGEND TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONSAPPENDIX AEI – Expansion IndexMAX – Maximum Density-#200 - Percent Passing #200 SievePA2022-128
(0') ASPHALT/CONCRETE
(0.5') BASE
(0.75') Silty lean CLAY (CL); medium brown with gray mottling, slightly moist.
(5') As above: mottled streaks, hard, dry to slightly moist.
(7.5') Silty SAND (ML/SP); bu , ained, some caliche nodules,medium dense, dry.
(10') SAND (SP); bu with slight mottling, ver rained, medium dense,slightly moist to dry.
(15') As above: gray with brown mottling, micaceous, dense.
10
20
34
15
20
50/3"
9
12
16
11
12
15
10
21
34
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
Drilling Start Date:03/21/2022
Boring Diameter (in):8
Client: CaliChi Design Group
Location (X,Y):
Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:03/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod Cal & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):51.5
Project: AAA-73198
Address: 2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
Boring No. B-1
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 1 of 3
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Logged By:Timothy Lester
DTW During Drilling (ft):32
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):COMPLETIONWATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)COLLECT
low CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Lab SampleMEASURE
Sample TypeMoisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)#200 Wash (%)32
57
100
100
100
83
100
#200
DS
16109.4
11
107.3
13109.9
11
93.9
21117.4
57.9
UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
PARALIC DEPOSITS
Matthew Cruz
PA2022-128
(20') Clean SAND (SP); very rained, ligh gra slightlymoist, micaceous, very dense.
(25') As above.
(30') As above: wet at shoe, thin lens sand, very minor silt/clay, very dense.
(35') SAND (SP); very rained, wet/free water, very thin lens ofsilt/clay, very dense.
13
24
33
20
25
26
25
50/5"
9
23
40
20
25
30
35
40
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Start Date:03/21/2022
Boring Diameter (in):8
Client:
Location (X,Y):
Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:03/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod CA & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):51.5
Project:
Address:
Boring No. B-1
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 2 of 3
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Logged By:Timothy Lester
DTW During Drilling (ft):32
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):32
COMPLETIONWATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)COLLECT
Blow CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Lab SampleMEASURE
Sample TypeMoisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)#200 Wash (%)57
100
100
100
61
#200
#200
28.1
8.3
CaliChi Design Group
AAA-73198
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
PA2022-128
(40') SAND (SP); r rained, very dense, wet, mediumbrown to gray, shell fragments.
(45') SAND (SP); medium grained, very dense, wet, dark gray withcream streaks, shell fragments.
(50') CLAY (CH); dark gray, plastic, moist, shell fragments.
25
50/4"
28
50/4"
3
5
7
40
45
50
55
60
40
45
50
55
60
Drilling Start Date:03/21/2022
Boring Diameter (in):8
Client:
Location (X,Y):
Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:03/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod CA & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):51.5
Project:
Address:
Boring No. B-1
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 3 of 3
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Logged By:Timothy Lester
DTW During Drilling (ft):32
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):32
57
COMPLETIONWATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)COLLECT
Blow CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Lab SampleMEASURE
Sample TypeMoisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)#200 Wash (%)55
100
55
TD at 51.5 feet.
Groundwater Encountered at 32 feet.
#200
#200
6.4
94.7
CaliChi Design Group
AAA-73198
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
PA2022-128
(0') ASPHALT/CONCRETE
(0.5') BASE
(0.8') Clayey SILT (ML); gray/dark brown, slightly moist,
(5') SILT/CLAY (ML); medium brown, slightly moist, hard
(6.5') Silty CLAY (CL); medium brown, slightly moist, very sti
TD at 8 feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Upon Completion of Drilling, Hole Prepared for Percolation Testing.
6
16
30
14
20
50/4"
9
14
17
(2.5') Same as above.
0
5
10
0
5
10
Drilling Start Date:02/21/2022
COMPLETIONBoring Diameter (in):8
WATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)Client:
COLLECT
Blow CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
Location (X,Y):BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:02/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod CA & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):8
Lab SampleProject:
Address:
Boring No. B-2
MEASURE
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 1 of 1
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Sample TypeLogged By:Timothy Lester
Moisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)DTW During Drilling (ft):
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):#200 Wash (%)NA
NA
56
100
100
89
EI
16
115.4
14110.7
13
119.9
PARALIC DEPOSITS
Matthew Cruz
CaliChi Design Group
AAA-73198
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
PA2022-128
(0') ASPHALT
(0.3') BASE
(2.5') Same as above.
(5') Clayey, sandy SILT (ML); brown, sti , dry to slightly moist.
(7.5') Clayey SAND medium grained, brown, medium dense, dry.
(10') SAND (SP); medium grained, brown, very slight clay, veryvery dense,dry.
TD at 11.5 feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
9
22
26
7
8
11
11
16
20
23
43
50/5"
(0.7') Silty, sandy CLAY (CL); brown, dry to slightly moist.
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
Drilling Start Date:03/21/2022
Boring Diameter (in):8
Client:
Location (X,Y):
Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:03/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod CA & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):11.5
Project:
Address:
Boring No. B-3
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 1 of 1
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Logged By:Timothy Lester
DTW During Drilling (ft):
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):
NA
NA
59
COMPLETIONWATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)COLLECT
Blow CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Lab SampleMEASURE
Sample TypeMoisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)#200 Wash (%)100
100
100
94
16
122
14
122.3
11
123.6
12
120.7
EI
COR
PARALIC DEPOSITS
CaliChi Design Group
AAA-73198
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
PA2022-128
(0') ASPHALT
(0.25') BASE
(0.58') CONCRETE
(0.75') Clayey SAND medium grained, brown, dense, slightlydry to moist.
(5') Clayey SAND ained, brown, medium dense, dry.
(7.5') Clayey SAND medium grained, brown, poorlysorted, medium dense, dry.
(10') SAND (SP); medium grained, poorly sorted, brown, mediumdense, dry to slightly moist.
14
24
35
12
16
20
20
25
25
9
18
23
TD at 11.5 feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Upon Completion of Drilling, Hole Prepared for Percolation Testing.
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
Drilling Start Date:03/21/2022
Boring Diameter (in):8
Client:
Location (X,Y):
Drilling Equipment:Ingersoll Rand A-300
Drilling End Date:03/21/2022
Drilling Company:No. County
Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
Sampling Method(s):Mod CA & Split Spoon
Boring Depth (ft):11.5
Project:
Address:
Boring No. B-4
BORING LOG
NOTES:
Page: 1 of 1
Ground Surface Elev. (ft):Logged By:Timothy Lester
DTW During Drilling (ft):
Reviewed By:
DTW After Drilling (ft):COMPLETIONWATER LEVELDEPTH (ft)COLLECT
Blow CountsSOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION
BORINGLITHOLOGYDEPTH (ft)Lab SampleMEASURE
Sample TypeMoisture (%)Density (pcf)Recovery (%)#200 Wash (%)100
100
100
100
9
120.8
11
107.4
9116.2
5
111.9
NA
NA
58
PARALIC DEPOSITS
CaliChi Design Group
AAA-73198
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol St, Newport Beach, CA
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST DATA
PA2022-128
Moisture-Density Determination
Client:Samp Received.:
W.O.:Test By:
Date:Samples By:
Classification
Description
Color
Moisture Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist
Consistancy
Misc.
WET DENSITY
Boring/Pit No.B-1 B-2
Depth (ft)Elev (ft)2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 15.0 2.5 5.0 6.0
Length of Sample (L)5 5 6 6 6 6 5 6
Total Wet Weight (T)1069.3 1058.2 1073.1 1117.5 1200.1 1333.5 1119.5 1112.9
Total Ring Wt. (R)335 335 258 402 258 402 335 258
Total Soil (S) [T-R]734.3 723.2 815.1 715.5 942.1 931.5 784.5 854.9
Average Wt. (A) [S/L] 146.86 144.64 135.85 119.25 157.01667 155.25 156.9 142.48333
GMS to LBS [A/453.6]0.3237654 0.3188713 0.2994929 0.2628968 0.3461567 0.3422619 0.3458995 0.3141167
LBS to CF3 (.00256 cf)126.47087 124.55908 116.98943 102.69407 135.21745 133.69606 135.11698 122.70183
Wet Density (pcf)126.5 124.6 117.0 102.7 135.2 133.7 135.1 122.7
MOISTURE CONTENT
Tare No.
Wet Weight (g)143.5 164.7 127.8 129.2 160.4 175.1 115.5 141.2
Dry Weight (g)124.1 145.3 117.2 118.1 139.3 151.1 102.5 127.4
Tare (g)
Water 19.4 19.4 10.6 11.1 21.1 24 13 13.8
Percent Moisture 15.6%13.4%9.0%9.4%15.1%15.9%13%11%
DRY DENSITY
Dry Density 109.4 109.9 107.3 93.9 117.4 115.4 119.9 110.7
Maximum Density
Percent Compaction
Percent Saturation**80.9%70.1%44.3%32.7%98.3%97.1%88.7%58.1%
*Av. Ring Weight (gms)67 43 **Specific Gravity 2.65 Rev 8/1/2014
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
3/28/2022
3/21/2022
TR
Client
CL CL SM SM SM CL SC SM
Brown Brown
Light
Brown
Light
Brown
Light
Brown
Dark
Brown Brown
Light
Brown
Dense DenseDenseDenseDenseDenseDenseDense
Geosoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad CA 92010 (760) 438-3155
Page X:\clint\5900\5932_AAA.73198_M&DMoist.-Dens. (1)
PA2022-128
Moisture-Density Determination
Client:Samp Received.:
W.O.:Test By:
Date:Samples By:
Classification
Description
Color
Moisture Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist
Consistancy
Misc.
WET DENSITY
Boring/Pit No.B-3 B-4
Depth (ft)Elev (ft)2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Length of Sample (L)6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6
Total Wet Weight (T)1230.6 1222.2 1219.1 1000.4 1203.6 1286.7 1230.6 1104.5
Total Ring Wt. (R)258 258 258 215 258 402 402 258
Total Soil (S) [T-R]972.6 964.2 961.1 785.4 945.6 884.7 828.6 846.5
Average Wt. (A) [S/L] 162.1 160.7 160.18333 157.08 157.6 147.45 138.1 141.08333
GMS to LBS [A/453.6]0.3573633 0.3542769 0.3531379 0.3462963 0.3474427 0.3250661 0.3044533 0.3110303
LBS to CF3 (.00256 cf)135.36489 134.19579 133.76434 131.17284 131.60708 126.97896 118.92706 117.8145
Wet Density (pcf)135.4 134.2 133.8 131.2 131.6 127.0 118.9 117.8
MOISTURE CONTENT
Tare No.
Wet Weight (g)160.1 141.6 165.2 154.8 165.8 171.3 146.4 136.4
Dry Weight (g)144.3 130.4 151 142.4 152.2 156.8 132.2 129.5
Tare (g)
Water 15.8 11.2 14.2 12.4 13.6 14.5 14.2 6.9
Percent Moisture 10.9%8.6%9.4%8.7%8.9%9.2%11%5%
DRY DENSITY
Dry Density 122.0 123.6 122.3 120.7 120.8 116.2 107.4 111.9
Maximum Density
Percent Compaction
Percent Saturation**81.7%67.3%70.7%62.3%64.2%58.0%52.7%29.5%
*Av. Ring Weight (gms)67 43 **Specific Gravity 2.65 Rev 8/1/2014
EEI Tiger 3/21/2022
AAA.73198 TR
3/28/2022 Client
SM SM SC SC SC SC SC SP-SM
Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown
Dense DenseDenseDenseDenseDenseDenseDense
Geosoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad CA 92010 (760) 438-3155
Page X:\clint\5900\5932_AAA.73198_M&DMoist.-Dens. (2)
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
3-29-22
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Brown Sandy Clay
#200 57.9
CL
EEI Tiger
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 5.0
Sample Number: B-1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Plate
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
57.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
3-29-22
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Grayish Brown Silty Sand
#200 28.1
SM
EEI Tiger
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 20.0
Sample Number: B-1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Plate
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
28.16 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
3-29-22
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Grayish Brown Sand w/Silt
#200 8.3
SP-SM
EEI Tiger
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 30.0
Sample Number: B-1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Plate
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
8.36 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
3-29-22
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Grayish Brown Sand w/Silt
#200 6.4
SP-SM
EEI Tiger
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 40.0
Sample Number: B-1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Plate
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
6.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
3-29-22
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Dark Gray Sandy Clay
#200 94.7
CL
EEI Tiger
EEI Tiger
AAA.73198
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 50.0
Sample Number: B-1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Plate
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
94.76 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
PA2022-128
General Accordance with ASTM 4829
Sample Data
EEI Tiger Date Started:3/29/22
AAA.73198 Date Completed:3/30/22
3/30/2022 Tested By:TR
4.01 in.Layers:2 Date Received:3/21/22
1 in Blows:15 By:Client
5.5 lbs.Drop:12"Ring Volume:0.0073 cf
Test Data
B-2
Lot Number
Depth 2.5-5.0
Phase/Tract Number
Sample Description SC
% Retained on #4 0.0%
Wet Weight, Mw (g)588
Ring #
Ring Weight, Mr (g)199
Wet Weight, Mw-Mr (g)389
Wet Density, Dw (pcf)117.5
% Moisture (W)11.5%
Dry Density (pcf) DD 105.4
% Saturation*51.8%
Test Results
Start Dial Reading (in)0.2000
Initial Time 13:30
Final Dial Reading (in)0.1573
Final Time 7:00
Expansion (in)0.0427
Expansion Index 43
EXPANSION INDEX LOW #VALUE!
Adjusted to 50% Sat 44 #VALUE!
Moisture Content After Test
Final Weight (gms), Mf 616
Wet Weight, Mf-Mr (g)417
Dry Weight, D (g)348.9
% Moisture Sat.19.5%#DIV/0!
Oversize Sample Data
Weight of Soils (g)2995.7
Weight of + #4 (g)1.0
* Saturation = W/((62.4/DD)-(1/2.7))Dry Density = C22/(1+C23)Amended:Rev 8/08
Expansion (in) = Final Dial Reading - Start Dial Reading Uncor. Exp.Undex = Expansion (in) * 1000
Adjusted to 50% Sat = Expansion-((65+Expansion)/(220-% Saturation*100))*(50-% Saturation*100)
% Moisture Sat. = (Mf-Mr)/D Specific Gravity Assumed 2.70
Remarks:
Sample ID
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
Ring Height:
Hammer Wt:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Report Date:
Ring Diameter:
GeoSoils Inc., 5741 Palmer Way, Carlsbad CA 92010, (760) 438-3155
PA2022-128
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
Client: EEI Tiger
Project: EEI Tiger
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 7.5
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: AAA.73198 Date Sampled:
Sample Type: Natural
Description: Light Brown Silty Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Plate
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Normal Stress, psf
Fail. Stress, psf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, psf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.InitialAt TestShear Stress, psf0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1
2
3Ult. Stress, psf Fail. Stress, psf 0
1000
2000
3000
Normal Stress, psf
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
C, psf
f, deg
Tan(f)
Fail.Ult.
99
36
0.72
25
35
0.71
1
9.0
104.1
40.5
0.5894
2.41
1.00
19.9
105.0
91.8
0.5751
2.41
0.99
1000
813
4.1
722
7.1
0.005
2
9.0
106.1
42.7
0.5590
2.41
1.00
19.0
108.4
95.6
0.5262
2.41
0.98
2000
1534
2.8
1476
7.9
0.005
3
9.0
104.5
40.9
0.5829
2.42
1.00
19.0
107.9
94.2
0.5338
2.42
0.97
3000
2246
5.1
2144
11.3
0.005
PA2022-128
Geotechnical Evaluation / CaliChi Design Group April 15, 2022
2172/2192/2222 SE Bristol Street,, Newport Beach, California EEI Project AAA-73198.4
APPENDIX C
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
PA2022-128
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
GENERAL
These guidelines present general procedures and recommendations for earthwork and grading as
required on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of
fill and installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report are applicable to each specific project, are part of the earthwork and grading
guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict.
Observations and/or testing performed by the consultant during the course of grading may
result in revised recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Figures A through O is provided at the
back of this appendix, exhibiting generalized cross sections relating to these guidelines.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with
provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering
geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and
testing services, and geotechnical consultation throughout the duration of the project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (a soil engineer and
engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures
and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report,
the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may
be made that the work is being completed as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor
to assist the consultant and keep them aware of work schedules and predicted changes, so
that the consultant may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All removals, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be
observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to
placing any fill. It is the contractor’s responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil
engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Corporate Office: 2195 Faraday Ave., Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7207 Ph: 760-431-3747
www.eeitiger.com
Camarillo * Carlsbad * Pleasanton * Sacramento * Reno
PA2022-128
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
2
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in
accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation
D-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test
method ASTM designations D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 & D-3017, at intervals of
approximately two feet of fill height per 10,000 sq. ft. or every one thousand cubic yards of fill
placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project.
The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant
Contractor’s Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by
the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the
appropriate governing agencies. It is the contractor’s responsibility to prepare the ground
surface to receive the fill to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture
condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil
engineer. The contractor should also remove all major deleterious material considered
unsatisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency
ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction
equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate
of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, deleterious
material or insufficient support equipment are resulting in a quality of work that is not
acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify
the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory.
The contractor will properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding
of water. The contractor will take action to control surface water and to prevent erosion
control measures that have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All vegetation including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious
material should be removed and disposed of offsite, and must be concluded prior to placing fill.
Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or
engineering geologist as unsuitable for structural in-place support should be removed prior to
fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as
compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by
the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or
treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured,
or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition should be over excavated down to firm ground and approved
by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Over excavated and
processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be
recompacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines.
PA2022-128
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
3
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified
to a minimum depth of 6 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified
ground is brought to optimum moisture (or greater) and mixed, the materials should be
compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may
be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to 6 inches in
compacted thickness.
Existing grind which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over excavated as
required in the geotechnical report or by the onsite soils engineer and/or engineering
geologists. Scarification, discing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the
soils are broken down and free of large fragments or clods, until the working surface is
reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which
would inhibit compaction as described above.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical)
gradient, the ground should be benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a
minimum of 12 feet wide and should be at least two feet deep into competent material,
approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the
recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is at least 15 feet with the
key excavated on competent material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a
general rule, unless superseded by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be
approximately equal to one-half (½) the height of the slope.
Standard benching is typically four feet (minimum) vertically, exposing competent material.
Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the
vertical height of the bench may exceed four feet. Pre stripping may be considered for removal
of unsuitable materials in excess of four feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of fill benches should
be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement
of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized as fill provided that each
soil type has been accepted by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots,
tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials
should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation,
undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated
unsuitable by the consultant and may require mixing with other earth materials to serve as
a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials generated from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area.
Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single
equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact.
PA2022-128
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
4
Oversized materials, defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum size
exceeding 12 inches in one dimension, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized
material should be taken offsite or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil
engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be
placed vertically within 10 feet of finish grade or horizontally within 20 feet of slope faces.
To facilitate trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations or
future utilities unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the representative
developers.
If import fill material is required for grading, representative samples of the material should be
analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any
material other than that previously analyzed is imported to the fill or encountered during
grading, analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as practical.
Fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers that should
not exceed six inches compacted in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thicker lifts if
testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being
achieved. Each layer should be spread evenly and mixed to attain uniformity of material and
moisture suitable for compaction.
Fill materials at moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and “wet”
fill materials should be aerated by scarification, or should be mixed with drier material.
Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill materials should continue until the fill materials have
uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test
designation, D 1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction
equipment should be adequately sized and should be reliable to efficiently achieve the required
degree of compaction.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required
relative compaction or improper moisture content, the particular layer or portion will be
reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No
additional fill will be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found
to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building the outside edge a minimum of
three feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the finish design slope configuration.
Testing will be performed as the fill is horizontally placed to evaluate compaction as the fill core
is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the
fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be
based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face.
PA2022-128
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
5
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slope is selected, then
additional efforts should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of
each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
• Equipment consisting of a heavy short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll
(horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller
should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope
to provide adequate compaction to the face slope.
• Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted.
Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be
subject to re-rolling.
• Field compaction tests will be made in the outer two to five feet of the slope at two
to three foot vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations.
• After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small dozer
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve
adequate compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
• Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to process, moisture condition, mix and recompact the slope materials as
necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify
compaction.
• Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in
compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in
accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be observed and mapped during grading by the engineering
geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or over-excavation and
refilling of cut areas should be performed. When fills over cut slopes are to be graded, the
cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of
the overlying fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes
and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started.
If, during the course of grading, unanticipated adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions
are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate
and make recommendations to mitigate (or limit) these conditions. The need for cut slope
buttressing or stabilizing should be based on as-grading evaluations by the engineering
geologist, whether anticipated previously or not.
Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated
higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor’s responsibility.
PA2022-128
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
6
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should
be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering
geologist.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in accordance with the approved embedment material,
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or
construction materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the
geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and
direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed
conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil
engineer.
COMPLETION
Consultation, observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant should be completed
during grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in
accordance with the approved project specifications.
After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished
their observations, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling
governmental agencies. No additional grading should be undertaken without prior notification
of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion, including but not limited to
planting in accordance with the plan design specifications and/or as recommended by a
landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as
possible after completion of grading.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure A – Transition Lot Detail Cut Lot
Figure B – Transition Lot Detail Cut - Fill
Figure C – Rock Disposal Pits
Figure D – Detail for Fill Slope Toeing out on a Flat Alluviated Canyon
Figure E – Removal Adjacent to Existing Fill
Figure F – Daylight Cut Lot Detail
Figure G – Skin Fill of Natural Ground
Figure H – Typical Stabilization Buttress Fill Design
Figure I – Stabilization Fill for Unstable Material Exposed in Portion of Cut Slope
Figure J – Fill Over Cut Detail
Figure K – Fill Over Natural Detail
Figure L – Oversize Rock Disposal
Figure M – Canyon Subdrain Detail
Figure N – Canyon Subdrain Alternate Details
Figure O – Typical Stabilization Buttress Subdrain Detail
Figure P – Retaining Wall Backfill
PA2022-128
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT – MATERIAL TYPE
TRANSITION
5' Minimum
Pad Grade
Overexcavate and Recompact
Compacted Fill
3' Minimum* Unweathered Bedrock or Approved Material
Typical Benching
* The soils engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend deeper
overexcavation in steep cut-fill transitions.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT – MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION
FIGURE A
Engineering Solutions
PA2022-128
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT – FILL – DAYLIGHT TRANSITION
5' Minimum
Pad Grade
Overexcavate and Recompact
Compacted Fill
3' Minimum*
Unweathered Bedrock or Approved Material
Typical Benching
* The soils engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend deeper
overexcavation in steep cut-fill transitions.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT – FILL – DAYLIGHT TRANSITION
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE B
PA2022-128
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
Large Rock/Boulder
Fill lifts compacted over rock after embedment
Granular material
Compacted fill
Size of excavation to be commensurate with rock size.
Note: (1) Large rock is defined as having a diameter larger than 3 feet in maximum size.
(2) Pit shall be excavated into compacted fill to a depth equal to half of the rock size.
(3) Granular soil shall be pushed into the pit and then flooded around the rock using a sheepsfoot to help with compaction.
(4) A minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill should be laid over each pit.
(5) Pits shall have at least 15 feet of separation between one another, horizontally.
(6) Pits shall be placed at least 20 feet from any fill slope.
(7) Pits shall be used only in deep fill areas.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE C
PA2022-128
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON
FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON
Toe of slope as shown on grading plan
Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill.
Compacted fill
Original ground surface
Anticipated alluvial removal depth per
soils engineer.
Backcut varies for deep removals. A
backcut shall not be made steeper than
a slope of 1:1 or as necessary for safety Provide a 1:1 minimum projection from the toe of the slope as shown on
considerations. the grading plan to the recommended depth. Factors such as slope height, site conditions, and/or local conditions could demand shallower
projections.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON A FLAT
ALLUVIATED CANYON
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE D
PA2022-128
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
Adjoining Canyon Fill
Compacted fill limits line
Proposed additional compacted fill
Temporary compacted
fill for drainage only
Qaf
Qaf (Existing compacted fill) Qal (To be removed)
To be removed before placing additional compacted fill
Legend
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL Qaf - Artificial Fill
Qal - Alluvium
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE E
PA2022-128
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
Fill slope shall be recompacted at a 2:1 ratio (this may increase or
decrease the area of the pad)
Overexcavate and recompact fill
Proposed finish grade
3' minimum blanket fill
Avoid and/or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope
Bedrock or approved material
Typical benching
2' minimum key depth
Note: (1) Subdrain and key width requirements shall be determined based on exposed subsurface conditions and the thickness of
overburden.
(2) Pad overexcavation and recompaction shall be completed if determined as necessary by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE F
PA2022-128
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
15' minimum to be maintained from proposed finish Original slope slope face to backcut
Proposed finish grade
3' minimum
Bedrock or approved materials
Proposed finish grade
3' minimum key depth 2' minimum key
depth 15' minimum key width
Note: (1) The need and disposition of drains will be determined by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist based on site
conditions.
(2) Pad overexcavation and recompaction shall be completed if determined as necessary by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE G
PA2022-128
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS FILL DESIGN
Outlets shall be spaced at 100' maximum intervals, and should extend 12" beyond the face of the slope at the
finish of of rough grading
15' minimum Blanket fill if recommended by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist
Design finish slope 10' minimum
25' maximum
Typical benching
15' is typical Buttress or sidehill fill 4" diameter non-perforated outlet pipe and backdrain (see
alternatives)
1'-2' clear
Toe Heel Gravel-fabric drain material
Bedrock
3' minimum key depth
W = H/2 or a minimum of 15'
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS FILL DESIGN
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE H
PA2022-128
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
15' minimum to be maintained from proposed finish Original slope slope face to backcut
Proposed finish grade
3' minimum
Bedrock or approved materials
Proposed finish grade
3' minimum key depth 2' minimum key
depth 15' minimum key width
Note: (1) The need and disposition of drains will be determined by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist based on site
conditions.
(2) Pad overexcavation and recompaction shall be completed if determined as necessary by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE G
PA2022-128
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS FILL DESIGN
Outlets shall be spaced at 100' maximum intervals, and should extend 12" beyond the face of the slope at the
finish of of rough grading
15' minimum Blanket fill if recommended by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist
Design finish slope 10' minimum
25' maximum
Typical benching
15' is typical Buttress or sidehill fill 4" diameter non-perforated outlet pipe and backdrain (see
alternatives)
1'-2' clear
Toe Heel Gravel-fabric drain material
Bedrock
3' minimum key depth
W = H/2 or a minimum of 15'
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS FILL DESIGN
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE H
PA2022-128
STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL
EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE
Remove unstable material
15' minimum
Proposed finished grade
Unweathered bedrock or approved material
H2
Remove: unstable material Compacted stabilization fill
H1
1' minimum tilted back
If recommended by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist, the remaining cut W2 portion of the slope may require removal and replacement with compacted fill.
W1
Note: (1) Subdrains are required only if specified by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist.
(2) “W” shall be the equipment width (15') for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet “W”
shall be determined by the project soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist. “W” shall never be less than H/2.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL
EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE I
PA2022-128
FILL OVER CUT DETAIL
Cut/Fill Contact: As shown on grading plan Maintain minimum 15' fill section from backcut to
face of finish slope
Compacted fill
Cut/Fill Contact: As shown on as built
H
3' minimum
Original topography
2' minimum Cut slope
Bench width may vary
Lowest bench width
15' minimum or H/2
Bedrock or approved material
Note: The cut sectioin shall be excavated and evaluated by the soils engineer/engineering geologist prior to constructing the fill
portion.
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
FILL OVER CUT DETAIL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE J
PA2022-128
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL
SIDEHILL FILL
Compacted Fill
Proposed Grade Maintain Minimum 15' Width
Toe of slope as shown on grading plan
Provide a 1:1 minimum projection from design toe of
slope to toe of key as shown on as built 4' Minimum
Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill
Bench Width May Vary
Backcut Varies 3' Minimum
15' Minimum key width
2' X 3' Minimum key depth
2' minimum in bedrock or approved material
Note: (1) Special recommendations shall be provided by the soils engineer/engineering geologist where the natural slope
approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio.
(2) The need for and disposition of drains would be determined by the soils engineer/engineering geologist based upon
exposed conditions.
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE K
PA2022-128
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
View Normal to Slope Face
Proposed Finish Grade
10' minimum (5)
(2) 15' minimum (1) (7) (6)
20' minimum 15' minimum 5' minimum (3)
Bedrock or Approved Material
View Parallel to Slope Face
Proposed Finish Grade
10' minimum (5) (7)
(4)
10' minimum 100' maximum
3' minimum (8)
5' minimum (3)
Bedrock or Approved Material
Note: (1) One Equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet.
(2) Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment used. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet maximum.
(3) If approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist.
(4) Orientation of windrows may vary but shall be as recommended by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Unless recommended staggering of
windrows is not necessary.
(5) Areas shall be cleared for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools.
(6) Voids in windrows shall be filled by flooding granular soil into place. Granular soil shall be any soil which has a unified soil classification system
(Universal Building Code (UBC) 29-1). Designation of SM, SP, SW, GP, or GW.
(7) After fill between windrows is placed and compacted with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow shall be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent.
(8) Oversized rock is defined as larger than 12", and less than 4 feet in size.
Approximate Scale: 1" = 30'
0 FT 18 FT 30 FT 60 FT
Note: All distances are approximate
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE L
PA2022-128
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Type A
Proposed Compacted Fill
Natural ground
Colluvium and alluvium (remove)
Typical benching See alternatives (Figure N)
Type B
Proposed Compacted Fill
Natural ground
Colluvium and alluvium (remove)
Typical benching See alternatives (Figure N)
Note: Alternatives, locations, and extent of subdrains should be determined by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist during actual grading.
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE M
PA2022-128
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
Alternate 1: Perforated Pipe and Filter Material
Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 feet3/linear foot. 12" Minimum
6" diameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute with minimum 6" Minimum 8 (¼” diameter) perforations per linear foot in bottom half of pipe.
ASTM D 2751, SDR 35 or ASTM D 1527, Schedule 40.
ASTM D 3034, SDR 35 or ASTM D 1785, Schedule 40.
For continuous run in excess of 500 feet use 8" diameter pipe.
6" Minimum
Filter Material
6" Minimum
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
¾” 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Alternate 2: Perforated Pipe, Gravel and Filter Fabric
Minimum Overlap
Minimum Overlap 6"
6"
6" Minimum Cover Minimum Bedding 4"
4" Minimum Bedding
Gravel material 9 feet3/linear foot.
Perforated pipe: see alternate 1.
Gravel: Clean ¾” rock or approved substitute.
Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute.
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE N
PA2022-128
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL
2' minimum 3' minimum 2' minimum 4" minimum pipe
2" minimum
4" minimum pipe 2" minimum 2" minimum
Filter Material: Minimum of 5 ft3/linear foot of pipe or 4 ft3/linear foot of pipe when placed in square cut trench.
Alternative In Lieu Of Filter Material: Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12" on all joints.
Minimum 4" Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35 or ASTM D-1527 schedule 40 PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35 or ASTM D-1785 schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a
minimum of 8 uniformly spaced perforations per foot of pipe installed with perforations at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2% to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe shall be connected to the
subdrain pipe with tee or elbow.
Note: (1) Trench for outlet pipes shall be backfilled with onsite soil.
(2) Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at the elevation of every bench drain. First drain shall be located at the elevation just above the lower lot grade. Additional drains may be
required at the discretion of the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist.
Filter Material – Shall be of the following
specification or an approved equivalent:
Filter Material
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
¾” 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Gravel - Shall be of the following specification or
an approved equivalent:
Filter Material
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1½" 100
No. 4 50
No. 200 8
Sand equivalent: Minimum of 50
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN
DETAIL
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE O
PA2022-128
t _.
PROVIDE
.DRAINAGE SWALE
121N.
0(t)A _.NATIVE BACKFILL
COMPACTED TO 90%
OF ASTM Dl557
1u-
w_.w C/)
DRAIN OR PROVIDE
WEEP HOLES AS
REQUIRED
"11· • ••
*OR AS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY
NOTES
(!) 4-INCH PERFORATED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE. PLACE PERFORATION DOWN AND SURROUND WITH A
MINIMUM OF 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAL FOOT (1 FT. /FT.) OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC.
®PLACE DRAIN AS SHOWN WHERE MOISTURE MIGRATION THROUGH THE WALL IS UNDESIRABLE.
EARTHWORK & GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
NOTE: FIGURE NOT TO SCALE EEI
Engineering Solutions
FIGURE P
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 8
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
Appendix B
Public Service Capacity Info
PA2022-128
Water Flow Test Results
Location: 2172 SE Bristol St
Test Date: 1/27/2022
IDENTIFIED BY TEST OR HYDRANTS FLOWED
These tests are not performed with calibrated equipment.
Test # 1
HGL 219
Differential psi 18
Outlet Size (inches) 4
Outlet Coefficient 0.9
Pitot Pressure 27
Flow - GPM 2232
PA2022-128
C ALI C HI D ESIGN G ROUP
4322 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite A
Chicago, IL 60618
(312) 940-4393
www.CaliChi.com P a g e | 9
C-------------------------------------------------------------------D-------------------------------------------------------------------G
Chicago, IL Haiku, Maui, HI Columbus, OH Oakland, CA Portland, OR
May 13, 2022 Fletcher Jones Airport Shuttle: EIF Supplemental Info
Appendix C
Utility Capacity Info
PA2022-128
PA2022-128
PA2022-128
PA2022-128
PA2022-128
PA2022-128