HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 09-07; Palomar Commons; General Plan Amendment (GPA) (15)^^^J Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions ^ij^ '^ARtSBAD
<KQ PUNNING DEPT
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Retail Development
Palomar Airport Commons
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
January 13,2010
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
2195 Faraday Avenue • Suite K • Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7207 • Ph: 760-431-3747 »Fax: 760-431-3748 »www.eeitiger.com
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Prepared for:
Mr. Mark Radelow
Vice President/Senior Project Manager
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC.
5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 260
San Diego, CA 92121
Project Site Location:
Proposed Retail Development
Palomar Airport Commons
SWC of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real
Carlsbad, Califomia
Prepared by:
•ey P. Blake
:EG 2248 (10/31/11)
Senior Engineering Geologist
William Morrison,
GE2468 (exp. 12/31/10)
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
EEI
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7207
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LO INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Project Description 1
1.3 Scope of Services 1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2
2.1 Site Description 2
2.2 Site Topography 2
2.3 Previous Geotechnical Studies 3
2.4 Geologic Setting 3
2.5 Regional Groundwater 3
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4
Table 1 - Summary of Major Active Faults 4
3.1 Seismic Parameters and Peak Ground Acceleration 4
3.2 Ground Lurchmg or Shallow Ground Rupture 5
3.3 Liquefaction 5
3.4 Seismic Induced Settlement 5
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 5
4.1 Field Exploration 5
4.2 Subsurface Conditions 6
4.2.1 Fill 6
4.2.2 Quatemary Alluvium 6
4.2.3 Santiago Formation 6
4.3 Surface and Groundwater 7
4.4 Laboratory Testing 7
4.4.1 Field and Laboratory Classifications 7
4.4.2 Grain Size Distribution 7
4.4.3 Liquid Limits, Plastic Limits, and Plasticity Index 7
4.4.4 Expansion Index 7
4.4.5 Sulfate/Corrosion 8
4.4.6 Moisture Content and Dry Density 8
4.4.7 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content 8
4.4.8 Direct Shear 8
4.4.9 Consolidation Testing 8
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 9
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10
6.1 General 10
6.2 Site Preparation and Grading 10
6.3 Remedial Earthwork 11
6.4 Fill Placement 11
6.5 Shrinkage and Bulking 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 12
7.1 General 12
7.2 Fotmdation Design 13
7.3 Footing Setbacks 13
7.4 Constraction 13
7.5 Concrete Slab on Grade 14
7.6 Retaining Walls 15
8.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 15
Table 2 -Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations 16
9.0 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 17
9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting 17
9.2 Site Drainage 17
9.3 Additional Site Improvements 17
9.4 Trenching 17
9.5 Utility Backfill 18
10.0 PLAN REVIEW 18
11.0 LIMITATIONS 18
12.0 REFERENCES 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Site Map
Figure 3 - Exploratory Excavation Location Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Soil Classification Chart and Boring Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C - Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(1) Addressee (electronic copy)
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide geotechnical information to SUDBERRY PROPERTIES
regarding the proposed development of retail buildings within a portion of the overall Parcel of the
proposed retail development along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road in Carlsbad, San Diego
County, Califomia. The information developed in this evaluation is intended to provide SUDBERRY
PROPERTIES 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 retail
development (Site Vicinity Map-Figure 1, Aerial Site 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 proposal and cost estimate for the
project by EEI, dated September 11, 2009.
EEI conducted an onsite field exploration during November and December, 2009 that included drilling
and sampling of six (6) exploratory trenches and five (5) hollow stem auger geotechnical borings for the
proposed development. This geotechnical evaluation has been prepared for the sole use of SUDBERRY
PROPERTIES. Other parties, witiiout the express written consent of SUDBERRY PROPERTIES and
EEI, should not rely upon this geotechnical study.
1.2 Project Description
Based on our review of a preliminary site plan (Site Plan Scheme F by SGPA Architecture and Plaiming,
dated July 2009), we understand that the proposed retail/commercial development consists of five (5)
pads for development, which may include a dmg store, pet store, and a gas station that are in addition to
and located west of a proposed Lowes HIW parcel (planned for the eastem portion of the site). Based on
the site plan, the building pad areas of these proposed retail stmctures range from approximately 3,000
square feet to 18,700 square feet, while the building area for the proposed Lowe's store is anticipated to
be on the order of 122,250 square feet. We also understand that underground utilities, paved parking and
drive areas and other associated improvements are included as part of the proposed development at the
site.
We anticipate the buildings to be of conventional slab-on-grade constmction, with wood or steel-frame,
masonry block, or concrete tilt-up constmction, underground utilities, paved parking and drive areas, and
other associated improvements. No detailed grading plans were available at the time of our preparation
of this proposal. However, grading at the site is anticipated to include cut and fill of less than ten feet.
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 (References).
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
The excavation and logging of six (6) exploratory backhoe trenches and drilling and logging of
five (5) hollow stem auger geotechnical borings (HSA) borings. The trenches and HSA
exploratory holes were placed within the currently planned location ofthe proposed buildings and
improvements, with the exception of the proposed gas station, where we were unable to perform
subsurface exploration due to access considerations. The locations of each of our borings are
presented on Figure 3 (Boring Locations and Proposed Site Map).
An evaluation of seismicity and geologic hazards that includes an evaluation of faulting and
liquefaction potential.
Completion of laboratory testing of representative earth materials encountered onsite to ascertain
their soils engineering properties, including corrosion potential (Appendix B).
The preparation of this report which presents our preliminary findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description
The subject site is situated within the westem portion of an approximately 16-acre parcel that is located at
the soutiiwest comer of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real in Carlsbad, Califomia. The overall
Parcel is identified as Assessor's Parcel Niraiber (APN) 213-020-18-00. The eastem portion of the
property is presently occupied by a building associated with a former hotel and resort along with
associated improvements including a paved parking area. Some of the previous stmctures associated with
the former hotel/resort have been razed. Two (2) swimming pools have been backfilled. The west
portion of the site includes a fonner golf driving range. Stockpiles of imported fill were noted in portions
of the site and along the southem property line. The ground surface at the site is gently sloping toward
the southwest. An existmg sewer easement traverses the westerly portion of the property and is aligned
fi'om southwest to northeast. The sewer aligmnent crosses Palomar Airport Road from the northem
property line of the site. Current access to the site is afforded by El Camino Real, which bounds the
property to the east. The site is also bounded to the north by Palomar Airport Road, to the south by an
office complex, and to the west by an existing Animal Shelter.
2.2 Site Topography
Oxu- review of the topographic map published by the United States Geologic Survey, (7.5-minute San
Luis Rey Quadrangle, Califomia) indicates that the regional site elevation at the subject property is
approximately 300 feet above mean sea level (amsl) with an overall regional slope to the southwest
(USGS, 1997). Based on an aerial Google Earth® image, site elevations range from approximately 250
to 280 feet amsl. Our observations of the site indicate the ground surface is generally level to gently
sloping to the west.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
2.3 Previous Geotechnical Studies
Previous geotechnical studies at the site include a geotechnical evaluation that was performed in 2006 and
an addendum report in 2008 for an athletic club development that had been proposed for the site, which
has since been abandoned. The previous geotechnical evaluation, which was performed by Leighton
Consulting, Inc. (Leighton, 2006), included the drilling, logging and sampling of eighteen (18)
exploratory borings that were located throughout the overall site and outside of some of the proposed
building pads for ttie subject development.
2.4 Geologic Setting
The subject property lies within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges
geomorphic province, one of the largest geomorphic units in westem North America, extends from the
Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, south to Baja Califomia. It is bound
on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of Califomia and on the east by the Colorado
Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northeast-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.
During the Pleistocene-age, regional sea levels gradually increased, causing wave-cut platforms, most of
which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded
from the land. Fluvial erosion caused by periods of heavy rainfall, along with lowering sea levels noted
during the Quartemary-age, resulted in the existing rolling hills, mesas, and canyons that characterize the
setting of the site vicinity.
The subject property is located within an area of Califomia known to contain a number of active and
potentially active faults. The property is not located within a State of Califomia Earthquake Fault Zone
(Hart and Bryant, 1997).
2.5 Regional Groundwater
A review of USGS topographic maps of the subject site area indicates regional topographic relief slopes
towards the southwest. This information suggests that regional groimdwater in the site vicinity can be
inferred to flow in the same general topographic direction.
Within the subject property, groundwater was encountered in three (3) of the subsurface exploratory
excavations recently drilled onsite at approximate depths of 17 to 37 feet below the existing ground
surface (bgs) as part of our geotechnical evaluation. A previous subsurface exploration performed on the
overall site by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton, 2006) reported encountered groundwater at depths of
16 to 28 feet bgs at the time of subsurface exploration.
EEI reviewed the Califomia Department of Water Resources Water Data Library (WDL, 2009) Website
for information regarding wells and depth to groundwater information. A review indicated that no public
water wells are located on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13, 2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, BVC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The portion of Southem Califomia that includes the subject site is considered to be seismically active.
Due to the proximity of the site area to several nearby active faults, strong ground shaking could occur at
the site as a result of an earthquake on any one of the faults. Our review indicates that there are no known
active faults crossing the site (Jermings, 1994) and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart
and Bryant, 1997). It is our opinion, therefore, that the likelihood of surface fault mpture at the site is
low. Table 1 lists the major active faults within 40 miles of the site that are likely to affect the project
site.
^: TABLE 1 , , |
Summary of Major Active Faults |
Fault Name Approximate Distance From Site
miles (kilometers)
Maximum Moment
Magnitude
Rose Canyon 6.8 (10.9)
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 9.4 (15.2) 7.1
Coronado Bank 22.5 (36.2) 7.6
Elsinore (Julian) 22.7 (36.6) 7.1
1 Elsinore (Temecula) 22.7 (36.6) 6.8
Elsinore (Glen Ivy) 35.9 (57.8) 6.8
San Joaquin Hills 39.3 (63.3) 6.6
3.1 Seismic Parameters and Peak Ground Acceleration
Maximum considered ground motion maps provided in the Califomia Building Code (CBC, 2007) were
utilized with coordinates of 33.1278° North latitude and 117.2695° West longitude, to determine tiie site
seismic parameters. EEI utilized seismic design criteria provided in the CBC, 2007.
In accordance with the guidelines of the CBC, 2007, the spectral parameters for the site (based on a Site
Class B soil) are estimated to be Ss= 1.140g and Si = 0.43 Ig, utilizing 2005 ASCE 7 Design Standards
(ASCE, 2005). Based on our review of the geotechnical data obtained during our subsurface exploration,
it is our opinion that the site can be classified as Class D per the CBC (Table 1613.5.2). Consequently,
Site Coefficients Fa= 1.044 and Fv= 1.569 appear to be appropriate for the site. Based on this information,
the adjusted maximiun considered earthquake spectral response parameters SMS = 1.190g and SMI =
0.677g are recommended for seismic design of the project. Assuming an occupancy category of n (Table
1604A.5), an SDS value of 0.793g and an SDI value of 0.451g, proposed commercial buildings at the site
can be assigned a seismic design category of D [Table 1613.5.6 (1) and (2)]. Final selection of the
appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the stmctural consultant based on the local
laws and ordinances, expected building response, and desired level of conservatism.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
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 site, we consider the potential for ground lurching or shallow groimd
mpture at the site to be low; however, due to the active seismicity of California, this possibility cannot be
completely mled out. In light of this, the unlikely hazard of lurching or ground-rapture should not preclude
consideration of "flexible" design for onsite utility lines and connections.
3.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffiiess of a soil is reduced by earthquake
shakmg or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for substantial
stmctural damage in historical earthquakes, and are a design concem under certain conditions.
Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is - soils in which the space between individual particles is
completely filled with water. This pore water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how
tightly the particles themselves are pressed together.
Prior to an earthquake, pore water pressure is typically low; however, earthquake motion can cause the
pore water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each
otiier. When liquefaction occurs; the strength of the soil decreases and tiie ability of a soil deposit to
support stmctural loads are reduced.
Due to the observed lack of a near surface static ground water level at the site, along with the relatively
dense nature of the encountered materials comprising the Santiago Formation that underlies the site, it
appears that liquefaction is not a significant geotechnical concem at the site.
3.4 Seismic Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement can occur due to the reorientation of soil particles during strong shaking
of imsaturated sands, as well as in response to liquefaction of saturated loose granular soils. As noted
above, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low. Using the Tokimatsu and
Seed procedure for unsaturated soils (1997), we estimate the total seismic induced settlement within the
upper unsaturated soils to be less than V2-inch across the site. Differential seismic induced settlements are
estimated to be less than %- inch across a 50-foot span.
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Field Exploration
Field work was conducted on November 9, 2009 and December 23, 2009. A total of six (6) exploratory
trenches were excavated with a rabber tire backhoe and five (5) hollow stem auger borings were drilled
within the currently plaimed location of the proposed building pads and improvements. Trenches and
borings extended to a maximum depth of AVA feet below the existing ground surface and were logged
under the supervision of EEl's field geologist.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
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 Califomia split-tube sampler. A
track mounted Mobile-B-61 drill rig was used during field work. The blows per foot (N value) required
to advance the 18-inch long SPT and 12-inch long Modified Califomia split-tube samplers was measured
at various initial depths followed by 5-foot intervals, recorded on the boring logs, and are presented in
Appendix A-Soil Classification Chart and Boring Logs. Relatively "undisturbed" samples were collected
in a 2.42-inch (inside diameter) CaUfomia 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
Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings were observed to be generally consistent
with those previously reported by Leighton Consulting Group (Leighton, 2006, 2008). The subsurface
materials encountered in our exploratory borings consisted of undocumented fill. Quaternary alluvial
deposits, and the Tertiary aged Santiago Formation. Discussions of each of these materials (from
youngest to oldest) are presented below.
4.2.1 Fill
Undocumented artificial fill materials of variable thickness were encountered in our exploratory
excavations at various locations and appear to be associated with minor fills that were utilized to
create the previous driving range features and utility backfill. In addition, recently imported fill
materials also appear to underlie portions of the easterly edge ofthe subject site area. Ih general,
the fill materials were observed to be comprised of light brown silty sands with organics
consisting of scattered roots and rootlets. These materials were noted to be typically damp to
slightly moist and loose at the time of our subsurface exploration and are not considered suitable
for the support of additional fills and/or stmctures in their current condition. A more detailed
description of the encountered soils is provided on the boring logs included as Appendix A.
4.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium
Quatemary-aged alluvium deposits were encountered in our exploratory borings to maximum
depths of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. In general, the encountered
portions of these deposits were observed to be comprised of brown and orange-brown sandy
clays, clayey sands, and lesser amounts silty sands, sandy silts and silty clays. The sandy portions
of these materials were noted to be typically slightly moist to very moist and loose to medium
dense, while the clayey portions were observed to be moist to wet and medium stiff to stiff at the
time of our subsurface exploration. Zones of concentrated organics were observed locally within
the alluvium. A more detailed description of the encountered soils is provided on the boring logs
included as Appendix A.
4.2.3 Santiago Formation
The sedimentary bedrock unit underlying the undocumented fill and alluvium is the Tertiary-aged
Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation was encountered in all of our exploratory borings
and in one of our exploratory test pits to maximum depths of 4P/i feet below the existing ground
surface. In general, the encountered portions of these deposits were observed to be comprised of
gray and brown to olive brown silty claystones, siltstones and clayey to silty sandstones. The
sandy portions of these materials were noted to be typically slightly moist to very moist and
medium dense to dense, while the clayey portions were observed to be moist to very moist and
medium stiff to very stiff at the time of our subsurface exploration. A more detailed description
of the encountered soils is provided on the boring logs included as Appendix A.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
4.3 Surface and Groundwater
No surface water was evident at the time of our field exploration. Groundwater was encountered in three
of our exploratory borings at approximate depths of 17 feet to 37 feet below existing grades. However, it
should be noted that variations in groundwater may result from fluctuations 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.
4.4 Laboratory Testing
4.4.1 Field and Laboratory Classification
Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to confirm their field classifications.
Field descriptions and classifications were visually classified according to the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2488, which classifies soils under the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Representative soil samples were tested in the lab for grain size
distribution, liquid limits, and plastic limits to determine actual classifications by ASTM D 2487-
Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes in accordance to the USCS.
Final classifications of soils can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A and the laboratory
test data in Appendix B.
4.4.2 Grain Size Distribution
To check classifications of soils, grain size distribution of representative soil samples was
detennined. In order to find the percentages of different sized particles in a particular soil
stratum, soils were tested in general accordance to ASTM D422-Standard Test Method for
Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. The percentage of fines (sihs and clays) were found by placing
soils through a No. 200 sieve and recorded the amount of sands and gravels retained. The sands
and gravels were then passed through several varying sized sieves and soils retained on each
representative sieve were weighed. Grain size distribution curves and gradation results are
presented in Appendix B.
4.4.3 Liquid Limits, Plastic Limits, and Plasticity Index
The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index (PI) of soils were determined to aid in the
classification of soils (i.e., distinguishing clay from silt) and to held evaluate the potential for
expansion and seismically-induced liquefaction. The tests were performed in general accordance
to ASTM D-4318. The results are presented m the Appendix B.
4.4.4 Expansion Index
Representative bulk samples collected from our exploratory excavations within the upper five feet
of the existing grade was tested for its expansion potential. Our expansion index testing was
conducted in general accordance to ASTM D4829. The results of our expansion index testing are
presented in Appendix B and indicate a medium expansion potential.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
4.4.5 Sulfate/Corrosion
Representative samples of onsite earth material were collected for analysis at Schiff Associates
located in Claremont, Califomia for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. This corrosion testing
included soil minimum resistivity and pH by CTM 643, electrical conductivity by AWWA 2510-
B and ASTM Dl 125, alkalinity by USEPA 310.1, AWWA 1320-B, and ASTM D513, and sulfate
by CTM 417, chloride by CTM 422, and nitrates by USEPA 300.0. Results of these tests are
presented in Appendix B.
4.4.6 Moisture Content and Dry Density
The in-situ moisture content and dry density of soils was determined for soil samples obtained
from the borings. Moisture content and dry density of soils helps to determine engineering design
parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and other engineering stractures. Moisture content of
soil samples was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D2216, and was recorded as a
percentage. Dry density determination of soil samples was conducted in general accordance with
ASTM 2937, and recorded in pounds per cubic foot. Moisture content and dry density for soil
samples retrieved from the field can be found on the boring logs located in Appendix A.
4.4.7 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of representative soils was determined.
The test consists of compacting the soil at several moisture contents using modified effort in
general accordance with ASTM D1557. Maximum dry density was recorded in pounds per cubic
foot (pcf) and optimum moisture content was measured in percent (%). Results are provided in
Appendix B.
4.4.8 Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were conducted on two soil samples that were remolded to 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM D1557) to measure shear sfrength characteristics for engineering
purposes. Samples were then inundated for at least 18 hours. Samples were placed in a shear box
and a normal load was applied (10, 20, and 40 kilogram weights were used). The sample was
then sheared at a controlled sfrain rate in a direct shear apparatus that measures horizontal
displacement and shear resistance. Shear tests were mn in general accordance with ASTM
D3080. Results are provided in Appendix B.
4.4.9 Consolidation Testing
Consolidation properties of soils were determined to evaluate soil potential for compression and
long-term settlement. The consolidation test method includes measuring the amount and rate of
consolidation of soil when subject to loading. The test was run with relatively undisturbed soil
samples in 1-inch thick brass rings, collected from the Modified Califomia sampler. The samples
were placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom of the sample and
placed in a loading frame. Weights were added and measurements of height were recorded from
a dial indicator as the sample was compressed. Measurements of height were also recorded
during the "rebound" period of removal of the weights. Consolidation testing was performed in
general accordance to ASTM D2435.
m
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
During consoUdation testing, the collapse potential of soils was assessed using the single
oedometer method. To measure hydrocollapse, water was added to the soil samples at a pressure
that is equivalent or slightly higher than the pressure that will be exerted on soils in the field.
Results of our consolidation testing are presented in Appendix B.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineermg and geologic analysis, it is our opinion
that the site is suitable for the proposed restaurant from a geotechnical engineering and geologic
viewpoint; however, there are existuig geotechnical conditions associated with the property that will
warrant mitigation and/or consideration during planning stages. If site plans and/or the proposed building
locations are revised, additional field studies may be wananted to address proposed site-specific
conditions. As a result, EEI is providing the following conclusions:
• A total of six (6) exploratory frenches and five (5) exploratory hollow stem auger (HSA) borings
were advanced within the subject property during this evaluation. HSA boring depths were up to
AVA feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Our subsurface exploration indicates that the
subject property is underlain by surficial earth materials consisting of fill and Quatemary alluvial
deposits that were generally observed to consist of brown silty sands and sandy clays and clayey
sands that contain varying amounts of organics. The surficial materials are underlain by
sedimentary materials named the Tertiary Santiago Formation. Refusal was not encountered in
our exploratory frenches or borings.
• Groundwater was encountered in three of our exploratory borings at depths between 17 and 37
feet below existing grade. However, it should be noted that variations in groundwater may result
from fluctuations in the ground surface topography, subsurface sfratification, precipitation,
inigation and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our subsurface
exploration.
• Laboratory test results indicate that native materials are acidic (pH = 4.3 to 4.4) and are extremely
conosive to fenous metals with a minimum resistivity value of 304 ohm-cm. Laboratory testing
of the upper soils yielded soluble sulfate concenfrations of 500 to 592 mg/kg, indicating a
negligible conosion potential to concrete. Test results also yielded chloride concenfrations of 146
to 890 mg/kg, which is at a level considered to be potentially conosive to reinforced concrete
elements. Concentrations of nitrate in the soil were detected at 0.5 mg/kg, while ammonium
levels of between 1.6 and 4.7 mg/kg were detected. These tested levels of nifrate are not at a
level where they may pose a conosion potential to copper piping. EEI does not practice
conosion engineering. As such, it is recommended that a qualified conosion engineer be
consulted to evaluate the results of our testing and provide appropriate recommendations to
mitigate the effects of conosive soils as wananted.
• The subject property is located within an area of Southem Califomia recognized as having a
number of active and potentially-active faults located nearby. Our review mdicates that there are
no known active faults crossing the site and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Zone. The nearest active fault that could affect the subject site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located
approximately 6.8 miles from the site, which is capable of producing a maximum magnitude
earthquake of 7.2. Other nearby seismic sources includes the Newport-Inglewood (offshore), the
Coronado Bank, and the Elsinore Fault Zone. Each of these active faults is capable of generating
severe ground shaking at the site.
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
Based on EEl's evaluation, earth materials underlying the site of the proposed commercial
development are not considered susceptible to liquefaction or significant amounts of seismic
settlement.
A conventional foundation system appears to be suitable for use to support the proposed
restaurant building, provided the property is graded and improved in general conformance with
guidelines presented herein, as well as the Califomia Building Code (CBC) and the City of
Carlsbad grading ordinances.
EEI evaluated static settlement utilizing results of laboratory testing and subsurface data to
estimate settlement as a result of grading the pad to a proposed finish slab grade, with a minor
change in the proposed slab grade elevation from existing grade. Based upon our evaluation and
our recommendations for complete removal of potentially compressible soils within the proposed
building footprint (as presented herein); EEI estimates total static settlement of less than 1-inch
within the building envelope. Differential settlement is estimated to be approximately 'A-inch or
less over a distance of 50 feet.
Laboratory testing performed during a previous geotechnical evaluation conducted at the site
(Leighton, 2006) and our laboratory testing indicate that the upper soils are not susceptible to
significant levels of hydro-consolidation.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations presented herein should be incorporated into the planning and design phases of
development. Guidelines for site preparation, earthwork, and onsite improvements are provided in the
following sections.
6.1 General
Grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2007 Califomia Building Code (CBC) and the
grading ordinances ofthe City of Carlsbad. Additionally, general Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are
provided herein as Appendix C.
During earthwork constraction, removals and reprocessing of fill materials, as well as general grading
procedures of the confractor should be observed and the fill placed selectively tested by representatives of
the geotechnical engineer, EEI. If any unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they
should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and if wananted, modified and/or additional remedial
recommendations will be offered. Specific guidelines and comments pertinent to the planned
development are provided herein.
The recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided to us
regarding site development. If information conceming the proposed development is revised, or any
changes in the design and location of the proposed property improvements are made, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report should not be considered applicable unless the changes are
reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by this office.
10
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
6.2 Site Preparation and Grading
Debris and other deleterious material, such as organic soils and/or environmentally impacted earth
materials, should be removed from the site prior to the start of grading. Areas to receive fill should be
properly benched in accordance with cunent industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the
CBC.
Existing utilities and any undocumented fill soils should be removed within the proposed building
envelopes. Abandoned frenches should be properly backfilled and tested. If unanticipated subsurface
improvements (utility lines, septic systems, wells, utilities, etc.) are encountered during earthwork
constraction, the geotechnical engineer should be informed and appropriate remedial recommendations
would then be provided.
6.3 Remedial Earthwork
All undocumented fill and the upper portions of the alluvial deposits at the site appear to be relatively
variable in moisture content and somewhat variable in relative density. As such, they are considered
unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive stmctures or additional fill in their cunent condition and
should be removed and recompacted in the area of the proposed buildings and other settlement-sensitive
improvements. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, we anticipate that the removal and
recompaction will extend to depths on the order of 8 to 9 feet below existing site grades. To provide
uniform bearing conditions for the proposed building foundations, we recommend that the removals
extend at least 18-inches below the bottoms of the proposed foundations or to the removal depth
recommended above (whichever is deeper).
Following removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the resulting excavation(s) should be observed by a
representative of EEI to check that unsuitable materials have been sufficiently removed. It should be
understood that based on the observations of our field representative, localized deeper removals may be
recommended. The base of the removal areas should be level to avoid differential fill thicknesses under
proposed improvements. This remedial earthwork should extend at least five feet outside the proposed
building limits and/or five feet beyond the area to receive fill. Note that vertical sides exceeding five feet
in depth may be prone to sloughing and may require laying back to an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical).
After removal of the upper soils and observation of the excavation bottoms, the over-excavated areas
should be scarified to a minimum depth of six-inches, moisture conditioned as needed to achieve at least
optimum moisture content and re-compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on
ASTM D1557). The over-excavated areas should then be backfilled with onsite and/or imported soils that
are placed and compacted as recommended herein until design finish grades are reached.
6.4 Fill Placement
Fill material placed within 3 feet of finish grades within the proposed building areas should possess a low
expansion potential and to (expansion index of less than 51 as determined by ASTM D4829) be free of
organic matter (less than three percent organics by weight) and other deleterious material. Since much of
the encountered soils appear to possess a medium expansive potential, mixing of lower expansive sandy
granular materials may be necessary. Much of the onsite materials appear to be suitable for re-use as fill,
provided they do not contain rocks greater than six-inches in maximum dimension, organic debris and
other deleterious materials. Rock fragments exceeding six-inches in one dimension should be segregated
and exported from the site, placed at least 10 feet below finish grades or utilized for landscaping.
11
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
If import soils are needed, the earthwork confractor 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 site to allow for laboratory tests.
Fill materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as necessary to at least
optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent maximum density according to ASTM
D1557. The upper 12-inches of pavement subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D1557. Suitable heavy grading equipment should be utilized to properly mix, spread, moisture condition
or dry, and compact each fill lift.
Earthwork may be affected by the existing soil moisture content exceeding optimum. Moist to very moist
earth materials may be difficult to mix and compact in their native condition, and drying or mixing with
drier soils may be wananted to achieve the recommended relative compaction.
Those areas to receive fill (including over-excavated areas) or surface improvements should be scarified
at least six-inches, moisture conditioned to at least one percent over optimum moisture content and
recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557).
6.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, bulking, subsidence,
french spoils from utilities and footing 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 constraction. For planning purposes, the shrinkage factor is estimated to be on the order
of 10 to 15 percent for the onsite natural soils to be utilized as fill. This shrinkage factor may vary with
methods employed by the confractor. Subsidence is estimated to be on the order of 0.1 feet. Losses from
site clearing and removal of existing site improvements may affect earthwork quantity calculation and
should be considered.
The previous estimates are intended as an aid for the project engineers in estimating earthwork quantities.
It is recommended that the site development be planned to include an area that could be raised or lowered
to accommodate final site balancing.
7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the stmctural considerations and the
following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the fill soils placed within 3 feet of
pad grade have a low expansion potential with an Expansion Index of less than 51. While the foundation
design recommendations contained herein anticipate the use of conventional shallow foundations, options
for post tensioned slab foundation systems can also be provided upon request. In the event that plans
conceming the proposed single-story buildings are revised in the project design and/or location or loading
conditions of the planned stracture are made, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report
should not be considered valid unless they are reviewed, revised and/or approved in writing by EEI.
12
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
7.2 Foundation Design
Conventional footings can be adequately supported on at least 18-inches of engineered fill compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). In preparation for foundation constraction, the
earthwork confractor should ensure that the site has been prepared as recommended, and that field density
tests have been performed to adequately document the relative compaction of stractural fill.
Footings can be designed to impose dead plus long-term live load bearing pressures of 2,000 pounds per
square-foot (psf). This allowable foundation pressure is based on footings having a minimum width of
18-inches and a minimum embedment of 24-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. The allowable
soil bearing value can be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum allowable
soil bearing value of 3,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure can also be increased by one-third
when considering fransient loads of short duration, such as wind or earthquake loads.
Horizontal loads acting on foundations and stem walls cast in open excavations against undisturbed native
soil or against properly placed and compacted fill will be resisted by friction acting along the base of the
footing and by passive earth pressures against the side of the footing and stem wall. The frictional
resistance acting along the base of footings founded on suitable foundation soils may be computed usmg a
coefficient of friction equal to 0.25 with the normal dead load. Passive earth pressures acting against the
side of footings and stem walls may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid weighing 250 pounds per
cubic foot. Passive pressure in the upper 1.0-foot should be neglected unless confined by concrete slabs-
on-grade or asphaltic pavement. The values given above may be increased by one-third for transient wind
or seismic loads.
7.3 Footing Setbacks
All footings should maintain a minimum seven-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any
descending slope. This distance is measured from the outside footing face at the bearing elevation.
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 seven feet, or 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. Footings for stmctures adjacent to retaining
walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively,
walls may be designed to accommodate stmctural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in
the retaining wall section of this report.
7.4 Construction
The following foundation constmction considerations are presented as minimum recommendations from a
soils engineering standpoint. Laboratory test results indicate the onsite soils' swell (expansion) potential
is medium (CBC, 2007). During grading of the site, we recommend that no soils possessmg a medium
expansion potential material (i.e., possessing an EI > 51 percent) be placed within 3 feet of finish grade, if
possible. Design parameters provided herein, therefore, assume that finish grade soil materials will have
a low expansion potential.
Recommendations by the project's design stractural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils
engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum considerations. Final
foundation design should be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils
encountered during grading.
13
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
7.5 Concrete Slab on Grade
Interior slabs can be grade supported by stractural fill whose placement/compaction is documented by the
project soils engineer/engineer geologist as recommended herein. Concrete slabs should be at a minimum
of 4-inches in thickness. Concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 2-inches of clean sand with a
Sand Equivalent (SE) of at least 30. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should
be underlain with a moisture/vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil, visqueen membrane, with all
laps sealed. The membrane should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand with the aforementioned
sand layer placed over the visqueen to aid concrete curing. To prevent the potential buildup of
hydrostatic pressures, the free draining material under the slabs should have positive drainage with no low
lying areas (i.e., depressions) created.
Floor slabs should be suitably reinforced and jointed (in accordance with Stractural Engineer's
recommendations) so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage.
The confractor should take the appropriate precautions to make sure that the reinforcement is placed and
maintained within the middle one-third of the slab.
Exterior slabs, such as walkways and driveways, can be adequately supported on documented stractural
fill that is at a minimum of 12-inches in thickness, and placed and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations contained herein.
In preparation for slab or flatwork constraction, the earthwork confractor should ensure that the onsite
soils have been prepared as recommended and that field density tests have been performed to adequately
document the relative compaction of the stractural fill. Preparation of the native soils should be
documented prior to placement of aggregate, stractural components and/or fill.
Some minor cracking of slabs can be expected due to shrinkage. The potential for this slab cracking can
be reduced by careful confrol of water/cement ratios in the concrete. The confractor should take
appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot or windy weather to reduce the
potential for crackmg of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted fill,
tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be
designed in accordance with stractural considerations.
All dedicated exterior flatwork should conform to standards provided by the goveming 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. Proper control joints should be
provided to minimize any damage resulting from shrinkage.
Laboratory test results indicate that the upper soils posses a soluble sulfate concenfrations of as much as
592 mg/kg, indicating a negligible conosion potential to concrete. However, test results indicate chloride
concenfrations of 935 mg/kg, which are at levels that are considered to be conosive to reinforced
concrete. While, Type II cement can be used in concrete elements that will be in contact with the upper
soils, appropriate measures to mitigate chloride intmsion through concrete and conosion of reinforcing
steel appear to be wananted. Such measures include, but are not limited to: concrete mix design that
incorporates the use of admixtures, reduced water content, or increased cementitious materials that can
provide a higher density/low permeability concrete mix; increased thickness of concrete cover over the
reinforcing steel; and the use of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel. Additional measures that can be
employed to mitigate the effects of chlorides on reinforced concrete are discussed in Calfrans' Bridge
Memo to Designers 10-5 (available for downloading at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs).
14
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
7.6 Retaining Walls
The design parameters provided below assume that non-expansive select material (such as gravel
wrapped in filter fabric) is used to backfill any retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the
proposed walls, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall
design, and can be provided upon request. Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or damp-
proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for retaining
walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of
this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded at a minimum of 18-inches below adjacent
finish grade (excluding 6-inch landscape layer). There should be no increase in bearing for footing width.
Recommendations pertaining to "landscape" walls (i.e.. Crib, Loffel, Earthstone, Geogrid, etc.) may vary
from those provided herein, and should be provided upon request.
The design active earth pressure on a retaining wall as described above may be considered equivalent to
that produced by a fiuid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This design equivalent fluid pressure of
35 pcf is considered appropriate for cantilevered walls retaining non-expansive soils with a level ground
surface, subject to lateral deflection at distances above grade due to lateral earth pressures. A safety
factor for sliding and overturning of 1.5 is typically prescribed for a cantilevered stracture as described.
All retaining stractures should be fully free draming. Resfrained walls (such as basement walls or re-
enfrant comers), with a level backfill, should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for at
rest lateral earth pressure.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 between the base of the
foundation elements and underlying material is recommended. In addition, an allowable passive
resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 250 pcf acting against the foundation may be used to
resist lateral forces. Passive pressure in the upper 1.0-foot should be neglected unless confined by
concrete slabs-on-grade or asphaltic pavement. These values may be increased by one-third for transient
wind or seismic loads.
Adequate subdrainage should be provided behind all retaining walls. The subdrainage system should
consist of a minimum of a four-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or approved equivalent)
placed at the base of the retaining wall and sunounded by 3/4-inch clean crashed rock wrapped in a
Mirafi MON filter fabric (or approved equivalent). The crashed rock wrapped in fabric should be at least
12-inches wide and extend from the base of the wall to within two feet of the ground surface. The upper
two feet of backfill should consist of compacted native soil. The retaining wall drainage system should be
sloped to an outlet into the storm drain system or other appropriate facility.
8.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concenfrated 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 in order to check for a uniform firm and unyielding surface. Representatives of the project
geotechnical engineer should observe all grading and fill placement.
15
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California
January 13,2010
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
The upper 12-inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified; moisture conditioned to at least
optunum 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. Aggregate base should conform to Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base.
All pavement section changes should be properly fransitioned. Although not anticipated, if adverse
conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special constraction 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 design purposes we have assumed a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for the proposed parkmg areas and TI of
6.0 for the proposed drive areas at the site. This assumed TI should be verified as necessary by the Civil
Engineer or Traffic Engineer. Based on our experience with similar soils in the general vicinity of the
subject site, along witii our review of the previous geotechnical evaluation performed at the site
(Leighton, 2006), we have assumed an R-Value of 15 for the clayey onsite soils likely to be exposed near
pavement subgrade. The modulus of subgrade reaction (K-Value) was estimated at 75 pounds per square
inch per inch (psi/in) for an R-Value of 15 (Calfrans, 1974). Pavement design was calculated for the
parking lot stmctural section requirements for asphaltic concrete in accordance with the guidelines
presented in the Calfrans Highway Design Manual.
TABLE 2
Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations
Traffic Index (TI) Pavement Surface Aggregate Base Material
5.0 3-inches Asphalt Concrete 8-inches
6.0 6.5-inches Asphalt Concrete 12-inches
Heavy Truck-Trash Area and Concrete
Pavement 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete 4 -inches
(1) R-Value of 78 for Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
(2) Reinforcement and control joints placed in accordance with the structural engineer' s requirements.
The recommended pavement sections provided above are intended as a minimum guideline. If thinner or
highly variable pavement sections are constracted, increased maintenance and repair could be expected.
If the ADT (average daily fraffic) or ADTT (average daily track fraffic) increases beyond that intended,
as reflected by the assumed and provided traffic indices used for design, 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. If the upper five feet of soils are impacted, EEI
may be able to provide a thinner pavement section, assuming soils will have a higher R-Value.
16
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
9.0 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water is known to decrease the physical sfrength 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 inigation necessary to sustain plant life should be applied.
Consideration should be given to selecting lightweight, deep rooted types of landscape vegetation which
require low inigation that are capable of surviving 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. Dramage should not flow unconfrolled over
slopes or the subject parcel. Runoff should be channeled away from slopes and stractures and not
allowed to pond and/or seep unconfrolled into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward an
acceptable outlet. Although not required, roof gutters and down spouts may be considered to control roof
drainage, discharging a minimum of ten feet from the proposed stractures, or into a subsurface drainage
system. Consideration should be given to eliminating open bottom planters directly adjacent to proposed
stractures for a minimum distance of ten feet. As an altemative, closed-bottom type planters could be
utilized, with a properly designed drain outlet placed in the bottom ofthe planter.
9.3 Additional Site Improvements
Recommendations for additional grading, exterior concrete flatwork design and constraction can be
provided upon request. If in the future, additional property improvements were planned for the site,
recommendations conceming the design and constmction of improvements would be provided upon
request.
9.4 Trenching
All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be
constracted in accordance with OSHA guidelines and local safety codes. Temporary excavations over
five feet in height should be evaluated by the project engineer, and could require shoring, sloping, or a
combination thereof. Temporary excavations within the onsite materials should be stable at 1:1
inclinations for cuts less than 10 feet in height.
17
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
Footing trench excavations for stractures and walls should be observed and approved by a representative
of the project soils engineer prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and excess soils
generated from utility french excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent (based on ASTM D1557) if not removed from the site. All excavations should conform to OSHA
and local safety codes.
9.5 Utility Backfdl
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 engmeer)
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 stones, chunks of highly plastic clay,
or other objectionable material. Backfill soils should be non-expansive, non-conosive, and compatible
with native earth materials. Backfill materials and testing should be in accordance with the CBC, 2007
and the City of Carlsbad specifications.
Pipe backfill areas should be graded and maintained in such a condition that erosion or saturation will not
damage the pipe bed or backfill. Flooding trench backfill is not recommended. Heavy equipment should
not be operated over any pipe until it has been properly backfilled with a minimum two to three 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 were found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be
provided. Additional field studies may be warranted.
11.0 LIMITATIONS
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
cunent standards of practice, and no wananty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject
to change with time. This report has been prepared for the sole use of SUDBERRY PROPERTIES
(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.
18
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
This 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 is brought or based
upon confract, tort, statue, or otherwise. The Client has the responsibility to see that all parties to the
project, including the designer, confractor, subconfractor, 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 mformation for use without additional assessment. EEI assumes no responsibility or
liability for work or testing perfonned by others. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the
confroUing authorities.
19
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
12.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Sttncttires, ASCE Document ASCE/SEI 7-05.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2008, Aimual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
04.08, Constraction: Soil and Rock (I), Standards D 420 - D 5876.
Blake, T., 2000, "EQFAULT, version 3.0", a Computer Program for ProbabiUstic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources," Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury
Park, Califomia.
Califomia Building Code (CBC), 2007, Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2,
Califomia Building Standards Commission.
Califomia Department of Transportation (Calfrans), 1974, Highway Design Manual, dated October 1.
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1995, Landslide hazards in the Northem part of the
San Diego Mefropolitan Area, San Diego County, Califomia, Open File Report 95-04.
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluatmg and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in Califomia, Special Publication 117, adopted March 13.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, Califomia Geomorphic Provinces Note 36, Elecfronic Copy,
Revised December 2002.
Coduto, D. P., 2001, Foundation Design Principles and Practices, Second Edition.
DeLORME, 1999, 3-D TopoQuads, Califomia Soutii, Region 7.
Google Earth®, 2008, Version 4.0.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A. (Hart and Bryant), 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia:
Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of Califomia and Adjacent Areas: Califomia Division of Mines
and Geology (CDMG), Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Leighton Consulting Group, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Athletic Club, Southwest of
Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 600854-002, dated
June 23, 2008.
Leighton Consulting Group, Inc., 2008, Geotechnical Plan Review and Addendum Recommendations,
Proposed Athletic Club, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 600853, dated January 22, 2008.
Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified Soil Classification System (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station
and ASTM 02487-667) in Infroductory Soil Mechanics, New York.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1997, "Evaluation of Settlements m Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,"
American Society of Civil Engineers Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.
20
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13, 2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1997, 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, San Luis Rey, Califomia
Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2007, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.8,
dated November 20, 2007.
Weber, F.H., 1982, Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the Northem-
cenfral Coastal Area, San Diego County, Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 82-12LA, 77p.
Youd, et.al., 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of soils", American Society of Civil
Engineers, Joumal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-833.
21
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
FIGURES
VICINITY
Map Source: » 2007 DcLormc. Topo VSA K 7.0 West Region
Scale: 1" = 4000'
OFT 2400 FT 4000 FT 8000 FT
Note: All locations are approximate
SITE VICINITY MAP
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC.
Palomar Airpoit Commons
Carlsbad, Califomia
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
Created January 2010
CREATED BY:
.lAB
RliVISION DATF.:
REVISION NO.:
FIGURE 1
Map Source: '0 Google Earih 2008
Scale: 1" = 200'
OFT 120 FT 200 FT
Note: All locations are approximate
AERIAL SITE MAP
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC.
Palomar Airport Commons
Carlsbad, California
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
Created January 2010
0))
CREATED BY:
JAB
REVISION DATE:
REVISJON NO.:
FIGURE 2
Map Source; SGPA Arehitecture & Planning. Sudberry Properties, Inc., Palomar Airport Commons, Site Plan Scheme K. July 2009
LEGEND
Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring
BIO
Q Approximate Location of Exploratory Trench
T-l
Scale: 1" = 100'
OFT 60 FT 100 FT
Note: All locations are approximate
EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION LOCATION MAP
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC.
Palomar Airport Commons
Carlsbad, Califomia
EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
Created January 2010
CREATF.DBY:
JAB
KEVI.SION DATE;
REVISION NO.:
FIGURE 3
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
APPENDIX A
SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART/
BORING LOGS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
IMAJOR DIVISIONS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORETHAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
SYMBOLS
GRAPH
• «
LETTER
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND •
CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS, f
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
ML
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50 CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
CLAYSTONE
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
CLAYSTONE, Piocene Fernando
Formation/late Miocene Puente
Formation
ICi^'^^ Geotechnlctf & Envlronmentat Solutions
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-01
ICi^'^^ Geotechnlctf & Envlronmentat Solutions
Client:
Sudberry Properties
Sheet:
lof2 ICi^'^^ Geotechnlctf & Envlronmentat Solutions
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-6I
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG
Bulk Sample
Type
Blows
Per 6"
Dty Unit
Wt. (pcf)
Moisture (%)
Depth
In
Feet
USCS
Symbol
Graphic
Log
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component, Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
MCi
sp-1
MCg
M
6
13
4
9
12
11
15
SPI 1 6
9
13
5
7
13
95
110
96
21
17
23
SC/CL
CL
SP
ML
SURFACE: GRASS
ALLUVIUM
@ 2.5' SANDY-CLAY, brown, fine-grained sand, moist, stiff, mottled
! 5' CLAY, brown, fine-grained sand, minor sand and silt, moist, stiff
@ 7.5' SAND, light brown, fine and meditjm grained sand, minor silt, moist, medium
dense, mottled
@ 10' SAND, light brown, fine and medium grained sand, minor silt, moist, medium
dense, mottled
MUCL
SANTIAGO FORMATION
@ 15' SILT, orange and brown, minor sand and clay, moist, medium dense, mottled
J 20' CLAYEY-SILT, gray and orange, minor sand, slightly moist, stiff
J 25' CLAYEY-SILT, gray and orange, minor sand, slightly moist, very stiff
130' CLAYEY-SILT, medium brown and orange-brown, slightly moist, very stiff
(Cx^S' GeotedRftal fi Environmental Solutions
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-01
(Cx^S' GeotedRftal fi Environmental Solutions
Client:
Sudberry Properties
Sheet:
2 of 2 (Cx^S' GeotedRftal fi Environmental Solutions
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-61
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG
Bulk Sample Blows
Type Per 6"
SPT \/ 5
X 7
vs 12
Dry Unit
Wt. (pcf)
Moisture (%)
Depth
In
Feet
USCS
Symbol
Graphic
Log
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component, Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
6 7
11
MUCL
J 35' CLAYEY-SILT, medium brown and orange-brovm, slightly moist, very stiff
i 40' CLAYEY-SILT, light gray, moist to very moist, very stiff
Total Boring Depth = 41.5'
Groundwater encountered at 37' MC=Modified California Sampler
SPT=Standard Penetration Test
Hole backfilled with grout, cuttings containerized 12/23/09
'-"AEEI
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-02 '-"AEEI Client:
Sudberry Properties
Sheet:
lofl
'-"AEEI
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-61
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLELOG BOREHOLE LOG
Bulk Sample
Type
Blows
Per 6" Dry Unit
Wt. (pcf)
Moisture (%)
Depth
In
Feet
USCS
Symbol
Graphic
Log
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component, Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
"1 I
Mi
Ml 13
12
16
11
16
99
88
24
27
ML/SM
SURFACE: GRASS
ALLUVIUM
! 2.5' CLAY, medium brown, moist, medium stiff
! 5' CtAY, medium brovm, moist, stiff
3 7.5' SANDY-CLAY, brown, gray and orange, moist, stiff
! 10' SANDY-CLAY, brown, gray and orange, moist, very stiff
SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 15' SANDY-SILT, brown, gray and orange, fine-grained sand, minor clay, moist,
medium dense
@ 20' SILTY-SAND, brown, gray and orange, similar fine-grained sand, major clay,
very moist, medium dense
Total Boring Depth = 21.5' Groundwater encountered at 17-18'
MC=Modified Califomia Sampler
SPT=Standard Penetration Test
Hole backfilled with grout, cuttings containerized 12/23/09
'#EEI
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-03 '#EEI Client:
Sudbeny Properties
Sheet:
lofl
'#EEI
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-61
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG
Bulk Sample
Type
Blows
Per 6"
Dry Unit
Wt. (pcf)
Moisture
(%)
Depth In
Feet
USCS
Symbol
Graphic
Log
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
M
SPI
1
SP^
SP"
13
17
10 14 14
82
102
20
21
SC
SM
CL
SC
SM
SURFACE: GRASS
ALLUVIUM
J 2.5' CLAY AND SAND, orange-brown, minor silt, moist, loose to medium dense
! 5' SAND, light brown, minor slit and clay, moist, loose
17.5' CLAY, brown with orange, fine-grained sand, minor sand, moist, stiff
! 10' CLAY, brown, with fine-grained sand, moist, stiff
@ 15' CLAYEY-SAND, orange-brovm, fine to medium grained sand, minor slit,
moist, medium dense
SANTIAGO FORMATION
! 20' SILTY SAND-STONE, orange-gray, moist, medium dense to dense, mottled
j 25' SILTY SAND-STONE, orange-gray, moist, medium dense to dense, mottled
Total Boring Depth = 26.5'
No groundwater encountered
MC=Modified California Sampler
SPT=Standard Penetration Test
Hole backfilled with greiut, cuttings containerized 12/23/09
Cpo£^ Geotedinical & Etwironmental Sobjfions
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-04
Cpo£^ Geotedinical & Etwironmental Sobjfions
Client:
Sudberry Properties
Sheet:
lofl Cpo£^ Geotedinical & Etwironmental Sobjfions
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-61
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLE LOG BOREHOLELOG
Bulk Sample
Type
Blows
Per 6"
Dry Unit
Wt. (pcO
Moisture (%)
Depth
In
Feet
USCS
Symbol
Graphic
Log
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
sP^ :
M
SP' 1 \
Mca 4
SPI 1
SP^
SPiP
6
8
11
18
20
50 for 3"
98
95
16
19
18
SC
CL
SC
SM
SURFACE: GRASS
ALLUVIUM
@ 2,5' CLAYEY-S/yMD, dari< brown, organics content, minor silt, slightly moist, loose
! 5' CLAYEY-SAND, brown with orange, moist, medium dense
J 7.5' SANDY-CLAY, brown with orange, rootlets and organics, moist, medium stiff
! 10' SANDY-CLAY, brown with orange, rootlets and organics, moist, medium stiff
WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION
! 15' CLAYEY-SAND, medium brown and light gray, moist, medium dense
SANTIAGO FORMATION
@ 20' SILTY SAND/STONE, gray with yellow, moist, medium dense
J 25' SILTY SAND/STONE, gray with red, slightly moist, dense
) 29' POOR RECOVERY
Total Boring Depth = 29.25'
No groundwater encountered
MC=Modified California Sampler
SPT=Standard Penetration Test
Hole backfilled with bentonite chips, cuttings containerized 12/23/09
'M ^
'#EEI
(Cj^iaif Geolechnical & Environments S(rititi(»n
BOREHOLE LOG
Number:
B-05
'M ^
'#EEI
(Cj^iaif Geolechnical & Environments S(rititi(»n
Client:
Sudberry Properties
Sheet:
lofl
'M ^
'#EEI
(Cj^iaif Geolechnical & Environments S(rititi(»n
Location:
Palomar Commons Date Started:
12/23/2009
Date Finished:
12/23/2009
Location:
Palomar Commons
EEI Rep:
AW
Project Number:
SUD-70986.1
Drill Rig/Sampling Method:
Mobile B-61
Borehole Diameter:
8"
SAMPLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG
Geologic Description
(SoilType, Color, Grain, Minor Soil Component Moisture, Density, Odor, Etc.)
SURFACE: GRASS
ALLUVIUM
- @ 2.5' CLAY WITH SAND, dark brown, moist, medium stiff
5' CLAY, dari< brown, minor sand, moist, medium stiff
- @ 7.5' CLAY, dark gray, organics and roots, moist, medium stiff
10' CLAY, dark gray, organics and roots, moist, medium stiff
WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION
15' CLAY, orange-gray, minor sand, moist, stiff
SANTIAGO FORMATION
20' CLAY, gray, yellow and red, minor slit, slightly moist, very stiff
25' CLAY, gray, yellow and red, minor silt, slightly moist, very stiff
30' SILTY-SAND, gray and orange, minor clay, very moist, dense
Total Boring Depth = 31.5'
Groundwater encountered at 27'
MC=Modified California Sampler
SPT=Standard Penetration Test
Hole backfilled vwth bentonite chips, cuttings containerized 12/23/09
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST DATA
Sample: Bl(®,2.5ft
Total Weight (g) 207.6
Dry Weight (g) 171.6
Wet Sieve Weight (g) 91.7
Initial Moisture (%) 21.0
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
ASTM METHOD D 422 (SIEVE ANALYSIS)
Dlo (mm) na
D30 (mm) na
D60 (mm) na
Cu na
Cc na
According to ASTM D 2487 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 422 (Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis)
. Clay , Silt Sand ^ Gravel Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Standard Sieve Size: «2a 3 #100 *40 #18 #8 Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y T T T 1 Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y [ Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y [ Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y j Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y Peccntage Passing (%) 30000000000 y 1' I
0.001 0,01 0.1 1
Grain Size (mm)
10 100
Sieve Size (in) Sieve Size (mm)
Cumulative
Weight of dry
soil (gm)
Percent Retained (% Percent Passing (%)
3" 76.2 0.0 100.0
1.5" 38.1 0.0 100.0
3/4" 19.05 0.0 100.0
3/8" 9.53 0.0 100.0
#4 4.75 0.0 100.0
#8 2.36 0.1 0.1 99.9
#16 1.18 0.6 0.3 99.7
#30 0.6 1.5 0.9 99.1
#50 5.9 3.4 96.6
#100 0.15 53.1 30.9 69.1
#200 0.075 91.7 53.4 46.6
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-4-10
(iS^-^S Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad CA 92008
Boring Number: B1
Location: 2.5 feet
Soil Description: Sandy silty clay, CL-ML
Tested by: AW
Sample : B2(a,2.5ft
Total Weight (g) 226.4
Dry Weight (g) 183.1
Wet Sieve Weight (g) 52.8
Initial Moisture (%) 23.6
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
ASTM METHOD D 422 (SIEVE ANALYSIS)
DlO (mm) na
D30 (mm) na
D60 (mm) na
Cu na
Cc na
According to ASTM D 2487 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 422 (Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis)
. Clay ..^ Silt Sand ^ Gravel
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
Standard Sieve Size: »2C n «1Q0 »40 116 »8
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
!
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
j
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
1
(
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
i i
100
90
'? 80
i ™
•5 60
R
0. 50
1 40
a
« 30
a. 20
10
0
u
ni 0.01 .1 1 10
Grain Size (mm)
100
Sieve Size (in) Sieve Size (mm)
Ctimulative
Weight of dry
soil (.gm)
Percent Retained (%) Percent Passing (%)
3" 76.2 0.0 100.0
1.5" 38.1 0.0 100.0
3/4" 19.05 0.0 100.0
3/8" 9.53 0.0 100.0
#4 4.75 0.0 100.0
#8 2.36 0.1 0.1 99.9
#16 1.18 0.2 0.1 99.9
#30 0.6 0.6 0.3 99.7
#50 0.3 2.8 1.5 98.5
#100 0.15 24.1 13.2 86.8
#200 0.075 52.8 28.8 71.2
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-4-10
<X.^^f Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions Boring Number: B2
'a Location: 2.5 feet
Soil Description: Lean clay with sand, CL
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad CA 92008 Tested by: AW
Sample : B4@2.5ft DlO (mm) na
Total Weight (g) 212.0 D30 (mm) na
Dry Weight (g) 182.4 D60 (mm) na
Wet Sieve Weight (g) 66.3 Cu na
Initial Moisture (%) 16.2 Cc na
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
ASTM METHOD D 422 (SIEVE ANALYSIS)
According to ASTM D 2487 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 422 (Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis)
test method results, soil sample B4 at 2.5 feet is classified as Sandy lean clay (CL).
Clay SUt
Standard Sieve Size:
0.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0,1 1
Grain Size (mm)
Cumulative
Sieve Size (in) Sieve Size (mm) Weight of dry Percent Retained (%) Percent Passing (%)
soil (gm)
3 II 76.2 0.0 100.0
1.5" 38.1 0.0 100.0
3/4" 19.05 0.0 100.0
3/8" 9.53 0.0 100.0
#4 4.75 0.2 0.1 99.9
#8 2.36 1.3 0.7 99.3
#16 1.18 4.0 2.2 97.8
#30 0.6 8.3 4.6 95.4
#50 0.3 15.9 8.7 91.3
#100 0.15 36.2 19.8 80.2
#200 0.075 66.3 36.3 63.7
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-4-10
Hiil •nmi •
(iJf^C^ Geoteclinical & Environmental Solutions
Boring Number: B4
Location: 2.5 feet
Soil Description: Sandy lean clay, CL
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad CA 92008 Tested by: AW
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX
ASTM METHOD D 4318
Test Number
Container Number
Weight of Container (g)
Wet Weight of Soil and
Container (g)
Dry Weight of Soil and
Container (g)
Niunber of Blows
Moisture Content (%)
Sample: Bl@2.5fi
One Point Liquid Limit
1
29
13.62
40.28
35.0
25
24.6
13.74
48.72
41.74
Plastic Limit
13.87
26.57
24.58
23
24.9
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit =
Plasticity Index =
77
13.81
26.33
24.31
24
19
ClassiHcation of fine-grained portion of soils = CL-ML
CCjv^^ Geoteclinical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-4-10
Boring Number: Bl
Location: 2.5 feet
Soil Description: Silty clay, CL-ML
Tested by: AW
hi LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX
ASTM METHOD D 4318
Sample: B2(g2.5ft
One Point Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Test Number 1 1 2
-Container Number 69 3 269 Z
Weight of Container (g) 13.81 13.73 13.72 13.68
Wet Weight of Soil and
Container (g) 36.35 36.78 26.12 25.88
Dry Weight of Soil and
Container (g) 29.8 30.09 23.97 23.62
Number of Blows 39 29
Moisture Content (%) 40.8 40.9 21.0 22.7
-Liquid Limit = 42
Plastic Limit = 22
•-xH Plasticity Index = 20
Classification of fine-grained portion of soils = CL
CCj^^^ Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-4-10
Boring Number: B2
Location: 2.5 feet
Soil Description: Clay, CL
Tested by: AW
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM METHOD D 4829
Sample: HA2@0-l.5ft
Moisture Content of Initial Sample % Saturation of Re-molded Sample Moisture Content of Final Sample
Tare No. 33 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)-569.5 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)-613.4
Wet Weight and Tare (g) - 193.5 Ring Weight (g) - 199.1 Ring Weight (g) - 199.1
Dry Weight and Tare (g) - 174.2 Wet Weight of Soil (g) - 370.4 Wet Weight of Soil (g) - 414.3
Tare Weight (g) - 30.8 Dry Weight of Soil (g) - 326.5 Dry Weight of Soil (g)-326.5
Water Loss (g) - 19.3 Volume of Ring (ftl - 0.0073 Weight of Water (g)-87.8
Dry Weight (g) - 143.4 Dry Density (pcf) • 98.6 Final Moisture (%) 26.9
Initial Moisture (%) - 13.5 Initital Saturation (%) • 51.3 Final Saturation (%) • 102.5
Expansion Test - UBC (144 PSF)
Date Time Reading
Add Weight 12/15/2009 15:34 0.000
10 Minutes : 15:44 0.000
Add Water 16:30 0.004
12/16/2009 10:18 0.009
13:35 0.009
Initial Reading
Final Reading
Elmeasured = 9
EI50 = 10
Expansion Index, EI50 Potential Expansion
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
>130 Very High
(C^CS Geotechnkial & Environmental Solutkuis
UB
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 12-16-09
Boring Number: HA2
Depth: 0-1.5 feet
Soil Description: Silty sand, SM
Tested by: AW
'mm
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM METHOD D 4829
mm Sample: Tl@3-5ft
—
m Moisture Content of Initial Sample % Saturation of Re-molded Sample Moisture Content of Final Sample
mm Tare No. -8 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)- 540 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)-605
Wet Weight and Tare (g) -177.5 Ring Weight (g)- 189.1 Ring Weight (g) -189.1
•m Dry Weight and Tare (g) -162.0 Wet Weight of Soil (g) - 350.9 Wet Weight ofSoil(g)-415.9
Tare Weight (g) -30.9 Dry Weight of Soil (g)- 313.8 Dry Weight ofSoil(g)-313.8
•rm Water Loss (g) -15.5 Volume of Ring (ft^) - 0.0073 Weight of Water (g)-102.1
m Dry Weight (g) -131.1 Dry Density (pcf)- 94.8 Final Moisture (%) 32.6
Initial Moisture (%) -11.8 Initital Saturation (%) - 41.1 Final Saturation (%) -113.0
•ml
•mm Expansion Test - UBC (144 PSF)
Date Time Reading
nm Add Weight 11/13/2009 16:03 0.000
10 Minutes 16:13 0.000 Initial Reading
Add Water 17:05 0.040
mm 11/14/2009 19:34 0.094
11/19/2009 14:34 0.095 Final Reading
Elmeasured = 95
EI50 = 87
Expansion Index, EIso Potential Expansion
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
>130 Very High
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Project Name: Palomar Corrmions
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Date: 11-19-09
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Boring Number: T-l (Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Depth: 3-4 feet
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Soil Description: Sandy clay, SC
(Cjfi^S' Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tested by: AW
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM METHOD D 4829
Sample: T5@2-5ft
Moisture Content of Initial Sample % Saturation of Re-molded Sample Moisture Content of Final Sample
Tare No. -16 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)-557 Wt. of Soil and Ring (g)-621
Wet Weight and Tare (g) - 184.9 Ring Weight (g) - 199.2 Ring Weight (g)- 199.2
Dry Weight and Tare (g) - 169.0 Wet Weight of Soil (g) - 357.8 Wet Weight of Soil (g)- 421.8
Tare Weight (g) - 30.7 Dry Weight of Soil (g) - 320.9 Dry Weight of Soil (g) - 320.9
Water Loss (g) - 15.9 Volume of Ring (ftp- 0.0073 Weight of Water (g)-100.9
Dry Weight (g) - 138.3 Dry Density (pcf) - 96.9 Final Moisture (% 31.4
Initial Moisture (%) • 11.5 Initital Saturation (%) -42.0 Final Saturation (%) • 114.9
Expansion Test - UBC (144 PSF)
Date Time Reading
Add Weight 11/13/2009 16:46 0.000
10 Minutes 16:56 0.000
Add Water 17:n 0.012
11/14/2009 19:33 0.096
11/19/2009 14:33 0.097
Initial Reading
Final Reading
Elmeasured = 97
EI50 90
Expansion Index, EIso Potential Expansion
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
>130 Very High
_
Gaotschnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 11-19-09
Boring Number: T-5
Depth: 2-4 feet
Soil Description: Sandy clay, SC
Tested by: AW
SCHIFF ASSOCIATES
www.schiffassociates.com
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
EEI
Palomar Commons
Your#SUD-70986.1, SA #09-0973LAB
16-NOV-09
Sample ID T-l T-5
@3-5' (§2-4'
SC sc
Mf ^- ~
Resistivity Units
mm as-received ohm-cm 93,600 12,800
minimum ohm-cm 600 304
m pH 4.4 4.3
"m Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.44 0.88
m Chemical Analyses
Cations Cations
calcium Ca-^ mg/kg 20 106
«« magnesium Mg^^ mg/kg 13 58
m sodium Na'^ mg/kg 377 659
potassium K'^ mg/kg 30 49
Anions
Ml carbonate COj-' mg/kg ND ND
bicarbonate HCO3' • mg/kg ND 21
HI flouride P'-mg/kg ND ND
m chloride ci'-mg/kg 146 890
sulfate S04-" mg/kg 592 500
phosphate P04^" mg/kg ND ND
m Other Tests
ammonium NH4'" mg/kg 1.6 4.7
nitrate N03'" mg/kg 0.5 ND
sulfide S--qual na na
Redox mV na na
Minimum resistivity per CTM 643
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract,
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
431 West Baseline Road • Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.626.0967 • Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1
LABORATORY COMPACTION ASTM D 1557
Sample 1 2 3 4
Mold and wet soil (lbs.) 13.234 13.492 13.520 13.416
Mold (lbs.) 9.250 9.250 9.250 9.250
Wet Soil (lbs.) 3.984 4.242 4.270 4.166
Wet Density (pcf) 120.00 127.77 128.61 125.03
Moisture (%) 10.5 13.0 15.5 18.0
Dry Density (pcf) 108.6 113.1 111.4 106.0
0 10 15 20 25
Moisture Content (%)
30 35 40
Maximum density 113.2pcf @ 13.5% moisture
2195 Faraday, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Procedure: Method A
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 1-1-10
Boring Number: B2
Location: 0-5 feet
Soil Description: Clay, CL
Tested by: AW
LABORATORY COMPACTION ASTM D 1557
Sample 1 2 3 4
Mold and wet soil (lbs.) 13.200 13.326 13.396 13.450
Mold (lbs.) 9.250 9.250 9.250 9.250
Wet Soil (lbs.) 3.950 4,076 4.146 4.200
Wet Density (pcf) 118.98 122.77 124.88 126.05
Moisture (%) 10.9 13.4 15.9 18.4
Dry Density (pcf) 107.3 108.3 107.7 106.5
0 10 30 15 20 25
Moisture Content (%)
Maximum density I08.2pcf@ 13.5% moisture
35 40
(isf-CS Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Procedure: Method A
Job Number: SUD-70986.1
Date: 11-13-09
Boring Number: T-l
Location: 3-5 feet
Soil Description: Light brown Sandy clay, SC
Tested by: AW
DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D 3080
Job Data
Job No.: SUD-70986.1
Client: Sudberry
Date: 1/4/10
Sample:
Sample Data
B2@0-5ft
Remolded To: 90%
Remarks: Soaked Before Placing in Shear Box
Soil Description: Lean clay, CL
(Jl^^SI Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carisbad, CA 92008
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
2500
• Primary (psf)
Residual (psf)
— Linear (Primary (psf))
—Linear (Residual (psf))
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
3000 3500
Test Results
Phi Cohesion
Primary (psf) 24 degrees 681 psf
Residual (psf) 23 degrees 457 psf
Average Initial Moisture 13.5%
Average Dry Density 101.9 pcf
Average Final Moisture 25.5%
DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D 3080
Job Data
Job No.: SUD-70986.1
Client: Sudberry
Date: 11/20/09
Sample Data
Sample: Tl@3-5ft
Remolded To: 90%
Remarks: Soaked Before Placing in Shear Box
Soil Description: Clay, CL
(X_^-L^ Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions
Oi3
2195 Faraday Avenue, Suite K, Carisbad, CA 92008
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
^ 1000
H
C/5
X
• Primary (psf)
a Residual (psf)
— Linear (Primary (psf))
—Linear (Residual (psf))
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
3000 3500
Test Results
Phi Cohesion
Primary (psf) 12 degrees 608 psf
Residual (psf) 11 degrees 539 psf
Average Initial Moisture 13.5%
Average Dry Density 97.0 pcf
Average Final Moisture 29.7%
CONSOLIDATION-SWELL TEST ASTM D 2435
Job Data
Job No.: SUD-70986.1
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Date: 1-12-10
Sample Data
Sample: B2(glOft
Sample Type: Ring
Remarks: intmdated at 2kips
Soil Description: Sandy clay, SC
CE3VS5' Geotechnteal & Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
100
100
1000 10000 100000
Pressure (psf)
1000
Pressure (psf)
Swell Pressure: 1986 psf
Percent Swell: 0.0%
Comp. Index (Cc): 0.302
Consol. Index (Cr): 0.079
10000
E)
100000
Specimen Diameter: 2.418 in.
Specimen Height: 1.00 in.
Overburden Pressure (Po): 883 psf
Preconsol. Pressure (Pp): n/a psf
Initial Final
Moisture Content: 27.3% 31.9%
Void Ratio: 1.714 1.520
Saturation: n/a 50%
DrvDensitvCpcf): 65.9 58.2
CONSOLIDATION-SWELL TEST ASTM D 2435
Job Data
Job No.: SUD-70986.1
Client: Sudberry
Project Name: Palomar Commons
Date: 1-12-10
Sample Data
Sample: B4@10&
Sample Type: ring
Remarks: inimdated at 2kips
Soil Description: Sandy clay, SC
(O^l^Sf Geot«ctiAicalS Environmental Solutions
2195 Faraday, Suite K, Carlsbad, CA 92008
100
.g
a 43 c/3
(10.0)
(12,0)
100
1000 10000 100000
Pressure (psf)
1000 10000 100000
Pressure (psf)
Swell Pressure: 1986 psf
Percent Swell: 0.1%
Comp. Index (Cc): 0.233
Consol. Index (Cr): 0.035
Specimen Diameter: 2.418 in.
Specimen Height: 1.02 in.
Overburden Pressiue (Po): 951 psf
Preconsol. Pressure (Pp): n/a psf
Initial Final
Moisture Content: 18.1% 19.4%
Void Ratio: 1.043 0.945
Saturation: n/a 51%
Drv Densitv (pcf): 80.5 84.1
Geotechnical Evaluation - Proposed Retail Development January 13,2010
SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. - Palomar Commons, Carlsbad, California EEI Project No. SUD-70986.1
APPENDIX C
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
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 are
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 ofthe project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the conunencement 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 detennination 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.
2195 Faraday Avenue • Suite K • Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7207 • Ph: 760-431-3747 • Fax: 760-431-3748 • www.eeitiger.com
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
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-I557-
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 (2) 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
goveming 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, coUuvium, 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 ofthe compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cistems, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a
maimer 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 dovra 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.
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified
to a minimum depth of six (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 six (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 (2) 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 (^2) 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 fype has been accepted by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, free
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 filLT^edrock contact.
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
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 frenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations or
fumre 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 (6) 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 moismre
suitable for compaction.
Fill materials at moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and "wef' fill
materials should be aerated by scarification, or should be mixed with drier material. Moismre
conditioning and mixing of fill materials should continue until the fill materials have uniform
moismre content at or above optimum moismre.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moistare-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 moismre content, the particular layer or portion will be reworked
until the required density and/or moistore 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
moismre requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building the outside edge a minimum of
three (3) 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 frimming 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.
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
If an altemative 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 (2) to five (5) feet of the slope at
two (2) to three (3) 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 confractor 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 confrol and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in
compliance with the ordinances of the controlling govemmental agencies, and/or in
accordance with the recommendations ofthe 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 engmeering 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 confroUing govemmental agencies.
Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility.
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should
be constmcted in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling govemmental 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 constmction 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 fiUed 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 confroUing
govemmental 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 DetaU 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 AUuviated Canyon
Figure E - Removal Adjacent to Existing Fill
Figure F - Daylight Cut Lot Detail
Figure G -- Skin Fill of Namral Ground
Figure H - Typical Stabilization Buttress Fill Design
Figure I - Stabilization FiU for Unstable Material Exposed in Portion of Cut Slope
Figure J - Fill Over Cut Detail
Figure K - FUl Over Namral Detail
Figure L - Oversize Rock Disposal
Figure M - Canyon Subdrain Detail
Figure N - Canyon Subdrain Altemate Details
Figure O - Typical StabUization Buttress Subdrain Detail
Figure P - Retaining Wall Backfill
^ i * 1 » i • i > * * » • i_l t_J 1—1 l_J LJ l_J LJ l__J L_J l_J LJ-
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT - MATERIAL TYPE
TRANSITION
Unweathered Bedrock or Approved Material 3' Minimum*
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
EEI
Expertise.. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE A
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
EEI
^Y^^ Btpertise .. Service.. Solutions
FIGURES
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 defmed 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
EEI
Expertise.. Service .. Solutions
FIGURE C
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON
FLAT ALLUVIATED CvUVYON
Toe of slope as shown on grading plan
Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill.
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
considerations.
Provide a 1:1 minimum projection from the toe of the slope as shown on
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
EEI
Expertise .. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE D
]
]
]
]
I
3
]
]
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
Adjoining Canyon Fill
Compacted fill limits line
Proposed additional compacted fill
Qaf (Existing compacted fill)
Temporary compacted,
fill for drainage only'
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
Note: Figure not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
Qaf- Artificial Fill
Qal - Alluvium
Note: Figure not to scale
^<^w EEI
Expertise.. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE E
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
Fill slope shall be recompacted at a 2:1 ratio (this may increase or
decrease the area ofthe pad)
Overexcavate and recompact fill
Proposed finish grade
Avoid and/or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope
Typical benching
2' minimum key depth
I" minimum blanket fill
Bedrock or approved material
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
EEI
Expertise ,. Service.. Solutiora
FIGURE F
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
Proposed finish
15' minimum to be maintained fi'om proposed finish
slope face to backcut
Original slope
Bedrock or approved materials
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
EEI
Expertise ,. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE G
fc i i i i i a i 1 I i i i i I I t 1 I l _ i i _ i L_l
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS FILL DESIGN
Outlets shall be spaced at 100' maximum intervals, and should extend 12" beyond the face ofthe slope at the
finish of of rough grading
15' minimum Blanket fill if recommended by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist
15' is typical
Typical benching
:4" diameter non-perforated outlet pipe and baekdrain (see
altematives)
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
EEI
Expertise .. Service.. Sobttions
FIGURE H
fcjfcifcifclfciliil
STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL
EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE
Unweathered bedrock or approved material
Compacted stabilization fill
r minimum tilted back
If recommended by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist, the remaining cut
portion ofthe slope may require removal and replacement with compacted fill.
Note: (1)
(2)
Subdrains are required only if specified by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist,
"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
EEI
Expertise .. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE I
FILL OVER CUT DETAIL
Cut/Fill Contact: As shown on grading plan Maintain minimum 15' fiU section from backcut to
face of finish slope
Cut/Fill Contact: As shown on as built
Bench width may vary
Lowest bench width
15' minimum or H/2
3' minimum
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
EEI
Expertise .. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE J
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL
SIDEHILL FILL
Proposed Grade
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
Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill
Bench Width May Vary
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
EEI
Expertise.. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE K
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
1
View Normal to Slope Face
Proposed Finish Grade
10'minimum (5)
15' minimum (1)
(6)
J 5' minimiun (3)
Bedrock or Approved Material
View Parallel to Slope Face
Proposed Finish Grade
10' rnmmium (5)
(4)
-100' maximum-
[3' minimum
15' 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 Budding Code (UBC) 29-1), Designation of SM, SP, SW, GP, or OW,
(7) After fdl between windrows is placed and compacted with the lift of fdl covering windrow, windrow shall be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent,
(8) Oversized rock is defmed as larger than 12", and less than 4 feet in size.
Approximate Scale: 1" = 30'
OFT 18 FT 30 FT 60 FT
Note: AU distances are approximate
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
EEI
Expertise.. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE L
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Type A
Proposed Compacted Fill
Typical benching
Gdiluvjinti :a>iji;aiauy|«i* (<t»0v*):;
See alternanves (Figure N)
TypeB
Proposed Compacted Fill
>N4nir$lgr0tittd::
•- £'Olluvttun:and: alluvium ^(rem^ve)::
Typical benching See alternatives (Figure N)
Note: Altematives, locations, and extent of subdrains should be determined by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist diuing actual grading.
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
EEI
<^^V Expertise . . Service.. Solutions
FIGURE M
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
Alternate 1: Perforated Pipe and Filter Material
Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 feet'/linear foot.
6" diameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute witfi minimum
8 {Vi" 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 tun in excess of 500 feet use 8" diameter pipe.
6" Minimum
Filter Material
12" Minimum
6" Minimum
Sieve Size Percent Passine
1" 100
'A" 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 (^verlap
—•,6"
6" Minimum Cover
Minimum Bedding
Minimum Bedding
Gravel material 9 feet'/linear foot
Perforated pipe: see altemate 1,
Gravel: Clean rock or approved substitute.
Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute.
Note: Figures notto scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
EEI
Expertise .. Service., Solutions
FIGURE N
I li il fci il ti ti li i « » « fc « Itii l__L
2' minimum
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL
3' minimum
4" minimum pipe
4" minimum pipe 2' minimum
2" minimum
minimum
2" minimum
Filter Material: Minimum of 5 ft^/linear foot of pipe or 4 fl'/Iinear foot of pipe when placed in square cut trench.
Altemative 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 wifli a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a
minimum of 8 unifomily 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. Ouflet pipe shall be connected to the
subdrain pipe with tee or elbow.
Note: (1) Trench for outlet pipes shall be backfdled with onsite sod,
(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 Passine
1" 100
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
VA"
No, 4
No, 200
Percent Pa.s.sing
100
50
8
Sand equivalent: Minimum of 50
Note: Figures not to scale
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL STABILIZATION BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN
DETAIL
EEI
Expertise .. Service.. Solutions
FIGURE O
J"
mm
] PROVIDE
DRAINAGE SWALE
DRAIN OR PROVIDE
WEEP HOLES AS
REQUIRED
• OR AS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY
NOTES
(D 4-INCH PERFORATED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE. PL\CE 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,
0 PLACE DRAIN AS SHOWN WHERE MOISTURE MIGRATION THROUGH THE WALL IS UNDESIRABLE,
NOTE: FIGURE NOT TO SCALE
EARTHWORK & GRADING GUIDELINES
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
EEI
Expertise...Service...5'o/tttfo«s
FIGURE P