HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 35481Highgate Senior Living Geotechnical Reports ' 10 - C)
7. 2
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
I
RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
AND MORAGA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
I � I �
� I I
PREPARED FOR
I , I
CRISELL INVESTMENTS, LLC
FALLBROOK, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I '
I
I
FEBRUARY 12, 2007
s I PROJECT NO. T2415-22-01
il ! I
IIII � I I � Illi � � � ! Q
GEOCON
INLAND EMPIRE. INC.
G@OtFCFIMCAI CONSULTANTS v
Project No.T2415-22.01
February 12,2007
Crisell Investments, LLC
1834 Premier Street
Fallbrook,California 92029
Attention: Mr. Bob Crisell
Subject: RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Crisell:
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal rE-490R.dated December 13, 2006 and
revised January 12, 2007, we have performed a geoterhnical investigation for the subject property
located in the city of Temecula,California.The accompanying report presents the results of our,study
and includes our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geologic and geoteohnieal
aspects of developing the property as presently proposed. It is our opinion that the site is suitable for
development, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report,or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INLAND,EMPIRE, INC.
<7 QPOFESS/Qy �2�ONAL a�O
�� SH EDW 'l �p
�¢ 6 O� usAA• c
Kenneth E.Cox H � o%Q isa A.B ato i No,ate (n
RCE 65804 Ezy9/Jpar m CEG 2316 * cNp
* a NP GE(OUMW $
KEC:LAB:db
OFCNIP' CFCA11�
(6) Addressee
(1) Carltas Company
Attention:Mr.John White
41571 Corning.Place.swro.101 ■ Mmiele. Canlomh 92362,7065 ■ Telephone (.931) 360300 a Fen (9311 304.2392
^ '
^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PDR9QSEANDSCOPG...~~.~~^.^^^^^.~-^^^~^^^~^^`^^``~~^~^`^`~^^�-�~^
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
....,,...�^^�^`-~~..~~-~.~~.^^^.^,^'.�~`
}. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS..,..-...
4. Q8OONDWATER,,.,..,~^-~.-,~~`^-``~^^`~^~-^~^`^~-``~^~`~`^`^~^�
S. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity.—...-........~`~.,~~^.^..`..~~~~'~,~.
5.2 Probubi/�dcSeismic 8uoud Analysis ~`^^^^°
' ~^~~^—`~^~`^~~~^^-~^~`^~~.~. 4
53 Liquefaction `~^~�
~^~~~'^^`~^~^~~^~~`~~~^`~~'^^~^~~,......-,..`..-.,,5
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^~~^~`~`'^~^`~~^~~^^^^```^. 6
bl General ^`^^^^
`~^~`^^`^~~�^`~�^^—~~`~~^^~^-~^~~^`~^-~~-^^—`^~ 6
62 Soil and Excavation Characteristics.~~ -^^^^~`
�J [rud�Q °
--`^^~~^~~^`^^^^^^^~~^~~^~~~^^~^'^^-~~~^^~^ 7
6�4 8nQdn8undShr�k�o�Fa�om� ^`^~^~~~`^
° ,~.,.~...~,.^~-.^.~^...^-~.~~. ^ S
6J G .� . � �^~^^~`^^^
-r--� � ~^~~^^^`~^^~~.^...^~.~~~',~.~`^^-'.^^^~-` ` 8
&6 Se�micC��/i Criteria � �~^^^~`~^~`
xr� -~~^~^.....,,.....,...,.~,'^,^~�^,�, 9
6J Povodudnoo-..... ^^^`^^^`^^^�
68 Concn:u:3labo~nn4Jrade �
~^~^-~.^^^~~~^~~^~~-~^^^~~~^~~~. 10
6.9 QeU�nin0l�u/�and Luo:�Ul�nw� ~`~~^~~^
^~~^ i1
(�}UP�xib� Pavement Design �
~~^~^^~~^~~~~~"~~^~^~`~`^~-^~~~~ 12
��|l Skoo���e�n��oan�� `~~^--~^
' ^`~^—^~~~`—^~`^~^`^^^^^^~`~^^~^^~^^^`^~ 13
6.l2 [�ai . ^~—~`�~-
~~^^~~~^~`^^^^~`~'~~~^~`~~^-~~^^^^^ 14
6.13 Plan Review
~~^^^~~`~^`^-
^^~^`-~~^~~~~-^~^-..` 74
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY QFCONDITIONS
REFERENCES
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS �
Figure l, Vicinity Map �
F|0une3, Geologic Map |
Figure 3, Construction Detail for Lateral Extent nf Removal /
p/Buro 4, Surficial Slope Stability
Analysis
'
Figure l Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
Figure 6. Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A^\ ~A^5/ Logs nfBorings
�
' ` �
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test
Results
Table B-11, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-III,Summary of Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-IV,Summary of Laboratory Chemical Test Results
Table B-V,Summary of Single-Point Consolidation Test Results
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
i
-
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a geotechnical investigation for a proposed corporate
development planned for the vacant lot located between Via Las Colinas and Rancho California Road
on the west side of Moraga Road in the city of Temecula, California. The location of the site is noted
on the enclosed Vicinity Map, Figure I. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the site
geology; sample and observe the prevailing soil conditions and, based on the conditions encountered,
provide recommendat ions.regarding the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as presently
proposed.
The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of pertinent geologic literature
(References), geologic mapping, and excavation of five small-diameter borings. Details of the field
investigation are presented in Appendix A. The approximate location.of the exploratory borings is
depicted on the Geologic Map(Figure 2).
Laboratory testing was performed on samples of soil obtained from the exploratory excavations to
evaluate the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion and collapse potential,
shear strength characteristics, in-situ moisture and density, and chemical characteristics. Details of
the laboratory testing are preserved in Appendix B.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is a generally rectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres,
located in the city of Temecula. The site is bounded on the east by Moraga Road; on the north by
Rancho California Road; on the west by an existing office building; and on the south by Via Las
Colinas. Topographic and grading plans were not available at the time of this report. The site appears
to have been cut graded to a relatively flat pad. Previous grading operations left a berm along the
southern and eastern boundaries of the site. A drainage channel begins near the center and extends to
the southwest comer of the site. A four-ine"iameter pipe is exposed at the surface along the
southern property boundary.
A Conceptual Design Plan (undated) was utilized as the base for our Geologic Map, Figure 2. The
plan indicates that two office buildings with associated utility and hard-scape improvements are
planned for the property. Grading plans were not available at the time of this report. However, based
on the site topography and surrounding road elevations, we estimate that cuts and fills will be on the
order of five to ten feet, exclusive of remedial grading. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be at a
slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)with a maximum height of 10 feet.
i
i
Project No.T2415.22-01 -.I - February 12. 2007
The description of the site and proposed development are based on the site topography, a site
reconnaissance, 'the referenced Conceptual Design Plan, observations made during the field
investigation and a review of the referenced geologic publications. If project details differ
significantly from those described. Geocon should be contacted for review and possible revision to
this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Pauba Formation was encountered at the surface to the maximum depth of exploration. The Pauba
Formation,as exposed at the site, consists primarily of medium to very dense, light brown to brown,
fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of silt and very stiff silt with varying amounts of sand.
Undisturbed or properly compacted soil of the Pauba Formation is considered suitable for support of
the proposed improvements.
4. GROUNDWATER
Regional groundwater elevation was evaluated with the Water Data Library maintained by the
California Department of Water Resources. Two wells were identified by the database as being
located within 'r5 mile of the site. Groundwater depths and elevations recorded at the wells are
presented in Table 4.1. The site elevation is approximately 1140 ft (MSL); therefore, we do not
anticipate that groundwater will significantly impact development of the site as presently proposed.
TABLE 4.1
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
Approximate. ' Last Recorded
State Well No. Distance From Last Recorded Groundwater
Site(miles) Groundwater Deplb(R) Elevation,MSL(it)
OBS03 WO I P002S 0.2 41 1025
OSS03WI2CO0IS 0.2 44 1016
Seepage or groundwater was not encountered during our investigation and groundwater related
problems are not expected. Depending on the time of year the property is graded, seasonal, perched
groundwater may be encountered within the project boundaries. If perched water is encountered, we
expect that it can be effectively controlled by the use of sump pumps.
i
Project No.T2415-22.01 -2• February 12,2007
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Southern California is,a seismically active region near the active margin between the North American
and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest.
trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. It is estimated
that up to approximately'55 millimeters of slip per year occurs along the plates.
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). This definition is used in
delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act
of 1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and
Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones (AP Zone). The intent of the act is to.require fault investigations on
sites located within Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones to preclude new construction of certain habitable
structures across the ttace of active faults.Based on our review of available literature, the site is not
located within an AP Zone or a County of Riverside Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
The computer program EQFAULT(Blake, 1989, updated 2000) was used to calculate the distance of
known faults from the site. References used within the program in selecting faults to be included
were Jennings (1975), Anderson (1984), and Wesnousky (1986). In addition to fault location,
EQFAULT estimated peak ground accelerations at the site for maximum magnitude earthquakes.
Attenuation relationships presented by Sadigh, et al., (1997) were used to estimate peak site
accelerations. Presented on Table 5.1 are the faults identified by the analysis to be within 50 miles of
the site.
The site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on
any of the faults referenced in Table 5.1 or other faults within the southern California and northern
Baja California region. With respect to this hazard, the site is considered comparable to others in the
general vicinity. While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault
activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including frequency and
duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site.
I
Project No.T2415-22.01 .3• - February 12,2007
TABLE 5.1
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND PEAK SITE ACCELERATIONS-
Approximate Estimated Maximum
Fault Name Distance From Earthquake Magnitude Estimated Peak Site
Site(miles) (Mw) Acceleration(pa
Elsinore-Temecula Y. 6.8
0.63
Elsinore-Julian 12 7.1 0.24
Elsinore-Glen Ivy 15 6.8
0.16
San Jacinto-Anza 21 7.2
0.14
San Jacinto-San lacintoValley 21 72'
0.14
Newport-Inglewood(offshore) 28 6.9
0.08
Rose Canyon 31 6.9
0.07
Chino-Central.Ave. (Elsinore) 33 6.7
0.06
San Jacinto-San Bernardino 36 6.7
0.05
SanJe[into-CoyoteCrcek 77 6.8
0.05
Whittier 37 6.8
0.05
San Andrees-southern 38 7.4
0.07
SanAndrcas-SanBemardino 38 7.3
0.07
Earthquake Valley 39 6.5 0.03
Pinto Mountain 45 17 0
0.04
Coronado Bank 45
7.4 0.06
Newport-Inglewood(L.A. Basin) 46 6.9 0.04
SanAndrem-Coachella 48 7.1
0.04
Palos Verdes 49 71
0.04
Cucamonga
0.04
•From EQFAUGT Computer Program(Blake,2M)
5.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
The computer program FRISXSP (Blake, 1995, updated 2004) was used to perform a site-specific
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The program is a modified version of FRISK(McGuire, 1978)
that models faults as lines to evaluate site-specific probabilities of exceeding a'given horizontal
accelerations for each line source. The program operates under the assumption that the earthquake
occurrence interval on each mapped Quaternary fault is proportional to the slip rate. The program
accounts for fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude. Site acceleration estimates
are trade using the earthquake magnitude and closest distance from the site to the rupture zone. The
program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2)rupture
length for a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a
given earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By
calculating the expected .accelerations from each considered earthquake source, the program
Project No.T2415.22.01 4
February 12,2007
calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences for a site-acceleration greater than
a specified value: Attenuation relationships proposed by Sadigh, er al. (1997), were utilized in the
analysis. Using a weighting factor based on a 7.5 Mw event, the results of the analysis indicate that
there is a 10 percent probability of exceeding a mean site acceleration of 0.62g within 50 years (475-
year return period)and a l0;percent probability of exceeding a mehn site acceleration of 0.77g within
100 years(949-year return period).
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon when: loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear
strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and
duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soil, in-situ stress conditions
and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied
layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Due to the
relatively dense nature of the formational soil the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to
be very low.
Project No.T-2415.22.01 .J- February 12,2007
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic .conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed
commercial development of the property. Development of the property is considered
feasible provided that the recommendations of this report are followed.
6.1.2 The potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to be very low based on the
relatively dense nature of the formational soil.
6.1.3 Perched groundwater or seepage conditions may occur following periods of precipitation.
Where such a conditions exists,we anticipate that the seepage or perched groundwater can
be removed with the use of subsurface drains or sumps.
6.1.4 In general, the on-site soil consists of sands with variable amounts of silt and silts_ with
variable amounts of sand. The soil generally possesses a very low to low Expansion index
(EI); as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 18-1-B and moderate shear
strength characteristics. The on-site soil is considered suitable for use as fill. It is
recommended that soil with an expansion potential greater than medium (EID50), if
encountered, be kept at least 3 feet below proposed finish grade.
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1 The Pauba Formation can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment.
6.2.2 Excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements. Excavations
made adjacent to property lines or existing improvements should not be left open during
hours when construction is not being performed.
6.2.3 The results of laboratory testing indicate that the sample tested yielded a water-soluble
sulfate content with a negligible sulfate rating as defined by the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table 19-A-4. Additionally, the soil sample tested has a pH of 6.2, and a resistivity
of 13,000 ohm cm; indicating that the soil is moderately corrosive. These tests are general
indications only and additional testing should be performed at finish grade (soil within 3
feet of rough pad grade elevations).
6.2.4 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if improvements
that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further
evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. It is also recommended that these results
Project No.T2415.22.01 -6- Febm
arY 12, 2007
and the recommendations from the corrosion engineer be forwarded to the appropriate
design team members(e.g. project architect, engineer) for incorporation into the plans and
implementation during construction.
6.3 Grading .
6.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Speclfjcarions
contained in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those of
Appendix C the recommendations of this section take precedence.
6.3.2 Prior to grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.
Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
6.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the, removal of deleterious material, underground
utilities to be abandoned, construction debris and vegetation. The depth of removal should
be such that soil exposed in cut.areas and soil to be used as fill are relatively free of organic
matter. Deleterious material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be
exported from the site.
6.3.4 The upper approximately two feet of the Pauba Formation should be removed to expose the
competent underlying material prior to the placement 'of fill or settlement sensitive
improvements. For the purpose of this report, competent material is defined as soil which
possesses an in-situ dry density of.at least 85 percent of the laboratory minimum dry
density or greater, is near optimum moisture and does not possess a porous soil structure.
Removal depths within the drainage gully are anticipated to extend to a depth of 3 to 5 feet
below the existing grade. The actual removal depth of the soil should be determined in the
field to document that competent material is exposed.
6.3.5 Building pads graded with a cut/rill transition will require undercutting to reduce the
potential for differential settlement. The cut portion of the cut/fill transition should be
undercut to a depth of at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted 'very low"to
"low"expansive fill.The bottom of the undercut portion should be sloped at a minimum of
I percent towards the fill portion.
6.3.6 During remedial grading, temporary slopes should be planned for an inclination no steeper
than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Grading should be scheduled to backfill against these slopes
as soon as practical. Removals along the edge of grading should include excavation of
unsuitable soil that would adversely affect the performance of the planned fill, i.e., extend
Project No.T7415-22.01 -7• February 12.2007
removals within a zone defined by a line projected down and out at an inclination of 1:1
from the limit of grading to intersect with approved left-in-place soil. Construction Detail
for Lateral Extent ofRemovaf is provided on Figure 3.
6.3.7 After removal of unsuitable materials, the exposed ground surface should be scarified,
moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted. Fill soil
may then be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill,
including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at
least 90 percent of the .laboratory maximum dry density and near optimum moisture
content,as determined by ASTM Test Procedure D1557-02.
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
6.4.1 Estimates of soil bulking and shrinkage factors are based on comparing laboratory
compaction tests with the density of the soil in its natural state as encountered in the
exploratory excavations. It should.be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as
well as in compacted fill density,render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an
example, the contractor can compact the fill to any relative compaction of 90 percent or
higher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the contractor has approximately a
10 percent range of.control over the fill volume. Based on the limited work performed to
date, it is our opinion that the following shrinkage and bulking factors can be used as a
basis for estimating how,much the on-site soil may shrink or swell (bulk) when excavated
from their natural state and placed as compacted fill. i
i
TABLE 6.4.1
SHRINKIBULK FACTORS
Soil Unit Shrink/Bulk Factor
Pauba Fomtation 2 percent shrink to 2 percent bulk
6.5 Slopes
6.5.1 For preliminary purposes, cut and fill slopes constructed with the on-site soil and bedrock
are anticipated to be stable with respect to deep seated and surfcial instability to heights of
at least 10 feet, at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). A surficial stability analysis
has been performed based on an assumed 54bot zone of saturation. This analysis is
provided on Figure 4.
Project No.T2415.22-0I a-
February 12,2007
6.5.2 Fill slopes, if required, should be overbuilt at least 9 feet horizontally and then cut.to the
design finish grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be constructed to finish grade and
subsequently compacted by backrolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals
not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walked with a D-8 bulldozer, or equivalent, such that
the soil is uniformly compacted to at least90 percent to the face of the finished slope.
6.5.3 In general,cohesionless soil or over-sized rock should not be placed in the outer 15 feet of
the face of fill slopes. Where cohesionless soil is exposed in cut slopes, consideration
should be given to removing and replacing the soil with suitable fill.
6.5.4 Slopes should be planted, drained and maintained to reduce erosion. Due to the granular
nature of the.majority of the site soil, consideration should be given to landscaping the
slopes relatively soon after completion to reduce the potential for surficial erosion.
6.6 Seismic Design Criteria
6.6.1 We recommend that seismic design of the structures be.performed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code(UBC)guidelines that are currently adopted by Riverside County.
For seismic design, the site is characterized as soil type Sc. Table 6.6.1 summarizes site
design criteria. The values listed on Table 6.6.1 are for the Elsinore-Temecula fault, which
is identified as a Type B fault.
TABLE 6.6.1
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Northern UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient,C. 0.51 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient,C. 0.88 Table I6 R I
Near-Source Factor,N,
13 Table 16-S ;
Near-Source Factor,N, 1.6 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
6.7 Foundations
6.7.1 The proposed structures can be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
properly compacted fill or firm formational soil but not on a combination of both.
Foundations for the structures may consist of either continuous strip footings and/or
Project No.T2415-22.01 .9- February 12,2007
isolated spread footings. Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least
12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated
spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should extend at least
18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade(See Figure 5). Footings should be dimensioned
based on an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure
value is for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering
transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings
should consist, of at least four No.4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the
footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread
footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.7.2 The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics only and
is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations.
6.7.3 Fooling excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon prior to placing
reinforcing steel or concrete to verify that the excavations are in compliance with these
recommendations and the soil conditions are as anticipated.
6.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
6.8.1 Building interior Floor slabs not anticipated to be subjected to forklift loads should be at
least inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center,
in both directions.The reinforcing bars should be lifted on chairs into the slab mid-point.
6.8.2 Interior slabs anticipated to receive moisture sensitive materials, or where migration of
moisture through the slab is undesirable should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean
sand and a 10-mil vapor inhibitor placed at the mid-point of the sand layer. The sand
should be compacted by rolling with a smooth drum roller or similar equipment so that it is
not in a loose condition prior to placement of concrete.
6.8.3 Exterior slabs(not subject to traffic loads) should be of least 4 inches thick and reinforced
with 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be positioned within the upper one-
third of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. It
has been our experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab during
concrete placement. The contractor should take extra measures to provide for proper
positioning of the mesh.
6.8.4 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control, unsightly shrinkage cracking. The project structural engineer should
Project No.77415-22.01 • 10. Fetimary 12,2007
determine the spacing based upon the intended slab usage, thickness, and reinforcement.
The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the American Concrete
Institute when establishing crack control spacing patterns.
6.8.5 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce, not prevent, the potential for
cracking of concrete slabs and foundations. Even with the incorporation of the
recommendations of this report, foundations, stucco, and at-grade concrete slabs may still
exhibit cracking due to shrinkage of the concrete during curing. The occurrence of
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting characteristics. Limiting the slump of the
concrete, proper placement and curing of concrete, and the construction of crack-control
joints-for shrinkage cracks should reduce the potential for unsightly shrinkage cracking.
6.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.9.1 Retaining walls that are allowed to.rotate more than 0.001 H (where H equals the height of
the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet).at the top of the wall and having a level
backfill surface should be designed for an active'soil pressure equivalent to the pressure
exerted by a fluid 'density of35pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be
inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of pcf is recommended.
These soil pressures assume that the backfill soil within an area bounded by the wall and a
1;1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall will possess an Expansion Index of
less than 50. For those areas with finish grade soil having an Expansion Index greater than
50 and/or where the backfill soil does not conform to the above criteria, Geocon_should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
6.9.2 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H
psf(where H equals the height of the wall in Peet)should be added to the above active soil
pressure.
6.9.3 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (e.g. weep holes) is not
recommended .where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular(Expansion Index less than 50) backfill with no hydrostatic forces or
imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if
specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for additional
recommendations. Figure 6 presents wall drainage details.
J'MJWL No.T2415.22-01 • I 1 . February 12.2007
6.9.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth of 19 inches and minimum width of
one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psi, provided the
soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 50. The
proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the
allowable soil bearing pressure. Geocon should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
6.9.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a Fluid
density of 300 pef is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill or undisturbed natural soil. The allowable passive pressure assumes
a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the
passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of soil not protected by floor
slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable
,friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete.
This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when
determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.9.6 The recommendations presented..above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned,such as crib-type walls,Geocon
should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.10 Flexible Pavement Design
6.10.1 The following pavement sections are Rrelimina . Final pavement design sections should
be calculated once subgrade elevations have been attained and R-Value testing on su grade
soil is performed. These preliminary pavement thicknesses were calculated using
procedures outlined in the Calif Highway Design Manual(Caltrans) and ere based on
an assumed R-Value of 30. Summarized below are the recommended preliminary pavement
section thicknesses.
TABLE 6.10.1
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Assumed Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
Traffic Index(TI) (Inches) (fnehq)
Parking Stalls 1 5.0 3.0
5.5
Drive Lanes 6.0 3.5 7.5
Greater thicknesses may be required by the local governing agency.
Project No.T2415-22-01 . 12- February 12,2007
6.10.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base should conform to
Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
6.10.3 Prior to placing base the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches,
moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per
ASTM D1557-02. The base should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. Asphalt concrete should be"compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
Hveem density.
6.10.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures or loading docks should utilize Portland
Cement concrete. The pavement should consist of a minimum 7-inch concrete section
reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions
placed at the slab midpoint. The concrete should extend out from the trash bin such that
both the front ;and rear wheels of the trash truck will be located on reinforced concrete
pavement when loading and unloading.
6.10.5 The performance of pavements is highly dependant upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade soil and subsequent pavement
distress.
6.11 Slope Maintenance
6.11.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are
both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope
instability.The instability is typically limited to the outer three factor a portion of the slope
and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soil, as might result
from root growth,-soil expansion,or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is recommended that, to
the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soil be.either removed or
properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to
eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation,and(c)surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be
periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the
above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will
Project No.T2415-22-01 - 13- February 22, 2007
not eliminate the possibility, and it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the
projeces slopes'in the future.
6.12 Drainage
6.12.1 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
alter the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
6.13 Plan Review
6.13.1 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review, the grading plans prior to
finalization to check their compliance with the recommendations of this report and check
the necessity for additional analyses and/or recommendations: The soils engineer should
also be provided the opportunity to review the structural foundation plans prior to
finalizing to check substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report.
i
Project No.T7415.22-01 - - 14• February 12, 2007
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
I. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviatgfrom those disclosed in the investigation.
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed'construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so
that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the
potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services
provided by Geocon.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, .to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However,changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due-to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report maybe invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control.Therefore,this report is subject to'review and should not be relied
upon after a period of three years.
Project No.T24I5.22-01 February 12.2007-
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 2000a; EQSEARCH, Version 3.00a,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, Updated
with Version 4.00
Blake,T.F.,2000c;FRISKSP, Version 4.00,A Computer Program for Determining the Probabalistic
Horizontal Acceleration
Blake, T.F., 2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, User's Manual jar Evaluating the Seismic Parameters
in accordance with the 1997 UBC
California Department of Water Resources, 2003, Water Data Library, 1999 - 2003, URL:
http:/twell.water.c6.gov/
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954,Geology of Southern California, Bulletin 170.
California Building Code, 2001, Stale of California California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998,
California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and California
Building Standards Commission,3 Volumes.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California,Special Publication 117.
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CDMG
Special Publication 42,revised 1997.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering
Design Provisions.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Prepared by California Division of
Mines and Geology.
Jennings, C.W., 1985, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fault and Geologic
Maps of California:California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p.,2 plates.
Jennings,C.W., 1994,Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,Seale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, D.M., Geologic Mop of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside
County, California.
I
Project No.T2415-22-01 February 12,2007
TEMEtULA q
49
. - "'. ` wu •aYoc�r `..�•, j -a' l ..+ r Sru iio ' � ,q, .• ...�i�
.P �• - N'�fh� � T.s V ...4���i
e .r• n:1 • .� �. A•ea , t�
5
d�• �• ��b '`p: yia„1: :.�`s $!y0 IrA
• r�''/�?.� ,c�v�a I Si I �!''Ir�I ';ay If R' .`"t,! '� 'r p � R ^ro E E,. • ��'��9 n�
rA
p ` v .II .:tD� .•fir �t.�Ct.� +•�'i a Y � ; 9y 41r� 8 &,a .p4ia� i
VI •pit ��.. P •l 9 a` -. �• /1•
l,Ul�/1 wI cm. �E fM
I... `+r•1 •PI ?•L `, an J+ //e�to. 'OR.../+ 4 !-✓� ,
• I . _.nO :tip P IOTI 4 /:
'T� �` � ti� tar• ''� �� -rA
T' 4i - `is qS'� en [' 4
• I ✓ ' O'� Q , '0�J ps�� c -�' yI L^IO epyT �.
tr? �i1a� ,� E y �.Q � •
err ••� �� a� �• �r5�_"' , t � Wit. s ,'� � ,
1� I YS•rn Y4 4b4, r y.
SOURCE 2006 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.CJWFORIM1141, `
wrm0a,r. r IT r.rr.r..rs P
oara�a°wW mlirwwrnwr.:arareuwaro�a NO SCALE
RfWiIMrrE1Ri'6ir®pY
GEOCONj VICINITY MAP
INLAND AL CONS INC.CONSULTANTS
RANCHOCALIFORNIAOFFICE
GEOTEQAOGIL GOI•LAATAMS i
41571CD 44GPLACE-MLWIETA.CALF0 AAnMI-7065 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
N•bPIE 951304.2300•FAX 9513DA-2392
KC I MG DSKIGT'PO DATE 02.12.2007 PROJECT NO. T2415.22.01 FIG.1
RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA
CRol+earP'
_ 1
(z)ui000 O 8-3
NET '.___ ���•� 70.pz B•1(2
B� 3•S�_ Z`t• 3RY
4OKSF I . A
/ d100D NET �/•
��-- /�/ GEOCON LEGEND
• 'ij' �� Qps......PAUBA FORMATION
B•5 B......APPROX.LOCATION OF
P,AAC*40 C.AV OP-1=1 6 M.o �. GEOTECHNICAL BORING
1�� l �.......APPROX LOCATION OF
' IO6 -TEmgu LI �, rz.,aP tt4 DRAINAGE GULLY
f (2) ........ESTIMATED DEPTH
THIS CONCEPTUAL DETION PLAN IS BASED UPON A OF REMOVAL
PRELDUNARy ENTRILMENT
REVIEW OF
POSSIBLY
AND SITE UNVERIFIED AND WARE MALCOMB
INTENDED MERELY
TO errs T IN EXPLORING
AND 18' GEOCON
INTENDED MERELY TO ASSIST IN E7tPLORWp HOW
THE SITE LOGM Be OEVFIOP W. i n 1,s•o•r�u• Inc
waw..r�.ea
vIIIIIIIIq v eaavm mmnnlmmuw, .
�tleo .en®.oiva.rm�uwn.nu.mu
III N mp.lYM6DA
f[ORCf NO.Tull.Y7.01
GEOLOGIC MAP DATE W.11.7001
.+u+.r.s�+a.owangllm�u.,wd�m�uar�rw rt
--- ---
FILL ,
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE 90D.
ODE BEDROCK
NOTE:
SLOPE OF BACKCUT MAY BE STEEPENED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SOILS ENGINEER
WHERE BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS LMT EXTENT OF REMOVALS.
NO SCALE
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL FOR LATERAL EXTENT OF REMOVAL
GEOCON
INLAND EIMPIRD INC. RANCHO CAUFORNIA OFFICE
GEOTEO-NCALCONSULTANTS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
A1571 C.ORNNG PLACE MLAt1ZIEiA,CALIFOIWA 92561.7065 i
PHONE 951304.2300•FAX 9513OA-2392
KCIM0. DSKIGTYPD DATE 02.12e2007 PROJECT NO. T2413.22.01 FIG.3
CIIDRAF71NG11•DnrinosUURRIETA1T2At5.22-01V(C-FIGURE 3An LO2ud1.7Jlw 2llMW lG�NNE EE
ASSUMED CONDITIONS!
SLOPE HEIGHT H = Infinle
SLOPE INCLINATION 2.0 : 1.0(Horizontal : Vertical)
SLOPE ANGLE i = 26.60
DEPTH OF SATURATION Z = 5 feet
UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER Y. 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL y, = 140 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 0 = 35 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 230 pounds per square foot
SLOPE SATURATED TO VERTICAL DEPTH Z BELOW SLOPE FACE.
SEEPAGE FORCES PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE.
ANALYSIS:
FS— C+(y, —y,)Z•cos /•tan0 = 1.6
y, •Z•sin i•cosi
REFERENCES:
1......Haefeq R.The Sfablilly of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc.Second International
Conference.SMFE,Rotterdam,1948.1.57-62.
2......Skemplon.A.W.,end F.A Dabry,StabNly of Not"Slopes In Landon Clay, Proc, Fourth
International Conference,SMFE,London,1957,2,376.61.
,� SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY - FILL SLOPES
GEOCON
INLAND EMPIRE INC. ` r RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
A1571 CORNING
1 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
41571 CORNING PUCE SUITE 101 •MURRIETA.CA 92562-7063
PHONE 951 304.23M•FAX 951 304-2372
KC/KC DATE 02-12.2007 PROJECT NO.T2415-22-01 FIG.4 i
WALL FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
SAND :a• • r' . .� .'f It, PAD GRADE
VISOUEEN
FOOTWG'
WIDTH
COLUMN FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
71
��y�q• .r.-� ` e. may,.s.4= 'M
SAND • . ., . ..• t•. e .i.�.\ti "�..+�-'-
L •:.
V19O MEN
I�FOOTWG WIDTH' �----1
NO SCALE
.....SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION
WALL /COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL
GEOCON INLAND EMPIRE RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
MTEO-MCALCONSULTANTS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
A1571 CORNING PLAa-MURRIETA,CALIFORNIA 92561.7065
PHONE9513OA-2300-FAX 9513OA-2392
KC I MG DSKIGTYPD DATE 02-12.2007 PROJECT NO. T2415.22-01 I FIG.5
ciioRAFiMG11_DmAWM41RRMTAm4I3.Z2-MIXe MGURELOM.Lria .VlY=B:M28Aµ Gnm Wei•
GROUND SURFACE
COMPACTED
SOIL /
BACKFILL
RETAINING WALL
w.
<: '- "•' �' 3I6•CRUSHED
GRAVEL
MIRAFI 14ON
.si^ .•a ' FLTER FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT
i,
4 .e
•� 204
14: _p
4•DUL PERFORATED
c SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE
Q'
LOWER LEVEL °••' '
SLAB ON GRADE
FOOTING
t•
NOTES
1—PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS M RADRAIN SM OR EQUIVALENT
MAYBE USED IN LIEU OF PLACING GRAVEL
2_...DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED AND MUST LEAD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING
NO SCALE
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
GEOCON V�INLAND EMPIRE RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
�
C,EOTEOO'UCALOONSULTANTS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA I
d1571 CORMNG NICE-MJMOA,CALFORNIA nMI.7065
PHOM'.95130A-2300-FAX 951304.2372 - ;
KC/MG DSK/GTYPD DATE 02-12-2D07 PROJECT NO. T2419.22-01 FIG.B
C:IIDRAFnNGkl.Dnw4 pWVRRIETAIT24tS2]-01000-FIGURE U.S Lmy nl.WIMP M16 ML Gump WWO EmpM
APPENDIX e
i
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 19, 2007, and consisted of a site reconnaissance,
geologic mapping and excavation of five small-diameter borings. The borings were drilled with a
CME-55 hollowstem-auger drill rig. In-situ ring and bulk samples were obtained from the borings.
The ring samples were obtained by driving a split-spoon sampler lined with brass rings into the soil
with an automatic 140 pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The rings were than placed in sealed tubes
and transported to our laboratory for testing.
The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually observed, classified and logged in
general accordance with American .Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). togs of the borings are
presented on Figures A-I through A-5. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered
and the depth at which samples were obtained.The approximate locations of the borings are shown
on the Geologic Map,Figure 2.
i
i
Project No.72415-22-01 •A-1 - February 12,2007
PROJECT NO. T2415-22-01
M BORING B 1 0 J�j
^ _ kat
' �u, _�jb
DEPTH p SOIL w
IN SAMPLE
p Z CLASS ELEV.(MSL.) DATE COMPLETED o1.19.2007 G d
FEET ? O RrSCS) D. ... 8
K EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY:K.COX
s5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 BI-I SP PAUBAFORMATION-Qps
Medium dense,moist,brown,fine to coarse SAND
2
33 111.5 8.7
BI-2
4
39 100.2 16.0
BI.3
B
B — mOIsLbro
SM Very still w n,Sand) ILT S
G '1'
10 SP Dense,moist,Iigh1 brown,fine to coarse SAND 62 98.4 10.7
B 1.5
12 74
14
B I.7 55
18
1B
20 BI-B 69
22
24
27 102.5 3.7
131.9
25 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
No groundwater mcountemd
Backfilkd with native
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS C)"'E,,puNGDNWCCfSaFUL 10_STANGARD PENETRATION TEST ORWSAWUIUNO[SnWMD)
®„DISTURBED OR BAG$Nml!
O_.cHuNx SAMPLE __.VMTER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE TE LOG AOF SUE RRABSURFOACE O NS SHOT14 PNHERE URFAPPLIES My ATTIE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH ACE CONDITIONS OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMESt.OG7,ON AND AT THE DATE INDICATED IT
15 GEOCON
PROJECT NO. T2415.22-01
BORING B 2 0 >
T- F�^ tCDLL
DEPTH pI CLASS son. lac u�7
FIN sANO LE ? ELEV,(MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 01-1B-2007 �y J a:
O noEQUIPMENT CME 66
BY:K.COX a u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 SP PAUBAFORMATION-QPs
Dense,moist,brown,fine to medium SAND;trace silt
2
44
B2-1
132-2 -Becomes fine to coarse&mined Land,no silt 52 113.9 11.9
6
———————————————————
37 — ———
---
ML Very stiff moist.bmwm SILT
6 B2-3
_ _ ___ _ _80_
10 82-4 SP Very dense,moist light brown,rim to=01VC SAND
12
71
82.5
14
132-6 -Becomes dense at IS 61
- 18
18
20 B2 7 ML Very stiff,mist,brown.Sandy SILT
22
24 —SIP — Dense,moist brown,fine SAND:Iraee silt
B2.8 63
28 BOILING TERMBdATED AT 26 FEET
No groundwater encounttuad
Backfilled with native
T241}2241.GPJ
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS -'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL _.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST _.ORNC A .VLE(UNOOITiRTBED)
®'...DISTURBED OR SAG SANvtC 0_.CHUNK SAMPLE vo TEA TARE OR SEEPAOC
HOTS THE LOCI OF SUBSURFACE CON OTTIONS SHIM!HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECInC SORDID OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE NOICATEO. R
is NOT WARRANTED To BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDtr04 AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TWS
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. T2415-22.01
BORING B 3 F H-
N LL
DEPTH cc�D 2< SOIL (J y
W SAMPLE O 5 Cues ELEV.(MSL) DATE COMPLETED 01-19.2007 @ &a
FEET NO. _ (USCS) M1 0: O
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY:K.COX
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 B3-1 SP PAuBA FORMAT1101WQPs
Dense,moist,brown,fine to COMM SAND
2 53
83-2
4
45
B3.3
ML Very stlR,mois4 brown SILT;trace Me Send 38
6 B34
10 63 5 A, 1- —SM Dense,moist,brown Silry,vcry fine SAND
T. I _ _ -- --- --- ---
12 - - --
SP Dense,mois4 light brown in m eoassa SAND 67
B3-6
14
45
B3-7
t5 BOIUNG TEp.MMATED AT 16 FEET
No growdwe¢r encountered
Beckfdled with native
nns-novaPM
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
❑_&A MPLDMO UNSUCCESSFUL O-.STADAID PENETRATION TEST ..DRNE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS YWTER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
®...asn,ReeD OR e•o eANMPLs O_.ONMnt eAwLE �— I
NOTE:THE LOG OF allUtMFACU CONDITIONS eNO"HEREON APPLISI ONLY AT 7Ne EPEC6C BORING OR TRENCH IOCATW N APIO AT THE DATE ee)EATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED To BE REPRESENTATNC OF RMSUR FACE C0NDTONS AT OTTER LOCATIONS AND TWE 9. GE O C O N
PROJECT NO. T2415.22-01
BORING B 4 QF ^ Wq
DEPTH 2 SOIL
IN SAMPLE F cwe ELEV.(MSL.) DATE COMPLETED Ot•142007
FEET t NSUI
EQUIPMENT CME 66 BY:K COX
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 SP PAUBA FORMATION-QPS
Dence,moist,brown,fine to Coarse SAND
2
47 105.4 6.1
B4-1
4
53
6 ML Very still,mols4 bmwn SILT;wa rim smd
B
B4-3 26
10 27
BI-1
12 SM Medium densq moist,brown,Silty,very fine26
SAND
B4-5 :�+
14
B4-6 { 31
1e 1'.r 1
1e {.�.
r.r�
20 B4.7 �• 7' 31
•r -Bcwme3 dense Rod fine to merle
24 r{�
{ � 60
B4.6
28 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
No growdwater encounleted
Backlilkd with native
Wawa.cw
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 Of 1
—
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAAWWc.UNSMCESSFIA. �...RANOARDPENETRATIONTEST it...lPwEauetetwDnlsateml
®-DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE D...CHUM aAAGnE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE �
I
NOTE; THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLES CHIT At THE SPECM BORING ORTRENC14 LOCATION AN"AT THE DATE INOCATED. IT i
IS NOT WARRM AED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CoMmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T &S. GE O C O N
PROJECT NO. T2415-22-01
> BORING 5 0W- wFx_
DEPTH SAMPLEza SOS F W LL N Z
FEET NO Z Ns ELEV.(DISC.) DATE COMPLETED 01.19.2007 55� ,Ua. U
J � EQUIPMENT CME 65 BY:K.COX
"u¢¢DD�
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 BS•I SP PAUBA FORMATION-QPS
Dena,moist.bmvm,line to medium SAND
2
B5•2 66 111.7 3.7
4
B5•3 71 109.6 4.3
e
6
1354 • .' - 57
10 BS 5 58
ML Very stiff,moist,bmwn,Seedy SILT 28
B5-6
14
B5-7 26
16
18
___— ___________ ___ ___ ___
.1. SM Dense,moist.brown.Silty,very rme SAND
20 BS-8 •r 1`1 46 115.6 14.8
22 :•G •1•
t#1
24 11{
i•1• 65/11, 119.0 I0.7
B5.9 •r. �
26 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
No groundmter encountered
Bsckfilled with native
Figure A-5, T7
4
I5-ZI-0T'OPJ
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ..SAAPLNO UNSUCCESSFUL _STANDARD PENETRATION TEST -ORNE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED)
®._DOTURSED OR SAG SAMPLE O-Chime SANPLE ;_.vaTER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOOOF SURSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPEC=BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AM AT THE DATE DO CATED. R
0 H07 WARRANTED TO RE REPRESENTATNE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T S.
GEOCON
I
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Disturbed bulk samples
were tested to detennine maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, direct shear
properties; expansion and chemical characteristics. In-situ ring samples were tested for collapse
potential, and in-situ moisture and density. Results of the laboratory tests are presented in tabular
form below. The results of ill-place density and moisture content tests are present on the boring logs,
Figures A-1 through A-5 in,appendix A.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE'CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1667-02
Maximum Optimum
Sample No. Description Dry Density Moisture Content
(pofy (%dry wt.)
Light brown, Silty,fine to
133-1 coarse SAND with a trace of 134.8. 7.7
clay and gravel
TABLE B-11,.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-03
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion
No. Before Test(%) After Test(%) (peg Index
BI-1 7.6 15.2 119.9 0
TABLE B411
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS'
ASTM D 3080-03
Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle or shear
No. (pcf) I (%) I (psi) Resistance(degrees)
B3.1• 124.0 1 14.3 1 230 35
-Semple remolded to a dry de®iry of roughly 90 puctm of the laboratory maaimtmr dry density at near a slightly above optimum !
meirlaR C0112aL �
I
Project No.T2415-22.01 -B-1 - February 12,2007
TABLE B-fV
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS
Sample Sulfate Content PH Resisitivity
No. (%) (obm centimeters)
85-1 0.016. 6.2 13,000
Resistivity and pH determined by Cal Trans Test 532.
Water-soluble sulfate determined by California Test 417.
. TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF SINGLE-POINT CONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE)TESTS
ASTM D 2436-03
Sample In-situ Dry Moisture Content Axial Load with Percent
Number Density(pcf) Before Test Water Added(psf) Collapse
BI-2 111.5 8.7 2000 0.1
B1-3 100.2 16.0 2000 0.0
132-2 113.9 11.9 2000 0.1
B4.1 105.4 6.1 2000 10.9
B5-2 111.7 3.6 2000 0.3
B5.3 109.E 4.3 2000 0.8
1
i
i
Project No.T2415-22.01 -B-2- February 12,2007
APPENDIX
I
i
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFFICE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA.
PROJECT NO. T2416-22-01
i
i
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The
recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the
earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained
hereinafter in the case of conflict.
12 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was.perforrned in substantial
conformance with these'specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
13 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish'the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of.the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the Califomia licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 10106
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner.
who is experienced in the.practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7 Geotechoical Report shall refer to a soil report(including all addenda)which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general,fill materials can be classified as soil fills,soil-rock.fills or rock fills,as
defined below.
3.1.1 Soil rills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than% inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be
less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
GI rev. 10106
I
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the,Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer I5 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical)and a soil
layer,no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density; optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate,shear strength,expansion,and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate'the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding I inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
GI rev. 10/06
4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed inJiills,provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Repor-L The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be,used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Original Ground
2
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material. I
As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That - _1
Consultant Sloughing Or Srdng
Does Not Occur Varies
ae o e See Note 2
No Scale
wide to
DETAIL NOTES: (I) complete coverage with the compaction ion eg of 0 feet, or u pment Bused. The base of the key
should be graded horizontal,or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
materiel and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key,the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified u approved by the Consultant.
t
I
GI rev. 10/06
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications:
S. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers,or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING; SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill,as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each, layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer.The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock
materials greater than 12 inches .in, maximum dimension shall be. placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture contentas determined by ASTM D 1557-02.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified. i
I
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction,the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
01 rev. 10106
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02.Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area,and compaction equipment shall-make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6 Where practical,soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the
material. .
6:1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction; it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes;as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.9 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dour
or similar equipment, such that a dour track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill,as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2,shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions,cocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension .may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
I
I
G1 rev.10/06
i
6.2.3 For individual placement,sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by.the Consultant
6.2.5 Windrows should,generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending an the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses,shallbe 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow:
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and Flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills;as defined in Section 3.1.3,shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rack fill shall be placed.on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
pressure buildup does not develop. The subdreins shall be permanently connected
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate searing of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift fare and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 10/06
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.33. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the sail fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
variation with number of passes. The required number-of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill.In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum number of"passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed.The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant.can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
rill material, a 2-Foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant. i
f
I
GI rev. I0/06
i
i
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet.in
vertical elevation ofsoilbrsoil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rockfill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular. layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material.When.observations indicate that a layer of rock rill or any
portion thereof is below.that specified;the affected layer or area.shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
7.5 The Consultant should observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage
devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance. with project
specifications.
7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
I
I
I
i
GI mv. toms
1
7.6.1 Soil and Soll-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1 .Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556-02, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 2922-01, Density of Soil
and SoiMggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557-02. Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. 'Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829-03,Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2 Rock Fills
7.6.2.1 Field: Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1196-93 (Reapproved 1997)
Standard Method for Nonreparodve Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and
Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of
Airport and Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the. site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared, in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
GI rcv. 10106
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor-shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that die lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on die grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of-the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain'location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared, and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
01 mv. 10/06