HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 35181 Lot 1 Geotechnical Evaulation r-
I
�-,.
�
GEOTECHNICAL DUE-DILIGENCE EVALUATION
, LOT 1 OF TRACT 35181 (APN 909-370-042) "
�
� NEC OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY
, � TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
� �
�
�
,� ,
' Prepared for
, .
� - CT REALTY
,, , 65 Enterprise, Suite 150
� - Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
t
!
� .
i
� � Project No. 10788.001
�
� :
�_ .
August 7, 2014
,_;
�J
;
; :
,
♦
�_
�
�_:
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
�
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
�_..,.
�
r�
; Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
� , August 7, 2014
Project No. 10788.001
, CT Realty �
' 65 Enterprise, Suite 150
� Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
, _.
' Attention: Mr. David L. Ball, A.I.A., LEED
; � Subject: Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation
1 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042)
�
NEC of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway
i � Temecula, California
�
�
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton)
� ' is pleased to present this due-diligence report for the subject lot. This report provides a
� summary of our findings and briefly discusses site geologic/geotechnical opportunities
and/or constraints based on our review of in-house and published site-specific data. In
� addition, our preliminary recommendations presented herein should be subject to
� ,
further review/evaluation once grading and/or foundation plans become available.
� '
�, ; Based on our due-diligence review/evaluation, it is our opinion that the subject site is
suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are
ir implemented during design and construction phases of development.
�� :
The opportunity to be of continued service on this project is greatly appreciated. Please
�; call the undersigned if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
'� , LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
�1 ��
� . .� �� �. �'�' ���� �:,�c�
� � �
y,�' �f.�, �_.. r� .- �'����a�' �,
, ,-'� � :-' Na.�e+ipt I ;:� _
,,
�i,,. �. �C�R�10 ��
�`t��" l�i� � �' ��— #� - ,r'��°` , A��lOQ1�T
�__, . , . ��, �
Simon I. Saiid ,� Robert F. Riha ��,�
� GE 2641(Exp. 09/30/15) CEG 1921 (Exp. 02/29/16)
L� Principal Engineer Vice President/Sr. Principal Geologist
� Distribution: (3) Addressee (plus pdf via email)
41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103■Temecula, CA 92590-5661
�
951.296.0530■Fax 951.296.0534
r-
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
���
TABLE OF CONTENTS
, �,. �
� Section Paqe
' � 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION ... 1
................................:......................:..............................
� 1.1 Purpose and Scope......................................................................................... 1
�
1.2 Site Location and Description.......................................................................... 1
1.3 Proposed Development................................................................................... 1
� 1.4 Summa of Past Gradin Activities 2
rY g ................................................................
, , 2 . 0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS .......................... 3
'� 2.1 Site Reconnaissance ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 Regional Geologic Setting............................................................................... 3
f '
2.3 Site Geologic Units.......................................................................................... 3
�� 2.3.1 Stockpile............................................................................................4
2.3.2 Artificial Fill (documented)..................................................................4
r � 2.3.3 Pauba formation ................................................................................4
;
i 2.4 SurFace Water and Groundwater.....................................................................4
2.5 Ground Shaking ..............................................................................................4
f ' 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards ........................................................................... 5
� 2.6.1 Ground Rupture
................................................................................. 5
2.6.2 Landsliding......................................................................................... 5
I� ' 2.6.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ............................................... 5
l 3 . 0 summary of FINDINGS / Conclusions
..................................6
� , 4 . 0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 7
� 4.1 General ........................................................................................................... 7
4.2 General Grading Recommendations...............................................................7
� 4.2.1 Shrinkage..... 7
......................................................................................
� 4.3 Foundation Design.......................................................................................... 8
� , 4.3.1 General.............................................................................................. 8
I 4.3.2 Allowable Bearing Pressures............................................................. 8
l4.3.3 Vapor Retarder.................................................................................. 8
4.4 Settlement Considerations .............................................................................. 8
' 4.5 Footing Setback........�...................................................................................... 9
'. . 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................................. 9
4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control................................................................ 10
� 4.8 Soil Corrosivity.............................................................................................. 11
� 4.9 Pavement Desi n 11
,_ , g ..........................................................................................
�
5 . 0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ................................................................ 13
,_.
6 . 0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 14
References .......................................................................................................... 15
i
�_.
' ♦
i
�J Leighton
;
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
Accompanvinq Fiqures, Tables and Appendices
,_.
Fiqures/ Plates — at end of text
�,
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan / Existing Site Conditions
Figure 3 — Site Plan / Previous As-Graded Conditions
J
Figure 4 — Current Limits of Fault Zone per County of Riverside
��
Tables
' � Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients................................................... 5
� Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)............................... 10
,
Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design ........................................................................ 12
�
� Appendices
� ' Appendix A— General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
�. Appendix B —ASFE, Information Regarding Geotechnical Engineering
(
l ,
f '
i
�
f
� ;
� ,
1 '
t :
i
L ,
't :
j
�_.
t_.
�_:
, ♦
� �
ii
'�� Leighton
f
� Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
rr-'
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION
r,
1.1 Purpose and Scope
�� The purpose of this due-diligence geotechnical review is to describe current site
r__.
conditions and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations. Our scope of
! work included the following:
i
�_., ■ Review available geotechnical reports previously prepared for this site as
� well as other published geologic reports and maps available from our in-
' house library. In particular, we will review previous reports prepared by
�--, both Leighton and GeoTek for this site (see References).
I
i
` ' ■ Visit the site to observe current site conditions.
i' � ■ Analysis of the data will be conducted by a State of California licensed
`� Geotechnical Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist.
( ■ Prepare a report documenting the results of our review, identifying
'� - potentially significant constraints to development (if any) and provide
� ,
preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site development.
l Additional geotechnical evaluations or review should be anticipated as site
( '
development and/or grading plans become available.
�
�` " 1.2 Site Location and Description
r ,
'� This site is located at the intersection of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway
(northeast corner), in the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1). The site is
i` approximately 14-acre graded pad and currently referred to as Lot 1 of Tract
� � 35181 for existing Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) building. Onsite
vegetation generally consists of seasonal grasses and weeds. A large stock pile
'�
is located in the western portion of the site (see Figure 2). Access to the site is
through a locked gate off of Dendy Parkway.
'� , 1.3 Proposed Development
! Based on discussions with you and SB&O (project civil engineer), we understand
��__. that the site will be developed to host typical tilt-up structures for
commercial/office use. Minor (±3 feet) cut and fill grading is anticipated to
� achieve the new site configuration. However, the site might be raised by about 5
�_�
to 6 feet to accommodate potential use of existing stockpile.
�� ♦
1
� Leighton
r'�
' Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r-.
, . 1.4 Summary of Past Grading Activities
;
� Based on our past experience on this site and review of available in-house data
; , (see References), the following is a summary of past grading activities and/or
findings associated with this site:
;' ■ The current Lot 1 was initially rough graded in 2006 as part of an overall
i ; site referred to as "Temecula 52" (TM 29162).
<< � ■ Prior to grading, the site was used for sand mining operations and resulted
in several stockpiles and disturbance of near surface soils (GeoTek,
2006). As such, rough grading included over-excavation of up to 25 feet
� ' below ground surface to remove loose/unsuitable soils.
,_ ,�
■ As per instructions of the archeologists at time of rough grading, two main
� , areas (see Figure 3) were identified as "Indian Burial Ground" and as
, , such, required remedial grading was not perFormed in those areas which
only received fill.
{
� ■ Existing stockpile was generally generated from the excavation of cut
slopes along the west side of the adjacent PHS building pad that was
( completed in August 2008 (Leighton, 2009).
l ,
( '.
�� ,
�
'i
�
,
I
�_.
', .
�
�� .
;
,�
♦
:_:
2
-� Leighton
f •.
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
+__,
2 . 0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
; �
_,I
2.1 Site Reconnaissance
� Based on a site reconnaissance perFormed by Leighton on August 1, 2014, the
I ,
following is a summary of our field observations:
� ■ The site is generally in the same condition as described in the as-graded soils
report (GeoTek, 2006) with the exception of a large stockpile covering most of
� the western portion of the site. In addition, a water quality basin is located in
the western corner of the site, which was constructed as part of the offsite
, .
drainage improvements for the adjacent PHS building pad.
�� .
SurFace soils appear dry and disturbed by vegetative growth and weathering,
, especially adjacent to existing basins.
�`
� ■ The site is currently fenced with access through a locked gate off of Dendy
Parkway.
� � 2.2 Regional Geologic Setting
jThe subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
,,
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This province is
� characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend
�, , northwestward. Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region has
�
created the geomorphology present today.
�
'�-, Specifically, the property located along the southern portion of a fault controlled
down dropped graben, known as the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is
'� bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar Fault and on the southwest by the
�
Willard Fault. The Murrieta Creek-Temecula segment of the active Elsinore Fault
; Zone encroaches approximately 300 feet into the property eastern boundary (see
t Figures 2 and 3). However, current County of Riverside seismic hazard maps
�
show fault zone to extend further west into the property (see Figure 4).
;_ ,.
2.3 Site Geologic Units
Our field observations and review of pertinent literature (see References) indicate
`-� that the site is generally covered by artificial fill underlain at depth by Pauba
formation and/or older alluvium. These materials are further described below:
,_
,� ♦
;_�
3
�_� Leight�n
i Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
�--_.
2.3.1 Stockpile
i
� The existing stockpile covers most of the western portion of the site (see
Figure 2). Based on in-house data and our field observations during
!r ' grading of the adjacent PHS building pad, the stockpile was generally
generated from the excavation of the cut slopes along the west side of
PHS building. As such, it should be expected that some portions of the
` stockpile will contain high rock content due to excavation in the
� metasedimentary rock formation. In addition, oversize rock (>6-inch in
r �
size) may exceed 20 percent in some rock zones within the stockpile.
� 2.3.2 Artificial Fill (documented)
j ' As indicated before, grading to existing pad elevation (not including
'� stockpile) resulted in over-excavation of up 25 feet below original ground
surface (GeoTek, 2006). As such, the graded pad is currently underlain
� ' by a compacted fill mat varying in depth from approximately 4 to 25 feet.
�. ; However, areas referred to as "Indian Burial Ground" only received fill
without the required remedial grading. The reported near surFace soils
f have low expansion potential (0<EI<51).
� :
2.3.3 Pauba formation
( Per the soils report (GeoTek, 2005), the site is underlain at depth by
� .
relatively dense sandy materials (locally referred to as Pauba Sands
� and/or older alluvium). These materials were considered dense/ suitable
� , for support of additional fills or structural improvements.
,� 2.4 Surface Water and Groundwater
� �
No surFace water was observed during our site reconnaissance. Local perched
� � water may be encountered at depth or adjacent to existing desilting/detention
��-- basins.
� 2.5 Ground�Shaking
i :
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe
�' earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern
�_�
California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily
; upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response
`�. . (soil type) characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients based on the
2013 California Building Code (CBC) are provided in following table:
��
� ♦
4
'� Lesgh�on
r _.
� Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r-
i
Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients
� ��
i
-. . . . • .
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.1836
( ' Site Latitude decimal de rees 33.5168
� Site Class Definition D
r ,
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS
1.90
� Ma ed S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 1 s Period, S� 0.77
1
� Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0
r , Lon Period Site Coefficient at 1 s Period, F� 1.5
� Ad�usted S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.90
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM� 1.16
�r� Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SpS 1.23
i . Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, Sp� 0.77
*g-Gravity acceleration
��'
� 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards
t
'; Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking
` ' during an earthquake include ground rupture, landsliding, and liquefaction and/or
, , dynamic settlement. These hazards are discussed in the following sections.
�
2.6.1 Ground Rupture
f ' Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-
� � existing active faults. As such, a ground rupture hazard exists within the
eastern portion of the site unless further studies (fault trenching) are
� performed to prove otherwise.
L�
�,
2.6.2 Landslidinq
� ; Ground shaking during earthquakes can result in landsliding on natural
slopes. No evidence of existing landslides was observed during our field
; mapping or during the previous field investigations of the subject site.
l ,
2.6.3 Liquefaction and Dvnamic Settlement
� Due to the dense nature of the underlying soils materials and lack of
� � shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered
'�
very low.
�:
i_;
� ♦
�_�
� 5
�� Le�ghton
r
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
���
3 . 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this geotechnical due-diligence review, the major geotechnical
Il , opportunities and/or constraints that may affect site development are as follows:
r ,
■ Onsite stockpile soils are not suitable for support of settlement-sensitive structures.
� The existing stockpile is likely to contain zones of oversize rock that may not be
` suitable for placement within upper 5 feet of building pads As such, screening of
� , oversize rock may be required if the stockpile materials are to be used onsite.
■ Onsite soils below current pad grades are expected to generally consist of artificial
,
fills compacted to minimum of 90 percent per ASTM 1557. These materials are
considered suitable for foundation support provided actual conditions are further
' verified during construction or by additional field evaluations. At minimum, the
upper 12 to 18 inches of surface soils should be scarified and recompacted prior to
`( placement of any additional fill or foundation construction.
■ The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as fill materials provided they are
`i relatively free of organic material and/or any deleterious materials and oversize
� � materials/rock (>6-inch in diameter).
( , ■ A ground rupture hazard exists within the eastern portion of the site and hence
l ; structural setbacks will be required from the designated fault zones unless further
studies (i.e. fault trenching) are perFormed to address such hazard. .
� �
� ; ■ The "Indian Burial Ground" areas are susceptible to excessive settlement and
settlement-sensitive structures should not be constructed within the mapped areas
(Figure 3).
��"� Based on the revious laborato testin results the onsite earth materials are
' p rY 9 ,
� expected to generally possess a low expansion potential (EI<51).
�
'- � ■ Conventional spread and/or continuous wall footings are considered suitable
foundation system for the proposed buildings.
r �
'.- -' ■ Shrinkage of stockpile soils should be anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 15
percent. A subsidence value of 0.1 feet may be considered for planning purposes
I for compression of surface material due scarification and recompaction.
'_J
�
�_J
� �� ♦
, 6
�;� Leight�n
T-
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r,
� , 4 . 0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
�-,
4.1 General
�
� The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint
, provided our recommendations included in this report are implemented during
� design and construction phases of development. However, these
recommendations should be further evaluated or reviewed based on site-specific
� , development plans and prevailing geologic conditions during construction.
f _.
4.2 General Grading Recommendations
i
� Earthwork should be perFormed in accordance with the General Earthwork and
Grading Specifications included in Appendix A. The recommendations contained
( � in Appendix A, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading
projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this
� � project. Additional specific recommendations may be warranted based on
l ; proposed site grading and prevailing soils condition encountered during
construction. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor
should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill
� ' ro erl in accordance with the ro'ect s ecifications. Additional site-s ecific
p p Y p J p p
� � evaluations should be performed when site grading plans are developed.
� ;
4.2.1 Shrinkaqe
� �
� The volume change of stockpile soils upon recompaction is expected to
' � vary depending on location and rock content. The in-place and
� compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall
determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we
� " recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to
adjust grades slightly to accommodate some variation. Based on our
experience with similar soils, we expect recompaction shrinkage (when
'"' recompacted to an average 92 percent of ASTM D1557) of 5- to 15-
� percent by volume for the stockpile materials. A subsidence value of 0.1
�_,
feet may be considered for planning purposes for compression of surface
material due scarification and recompaction
I� ;.
��i_,
� ♦
�
� 7
�� L�ight�n
r,
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula, California August 7,2014
I,,
�
;-, 4.3 Foundation Design
4.3.1 General
, ,
' The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-
' on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based
on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. Based on
`I the project as-graded soils reports (GeoTek, 2006), low expansive soils
` (0<EI<51) should be anticipated on this site.
r 4.3.2 Allowable Bearinq Pressures
1
,-,
Based on the recommendations included in Section 3.2 above, the following
;' bearing pressures may be used for design of foundations:
�
■ Allowable vertical bearinq pressure: 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot)
� � for a minimum 12 inches embedment into compacted fill and a minimum
footing width of 12 inches. This value can be increased by one-third for
, _ transient or temporary loads (e.g., seismic, wind).
1
i , ■ Lateral bearinq pressure: 3,000 psf/foot per foot of depth and
embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf.
� ■ Slidinq Coefficient: A sliding coefficient of 0.35 may be used for soil to
structural concrete interface.
( 4.3.3 Vapor Retarder
� �
It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all
� slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor
� ,� retarders may retard but not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement
from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor
� transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives.
� ; Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission
evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/
firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate fihe general and specific
I : moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed
construction. This person/firm should provide recommendations for
( mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on
�_; various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. The slab
subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete.
�
'- � 4.4 Settlement Considerations
Fill thickness on the project site is expected to range up to approximately 25 feet.
�" Compressibility of properly placed compacted fills is anticipated to be relatively
� ♦
I
�
; 8
��, Leight�n
r_,
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
/
low. We recommend that the planned buildings be designed in anticipation of up
; to 1 inch of total settlement with %2-inch of differential settlement across a lateral
distance of 40 feet (1/480 angular distortion).
r,
'i 4.5 Footing Setback
r ' We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes
<< for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.).
This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing
�( horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a
,
minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be
� ' less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet.
'�
Soils within the structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability.
� � Improvements such as retaining walls, pools, decks, sidewalks, fences, or
' ' pavements constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral
T , movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such
� , improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and
grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened
� ' footing should meet the setback as described above.
� :
r �
4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures
� �
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding
� , horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear
� .i strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If
the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot
� be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
�-- designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the
,
resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining
' walls backfilled with non-expansive soils should be designed using the following
i ;
equivalent fluid pressures:
I
��
't_;
;
LJ
� ♦
�
��
� � 9
�1 Leighton
r.
� Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r-'
` �
Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)
( . . . . . . � • .
' . . .
Active 37 50
At-Rest 50 80
Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down)
! * This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of
' the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1) grades
exist in front of walls, then they should be designed using passive values
reduced to'/2 of level backfill passive resistance values.
��� �
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active
equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils
� that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top
(non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest
( equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for
< ,
design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the
+ ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the
t � heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping
,
backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a
� backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight
values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us.
j ' Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to
� � check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall
, design.
����
All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe
1 should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non-
�_: expansive (EI <_ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be
! used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the
l_�
28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer
that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction
�� equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural
Engineer.
i ��
��- 4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control
�i All drainage should be directed away from structures (buildings, retaining walls
l-" etc.) by means of approved permanent or temporary drainage devices.
i ♦
�_:
10
��,� Leighton
r-
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042) Temecula California August 7,2014
�-
Adequate storm drainage should be provided to avoid siltation of any temporary
� catch basins. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the
structures or pavements. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a
�� minimum 2 percent gradient away from the structures for a distance of at least 5
feet. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion and runoff during
construction should also be implemented in accordance with the local grading
� ordinances.
; 4.8 Soil Corrosivity
�
Factors contributing to soil corrosivity commonly include soluble sulfate and
chloride concentrations, soil pH, and minimum soil resistivity. Soluble sulfates
�, may cause corrosion of concrete in contact with the soil. High chloride levels
tend to reduce soil resistivity and break down otherwise protective surFace
�J deposits, which can result in corrosion of buried steel or reinforced concrete
structures. Low minimum resistivity and or high soil pH indicate a potential for
(- corrosion to buried metal conduits or other metal improvements.
L�
Soil corrosivity testing was limited to soluble sulfate and chloride content testing
� , during the previous site grading. Based on Leighton's experience with similar
� geologic units, we anticipate that the onsite soils likely possess a negligible
concentration of soluble sulfates and a relatively neutral soil pH. Elevated
� , chloride concentrations may be encountered. .
( Site-specific soil corrosivity testing should be perFormed during future site fine-
L_�� grading and pad preparation. A corrosion engineer should be consulted to review
the soil corrosion potential and provide specific recommendations if corrosion
� sensitive materials are to be used.
�_.
4.9 Pavement Design
`J In order to rovide the followin relimina recommendations, we have assumed
p J p rY
f an R-value of 35 for preliminary design purposes. These recommendations are
�, intended for planning purposes only and should not supersede minimum City
requirements. For the final pavement design, appropriate traffic indices should
Lbe selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and
representative samples of actual subgrade materials should be tested for R-
, value.
L
� �
11
��; Le�gh�on
I '
'� Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
i -
Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design
(-,
� .
•- � . . - - � �.. -.. :. � :
�� . - . - - -
4.5 to 5 3.0 4
5.5 to 6 3.5 6
r � 6.5 to 7 4.0 7
I
I .
The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at
!` � least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture-
' conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section
is constructed. Proof-rolling subgrade to identify localized areas of yielding
+ � subgrade (if any) should be perFormed prior to placement of aggregate base and
under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
�
` Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95
( percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557.
I �; Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction" (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base
� '' having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic concrete should be placed on
�� -� compacted aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative
, , compaction based on the laboratory standards ASTM D1561 and D2726.
�
The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as
minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed,
�� -1 increased maintenance and repair may be needed.
� ,
� ,
I(_ .
i
�_�
I
�_,
♦
'; .
; 12
' Leighton
�_�
r--
� Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula, California August 7,2014
, 5 . 0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor
;r � perFormances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to
� inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the
. � opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid. Additional
j ' geotechnical explorations and/or analyses may be required based on final development
plans. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment
' further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
In addition, reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site
' grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and
� the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction.
i' Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and
'� verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical
conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical
� � observation and testing should be provided:
■ After completion of site demolition and clearing,
� ■ During preparation and overexcavation of surFace soils as described herein,
■ During compaction of all fill materials,
� ■ After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete,
■ During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and
� ■ When any unusual conditions are encountered.
t .
ji .
,i
� _
; .
i_.
I
i __
,
,
�
�_.
i
�
�_�
I �
13
��,� Leighton
r �
)
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r' ��
��
6 . 0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for CT Realty , based on their needs, directions, and
� � requirements at the time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied
' upon by any party except CT Realty , with whom Leighton contracted for the work. Use
, � of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use
j of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton
from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance,
' regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton.
�
r
The recommendations in this due-diligence geotechnical report should be reviewed in
; light of changes to the current site design. The conclusions and recommendations in
� this review and the referenced reports are based in part upon data that was obtained
r from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests.
i ; Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that
� �
differing geotechnical or geological subsurFace conditions can and do occur. Therefore,
j the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this review and previous
�� reports can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to review foundation
plans and observe the subsurface conditions during construction.
�
� :
The client is referred to Appendix B regarding important information provided by the
+ � Associated Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) on geotechnical engineering studies
� � and reports and their applicability.
� .
�
�I ,
f
�
l .
( � .
I
' ,
�
__J
�
� /
�
I ♦
14
`� Leighton
r-�
'
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
r
i
, . REFERENCES
;
i
ASCE, 2010, ASCE Standard 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
r ' Structures by Structural Engineering Institute, ISBN 0-7844-0809-2, Second
Printing, Published in 2010.
� � California Building Code, 2013, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume
� 2of2.
� GeoTek, Inc., 2005, Addendum Geotechnical Report, Temecula 52 - Temecula,
i California. Project No. 3681 SD3, Dated February 7.
; � GeoTek, Inc., 2006, Interim Report of Geotechnical Testing and Observation Services
� during Earthwork Construction, Temecula 52 Project, City of Temecula,
California. Project No. 3009SD3, Dated July 31, 2006.
�
'� Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps,
� � Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special
( ; Publication 42 Interim Revision.
I � Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2008, Interim As-graded Soils Report, Proposed PHS
{ ; Building (Tract No. 35181), Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway,
Temecula, California, dated September 9, 2008.
� SB&O, 2007, Precise Grading Plans, Tract#35181, print date October 22, 2007
� �
; United States Geological Survey, (USGS), 2014, an Interactive Computer Program
� ; Published on USGS Website to Calculate Seismic Response and Design
Parameters based on ASCE 7-10 procedures.
r
I
i
�..
� � .
�L�
�
l_�
, ��
�_
I
� .
' ♦
�
� � 15
���;� �eighton
*— — -4, T� ,o: ��'�, �,�-�,� � e� ,r�, } r i �, .�
� f�� �,,; �„AM ��. s�.� s � �� f 'w s:` k `f{
� � � � ." ��'�"T .�,''�� , ` ,� , ''��yt� g . 0 v,'"�y I
, �
, ��.
' � .��r � .3 ` Pi y ��. x � � ( 1� _.. 4�% "�'.��� +3�, r '�if-, 1 .i
< ," � � ✓ �,�A�'�4 �, '" � � , �^p� `y � M V
" ,
.
. '�� �g,t�►
:.r��. .� �� . � '` ��.:. ��m� :� �L.A��$' �,� '. N�'� `�4['r b� ,r'* f rf ��
� ' �%� �� ��+ �e,,,w�` j � 3 �� ,,, � a
, .
�°' N �•, � tiy ^. '�f1�! . t . '.4 � " a � �i
�''�1� �' ° � �1a�" ��' t �>: � � d 4
y fr � �,. , `� tit
:
r .,� "� *�;>r ' ,�, ' ,,^��� � r
' � k"s},, ��. �� � `K : sy yr �"� , , � ':i,
1 �.. �.� ,� ,�r�, ' T?. 0�b*'S„ �w� 1 �+, ��%'�!�,+�I
�
l ' y � �.� r� � �`.�sAp�" �rj f�'' s. .,�D'ar ', . � i`1
a
1 � • �
�
r " �� H��x° ���� °� ��ti, ,�$��r,� r+�'�4� �� .y4��'»" ` i „1
, . ,; _; �,�,
� "' �,� "t'`'' .r�
_
.q. . , t , �, y �� ,��,. ;v �,"` ,�"��"�r�C�° �V� i+'��" ��'j �'
� . '"'_ � � � .�� � .',�� q�J� * ��. ��5� � � ,�`-f p `'+,:;
• .,�r'.' "� .��"�,� f��,'"a� "�,�� � ;r', r "
,. � .,
�tc� �' � ,'44��F�'� ,� �,� , �
' . .°� . .�'�.. ; ... � � 31 �� �3,. ,�z:R
� = k� 'Y ,_ � ,��� �'`���.���` �,� °.:�� ;r ��' �j � :
, � �� . �, � .� �` ,. � ;:� �i
:�,
_ �,� . G-�. ,,, . .. �'"+�,0' 1� g�F 4��.
. A3
,,� ':., . . ..,• , �� ;. LR '
��'� . l��` .+" � . � ��'i��d'��-�"'�&4� �� ��� l��'�;t � �'.i
. � `. ,�c��'�� ��,� '�k, �,-�"��, �
� `. `>.`` �*'� •
. , .,
�
. �
, � �� _� � �
� -� . ( '� �'�,�1� 'r .,�
�`�., ,�
.. - � �.. _;,r'"�r'��i,�, �f,�` �c� �sc;2
�i= ��, � �-,� �y, � ,._ . /�yS .����
. _ . , � 1 , '�..
. _ �.,�� " �� �' ��`
.,. �, . � .. . _ - „�' :. �.4 ���'�i�1�`,���. .ak .��,:
� '� ; - . . �� ��
.
_ �: �
� . �. �
\ "�
� �, �,�����" `
. _ . , �.. ,, � ��y ..A���,
� ,
, , �. �.: �\ti ,
.. . �:'. - , �
� ^. �i l� ����� �\� � ",w„-�O ���` .o-+
�f �
.� �l���y `
� °• '�� '.��"►�t�
;. �°',;�� ' y`� �"'` ,1 r�
`� � � r ,r� � eP "�'+ �,� �,
� �.,..�,...,�,.....,.�...�:;,.� 5 = a� 3 � � ,��� ��'� .��,��;
� ���
��,,,,,,,„,�.__ '����\ ��` r� � �� � ��.� �r� �
; � .'��� :�� . �:. ��
' � �.....w' �r� �,q �. ;��.}�,��ti ', ��a � +
;
. ° t .. ...."�i _: �� Rs� <;�. �'t+�M''� e'� .� �g+�'� d" 'a . I
r
I,,-....� . ,� y_._�.�. '� °v.5 � �'� i ',�.y o ♦ `c ..-i
, � �� ��� � ...� # � ;� 4.ar'. � �� ` r1�r.
' �3 ti„ . �+ �AI�, '� � 4"h\� �
. i' � � �"� ���'!�, ✓ 7��„�% �'4� �: ti��
` _ .t W� �„� �vj���.� �, �,N w, o-,d
i . ,� ���. �; � % ,� . , �`�. �
a
,4 ,
���,�• s�, '�, '�� '�
` � �'`� �#�s ','�& �� y ���'" ��' �� ,��1 ,
t v'�', ♦ '�" +w � �`' i , .
� !� '� . � ����;�,4 ��#+��'i
�, " ,.. ,' , �'� "., ,. " �^ ,. : ".: 1������:
� ' g �' `.,-
>�
� , . ��' � ,� y. ,
� � s � �����'»?+�! ��� 'k��i�,',
� �4 � '�� `�
-_ ,�► .
_ , �„..
- . �
,_ � '�.�
� � - � � `� �� .� . ��
� � }� :
I �' � � .,
�o �e[�o�D��o� oo-p -o�-o o-oo�j�Q -oo .�o �
� ��� � ��� r �—P�'/w,vi:,�.ie�Ih�J�•,,� D' �lf�C�o G�a - .o 0 o p °- o o UUJo UI:JUVo��po .
0 o a �I td�o-'�0�� �u m�o a a a G�O�94 C�rBo o- o -o
-- C�L'�G3C�4c��5� .
�
- . - � : �� . _� - - �
� � � � .
- ��� �. - � . � �
_ . _ ,
• � - � '
- - - - •
- . .
_ ,
.s —�•- --�•-- --�--=--__—��''y.,_..��
�� f � �'�� � .._��� � �` ��I r-- -^ ---�-�"'.��J'�! �^.>t�r-�! � +�;�...�. � -- �
� �+ � -�!1 �" "�.�1��ir - -_ �� -..s:����'���"„ _ ��
�..�. ���.�..r.���� `
ir� ,
'♦ ����P !1 � � � I
� , �. � � � �` * • i
�, _.` � ��. .� .
, _.. _ _ �_ r_ _�.__ ,
— , — ,�. .l..i--
i �. i �� -=:� _"�--�-'_:.— `: _ - - - = r-- r __..��
_ ,_,_ ---�_��`"`""'� 1ti1111\ �/� � II���
�� .^ .t �� ,��t` �---'�'_"'� - I� - r-- - _ � �
.. '�}.� :.... .� -
. , . �
� ..._. ...... ,� - - - '- -
�
� _
_ __ I,
-� .-.-.�.��'�!�..._._ r�.'#%f�,�.�.. �,�. ���, -. f - - ' - ��� `'
' - � - �� `i�,.� ���1 � JJ - s �� ��� - �A �
� _ - ,
r
--'-— _..._�_. -
�,������r����� � -.-^_—� .,.._-'_� . �J"�� � `n _ - -p i�; .^ry'i�f
_ � �
� :
r r v
�-_
r
..
--�, J� �r�
' �
_._.� : � ._ .� - -_,.� _:.,.�- ' � �� �
I 'r t. rii� N� t�'. �►'
.�_ �- �
__ ___—.---__�__.�..� _ __��.....�.�...�_ �V
(j'� i�;I�I,�ij �
,. —�-- - .__ _ _ _..,- ��a ap �'' ,- a-- s �,�;ij�,��i�, � .
�� _.��- -- __ ;� , . ., a. . �ii���� �� .
. . �� . �� i �i -.•. ., � �, � �' �;�;�{
� � � � • i_J/ �� � ♦,�/� , �11���;���I �
I \ ,.�I:'II I'I� /
� � � ,� �����I�!� ��
�,,�,1�� �
�.. ~ �•.1 �1' � ���� f �
�� 14�• r 1� I � I�i�n inni`i.y� '� �� ♦ � � i
, ,� >. y_ : - _ �w, /, �
' �[�.� 1 � ' �r } ,� � %
+ rX./�, � i � � �' _ ` -_ k:,•,,,� �� '
u�, ��� 1:' � ` i, � i \�:�. ? ���
r, � r . `�'�`�, `'� J
� '`I� � r � � y /. ���
� r�.� �r I 'i �����;. / /
!� � r ' � f/��
�
� I . � �;.>.' r://�,�//
�� � � � - �• .- � �f�����
' r
� . , . , ���� � i,
� - .� .- •, ;� � li�„��;r
, ,, �, , "� ,i ���
- i , I� '1� � . ., a• ., x, •. ;',�!,'��
� --. � � ,1 ;i
: ,�'' � � ;.�.� �.
�F ( ' ;� � r
t
i ' � •� " � ' - '.: '�'' ''
.� ;�;� ;��
. , ,.
,-
�
� '� � � , �� 'i�,.;
; ( , ,� � �'�� ��� ��
: , , �,
� I Fj� � ' �,, ,I
11�1 l � ; II{��:{
l - - ` ` ''
,
� � ` •. • _ _ ' ;i
� � � ` j _ 'i ,
` � � � 1 • • • r • _ ,` �,'
� � +' , �,1 :. .�
� � � � �,!
#IM~ I i � I �
� • � �� � � (���', , �,,
�. � � , , �r1
=w.�:_ <., � ,
�. , ; '�i �' � �- ,,'''
,
� ' '� �� � - - �. ;
,; �<
'��' � ti � ��
.
� ���
. :
i' � , ��
,.... ;
J.'� .'� � __ i MT— .,l`.t"^`�.t .y'::�� � �� ��' '''
�i � � � � '..i�'I I ��'
/I ,`• � �i I ' ��)�..};��
e'"['� i
� ��i ,� � �,
� I� I��k" �..__.���ifl ?�!+ � � �' � ` ��,
IIrI�M �i '� � �" ����� 9 �. � �.._ - ..�._,_�__ ��'� �.ri����
, �� !. ... �I .'!i i,y�
���- ����� f �
�, �i '��I �� 1 , _ ">>- -_._ , �� � Y, �;i'i,;
��k�''!�►J 4'.,�''`�""...'� " `—1�� f
:
� ' � +� I �.--- =_:._�...._:- _ '�1 s. ,��..�
Y� � � �i'�+� ����ra� r� _ ' r�y;,t��1 -___ ;�
t,� �"_--'^'-�.�r:��'� ���~�► CF— -�, ', - ., 4 � �.
. �
�
._� � �..
' �+�.�,�v�!�� 'c�"���� �`_.• . � ,,,,�' � ':i'' �
ry.�F 7 .'
� ` � 'y�r '+���� / / �� � �_ '" 1���1
. � �l�r�-i f,/ / / +� t -1'„�� -'i 7` __
,�'f -�ir _^-,...�i�,� �\c..
,�� r�,�� r - r`�\'� �=`'-�'`'`- ''
�-' :�l��fC�,:'//�I� '� ' - '�,� \'��";��`�`��__ i ��
n � � T��� �.. ;�,-�:���`��,�� �.�.
• 1 • , _ , - - - �� `' �:,,�`-`�t-;.��.��� I,�
` � �_
�. ., --. . _ �.
.._ ... � �`.�� ',a
�
' - , .'�`- �•` '`� "r ,,"-��
- �� - -_=;'= : ,.^- i�
� � � i � � �' � 3�� �i� yI, ,�,
M1T ` � 1. "ti 1 �J
. • �� .. >i �v` I' F..
�' �� ' �. �^J�l�rfll�,�
o • • - 1i � c ' 1 : 1 ��i � :� .
�� ..., ~���
� -�._ _ -�"�wA►-."�,..����� �'�'�� ����
.�,..-. --.�.�,. - ._�.�.,. �- � ,�"�„r--�.
-.- �,.�, .s. �,r
.�:..:� �::..��;. -�ti--�� -. .�.K ��,. ,�
� �,
�'.=.` �`�'""' Y .�i
��• -.�,,,, "' ' , ' -�.r ;"`�, _�.�.,,�r ae,,,,�-,-,���r�'�G'�':�.�►'��r -_�—__`�,i. - .. �.�`�;:�� '���� / + f;
��� � � � �`�d' ���� �y r� � � �. jr
�� 'a �, ���^��r+� / � � �S ' t 1 1 1 i 1 I 1
^r � '� '� �� ,j�� �k ( � �� � �
� � r � �- , � � � i � ,
i � �''�.-�..-�/ � � � -
j � y � r. � �, +
� �• ��� ��� , � _
� - �...r� � �1► � � .
r �, � � � *�'� .���� /�..�� ►.�. �o`.../i ..
� !l� �� �� � ��� � j j� � ~'�� �
,� � �,� =�,��. _ � � . � � J�'�I,��:. �i.�► ���i/�' ,.
��,� � :�� �.� � �. � �.. �. . � �.
,�_ �,�,�� :��.�- �
/ :� .�-,r,Y.�� �. � � ..
L/j "�� . ► r� � ���f , I d
. �_/-`�� � � ''� ► � , . ���
�
`�' ���1�// � � G � /� � ��„� � /� 'll�'x'
,�:,� , �.. �,,., i �. �'. ,, �
� , � �;r � , , � � ( , � �-. , . � � � � � . �..� � ♦� � ,
�;r ?,;� , : ,,.� � �� ; � , ,/ ,✓'' ; + 1 � .
�� , r � /� ,
. , , � ,�'
�1 ��1�, •. .r � � � .:,
r ��'�• # 'U+�'� r '..:..�'' � i } , � �� J � r .�` .t� /
� �d r' t '�z 1 � � / � � �'' t
%S ,. /f_ �'' ��Y 'y �' l+e�,. � � ,�'" /:
I �f � �' \ � ���
� � l- � �� , � -- ir �i► �
� t � t' � • - --- -- � �� . . . �_ .
+"��, � , - i ��� �, �, '� .,, r / _
.� _ �
�"'��•' ��..� � w _..._ t . _ - Y ,` �-/- �/,, , _ `t ,,`�:._ _�■` �'� p, ,� - ' `
Y i�_.c � ' � '!; � ��� c � � ,f ' r',�-�� �\ ''�'vi'� ' ��"Y' _
�� I , ; , r , :Y :,y� �_ � � ..
• _��
� �:7 - � ' �� :
, � / � �, , "'�..T`..,� �
, j . ' �`�,r ,��*�� , ' �I► �
� �, � � , �
� •�� / 1 L ?i�.� �' '� �ftl •�`�.� '� i
� ` �' I.'� _ . � ,�•� A�J I�. ��•� �" }1 ' •
, , rd �"� '.� t ,� � ,.� �1 ,�r�,�
k �1 l �'... y� _ - ��,.r �'4�/`r—`—�,�� ,� '� - 1!d��+��` -
� �- Y � \r�� .��.• A • �����'�� v�� � �r� �,�� +�-�
t , ' r , . _ � % �+ ' �' X �_ ` ' �'
y . � l ,�,,,.i.�. � � . �� � , � ���r a �,
��� �, `�� �� �\ ��'�Y,i�� �� ��; � ,�A 1�''
`' =1 � � �"�,��,' l' `��' �" ,�r� ` y � °�
� : � '�'�
�'- �� � �•�>�� �• • �� I -�'#►
<. ..- `.i � � �x ; .A.t� �'' 1 �,s!'��ll '�=�,'1 �i ' � , � F� � � � �
� .� t. p�
}f�►-'�r' y `j+'/t"a,�� �r'� ,.rX}�, t `,, (�'Y� � �q� �. :� l��{_.` .���, � �i� � � r : , i 1 � �
{ �' 1� U,r��� �� �� � t�.• `� �i �y' �• ��~�,� ,,
�1 / � �� � ,� �,� ,�} `, ��..T a
�, ''v- `� ...�_-_.r , _ �/�`� ,�,;� aID.����i/ �,�L ,�p �
,�. � , �y�,.. ;,. � _ ���� � -
� � � � � � ViR� � `� �.i�"'i 1� �� .�T � �
► !, f' ,,� �i���rJ �� �w� � ��, .
� � �t"`., , y , r''+�';'�' r� � � ' �. - .
�� �� � � • 1 •� � � r ■ ■
� � •''�i►r'�' ��,"'s►�•► y �r� - , �t � �� �" � +�� ��i."�� :
' ��;,,,:,`�'"�y'�"s'� '.. � `� ,�� 1, ,�`�' �, - 'R : . � .�'� !��'��:1 1 ,� '��.1���r ' � :. . .
o�...�� �\ � T: ' � �,� r�' ��� � .r>- �r
ti,�_.���� `/or-" �+'.'t`"--� �.� �. �,�"'� �" ..,►,r���
'�P�� y '.�.-.�.�+/�"�J_`� _. _.......... �'��..i, s � 1 y�j������ ( �y .,�,_ r�v ,�� � 1 � ,Gj
`�,� _..'�r.�{�r � e � • �,�� i rY , ZJ r���!l.+T y,r`��i�'�� � r-% ' ) � f�
/� � a..�iwi� �
�` ,• • ' � � 4.f �r, +�i- � a 1 •r
� �. _ � � � �s: . '� �% , • 1
'. �,�,���►.�� ��� ��'�:� ,�y ��,�� :.
� , �►. .�' .d
�����r.�:�•�;,, `•r. �r t. `�.�i�� t,+lF.%,i��.�`� �� �~'� '� � F
- � �� �" - - - - -'� h � �`��",(����� "�� �► � r �
�8 ���. �_.wa� �• • ��"`�� �N -J�� s � �
� ��+� + '� ��� �� 1
�`�� �` �� �,��"�:I.,�.'�;;���� �;. . .
• � + � � � � • -__ ` G�'� � �,'-�`-�'',�Y,��':t:�h.�y� ' '�_ y t
�}► r y '
. . . - - �: . ��� � ''�d )�! �
,� � �� �j�r - .� .
, .. . � � �.
, . - . - . - . - � , �
�. _ . �- , 1 �
,1, � �
• � �� � 'O , , `I �
. � � : ,
_ i • ' �� �. ' �• � y ���. � �
�� w � n �`
h,_� ,_
��
�.,.��.. L ��
: �1��
��
{:.,:'
�t:.
}�y.
¢' �+? 3
�''~" ���' .
.'-`��-- E.'.��jS
d � �'
� 3 ,
� ��d��� 4 � �
�� ,g�`��� .,, .
� • �L �...
�.
� 4a ����,�;.,�_
� b����� ' '--
. - .
, � �.
; �j_ r; ���
:�% 'd r- �. �� . -
�.. .'yf � p Y;, r. —
_';51°.�1�'.- '' .`.'..
l' � ,
YI?" ��� �,�'��, .� i 's
� � �'� 1 y� 2 �e, � ..
' �Vt ,42"+��� ��'pa" ' � Fl
� '��� . 1!3� :�. � � "F�� � � �
�_ ���' f$ { �° � T r -I
— —� � r :�
'�, "+y �� .. ,� -
. .,� �.a�`'�' tyd-� w�.' ,� �;�.
�
�� 3
� �'a '���., �r
ry+' ���4. "�, "1 � '�r
, . s, ei*, �54 � �.� .'a
I�r� � ��! ��� y� .4b�'.. �;,,,,: �e'� � {�fiL'� z�h''...
.h � 4 �„�, i.:,: � � {� ,� ��ffi
'a*�,, • ��a' }
�� g,' �f � ' '�a ��`�7'.3.q1 � .
r ,
'i .°�+ � ' • '.e �"
f t � ' p^
�;� . ¢ � .�� ^p�4 "w-'�-LL y�.. � ..�''
"�:
d .�4 z
� ,,.� .-Fr� �..S.� w�y ' �uu
4 y4 � s
$" '-§.
ne' 'F° ,. �i}: �`2ue, .�kb � . 7 1'�a.;' .
# C- "d . �• R4 'ry s � ' l � ...n �� .,'s.
r a �� ,� '�, ,;''�„s -
Q._'f �,'*,<_ �y`-y 4� 'r . � '� m' �v.F.-:.",.-
ti� d6._ .�.'
� - � �, �. �,� ^
�� �� .:-x F 6$, q...`q '{ ����-
r � , t �
a M
7 f :.�
r�,'i'•, �� r� .��y`} �
� .� r�:.' ,�.,'. �. .
�'
�'1", �'�'�{.. S .
.., £ 'a�t .
�` � .a�•B:.„.
1� .
�
� �
• � ��
� �
� ��
� _ � � � �
�. �• � � 1 ' �
�
- ' if '
� _ '� : •
�
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
r� Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 7,2014
' APPENDIX A
I ,
; General Earthwork and Gradinq Specifications
�
��
�__,
I ,
�
i
� ,.
i ,
, ,
i ;
� �
� �
; ,
' :
;
�.
�__
__ �
��
APPENDIX A
, LEIGHTON CONSULTING , INC .
I ' EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
r ,
Section Appendix A Paqe
j � A-1.0 GENERAL...........................................................................................................1
A-1.1 Intent............................................................................................................. 1
�' A-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc.................................................................... 1
� A-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor.............................................................................2
,---, A-2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED .....................................................2
; A-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing ..................................................................................2
A-2.2 Processing..................................................................................................... 3
� � A-2.3 Overexcavation .............................................................................................3
� A-2.4 Benching .......................................................................................................3
A-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas..............................................................4
( ' A-3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4
.................................................................................................
l .
A-3.1 Fill Quality......................................................................................................4
A-3.2 Oversize........................................................................................................4
( A-3.3 Import............................................................................................................4
l__;
A-4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ...........................................................5
� , A-4.1 Fill Layers......................................................................................................5
A-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning ..............................................................................5
A-4.3 Compaction of Fill.......................................................................................... 5
� ' A-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes.............................................................................. 5
�- A-4.5 Compaction Testing ...................................................................................... 6
�
A-4.6 Compaction Test Locations........................................................................... 6
iA-5.0 EXCAVATION.....................................................................................................6
� :
A-6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS........................................................................................6
� A-6.1 Safet 6
y............................................................................................................
` ` A-6.2 Bedding and Backfill......................................................................................6
A-6.3 Lift Thickness ................................................................................................7
(
I
L...�
L.�
�_�
I�_.�
�-,
r_,
' ' A- 1 . 0 GENERAL
i
r .
A-1.1 Intent
These Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications are for grading and
earthwork shown on the current, approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the
i , Leighton Consulting, Inc. geotechnical report(s). These Guide Specifications are
; a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case
of conflict, the project-specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall
�, supersede these Guide Specifications. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide
' geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and grading. Based on
�_, these observations and tests, Leighton Consulting, Inc. may provide new or
revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
� recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
� ,
� A-1.2 Role of Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc.
l ,
Prior to commencement of earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall
' meet with the earthwork contractor to review the earthwork contractor's work
. plan, to schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of
observation, mapping and compaction testing. During earthwork and grading,
fLeighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe, map, and document subsurFace
exposures to verify geotechnical design assumptions. If observed conditions are
� found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the
L ; design phase, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall inform the owner, recommend
appropriate changes in design to accommodate these observed conditions, and
; ' notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically
�- � observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include (1) natural ground
after clearing to receiving fill but before fill is placed, (2) bottoms of all "remedial
� removal" areas, (3) all key bottoms, and (4) benches made on sloping ground to
L- receive filL
I '
j Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe moisture-conditioning and processing of
the subgrade and fill materials, and perform relative compaction testing of fill to
` determine the attained relative compaction. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall
� provide Daily Field Reports to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and
�
frequent basis.
�;
�� A-1
r-,
�`
�
_ Leiqhton Consultinp, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications
I
�-,
A-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
' The earthwork contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced and
j
knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to
receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The
, Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Guide Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be
�� solely responsible for perForming grading and backfilling in accordance with the
� : current, approved plans and specifications.
�,.
� The Contractor shall inform the owner and Leighton Consulting, Inc. of changes
` ' in work schedules at least one working day in advance of such changes so that
�, appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The
� : Contractor shall not assume that Leighton Consulting, Inc. is aware of all grading
operations.
(-,
� - The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish earthwork and grading in accordance with the
, applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Guide Specifications,
' and recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading
plan(s). If, in the opinion of Leighton Consulting, Inc., unsatisfactory conditions,
[ ; such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in
' these specifications, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall reject the work and may
� recommend to the owner that earthwork and grading be stopped until
unsatisfactory condition(s) are rectified.
( ��
�
�.;
A-2 . 0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED
� •
� A-2.1 Clearinq and Grubbinq
L__
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots and other deleterious material shall be.
( ' sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the
�- owner, governing agencies and Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Care should be taken
not to encroach upon or otherwise damage native and/or historic trees
Ldesignated by the Owner or appropriate agencies to remain. Pavements,
flatwork or other construction should not extend under the "drip line" of
i � designated trees to remain.
L..
Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending
I ; on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 3
�_�
,
� � A-2
��
�—,
i
�
Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications
�
i
percent of organic materials (by dry weight: ASTM D 2974-00). Nesting of the
r l organic materials shall not be allowed.
�
�- If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work
� in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed
immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to
� , continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California,
f most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant,
,
etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As
� such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may
� constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall
not be allowed.
�-,
` A-2.2 Processinq
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill, by Leighton
f � Consulting, Inc., shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches (15 cm).
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the
following Section A-2.3. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down
L , and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surtace is reasonably
uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
l � A-2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved
( ; geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-
excavated to competent ground as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during
�__, grading. All undocumented fill soils under proposed structure footprints should
�
be excavated
i
�__� A-2.4 Benchinq
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to
� vertical units), (>20 percent grade) the ground shall be stepped or benched. The
�-' lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet (4.5 m) wide and at least
� 2 feet (0.6 m) deep, into competent material as evaluated by Leighton
�J Consulting, Inc.. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet
(1.2 m) into competent material or as otherwise recommended by Leighton
i Consulting, Inc.. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to
�- vertical units), (<20 percent grade) shall also be benched or otherwise over-
�
excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
�
;
�- A-3
�
�,
�
, Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications
��
A-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
� � All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and
benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to
�-, being accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. as suitable to receive fill. The
I Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance (Daily Field Report) from Leighton
Consulting, Inc. prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the
i, survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys and benches.
I
r_, A-3 . 0 FILL MATERIAL
�
A-3.1 Fill Quality
�- Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
� deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc.
prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable
i' gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas
� - acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc. or mixed with other soils to achieve
,
satisfactory fill material.
l � A-3.2 Oversize
r , Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
� dimension greater than 6 inches (15 cm), shall not be buried or placed in fill
l _
unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by
[ � Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
_ ; oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed
within 10 feet (3 m) measured vertically from finish grade, or within 2 feet (0.61
�J m) of future utilities or underground construction.
j A-3.3 Im port
L " If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
� meet the requirements of Section A-3.1, and be free of hazardous materials
� ("contaminants") and rock larger than 3-inches (8 cm) in largest dimension. All
import soils shall have an Expansion Index (EI) of 20 or less and a sulfate
content no greater than (<_) 500 parts-per-million (ppm). A representative sample
�J of a potential import source shall be given to Leighton Consulting, Inc. at least
four full working days before importing begins, so that suitability of this import
� ' material can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
��
I
�
�-� A-4
�i
�'
i
�
Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications
�
�,
A-4 . 0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
I A-4.1 Fill Lavers
�,
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill, as
i described in Section A-2.0, above, in near-horizontal layers not exceeding
i
8 inches (20 cm) in loose thickness. Leighton Consulting, Inc. may accept
;--� thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact
� , the thicker layers, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction
approve. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain
�' relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
;� '
A-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioninq
� Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended and/or mixed, as necessary to
i
� ' attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum
density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
� accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test
� ,
Method D 1557-09.
i, ,
j A-4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, each
I` � layer shall be uniformly compacted to not-less-than (>_) 90 percent of the
l maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-09. In some
cases, structural fill may be specified (see project-specific geotechnical report) to
l be uniformly compacted to at-least (>_) 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557-09
modified Proctor laboratoty maximum dry density. For fills thicker than (>) 15
feet (4.5 m), the portion of fill deeper than 15 feet below proposed finish grade
�; shall be compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557-09 laboratory maximum
density. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either
i specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
�- achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
f ' A-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
`-' In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of
� slopes shall be accomplished by back rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at
LJ increments of 3 to 4 feet (1 to 1.2 m) in fill elevation, or by other methods
producing satisfactory results acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Upon
i completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall
�; be at least 90 percent of the ASTM D 1557-09 laboratory maximum density.
�
�
�
�-- A-5
�
� -
i
r, Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications
i ��
A-4.5 Compaction Testinq
i , Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be
' perFormed by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Location and frequency of tests shall be
� � at our field representative(s) discretion based on field conditions encountered.
Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis.
Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas
i ' that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope
� faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
� , A-4.6 Compaction Test Locations
' Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall document the approximate elevation and
�_,
horizontal coordinates of each density test location. The Contractor shall
� coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are
established so that Leighton Consulting, Inc. can determine the test locations
i-, with sufficient accuracy. Adequate grade stakes shall be provided.
� ;
A-5 . 0 EXCAVATION
� � Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be
,
evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. Remedial removal depths
( , shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal
(_� shall be determined by Leighton Consulting, Inc. based on the field evaluation of
exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded,
�� l the cut portion of the slope shall be made, then observed and reviewed by
j Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill
portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting,
[ , Inc..
� A- 6 . 0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
i_�
A-6.1 Safety
� ' The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of
�� trench excavations. Work should be perFormed in accordance with Article 6 of
� the California Construction Safety Orders, 2003 Edition or more current (see
L,, also: http://www.dir.ca.qov/title8/sb4a6.html ).
� , A-6.2 Beddinq and Backfill
I♦ All utility trench bedding and backfill shall be performed in accordance with
applicable provisions of the 2012 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction (Green Book). Bedding material shall have a Sand
�
�-J A-6
r_
�� Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications
i
Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). Bedding shall be placed to 1-foot (0.3 m)
; over the top of the conduit, and densified by jetting in areas of granular soils, if
` allowed by the permitting agency. Otherwise, the pipe-bedding zone should be
backfilled with Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of at least
�I one sack of Portland cement per cubic-yard of sand, and conforming to Section
201-6 of the 2012 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (Green Book). Backfill over the bedding zone shall be placed and
�l densified mechanically to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction (ASTM
D 1557-09) from 1 foot (0.3 m) above the top of the conduit to the surface.
� ' Backfill above the pipe zone shall not be jetted. Jetting of the bedding around
� ' the conduits shall be observed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and backfill above
�-,.
the pipe zone (bedding) shall be observed and tested by Leighton Consulting,
� Inc..
, A-6.3 Lift Thickness
r, Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can
� ' demonstrate to Leighton Consulting, Inc. that the fill lift can be compacted to the
� minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method, and only
� �
if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve.
�, ;
L_�
L_;
� ,
��
(
�_;
L� �
( ;
'
�
,�
�
�_� A-7
;
�
Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation 10788.001
� Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 7,2014
i
�� APPENDIX B
� ,
� ASFE, Information Reqardinq Geotechnical Enqineerinq
�
��
�_.
�
(
� .
l ,
l ,
I '
�,_,
l_;
f '�
�_1
�
��
� �
�_�
L
i
�.
i `
�
��
,
�
i 1
:`
l
II I � t � � fl I
; . . .
,__,
�
,
� .
i
� .
r_�
� .
�
; , �0� �'Y�8 AP8 P�'fOPI1Nd fOP • e�re��n,con6gu�ation,lo�icr�,orientat�n,or v��ight af It�
Sp�IC PIIPp08Bs, P81'80118, �d PP��94'�S prcposed siruccure,
� � C�►tr.chnical en�ineP�s st�u�ure crielr sen��ta r►�t che s�cific�cts cr' � oampcsitian of the desi�t�m,�r
I 1he+►cli�nts.A r�e�lechnical eragir»�ing s:lld�j aar�duct�d lor a civil erigi- • prc�pacct uwr�rslp'�.
nr�r m�y ru�l�llfil)It��;dS pi a ct,nSln�nUn cAnCraCtpr tx e�cn ana'hcr
_ eivil�iginaec Ber,ause e�:h geofa�n�ai e�i�ririg stucty is uni�ue,�a;�i fis a r�¢ra!rule,a.M�a�rs infor�i y�Gur c�etXeCttniC�l engi�r�f projecl
1 ; �e�afinirr��pnginesring report i�un���,��re�2rtxi s�t�1y for ths�clie�t_�do ch�n�s--��e��ninor cr�—�d r�quest an as�ment�(�heir imp�t
t orie ex�t y�u s�ia�ltl refj�nn yoNr g�lecl�it:al ergireerirr�report will•�ut Gc�ofer,��J�r�?�rs r2rt�aof�,'�qo�'respa��2ri�k��t�l;�7r�y,�rpvot,,la�s
firs!r.r:�(t�rri�r���r;�h:ha geW�hnical�g�nerr v�o�reaarecl it.Am/rn an� �'axt��r�..at�sg tl�,�Frep�n�is da ro��r t�r�'c�n�aris a1 H�r,ieh
—rx�t e�n}�—shouid aP�l 11ie re�wrt tor airy purp��u�yre�ct f1,�y►++e�e r�l'rirkvm�.
C"
, ��ct;pi tt►e a�4 or�it�lly Ca�lcmr{�t�rl.
ttesd the f�U� t�epo�t ����rlace caMitiona can cnanoe
engin�r���report is ba�i on earxtiti�r�thaQ�xisted at
l , Se�rous�obfesr�s hdue o�urre�t�;atr e lf�se relying on a�.�t�hriic2l t�8 trtr�(1�:Sludy w�s p�forrrt�d.Ufl n�►r�y ovr a rV,�a�hn:a�.�l��ir�r.
c��ne�rir�rep�rt�1id n�t«2x1�ai�.pc�not reiy on an�ti��s�mmary. irr�r�v�ho�ades��acy rn�y h��een afi�ct�d hry:the pessage of
Do not reacf telectal e�esnerrrfss u�►Iy, t�rn�:�ma�-made e���ls,s;�ch as conslr�r�3on on ar ad;ac�tn ta t1e sit�:
f ar h�ar r��ural�vents,such zs�laod$.ea�quaiaes,a+�rour�i►vate�il�xiva-
l_; A 6�OL6Ch11iC81 E11�IIB81'ily R OPt!S B�BBd 011 t�nS.Af►yc??ys canlaCl the�ecKec?►n�s�er�Jina..�s'�e(or�;apptying Ihe repo�t
!1 r► ec�
A tl�i�e Set e4 P�eet-�S F81�01'S to delerm�e'rf it is siill reliable.A mir�or amaunt�f addifior�al ieslir�or
� Cec�tBc�r��cal�«gineers c�sid��a numl�r af uni�up,�rc��ec1-spaelfbc fac- arofysis c�eilcl p��varA majcx prn.hlr,ms.
tors when atablishing�he sco{�e af a sUxiy.iypital Factors ir�lude:�e
�`_' �����rs c�o��s,o�;axn�as,21�r�Sk fT�1at,�Y'fY3f11 ptP.'4tCf1�QS;me general MOSt 6Bo't�Cldil�l �8 AI�P'M01�888i011a1
r�u�e a(the struceure inwlved,i�siz�.ar�1 oon��ur�i�n,t�'�e'ocalior�c�t Opi11iA�S
� che st�u:��xe on th�sil�a�f a1►•�:�lann�l ar existf�s�e�mp�ovr.ments, Si�exp�or�tian�der.tilies suCsur`ace oarxiit:or�s cnly al 1hAse pnir�s wt�e
� � sL�?�as •a�s raads,park�g lo1s,�l�Uflt'�2fg14llf10 UIfIfII�.�"nless t'�e sui�sur'at�l�5ts are cendu�tetl c�s2tnples are tak�a Gealer,hnical t�r,�-
g�lechnic�engirn.�v�fia conducled 1f�e si�dy sp�itiqlly indicate.s olh- neers r�riew�i�4d a�d laboratn�y data�d th�a}�oly:heir praf�sionaf
I flnvis0,do�i rety Qn a ge�nir�1 en�►�erin�re��i U►al v+as: ju49m►.�110�e�der an ppinia�ab�wl su�ir�oondie�ons Ihroughout the
L, � �}II�AfB(�tEd f0��OU, site_Aclual sut�s�fac�oandiGor�t�r/diti�—sor�li��s signific��lly—
• n�1�re�ced for your project, fraan th�se in�in yn�ir repa�t.�airt�g fte�gc�1�;fi�nial en�in��
� • n�l�re�ed tor tt�speafic site exp'�ore�,a wt�o tl�►�Ktp�i your rep;trl to U«'+�t1e COnsl�uCl'e0tt t�ls�v�;iort iS tt�:
! • r.c�mpletr,d beiore:mpartant�rr�;t�ct cfr�res�a�re made. ma�e�ecliv�rr�hai o(mana�ing�f�e ris�.s�ocialed w�h unaneic�le�3
LJ
C(�1dili�,1S,
TY�ir1 ch�s��Ifrf ean crcu#e IhM reliabilih/af an�c��ir�g genor�chn�al
erigina�iny�at in;;lude lhr�se tl�t altect� A R�rt`s Necommeodatjens ArE Nbt final
PE
�_� • thr f�:�ct�n�f the proposed str��cture,as wtt�iCs c►ranged�rom a �a nat rnc€rely�n the cans�ruciion r�co�nerxialions indud�ti in ynur
�.�arking gara�e io an a�Gr�e buihlir�g,u;twm a li�rl i�tlusi�ia�p�Onl r�ort, T��re�vrn�o�fi,��,s a�e no�«t�t,l�au�see r�eoleChnical en�i-
; to a refrig�rated wareho��s�, �rs dc�lnp them principaly fran judgme�arxi opinion.Geo�4echnit�l
�I en�i�e�s can fr��alf�e Ii�ir reaom�oat►�ns�rly hy observing actu.al
r�
;
subsurface conditions revealed during construction, The geotechnica! have led lo disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk
engineerwho developed your reportcanno�assume responsibility or� of such outcames,gentechnicai engineers commonly include a variety of
� liabilily forthe report's recommendations iflhal enginesrdoes not perform explanatory provisions in fheir reporfs.Sometimes labeled"limitalions"
construction observation. ma�y of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi-
r bilities beyin and end,to help others recognize fheir own responsibilifies
i � A 680t'8Ch1111� 61�11CeP111Q RBp01't IS St�l)�t0 and risks.Read these provisions clasery,Ask questions.Your geotechnical
Misi�terpretation engineer shoultl respond fully and frankly.
r, Oiher tlesign team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
{ � repor�s has resulted in costly problems, Lower thal risk by having your geo- Geoemrironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
[echnical engineer conier wilh appropriate memhers ofi the design team after The equlpment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviran-
�, submitting the report.Also retain y�ur geotechnical engineer to review perti- menta%study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
I nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can stucly.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering repo�t does not usually
� also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report,Reduce that nsk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,canclusions,or recommendations;
having your geotechnir.al engineer participa�e in prebid and preconstruction e,g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks nr
�I ' conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated confaminants. Unanticipated environmenfal problems have/ed
I ; to numerpus prn%ect failures.li you have not yet obtained yaur own geoen-
tb Not Redraw the Englneer's I.ogs vironmental information,ask your geotechnfcal consultant for rfsk man-
�-- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance.Dn not rely on an environmenfa!report prepa�ed/or
'� their interpretatlon ofi iield logs and laboratory tlata.To prevent errors o� someone else,
omissions,lhe logs included in a geotechnical engineenng report should
�., neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or alher design drawings. Qbt8�l1 PI'01CSSI01181 ASSIS�IC@ TO D@81 Wl�h IN�Id
' Only Ahotographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction,
� ; thatseparating logs from the repo�t can elevate risk, operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold trom
growing on indaor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be
( � snre Co�ractors a Complete Report and devisetl fnr the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a com-
'L ; 6t�811C4 prehensive plan,and executed with tliligent oversight by a professional
Some ownars and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold preveniion consultant.Because just a small amount of water or
� , contractors ifable for unan�icipafed subsuriace conditions by limiting what molsture can lead io the development of severe mold infestations,a num-
1 lhey provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
L-� tracfors the complele geolechnlcal engineering report, butpreface it wlfh a While groundwater,wate�iniillration,and similar issuas may have heen
clea►ly written letter oi Iransmittal.In that letter,advise cantractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
, repori was not preparetl for purposes af bid development and that the are canvayetl 9n this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
; report'saccuracy is limited;encourage them to r,onfer with the geotechnical projeci is noi a mold prevention consultant; nane of the services per-
engineer who prepared ihe repart(a modesl fee may be requiretl)and/ot to formed ia connection with the geotecbnical engineer's study
; � conduct addiiional study to oblain Ihe speeific rypes oi information ihey were designed nr conducfed lor the porpose of mold preven-
L l' need or prefer.A prebitl conference can also be valua6le.Be sure contrac- fian. Proper implementation al fhe reeommendatlons conveyed
fors have suflicient time to perlomi additional study.Only then mighl you in this repart wil!not ol ilself be sal/lcient to pre�►em mold
be in a position to give contractors liie best information available to you, from prowing!n or nn fhe structure lnvolved.
� ' while requiring tfiem lo at least share some af the financial responsi6ilities
—� stemming from unanticipated conditions. R@I , on Your ASi�-Mem�er 6eotechneial
er
�er lor Addit�onal Assistance
�` � Read Res�ns�'bility Prouisions Closely Membership in ASFE/TNE BEsr PEON�E oN Enrin�+exposes geatechnical
L Some clients,tlesign professionals,antl cflntractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a constru�tion projecl.Confer
pGnes.This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more infotmation.
1 �
�
� ASFE
THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,S(Iver Spring,MD 209t0
! Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
`J e-mail:infoC�asie.org www;asie.org
Copyrlght 2004 by ASFE,lnc,Duplication,reproductfon,or copying ot!Ms document in whole or In part,by any mear�s whatsoever,is stric!!y prohibited,except with ASFf's
I� ; speclre w�ltten permisslon.Fxceiptfng,quoting,or otherwTse extract/ng wordleg from[his dvcumeni is permlfted only wlth the express writteo permissinn o/ASfE,and orrly lor
� purposes oJscholarly resear�h or book review.Only members olASFf may use this documentas a camplemeat to oras an elamenf of a geolechnical engineedng repart.Any ofher
rnn,lndivrdual,or olher entiry that so uses�hls aacumenr without being an ASFEmember could ba commRting negligsnr or rnrentional(/raudulentJ misrspresentation.
I IIGER08041.OMAP