HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 18254 Parcel 19 Update Geotechnical Investigation
. I
~
. ,
, ,
,
, I '
, ,
I .!
i'
EOCON
INC,OjRPORAT,E,D
, I
GEOTECHNICAL, ·
COtNSUlTANTS '
,
, !
I: . '
,
, ,
, , ,
, I
,
,
,
I'
, ,
Ii.
----------
""'"
I'
,;
, ,
UPDATE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
RIDGE PARK DRIVE
OFFICE COMPLEX
PARCEL 19 OF PARCEL MAP 18254
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
80S ENGINEERING
LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 11, 2004
\.
---,-
GEOCO:N
INCORPORATED
: Project No. 07264-42-01
'March 11, 2004
. BDS Engineering
,6859 Federal Boulevard
I Lemon Grove, California 91945
, Attention:
Mr. Gordon Axelson
, Subject:
o~"rn"'~ C~;"'~ 0
RIDGE PARK DRIVE OFFICE COMPLEX
PARCELl9 OF PARCEL MAP 18254
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
UPDATE, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
,Gentlemen:
i In a,ccordance with your request, we have prepared this update investigation for a planned new
,three-story office building located at Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive in the City of
: Temecnla, California. The accompanying report describes the site soil and geologic conditions and
:provides grading recommendations and foundation design criteria for the new office complex based
on review of previons geotechnical reports prepared for the property.
The site is nnderlain by compacted fill in the western half of the site and dense formational materials
of the Pauba Formation ,in the eastern half. Based on information inclnded in previous geotechnical
IStndies, existing fill within the building pad will reqnire complete removal and recompaction in the
'bnilding pad and partial,removal in the parking and driveway areas, Provided the recommendations
,of this report are follow,d, the site is suitable for the planned development.
:Should you haveqnestions regarding this update report, or if. we may be of fnrther service, please
'Contact the nndersigned at your convenience.
:Very tTl11y yours,
:GEOCON INCORPORATED
IJLB:GCC:bjl
'(6) Addressee
6960 Flo"ders Drive . Sa" Diego, Colifomio 92121.2974 . Telepho"e 18581 558-6900 . Fax 18581 558-6159
?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.........................................................................................2
3.1 Previonsly Blaced Fill (Qaf)...................................................................................................2
3.2 Panba Formation (Qps) ..........................................................................................................3
4. GROUNDW ATER...........................................................................................................................3
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..................................................................................................................3
5.1 Liquefaction.......... ..... ....... ........................ ..................... ............~........ ....................... ............5
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................6
6.1 General................................................................................................................................ ...6
6.2 Grading ,.............. ..... ....... ...... .... .... ....... .... ........ ...... .... ... ... ............. ..... .... .... ......... ........ ..... ...... 6
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria .........................................................................................................7
6.4 Fonndations..... ......... .................................... ........ .......... ...... ............ ............... .......................8
6.5 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ... ............ ............ ....... ............. ......... ............. ............ ,.....................9
6.6 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads......................................................................................10
6.7 Preliminary ,Pavement Recommendations ...........................................................................11
6.8 Drainage and Maintenance....... .............. ...........,....... ................ ...... ............... ........... ...........12
6.9 Grading and Fonndation Plan Review .................................................................................12
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Fignre 1, Vicinity Map
Fignre 2, Geologic Map
Fignre 3, Geologic Cross-Section
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
:3>
UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of an update investigation for a proposed Office Complex at Ridge
Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive in the City of Temecula, California (see Vicinity Map,
Fignre 1). The purpose of the investigation is to provide site-specific grading recommendations and
foundation design criteria for a planned three-story office bnilding based on review of previons
geotechnical reports prepared for the site and experience in nearby areas with similar soil and
geologic conditions.
The scope of our inve~tigation included a review of several geotechnical reports prepared for the
project by Engen 'Corporation. Specifically, we have reviewed the following:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study, BDS Ridge Park, Assessor's Parcel
Number 940-310-027, Parcel 19 of Parcel Map 18254, Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga
Drive, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, prepared by Engen Corporation,
dated April 3, 2003.
2. Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development,
Portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 19626, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California,
prepared by Engen Corporation, dated February 23, 2000.
3. Additional Engineering Analysis of Existing Fill, Proposed Industrial Structure, Portion of
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 19626, Ridge Park Drive, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, prepared by Engen Corporation, dated September 8, 2000.
Existing site soil and, geologic conditions described herein are based on our review of the
above-referenced reports and previous experience in the greater Temecula area. Site geology is
depicted on a reproduced copy of an AutoCAD file of the grading plan entitled Conceptual Grading
Plan Office Complex Ridge Park Drive, prepared by BDS Engineering, undated (see Geologic Map,
Figure 2).
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
, The Ridge Park Office ~omplex site is an irregularly shaped property occupying approximately one
acre situated at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive in the City of
Temecula, California. Previous grading of the property resulted in a large sheet-graded pad that is
underlain by compacted fill on the western half and the Pauba Formation in the eastern half.
Geotechnical conditions associated with the previous grading are discussed and/or cited in the
referenced Engen Corporation geotechnical reports.
Project No, 07264-42-01
-1-
March 11,2004
l\
Review of the conceptual grading plan indicates site development will inclnde minor pad regrading to
construct a building pad for support of a three-story office building with surrounding parking areas
and driveways. Access to the lot will be via a driveway from Ridge Park Drive. The building will be
a steel-frame structure with a glass exterior and will be snpported by conventional continuous and/or
isolated spread foundations. Retaining walls are planned within slope areas along both the east and
west sides of the lot. Grading is anticipated to be relatively minor with cuts and fills on the order of 5
feet or less. Stamped concrete or another type of decorative pavement may be placed in the main
entry driveway.
Descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on onr review of the referenced
geotechnical reports and the grading plans. If project details vary significantly from those described
herein, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to determine the necessity for revisions to this
report and/or new recoIf)Il1endations.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The western half of the site is underlain by previonsly placed fill and the Pauba Formation is exposed
,at grade in the ,eastern half. Descriptions of the fill and geologic formation and geotechnical
conditions associated with each are described below. The approximate limits are shown on the
Geologic Map (Figure 2).
3.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qaf)
Previously placed fill exists in the western portion of the property. The fill was placed during mass
grading to construct the; pad and adjacent industrial lots and varies in thickness from 0 feet at the cnt
, fill contact to a maximum of 32 feet in the northwest comer of the lot. In general, the fills were
, derived from excavations in the Pauba Formation and consist of silty sands. Expansion testing of the
materials yielded, a vef)O low expansion potentfal. The fill was originally observed during grading by
Soil Tech Incorporated, and professional opinions and test results were summarized in their report
I entitled Geotechnical Testing/Grading Report, Parcels 1 through 3 of Parcel Map 19626-2, dated
, April 12, 1989.
, Subsequent to the compaction report, Engen Corporation performed additional studies to evaluate the
I condition of the fill. The additional studies were conducted to respond to professional opinions
I expressed by John R. Beyerly, Incorporated, in their letter entitled Geotechnical Concerns dated
I October 20, 1999. Beyerly advanced some small-diameter borings in the fill and determined that
there was concern over the integrity of the fill. Engen Corporation then performed additional borings
, that were observed by J,ohn R. Beyerly, Incorporated, personnel and summarized their result in their
,
report dated September 8, 2000. Review of the September 8, 2000 report indicated that at the north
end of the project one of the borings encountered fill materials that when tested showed low relative
-s
Project No. 07264-42-01
-2-
March 11, 2004
compaction. In several zones, relative compaction as low as 82 percent were determined. Additional
borings were excavatedi very near this boring to determine whether the zone of poorly compacted fill
materials was isolated. ,Based on their study, Engen recommended a structnral setback zone at the
northwest comer of the lot and determined the remaining fill was suitable.
Review of the Engen, February 2000 report also indicated that four of the borings attempted
encountered refusal due to buried rock. This indicates that oversize materials were incorporated into
the fill mass and that the condition of the fill down to the bedrock contact could not be determined.
Rock fills and/or oversize rock fragments improperly placed in the fill mass could result in some of
the low relative compaction values reported by Engen.
Based on our review of the Engen reports, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the fill on the
lot is not suitable for support of the planned office building and will require complete removal and
replacement as properly, compacted fill (minimqm relative compaction of 90 percent). The fill within
parking and driveway areas will require removal and recompaction of the upper 2 feet to provide a
competent layer for support of the planned pavements and surface improvements.
3.2 Pauba Formation (Qps)
The Pauba Formation underlies the fill and is exposed at grade in the eastern half of the site. The
Panba Formation is a Qnatemary-age sedimentary deposit comprised of dense silty sands. Isolated
zones of cohesionless sands and clay layers are also known to exist in the deposit. Materials derived
from this formation typically exhibit very low expansion potential and good shear strength
characteristics. As such, the soil from this unit is very suitable as a low expansive fill cap beneath
proposed structnres. The Pauba Formation is considered suitable in its present condition for support
of structural fill or loading.
4. GROUNDWATER
Engen Corporation did not enconnter gronndwater during previons stndies. Boring logs included in
their reports showed nOi groundwater down to the maximum depths explored (35 feet). Groundwater
is not anticipated to adversely impact project development and construction.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The site is situated in a seismically active region of California. The Murrieta Creek fault, a branch of
the Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zone is the nearest active fault, located approximately 0.3 miles
. northwest of the site (California Geologic Survey, Temecula Quadrangle Revised Official Map,
1990). Other discontinuous fanlt strands have mapped extensions that are mapped as terminating
'"
Project No. 07264-42-01
- 3-
March 11, 2004
along the northeast margins of the site. However, these featnres are considered to be Pleistocene or
older (Kennedy, 1977, and County of Riverside, 1983).
,In order to determine the distance of known faults to the site, the computer program EQFAULT
'(Blake, 2000) was utilized. Principal references used within EQFAULT in selecting faults to be
, included are Jennings (1975), Anderson (1984), and Wesnousky (1986). In addition to fanlt location,
, EQF A ULT was used to estimate ground accelerations at the site for the maximum anticipated seismic
I event.
Within a search radius of 100 miles from the site, 58 known active faults were identified. The results
, of the deterministic analyses indicate the Elsinore-Temecula Fanlt is the dominant source of potential
; ground motion at the ,site. Earthquakes having a maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.8 are
I considered representative of the potential for seismic ground shaking at the site (from this fault). The
'''maximum credible earthquake" is defined as the maximnm earthqnake that seems possible of
I occtming under the presently known tectonic framework (California Division of Mines and Geology
: Notes, Number 43). The estimated maximum earthquake ground acceleration from the Rose Canyon
i Fault is approximately 0.57g. Presented on the following table are the earthquake events and site
i accelerations based on attenuation relationships of Sadigh (1997) for the faults considered most likely
I to subject the site to ground shaking.
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND PEAK SITE ACCELERATIONS
Fault Name Distauce From Site Maximum Earthqnake Peak Site
(miles) Magnitude Accelerations
Elsinore- Temecula 0.3 6.8 0.57g
Elsinore-Julian 11.6 7.1 0.23g
Elsinore-Glen Ivy 15.0 6.8 0.16g
San Jacinto-San Jacinto 'yalley 21.7 6.9 0.12g
San Jacinto-Anza 21.7 7.2 0.14g
Newport-Inglewood 27.2 7.1 O.llg
, While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
I region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of
: motion and the soil conditions underlying the site.
, The site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake
, on any of the faults referenced above' or other faults in sonthem California. With respect to seismic
shaking, the site is considered comparable to the snffonnding developed area.
1
Project No, 07264-42-01
-4-
March 11. 2004
5.1 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a:phenojl1enon in which loose, satnrated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include density
and duration of ground motion, characteristics of the subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and the
depth to groundwater., Due to the very dense nature of the Pauba Formation, removal and
recompaction of the fill in the building pad area as recommended hereinafter, and the lack of a
shallow groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction of the site subsoils is considered to be
very low.
Project No. 07264-42-01
- 5-
March 11. 2004
~
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered dnring onr study that would preclude the
development of the property as planned, provided the recommendations of this report are
followed.
6.1.2 The site is underlain by previously placed fill and formational soils of the Pauba
Formation. Previously placed fill within the building pad area is not suitable for support of
the planned office building in its present condition. The fill will require complete removal
and recompaction to provide a nniform engineered fill for support of foundation loading.
Fill within the parking area will require removal and recompaction of the upper 2 feet to
provide a compacted fill mat to support the surface improvements.
6.1.3 A compacted fill-Pauba Formation contact (cut-fill) traverses the central portion of the
proposed building pad. To mitigate potential differential settlement, overexcavation and
replacement with properly compacted low expansive fill will be required.
6.2 Grading
6.2.1 All grading, should be performed in' accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix A. Where the recommendations of Appendix A
conflict with this section of the report; the recommendations of this section take
precedence.
6.2.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstfUction conference should be held at the site with
the owner m developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
6.2.3 Site preparation shonld begin with the removal of all deleterions material and vegetation.
The depth of, removal shonld be snch that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be nsed
as fill are relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site
demolition should be exported from the site.
6.2.4 After removal of vegetation, existing fill within the building pad area should be completely
removed to expose the underlying Pauba Formation and recompacted. We estimate fill
Project No. 07264-42-01
- 6-
March 11, 2004
'\
removal depths varying from 0 at the contact between fill and the Panba Formation to 16
feet at the northwestern comer of the building pad. The removal limits should extend
horizontally beyond the limits of the building pad a distance equivalent to the depth of
overexcavation. Fignre 3 is a cross-section that depicts the approximate limits of fill
removal within the building pad. Existing fill within driveway and parking areas should be
removed to a depth of 2 feet and recompacted.
6.2.5 Grading should result in building pads being underlain by at least 3 feet of compacted fill.
Where the Pauba Formation is exposed in the building pad, or where fill thickness will be
less than 3 feet, the building pad should be undercut to a depth of at least 3 feet below
proposed subgrade elevations and recompacted. The undercnt will eliminate cut-fill
transitions within the pad. The undercut should extend at least 5 feet horizontally beyond
the perimeteriof the building.
6.2.6 After overexcavation of existing fill and undercut areas and prior to placing new fill, the
underlying natnral ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and
compacted. Fill soils may then be placed and compacted in layers to the design subgrade
elevations. The layers should be no thicker than will allow for adeqnate bonding and
compaction (typically 8-inch lifts). All fill (including backfill and scarified ground
surfaces) should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly
above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-01. Fill
areas with in,place density test results indicating moistnre contents less than optimum will
require additi.onal moistnre conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
6.2.7 The site shonld be graded such that the materials within 3 feet of finish grade within
bnilding pads and concrete hardscape areas consist of granular materials with a low
expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50).
6.3 Seismic D~sign Criteria
6.3.1 The following table summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria obtained from the
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 6.3 are for the Rose
Canyon Fault (located approximately five miles from the site), which is identified as a
Type B faultiand is more dominant than the closest Type A fault (Elsinore-Julian Fault).
Project No. 07264-42-01
-7 -
March 11, 2004
\0
TABLE 6.3
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
Pa~ameter Value UBC Reference
Seismic Zone :Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coeff).cient, Ca 0.52 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.90 Table 16-R
Near Source F;actor. Na 1.3 Table 16-S
Near Source Iiactor, Nv 1.6 Table 16-T
Seismic Source A Table 16-U
6.4 Foundations
6.4.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are based on the fact that the building will be
underlain cOl)lpletely by properly compacted fill and that the fill within 3 feet of finish
grade consists of low expansive soils (Expansion Index less than 50).
6.4.2 Continuous fQotings should be at least 12 inches wide and founded at least 18 inches below
lowest.adjacent pad grade. Spread footings should be at least 2 feet square and founded at
least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade.
6.4.3 Foundations proportioned as recommended above may be designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressnre of 2,000 ponnds per sqnare foot (psf). This bearing pressnre may be
increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of fonndation width and depth,
respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf.
6.4.4 The allowable soil bearing pressnre is for dead plus live loads only, and may be increased
by np to one,third when considering transient loads such as those due to wind or seismic
forces.
6.4.5 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No.4 steel reinforcing bars, two placed
near the top of the footing and two placed near the bottom. Reinforcement for the spread
footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.4.6 The above foundation dimensions and minimum reinforcement recommendations are based
upon soil conditions only and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for
structnral purposes.
Project No. 07264-42-01
- 8-
March 11,2004
\\
:6.4.7
:6.4.8
i6:5
:6.5.1
:6.5.2
:6.5.3
: 6.5.4
Footings shonld not be located within 7 feet of the tops of slopes. Footings that must be
located within this zone should be deepened such that the outer bottom edge of the footing
is at least 7 feet from the face of the finished slope.
No special sU,bgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placement of concrete.
However, the slab and foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a
moist condition as wonld be expected in any such concrete placement.
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Building (interior) concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches
and should be reinforced with No.3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both
directions and placed at the slab midpoint. The slabs should be underlain by at least 4
inches of clean sand and, where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen
moisture barrier should also be placed in the middle of the 4-inch sand blanket.
Exterior slabs I should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire
mesh. The mesh should be positioned within the npper 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 np into the slab during concrete placement. The contractor
should take extra measnres to provide for proper mesh positioning.
All concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structnral engineer based on 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.
The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to ~xpansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills, or fills of
varying thickness. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and the placement of crack-control joints at periodic intervals,
particularly where re-entrant slab comers occnr.
\'2..
Proje,ct No. 07264-42-01
- 9-
March 11. 2004
'6.6
,6.6.1
6.6.2
6.6.3
6.6.4
6.6.5
Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressnre equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a I: I plane extending upward
from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. Where finish-grade
soils have an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not
conform with the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional
recommendations.
Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH at the top of the
wall. Where ;Valls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure
of 7H psf (",here H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet)
should be added to the above active soil pressnre.
All 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 (weep holes, etc.) is
not recommended where the seepage could be a nnisance 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 material with no hydrostatic
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted forladditional recommendations.
In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an, allowable soil bearing pressnre of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below
the base of, the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3: 1 will require deepening of the wall footing
to establish a minimum horizontal distance of 7 feet from the bottom outside edge of the
footing and the face of the slope.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf i~ recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undistnrbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressnre
assumes a horizbntal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressnre, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by
floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
-10-
March 11. 2004
\~
Project No. 07264-42-01
allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This i friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.6.6 The recommeQdations 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 (such as crib-type walls) are planned,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
'6.7.1 The following pavement sections are preliminary and based on a previous R-Value test
result of 30. Final pavement sections should be determined once subgrade elevations have
been attained and R -Value testing has been performed on actual pavement snbgrade soils.
Pavement thicknesses were determined nsing procedures outlined in the California
Highway Design Manual (Caltrans). Summarized below are the preliminary pavement
sections for automobile parking and driveway areas, respectively.
Location Estimated Traffic Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
Index (Tl) (inches) (inches)
Parking Areas 4.5 3 5
Driveways 6.0 3 8.5
TABLE 6.7
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
6.7.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works. Construction (Greenbook). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform
to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
6.7.3 Prior to placing base material, 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. The base material should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction.
6.7.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures or loading docks should utilize Portland
Cement concrete. The pavement should consist of a minimum 6-inch concrete section
reinforced with No.3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions
Project No. 07264-42-01
- 11 .
March 11, 2004
\-\:
6.7.5
i6.8
,6.8.1
i 6.9
6.9.1
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.
The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing posItIve surface
drainage awa~ from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to tbe
pavement may, result in saturation of subgrade materials and subsequent pavement distress.
If planter islands are planned, the perimeter cnrb should extend at least 6 inches below the
level of the Class 2 base.
Drainage and Maintenance
Good drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion
and subsnrface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to properly finish grade the
building pads after the structures and other improvements are in place, so that the drainage
water from the buildings, lots and adjacent properties is directed off the lots and to the
street away from foundations and the top of the slopes. Experience has shown that even
with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can develop in
areas where no such water conditions existed prior to the site development; this is
particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an
increase in landscape irrigation.
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
The soils engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading and foundation
plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this
report and to determine tbe need for additional investigation, comments, recommendations,
and/or analysis.
Project No, 07264-42-01
-12-
March 11. 2004
,-s-
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption i that the soil conditions do not deviate from 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 Incorporated
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 Incorporated.
:2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensnre 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 that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors
carry out such r,commendations in the field.
,3. The fmdings 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 due to natural processes
or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occnr, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be
relied upon after a period of three years.
\<c?
Project No. 07264-42-01
March 11, 2004
~ ~^
'>!- g~~'~"'$\ "",!I ", ",
=>~ \.1: \Yi~
""/ -21,'7- ".
'Il'
"
\
,.
\
.'
.\
\
1f"~iP
."'"lYAs'f5,. .'Jo~
t-ni ")C%~i>
~ /
:J-I:l'
"1.
fR
\fo
\~
/'
~'
Iff
~..
/
I
~
~.
>rJJ1,)J
/
I
I
/
~
\"
.;(i-
'J'~'"
.,.y
....'?-
RANCHO ...'.
""
".
-
t~
"',of
, 00
"-"
''\'.
"4'''1, ~.o I
~"t.. -----"'.,.
~~ 1,'%
'",,' I
'-"', I \ HORCA
, ..IJ--------.".
, ""
". ~'!'
,
''\..,
'.
\
\.
\
,.,
/
,//
"', i
....t/-r', I
~, !
~i
F'~-
~... f'\"'JP
V ,- ,\~
':c" f1/ '\ 't-\ GfUNf
'~~ ''-: r
'V '\
'\
8,1
~,
~I
~\ )
, /
'h_
"TrHfCU
"1
---.~.
.,//
"iY7
~'?'/
" -'
~-~,\, ~./
'..'"".
--.........
t
N
SOURCE: 2002 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
RIVERS'OE COUNTY. CALIFORN'A
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANreo BY mOMAS BORTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAF'S. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR fMf PART THEREOF, WH.:ll-lER FOR PERSONAl. USE OR
RESAL.:E, WITHOUT PERMISSION.
GEOeON
INC 0 RPORA TE:D
G:'OTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
JBIMM
NO SCALE
o
VICINITY MAP
RIDGE PARK DRIVE
OFFICE COMPLEX
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
\1
DSKlEOOOO
DATE 03-11-2004
PROJECT NO. 07264 - 42 - 01
FIG. 1
lC:/Doartnerl.....ds..ttingolOrufling2lMicuolo/T~~G.olochlV.arilyMap
RIDGE PARK DRIVE
OFFICE COMPLEX
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
~
A
1080
1060
Qc
1040
Q
1020
o
20
220
,GEOeON LEGEND
A'
1080
1060
1040
1020
240
GEDeON
INCORPORATED
Qaf ........PREVIOUSLy PlACED FIL
QPS ........PAUBAFORMATION
~
GEOTECHNICAl CONSUL TAmS
6960 FlANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 Ssa.6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. 07264 - 42 - 01 \(2
FIGURE 3 '\?
DATE 03.11-2004
)N A-A'
;Micaela\Drawings\GeotechnicaI\07264-42-01 {Ridge ParK Drive)\Cro~
I ------
---
..
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
RIDGE PARK DRIVE OFFICE COMPLEX
PARCEL 19 OF PARCEL MAP 18254
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 07264-42-01
\<\
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 recom-
mendations c.ontained 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.
1.2. 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. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observatiol). services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to, assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3. 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, in~dequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with !?ese specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to rej ect
the work and,recommend to the Owner that construction 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 California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting, firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 07/02
V::J
2.4. Consultant &hall 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. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reyonnaissance 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 fiUs 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-r,ock rills 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 defmed as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rocklf"Ills 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 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
~\
GI rev. 07/02
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable natnre 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 Regnlations, 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 snspect
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 ma,terials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regnlations.
3.4. The outer 15, feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measnred horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the <;:onsultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: I (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procednre may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall 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 snrface of trees, stnrnps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structnres 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 1-112 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.
")..:L-
OJ rev. 07/02
4.2. Any asphalt,pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be ,placed in fills, 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 or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be, removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and, compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. 1)1e exposed snrface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6
inches; and until the surface is free from uneven featnres 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 6: 1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHIN~ DETAIL
Finish Grade
Original Ground
2
"=J1
/ Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
Varies I .
I See :~te 1
L
See Note 2J
No Scale
i DETAIL NOTES:
(I) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or snfficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction eqnipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the nolnral slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key shonld be below the topsoil or nnsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense fonnational material. ,Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
Gl rev. 07/02
'Z.~
4.5, After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the snrface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moistnre content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 ofthese specifications.
5. 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 pnenrnatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of c<lmpacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moistnre 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 defmed 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
thoro]lghly 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 moistnre content as determined by ASTM DI557-00.
6.1.3. Whelj the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water, shall be added by the Contractor until the moistnre content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moistnre content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Cons\lltant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Cc:>ntractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moistnre
conterit is within the range specified.
2A
GI rev. 07/02
6.1.5. Afte~ 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 DI557-00. 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. Soils1having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moistnre content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moistnre content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design snrface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compactioTI,' it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procednre is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As all 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 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer 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
indivjdually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks 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 dnring grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
01 rev. 07102
z$'"
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 procednre, 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 on 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 conrses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
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 rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
consl\Uction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains
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 seating 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 face 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
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
u
GI rev. 07/02
utilized. The' number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. 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 DI196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three i plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(mini;num 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
soil 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 shall be present during rock fill operations to
veri~ 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.
In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to
10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his; 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
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppeqnost 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.
GI rev. 07102
~1
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests dnring
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2, The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. i Density t~sts shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
distnrbed 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 place,ment of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
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 moistnre has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the
snrface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests V\~ll be performed to provide a
basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum de.f1ection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill 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
moistnre 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.
~
GI rev. 07/02
7.5. The Consultant shall 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:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM DI556-00, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.13. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM Dl557-00, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using lO-Pound Hammer
and I8-Inch Drop.
7.6.1,4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM Dl196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard
Method for Nonreparative 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 snrfaces to provide
positive drairage 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 measnres to prevem erosion of freshly graded areas until
snch time as ,permanent drainage and erosion control featnres have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structnres.
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 rev. 07/02
z,l\
: 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon :completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the 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
satisfllctory 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.
;,0
GI rev. 07/02
,
LIST OF REFERENCES
Blake, T. F., 1998, Liquefy2, A Computer Program for the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake-
Induced Liquefaction Potential, Interim Ver. 1.50.
________, 2000a, EQFault for Windows, A Computer Program for Horizontal Acceleration from
Digitized California Faults, Ver. 3.00b.
________, 2000b, EQFault for Windows, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal
Accelerationfrom California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, Ver. 3.00b.
_____u_, 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earth Sources, Ver. 4.00.
Connty of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical Guidelines for
Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
________, Jnne 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, by Envicom.
Department of Conservation, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1: 100,000 Quadrangle, California
Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 91-17.
Kennedy, M. P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern
Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131,
12 p., 1 plate, scale 1 :24,000.
MOlton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30 'x60 , Quadrangle,
Southern Calif~rnia, Ver. 1.0, Open File Report 99-172.
Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, scale 1 inch equals 2 miles.
Seed, H. B. and 1. M. Idress, 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Project Na. 07264-42-01
March 11, 2004
~\