HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 6228 Parcel 1 Rough Grade Compaction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROUGH GRADE COMPACTION REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 6228
39930 CALLE MEDUSA
CITY OF TEMECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
FOR
MR. PETER CERNOUSEK
RF~~IVED
FEB 7 2000
Ci. I v'- t,:"kCIJLA
ENGiNEl::PJNG DEPARTMENT
PROJECT NO. 00-006.C
DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2000
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
Engineering
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Client: Mr. Peter Cernousek
30399 Sene1a Place
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 676-1841
Subject: Rough Grade Compaction Report
Proposed Single Family Residence
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 6228
39930 Calle Medusa, Temecula, CA.
A.P.N. 957-150-013/LD # 99-181GR
Reference: Report for Site Recommendations Preparation
Prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering
Dated September 22, 1999 (P.N. CWE199.536.1)
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
This is to report the results of our field density tests and
observations made during the placement of compacted fill on the
subject property.
Periodic field density tests and site grading observations were
provided by a representative of Lakeshore Engineering to check the
grading contractors on compliance with the approved grading plans and
pertinent earthwork job specifications. The presence of our field
representative at the site was to provide to the owner a source of
professional advice, opinions and recommendations based upon the
field representative's observations of the contractor's earthwork and
did not include any supervision, superintending or direction of the
actual work of the contractors or the contractor's workmen. The
opinions and recommendations presented hereafter are based on our
field and laboratory test results and observations of the grading
procedures used, and represent our engineering judgment as to the
contractor's compliance with the job (earthwork) specifications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The site as understood by us, previously supported an older
residence, that was reportedly demolished with associated debris
hauled offsite. At the time of "site pregrade meeting", only a
section of concrete driveway leading from Calle Medusa to the edge of
pad existed (about 160 feet in length remained). The pad sits on a
truncated ridge nose, located approximately south-center on the lot.
Several mature eucalyptus trees were present surrounding the pad
site.
31740-2 Railroad Canyon Road. Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Two
Grading plans prepared by Acal Engineering, Inc., drawn at 30 scale,
shows the proposed scope of new improvements will consist of
enlarging the existing rectangular shaped pad by placing perimeter
fill slopes on three sides. A 2:I(H:V) cut slope less than 15 feet
high, is proposed beginning along the southerly property line.
Both the proposed referenced grading plans and soil report were used
in the field to aid the grading operation. Xerox copies of grading
plans are attached in the back of this report.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Proposed development will consist of a graded level pad for support
of a single family residence, about 4,000 square feet and a fire
department turnaround space.
Proposed construction is planned for an upper scale, custom designed,
one story structure, of conventional, wood framed and stucco
construction, with tile roofing. Foundation will be conventional
spread footings with concrete slab-on-grade flooring. Pad drainage is
by sheetflow and surface swales around building, exiting flows along
driveway to the street, Calle MedL::.
ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Rough grading operation commenced on January 18, and concluded on
February 4, 2000, the last day of our field inspection and
compaction/density testing services. Grading was performed by Jack
Curtis Grading and Excavation, (909) 674-6156, grading contractor.
Equipment used onsite consisted of a CAT D-6 Dozer and water derived
from hydrant along Calle Medusa.
Grading was conducted under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula.
The rough grading operation was observed to be performed in the
following manner:
I. Trees, rootballs and surface debris (organic) were removed/cleared
from the areas to be graded.
2. Unsatisfactory soils were excavated to expose competent
materials on which to start the fill. The maximum depth of
fill placed during this grading operation was in the order of 10
vertical feet, located on the northwesterly corner of the pad.
3. All bottom of substandard soil removal/excavation were inspected
and deem competent prior to fill placement and compaction.
The native soils exposed at the bottom of overexcavation
were inspected and in our opinion, considered suitable for
support of new fills. Prior to placing any fills, the
exposed bottom subgrade was scarified and moisture conditioned.
Lakeshore Engineering
2..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Three
4. Minimum size keyway of about 15 feet wide by 3 feet deep were
excavated along the toe of fill slope, exposed bottom inspected
and deemed competent prior to the construction of fill slope.
5. Approved soils were placed in layers on the prepared surface,
and each layer was compacted to the specified density before
the next layer was added.
6. The minimum acceptable degree of building fill dirt compaction
was 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
7. Maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined
by the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method.
8. Field density tests were performed utilizing the drive tube
and sandcone methods.
9. The soils used in the compacted fill consisted predominantly
of on-site light brown, Silty SAND (SM/SP).
10. The cut portion of the house pad was overexcavated 3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill blanket. The exposed bottom of
overexcavation was scarified another 6 inches, moisture
conditioned prior to placing fill. Limits of overexcavation
extended 4-5 feet beyond building footprints.
11. Field density tests were made during the placement of fill to
determine the degree of compaction and moisture content.
All field density tests are listed in the "Summary of Field
Density Tests", and their approximate locations are shown on
Figure No.2. Also shown are the limits and depth of
compacted fills placed during this grading operation.
12. Concrete fragment/debris, from 1 to 5 feet diameter (from old
foundation and septic tank burial) exposed during grading were
clean of debris (connecting PVC pipes and rebars) and buried in a
windrow pit located at the north easterly corner of the lot. The
depth of burial pit is about 8 feet and the concrete pieces were
covered with a 4 feet dirt blanket.
GRADING DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLAN
At the conclusion of rough grading, no major deviations were noted in
the field when compared to approved grading plans, except as noted:
The entire building pad was shifted to the west approximately 5
horizonal feet, to take advantage of an existing cut mid-slope bench
(old roadway) for keyway location to begin the fill slope
construction. The original 22 feet high fill slope as shown on plan
was reduced to less than a 10 feet high manufactured fill slope.
Lakeshore Engineering
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Four
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DENSITY COMPACTION TEST
Soil samples obtained from the field were visually identified and
when necessary, additional laboratory testing was performed to
confirm identification. All soils were classified with the Unified
Soil Classifications System. The procedures outlined in A.S.T.M.
Method D1557-78 were used to determine the compaction characteristics
of the fill materials. The results of our laboratory compaction tests
are presented below:
Type
Soil Description
Optimum Moisture Max. Dry Density
A
Sil ty SAND (SM)
9.7 % of dry wt. 129.0 P.C.F.
LABORATORY EXPANSION TEST
Laboratory Expansion Index Tests were performed on representative
soil samples recovered from within the proposed building areas near
the completion of rough grading. The laboratory expansion test was
performed in accordance with U.B.C. Test Method 29-C, and the
pertinent test results are presented on the following page:
Soil
LOCATION
Depth
Moisture %
Before Test
Expan.
Index
Expansion
Potential
Pad
-6"
8.7
<22
LOW
Based upon a test results obtained, the subgrade materials are
considered to be LOW IN EXPANSION POTENTIAL. In that regard, no
special requirement are needed in subgrade preparation or special
reinforcement in the house foundation/footing preparation.
SULPHATE CONTENT TEST
A Laboratory sulphate content Test was performed on a representative
soil sample recovered from within the proposed building area at the
subject site. The laboratory test was performed in accordance with
E.P.A. Test Method 375.3, and the pertinent test results are
presented below:
Sample
Location
Depth
Sulphate
Content
Recommended Cement
~
BLDG. PAD
- 6"
< 100 ppm.
Portland Cement TYPE 11
(2,500 psi concrete)
Lakeshore Engineering
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Five
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the final results of field density tests, on observations of
the grading operation procedures used in the field and on our past
experience, it is Lakeshore Engineering opinion that the compacted
fill shown on the Plot Plan, figure no. 2 attached has been placed in
accordance with the applicable portions of the grading specifications
and in accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinance.
Any fill dirt added beyond the limits or above the grades shown on
county approved plans should be placed under engineering inspection
and in accordance with the applicable grading job specifications, if
it is to be covered by the recommendations of this soil report.
Based upon our field testing results, the compacted fill in our
opinion has been compacted to at least 90 percent relative densities.
The on-site foundation soils exposed during rough grading operation
are considered to be granular and LOW in expansion potential (E.I.
less than 40). As such the foundation should be constructed and
reinforced as follows:
FOOTINGS
Footings should be founded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent
ground surface for proposed building. Minimum width of footing is 12
inches. All continuous foundations should be reinforced with at least
2 rebars (#4), one located at top and one at bottom and consistent
with the recommendations of the Structural Engineer.
FOOTING PLACEMENT AND TRENCH INSPECTION
Due to periodic site inspections conducted during rough grading
operations, footing trench excavations should be inspected by a
representative of Lakeshore Engineering prior to concrete placement
to verify proper embeddment either entirely into competent fills.
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE
The local subgrade soils are considered LOW in expansion potential
(E.I. < 22) as verified by our laboratory test results. The floor
slabs may be supported directly on properly prepared subgrade. If a
floor covering that could be critically affected by moisture, such as
vinyl tile, slabs should be protected by a plastic vapor barrier of
six-mil thickness. The sheet should be covered by at least two inches
of clean sand cushion to prevent punctures and aid in concrete cure.
Lakeshore Engineering
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Six
The concrete floor slabs should be reinforced with at least 6"x
6"-#6/#6 welded wire mesh position on chairs at midslab or equivalent
bar reinforcing (no. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center, both ways) and
installed at mid-height. Concrete floor slabs should be at least 4
inch thick nominal. Cold joints should not exceed 14 feet apart in
either directions.
SLOPES AND EROSION CONTROL
The constructed fill and cut slopes, pitched at 2:1 (H:V) and in the
order of 20 feet high are considered grossly stable and suitable for
its intended use. The onsite granular soils, are considered sensitive
to surficial erosion. In order to mitigate surficial erosion, the
following recommendations are presented:
1) Slopes should be planted as soon as possible with
vegetation which is drought resistant and whose root system
extends a minimum of 18 inches into the slope face.
Immediate planting of the slopes is particularly important
where relatively loose sand is exposed.
2) High water content in slope soils is a major factor in
slope erosion or slope failures. Vegetation watering should
be such that a uniform near optimum content is maintained
year-around. A landscape architect should be consulted in
this regard.
3) Shrub and/or tree root excavations should be minimized in
size so that water will not collect and cause saturation of
the surficial materials. Also, back cuts for tree wells are
geotechnically inadvisable because they create a localized
over-steepened condition.
4) All berms should be regularly maintained. Surface drains
should be kept free of debris at all times.
5) Excavated slope and footing soils should not be spread
loosely on the slope face. Burrowing animals should be
controlled (burrows become avenue for water penetration).
6) Seemingly insignificant factors, such as recreational abuse
(e.g., motorcycles, BMX cycles, etc.), human trespass,
small concentrations of uncontrolled surface/subsurface
water, or poor compaction of trench backfills on slope can
result in major erosion and slope distress.
Lakeshore Engineering
Go
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 5, 2000
Project No. 00-006.C
Page Seven
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of all
structures to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying soils.
Finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down
and away to facilitate surface drainage. All drainage should be
directed off-site to the street via non-erosive devices. The
homeowner should be made aware of the potential problems which may
develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining
walls, patios and pools. Ponding water situation, leaking irrigation
systems, overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground
saturation must be avoided.
ADDITIONAL GRADING
The project consultant engineer should be notified prior to any fill
placement, regrading of the site, or backfilling of trenches, after
rough grading has been completed. This report is limited to the
earthwork performed through February 4, 2000, the date our last site
inspection.
Any future appurtenant structures such as a detached garage
buildings, home office, barn, spas or pools, etc., that are not shown
on the approved grading plan should be reviewed for subgrade
suitability and permitted separately by county prior to construction.
_J
Enclosed: 1) Plot Plan, fig. 2
2) Summary of Test Results
3) Xerox reduction of Grading Plan
4) Xerox of reference soil report, by Christian Wheeler
cc: 3 copies to client
Lakeshore Engineering
1
I
I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENS ITY TEST~
DATE ~ FI20Wl !?l:mD.u oj:. ELEVA REFER- MAXIMUM FIELD ~ '"'~
zE::
I KE'l l/UA-; . <0 ,,'<. ",-'> or-
TEST OF TION EfjCE DRY \,AiER DRY u
NO. TEST LOCA TI Drl (f eet) CURVE DENSITY CONTENT DEt,SITY \: "-"9,,," RENARKS ~~
'v'v~ r::s~
-/.. (pef) (% ) (pef) '<' (,; :;;1;0
I II-z.o 17.<10 ,
I KE'iWA'i we;. T to A It>. (;, l/5.-g 0 /
I 1. I/W k.E'iw....'i WBT +"Z.. A 1'2.'1.0 II. r 1115 11 /
I .2 1/2.4 SWPE: FILL +4 A 1'2'1.0 Q'5 1'2.D S 1~ 1/
4 1/24 c",LDJ?G FILL +5 rI 17Pl .(~ 0.3,. II 'g.1 qz.. ,
/
I
5 ) 12-0 IZE 'l W~ '1 Is lJ.) P':E +2- A hOt.o q.'2... 12.0.0 '13 1/
I
b 1/26. ';)WPF +-+ A I 'Z-C1.0 10'0 11'1. ;? '13> 1/
I q.~ 1'2.3,..? C}b
I 1131 PM . LFlDtU.. J::'b) -2- A I?.~'O :/
I '2, II~I ~AJ) i'~ Pb Y. -2.... A 1'2'1.0 g.'), 11'2.2 c,S;: 1/
I I
'1 2/4- N.W. Plat. l=-b . A l2.9,0 2,. '2... 111.2.- C1! /
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .LAKESHORE COMPACTION REPORT
39930 CALLE MEDUSA
Engineering PETER CERNOUSEK B
I prnf. ~: 00"'2/5/00 Tobl.' 3 A.
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists 00-006,C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLOT PLAN
/
~
N
REMOYE EX I STl NG
TREES AS NECESSARY
H
/TC
'"
N.T.S.
lYE EXISTING
S AS NECESSARY
020
SAWCUT ~ JOIN
EXISTING DRIYE
FL=
HI-PT
...., _.,.., ....
REMOVE EXISTING ~
TRtES AS NEeESSARY
/
---- /2
60 -....
EXPLANATION
ill.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DENSITY TEST
APPROX. LIMITS OF FILL PLACED AND INSPECTED
X-g
LAKESHORE
Engineering
COMPACTION REPORT
39930 CALLE MEDUSA
PETER.CERNOUSEK
~
Project No:
CONSULTING CIVIl: ENGIN~ERS 00-006. C
Dote
2/5/00
Agure No:
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOCATION MAP
Cl:::
}::
VJ
G.J
::r:
()
<
~
\...I(f(B. ROAD
NICHOLAS
+\- 750'~
o
):>
r
r
rTJ
CALLE
""""--""GIRASOL
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
THOMAS BROS. GUIDE PAGE 959, D-2
LAKESHORE
Engineering
COMPACTION REPORT
39930 CALLE MEDUSA
PETER CERNOUSEK
Project No:
CONSULTING CiViL ENGINEERS 00-006. C
Dote
2/5/00
N
N.T.S.
10
Figure No:
1
I
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
I
I
I
September 22, 1999
I
Mr. Peter Cernousek
"
CWE 199.536.1
I
30399 Senela Place
T emecula, California 92592
I
SUBJECT:
SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE, PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP BOOK17, PAGE
21, CALLE MEDUSA, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
I
I
Dear Mr Cernousek,
I
In accordance with the request of Mr. Mark Kirk, Christian \Vbeeler Engineering has prepared tlus
report to provide our recommendations for the preparation of tile subject site to receive the
proposed single family residence. To aid in the perparation of this report, we have had discussions
regarding the proposed construction with Mr. Kirk and have visually observed tile current condition
of the site.
I
I
I
SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site addressed by this report consists of a roughly trapazoida!
shaped parcel of approximately 3.5 acres located in the 39000 block of Calle Medusa in the City of
T emecula, California. The site is bounded by Calle Medusa on the west, residenia! properties to the
south and east, and vacant property to the north. The site is topographically characterized by a ridge
that protrudes into the mid portion of the parcel from the south, with moderately, steep to gentle
slopes radiating to the east, north and west. The site has been previously graded to produce a
relatively level building pad on the ridge portion of the parcel, and a driveway that accesses the
building pad from Calle Medusa. The driveway is improved with concrete pavement, and was
observed to be in good condition. Soils observed on the site consist of granular, non-detrimentally
expansive silty sands. Cut and fill slopes associated with the previous earthwork exist ,vith maximum
heights of less than 10 and 20 feet, respectively. Severa! mature trees are established around the
perimeter of the existing pad, and the remainder of the parcel is vegetated with
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
4925 Mercury Street + San Diego. CA 92111 + 858.496.9760 + FAX 858.496.9758
I
eWE 199.536.1
September 22, 1999
2
I
I
indigenous grasses and shrubs. It is our understanding that the building pad previously supported a
single family residence. The previous structure has been removed from the site.
I
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: It is our understanding that the subject site is to be developed
by the construction of a one and/or CWo story residence. \Ve anticipate that the proposed structure
will be constructed on shallow conventional foundations, and h,,-e slab-on-grade concrete floors.
The area of the proposed residence is greater than can be supported by the level area of the pad,
necessitating a significant regrading of the site.
I
I
I
PLAN REFERENCE: In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the
project, our firm was provided with a preliminary grading plan for the site dated July 24,1999.
I
RECOMMENDATIONS: No documentation pertaining to the existing grading has been provided
to our firm, and, as judged by the apparent age of the pad, it is unlikely that the site was graded to
current standards. In view of chis, we recomment that the existing fills be entirely removed and the
new pad be constructed. Fills for the new pad should be supported by keyways and benches
excavated into competent undisturbed soils. The earthwork should be performed in accordance with
the attached "Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions" and the City of Temecula
grading ordinance. Our firm should be contacted when the earthwork begins so that we may provide
earthwork observation and testing services.
I
I
I
I
It is anticipated that the existing improved driveway will remain in place, and will provide access to
the new pad. It should be recognized that setdement of the fill underlying portions of the driveway
could result in distress to the concrete pavement.
I
I
FOUNDATIONS: Recommendations for the minimum design of foundations for the proposed
residence will be provided by our firm based upon the as-graded soil conditions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
CWE 199.536.1
September 22, 1999
3
I
I
Christian \Vbeeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional service
on this project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to
contact our fum.
I
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN 'WHEELER ENGINEERING
I
I
I
dwtq-c
I
Charles H. Chris tian, R. G .E. 00215
I
CHC/DH/dh
I
cc: (1) Submitted
(4) Mark B. Kirk
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.z:=:''-'''''--::''...
.,~"':SS;o;14/
:.:'.:-'::'......--u-~,....
.h" fie.. Ii. ~ftA" *~"
..'<:-"V/.......'I'........ .I,.(..,_....~.\
;'1 "'.1 ;~i !..I~\~\\~
::t: '~ .~\.q;\,
.)~ {(~':\I(j.GEC~'l15'?.:I-, !'!
1\;~ \ i:VD y..3G-Qi f :;. d
",. ". '-'" : t
..\,,' "".",/.
'.~ - .:...{i~'orrC"~'''y~.:iiii
\ l,i'~ -...::.~,...~ u
'-v;.,~4!E 0': ...~\..\<.(,..l4'7
'-';-~.--:~.
\Z.
I
C\'\'E 198.536.1
September 22, 1999
Page No. B-1
I
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
CERNOUSEK RESIDENCE CALLE tvffiDULA TEMECULA CALIFORNL-\
I
I
I
GENERAL INTENT
I
I
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the
accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/ or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
I
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
I
Christian \V'heeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assis t the Geotechnical
Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he
may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provi~ions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as
questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,
construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
rejection of this work.
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
I
I
I
Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D-1557-91
Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922
\3
I
C\'V'E 198.536. t
September 22, 1999
Page No. B-2
I
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing .-\S11';[
testing procedures.
I
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
I
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of.
All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsighdy debris.
I
I
After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is
defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
I
I
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit),
the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 rimes the equipment width, whichever is greater, and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should
be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as
specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
I
I
I
I
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10
feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water
lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
I
I
I
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements
set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3
feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the
well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/ or a qualified Structural Engineer.
I
I
I
\4\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C\'i;'E 198.536.1
September 22, 1999
P'ge No. B-3
FILL J.\oIATElUAL
M,terials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill
the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered
. in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly roi"ed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only
with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.
PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the
compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to
economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliabiliry. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be
carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special
Provisions is achieved. The ma:umum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-
structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by
sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of
two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-
\S'
I
CWE 198.536.1
September 22, 1999
Page No. B-4
I
I
back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all
fill material si.,< or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction ~f at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions
section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the
Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.
I
I
Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. \V'here failing tests occur or other field problems
arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
I
I
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction
is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer.
I
I
CUT SLOPES
I
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during
the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse
nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions
shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating
I
I
measures are necessary.
I
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.
I
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
I
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and
compaction operations so that he can e..'<press his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to
the specified degree of compaction.
I
I
I
I
\,
I
C\VE 198.536.1
September 22, 1999
Page No. B-5
I
I
SEASON LIMITS
I
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain,
filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can
be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before
acceptance of work.
I
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
I
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot
subgrade, the upper si." inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
I
I
I
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defIned as clayey soil which has an expansion index of
50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2.
I
I
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fIll soils
shall pass through a No.4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
I
I
I
TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the
cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
recompacted as structural back@!. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report,
special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be
required.
I
I
I
I
I
\l
~
,
,~
\~
1\ "
.\~
,
~I ..
'"
'"
'"
~
~ %
1 1;
0
~
eXISTING
~E~ -
1 '"
,,,
\ ~
Cll
STA.
5=~
-~<Y;. .
/~L,
.~\).Q-\ \ ..... ~
/ ~J 10 V .
_ .~'\~ \\,-1-
-'.-D)~~~"1- b..'f>
/,,/
Le'l.end: __
DESCRIPTION
.----.SYH8OL
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE (1% MINIMUM)
FINISH GRADE
EXIS77NG CONTOUR
BROW DITCH/BERM
DA YLIGHT LINE
EROSION CON mOL FLOWLINE
SANDBAGS
EXISTING TREE
.--yS---
..-- -.-.........~_~ eeO
....--
/
SECT!lJ<l'\I-lI'
HCSCM..(
..---- .------.----..-------
...----- ... -.---.-
-------:;:::
?'
-,,~
"'---"-/
.'~'
./
~
lRllllHot\l..
''''''' '"
~
~~
~
\ .--J"--ORIOI~
\ ''''''''
BRlNllITCH
/
./
,<>'
.
................--.-....
./
/
/
SrCTlCIN"A-A'
HlJSCI\LE
IlIID..LIHG
" ~,,;v
.
-"
le'M!N.
SECTION......
1lt~..[M'IiSIlIll..E DETAIL
f\MfIU$UFES)S'
.,"'"
"'-',
,
'r';.~""
~
....
S[CTlON"C-C'
c..loLU HEWS'"
.,,=
I
I
"j
;
'f
eotm~T 20' DRIVOIAY
N"PIICACHI'ERCITYDF"
TEKt\i.Jl STD.NIl.eo7
(U,I/tIJ'tt.AOClVE
EUSlIHGtuRJA$
NtCErtARY>
/.
, // RtHovrcxlsttNG
11.821'.,'-......// ~E$...sNtttS$ARy
.I-..IIIN ". /' ____ ,--'
~ /--~-:---~--
/' --- -
t-<:./::::__...----l~!320
)- /~ISfINli _ ...~~.. ~~.,
TllEt"SAS I€CE$SAIlY \llDENEXI.ST1NG
) IlIllvtV...YTOZO'..'....
(XlSTlJoIj
CO/CClIlI SNallIAGS,
1 AT S\lI'oL( ) ~
'T'/'P)
/,//,
---'-
/
-IS'
_.~~
ex_ _~~
""'--,.tllNC.
"'''
:1.._--.-
,>~ ,_.... "',,___ le~o ___~
.~~_..- ,
--:;-,".. - :~~:==:~--------_:----.-
-----
TlIjliTLlNE:
tNnl'oLl.Rtp-fW'
L_.',\I_S,\I/NO.e'
~,~
DoOlYLIf[
.lJIIDITCIl
n._38.0
$tCTllJol'(-.['
..,=
---~---
O\CBERll-----'
....-"
'"
I' 30'
~'.1'3.1'3. llRlGlNAL
,b1:.r-::-......
i3' LJI'
~ 0. ~
_33'__33'_
'"
J
,.
IllDWI1ITCliDrTAIL
. .."'"
MlI(.IOITOHOF'
DITalHAY8l:~!l:D
"'T~TIlACTlI!'SDPTll)t
OISTlNr. 30'
ACP...nNG
~4=:;:;:"
j ".". I .'" I ".". j
s:
~.~m__
SIltLSEH:ilNEEll>
T~DETAlL
.."'"
,I
I
I
SCALC' 1-..
~\..E. 1\\ -::::. 60 '
P~pafed By:
t ACAL Engineering, Inc,
-'-'--;;;;;t";'7.;:;cn~_t~
. 990 Val", Tlll"l"ac.. Drlvll
L p~;; fl601e::::it;~
FAX' (760) 72.,-7675
CHRISTIAN 'WHEELER ENGINEERING
CHARLES H, CHRISTIAN. RGE 00215
4925 HERCURY STREET .
SAN - DIEGO. CA 92m
....-
F'OUND l' OPEN' IRON PIPE @ NE PROPERTY 'CORNER.
EL'EV. 1180.0 PER RIVERSIDE COUNTY F'LOOD CONTROL TOPO,
R.C.E, NOl
19744
I PERMIT NO: LD99 181GR
\
Do. te' /Z//~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS Project No.1 99-195
Do. tet.E:/Li/l..9 ~ .PRECISE GRADING &. EROSION CONTROL PLAN for. SHEET NO,
PETE1 CERNDUSEK RESIDENCE FI'-.4. \2
'WORKS PG 2
39930 CALLE MEDUSA
Expire'" 9/30/01 ... ~1:=" I: I PARCEL I PM 6228
SHEa 2af2
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE'
lliEIlCIYDEQ.ARl:THATI.....THED<<ill€ERlFVCRlCfllRTHISPRO.JE:CT,THAlIHAVE(XUCrIEDll(SI'lJIS.lJU:
Ci'WlGE ll"IIt'lI: nc DES1CiNlF HIE: PliI:lA:CT M WI/l[]J IN ~CTlIlN :1703 IF THE IIt.ISlNESS AND PRQf"[SSItllS
CC1l(, AND TK D(SI(iN IS CCMUf[N1" \ltTHCIIlIlOfT STNIIlARD$.
lll!llltRSTNlD THAT THE CH((;X lJ' THE PIlD..lLClIlRAIJIMGS .o\NDSPEClrIU.TIOlG IY m: CIIl.M"Y IF RIVERSIOC
IStalf'II€~TOA~It...DN..YAHtlDIXSNJTItO.IEVEIl[.ASENGlNl:tIllFlt'ORK,[J"HYItt~111L"lES
rllRP~CTIll:SIGN. 7" / ',.;..-';.... -'
8Y, 0.----:::- . DATE'I~,h. '"
ll.AVlDCLO'/IOI' C( OI$~1Z\31\1OOO
s~.
,m
"
REVISIONS
ACt'D' ~f[
Roco""on"'o by' 11 ~~i.L
Accepted bj" ~'!1
...... RONALD J. PARKS
DEPUTY ~DIRECTOR OF' PUBLIC
(~