HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 49 Rough Grade Certification
LAKESHORE
Engineering
355..;l.
Lo-f -fq
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists
January 24 1999
Project No. 98-074.L&G
Client: Mr. and Mrs. Sadeghi zadeh
24059 Five Tribes Trail
Murrieta, CA 92562
(909) 699-9429/677-4629
Subject: Building Pad Line and Grade Certification
Parcel No. 49 of P.M. 3552
South End of Coronado Drive
City of Temecula, CA.
A.P.N. 922-160-018
Gentlemen:
This letter is to certify that the rough grading on the subject
parcels was performed in substantial compliance with the approved
grading plan prepared by Lakeshore Engineering dated June 25, 1998.
No major deviations were noted in the field when compared to the
approved plan on file.
This certification is for general grades, elevation and location of
manufactured fills, except for the items of concern to be addressed
during landscape/fine grading. The building pad elevation was
established at F.G. 1028.25 (+/- 0.10). The reference elevation of
1040.00 located at finished surface at the center of the cul-de-sac,
Coronado Drive.
It should be noted that the following items needs attention during
fine grading.
1) Drainage swales and flow lines will be required to be defined
around building structures and reinspected for positive flows.
2) Berms along top of fill slopes needs to be compacted and planted.
3) Paving of driveway will be required and
4) Rip-Rap as designed installed per approved plan.
Fen
EXP:
you on this project, If
contact this office.
It
you
31740-2 Railroad Canyon Road. Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987 \
RECEIVED
FEB 1 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROUGH GRADE COMPACTION REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
PARCEL NO. 49 OF PARCEL MAP 3552
END OF CORONADO DRIVE. A CUL-DE-SAC
II
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
A.P.N. 922-160-018
FOR
MR. AND MRS. SADEGHI ZADEH
PROJECT NO. 98-074.COM
DATED JANUARY 24. 1999
Lakeshore Engineering
"/;
I
.
'.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
Engineering
Consulting Civil Engineering and Geologists
January 24 1999
Project No. 98-074.COM
Client: Mr. and Mrs. Sadeghi zadeh
24059 Five Tribes Trail
Murrieta, CA 92562
(909) 699-9429/677-4629
Subject: Rough Grade Compaction Report
Parcel No. 49 of P.M. 3552
South End of Coronado Drive
City of Temecula, CA.
A.P.N. 922-160-018
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
Submitted herewith
observations made
subject site.
the results of
the placement
field density tests
of compacted fill on
and
the
are
during
Periodic tests and observations were provided by a representative of
Lakeshore Engineering to check the grading contractors on compliance
with the drawing and 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 work 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
tests and observations of the grading procedures used, and represent
our engineering judgment as to the contractor's compliance with the
job grading specifications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENr
The subject lot was unimproved vacant
operation. Groundcover consisted of
probably a ranching and/or farmland.
land prior to the rough grading
annual grass. Previous use was
A precise grading plan (by Lakeshore Engineering, 40 scale, drawing
no. 98-101GR) and a soil report (by Jonathan L Rossi, EG) were
recently prepared for the subject site with the intended purpose of
providing geotechnical recommendations for the constructing a single
family home.
31740-2 Railroad Canyon Road. Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
.:?
I
I
I
I
il
I
,
I
VICINITY MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T.B. PG979 A-2
I
I
I
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
CORONA.DO DR. TEMECULA, CA.
A.P.N. 9,22-160-018
LAKESHORE
Engineering
Project No:
98-074.C
Date
1/24/1999
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
N
Agure No:
I
'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
January 24, 1999
Project No.: 98-074.COM
Page Two
The subject property was rough graded to provide for a level pad for
the construction of a soingle family home with associated driveway.
Review of house plans prepared by Mr. Dave Maden, indicates proposed
construction will consist of a single story residence, about 3,500
square feet of living space, of conventional woodframed and stucco
construction. Foundation will likely be spread footings and flooring,
concrete slab-on-grade.
GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Grading operation (by Mr. Fred Klein, grading contractor) commenced
on January 4, 1999 and concluded on January 14, 1999 the last day of
our field inspection and testing. Equipment used included a CAT D-8,
a blade and water truck. The grading operation was observed to be
performed in the following manner:
1. Vegetation, surface debris were cleared from the areas to be
graded.
2. Unsatisfactory soils were excavated to expose competent materials
on which to start the fill. The average depth of fills placed was
approximately 6 feet located over the entire building pad.
3. The native soils exposed at the bottom substandard soil removal,
were inspected and are in our opinion, considered suitable for
support of compacted fills. Prior to placing any fills, the
exposed bottom subgrade was scarified, moisture conditioned and
then recompacted.
4. Approved soils were placed in layers on each prepared surface,
and each layer was compacted to the specified density before the
next layer was added.
5. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction content was 90
percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
6. Maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined by
the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method.
7. Field density tests were performed utilizing the sandcone method
(A.S.T.M. D1556) and the drive tube method.
8. The soils used in the compacted fill consisted predominantly of
a medium brown Silty SAND (8M).
Lakeshore Engineering -5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 24, 1999
Project No.: 98-074.COM
Page Three
9. 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 of the compacted fill
placed during this grading operation.
GRADING DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLAN
Near the conclusion of rough grading operation, no major deviation
were noted in the field when compared with the approved plan on file.
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
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:
Soil Tvpe
Soil Description
Optimum Moisture
Max. Drv Densitv
A
Med. Brn. Silty SAND
9.3 % of dry wt. 131.0 p.c.f.
LABORATORY EXPANSION TEST
A Laboratory Expansion Index Test was performed on a representative
soil sample recovered from within the proposed building area at the
subject site. The laboratory expansion test was performed in
accordance with U.B.C. Test Method 29-C, and the pertinent test
results are presented below:
Soil
Description
Depth
Moisture %
Before Test
Expan.
Index
Expansion
Potential
Silty SAND
F.G.
8.4
21
LOW
Based upon a test result of 21, subgrade materials are considered to
be LOW in expansion potential. Conclusions and recommendations as
presented in the reference soil reports remain applicable and should
be incorporated into the desigl). and construction phases of this
project.
Lakeshore Engineering
~
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 24, 1999
Project No.: 98-074.COM
Page Four
SULPHATE CONTENT TEST
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
F.G.
Portland Cement TYPE 11
< 200 ppm.
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 as shown on the Plot Plan, figure no. 2 attached has been placed
in accordance with the applicable portions of the job specifications
and in accordance with ordinance and regulations of the City of
Temecula. Any fill dirt added beyond the limits or above the grades
shown 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 report.
Based upon our field testing results, it is our opinion
placed has been compacted to at least 90 percent of
density. The on-site foundation soils exposed during
operation are granular and therefore considered LOW
potential.
that the fill
its relative
rough grading
in expansion
Footings for single story structure
inches wide, minimum. All footings
four no. 4 rebars, two at top and
four rebars).
should be 12 inches deep and 12
shall be reinforced with at least
two at (2" from) bottom (total of
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE
The local subgrade soils are considered granular and LOW in
expansion. 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 sand cushion to prevent punctures
and aid in concrete cure. Presaturation of subgrade soils prior to
pour is not required.
The concrete floor slabs should be reinforced with at least 6"x 6"-
#10/#10 welded wire mesh 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 npmina1.
Lakeshore Engineering
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 24, 1999
Project No.: 98-074.COM
Page Five
FOOTING INSPECTION
Due to periodic inspections by consultant, footing trench excavations
should be inspected by a representative of Lakeshore Engineering
prior to placement of reinforcing rebars to verify proper embeddment
entirely into competent compacted soil.
SLOPES AND EROSION CONTROL
The constructed fill slopes, pitched at least 4:1(H:V) or less, and
below 5 feet in height are considered grossly stable from deep seated
failure. However, due to the sandy nature of the onsite soils, it is
our opinion that existing slope faces are 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
geotechnical1y inadvisable because they create a localized
over-steepened condition.
4) Excavated slope and footing soils should not be spread
loosely on the slope face. Burrowing Animals should be controlled
because burrows become avenue. for water penetration.
6) All berms should be regularly maintained. Surface drains
should be kept free of debris at all times.
7) 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 backfill on slope can result in
major erosion and slope distress.
Lakeshore Engineering 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I.
I
I
I
I
I
January 24, 1999
Project No.: 98-074.COM
Page Six
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of all
structures to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying soils.
Finish subgradeadjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down
and away to facilitate surface drainage. All drainage should be
directed off-site 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, leaking irrigation
systems, overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground
saturation must be avoided.
ADDITIONAL GRADING
The project soil 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 January 14, 1999, the date of our last
inspection and testing of compacted soils.
Any future appurtenant structures such as a
buildings, office, barn, spas or pools, etc., that
the approved plans should be reviewed for subgrade
to construction.
detached garage
are not shown on
suitability prior
Our findings have been
professional engineering
engineering. This warranty
express or implied.
obtained in
practices in
is in lieu of
accordance with accepted
the fields of geotechnical
all other warranties, either
It has been our pleasure to
you have any questions"
convenience.
be of service to you on this project. If
please contact this office at your
cc: 3 copies
Enclosed: 1) ..PLOT PLAN, FIGURE 2
2) SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Lakeshore Engineering
C\.
\.;' ~1JS.1A u--- RtP.
I Y~\Ol\..lI;
It- 2.1..,,0':. 3D" 'S.i,
-:/2-')( ~'~
(4'\ [&.;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLOT PLAN
/1
;....0
~Q B
)
-
-col
\
I
~
f'0'
0,
(:;G-.
r
u>"'~
-'. ~ e
0"\{;.\ \J)r'
~b &1.
0"'r:.. ~o'it-
\(:/(
/
'-.
'-.
Y';'l :J0
::.MEN";
......f'nle.
p...;:, S~-:. :,,,,, "'w..;
Q"C~\L MtJI.L:0"-'>
.J" .
<"??!'. ,.'.
. "..;-;.. t'
'-..
'-..
N 50. II' I:J"E.,
214 CD (R.)
EXPLANATION
."\',
APPROX. LOC. OF FIELD DENSITY TEST
APPROX. LIMITS OF FILL PLACED/INSPECTED
LAKESHORE
Engineering
PARCEL 29 OF P.M. 2553
CORONADO DRIVE
MR. SADEGHI ZADEH
c,
Project No:
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 98-074. COM
Date
1/24/98
Agure No:
2
"
,
~
G
<l
r
~ ]
;;
'"
;t
~
-2
10'
,
.'
\0
I
:.
I
:.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
.
I
I
.
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
FJELD ~ ~~
DATE ELEVA REFER- MAXIMUM i5~
TEST OF TION ErKE DRY \,ATER DRY 0- ",-"- "'--- u
LOCATION '",'- 'to" RENARKS
NO. TEST (feet) CURVE DENS!TY C ONTENT OE1,S!TY ,,-,,'t- c:s~ e:::
(pef) (%) (pef) '<' ~ ~'=
en -
I J -'5"''111. 1= ILL q.,LD p~ +'2... A. Is/.n ~;I l7.z.1 ~3 /
Z. II II /I +'2... A. l.g/'n ~.{) 12.~.1 CJb. /
..
3 1-1 FILL ~LC-PE... tf A f{.I,"b '1'~ 124- 4- '1'&" /
4 1-1 1'\ II +4 A' 1'2>1.0 q.o 126 -/ 1b l/
,~ '-14' PAD. tb A 13/.0 5}.3 1'26. J 1-f, J
G 1~14 PA--.D I+J. A ,'131.0 IO'S" 12.4- ~ qs: 1/
-
..~ ~}!:..~~ ~..,
, .
..
\
'.\..
.. .~./ ...
..
"
eLAKESHORE ~<$.\I1Ml.9.. . ~A.~~j-II::c4 ~ .
~L. 4G\ J:l.l-tl. 3~$2-. \\
Engineering
prt No' 0018: Tobl..
Consulting Civil Engineering ." .14 I!.-. \ - 2..4'<'10, . \ Ol=- I