The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 6 Compaction Results Rough Grading I /~ / ./"" ~-~,,;1L;-,>"', _ _ /: ___ ",' I ~~GEN Cor.t~oration -Soil EnllineeringandConsullingServices. EngineeringGeology. CompaclionTestinll -Inspections- ConslructionMaterialsTesting- LaooraloryTesling.PercolationTesling . Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK I I I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Gaitan Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 926-221-004 Lot 6 of Tract 9833-1, Piasano Place City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T2679-C . I I February 21, 2003 I I I I I I I Prepared for: RECEIVE FEB 2 1 20Vl CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DJ:PAATMENT I Mr. Art Gaitan 30520 Rancho California Road, PMB 100 Temecula, California 92591-3299 .~\ \ I r0~-.'\ .V . ~ -- ~- / ' , / , , , / ' " , I \ , ' - \ ' J / " ?/' , , , , ~ / / _-... _ J / \ ~ "- -' I _.... _ \ F'" / . :;- \ , / --- ; , \ - , ' - , , -- , , - / - , / - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................. ................ ..1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................... ......................... .............. ...1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............... ............................ .............. ...2 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................2 2.1 TIME OF GRADING ............... .......................... .................. .......... .............. ........2 2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ............... ................... .............. ........2 2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS............................................................... ............ .............2 3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ........................................... ............. .......... .................... ..... ...... .... .........3 3.1 FILL SLOPES ........................ ........................ .............. ................ .. ...................3 3.2 CUT SLOPES.. .......................... .................... ................ ............. .......................3 4.0 TESTING ......... ............. ........ ......... ...... ..... ........ ...... ............ ... ..... ... ... ... ........ ... ... ... ... .... ......4 4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ............................................ .............. ........... ........4 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................ ........... .................4 4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ...................................................4 4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .............................................................................4 4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ............................................................................4 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ....................................................... .......... .................... ...... ...... ..........4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................5 6.1 FOUNDATION SETBACKS............................................................................................. ,......5 6.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................5 7.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................... ... ............... ........6 ApPENDIX: TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS 1,.- EnGEN Corporation i1f']'/ 'I ~~GEN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.~- li"" ~I~ Co~oration -Soil EngineerinllandConsultinllServices-EngineeringGeology. Com paction Testinll -Inspections. Construction MaterialsTesling-LaboratoryTesting . PercolalionTesting -Geololly.WalerResourceSludies . Phase I & II l:nvironmenlal SileAssessmenlS ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK February 21, 2003 Mr. Art Gaitan 30520 Rancho California Road, PMB 100 Temecula, California 92591-3299 (909) 693-2254 / FAX (909) 699-7491 Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Gaitan Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 926-221-004 Lot 6 of Tract 9833-1, Piasano Place City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T2679-C References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Gaitan Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 926-221-004, Tract 9833-1, Lot 6, Piasano Place, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2679-GFS, report dated October 7,2002. Vandenberg Civil Consulting, As-Built Precise Grading Plan, Lot 6 of Tract No. 9833-1, Piasano Place, County of Riverside, California, plans dated February 7, 2003. 2. Dear Mr. Gaitan: In accordance with your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein, are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data. 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The subject site consists of approximately 5-acres, located on the southern terminus of Piasano Place, south of the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and Piasano Place, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION/ -">:, / Prior to grading operations;topography and surface conditions of the site were moderately ./ ' / '''\ ) sloping, with surface drainage to the south at a gradient of approximately 20 percent. , . .- ,- -- \..' F / '- ~ ~ . I -"" \ _ __. I' \ , -- \ - '" '- I" / " I.... _ / '- ~ J __ \ ... " , _ _ \..-'" ,_ _ _ \ __ '- J I , ":i~!,;~~!~~~~i~El~~;~~:;;~;~~:'~~:e;i: , ------M~--,._-"'--"."~.J;,x:;l90 c. : c.;'~o~,::;::;. :C"aI /" "'- ~ ~ / --- \ - -." \ , ' - ~ , \ -- \_- ; 'I , - I __ \_ . ' - , -' -- I , '- \ / _.__ I ~,,,,' t-3. reo,~ O-'~i II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C February 2003 Page 2 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of an upper and lower building pad, and it is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence as well as a garage/apartment type structure with slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings, with associated driveway as well as hardscape and landscape improvements. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 TIME OF GRADING This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction operations from October 22, 2002 through January 20, 2003. 2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT The grading operations were performed by A. Park Avenue Grading through the use of one (1) CAT D3 dozer, one (1) CAT D6 dozer, one (1) CAT D8 dozer, one (1) CAT 623 scraper, one (1) skip loader, and one (1) fire hose attached to a fire hydrant. 2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS Grading within the subject site consisted of a cutlfill operation as well as an import fill operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement Fill material was generated from the upper pad, the borrow areas, and from off-site sources, and used to bring the driveway and lower pad portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 4 to 5-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent bedrock by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation was performed throughout the entire upper building pad to a depth of 2- feet below original grade elevation. The lower building pad is underlain by approximately 2 to 14-feet of fill. The structural footprint was not known at the time of grading. Therefore, the pad spans a shallow to deep fill transition. The shallow fill areas in the footprint should be overexcavated one half of the depth of the deepest fill (approximately 7-feet). Overexcavation outside the building footprint should be equal to the overexcavation depth (approximately 7-feet). The building footprint of the Garage/Apartment, as shown on the Referenced No. 2 Plans, is set back t\ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C February 2003 Page 3 approximately 1 to 3-feet from the top of slope. If possible, the setback distance should be increased by relocating the building and/or the footings may be deepened per Section 6.1 of this report The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then compacted to 90 percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during the compaction process through the use of a water truck. The pad area was generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer. 3.0 SLOPE STABILITY 3.1 FILL SLOPES All design fill slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). It is our opinion that the fill slopes as constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are maintained. These procedures include but are not limited to installation and maintenance of drainage devices, and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in accordance with City of Temecula Grading Codes. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this report as shown on the Referenced NO.2 plans is reportedly 30-feet. 3.2 CUT SLOPES All cut slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes were surficially inspected by the Project Geologist and consist of Pauba Formation Bedrock. No adversely oriented joints or planes of weakness were observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that the cut slopes as constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended purpose. The maximum height of cut slope covered in this report as shown on the Referenced NO.2 Plans is reportedly 30-feet. .~ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C February 2003 Page 4 4.0 TESTING 4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is an indication that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were determined from review of the referenced grading plans. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. 4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results). 4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829-95. The material tested consisted of brown silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of O. This soil is classified as having a very low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Expansion Index Test Results). 4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST Based on this firm's familiarity with the soils used to construct the building pad, it is our opinion that soluble sulfates are not a concern. As a result, normal Type II cement can be used in concrete making contact with the native soils. 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of brown silty sands ~ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C February 2003 Page 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 FOUNDATION SETBACKS The building footprint for the Garage/Apartment is shown as located within 1 to 3-feet of the top of the fill slope. If convenient, the building should be relocated to provide the setback dimensions per the current California Building Code. If not conveniently possible, it is our opinion that the footings can be deepened to meet an adequate slope setback as follows: 1. Footings within 6-feet of the top of slope shall be deepened to a minimum depth of 3-feet below adjacent grade. 2. No footing shall be closer to the face of the slope than 8-feet, measured horizontally at the elevation of the footing bottom. 6.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No other conditions were encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should adhere to the recommendations provided in the Referenced No. 1 Geotechnical Feasibility Study. Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the Referenced NO.1 Report, the project plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site, in the areas noted as graded, is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical residential development Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation and testing perfolmed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is nollimiled 10, any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work completed for the development of the subject site should be performed. by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the 1. EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C February 2003 Page 6 development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. SRW/OB:hh Distribution: (4) Addressee FilE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT2679-C Art Gaitan, Rough Grading EnGEN Corporation ~ I , I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX: TEST RESULTS <\ EnGEN Corporation I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C Appendix Page 2 FIELD TEST RESULTS (Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results) (Nuclear Gauge Test Method) (5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required I Test Test Locations Elevation Density Content Density Compaction Date Type Compaction No. (2002) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PC F) (%) (%) I 1 10-23 Lower Keyway 1115 A1 128.5 9,0 117.8 91.7% 90.0% 2 10-23 Lower Keyv..ray 1117 A1 128.5 7.2 116.8 90.9% 90.0% 3 10-24 Lower Keyway 1118 A1 128.5 12.5 108.2 84.2% 90.0% 4 10-24 Lower Keyway 1120 A1 128.5 10.3 111.2 86.5% 90.0% 5 10-24 Retest #4 1120 A1 128.5 11.8 121.8 94.8% 90.0% 6 10-24 Retest #3 1118 A1 128.5 7.5 119.8 93.2% 90.0% 7 10-25 Lower Fill Slope 1122 A1 128.5 8.2 120.4 93.7% 90.0% 8 10-25 Lower Fill Slope 1122 A1 128.5 12.0 116.9 91.0% 90.0% 9 10-25 Lower Fill Slope 1124 A1 128.5 7.9 117.0 91.1% 90.0% 10 10-25 Lower Fill Slope 1126 A1 128.5 7.8 121.7 94.7% 90.0% 11 10-28 Lower Fill Slope 1126 A2 126.1 7.8 115.9 91.9% 90.0% 12 10-28 Lower Fill Slope 1128 A2 126.1 7.0 113.5 90.0% 90.0% 13 10-28 Lower FHJ Slope 1130 A1 128.5 7.8 121.7 94.7% 90.0% I 14 10-28 Lower Fill Slope 1132 A1 128.5 9.3 121.2 94.3% 90.0% 15 10-30 Lower Fill Slope 1134 A2 126.1 13.1 119.3 94.6% 90.0% I 16 10-30 Lower Fill Slope 1136 A2 126.1 11.9 118.9 94.3% 90.0% 17 10-31 Lower Fill Slope 1138 A1 128.5 8.0 122.7 95.5% 90.0% I 18 10-31 Lower Fill Slope 1140 A1 128.5 11.2 118.1 91.9% 90.0% 19 11-01 Lower Fill Slope 1142 A2 126.1 7.5 114.8 91.0% . 90.0% 20 11-01 Lower Fill Slope 1144 A1 128.5 7.3 123.8 96.3% 90.0% I 21 11-04 Lower Fill Slope 1146 A1 128.5 7.2 121.2 94.3% 90.0% 22 11-04 Upper Fill Slope 1141 A1 128.5 7.1 120.6 93.9% 90.0% I 23 11-04 Upper Fill Slope 1143 A1 128.5 8.5 119.2 92.8% 90.0% 24 11-04 Upper Fill Slope 1145 A1 128.5 7.6 120.2 93.5% 90.0% 25 11-04 Upper Fill Slope 1147 A1 128.5 8.6 121.5 94.6% 90.0% I 26 11-05 Upper Fill Slope 1140 A2 126.1 7.3 114.4 90.7% 90.0% 27 11-06 Upper Pad 1200 A2 126.1 10.2 114.6 90.9% 90.0% I 28 11-06 Upper Fill Slope 1142 A2 126.1 9.7 115.3 91.4% 90.0% 29 12-12 Upper Fill Slope 1139 A3 132.2 8.1 119.4 90.3% 90.0% 30 12-12 Upper Fill Slope 1141 A3 132.2 9.0 120.4 91.1% 90.0% 31 12-12 Upper Fill Slope 1142 A3 132.2 9.5 120.9 91.5% 90.0% 32 12-13 Upper Fill Slope 1143 A3 132.2 10.3 120.1 90.8% 90.0% 33 12-13 Upper Fill Slope 1148 A3 132.2 6.1 119.3 90.2% 90.0% 34 12-30 Upper Fill Slope 1145 A3 132.2 7.9 120.9 91.5% 90.0% I v:> EnGEN Corporation I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number T2679-C Appendix Page 3 FIELD TEST RESULTS (Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results) (Nuclear Gauge Test Method) (5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade Test Test Date No. (2002) Test Locations Depth Elevation (FT) Soil Type Max Density (PCF) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (PCF) Relative Compaction (%) Required Compaction (%) 35 12-30 Lower Pad 1146 A3 132.2 8.1 119.8 90.6% 90.O% 36 12-30 Fill Slope 1148 A3 132.2 7.8 120.3 91.0% 90.0% 37 12-30 Fill Slope 1150 A3 132.2 8.3 121.7 92.1% 90.0% 38 12-31 Lower Pad 1149 A3 132.2 6.1 119.9 90.7% 90.0% 39 12-31 Lower Pad 1152 A3 132.2 6.3 120.5 91.1% 90.0% I 40 12-31 Fill Slope 1154 A3 132.2 7.5 120.8 91,4% 90.0% 41 01-03 Fill Slope 1156 A1 128.5 8,4 115.9 90.2% 90.0% 42 01-03 Fill Slope 1158 A1 128.5 8.1 116.8 90.9% 90.0% I 43 01-03 Fill Slope 1160 A1 128.5 7.0 116.3 90.5% 90.0% 44 01-03 Fill Slope 1162 A1 128.5 7.2 117,4 91,4% 90.0% I 45 01-03 Fill Slope 1164 A1 128.5 6.9 117.0 91.1% 90.0% 46 01-06 Driveway 1168 A3 132.2 11.2 123.1 93.1% 90.0% I 47 01-06 Driveway 1170 A3 132.2 10.9 120.2 90.9% 90.0% 48 01-06 Driveway 1172 A3 132.2 11.6 122.2 92,4% 90.0% 49 01-09 Driveway Slope 1174 A3 132.2 10.6 121.3 91.8% 90.0% I 50 01-09 Driveway Slope 1176 A3 132.2 9.6 120.5 91.1% 90.0% 51 01-09 Driveway Slope 1178 A3 132.2 7.5 119.6 90.5% 90.0% I 52 01-10 Driveway 1180 A3 132.2 9.3 119,4 90.3% 90.0% 53 01-10 Driveway 1182 A3 132.2 10.1 120.0 90.8% 90.0% 54 01-10 Driveway 1184 A3 132.2 9.0 121.8 92.1% 90.0% I 55 01-17 Driveway 1186 A3 132.2 9.0 119.9 90.7% 90.0% 56 01-17 Driveway 1188 A3 132.2 10.2 120.1 90.8% 90.0% I 57 01-17 Driveway 1190 A3 132.2 8.7 119.0 90.0% 90.0% 58 01-20 Lower Pad F.G. A3 132.2 6.9 121.1 91.6% 90.0% 59 01-20 Lower Pad F.G. A3 132.2 7.6 120.7 91.3% 90.0% I 60 01-20 Upper Pad 1202 A3 132.2 6.1 119.1 90.1% 90.0% 61 01-20 Upper Pad F.G. A3 132.2 7.2 119.3 90.2% 90.0% I I I I \\ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C Appendix Page 4 SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density (PCF) Content (%) Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 128.5 8.8 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A2 126.1 10.2 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A3 132.2 8.8 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829-95 Dry Moisture Moisture Expansion Soil Type Depth (HI Density Condition Condition (pct) Before Test After Test Index .. E-1 -1 115.3 8.5% 15.9% 0 \t.- EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Art Gaitan Project Number: T2679-C Appendix Page 5 APPENDIX: DRAWINGS \b EnGEN Corponltion