The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 26521Rough Grading Geotechnical Design & Construction Records I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i(t) O........m R.",cl.d Paper Converse Consultants Over 60 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences ROUGH GRADING, GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 North of Green Tree Land at Deodar Lane City of Temecula, California Prepared For: First Pacifica Development Corporation 300 East State Street, Ste. 100 Redlands, CA, 92868 Converse Project No. 04-81-106-30 November 28, 2005 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands. California 92374 Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-maiL redlands@converseconsultants.com \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O........m Rec:,cl.d Paper ii) Converse Consultants Over 60 ,Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences November 28, 2005 Mr. Brian McGregor First Pacifica Development Corporation 300 East State Street, Ste. 100 Redlands, CA, 92868 Subject: AS-BUILT GEOLOGY, ROUGH GRADING, GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT Tract No. 26521, Lots NO.1 through 10 North of Green Tree Land at Deodar Lane City of Temecula, California Converse Project No. 04-81-106-30 DESIGN Dear Mr. McGregor: Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this report to present the results of our geotechnical/geology observations, field density and laboratory testing performed during rough grading of Lots 1 through 10 of Tract No. 26521 in the city of Temecula, Califomia. These services were.performed in accordance with our proposal dated March 18,2005. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1556 (Sand Cone) and D2922 (Nuclear Gauge) test methods to determine the in-place density of . compacted fill soils. Results of the field density tests performed during rough grading are summarized in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Field Density Test · Results. Laboratory testing performed during rough grading included compaction tests to determine the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture relationships of the soils used as compacted fill in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 test method. The results of these laboratory tests are summarized in Table No. B-1, Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. Expansion and corrosivity test results are also included in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. Based on the results of our field observation, in-place density, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the earthwork associated with the rough grading of the subject tract has been completed in substantial compliance with the project plans and specifications. 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374 Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-mail: redlands@converseconsultants.com -z... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of T emecula, California November 28, 2005 Page jj We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to First Pacifica Homes. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at (909) 796-0544. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS D~ Gennady Tsarev, P.E. Project Engineer Dist.: 5/Addressee - Attention Mr. Mike Schamberg GT/RJR/rjh ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004181104-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr :? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of T emecula, California November 28, 2005 Page iii PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants (Converse) under the supervision of the registered engineer and engineering geologists whose seals and signatures appear hereon. The findings, conclusions, recommendations, or professional opinions presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and praciice in effect in Southern California at this time. There is no other warranty, either expressed or implied. ~-e3L--- Gennady Tsarev, P.E. Project Engineer ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004181 104-1 061041 06-30_ rgr ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 .2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 ,8.0 8.] 8.2 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.0 12.0 Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 PROJECT D ESCRIPTI 0 N ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 GENE RAL _n_nn_____n___n_n_h_____n_nnnhn_nnnn__n__n__nn__n__nhh-_ _nnnnn I SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO GRADING _h____m_______nnn_____________________________hn_n ] PRO POSED DEV ELO PM ENT -------------_________h_nn____n_____________mn__________nnmn 2 SITE GRADING /EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS--------nh---m___nn 2 PROJECT TEAM ___________________n__________________________________----------------------______ 2 SCO P E OF WORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 SITE G EO LOG Y ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 PRE-GRADING GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS _________nmn____h______________________________h___ 3 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS OBSERVED DURING GRADING ________h__________________________n 3 GROUND WATER nn_h_______nn______________n_________n_n_______nn__n__n__h__nnn_nn 3 FA UL TIN G AND SEIS MI CITY ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4 GFtJ\DING AND EARTlIWORK ---------------------------------------------------------------4 GENERAL -------- n n - n n - __ n - - - n - - ____ - - h__ n __ n_________ n_ n __ - n_ __ _ _ _ __ n n n h _ n nn nn 4 KEYW A YS nnn__________n______________nn_____________n________nnn___n_____n___n______n 5 FIELD DENSITY AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ------------------------------- 5 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS -------___________h___________________n____________________n___ 5 LABORA TORY TEST RESULTS --h--____________h_____________________________________________nn 6 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION -------------------------------7 SLABS-ON -G RAD E n____n_n___________nn______n__nnnn___n___nnn____n___n___n_nnn 7 CONCRETE WALKS, DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER ______________nm__ 8 Co R ROSI ON PROTECTI ON ---------------________________________________n___h___________________ 9 LIMIT A TI 0 N S-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Exp ANSI ON INDEX TESTS -n--_n__n__n________n__n_________n_n_n______--n-nnn--n__n_______n_ 1 ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCI ENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page v Figures Following Page No. Figure No.1, Site Location Map ............................................................................................1 DRAWINGS Drawing NO.1 As-Build Geology and Density TestLocation Map.........ln Map Pocket APPENDICES Appendix A............. ............................ .................. ......... . Field Density Test Results Appendix B........ .......................... .................. ............ ....Laboratory Testing Program ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCI ENTlOFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr f.e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28. 2005 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our geotechnical/geology field observations, in-place density and laboratory testing, geotechnical design and construction recommendations, performed during rough grading of Tract No. 26521, located north of Green Tree Lane at . Deodar Lane in the city of Temecula, California. . Earthwork associated with the rough grading was performed by Moss Equipment. The grading was performed from April to August 2005. Rough grading was performed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations set forth in the project rough grading plans prepared by Loren Phillips & Associates, dated March 21, 2005, grading requirements of the County of Riverside, Appendix Chapter 33 of the California Building Code (CBC, 2003) and the project Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report dated February 16, 2004. This report was prepared for the project described herein and is intended for the sole use of First Pacifica Development Corporation and its authorized agent(s). It may not contain sufficient information for use by others and/or for any other purposes. :2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,2.1 General The project is located in the city of Temecula, California. The area of Lots 1 through 3 had been previously rough graded with the remaining portion of the site undeveloped. No as-built grading report for the previous grading is available. The overall project is bounded by Green Tree Lane on the south, single-family residential on the east and west and Rancho Vista Road on the north. The approximate project location is shown on Figure No.1, Site Location Map. The scope of this report is limited to the rough grading of Tract No. 26521. 2.2 Site Conditions Prior to Grading The original ground surface elevation within the referenced lots ranged approximately from 1,330 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the northeast corner of Lot 3, and to 1,245 feet above MSL at the southwest side of Lot 10. The overall surface topography sloped toward the south. The surficial earth materials consisted of undocumented fill and colluvial deposits. Vegetation consisted of native grasses and scrub brush. ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2004\81\04-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr "1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NOT TO. SCAlE To Corono To Riverside ~ ~ g. \,-006 KeornX Project Site RanchO PAUBA \.0\0 'e9'. 1;'91) u. "op ) TO' Son Diego SITE LOCATION MAP Tract No. 26521, Lots No. 1 through 10 City .of Temecula, California For: First Pacifica Development Corporation ~ Converse Consultants Project No. 04-81-106-30 Figure No. 1 e:\Do'JA~ @> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page 2 2.3 Proposed Development The project site has been developed for residential housing. The residential development will include both one- and two-story residential buildings, construction of streets, driveways, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscape areas, utilities including storm drain, sewer, water, gas pipelines, electrical lines, and other appurtenant facilities usually associated with such development. Site development includes fill slopes. Based on the Loren Phillips & Associates 40-scale rough grading plans, maximum height of cut and fill slopes within . project site are on the order of 35 and 30 feet, respectively. The residential structures will likely be wood-frame and stucco structures founded on continuous and/or isolated footing foundations with slab-on-grade. The vertical loads on continuous and isolated footing foundations are anticipated to be less than 2,000 pounds per linear foot and 50,000 pounds, respectively. Information on anticipated subsurface conditions and recommendations for tract development including earthwork, were provided by Converse in the referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation report. ,2.4 Site Grading /Earthwork Requirements/Recommendations The project Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated detailed tract development, including site-specific recommendations. February 16, 2004, contains grading and earthwork 3.0 PROJECT TEAM The project team during rough grading consisted of the following: Owner/Developer ................................................................................First Pacifica Homes Project Manager..... ........ ........... ........ ........... ............. ....... ..... .......................... Brian McGregor Field Superintendent............ .......... ......... ............ ...... ..... ..... ........ ......... ......... Mike Scharnberg Project Civil Engineer........................................................... Loren Phillips & Associates. Project Geotechnical Consultant............. Converse Consultants, Redlands, California Principal-in-Charge .............................................................. Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph.D., G.E. Project Engineering Geologist/Manager............................................. Roy J. Rushing, C.E.G. Project Engineer/Lead Field Technician............................................................. Mike Georgei ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCI ENTIOFFICEIJ 08 F I LEI2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr <\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading. Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of T emecula, California November 28, 2005 Page 3 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work for the project included full-time observation of site grading, field density and laboratory testing to verify earthwork compliance with project plans and specifications. Our scope of work also included providing necessary geotechnical consultation services during rough grading. This report was prepared to summarize field observations, results of geologic mapping, . field density, and laboratory testing. 5.0 SITE GEOLOGY A general description of the site-specific geologic hazards is presented in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report. This section presents a description of the subsurface conditions, various materials and groundwater conditions encountered at the site during grading. . 5.2 Pre-Grading Geologic Conditions Pre-grading site conditions consisted of undocumented fill placed within Lots 1 and 2 and a layer of colluvium overlying the Pauba Formation bedrock within Lots 4 through 10. Lot 3 was a "cut" lot from previous rough grading and consisted of Pauba Formation bedrock. . 5.3 Geologic Conditions Observed During Grading Undocumented fill, residual soils, colluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock were encountered in the areas of earthwork as anticipated. Unsuitable materials were removed to competent bedrock prior to placement of compacted fill. No unusual geologic conditions were encountered during grading. 5.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings drilled on the site at the time of geotechnical investigation. No groundwater was encountered or observed in any of the excavations during grading. ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2004\81\04-1 06\041 06-30 ~rgr \0 II I I il I II I I I I II I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page 4 ,6.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The faulting and seismicity discussions are presented in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report. 7.0 GRADING AND EARTHWORK . 7. 1 General Earthwork associated with rough grading was performed by Moss Equipment. The grading was performed from April to August 2005. Earthwork equipment included dozers, loaders, compactors, scrapers, blades, and water trucks. Prior to grading, the ground surface was grubbed of vegetation, the surface soils were disked and prewetting began. Surficial residual and colluvial soils, weathered bedrock, and undocumented fill materials within Lots 1 through 3 were removed to competent bedrock. Lots 4 through 10 contained transitions from cut to fill through the proposed structures. Therefore, the areas for the proposed structures were over-excavated to such a depth to provide a minimum of three (3) feet of compacted fill with uniform thickness beneath the bottom of proposed footings. The over-excavation extended a minimum of ten (10) feet outside the proposed structural footprint. The approximate extent of these over- excavations is shown on Drawing No.1, As-Built Geology and Density Test Location Map. In general, the approximate amount of fill and cut for the structural portions of the lots ranged from three (3) feet in Lot 3, to eighteen (18) feet in Lot 10. Excavated site soils were placed as compacted fill. Engineered fill soils were placed in loose, six (6) to eight (8) inch thick lifts, mixed and moisture conditioned if necessary, to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content. The loose fill lifts were then compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as indicated by random in-place density testing. The field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard D1556 and D2922 test methods. If the results of a field density test indicated failing results, the representative fill volume was reworked and re-compacted by the contractor until a subsequent field density test indicated passing results. Occasionally moisture test results noted on Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Field Density Test Resu/ts indicated a lower than the minimum required 2 ~ .~ Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading. Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page 5 percent below optimum value. This may be due to a period of time between when the material was mixed and moisture conditioned and when the field density test was taken during warm weather. In addition, moisture content higher than 2 percent above optimum was allowed in some tests due to the presence of expansive clays. Where fill was placed against existing slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V), the new fill was keyed and benched into the natural slope to provide increased lateral support and remove the surficial unsuitable soils when present. Fill slopes were over-built three (3) to four (4) feet and were compacted as they were filled horizontally. The overfilled slope face was then track rolled prior to trimming back to finish grade. 7.2 Keyways Toe-of-fill keyways were constructed for fill slopes at Lots 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 9 and 10. These keyways were excavated a minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide and three (3) feet below lowest adjacent grade, and tilted back into the slop. No keyway was constructed at slope at Lot 8. This slops were used as haul road during grading operations. Observations by the project engineering geologist did not indicate the necessity for installing subdrains at the heel of the keyways. 7.3 Cut Slopes An engineering geologist observed the cut slopes behind Lots 6 and 7 during and after excavation. The Pauba Formation was exposed and observations indicate the gross bedding was essentially flat-lying and the slopes are considered grossly stable at the excavated slope inclination of 2:1 (H:V). No rocks that could be prone to rolling were observed above any of the cut slopes. 8.0 FIELD DENSITY AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 8.1 Field Density Test Results The earthwork associated with the rough grading was observed from a geotechnical point of view and in-place density of the compacted soil was tested by Converse on a full-time basis. At the end of each working day, the soil technician prepared a Daily Field Report of Grading ObselVation documenting the geotechnical observations made during the day. A copy of the daily field report was submitted to the client's representative. ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr \l.- i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula. California November 28, 2005 Page 6 Nuclear Gauge (ASTM Standard 02922) and sand cone (ASTM Standard D1556) test methods were utilized to evaluate the in-place density of compacted fill at random locations. The results of the field density tests only performed during rough grading for the subject lots are summarized in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Field Density Test Results. The approximate locations of the field density tests are plotted in Drawing No.1, As-Built Geology and Field Density Test Location Map. The relative compaction for each field density test reported in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Field Density Test Results, is obtained by dividing the measured in-place dry density by the maximum laboratory dry density of the same "soil type" presented in Table No. B-1, Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The required minimum relative compaction for each test is also shown in the "Required Relative Compaction" in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results. 8.2 Laboratory Test Results Seven (7) representative bulk samples of the fill soils were retrieved during rough grading and tested in the laboratory to determine their laboratory maximum dry densities and optimum moisture content. These tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 test method. Results of these tests are summarized in Table B-1, Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. One (1) Atterberg Limits test was conducted on a representative sample of fine-grained soil obtained from pad finish grade. Test results indicated the soil tested is Sandy Clay (CL) with Liquid Limit of 34 and Plastic Index of 13. The test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. Ten (10) expansion' index tests were performed on bulk samples collected from the finished pad grades at the completion of grading. The test results are included in Table No. B-2, Expansion Index Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The test results indicate the fill material tested has "Very Low" to "Medium" expansion potential Two (2) representative samples of the site soils were tested to determine soil corrosivity with respect to common construction materials such as concrete and steel. The test results are included in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The test results indicate the soils are not deleterious to concrete. The soils are "Corrosive" to "Severely Corrosive" to ferrous metals. The test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. ~ .~ Converse Consultants CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFiLEI2004181 \04-1 06\041 06-30_rgr \7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of T ernecula. California November 28, 2005 Page 7 '9.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION The design and construction recommendations presented in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report remain applicable for the project. Due to the presence of expansive soils with "Low" and "Medium" Expansion Potential and soil severe corrosive potential to ferrous metals, additional recommendations are provided below. 9.4 Slabs-On-Grade Structural design elements such as thickness, reinforcement, joint spacing, etc., for the slab-on-grade should be selected based on the analysis performed by the project structural engineer considering anticipated loading conditions, expansion potential of subgrade soil, and the modulus of subgrade reaction of the supporting materials. Based on the expansion index tests, the pad subgrade soils can be classified as having "Very Low" to "Medium" expansion potential as shown in Table No. B-2, Expansion Index Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. For building pads with an expansion index greater than 20, the foundations and slabs should be designed based upon CBC Section 1815. 9.5 Post-tension.Slab Design Recommendations If post-tension slab design will be used, for lots with "Low" or "Medium" expansion potential, the following design parameters are provided: Post-tension Slab Design Parameters Center Lift Edile Moisture variation distance, em (feet) I 5.5 Center Lift, Ym (inches) I 0.9 -1.1 Edile Lift Edqe Moisture variation distance, em (feet) 2.5 Edqe Lift, Vm (inches) 0.18 - 0.28 Care should be taken during concrete placement to avoid slab curling. Slabs should be designed and constructed as promulgated by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Prior to the slab pour, all utility trenches should be properly backfilled and compacted. Slabs should be protected by at least a six-mil-thick polyethylene vapor barrier between the slab and compacted subgrade. Where a vapor barrier is used, it should be protected ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 061041 06-30_rgr 'A I . I II I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28.2005 Page 8 with two (2) inches of sand placed above and below the barrier, to reduce the potential for punctures and to aid concrete curing. Polyethylene sheets should be overlapped a minimum of six (6) inches, and should be taped or otherwise sealed. 9.6 Subgrade Soil Moisture Penetration Requirements The expansion potentials of the soils for Lots 1 to 10 are listed in Table No. B-2, Expansion Index Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. · Building pads with Very Low expansion potential should have moisture conditions at the optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches. · Building pads with Low expansion potential pads should be pre-saturated to at least two (2) percent above optimum moisture content penetrating to at least 12 inches below footing and slab subgrade elevations. · Building pads with Medium expansion potential should be pre-saturated to at least two (2) percent above optimum moisture content penetrating to at least 18 inches below footing and slab subgrade elevations. Depth of moisture penetration and moisture content should be verified by a representative of our firm prior to concrete placement. Pre-saturation will help to provide pre-expansion of any residual expansive clays not completely broken up during placement in the fill soils during rough grading. 9.7 Concrete Walks, Driveways, Access Ramps, Curb and Gutter Except as modified herein, concrete walks, driveways, access ramps, curb and gutters should be constructed in accordance with Section 303-5, Concrete Curbs, Walks, Gutters, Cross-Gutters, Alley Intersections, Access Ramps, and Driveways, of the Standard Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 2003). Prior to concrete placement, the subgrade should be tested for moisture content and in- place density. If required, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils under these structures should be scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The subgrade soils under the driveways of various lots should be pre-soaked prior to pouring concrete in accordance with the recommendations provided for concrete slabs- on-grade in Section 9.4, Slabs-on-Grade. The thickness of driveways for passenger cars should be at least four (4) inches. Transverse control joints for driveways should be ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr 'v~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28. 2005 Page 9 spaced not more than 10 feet apart. Driveways wider than 12 feet should be provided with longitudinal control joints. Concrete walks subjected to pedestrian and bicycle loading should be at least four (4) inches thick. Transverse joints should be spaced 15 feet or less and should be cut to a depth of one fourth the slab thickness. Positive drainage should be provided away from all driveways and sidewalks to prevent seepage of surface and/or subsurface water into the concrete base and/or subgrade. .9.8 Corrosion Protection Recommendations Anaheim Test Laboratory of Santa Ana, California tested two (2) bulk soil sample obtained from the site. The tests include minimum electrical resistivity, pH, soluble sulfates, and chloride content. The test results are presented in Table No. B-3, Soil Corrosivity Test Resu/ts, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. It was determined the site soils have "Corrosive" to "Severely Corrosive" to ferrous metals. It is recommended that a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide mitigation recommendations. Some general, conventional corrosion mitigation measures would include the following: · All steel and wire concrete reinforcement should have at least three (3) inches of concrete cover where cast against soil, unformed. . As a minimum, below-grade ferrous metals should be given a high-quality protective coating, such as 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal-tar enamel or Portland cement mortar. · Below-grade metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above-grade metals by means of dielectric fittings in ferrous utilities and/or exposed metal structures breaking grade. 10.0 LIMITATIONS The findings, conclusions, recommendations and opinions contained in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice within our profession in effect at this time in Southern California. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on field observation, field and laboratory testing performed in accordance with applicable industry standards, data ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004181 104-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr \c.. I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, Catifornia November 28, 2005 Page 10 analysis/interpretation and our experience. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. Our field density testing to evaluate fill compaction was performed at random and discrete locations, and at various time intervals during the fill placement operations. Our test results are considered to be representative of the locations and material tested within the . compacted fill. Some variations in the densities and moisture of the compacted fill at other locations should be expected. This report presents opinion formed as a result of our observation of fill placement. We have relied on the contractor to continue applying the recommended compaction efforts and moisture to the fill to meet the project specifications. The tests were performed on compacted fill in accordance with the latest ASTM Standards to calibrate our observer's judgment, and to provide data on the overall compactive efforts. Although the rough graded lots are considered suitable for construction at the time of completion, natural weathering and degradation of the near-surface soils may occur with time. It has been our experience that significant deterioration of surficial soils, in particular growth of vegetation and erosion, may occur if a significant period of time elapses before construction. We recommend that the conditions of impacted lots, if any, be reevaluated by Converse prior to construction. Additional earthwork associated with the grading of within Tract No. 26521 comprising of Lots 1 through 10, should be performed under the observation and testing of Converse Consultants. ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 06\041 06-30_rgr \--1. II I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28. 2005 Page 11 12.0 REFERENCES ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS (1995), Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics. California Building Code (CBC), 2003. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, Grading Plan Review Report, Approximate 10.8-Acre Site (10 Lots), Saratoga Ridge - Tract No. 26521, City of Temecula, California, dated February 24, 2005. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Approximate 10.8-Acre Site (10 Lots), Tract No. 26521, City of Temecula, California, dated February 16,2004. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (2003), Building News, Inc., Los Angeles, California. ~ W Converse Consultants CCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI2004181 104-1 061041 06-30 _rgr \i6 I I Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results . o 0 i:i:_ . Z. 0 0 _ 0 Gl~ .'2 l'3;;:l o . 0 .2 E . - . ';; "- 0. u_ ~o- Test Test ->- E 1-_ oc- 0_ ,., ~ . ~ Test Location x 0", ';( ~ ~ o u ]! a; .... ~~ E 0'_ No. Date E!jjj- C,S o 0 0- '0 E- 0'" 0 0._ 0- i:- ::;; 6 0.. " 0 Ul 0 O:::;!. <( 0 o..1Il C l.l l.l .... 0. '" <( e GRADING 1 04/06/05 LOT 10 1250 1 118.6 8.6 7 90 2 04/06/05 LOT 10 1254 4 118.4 13.1 7 91 Failed Due to Moisture, See RT #2A 2A 04/06/05 LOT 10 1254 4 117.7 13.0 7 90 RT of #2 3 04/07/05 LOT 10 1255 0 118,7 10.7 7 90 85% Req., 8TM 4 04/07/05 LOT 10 1256 1 115.4 9.4 1 87 Failed, See RT #4A 4A 04107/05 LOll0 1256 1 121.1 6.3 1 90 RT of #4 5 04/07/05 LOT 10 1258 2 120.8 10.8 1 91 6 04/07/05 LOT 10 1258 2 119.7 8.6 1 90 7 04/08/05 LOT 10 1261 5 119.5 7.0 1 90 8 04/08/05 LOT 10 1260 4 116.4 10.9 1 88 Failed, See RT #8A 8A 04/11/05 LOT 10 1260 5 119.8 7.1 1 90 RT of #8 9 04f08f05 LOT 9 1262 2 121.7 10.6 1 91 10 04/08/05 LOT 9 1263 3 118.1 10.0 1 90 11 04/08/05 LOT 10 1263 7 119.6 9.9 1 90 12 04/11/05 LOT9 1263 3 117.1 12.7 3 91 13 04/11/05 LOT 9 1265 4 117.3 8.1 3 91 14 04/11/05 LOT 10 1265 4 110.9 10.6 2 95 8A 04/11/05 LOT 10 1260 5 119.8 7.1 1 90 15 04/13/05 LOT 9 1267 7 114.7 8.5 3 90 16 04/13/05 LOT 9 1268 8 121.3 8.0 1 91 17 04/13/05 LOT 10 1263 6 119.4 9.1 1 90 18 04/13/05 LOT 10 1264 7 111.9 9.5 2 95 19 04/13/05 LOT 7 1271 0 113.7 10.0 2 98 85% Req., 8TM 20 04/15/05 LOT? 1270 1 118.6 8.3 3 92 21 04/15/05 LOT 7 1272 2 119.8 7.0 3 93 22 04115/05 LOT? 1274 4 117.3 10.0 3 91 Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract26521, Lots 1 through 10 November 2B, 2005 PageA-1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\20D4\81\04-1 06\041 06-30_fdl ,~ I I Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results 0 ~ c i<:_ 0 ~ c ~ _ 0 Ill;#: 0" I'll:;:; ~ 0 ~ .2 E . - ~ ';; "- 0. Q- "',- Test Test ':;( ~ E' . .... co:- ,- ,., " '0 Test Location .E~" ~ u ~ ; .... ~~ III a-Cl No. Date 2 jjj- oS E ell '0 Xo- 0- '0 E- ~ '" C 0._ 0- i:' :E 5 0.0 " ~ '" 0 D::of? <l: ~ 0. III 0 U U 0. 0 .... <l: e 23 04/15/05 LOT? 1275 3 117.5 10A 3 92 24 04/15/05 LOT 8 1265 0 120.7 10.2 1 90 25 04/18105 LOT8 1265 5 117.2 7.8 3 91 26 04/18/05 LOT 8 1268 7 115.9 10.3 3 90 27 04/18105 LOT? 1278 8 114.8 6.7 3 90 28 04/18/05 LOT? 1275 4 126.8 7.0 1 95 29 04/19/05 SLOPE A HOT 1 & 2 1315 2 115A 74 5 93 30 04/19/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 & 2 1316 2 114.3 6.7 5 92 31 04/19/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 & 2 1318 3 115.5 8.7 5 93 32 04/19/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 & 2 1318 2 115.5 9.7 5 93 33 04/19/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 & 2 1319 3 120.5 8.7 3 92 34 04/20/05 SLOPE BOTTOM. LOT 2 1322 2 119.4 10.4 3 94 35 04/20/05 SLOPE BOTTOM. LOT 2 1325 3 119.1 8.9 3 94 36 04/20/05 LOT4 1251 0 117.3 9.9 3 92 37 04/20/05 SLOPE BETWEEN LOTS 1 & 2 1324 3 116.7 9.0 5 94 38 04/20/05 SLOPE SOUTH OF LOT 1 1322 2 115.8 11.2 5 93 39 04/20/05 LOT 4 1254 3 116A 8.8 3 91 40 04/20/05 LOT4 1255 3 108.2 10.0 3 85 Failed, See RT #40A 40A 04/20105 LOT 4 1255 3 115.9 7.3 3 90 RT of #40 41 04/20/05 LOT 7 1279 6 117.5 9.4 3 92 42 04/20/05 LOT? 1278 5 123.2 5.6 1 93 43 04/20/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 1325 3 118.6 7.9 5 95 44 04/20/05 SLOPE AT LOT 1 1324 4 121.9 10.3 5 95 45 04/21/05 LOT4 1258 6 118.7 8.6 3 92 46 04/21/05 LOT 4 1257 5 120.7 9.8 3 94 47 04/21/05 LOT? 1282 10 117.3 9.2 3 92 48 04/21/05 LOT 7 1284 12 119.1 7.9 3 93 Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Trac126521, Lots 1 through 10 November 2B, 2005 PageA-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Converse Consultants eel ENT\OFFICE\JOBFI LE\2004 \81 \04-1 06\04 1 06-30 _fdl 7P I I Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results 0 o 0 i:i:.... 0 _ 0 ", Q.l;;E: 0 0 m; o 0 0 .2 0'2 E . - 0 ';; "- c, ~,- Test Test .)( ~ :r . .... oc- ,- '" u_ " 't> Test location E~i2' o u - 0 .... ~;;e . '. '" 0 E 0'_ No. Date e jjj- '0- o,e 0- '0 E- 00 c,_ 0- ~ :; g 00:0 C,0 " 0 en 0 "'";t. '" 0 C,<D 0 t) t) .... C, 0 '" e 49 04/22/05 lOT 7 1283 11 122.8 6.9 1 93 50 04/22/05 LOT 8 1272 7 125.9 10.4 1 95 51 04/22/05 LOT 5 1260 0 121.1 12.5 1 92 85% Req" 8TM 52 04/25/05 LOT8 1271 7 126.2 9.9 1 96 53 04/25/05 LOT 8 1270 6 116.5 9.1 3 91 54 04/25/05 LOT? 1285 13 126.5 7.7 1 96 55 04/25/05 LOT? 1284 12 118.9 9.2 3 93 56 04/25/05 LOT 5 1263 2 108.0 11.7 2 93 57 04/25/05 LOT 4 1260 5 126.3 10.4 1 96 58 04/25/05 LOT6 1262 0 1132 12.7 5 91 85% Req., 8TM 59 04/25/05 LOT 1 1311 0 1162 5.0 3 91 85% Req., 8TM 60 04/26/05 LOT 2 1320 0 117.0 8.7 3 91 85% Req., 8TM 61 04/26/05 LOT 2 1323 3 118.6 9.1 3 93 62 04/26/05 LOT 3 1322 0 98.0 14.7 6 84 85% Req., 8TM, Failed See RT #64 63 04/26/05 LOT 1 1315 3 109.1 10.3 6 93 64 04/26/05 LOT 3 1322 0 108.5 4.7 6 93 85% Req., BTM, RT of #62 65 04/26/05 LOT 5 1265 2 109.9 8.7 6 93 66 04/26/05 LOT 4 1262 8 116.0 8.6 6 98 67 04/26/05 LOT4 1262 8 116.0 8.6 3 91 68 04/27/05 LOT 1 1315 7 114.4 11.4 5 92 69 04/27/05 LOT 1 1317 9 115.2 7.3 5 93 70 04/27/05 LOT 3 1323 2 112.1 6.3 5 90 71 04/27/05 LOT 3 1322 1 113.4 5.4 5 92 72 04/27/05 LOT 5 1264 3 114.6 8.5 5 92 73 04/27/05 LOT 6 1263 2 120.3 12.4 3 93 74 04/29/05 LOT 5 1264 1 111.1 11.4 5 90 75 04/29/05 LOTS 5 & 6 1264 1 115.4 12.2 5 . 91 Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Trac126521, Lots 1 through 10 November28,2005 PageA-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81\04-1 06\04106-30 _fdt v.. I I Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results 0 . c ii:_ 0 _ 0 Z. QI'#. c . cu:;: . 0 . ,g 0'0 E . - . 0; " - e. "',- Test Test .- >- E.... -- c,.- , - >- "- :u .-g Test Location " . '" >C~~ . " ~ ~ .... :i~ Ego No. Date ~ w- c'" 0- '0 E . '" c e._ 0- ~ '" g e._ ' . Ul 0 r:r::tft. '" . e.", C (,) (,) .... e. Q '" e. 76 04/29/05 LOT 6 1265 1 108.3 9.7 5 87 Failed. See RT #76A 76A 04/29/05 LOT 6 1265 1 121.6 9.4 3 95 RT of #76 77 04/29/05 LOT 6 1265 2 115.8 8.6 5 93 78 04/29/05 LOT 5 1265 2 114.4 10.0 5 92 79 05/02/05 LOT 5 1265 4 120.5 10.2 1 91 80 05/02/05 LOTS 1266 5 114.5 13.3 5 90 81 05/02/05 LOT 4 1266 11 116.5 6.9 5 94 82 05/02/05 LOT 4 1265 10 125.0 7.9 1 95 83 05/02/05 LOT 6 1257 7 118.6 12.8 3 92 84 05/02/05 LOT 6 1266 6 113.6 8.5 5 92 85 05/03/05 LOT 5 1268 7 121.4 9.8 1 91 86 05/03/05 LOT 5 1269 8 121.7 10.7 1 91 87 05/04/05 SLOPE SW. LOT 8 1280 4 113.4 8.8 5 91 88 05/04/05 LOT 6 1271 10 106.0 12.1 2 91 89 05/04/05 LOT 6 1272 11 122.3 9.8 1 92 90 05/04/05 LOT5 1271 10 125.7 7.9 1 95 91 05/04/05 LOT 5 1272 12 125.0 12.1 1 95 92 05/04/05 LOT 4 1265 10 126.0 10.2 1 95 93 05/05/05 LOT 5 1273 12 121.4 6.6 1 92 FG 94 05/05/05 LOTS 1273 12 112.3 7.6 5 90 FG 95 05/10/05 LOT 3 1327 2 111.0 10.1 5 92 96 05/10/05 LOT3 1323 3 113.3 12.6 5 92 97 05/10/05 LOT 4 1267 13 115.3 10.9 3 90 98 05/10/05 lOT 4 1267 12 115.5 9.3 3 90 99 05/11/05 LOT 3 1324 4 119.3 9.1 1 90 100 05/11 /05 lOT 3 1324 4 116.1 13.0 3 91 101 05/11/05 LOT? 1285 15 125.3 8.2 1 95 FG Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract 26521, lots 1 through 10 November 28, 2005 Page A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81\04-1 06\041 06-30 fdt 1JV Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results ~ . 0 ii:_ ~ _ 0 ;,. (I)~ 0 . <<I:;:; . ~ . 0 ~" E . - . .~ -- 0. " "",0- Test Test .- >- ..... o~ 0_ ~ u_ - " Test Location x . '" E - o u ]! ; ~~ . '. .)( ~ E. E 0'_ No. Date e w- c,!; . 0 0- '0 E- 00: 0 0._ 0- 1:- :; 5 o.~ - . U) 0 o::~ <( 0 0.'" C () " .... 0. 0 <( e 102 DS/11/G5 LOT6 1277 12 114.2 7.1 5 92 FG 103 05/12/05 LOT 10 1267 18 122.5 6.9 1 93 FG 104 05/12/05 LOT 4 1266 15 121.5 8.5 1 92 FG 105 05/12/05 LOT 5 1274 14 112.7 6.6 5 91 FG 106 05/12/05 LOT 9 1272 12 123.8 4.8 1 94 FG 107 05/13/05 LOT 8 1274 9 123.7 5,4 1 94 FG 108 05/16/05 LOT 3 1325 5 117.4 6.3 3 92 109 05/16/05 LOT2 1325 3 115.6 5.9 3 90 110 07/18/05 LOT 1 1319 8 116.3 8.0 5 93 111 07118/05 LOT 1 1320 9 113.2 9.2 5 91 112 07/18/05 LOT 1 1318 7 115.5 79 5 93 113 07/19/05 LOT 1 1321 10 119.6 8.9 5 96 114 07/19105 LOT 1 1322 11 117.7 10.3 5 95 115 07120/05 LOT 1 1322 5 118.6 13.0 5 95 116 07/20/05 LOT 1 1322 5 119.9 11.7 5 96 117 08/18/05 LOT 1 1323 6 117.2 9,4 3 92 118 08/18/05 LOT 1 1323 6 117.5 8,4 3 92 119 08/19/05 LOT 1 1323 12 116.5 13.0 3 91 120 08/19/05 LOT 1 1324 13 117.1 10.8 3 92 121 08/22/05 LOT 1 1325 8 119.2 11.1 3 93 122 08/22/05 LOT 1 1326 9 118.2 11.8 3 92 123 08/23/05 LOT 1 1326 16 122.9 9.2 4 93 124 08/23/05 LOT 1 1326 16 125.2 8,4 4 95 125 08/29/05 LOT 1 1327 16 125.3 7.9 4 95 FG I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Notes: BTM: Bottom I FG. Finish Grade RT: Retest I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Trac126521, Lots 11hrough 10 November 28, 2005 PageA.5 I Converse Consultants CCIENnOFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81\04_1 06\041 06-30 _fdt ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28, 2005 Page B-1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples of the site soils for the purpose of evaluating physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the test procedures and results are presented below: Laboratory Maximum Densitv and Optimum Moisture Tests Laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture tests were performed on representative bulk samples of the site materials. These tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 laboratory procedure. The results are , presented in the following table. . Table No. B-1, Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests Soil Maximum Optimum Soil Classification Density Moisture Type (oct) (%\ 1 Silty Sand (3M), fine- to coarse-grained, reddish brown 133.0 7.5 2 Clayey Sand (SC). fine- to medium-grained, reddish brown 116.0 14.0 3 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to coarse-grained. trace clay. brown 128.0 9.5 4 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to coarse-grained, brown 132.5 8.0 5 Silty Sand (SM). fine- to coarse-grained. brown 124.5 9.5 6 Silty Sand to Sand (SM-SP), fine- to coarse-grained, brown 117.0 10.5 7 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to coarse-grained, brown 130.5 7.5 Expansion Index Tests Representative bulk samples were tested to evaluate the expansion potential of material encountered at the building pads. The tests were conducted in accordance with CBC Standard 29-2. Test results are presented in the following table. .~ '~ Converse Consultants CCI ENT\OFF ICE\JOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr 1}'t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521, Lots 1 through 10 City of Temecula, California November 28,2005 Page B-2 T bl N B 2 S fE T a e o. - , ummarv 0 . xoanslon ndex est Results Lot No. Soil Description Expansion Index Expansion Potential 1 Silty Sand (SM) 18 Very Low 2 Clayey Silt (ML-CL) 57 Medium 3 Sandy Silt with trace of 25 Low Clay (ML) 4 Silty Sand (SM) 19 Very Low 5 Sandy Clay (CL) 62 Medium 6 Silty Sand (SM) 15 Very Low 7 Silty Sand (SM) with little 25 Low Clay 8 Silty Sand (SM) 7 Very Low 9 Silty Sand (SM) 17 Very Low 10 Silty Sand (SM) 11 Very Low Soil Corrosivitv Two (2) representative soil samples were tested to determine minimum electrical resistivity, pH, and chemical content, including soluble sulfate and chloride concentrations. The purposes of these tests were to determine the corrosion potential of site soils when placed in contact with common construction materials. These tests were performed by Anaheim Test Laboratory, Santa Ana, California. A summary of the test results are presented below. c Table No. B-3, Soil orrosivitv Test Results Location pH Chloride Sulfate Min. Resistivity (ppm) (ppm) (as-received) (ohm-em) Lot3 6.7 166 33 1,818 Deodar Lane 6.9 1.223 74 600 (max.) Sta. 5+50 ~ ~ Converse Consultants CC I ENTlOFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 06\041 06-30 _rgr ~ I '. ,I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rough Grading, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report Tract No. 26521. Lots 1 through 10 City ofTemecula, California November 28. 2005 Page B-3 . AtterberQ Limits Determination An AUerberg Limits test was conducted on a representative sample of fine-grained soil collected from pad finish grade. Test results are presented in the following table. bl N -4 A b T R Ta e o.B , tter erQ ests esults Sample Location Liauid Limit Plastic Index Classification Lot No.5 34 13 CL Sample StoraQe Soil samples presently stored in our laboratory will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report, unless this office receives a specific request to retain the samples for a longer period. ~ ~ Converse Consultants CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2004\81 \04-1 06\041 06-30_rgr 1Jp