HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 7-8 Rough Grading
IT .H.E. Soils Co.
Phone: (909) 678-9669 FAX: (909) 678-9769
t1705 Ccnlml Street, Suite A. Wildomar, CA 92595
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 22,1999
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
27574 Commerce Center Drive, # 131
TemecuIa, California 92590
SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Proposed Solid Rock Bookstore
2,000'+ South of Solana Way, East ofYnez Road
Parcels 7 and 8, Parcel Map 27714
City ofTemecuIa, County of Riverside, California
Work Order No. 008805.23B
Dear Mr. Veasey:
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this "Report of Rough Grading" presenting the
results of our observation and testing during rough grading of the subject site. All compaction test
results are included in this report in Appendix C.
The 20-scale "Precise Grading Plan", prepared by K & S Engineering of San Diego, California, was
utilized during grading to locate our field density tests and was utilized as a base map for our test
locations presented as Plate 1.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES
Location Map - Figure 1
Density Test Location Map (20-scale) - Plate 1
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - Results of Compaction Tests
THE SOILS COMP A:'JY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
January 22, 1999
Page 2
Prooosed Develooment
The subject site is proposed for the construction of the Solid Rock Bookstore business facility. It is
our understanding the proposed development will consist of the construction of concrete tilt-up
building with associated concrete slab on-grade. The balance of the subject site would incorporate
landscaped areas, concrete driveways and parking areas and a concrete trash enclosure. The
construction would include concrete cum, gutters, and sidewalks.
Grading included clearing, grubbing, overexcavation, recompaction, placement and compaction of fill
material to prepare the site. Maximum fill depth was approximately 6-ft on the northwest end of the
subject site.
Site Descriotion
The subject property consists of a previously mass-graded, generally rectangular-shaped, parcel of land
located on the southeast corner ofYnez Road and Ynez (private) in the city ofTemecula in southwest
Riverside County, California The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding features are
represented on the attached Site Location Map, Figure 1.
The site is bordered on the southwest by existing commercial development and on the southeast by
vacant, mass-graded, proposed commercialfmdustriallots, on the west by Y nez Drive and on the north
and east by Ynez (private). Drainage across the subject site is accomplished by sheetflow to the north
towards Ynez (private).
Topography for the subject site, prior to the subject grading, generally consisted of a relatively flat,
mass-graded pad with overall relief of approximately 80.0-ft. The subject site is bounded to the south
and west by graded slopes.
GRADING PROCEDURES
Site Preoaration
Prior to commencement of grading the subject site was cleared of weeds and debris. The site was
mass-graded as a fill pad. The proposed building pad was overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below the
finish pad elevation to provide a minimum of l.5-ft of compacted fill below the bottom of all footings.
The overexcavation was performed to 5-ft outside the building footprint, as staked. The exposed
bottom was ripped, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction. The fill materials were leveled and mixed with a Cat D4 Dozer. Compaction was
achieved from incidental contact with a loaded and unloaded scraper and water truck.
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. W. O. No. 008801.238
2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I -.~.
, .
.'
.' .
. ,
" ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w.o. # 008805.23
I
__. ..EST
o
.
1000 .. 2QOO
SCAlE: FT.
SITE LOCATION MAP
Dale: JAN 19'99'
Figure:
1
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
January 22, 1999
Page 3
Fill Placement
Fill was placed in thin loose lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, brought to near optimum moisture
content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM 01557-78). Compaction was
achieved by wheel rolling with a Caterpillar 613 scraper loaded and unloaded. The maximum
laboratory dry density, as determined by ASTM 01557-91 Test Method A (Appendix B, Table I),
was utilized as the standard for field compaction control.
. Fill Soils
Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of on-site silty sands and sandy silts. Test results are
presented in Appendix C.
,Slooe
The landscape area west of the building pad was left low to accommodate the site spoils. This area
between Y nez Road and the building pad will require reprocessing of the underlying material and
proper fill placement and compaction to achieve design grade.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Density Testinl!:
'Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method 01556-82 (sand-cone
method) and ASTM Test Method D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). Areas failing to meet the minimum
, compaction requirements were reworked and retested until the specified degree of compaction was
achieved. The elevations and the results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix C, Results
of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test
Location Map, Plate 1.
Maximum Density Determinations
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations were performed in the laboratory on
representative samples of on-site soils used in the fill operations. The tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM DI557-91, Test Method A The test results, which were utilized in
determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix B,
Table I.
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
A..
-
::::.
,o~ ~ ~ ~ --
<9 == IS
. . r -
- ~ ~ "
- ~"
- ,--~
_ 1%
-
-
_ 1%
-
~
'0 0"" m-l-l;o
~ ~q ~o:z:
'd :.,6, $m~ C
6' ~' z"'!!l (/) m",
.. C>~ -l ~z
t:::\ il! :'1 ' @~~ ~~
e; ~ :'1 " ~ ~ ~ ,,~
F1;;lii ~ ~ f"~~ 0 ~o~~
~gJ~ !!l~i;z -. C; OW!Z! 0 ~ "
_ N 0 cO C) fIl I!l ~ ,-
'" ' :u:::l ....., ...... 'TJ ~ "
C>_ ;r::>~11' _....~.... . ~ '"
6% cBS<! ~ SJi III ,J:l.' €[, ;'1;V ""
:u%o r.. c:- .
, 2: 0 CJ1 ~ 0 ' p:< 8l
'.' , '" %~O~ C C -l:-" ~VI :
.' ., 0'" ,Ill.. ~ rr1 '"'!ll :u
'," ~ . .~. ..- .'~ ~
" ... (;J. @<~ ,/~~~ ~ ~g~m ~ - "'
~ ~ . _, > ~.e ' .-0 '
'" N.. ....., c>C ""0"'0
, ~ , ..~ ~o .
, , . ' , r> (3.', C Q
..,. ~ % .-'
)\ .... .:~. .:'. ';: '0 ~ @ '.~; \' 2%
.., ., ~ ~
. . "s- C,.) .... ~ NI ~~ ~: 0 m
" ,.. ~ M CD,....
.' ciI ,- l
~ ,R~ '
o 0
~ . .
. --l ' ,~
:r: ... ...... ,g'B 11Il:< r->
-=mo-l-l -n ~ ~ f" r> ","''''
.~:z:....... N ~'" L N
""m~ C ~~ ~ ~ · " ". "
:Z:Z"'1Il (/) m- ~ ciI IIlcil 'TJ
~O.~ ~~' ~."
\ \ " ~.~ --l .0 '" e ~ "
<, ~_ao - > " ·
,".5' 0>50 UJ v 'TJ 'TJ
\ ,~~- "' "- '. . .
\" r->",N :!!li c' ~
8~~ c~~i: g 1.9% >~1.
\ Iii Pi c:l :: .!:) '" . ~ ^ ;R :::I . ~
% :'1 0 - . :u'it
!;:; z '"
\----Z:.;.j III Z II! . -3' ...
I . o!=lq .1% '. ,..
@ 'g ~ICD
\ ~ iT! ~~ ,"" ~ '
_ .." '" S
~ B ~ BI
\ · I I!?V .tz
-- -- -- ----
I 0,.;. @ M;tl;9. N , ...... ~
'1" ." P""" "
., " "~ c.
'" 0 :::II CD '<1. NO~!li '\
\ 'it'" <9--1 '
~ .' ",~o-l_ ,..
In - Z
\ Z -' ..:.- 1.7% 6 '.. (/,
~ BI - ' ,.,
S ' .
.. & t' , ..
N ." 1Il~ .... ,.)
"' ~~ . .
\ .,0 ~.. ,,"
e ' · "'. . - ' ,.
, ';:.9.> 0> _ "" z I ., .
JT1 "" -..I""" _ ~~ UJn-f od ,;' "
\ ~ po 10 . . . .
~ ' .. .
.~ ~ > ~ .' ,
~~ ~ ",,' ~~ '.' "
III 0 .~.~ ~ c'it"
'n 0'" '- -"
,_ \ ':J; IS ~,: :.: '. 0
- -" -
....., \ 74.22FS 1.2% N m': '.
= - 8' "
, ~ ,
o .
_ c: ,BI .; i
~. .fO m'~'
:0 I /. l"J ... .. I
~ ~ _._~ e 74,01fS." 0.. '" ~'I !II .: 1
~ ,<.h ._, \%0' VI
j, m .g>--
. . iiT ~ .~ .
.. I . :u '
:0' c:
~ I ~~!!l
~ . " " .
. . 0 - 0 · "
~. 0 ~. ~ .
m ." .. · .0 " '
r ,~: " ,<' o~ " · 1
R ".Q ... ~ . .
>::1 g m _ 0 r" ,'. '.; ,.,.. ,... . ..,' .
iil g~z Q" ,.' .
0.. r-gm -
z..."7< I""
o > (!lD tIJ
~ i ~~~ ~ i ;o!
i'l ~ag ~"" .
g i> illz
0" ~
z ~ >
. . . .
. .. ,..
~e ..""
,I ~ ".., ,e OR ..1
.. _ · · m 1
. , " _ ~ ~ ,,'lS'. ,," ,<: .mR " ;j.
V\ E'" ~ =' z;~'"
:<IlS lDd .. p.
".S< "p ~" .
. - - + _'_ - - - I I " ,
~ . ,< " ' - -,,~
. f> oo~ ... _ '::- _ _ EXIS'!:.. (J~VC SEWER MAINOOtt+Ol_/I/
- -
1QI\OO' I
111
-..='1-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
,January 22, 1999
Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
'Foundation Svstem Desi2n
Foundation elements should be placed on engineered fill material compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of the maximum dry density. Recommendations contained in the referenced preliminary
geotechnical report should be utilized for foundation and slab design.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as
determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. It is our opinion, that utility trench backfill, consisting of
on-site or approved sandy soils, can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90% of
the maximum dry density, All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA
standards, as a minimum.
Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to a minimum of90"1o of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM
1557 test method. No rocks larger than 6-inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks
larger than 6-inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed to a suitable dimension and used as fill
material,
, Surface Drain8l!:e
Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All
drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where
landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to
prevent ponding or saturation offoundations by landscape water.
, Parkim! Lot Subl!J'llde and Structural Section
Based on the testing of the near surface soils, we recommend the following tentative structural section
for the on-site parking and driveway areas. Based on an R-value of 16 we offer the following
structural sections,
The recommended tentative pavement sections are:
AREA TI PAVEMENT SECTION
Parking Areas (light traffic) 5.0 0.25'AC over 0.71' ABII
Parking and Driveways 6.5 O,75PCC over 95% Native
AC - Asphaltic Concrete, PCC - Portland Cement Concrete, ABII - Class II Aggregate Base
THE SOILS COMPAl'IY.
W. O. No. 008801.23B
(p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
January 22, 1999
Page 5
It is recommended that the subgrade materials be compacted to a depth of I-ft below subgrade
elevation and that both the subgrade materials and the ABII be compacted to 95% relative to
the maximum density of the respective materials, as determined by ASTM 1557-92 laboratory
tests, Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, R-Value testing was conducted at
the completion of rough grading and an R- Value of 16 was obtained (See Appendix B ).
Foundation Plan Review
T.HE. Soils Company should review the final foundation plans to veritY conformance with the
intentions of these recommendations and those in the referenced reports, Some additional field or
laboratory work may be necessary, at this time.
Construction Monitorim!
Continuous observation and testing, by T.HE. Soils Company is essential to veritY compliance with
recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with the
recommendations of this report. T .HE. Soils Company should conduct construction monitoring, at
the following stages of construction:
. During excavation offootings for foundations;
. During fill placement;
. During retaining wall backfill;
. During utility trench backfill operations;
. During subgrade and base grade operations;
LIMITATIONS
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his
, representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should incorporate
such information and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to see that the
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site;
therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor, The contractor should notifY the
owner ifhe considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe,
The findings of this report are valid as of the report date, However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Don Veasey
Don Veasey Construction
January 22, 1999
Page 6
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our
control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.
SUMMARY
Our description of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, were limited
to those rough grading operations performed between December 7, 1998 and December 10, 1998.
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and
testing as noted. It is our opinion, the work performed in the areas denoted has generally been
accomplished in accordance with the job specifications and the requirements of the regulating agencies,
No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on
information obtained during rough grading. No warranty as to the current conditions can be made.
This report should be considered subject to review by the controlling authorities.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
T.H.E. Soils Company
~~
\'
J hnP.Frey
; oject Geologist
~/L~
g€ R. Harrison
Project Manager
TIlE SOILS COMPi\..'\Il'.
\\" O. :\0. 008801.238
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
THE SOILS CO}..tpA.l'N.
w. O. No. 008801.238
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Soil Tech, Inc., 1989, "Geotechnical Testing / Interim Grading Report, Lot II of Tract 3334", Project
No, 3220-C-89, dated December 21, 1989;
Soil Tech, Inc., 1996b, "Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1-12 of PM 27714, Ynez Road,
City ofTemecula, Riverside County, California", Project No, T4315-C, dated May 14, 1996;
Soil Tech, Inc" 1996a "Updated Geotechnical / Geological Engineering Study, Proposed New
Beginnings Preschool, Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California", Project No.
T4344-GS, dated February 21, 1996;
Soil Tech, Inc., 1996b, "Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1-12 of PM 27714, YnezRoad,
City ofTemecula, Riverside County, California", Project No. T4315-C, dated May 14, 1996;
ProTech, 1998, "Recertification And Report Update, Proposed Solid Rock Bookstore, 2,000'+ South
of Solana Way, East ofYnez Road, Parcels 7 and 8, Parcel Map 27714, City ofTemecuIa, County of
Riverside, California, Work Order No, 021802,00, date Apri122, 1998
THE SOILS COMPA:'lY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. 008801.23B
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
008805.23B
VEASEY/SOLID ROCK
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
0/0 General
Description LbsIFe Moisture Source
Area
1 Medium Brown Silty Sand 128.5 10.0 On-Site
2 Yellow Brown Silty Sand 128.2 9,4 On-Site
TIlE SOILS COMPANY.
w. o. No. 008801.238
\~
I
I
I CLIENT NAME
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC.
2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102
Escondida, CA 92029-1229
Phone: (760) 743-1214
Fax: (760) 739-0343
JOB NUMBER
98-368L
T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY
31705 CENTRAL STREET
WILDOMAR
CA 92595
909-678-9669
DATE: 12-16-1998
JOB NAME
JOB LOCATION
STREET NAME
STATIONING
T.H.E.SOILS COMPANY
VEASEY' CONSTRUCTION
SOLID ROCK - 008805.23
SOIL SAMPLE PROVIDED BY: T.H.E.SOILS COMPANY
DATE SUBMITTED TO LABORATORY: 12-14-1998
SOIL DESCRIPTION: TAN SILTY FINE SAND
R-VALUE REPORT NUMBER: RV-116-98
R VALUE DATA
A B C D -
COMPACTOR PRESSURE - P.S.I. 80 140 240
MOISTURE @ COMPACTION - PERCENT 13.5 12.3 11.4
DENSITY - POUNDS/CUBIC FOOT 118.4 122.0 124.3
R-VALUE-STABILOMETER 8 20 29
EXUDATION PRESSURE - P.S.I. 109 378 517
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER (FEET) .88 .77 .68
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION (FEET) .3 .8 1.1
T. I. (ASSUMED) 4.5
BY STABILOMETER @ 300 PSI, EXUD. 16
BY EXPANSION PRESSURE 16
AT EQUILIBRIUM 16
SAND EQUIVALENT /
\'7
0CB605 .23
R.VALUE NO.:
JOB NO.:
DATE RECD.: 9-,4/ lj - g B
TESTED BY: ( ~
CALCULATED BY: 7{/
H V-
Ife
-; c..-:----
""lENT: J ' 111 E 5 Ci '2; CO M P f lJ (
'R.CT: ~1'1-;fe, Al'S r I SAMPLE NO.
JE.IPTION: I' ; F f. .5 '
_OCATION:
q E;- :; i; 'C- J-
Frame Number
c
go
Sieve
Size
WtAel
~.:. Cum.
%R
As Red.
%P
As Used
%P
#1
'2
#3
;ompactor Pressure - P.S.I.
Sand
4'
. Compaction. %
-:)0
//,1{-
2"
Clay
S.E.
"'oi
Orig:
3'
Naler Added. ML (Tolal)
1Y2-
1"
'.~.
v,'
S.E..
Batch Wls. - 1200 G
(Sample + Moldl
"'.
114
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
1.-~4.
'4.._~..
%-.#4
PassM
Total
Cumulative Weight
,..'!.-
2A.-~.
"", -4
Stab. Thick-Feet
.
B 51'7
'I .6G
;1'3 35
"e> ,/
114
#8
#16
#30
#50
11100
#200
Pass -4
ion Pressure
.
,
jj!
a:: By Expan. -
By Exud. .
Exu on Pressure. P .S.I.
T.I. (Assumed)
. Press. Thick-Feel
At Equil.-
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
600 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
4.0 I I I I 60
, , , ,
II , , ,
70
"
"
,
Iii 3.0 , , I " , 60
, ,
w ,
~ , ,
a: I
w I 50
... ,
W I
::;
0 ,
~ I
a; 2.0 II
" I 40 i
...
<Jl ,
>-
'" ' ,
<Jl , 30
<Jl ,
W ,
Z ,
>:
u 1.0
'i: 20
...
a:
w . I
> .
0
U 10
0 " , 0
0 10 2.0 3,0 4,0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION PRESSURE. FEET EX''''::,~::-;2~; ~:::ESS;_.t::E WSil \"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Results of Compaction Tests
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
\5
I
I
I Job No.: 008805.23B
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS
Name: VEASEY/SOLID ROCK
Date: JAN 1999
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Test Elevation Moisture Unit Dry Relative Soil Test Location
No. Date Depth Content Density Compaction Type See Plot Plan
(Feet) (%) (PCF) (%)
1 12/7/98 70 11.3 119.7 93 2 PAD
2 If 70 10.6 117.0 91 2 If
3 If 71 10.7 116.4 91 2 If
4 12/8/98 71 12.4 116.6 91 2 If
5 If 72 13.0 118.0 92 2 If
6 .. 72 11.8 117.4 92 2 ..
7 " 73 10.9 116.9 91 2 If
8 .. 73 11.1 117.6 92 2 ..
9 .. 73 11.7 116.2 91 2 If
10 12/9/98 72 11.5 117.0 91 2 ..
11 .. 72 10.6 119.4 93 2 "
12 " 73 13.2 118.1 92 2 ..
13 .. 73 10.5 118.4 92 2 ..
14 12/10/98 74 11.0 117.7 92 2 "
15 " 74 11.3 117.0 91 2 ..
, 16 .. 74 11.4 117.4 92 2 "
17 " 74 11.8 116.7 91 2 "
18 " F.G. 10.2 115.8 90 2 "
19 " F.G. 10.6 116.5 91 2 "
20 " F.G. 10.4 116.7 91 2 "
SEE PLAN FOR TEST LOCATIONS
SC - Sand Cone ASTM DI556-64: DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71: N-Nuclear ASTM 3017:
NG-Natural Ground + 85% = Passing Test **TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST
THE SOILS COMPANY.
W. O. No. 008801.238
v~