HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 29 Rough Grading
II' .H.E. Soils Co.
l,"c~Phone: (909) 678-9669 FAX: (909) 678-9769
11705 Central Street, Suite A . Wildomar, CA 92595
E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 8, 2000
SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Proposed Single-Family Residence
Lot 29, Tract No 9833-3, APN 945-150-014
Calle de Velardo
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Work Order 148901.22
RECEIVED
FEB 9 2000
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Mr. John McCusker
29170 Via Norte
Temecula, California 92591
Dear Mr. McCusker:
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 at the subject site. All compaction test
results are included in this report in Appendix C, Table I.
The 20-scale "Grading & Erosion Control Plans", prepared by John T. Reinhart, Civil Engineer, of
Temecula, California, was utilized during grading and to locate our field density tests. The 20-scale
plan 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 - Plate 1
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - Results of Compaction Tests
T.H.E. Soils Co.
W.O. 148901.22
\
I
II
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John McCusker
February 8, 2000
Page 2
Proposed Development
The proposed development calls for the construction of a single-story, single-family residence with
attached garage, motor court, landscaping, driveway, and on-site sewage disposal system.
Site Description
The subject site consists of an irregular shaped parcel of land located on the east side of Calle de
Velardo, south-southwest ofPescado Drive in Temecula, southwest Riverside County, California.
The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location
Map, Figure 1. The site is bordered to the north and east by large parcel single-family residential
development and to the south and west by vacant large parcel residential development.
Topographically, prior to grading, the subject site consisted of a relatively flat, partially graded,
house pad with natural slopes on the east and south portions of the subject site. Natural gradients
varied from approximately 20"10 on the south to 40"10 on the east. Overall relief at the site is
approximately 66-ft. Fill slopes were constructed at a 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a
vertical height of approximately 10-ft on the east and south portions of the site. Vegetation on the
subject site, prior to grading, consisted of a sparse growth of annual weeds and grasses on the pad
area and on the south portion of the subject site, and a moderate growth of chaparral on the east
portion of the site on the existing natural slope. The vegetation was cleared and grubbed prior to
on-site grading operations.
OVEREXCA V ATION AND RECOMPACTION OBSERVATIONS & TESTING
Residential Buildin~ Pad
Prior to rough grading, the proposed site was cleared of vegetation, which was stockpiled off-site.
Rough grading operations consisted of the excavation of a keyway along the toe of the proposed
slopes on the east and south portions of the subject site. The keyway was founded a minimum of 1-
ft into dense sedimentary bedrock materials and was tilted at a minimum inclination of 2% into the
existing hillside. The exposed earth materials within the keyway were scarified a minimum of 12-
inches below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture and recompacted
to 90"10 of the dry density, as determined by ASTM 1557. Benching was maintained into dense
sedimentary fill .at all times during grading operations.
The proposed pad was underlain by several different soil types, which varied from silts and silty
sands to non-cohesive gravelly sands (in the vicinity of the garage area). The cut portion of the pad
was overexcavated a minimum of3.0-ft below pad grade and 5-ft outside the perimeter footings. A
licensed surveyor staked the limits of overexcavation.
T.H.E. Soils Co.
w.o. 148901.22
2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wo.#
I
T ..H.E. Soils Co.
PlulI1c: (9()9) 678-9669 FAX: (909) 678-9769
.~ 17().;- CclllrJI Street, Suite A. \Vildomar, c.-\. 92595
lndlan~'
, :~~ B:::G'/~dte:}efC:>je",
,..1- _) /'" .'~4~~O" \C. ./.J('::" - \
/"<" ",G" V\.......?--~... ~~ -&~-: ':. ..~
I ., "1t ....... '--", h' -..-'" .(j~~.-.r=.. ---=-~{
,. rtP' "0 ...._.~..,/.. ~~ ...-:..... ....a~-.Y'~~~~~
,I:, ":... "I,_.;//..'~' 'i ./........... ~ .,.,.. ~\.~~.~> :?\
~~/Temec.."a~.~~'-:' . /~ ~'"'\\.) ~( '-~
:Q\ "0' ."--.-:-.:?~.,, ;\~.. ~\-:....". ~/'i;(c: ~.;"--... 1.,~2--"" .:=
,~ .....;:...... ~~.~.~---=(~ l~... .....,--:-S:.'-----.',.~.=
I~ \,'1 \" '-~ rP..;:::=.~.:::. ~_\~..\."" '-. -.. ""-- ~-./
J i.....' '\.... ::.11 0 '.<_~_ ~ll ~ &C::'.::-\"\;' ""- '-. ---:-:::
". ._., "''''~,",,,,..'~ :4lt, ~.:6C:::-____a_.::::_~ ~,..:~ ". '-.~~-~
't.:' /. .:;.. :::..- / "7 ~~~'--'~"'II/~\ ~.~.
~':"""""'7>"'; . \ct-;~--/;.~ ""~ /~./'~: ~(,[~f, ,=,,>J
. ," '" '" 'P~~ "~"'.'*""' :t....--=---, '\::; 1 (~, ~:::..:
'" ii1TI*~ /" ( .~ ~'----' -;:::;::-p ,-\;:;,'~..::j:::: - ~
I . ~~ __..--'-.-' "'_ ~(' '" '1,-, .--:~ ...-:')
. =:-:-, / ."",_ I'" .' \\ - . /" '"
~~:---...~c;::;-.~. ;:- _ .J '- _..-- ,;., ':--. \ "......?.:... -- :::C -'
ell ~~-....--.~ ..;' /, - "...... -'"'::--=:" '-~? t::'":-\ '~~
"<-"'~~__-.':: '_~____ 7__ "J~~ -.:~/'~~.~
',) '-S-; . .'" -----.. --.-- . - /."'. --
.' !,,~ :~":.. =- )'-) -;:j<'\:. '\(
~ /~.--:)>~~i,;:~:~~i:K;~C~
,Well "'"""': ";.-" -="-. . -' '--::, .-
;1 .. .'-S; - -:- .' -=-.-::2: '>." - ..~,
~ A ". .'~- '-' ..--------
. / Ilia ,,4' '.,=-;.::-~:: ~-::\ n --""!'
Ii-
. ,0/,
c
.
~
,
.
2000
SCALE; FT.
3000
'000
'000
SITE LOCA TION MAP
148901.22
FEB. 2000
3
FifjUre: 1
Dale:
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John McCusker
February 8, 2000
Page 3
The materials used for backfill consisted of on-site silts, silty sands, and gravelly sands. Fill
placement and compaction was achieved by track walking with a John Deere No. 850C dozer. The
fill was placed in 4 to 6-inch thick lifts and moisture conditioned, as needed, with a water hose to
bring the material to near optimum moisture content. The fill was then properly compacted with the
dozer. A minimum degree of compaction of90% was required, as determined by ASTM 1557.
Fill Slope
The proposed, approximately lO-ft. high, fill slope was constructed along the south and east sides of
the pad at a 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio. The slope was constructed to approximate grade
and track walked with a dozer to achieve the required percent of compaction.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Density Testinli:
Field density testing was performed in accordance with 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 l The approximate
location of the tests is 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 01557-91, 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 L
Expansion Index Testing
Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of the upper loft of the earth
materials exposed at the pad surface. The results yielded an expansion index of 2, which indicated
that on-site soils exhibit very low expansion potential. Previous expansion index testing performed
during our Limited Geotechnical Investigation (T.HE. Soils Company, 1999b) also indicated a very
low expansion potential (expansion index of 2).
T.H.E. Soils Co.
W.O. 148901.22
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John McCusker
February S, 2000
Page 4
Sulfate Content
Based on sulfate testing performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils during our
Limited Geotechnical Investigation (T.H.E. Soils Company, 1999b), it is anticipated that, from a
corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. The laboratory
analysis was performed by Babcock & Sons, Laboratory of Riverside, California.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation System Desi~n
Foundation elements should be placed on engineered fill material compacted to a minimum of 90-
percent of the maximum dry density. Continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-
inches wide and 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade for single-story structures and a
minimum of 12-inches wide and IS-inches below the lowest adjacent grade for two-story structures.
As a minimum, all footings should have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of
the footing.
Concrete slabs should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil
polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. Due to the low expansion potential, a 2-inch
layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is
recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete.
The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil
parameters given above and within the Limited Geotechnical Investigation, and the existing soil
conditions.
Surface Draina~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.
Construction Monitorin~
Observation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company is essential to verify compliance with
recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with
the recommendations of this report. T.H.E. Soils Company should conduct construction monitoring
at the following stages of construction:
T.H.E. Soils Co,
W.O. 148901.22
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John McCusker
February 8, 2000
Page 5
. During excavation offootings for foundations
. During fill placement
. During utility trench backfill 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.
Accordingly, the fmdings 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, are limited
to those rough grading operations performed between January IS and February 3, 2000. 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.
T.HE Soils Co,
W.O. 148901.22
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John McCusker
February 8, 2000
Page 6
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
T.H.E. Soils Company
~~1
hn P. Frey
roject Geologist
~~~
Project Manager
JPF /JTR/JRH:jek
T.H.E. Soils Co,
W,O. 148901.22
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
T.H.E. Soils Co,
W,O, 148901.22
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
'International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active
I Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997
I Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and
I Geology;
I International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code";
T.R.E. Soils Company, 1999a, "Addendum to Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
. Single-Family Residence, Lot 29, Tract No 9833-3, APN 945-150-014, Calle de Velardo,
Temecula, Riverside County, California", dated November 17, 1999, Work Order No 148901.00A;
T.H.E. Soils Company, 1999b, ''Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family
I Residence, Lot 29, Tract No 9833-3, APN 945-150-014, Calle de Velardo, Temecula, Riverside
,County, California", dated November 8,1999, Work Order No 148901.00;
'T.H.E. Soils Company, 1999c, "Preliminary On-Site Sewage Disposal Investigation, Proposed
. Single-Family Residence, Lot 29, Tract No 9833-3, APN 945-150-014, Calle de Velardo,
Temecula, Riverside County, California", dated November 8, 1999, Work Order No 148901.01;
T.RE. Soils Co.
W.O. 148901.22
9
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
T.H.E. Soils Co.
W.O, 14890 1.22
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
w.o. 148901.22
McCusker
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
%
Description LbslFe Moisture
1 Rd - Dk Brown Silty Sand 127.8 9.6
2 Light Brown Gravelly Silty Sand 122.0 10.4
T.H.E. Soils Co,
W.O, 148901.22
\\
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
T.HE Soils Co.
W.O. 148901.22
\z..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS
Work Order #: 148901.22
Name: McCusker
Date: Feb. 2000
Test Test !Elevation Moisture Unit Dry Relative Soil Test Location
,No. Date Depth Content Density Compaction Type #
(Feet) (%) (PCF) (%)
1 1-19-00 1150 10.0 112.7 92N 2 See Plate 1
2 .. 1151 9.0 114.7 90N 1 ..
3 .. 1152 10.2 109.7 90N 2 ..
4 .. 1153 7.2 106.2 87N "* 2 ..
5 .. 1150 6.2 106.0 87N"* 2 ..
6 .. 1152 6.0 105.4 86N"* 2 ..
14A 1-20-00 1153 10.0 112.0 92N 2 ..
:5A " 1150 7.8 115.7 91N 1 ..
6A " 1152 8.3 116.8 91N 1 "
7 " 1154 8.8 117.9 92N 1 "
8 .. 1156 8.2 117.8 92N I "
9 1-24-00 1155 6.2 120.2 94N 1 "
:10 .. 1157 5.5 120.1 94N 1 "
11 .. 1159 9.0 111.8 92N 2 "
:12 " 1161 8.0 113.7 93N 2 ..
13 " 1162 6.8 112.2 92N 2 "
14 1-25-00 1160 10.0 115.8 91N 1 ..
SEE PLAN FOR TEST LOCATIONS
SC ~ Sand Cone ASTM Dl556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM 3017;
NG-Natural Ground + 85% = Passing Test uTEST FAILED, SEE RETEST
T.H.E. Soils Co,
w.o, 148901.22
\21
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTS
Work Order #: 148901.22
Name: McCusker
Date: Feb. 2000
Test Test Elevation Moisture Unit Dry Relative Soil Test Location
,No. Date Depth Content Density Compaction Type #
(Feet) (%) (PCF) (%)
15 1-25-00 1161 10.3 115.0 90N 1 "
16 " 1162 10.8 115.5 90N 1 "
17 2-02-00 FG 10.2 116.2 91N 1 "
.18 " FG 10.5 116.0 91N 1 "
19 " FG 9.7 115.2 90N 1 Slope test
20 " FG 9.5 115.0 90N 1 Slope test
SEEi PLAN FOR TEST LOCATIONS
SC -+ Sand Cone ASTM D1556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM 3017;
- - -
NG-Natural Ground + 85% = Passing Test "*TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST
T.H,E. Soils Co.
W.O. 148901.22
\~