HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 18098 Parcel 1-2 Soils Report
~. .'1 '. .~'. .
~. T.IjI.f. SoIls C@., lnc.'
~c;.plnjne! '(90~)189402121"'FAX:'C909 ) .1894. 2.122
I~' .4l548iEast/11,m Drive, Unit G . Murdeta, CA 92562
I[
it
I~
.
114 18c'\&
~ 1....2-
E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com
~ovember19,2003
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2003
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINeeRING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Tim Long
30445 Colver Court
Teinecula, Calitornia 92592
I:::
SUBJECT: REPORT(i)F ROUGH GRADING
Testing & Observations During Rough Grading
Two Proposed Single-Family Residential Pads
Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 18098
~ortheast Comer of Jerarnie Drive and Los Caballeros
Teme~o1a, Riverside County, California
WorkOrdet~o. 645301.22
Dear Mr. Long:
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 operations for the proposed single-
tiunily residence at.the; above referenced Parcels 1 & 2. All compaction test results are included in
Allpendix B ofithis report In accordance with Section 3317.8 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(uBC), effective September 22, 2003, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. became the Engineer of Record
for'the subject site. Rough grading operations were performed in accordance with the requirements
of the "Preliminary Soils .Evaluation" dated July 1, 2001, by William C. Hobbs, Consulting
Engineer, the City ofTemecula, and the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Johnson Grading of
California, under the direction of Mr. Chad Johnson, performed rough grading operations.
The 40-scale, "Grading Plan" for both Parcels, prepared by Mr. Bill Hobbs of Murrieta, California,
wa~ utilized during gr!lding to locate our field density tests and was utilized as a base map for our
test locations presented as Rlate 1.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES
Site Location Map- Figure I
L)ehsity Test Location jMaps (40-scale) - Plates I & 2
Jt..ppendix A - Laboratory Test Results
Jt..ppendix B - Results of Compaction Tests
THE SOILS COMPANY, INC
W. O. No. 645301.22
\
'"
~._....- ,
~'_,--=:~~~~J:f~=~~~~-:;:':::-'~:
_._---_._'.,----,.-.-
. -~~--- - ----_.~~,.,--" .......-
_...:_.-------c~.. _ .'~~.:="'__'_~:<'_~_,
--'----'-...----
----,--=-----~---- ~
_..--._-_._~~-..-
-"~- - .._-, ~_._-
,
..
;
.
.
'Mr. Tim Long
N.ovember 19,2003
Page 2
iProposed Development
. The subject site is proposed for the construction of 2 single-family residences including a driveway
;and 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) cut and fill slopes. It is our understanding the proposed structures will
be .of wood-frame & stucco with concrete slab-on-grade. Typical cut/fill grading was utilized to
'establish design grade.
Grading included clearing, grubbing, establishment of keyways, overexcavation, and placement and
.compaction of fill material to prepare the site. Maximum fill depth for current grading was
approximately 26-ft.
: Site Description
iThe subject parcels are located at the s.outheastern comer of J.ohn Warner Road and Jerarnie Drive
in Temecula, Calif.ornia The site is bordered on the north by John Warner Road, on the west by
iJerarnie Drive, and on the south and east by single-family residential developments. The
,geographical relationships of the site and surrounding features are represented on the attached Site
Locati.on Map, Figure 1.
Prior to precise grading, the subject property consisted of m.oderately steep terrain with natural
;gradients varying fr.omapproximately 20 to 35%. Drainage was accomplished by sheetflow to the
west and east. Overall relief on the subject parcels, prior to grading, was approximately 70-ft.
GRADING PROCEDURES
,Site Preparation.
Prior to the commencement .of grading the subject site was cleared of vegetation and debris, which
was disposed of .off-site. A keyway was established along the t.oe .of all fill slopes. The outside
,edge .of the keyways were excavated to a minimum of 1-ft into dense sedimentary bedrock materials
land tilted a minimum .of 2% into the hillside. Benching int.o dense sedimentary bedrock materials
was maintained at all times. Prior to placement of fill within the keyway excavations, the exposed
.sedimentary bedrock was scarified a minimum of 12-inches, brought t.o near .optimum moisture
:content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compacti.on, as determined by ASTM 0-1557 test
method.
'The cut portion .of the building pads were overexcavated a minimum .of3-ft below finish pad grade
larid to a minimum of 5-ft .outside the building footprint, as staked by the contractor. The exposed
bottoms were scarified a minimum of 12-inches, brought to near optimum m.oisture content, and
c.ompacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
,The fill materials were leveled and mixed with a Caterpillar D8K bulldozer. Moisture conditioning
was accomplished utilizing a fire hose. Compaction was achieved by trackwalking with the
bulldozer.
z.
THE SallS COMPANY. INC.
W. O. No. 645301.22
T .1iI.E. Soils Co., In'
.
0.
~~.,:
)GOlf
( Course
'.
ADAPTED FROM THE 1968 7, 5 MINUTE TEMECULA QUADRANGLE MAP
o
,
1000
2000
SCAlE: FT.
3000
'000
SITE LOCATION MAP
w.o. #
645301.22
Dale: OCT. 2003
Figure: 1
.3
.
.
Mr. Tim Long
~ovember 19,2003
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 D1557). Compaction
was achieved by trackwalking with a bulldozer. The maximum laboratory dry density, as
determined by ASTM 01557-91 Test Method A (Appendix A, Table I), was utilized as the
standard for field compaction control.
Fill Soils
Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of on-site tan to gray silty sands, grayish clayey
silty sands, dark brown silty sands, and light brown silts. Test results are presented in Appendix B,
Table I.
Cut/FiU Transitions
Rough grading operations at the site included overexcavation of the proposed building pads,
therefore, eliminating the cut/fill transition as staked by the contractor.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Density 1]estinl!
Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method 02922-91 (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
~presentative samples of the 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 I.
THE SOILS COMPANY. INC.
W. o. No. 645301.22
4.
'"
~.,
, (> .
'So
~
c:.
~.
11"
'b i
<0(\;
~
...
, .
. ~\.,.,
\, I \
, I
\
@ ~
~
0
-- -If- . -, ~
:I> m
U 'Il !l.l
'Il
g i
;;:
~ ..
i:l
~ ~
0
'z
~ 0 f!I
." ~
0
0
;;:
/ ~ 8
/1 w
=l
0
~"y: / z
iil 'Il
Ul
'\ -i ~
~
l1\ <$ I~
~
..
~1
i
I
/:
'Il
el
~ ~~~
rii mc'll
~ 1ii!ll:lOg
_~..z
C Q
m liOr-o
gol"mz
c"'~im
~~~~r-
OOOi!!Q
l:~J!!!ii~
." j!:Co
o IUmz
~ ..~;;:
> ~I'=~
CO'll
:I>
c
Ul
---...
;,)
;:e
!'l
(Il
o
~.
t
."
>,
~
i
I
1
.1
I
-
~
.
.
Mr. Tim Long
. No.vember 19, 2003
Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
, Expansion Testinl!
Expansion index testing was performed o.n a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of the earth
. materials exposed at both pad surfaces. The test results yielded expansion indices of 14 and 17,
which indicates a very low expansion (0 to' 20) potential (Table 18-I-B, 1997 UBC). Test results
, are presented in Appendix A, Table II.
; Soluble Sulfate Content
A representative sample o.f the upper 3-ft. o.f the earth materials exposed on the pad surface was
i obtained fo.r testing. It is anticipated that, from a co.rrosivity standpoint, Type 11 Po.rtland Cement
I can be used for :construction. However, due to the time co.nstraints o.f this report, the results o.f
I the soluble sulfate content analysis will be issued as an addendwn to this report o.nce received.
i E.S. Babco.ck & Sons, Inc. Laborato.ries of Riverside, California is performing the laborato.ry
I testing.
; Slope Construction
I Fill and cut slopes were constructed to maximwn height of approximately 26 and 22.5-ft,
I respectively, at a 2:1 (horizo.ntaI:vertical) slope ratio. We anticipated the cut and fill slopes to be
I both surficially and grossly stable.
I Foundation System Deshro
I It is anticipated that the fo.undation elements should be founded either entirely in compacted fill
I materials or sedimentary bedrock. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should perform a footing inspection,
I prior to placement of reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance
, with the jo.b specificatio.ns.
The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the
I allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented fo.r Class 4 so.ils on Table
. 18-1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Co.de (UBC). The allowable foundation and lateral
I pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-1-A for Class 4 soils unless data to
, substantiate the use of higher values are submitted.
. Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may bear on continuous and
. isolated footings. The footings should have a rninimwn width of 12-inches, and be placed at least
12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story houses, with a rninimwn width of 12-
, inches, and be placed at least 18-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for two.-story houses.
I Footings may be designed for a rnaximwn safe soil bearing pressure for Class 4 soils as per Table
. 18-I-A of the 1997 UBC fo.r dead plus live loads.
. THE SOILS COMPANY. 1Ne.
W.o. No. 645301.22
c.
.
.
'Mr. Tim Long
'~ovember 19, 2003
! Page 5
. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a
. minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. 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 presented in the limited geotechnical report and the existing soil conditions.
I Footings should be set back from the top of all cut or fill slopes a horizontal distartce equal to'at
: least Y:, the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5-ft.
Total settlement~ under static loads of footings supported on in-place bedrock materials and sized
! for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch.
I Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill
: materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed 114-inches for a
. span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil
: engineering parameters for imported soil may vary.
I Utility Trench Backiill
i 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
I Cal-OSHA standards, as a minimum.
I Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and
I compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the
, ASTM 1557 test method. ~o rocks larger than 6-inches in diameter should be used as fill material.
I Rocks larger than 6-inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed to a suitable dimension and
, used as fill material.
: Surface DrainaEe
: 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
I provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water.
: Construction MonitorinE
I Continuous observation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verity
, compliance with recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are
. consistent with the recommendations of this report. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should conduct
construction monitoring, at the following stages of construction:
THE SOILS COMPANY, INe.
W. O. No. 645301.22
'\
.
.
Mr. Tim Long
November 19,2003
. Page 6
. During excavation of footings for foundations.
. During fill placement.
. During trench backfill operations.
SUMMARY
Our description of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, were
limited to those rough grading operations performed between September 24,2003 and October 16,
2003 and observed and tested by our field personnel. 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. ~o conclusions or warranties are
made for the areas not tested or observed, This report is based on information obtained during
rough grading. ~o warranty as to the current conditions can be made. This report should be
considered subject to review by the controlling authorities.
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 if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
This firm did not provide any surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the
building locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans.
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 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.
THE SOILS COMPANY, INe.
W. O. No. 645301.22
~
.
.
'Mr. Tim Long
'November 19,2003
I Page 7
1bis opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
I Vel}' truly yours,
IJo lP.~Y
~ect Geologist
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
J . Reinhart, RCE 23464
Civil Engineer, Expires 12-31-05
~~~
~atf1es R. Harrison
/ Project Manager
iJPF/JTR/JRH:jek
THE SOILS COMPANY, INe.
w. O. No. 645301.22
q
THE SOILS COMPANY, INC.
.
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Test Results
.
W. O. No. 645301.22
\0
.
.
TABLE I
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
% Type
Description LbslFf Moisture
1 Tan to Gray Silty Sand 127.5 10.8 Onsite
2 Light Brown Silt 117.5 15.8 Onsite
3 Grayish Silt 111.1 18.4 Onsite
4 Dark Brown Silty Sand 126.0 9.8 Onsite
TABLE II
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Upper Pad Surface 17 Vel}' Low
Lower Pad Surface 14 Vel}' Low
THE SalLS COMPANY. INC.
w. o. No. 645301.22
\\
TIlE SOILS COMPANY, INe.
.
APPENDIX B
Results of Compaction Tests
.
W. O. No. 645301.22
\t.
,.
.
.
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION
MR. TIM LONG
Job ~o.:645301.22
PARCELS 1&2 OF P.M. 1809B, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:OCT.2003
Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location
~o. Date Depth Content Density Camp. Type
(ft.) (%) (PCF) (%)
I
I 9/24/03 1077.0 10.8 119.3 94~ 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
2 9/24/03 1079.0 11,4 118,9 93~ 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
3 9/24/03 1091.0 11.4 118,6 93N I SEE PLATE I OF I
4 9/24/03 1118.0 8,4 118.6 93~ I SEE PLATE I OF I
5 9/24/03 1120.0 9.0 120.8 95~ I SEE PLATE 1 OF I
6 9/24/03 1081.0 8,3 119.1 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
7 9/25/03 1083.0 8.2 121.2 95~ I SEE PLATE 1 OF I
8 9/25/03 1087,0 9,4 121.3 95N I SEE PLATE I OF 1
9 9/30/03 1089,0 8.1 121.4 95~ 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1
10 9/30/03 1117.0 8.0 121.1 95N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
11 9/30/03 1120.0 8.1 115.0 90~ 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
12 9/30/03 FO 9.6 116.7 92~ 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
13 10/7/03 1093.0 13.1 105.2 90~ 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
14 10/7/03 1095,0 18.0 106,4 91N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
15 10/7/03 1120.0 14,4 106.6 91N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
16 10/7/03 FO 16.2 106,1 90~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
17 10/9/03 1097.0 17.9 107.9 91N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
18 10/9/03 1100.0 16.6 106.2 90~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1
19 1011 0/03 1119.0 18.2 107.1 91~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
20 1011 0/03 1122.0 18.7 107.5 92~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
21 10/1 0/03 1099.0 17.9 110.6 94N 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1
22 10/13/03 FO 15.7 115.1 98N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
23 10/13/03 FG 15.9 114.1 97~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
24 10/14/03 FG 17.3 112.5 96~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1
25 10114/03 1128.0 17.9 110.5 94~ 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
26 10114/03 1098.0 15.1 108.5 92~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1
27 10114/03 100.0 18.5 108.5 92~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
28 10114/03 1102.0 17.7 108.3 92N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
29 10114/03 1104,0 16.0 110.5 94~ 2 SEE PLATE I OF I
30 10114/03 1106,0 18,7 104.8 94~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
31 10/15/03 1108,0 15,4 105,4 95~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
32 10115/03 1110.0 18.9 104.3 94~ 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
~~~~~ 0
SC.Sand Cone ASTM 01556-64; OC-Orive Cylinder ASTM 02937-71; N-Nuc1ear ASTM 03017-93, and 02922-91; NG-Natural Ground +
85%"" 'Passing Test; **-Test Failed, See Retest
, .
.
.
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION
MR. TIM LONG
Job ~0,:645301.22
PARCELS 1&2 OF P.M. 18098, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DA TE:OCT. 2003
Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location
No. Date Depth Content Density Camp. Type
(ft) (%) (PCF) (%)
I
33 10/15/03 1112.0 17.3 103.9 94N 3 SEE PLATE I OF 1
34 10/15/03 FO 16.9 105.1 95~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF 1
35 10/15/03 1114.0 16.8 102.7 92N 3 SEE PLATE I OF 1
36 10/15/03 1116.0 17.4 101.9 92N 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
37 10/15/03 1118.0 18.0 103.3 93~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
38 10/16/03 1118.0 18.9 104.0 94~ 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
39 10/16/03 FO 18.3 104.7 94~ 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
40 10/16/03 1119.0 16.1 102.0 92N 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
41 10/16/03 FO 16.7 103.7 93N 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
42 10/16/03 1118,0 8.9 114.7 91~ 4 SEE PLATE I OF I
43 10/16/03 FO 17.0 104.3 94~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
44 10/16/03 FO 16.9 105,0 95~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
45 10/16/03 FO 17.9 103.9 94~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
46 10/16/03 FO 17.3 103.3 93~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
47 10/16/03 FO 16.9 103.6 93N 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
48 10/16/03 FO 17.2 105.1 95~ 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS \~_
SCSand Cone ASTM 01556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM 02937-71, N.Nuclear ASTM 03017-93. and 02922-91; NG-Natural Ground +
85%= Passing Test; "-Test Failed, See Retest