HomeMy WebLinkAboutAsGradedGeotech(Jun.18,2007)r ;~
~ INLAND, INC. ~ +5~~ 3
', Geotechmcal, Env~ronmental, and Mater7al Testing Consultants
,~
i,'
I~
AS-CRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, TWO OA%
' TREEAREAS, TRACT23065-3, STRATFORD
DET'ELOPMENT, REDHAW%AREA
', CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
,
' CALIFORNIA
'
'
Project No. I05975-30
~
, Dated: June I8, 2007
'
'
Prepared For:
1vtr. scott Srites
, CENTEX HOMES
1265 Corona Pointe Court
I
' Corona, Califomia 92879
'
l
'
41531 Date Street • Murrieta • CA 92562-7086 • Office (9511461-1979 • Fax (9511461-7677
,
~, Geotechnical, Environmental, and
I' June 19, 2007
', Mr. Scott Stites
CENTEX HOMES
1265 Corona Pointe Court
' Corona, California 92879
Testing Consultants
Project No. I05975-30
' Subject: As-Graded Ceotechnica! RepoK, Two Dak Tree Areas, Tract 23065-3, Stratford Development,
Redhawk Area, City of Temecu/a, Riverside County, California
' References: LGC Inland, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading Tract 23065-3, Redhawk Area,
' in the Ciry of Temecula, Riverside County, California, dated June 12
LGC Inland, Inc., 1005, Due-Diligence Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Tentative
, Tract 23065-3, Located in the RedhawkArea ofRiverside County, California, dated July 8.
, In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Inland, Ina (LGC) has pmvided geotechnical services
during the mugh gading operations for two oak h~ee azeas, Tract 23065-3, Stratford Development, Redhawk
Area, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia. The accompanying as-graded report summarizes our
' observarions, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during grading of the
subject site.
, Rough grading operarions in the subject azea were performed in general accordance with referenced geotechnical
reports, geotechnical recommendations made during the course of gading, and the City of Temecula gading
requirements.
, If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of
service.
' Respectfully submitted,
' LGCINL.9ND, INC.
' ~/
Yogi Pirathap RCE 68698
, Chief Geotechnical Engineer
YP/1vfF/kg
;~ ~ No,68698 ~ ~
* ~ EXP. ~ ~
,, _ ,~
Z
47531 Date Street • Murrieta • CA 92562-7086 • Office (951) 461-1919 • Fax (951) 461-7677
!I1
, T~BLE OF CONTENTS
~' ec 'on Paee
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
2.0 SUMMARYOFFIELD OPERATIONS OPERATIONS ..........................................................................1
2.1 As-Cttaded Conditions ......................................................................................................................1
, 2.2 Site Preparation and Removals .........................................................................................................2
23 Fill Placement ...................................................................................................................................2
2.4 Laboratory Tesring ............................................................................................................................2
, 2.5 Field Density Testing ........................................................................................................................2
3.0 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................3
3.1 General .............................................................................................................................................3
~ 3.2 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................................3
4.0 LIMITf1TlONS ...........................................................................................................................................3
,
LIST OFAPPENDICESAND PLATES
,
' Attachments: Appendix A- Density Test Summary for Oak Tree Grading
Plate 1- As-Graded Geotechnical Map
' Distribution: (4) Addressee
(2) Mr. Paul Herigstad- Centex Homes Site Superintendent
' (1) LGC Field File
'
'
'
'
'
t 3
' Project No. I05975-30 Page i June 19, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
~ LGC Inland, Inc. (LGC) is pleased to provide this rough grading report of two exisring oak tree azeas. The
rough grading for the major portion of the subject tract commenced between 7anuary 2006 and May 2006 (LGC,
' 2006). However, there were two oak trees that were pmtected in place to be removed at a later date.l'hese two
trees precluded removals of azeas in Lots 83 through 85, and 102 through 105 in the vicinity of one tree; I,ots 1,
106, and the Open Space in the vicinity of the other tree. These two trees have been moved from the subject
, area, and the azeas below these trees were removed to competent alluvium and backfilled under full time
observation and testing by LGC.
2.0 SUMMARYOFAS-GRADED CONDITIONAND FIR~ OPERATI
' The rough grading operations were performed under the observation and testing services of LGC. Our field
technician/geologist was onsite on a full-time basis during the grading operations. Rough gading operations
included: I) the removal of previously left in place compressible soils down to competent alluvial soils; 2) the
~ scarification and recompaction of removal bottoms; and 3) placement of compacted fill soils to design finish pad
grade.
' 2.1 As-Graded Condidon
' The as-gaded conditions encountered during grading of the site were essendally as anticipated. Existing
artificial fill soils and stockpile soils were present on the site prior to grading. Following the remedial
earthwork, only competent aztificial fills were left remainuig beneath the newly placed compacted fills.
' No groundwater was encountered to the maximum excavated depths.
' Lots 83 throurh 85 and 102 throurh 105
Rough gading in this azea began on August 30, 2006, and was completed on September 1, 2006.
' Grading operations were performed by Perry and Shaw in this azea. Removal bottoms were observed
and documented by a Geologist of LGC. The bottoms were found to be in competent alluvial material
(material exceeding 85 percent relative compaction). Maximum design fills placed were appmximately
' 21 feet.
Approximate removal locations and elevations aze presented on Plate 1, As-Graded Geotechnical Map,
, and density test results are presented in Appendix A.
Lot l. Lot 106. and O~p~ Snace
' Rough grading in this azea began on May 11, 2007, and was completed on May I5, 2007. Grading
operations were performed by Titan Engineering in this azea. In the open space soils were removed and
~ recompacted only to provide 1:1 fill prism below Lots 1 and 106. Removal bottoms were observed and
documented by a Geologist of LGC. The bottoms were found to be in competent alluvial material
(material exceeding 85 percent relative compacrion). Maa~imum design fills placed were approa~imately
^ 23 feet.
~
i~
I' Approximate removal locations and elevations aze presented on Plate 1, As-Graded Geotechnical Map,
I and density test results aze presented in Appendix A.
I, At the time of preparing this letter, the center portion of the pad is left approximately 4 feet low in
anticiparion of the replanting of the oak tree. Pipe has been installed in the open space to drain excess
water from the proposed planted tree.
' 2.2 S~ Prenar{~tion and Removals
'
' 2.3
'
,
,
' 2.4
'
'
'
'
, 2.5
Prior to grading, the site was cleared of light vegetarion and other miscellaneous debris and the material
was disposed of offsite. Following remedial removals, areas to receive fill were scarified a minimum of 6
to 12 inches, moisture-condirioned as nceded to obtain a neaz-optimum moisture content and compacted to
a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557.
Fill Placement
After processing the areas to receive fill, native soils were generally spread in approximately 12-inch lifts,
moisturo-condirioned as nceded to attain near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Compacrion was
achieved by use of heavy-duty conshuction equipment. Areas of fill in which either field density tests
indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction or the soils e~ibited nonunifomvty and/or showed an
inadequate or excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90
percent relarive compaction and near-optimum moishue content was achieved.
Laboratorv Tes~in¢
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of representarive onsite soils were previously performed in general
accordance with AS1'M Test Method D1557. The test results aze presented in Table 1.
Field Den i~y T„ est~nr
Field density testing was performed using the Nucleaz-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922-96
and D3017-96). The approximate test locations are shown on Plate l, As Graded Geotechnical Map. The
results of the field density tests aze summarized in Appendix A. The field density testing was performed
in general accordance with the applicable ASTM standazds and the cunent standazd of caze in the
industry. In-situ soil density testing is intended to verify the effectiveness of the earthmoving operation
in general and is performed on a spot-check basis; as such, some variarions in relative compacrion
should be expected from the results documented herein.
i
~
Project No. I05975-30 Page 2 June 19, 2007
Table ~l - Mazimum Drv Densitv and Ontimum Moisture Content
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 General
, Precise grading for the two oak tree azeas, Tract 23065-3, Stratford Development, Redhawk Area, City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California was performed in general accordance with the referenced
~ geotechnical report (LGC, 2005), geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and
the City of Temecula Requirements. It is our professional opnvon that the subject area is suitable for its
intended residential use provided the recommendations in the referenced reports aze incorporated into
, the design. The following is a summary of our conclusions concerning the subject site.
3.2 Suramarv of Conclusions
~ . Site rough gading for Tract 23065-3 is essenrially wmplete.
' . Geotechnical conditions encountered during grading were generally as anticipated.
• Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed and approved throughout the duration of
the earthwork.
, . Fill soils were derived from onsite soils or import materials. Where tested, the compacted fill within
the limits of remedial grading was seen to have at least 90 percent relarive compacrion (based on
ASTM Test Method D1557) and near-oprimum moisture wntent in accordance with the
' recommendations of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and the requirements of the City
of Temecula. A summary of the results of the field density tests is presented in Appendix A.
' . Evidence of acrive faulting was not encountered during grading.
• No groundwater was encountered during the grading.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
' Our services were performed using the degree of caze and skill ordinarily exercised, under similaz
circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localiries. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples
' taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observarions made and the in-situ field testing performed aze
believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavarion may
' be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the
project soils engineer and geologist and desigt(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended.
' This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative,
to ensure that the information and recommendarions contained herein aze brought to the attention of the
architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the
, contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or
subcontractor should norify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be
unsafe.
'
, ~
' Project No. 705975-30 Page 3 June 19, 2007
,
' The findings of this report aze valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
and do 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 standazds 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.
~,~
,
~
''
'
'
~
, Project No. I05975-30 Page 4 June 19, 2007
SUMMARYOFFlELDDENSI7Y7~STSFOR OAKTREEGRADING
'
~
'~
O Ttre ade A 006
t N 08/30/06 NG OakTreeRe ade 1162 I 123.6 7.1 133.0 93
2 N 08/30/06 CF OakTreeRe ade 1164 1 119.9 7.0 ]33.0 90
3 ~N ~ ~OS/30/06
~ CF Oak7Yee Re ade 1166 1 122.4 6.9 133.0 92
4 N OS/30/06 CF Oak'[Y~ee Re ade 1168 1 123.9 6.4 133.0 93
5 N OS/30/06 CF Oak Tree Re ade 1170 1 120.5 S.Z 133.0 91
6 N 09/01 /06 CF Oak 7Y~ee Re ade ~ 1172 1 126.3 7.9 133.0 95
7 N 09/01/06 CF OakTreeRe ade 1174 1 122.1 7.6 133.0 92
8 N 09/01/06 ~ CF Oak Tree Re ade 1176 I 121.0 7.9 133.0 91
9 N 09/Ol /06 CF Oak Tree Re ade FG 1 122.0 8.1 133.0 92
Oak7}ee r 2007
1 N 05/11/07 NG n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1161 1 116.8 6.6 133.0 S8
2 N 05/ll/07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1164 1 120.7 9.1 133.0 91
3 N 05/I1/07 CF n S ace Between Iqt 1 and 106 ] 166 I 121.3 92 133.0 91
4 N ~ OS/ 11 /07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1168 I 123.1 82 133.0 93
5 N 05/14/07 NG n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1162 1 123.9 8.9 133.0 93
6 N 05/14/07 CF n S ace Between Lot I and 106 1166 1 124.6 8.5 133.0 94
7 N 05/14/07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1168 1 1212 81 133.0 91
8 N 05/14/07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1170 I 120.6 8.7 133.0 91
9 N 05/14/07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1172 1 1242 8.2 133.0 93
10 N 05/14/07 CF n S ace Between Lot 1 and 106 1174 1 122.9 7.9 133.0 92
11 N 05/14/07 CF n S ece Between Lot I and 106~ 1176 I 123.6 8.0 733.0 93
12 N 05/15/07 CF n S aceBehveen Lotl and ]06 1178 1 124.4 7.9 133.0 94
13
~ N 05/15/07 CF n S ace Setween Lot 1 and 106 1179 1 123.4 7.6 133.0 93
14 N 05/15/07 CF n S ace Behveen Lot 1 and 106 FG 1 125.7 8.0 133.0 94
S
N- Nuc%ar TestMethod NG - Nahrral Ground CF - Compacted Fill
ProjectNo. I09975-30
June 2007
1;; _
_ I
s Y/
~ A
~~~+ ~I
W -
~~~ Z
o ~
~~~~
m~
~v
Ay
~c
~o
~3C
~am
~~v
~am
~~3
'< ; o
~ma
- 6~ r
°m~C
~Za
~~~
~~
p~Z
~ -~ 3
~wa
oo~
z~
nw
0
~
9
5
m
i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' n ~ ,~;.; o0
~.. ~
~
~ c~ I ' I ~:~ 0 ~ ~0~0 •~ •~ ~ ~ I
I I W ~ > ~ tll V N r.a I
I ~1 I
y, •~ ~p ~~ + ~(n C/Qn LJ ~I
( ~r(= 69 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ `I ~ I v' ~ ~ I .I I I
~~~~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~' •
% ~L~ ~ ~ ~' ~ LV ~ ~ ~
, ~ II I ',1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o~ __ I '
~ ~ i ~ (~,J~ ~.5~. 1 ~
o ~'~,6 I I ( I ~ ' ~ '-~ ~ • o
~~~~.. I : ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~ V ~
0
~ ~ ~ `I
`°v°I~ ~" ( ~,~, ~~ yC~ ~ `-' ~ 'A Ii.
IN> ° ~ N t N / -~ -
~, ~ ,,_,~ o ,,,~.,~ ~ ,
I
~ -
W ~
~ o~ll I, ~ ~6~~ ~ ~ ;~ ~° '~ ~ 1 .~, / ~
`' ~ ° - o ` ~ (~1 r-I' w / / , ~ //
i--i-- ' ~ ~ ~~ ,
t vc - ~- -~ y=~ ~ I ~ a / ~ ~ ~ ~
P6 = is ` s.sa I • A ~~~ - L~ ~ o ~~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~:
"s\~~ ~6` .O~ ~l ~~~ ~~ •~' U-, ~O~c
7'
~_
~~ T c I~ •~ C~ ° T:'~~ ~ ~ G~t C s. 92
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s w • a I ~.
N N
I~~~\I I ~ •~ •N •~ I \`' 4.~'~
~ ~~
~~'~ ~I ~ N N ~oVO 00 •i„i\ ~N ~ ~\--
~'1~~ ~ ~ ' r1°' ~ e' ~ w N ~ ~ \ '
' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , N N ~c
~1~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~~1 '~ ~ ~N ~~ ~~~ °~ •~ ~~ ~
~ \ ~ / o ao ~ c
~~~\~\ ~ ~ ~
• ~'• ~ ~v •~ o0
~ ~ \ ~ i /~ s~ •~ o ~4~~ ~ ~ ,
\ \ ~
r ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ 0° ~ ~ . ~ ~
~ -o •
N ~+ ~ ~ w
~\n~ o \ \ ~~~~~ ~~n~ ~N A
~ ~c."., \° ~ ~~ ~~ i~ ~- •
~ ~ ..~ w
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ e°A ~ ~'`a Q
~~
\ ~\ Q \\ \ / ~ ~ ~~~~~.~'i ~ ~,~
\\ \\ o \ ~ ~ ~, ~~. ~, N w
~~~ ~~~~ ~ 80.~~\~~ ~ ~ \ oN ~~' •~ ~~
•
~ ~ ~~~v TC ~ o~ \ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~n ~
\\\ ~ ~w w/ . •~•W
\ ~\ \~ ~ ~ • w
~ 6~-- ~\ \ ~\ ea+~ ~ N
~ ~. ~\\~ 8~.o~v~?~;~'`'~~ ~-• ~N , w •~ •
~ ~ ~ ~~FS U~o~o \ \\ ~ ~ ~ A ~
~ ~ ~_k n\ ` ~~ \~eo ~ ~C~
~ \ _ ~ _ ~l A - - --- -- -
- -- ~ -l~ ~ ~'--~ . _ -~- --\A-- - ~
N ~
~ 3 ~
~ ~~ ~ A ~A I ~ p n C o
e~ ~
y . ~ _.
u ~
~~+ p y p r.
a a~ ~ 7~ m
~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ d 3 u' Ot ^
z ~m $g ~ m m~ 3 ~~ YI
.~ ~ „ m m
~ 7 y ? z N o~ i O O -
3 m'1 a a m '1 v'~ < c ee n t~ 'O Z
Ill n-I °o ~ n 1 ~ ~ 1° O"' ~ ~C
1D =$ '~03 uqi ai a~'~ 3 ~
< ~~ ~~,. w ~ -~ ~ ov
~ ' r `°' r r m ~ °' K
o ~ o ' ~ g _ `~ 3
~p w ~~' a s. ~i ~ d' a m
o~ ~q > > ~
o '[ ~
a