The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-2 Lot 5 Rough Grading ��.��la � 'T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. � � ��f� Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122 � E-mail: tl�esoilsco@aol.com 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G• Murrieta, CA 92562 June 6, 2006 Mr. Andy I.akey 43395 Manz.ano Drive Temecula, Califomia 92593 SUBJEC°T; ItEPOItT OF R�UGH GRADING Proposed RV Garage APN: 945-020-(305 43395 Manzana �rive City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. �81501.22 Dear Mr. Lakey: 1NTRODUC'TION In accordance with your reque�, we have prepared this Report of Rough Grading presenting the results of our testing of the RV garage located at the above subject site. Compaction test results are included in this report in Appendiz C, Table I. The subject pad appears to have been graded in accordance with the requirements of the City of Temecula and the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). The 20-scale "Precise Grading Plan" for 43395 Manzano Drive, prepared by JMM Consultant of Murrieta, California, was utilized during gradin.g to locate our field density tests. A reduced copy of the plan was utilized as a base map for our test locations presented as Plate 1. Kellam Excavating and Grading performed the grading operations. ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES � Site 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.'Inc. W.O. 810401.22 � � Mr. Andy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 2 Proposed Development The proposed development calls for the construction of a RV garage. Based on our observation and the site plan, it is anticipated that the subject structure will be founded entirely in engineered fill material. Site Descrintion The subject site is located in the Temecula area of southern Riverside County, California. The site was a moderately sloping parcel bordered by lazge parcel single-family residential lots. The site is bordered on the north by Santiago Road, on the east by Manzano Road, and on the west and south by lazge parcel single-family residential developments. The location of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Prior to grading, the building pad was previously a tennis court that was demolished prior to grading. The subject site has an existing single-family home and pool cabana. GRADING PROCEDURES Site Preparallon The subject site was cleared of the tennis court prior to commencement of grading. The pad area was overexcavated a minimum of 3.0 feet below pad grade and extended approximately 5-ft outside the building footprint. The contractor staked the limits of the pad prior to overexcavation and recompaction. Prior to placement of fill within the removal, the bottom was scarified a minimum of 12-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. 'The fill materials were leveled and mixed by a dozer, and compaction was achieved by wheel rolling by a water truck and track walking with a dozer. TESTING PROCEDURES Mazimwm Densitv Determinations Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture deternunations were performed in the laboratory on representative samples of onsite soils used in the fill operations. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Test Method A. Test results, which were utilized in determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendiz A, Table I. T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 • • i - , -- _ _. _ �- . _._ � ,. , � � � � -� , � � , � � f� �> ,; ` - �f ; � ,• . �- . � �; - p� � � , �� 1 '�� _ � + � "� -��- - , , , � � >> , , � ,% � /� ! � -`\p `-✓ � � �. � ! i f _ '__ ( � � � ` ^. 2� / . �l I / .._ . ��i � \ / � / � / 3�� t O �gl`_ � � � :� �_� ' � ,.i.,---�._ ._._ � � ,a� i �� I r : . ^ _a� �__._�� / �.�" � , � V � � i ,r- _. _ %1 �-*� \ r � �= � �/� p� ` ,j � � . . 1 � � �� , �� , � o i � ♦, ' � % �_�� . , � : � � � ,� � � � � � . � f �,v � �� -' �� __,_;: � 1.� ___ � ' ' <<� ` �t_so � �' �i� /�� . , /�-- -_ \'� �_ ---�' � � � � - � ,_ � �' '� � �2 :", _ �l, : � � �1 •, .. . � � ` a -'�, ' '� L � - �" N ..J� \ / .�� ,..__ `b ,�� \�`"� 1��50 � � , �� \ , ^ � �� '� � � : i � `,\ , _ . ;s � rr�a � \ — \ ` \ \ � � J ` � � �� % � `� v� ,� j � �� ,�° � . i � � ' � .'� � � � ,? _ � {--� �, ` _ ` ,. �(-\ � ' ..y_ . , y ' � .2 ; - T�; ��; �, % �� I � _--� i � — � � ; , \ � i � ��_�.: � (�� , '� ��—. � � i�� i f .� /� � � r �� \ \ f ` �''� t ,/ � � �.� ,� �� ` � i �� \��' '�` ! ; � r . � � " � —`�- 1 � /'1� �7 ;, \ J f /�- /� N33° � � / � �' � � � �� . /;.- "% '; '� ' � �—� �. 1 I� `� r� %. _ �. `� � - � �' — - . . . t , `�. �� -' r � �� : � - - __..- -'s „y'='� �,: � " � w?" � \ .{ �� ..- � ; 1 . ;... , � - , ;� ,.. �) � - � -- ' '`� ,;, '�� ` � � � %/ rv�..r ,� ,� —�:= L. r , \ ; � r } % ; f /%� • ,i _ _ - � : / �� ` r----_ __� .� � =% j � ; \\,�\ \' \ 1 � � ! \� � \ , , - '� � / \�� \ _ i �� ; � - --� ` ' ', j �� A'` A � o; � y. � � � j � ��, � � � i ' `��.- „ �. , ; �. � � i � , � � � + �N33 � � ' \ j/�- I � I I � ` , ' � � �� . / � �: ` �,� ..�'�'�� =---`� ; , ; �-� _ � � � r : � � � �, �, , � i �� ,�_ � t „ � - � . ,. ; � ��'��,`� ' r. � °�'� __'�� /` �"_ �- , ` � \ ' /� �` \ J . J �, . / \ / ._ \ '. :,' I � I `� ; , � ' ._\ ,�� l // -- \ � i' r i� � V /� ' ---�— . 3-D TapoQaads Copyri66t � 1999 DeLorme Ysr�oady ME OA096 1600 ft Sak: i: 28,125 Ddai� IZ-7 Dafom: WGS84 FIGURE 1 � � Mr. Andy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 3 Fill Soils Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of brown silty sand (Unified Soils Classificadon- S1Vn derived from onsite in-place materials. Compaction test results are presented in Appendiz C. S1 0pC3 No slopes over 3 feet in height were cot�structed during the subject grading. The surrounding slopes were pre-existing. Field Density Testing Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922-91 (nucleaz 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 Appendiz C, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The appro�cimate locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test Location Map, Plate 1. � RECOn�IlVIEENllATIONS Ezpansion Testin� Expansion testing was performed at the cornpletion of rough grading on a representative neaz surface soil sample obtained from the building pad area. The results, wbich are listed in Appendix B, Table II indicate that the expansion potential for the onsite soils was a 0, which corresponds to a very low (0 20) expansion potential. Sulfate & Chloride Content Soluble Sulfate Content testing was performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils exposed at the pad surface. The test results yielded non-detected of soluble sulfate, which equates to a negligible attack hazard (0 to 150, Table 19-A-4, 2001 CBC). It is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. Prime Testing, Inc. laboratory of Murrieta, California performed the laboratory testing and test results are presented in Appendig B, Table III. A second representative sample of the near surface soils exposed at the pad surface has been obtained for chloride testing. Chloride test results were 130 ppm (parts-per-million). T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific info�arion or evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that a competent T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 o�� -. . . � � � .. r. � � .+ �; 4 i . 9�i�,�� ___�p �� +s � . '� � � � � • ��' - '�'t�i1/. 17 !'� M� ,�i:`_ _ -�: :'.; ��':l!i.� � �,�;r.� _�---- �.�,; _—•�.�,�,•�'' � „� � ` � � � � ��.�_ - — — —��:r�!�� `�� M'�' _� � � '�-_�:: . `�� . �_��'� ��, ��\�� I� ' � �s!++'c:ralo � � I� � �� ! 1 � '� ' � e . '�'t tl j %� � j �� I '� ��►��i�� ' , ` ,- . � .s'�+Pr:iaf.:e:! � .�i �j .7 , \�•.-��`': � s _�.. . . �,� , � ��, o .:: ..:_.:. . �, _ ,, .. ,��,�.,� . ...,, ..:: � .� : , , . , ' ; / ' /� �� '\ ,,,,,�� I, � �� . '•��,` • .�.�� d�� I � '�� ,.�.. /%� .�, � �!;��t�� , �;�r �� - �� . l�� ``i►�� ,� . '! ►, ._ //O /� � ♦ �� .,� �� - . � �• , _ �� ♦ � �� . . . O • �� . , � • :�� i��.•!► , , . . � �.__._ __ ____;_____ ____�. � �- . :.:__..�__: �� , � � � � . ' • � � �`��:��.wo,�y-..�:' � ��7 �� ' � `.��i _,�a-.'�'°L ��i/�'+ �.� \� t l � � :.� =..�i.� � �- �\�. ��►.��- ' �� ■■��j Q�� '�i ��a��C°�� _�� --_"r''" �, �� - � � �!�^ �;� �� ^� �_��•►�� -.�� / �� — �� `/ � �� ,�–� `� ��- � � �== �;.��yis� � � �►� M' ''� � � �� i.�r�_�� „ ��:�� e� t ��:� .�--� .��. • � �._. �'��r►�.a�-_ , ii �s , �,�„ . _w�► _��,.� �� %/ .��,��r _ti,�ci n� ''•1�� .. � .: � „ .'•. . ��► �� '��:' -� �� ' � ' • A'`i�� _�r�� 1;�� . •:,, � �� '-. �,. � � � �� V � �'�• w.�, '�i� . h � . �� 1 � •. / . r .�� : � • . • • ivtr. tlndy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 4 conosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and mitigation. Prune Testing, Inc., laboratory of Murrieta, California preformed the testing; all test results are presented in Appendiz B, Table IV. Foundation Svstem Desi� It is anticipated that the foundation elements should be founded entirely in dense engineered fill materials. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job specifications. The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented for Class 3 soils on Table 18-1-A of the 2001 Califomia Building Code (CBC). The allowable foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-1-A for Class 3 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 minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least 12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story houses, with a minimum width of 12- inches, and be placed at least 1&inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for two-story houses. Footings may be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure for Class 3 soils as per Table 18-1-A of the 2001 CBC for dead plus live loads. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapoz bazrier 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 batrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the six mil polyvinyl chloride 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 in tlus report, and the existing soil conditions. Footings should be set back from the top of all cut or fill slopes a horizontal distance equal to at least %2 the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5-ft. Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on in-place engineered fill and bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch. Differential settlements under dynanuc loads of footings supported on engineered fill and bedrock materials sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 1Vtr. Andy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 5 1/4-inches for a span of 40-ft. T'hese settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering pazameters for imported soil may vary. Utilitv Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the m�imum 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 compacdon to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Ca1-OSHA standards, as a minimum. Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lif�s, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM 155? test method. Surface Drainase Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or appmved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water. Construction Monitoring Observation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. 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, Inc. should conduct const�uction monitoring, at the following stages of construction: • At completion of excavation of footings for foundations • During fill placement • ]?uring 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 inforniation 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. T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 Mr. Andy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 6 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 properly can occur with the passage of time, whether 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 lrnowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalida.ted 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 testing services, is limited to rough grade testing only between May 8, 2006 through May 16, 2006. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing, as noted. It is our opinion the wark 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 warr�dnties 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.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 • � . Mr. Andy Lakey June 6, 2006 Page 7 T'his opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please ca11. t �� J��IC Very truly yours, �`�;'� ��,z. �Ei��,�� Q � � T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. ��. ��E 2� * E�ires 12-31-� �� 9 ��F CAUF�� ti ,�,,._\ ` - J P. Frey . ohn . R' RCE 23464 ject Geologist Civil Eng'meer, Expires 12-31-07 � C es R Harrison �'`�� roject Manager JPF/JTR/JRH;jek T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 APPENDIX A References T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 � • REFEREl`10E T.H.E. Soils Company 2006, "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed RV garage and Pool Cabana at existing Residence, Lot 5 of Tract 9833-2, APN:945-020-005, 43395 Manazo Drive, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Work Order No. 981501.00," dated January 31, zo06. T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 . � APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 . � • � TABLE I Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture % Description Lbs/Ft3 Moisture 1 Brown Silty Sand 125.6 9.3 TABLE II Eapansion Indeg Test Location Ezpansion Indeg Ezpansion Potential RV Gazage 0 Very Low TABLE III Soluble Sulfate Test Location Sulfate Content Sulfate Hazard Pad Surface � Negligible TABLE IV Corrosivity Suite Test Location Saturated Resistivity pg Chloride - Content pad Surface 2400 7.0 130 ppm T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 . � � 1 Prime Testing, Inc. 38372 Innovation Ct Ste 102 Munieta, CA 92563 ph (951) 894-2682 • fx (951 � 894-2683 Client: T.H.E. Soils Company Report Date: May 24, 2006 Client No: C01 Work Order: 6E10 Project No: 981501.22 Project Name: Andy Lakey Laboratorv Test(s) Results Summarv The subject soil sample was processed in accoMance witfi California Test Method CTM 643 and tested for pH / Minimum Resisfivity (CTM 643), Sutfate ConteM (CTIN 417) and Chloride Content (CTM 422). The test �+esufts follow: Client Data Minimum Sulfate Suffate Chloride Sample Sample Depth pH Resistiv' Conte� Content Conter�t No. Location ft ohm�cm m °� b w m *• 7.0 2400 ND ND 130 **Santiago 8� Man2ano Temecula, CA 'ND=No Detection We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do nat hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these resuits or procedures. �v� � � � Ahmet K Kaya, L.aboratory Manager Te�ms and Condltlons Our seivioe is spedlicelly timited to providing faboratory t�est resulfs obtalned fiom f/►e application of standsN materials test pncedures to samples provided by fhe ciierrL We sup tabulated results end epplicable graphs. Raw data is evar7abie on �eqvest We do not aA�r engineering senrices. re0or►nner►detions or irrle►p�tation Of test data. We do not acoept semples eitl�ei known or suspected to be emirorrmer�ta/ly haza�dous. Samples submitted from out- side ti►e State of Califomia musf ineet exemption criberia fiom USDA soil impo►t reyufations. Semples are retumed, disposed of or staed efter testing at tl►e dients' oPtiorr, storag�e /ees apply slter 30 days, ietum cos�s may be assessed. lnvoioes are provided et oompletior► of wo►Ic end paY►ner►t is due wf(hln 30 deys. Belanoes due beynnd 90 deys wlll be charged ir►te�est compounded montli►y at 0.83% (10% APR). AocouMs more than 90 days pest due becane C.O. D. wrdl biought cu►►ent. Third perty Wpa►g is not aoceAted. A 25% su►dia�pe is appl"red !br Rush or Weekend testing. ' � � . APPENDIX C Results of Compaction Tests T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc. W.O. 810401.22 � � � TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION LAKEY Job No. 981501.22 June-06 Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry Rel. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Comp. Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) 1 5/16/2006 71.0 10.4 118.0 94 N 1 SEE PLATE 2 5/16/2006 71.0 10.2 114.2 91 N 1 SEE PLATE 3 5/16/2006 71.0 8.6 116.3 93 N 1 SEE PLATE 4 5/16/2006 71.0 8.8 113.3 90 N 1 SEE PLATE 5 5/16/2006 72.0 9.6 114.8 91 N 1 SEE PLATE 6 5/16/2006 72.0 10.8 118.1 94 N 1 SEE PLATE 7 5/16/2006 FG 8.9 116.3 93 N 1 SEE PLATE 8 5/16/2006 FG 9.2 117.7 94 N 1 SEE PLATE SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS SGSand Cone ASTM D] 556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM D3017-93, and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 85%= Passing Test; **-Test Failed, See Retest