Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 22916-1 Lot 75 Project Grading Report • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (714) 220-0770 7370OPPORTUNITY ROAD,SUITE"N",SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 FAX: (714)220-9589 • TELEPHONE: (619) 560-1713, FAX: (619) 560-0380 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE (213)325-7272 or 775-6771 FAX: (213) 325-8854 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE (714)730-2122 FAX:(714) 730-5191 • TAYCO % Costain Homes, Inc. 620 Newport Center Drive - Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 January 23, 1992 Work Order 400157AG • Attention: Ms. Susan Lindquist Subject: Project Grading Report for Lot 75, Vintage Hills Recreation Center, Tract 22916-1, City of Temecula, CA. • References: 1) Project Grading Report for Tract 22196-1, Lots 1 thru 74, incl. , City of Temecula, CA. , dated December 19', 1990 by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W.0.400157AG) • 2) Geotechnical Grading Plan Review, Tracts 22916, . 22916-1, 22916-2 and ' 22916-3, Margarita Village, Rancho California, County of Riverside, CA. , dated December 27, 1988 by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W.0.400158) • Gentleperson: This report presents geotechnical data and testing results per- taining to the completion of rough grading for lot 75 of the Vintage Hills Recreation Center, Tract 22916-1, in the City of Temecula, California. This grading was conducted in two phases. The first phase was graded in October through Decem- ber, 1989 (see reference no. l) The second phase was completed in January of 1991 where bedrock cut areas were overexcavated and the site was finish graded. • • • Work Order 400157AG Page 2 January 23 , 1992 • Data developed during both phases of grading is summarized in • this report, on Table I and the enclosed 20-scale precise grading plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Inc. and dated October 30, 1990. Also presented herein are the foundation and slab design recommendations based • upon field and laboratory testing of as-graded soil conditions. All cuts, fills and processing of original ground covered by this report have been completed under our observation and/or • accepted by this firm and are in compliance with the City of Temecula grading code criteria. Completed work has been reviewed and is considered suitable for • the construction now planned.. All slopes are considered surfi- cially and grossly stable and should remain so under normal con- ditions. Owing to the granular nature of the on-site materials, graded slopes will be subject to ravelling and a fairly high • erosion potential. Landscaping of all graded slopes should be accomplished as soon as possible as well as establishing and maintaining drainage berms and swales for long term slope protection. • Additional precise grading will be required. This precise grading will encompass the parking areas, landscape and baseball diamond area. • • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 3 January 23 , 1992 • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Surficial Units Surficial units encountered during grading include soil and • alluvium. Soil consisted of dry and porous, medium brown sand and silty sand. The soil was stripped from alluvium and Pauba Formation prior to fill placement. Alluvium consisted of light to medium brown, silty to clayey sand. Alluvium was removed to • Pauba Formation prior to the placement of artificial fill. Bedrock Unit Bedrock encountered during grading is assigned to the Pauba • Formation and consisted of reddish-brown to tanish-brown siltstone and sandstone. The Pauba Formation is generally massive and flat-lying. Minor silt/clay intervals were observed in the bedrock unit. • Faults No faults were observed in exposures during grading of lot 75 of Tract 22916-1. • Subdrains Subdrains were not necessary during project grading due to the partial removal of alluvium and the granular nature of on-site • materials. • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 4 January 23 , 1992 • Corrective Grading • No corrective grading such as buttresses or stabilization fills were necessary for grading. Conclusions •. From an engineering geologic viewpoint, lot 75 of Tract 22916-1 is suitable for the intended use. • • • • • • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 5 January 23, 1992 • SOIL ENGINEERING • A. PROJECT GRADING • 1. Compaction test results are presented in Table I and appro- ximate locations of tests are shown on the accompanying precise grading plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, inc. • 2. Cleanouts were accomplished to bedrock suitable for support of fill. • Prior to placement of compacted fill the exposed surface was scarified, watered as necessary and compacted in-place to project specifications. • 3. Fill consisting of the soil types indicated in Table I was then placed in thin lifts, watered as necessary and compact- ed in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM:D 1557-78) utilizing self-propelled, rubber- tired compactors, sheepsfoot compactors and heavy earth mov- ing equipment. Each fill lift was treated in a like manner. 4 . Fill placed on slope gradients steeper than 5-horizontal to • 1-vertical was keyed and benched into bedrock. The upper soils were stripped off and benched out on the shallower slopes in such a manner that all compacted fill is in con- tact with the intact bedrock. • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 6 January 23 , 1992 • 5. All removals, excavations, cleanouts and processing in pre- paring fill areas were observed by this firm's representa- tive prior to placement of any fill. Based on those obser- vations, all fills are supported by bedrock. • 6. Compaction tests were taken for each one to two feet of fill placed. The maximum vertical depth of fill placed at this time is on the order of 22 feet along the southerly boundary of the subject project. • 7. The cut portion of this project within structural areas was overexcavated to a minimum depth of 36 inches and replaced with compacted fill. 8. The fill slopes were overbuilt approximately three feet during rough grading operations. Upon mass grading completion, the slopes were trimmed back to the compacted • core to achieve design grade. Finish slope surfaces have been probed and/or tested and the slopes are considered to satisfy the project requirements • and grading codes of the City of Temecula. All slopes should be planted as soon as practical and maintained for proper growth. Landscaping and irrigation management are important elements in the long term performance of the • slopes. • i • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 7 January 23, 1992 • B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT w The subject recreation area is scheduled for construction of a pool site, tennis court, basketball court and recreation building which will be constructed utilizing wood frame and • slab-on-grade construction techniques. C. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS • Material encountered in cut and utilized for compacted fill ranged from very low to high in expansion potential. An evaluation of the post-grading soil conditions was conducted to classify materials per ASTM:D 442 and to determine the • expansive index per UBC-Standard No. 29-2. . That evaluation revealed low to moderate expansive materials exposed at the surface of the building pads. Laboratory test data is presented in Table A. • TABLE A • Expansion Expansion Sample Hydrometer Analysis Index Potential Location (%Sand,%Silt,%Clay) (UBC Table 29-C) Tennis Court 66 20 14 N.D. Low Basketball Court 66 19 15 39 Low • Recreation Center 63 19 18 52 Medium Note: N.D. - Not Determined. • Based upon this data, the following design is presented. • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 8 January 23, 1992 • 1. Foundations may be designed based upon the following values: • Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 235 lbs./sq. ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 135 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 • lbs./sq.ft. Coefficient of Lateral Sliding: 0.38 2. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS • a) Footing Depth (Minimum) Exterior One-Story 12 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Two-Story - 18 inches -below lowest adjacent finished grade. Interior • One & Two-Story - 12 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous; two No.4 re- bars, one on top, one on bottom. • Slab Reinforcement: Living Areas 611x 611 ,No. 10 by No.10 welded wire mesh OR equivalent. Subgrade Moisture: Minimum of optimum moisture 24 hours prior to concrete placement. • Continuous footings shall have a minimum width of 12 inches for one-story and 15 inches for two-story. All slabs shall have a thickness of four inches. If ex- terior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within three feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embed- ment below swale bottom is maintained. Footings adja- • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 9 January 23 , 1992 cent to slopes should be embedded sufficiently that at • least five feet is provided horizontally from the bottom edge of footings to face of slope. b) Under-Slab Treatment • A to-mil polyvinyl membrane (minimum) should be placed below all slabs-on-grade within living areas. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of two inches of sand to protect it and to aid in curing of the • concrete and should be underlain with two inches of sand for a capillary rise break. 3 . Retaining Wall Design • Retaining walls or other, structural walls shall be designed with the following: a) Cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill should be designed with an equivalent fluid pressure of • 34 lbs./cu. ft. Retaining walls with 2-horizontal to 1-vertical slope superjacent to them should utilize an equivalent fluid pressure of 53 lbs./cu. ft. • b) Foundations for retaining walls may be designed in accordance with recommendations of paragraph C-1. C) Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining • materials (SE > 30) to within 18 inches of grade and compacted to project specifications. Native soils should be utilized in the upper 18 inches. Drainage should be provided to all walls. • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 10 January 23 , 1992 • d) All footing excavation for retaining walls should be III • observed by project the 'ect soil engineer or his repre- sentative.sentative. 4. Exterior Slabs and Walkways • a) It is suggested that the subgrade below sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned 24 hours prior to concrete placement. • b) Weakened plane joints should be considered for walkways at approximately eight to ten feet intervals. Other exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of concrete. • c) The "Fibermesh" concrete additive may be considered for exterior concrete work. • 5. Tennis Court It is recommended that a thickened edge should be incor- porated into the perimeter of the courts and reinforced with two No.4 rebars, one on top and one on bottom (minimum) . The concrete slab should be a minimum of four inches thick and should be reinforced utilizing a minimum of No. 3 rebars placed on IS inch centers both ways at mid-height of the slab. The slab should be underlain with a minimum of four • inches of clean sand. The subgrade soils should be at or above optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density. • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 11 • January 23, 1992 6. Basketball Court • It is recommended that a thickened edge should be incorpor- ated into the perimeter of the basketball court. This thick- ened edge should be reinforced with two No.3 rebars, one on • top and one on bottom (minimum) . The concrete slab should be a minimum of four inches thick and should be reinforced with No.3 rebars on 18 inch centers, both ways at mid-height of the slab. The slab should be underlain with a minimum of four inches of clean sand. The subgrade soils should be at • or above optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 7. Pool Decking • It is recommended that the pool decking should be a minimum of four inches thick and should be reinforced at mid-height of the slab with six inch by six inch w1.4 by w1.4 welded wire mesh. The pool decking should be underlain with a • minimum of four inches of clean sand. The subgrade soils should be at or above optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density. • D. OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 1. Positive drainage away from structures shall be provided and maintained. • 2. Utility trench backfill shall be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing criteria of the City of Temecula. • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 12 January 23, 1992 • 3. Seismic design should be based upon current and applicable • building code requirements. 4 . Pavement Design Tentative pavement design for the parking and driveway areas ' • should incorporate a minimum of three inches of asphaltic concrete over four inches aggregate base. The aggregate base and subgrade soils should be compacted a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density. • Final pavement design should be based upon "RII-value testing of the subgrade soils. At the time this testing is complet- ed the project geotechnical engineer should calculate and • submit a final pavement. design. • • • • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG Page 13 January 23, 1992 • • This report presents information and data relative to the mass grading and placement of compacted fill at the subject site. A representative(s) of this firm conducted periodic tests and observed during the progress of the construction in an effort to • determine-whether compliance with the project drawings, specifi- cations and Building Code were being obtained. The presence of our personnel during the work process did not involve any directions and technical advice and suggestions were provided to the owner and/or his designated representative based upon the results of the tests and observations. Completed work under the • purview of this report is considered suitable for the intended use. Conditions of the reference report remain applicable :unless specifically superseded herein. Respectfully submitted, • PACIFIC SOI INEERIN NC. „ .ems ppOiESS�p��`` �(A.C By: �sL CHANEY, C.E. REX P.KETTER,R.C.E.15251/G.E.461 • * ZIP 63o4$ , Civil Engin r Chief Executive Officer gis ation ES 6-30-95 srq CML �P OF Cl�i -�- VS�ERED 6F010 SAUF�� CF' O,�A.Hgyso • By: to.sm s JOHN HANSON, C.E.G.990 t CLUM vies President IPA GEot 9J 4130,92 Dist: (3) Addressee FpFCA1�Fp'l� (2) Taylor-Woodrow Homes, • Attn: Mr. Adrian Foley (2) Taylor-Woodrow Homes, Field Office, Attn: Mr. Dave Zamiski (2) H.R.P. Land Design, Attn: Mr. Dana Seelig (1) Aquatic Design, • Attn: Mr. Randy Mendioroz JAC/RPK/JAH:kr/AG12 • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • Work Order 400157AG January 23, 1992 • TABLE I • SOIL TYPE Laboratory Maximum Density per ASTM:D 1557-78 (All Soil Types) . • Opt. Maximum Moist. Dry Density Soil Type and Classification M (lbs. /cu. ft. ) 1 Tan-Red Sand 9. 1 128.4 2 - Tan-Gray Clayey Sand 11.2 118.1 • 3 . - Dark Brown-Gray Clayey Sand 7.5 131.6 5 - Tan-Gray Clayey Sand 10. 6 122 .4 6 - Red Silty Sand 8.4 130.2 7 - Tan-Gray Silty Sand 9. 1 127.3 • 9 - Light Brown Clayey Silt 9.8 124 .5 12 - Tan-Gray Clayey Sand 10.2 122.5 13 - Tan-Gray Clayey Sand 10.9 122.5 14 - Light Brown Clayey Sand 9.7 125.0 • LEGEND Non-Designated Test - Test in compacted fill. Test Location - Approximate location by street and street • stationing; lot number; see enclosed precise grading plans (Sheets 1 and 2 of 3) . A - Indicates test number used previously. • TEST TYPE All tests by Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauge per ASTM:D 2922-1 and D 3017-78; unless otherwise noted by: SC - Indicates test taken by Sand Cone Method per ASTM:D • 1556-82. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 400157AG January 23, 1992 • TABLE I • LOT 75 - RECREATION CENTER Date of Test Test Elev. Moist.Cont. Dry Density Relative Soil Test • Test No Location (ft. ) % (field) (lbs /cu.ft. ) % Como. Tyne Type 11-16-89 803 See Plan 1254. 0 13. 1 112.6 92 12 804 11 1254 .0 9. 1 118.9 90 3 805 of 1265.0 8.7 121.9 93 3 806 If 1269.0 10.4 116.3 91 7 Sc • 807 of 1271. 0 10.9 114.8 90 7 11-17-89 811 See Plan 1254.0 7.5 118.3 91 6 812 11 1263 .0 11.2 110.1 90 12 813 " 1265.0 13.2 114.5 92 14 • 814 " 1269.0. 11.4 116. 5 91 1 Kaiser (Meadows) Parkway 815 Sta. 183+20 1271.0 11.0 116.9 91 1 SC 816 See Plan 1272.0 13. 1 112 .2 92 12 817 of 1274. 0 8.8 117.7 92 1 818 if 1273 .0 7.5 114.2 93 12 • 819 If 1273. 0 7. 3 113 . 1 92 12 820 of 1256.0 7.8 111.2 91 12 11-20-91 824 See Plan 1256.0 11.6 118.8 93 1 • 825 It 1264. 0 10. 1 122 .6 95 1 826 " 1270.0 12.9 117.4 91 1 827 " 1273.0 9. 1 120.9 94 1 828 " 1273. 0 8.7 120.4 94 1 829 " 1258.0 11.4 119.0 93 1 Sc • 12-7-89 985 See Plan 1262.0 8.7 114.7 92 9 12-8-89 1006 See Plan 1265.0 11.6 111.9 91 12 • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400157AG January 23 , 1992 TABLE I cont. • IAT 75 - RECREATION CENTER Date of Test Test Elev. Moist.Cont. Dry Density Relative Soil Test • Test No Location (ft. 1 %(field) (lbs /cu ft. ) Comp. Type Tyne 12-11-89 1038 See Plan 1273 .0 12.1 109. 6 93 2 1040 II 1267.0 11. 1 114.5 94 12 1042 II 1276.0 9.8 111.4 91 12 • 1043 II 1272.0 10.2 112.7 92 12 1045 II 1278.0 10.8 117.6 92 8 1046 II 1276.0 10.7 107. 1 91 2 12-18-89 • 1152 See Plan 1260.0 11.6 115.2 93 9 1153 II 1267.0. 13.1 115.7 93 9 1154 • II 1270.0 12.5 112.2 92 5 12-21-89 1232 See Plan 1270.0 11.0 112.5 92 12 • 1-8-91 859A See Plan 1283.0 9.0 110.6 90 13 860A II 1283.0 8.6 114.2 93 13 861A II 1283 .0 7.9 116.4 95 13 • 1-11-91 887A See Plan 1285.0 11.6 114.7 92 14 888A II 1285.0 12. 1 116. 1 93 14 889A If 1285.0 10.9 115. 3 92 14 1-15-91 Kaiser (Meadows) Parkway • 906A Sta.179+60 1271.0 10.7 116.1 95 13 907A Sta. 179+60 1274.0 11.9 114.3 93 13 908A Sta.179+60 1278.0 10.9 113 .9 93 13 • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.