HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 27 Rough Grading
I T .H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122
141548 Eastman Drive, Unit G . Murrieta, CA 92562
E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
. November 29, 2005
Mr. John Tuccinardi
45385 Callesito Buergos
Temecula, California 92592
SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Proposed Single-Family Residential Pad
.Lot 27 ofTr~t No. 9833, APN 945-170-008
31044 Jedediah Smith Road
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Work Order No. 879501.22
REFERENCES:
Gunvant Thakkar, dated February 24, 2004, "Preliminary Soil Investigation
for Lot 27; TR 9833, APN: 945-170-008, Temecula, California", Project
Number 04-660.
Gunvant Thakkar, dated February 20, 2004, "Grading & Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, Lot 27 TR 9833,31044 Jedediah Smitb Road, APN:
945-170-008", Sheet I of I, Scale: 1"=30'.
Dear Mr. Tuccinardi:
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-
family residential pad located at the above referenced Lot 27 of Tract 9833. All compaction test
results are included in Appendix B of this report. In accordance witb Section 3317.8 oftbe 2001
California Building Code (CBe), effective April 19, 2005, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. became the
Engineer of Record for the subject site. Rough grading operations were perfonned in accordance
with the requirements of the City of Temecula and the 2001 CBC. GSI grading contractors
perfonned rough grading operations under the direction ofMr. Gary Ingram.
The 30-scale "Grading & Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" for the subject site, prepared by
Gunvant Thakkar of Temecula, California, was utilized during grading to locate our field density
tests and was utilized as a base map for our test locations presented as Plate 1.
THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne.
W. O. No. 879501.22
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29, 2005
Page 2
Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the subject site is proposed for the construction of a single-family
residence with slab-on-grade foundation and conventional footings. Typical cut/fill grading was
utilized to establish design grade.
Grading included clearing, grubbing, establishment of keyways, overexcavation of the building pad,
and placement and compaction of fill material to prepare the site.
Site Description
The subject site (Lot 27 of Tract 9833) is located along the northerly side of Jedediah Smith Road
(31044) in the city of Temecula in southwest Riverside County, California. The site is bordered by
large parcel residential development. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding
area are represented on the attached Site Location Map, Figure 1.
Prior to rough grading, the subject site consisted of a previously graded residential pad with
associated 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill and cut slopes and driveway. The subject site had incurred
significant erosion damage to portions of the existing slopes and pad. Prior to grading, drainage
was generally accomplished by sheetflow to the south toward Jedediah Smith Road. Overall relief
on the subject parcel is approximately :1:85-ft. Vegetation on the subject site consisted of a low
growth of annual weeds and grasses and a sparse growth of chaparral type vegetation.
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. Any large erosion damaged areas were cleaned of loose materials until
either dense sedimentary bedrock or engineered fill was exposed. These areas were scarified a
minimum of 12-inches below the adjacent grade, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture,
and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as detennined by ASTM D-1557
test method.
The previously graded pad was extended to the southwest. Accordingly, a keyway was established
along the toe of the proposed new 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope. The outside edge of the keyways
were excavated to a minimum of2-ft into dense sedimentary bedrock and tilted a minimum of2%
into the hillside. Benching into dense sedimentary bedrock 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 to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction as detennined by ASTM D-1557 test method.
The proposed building pad was overexcavated a minimum of 8- ft below finish pad elevation and to
a minimum of 8-ft outside of the building footprint as staked by the contractor. Medium dense to
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe. w. O. No. 879501.22
z.
I
I
~
v
~
'/ ~_~..... I '\.
\_~ /~~_/ <.; /
I I. , 'V', /-
,. "- V'
:111IIllI1I Sale: I : 25,IlIO DoIoII: ~ 1laDI: WGSIl4
,
I
;
I
,
6
Q
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 1 3
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
,.
.
.
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29, 2005
Page 3
dense sedimentary bedrock units, that were free of pinpoint pores and fine roots, and minor
amounts of engineered fill were exposed within the overexcavation. The exposed bottom was
scarified a minimum of l2-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at
least 95 percent relative compaction. Owing to the depth of fill along the fill slope (:!:30-ft) and to
help mitigate differential settlement, the fill within the proposed building pad was compacted to at
least 95 percent relative compaction as detennined by ASTM D-1557
Excavation was accomplished utilizing a Caterpillar D-6 bulldozer. The fill materials were leveled
and mixed with the Cat. D-6 dozer. Compaction was achieved by track walking the bulldozer and
incidental contact from a loaded and unloaded water truck. Moisture conditioning was achieved
utilizing a water truck.
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 and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM DI557).
Compaction was achieved by tracking walking with the bulldozer and incidental contact from the
water truck. The maximum laboratory dry density, as detennined by ASTM Dl557 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 onsite dark brown silty sands (Unified Soils
Classification-SM) derived from the onsite sedimentary bedrock and engineered fill materials. Test
results are presented in Appendix B, Table I.
CutIFill Transitions
Rough grading operations at the site included overexcavation of the building pad to a minimum of
8-ft below natural ground and a minimum of 8-ft, beyond the building footprint, therefore,
eliminating the cut/fill transition as staked by the contractor.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Density Testinl!
Field density testing was perfonned in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922 (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 B, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate
locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test Location Map, Plate 1.
THE SOILS COMPANY, INC.
W. O. No. 879501.22
-\
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29,2005
Page 4
Maximum Density Determinations
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture detenninations were perfonned in the laboratory on
representative samples of onsite soils used in the fill operations. The tests were perfonned in
accordance with ASTM DI557-91, Test Method A. The test results, which were utilized in
detennining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix
A, Table 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion Testinl!
Expansion index testing was perfonned on a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of the earth
materials exposed at the pad surface. The test results yielded an expansion index of 12, which
indicates a low expansion potential (21 to 50 Table 18-1-8,2001 CBC). Test results are presented
in Appendix A, Table II.
Soluble Sulfate Content
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for
construction. A representative sample of the earth materials exposed on the pad surface has been
obtained for testing. Owing to the time constraints of this report, soluble sulfate test results were
not available at the completion of this report, which will be forwarded as an addendum once they
are received. Babcock & Sons, Laboratory of Riverside, California is perfonning the soluble
sulfate testing.
Slope Construction
Cut and fill slopes were constructed to maximum heights of approximately 22 and 30-ft at a 2:1
(horizonta1:vertical) slope ratio. We anticipate that fill and/or cut slopes constructed at a 2:1 slope
ratio to a maximum height of 30-ft to be both surficially and grossly stable.
Spread Foundation
It is anticipated that the foundation elements should be founded entirely in compacted fill materials.
T.R.E. Soils Company, Inc. should perfonn a footing inspection, prior to placement of
reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in confonnance with the job
specifications. The recommendations presented in the referenced report (Thakker, 2004) should be
adhered to during site development and are reiterated in the following sections.
A conventional shallow foundation system is considered suitable for planned residential and
ancillary structures. Type II cement is acceptable for construction.
THE SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 879501.22
5'
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29,2005
Page 5
The proposed structure may be supported on conventional spread, or continuous wall footings,
provided that they are at least 12-inches wide, and 12-inches below the final approved grade with
one # 4 rebar at the top and bottom or as designed by the structural engineer.
Footings may be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. A friction coefficient for
concrete on natural and compacted soils of 0.36 may be employed. The effects of seismic shaking
can be mitigated through consideration of the parameters presented above and by design in
accordance with the latest Unifonn Building Code and the Structural Engineers Association.
The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering loadings of short
duration such as wind or seismic forces. This foundation criteria is considered minimum and may
be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the structural engineers, architects, or governing
agency.
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Sufficient fine grained materials exist within near surface earth materials to possibly create moisture
problems. Therefore, we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete slabs that
might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil
polyethylene vapor barrier sandwiched between a one-inch layer of sand, top and bottom, to prevent
puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of the concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs
with light six inch by six inch, 10 gauge/IO gauge welded wire fabric is advisable. Slabs should be
designed for any special loads, such as construction crane loads, if warranted. Large slabs should
have crack control joints on 10-foot centers and small slabs should have them on 5-foot centers.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as
detennined 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
Cal-OSHA standards, as a minimum.
Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as detennined by the
ASTM 1557 test method. No rocks larger than 6-inches in diameter should be used as fill material.
Rocks larger than 6-inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed to a suitable dimension and
used as fill material.
Surface Drainal!e
Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures.
THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne. w. o. No. 879501.22
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29,2005
Page 6
All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved pennanent 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 Monitorinl!:
Continuous observation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verifY
compliance with recommendations and to confinn 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:
. During excavation of footings for foundations.
. During any 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 perfonned between June 14,2005 and August 29, 2005
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
perfonned 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 infonnation 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.
LIMITATIONS
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his
representative, to ensure that the infonnation and recommendations contained herein are brought to
the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should
incorporate such infonnation 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 finn 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 finn 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
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe. w. o. No. 879501.22
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. John Tuccinardi
November 29, 2005
Page 7
property 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 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.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
P.~t
oject Geologist
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
J T. Reinhart, RCE 23464
Civil Engineer, Expires 12-31-05
JPF/JTRlJRH:jek
ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES
Location Map - Figure I
Density Test Location Map (30-scale) - Plate I
Appendix A - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix B - Results of Compaction Tests
THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne.
W. O. No. 879501.22
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Test Results
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe.
W. O. No. 879501.22
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
II
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
D I I % I
Description LbslFe Moisture
I Dark Brown Silty Sand 126.7 8.0
2 Dark Brown Coarse Silty Sand 130.0 9.8
TABLE II
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Pad Surface 0-3-ft 12 Very Low
THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne.
W. O. No. 879501.22
\C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Results of Compaction Tests
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe.
W. O. No. 879501.22
\\
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
W.O. No. 879501.22
John Tuccinardi DATE: November 2005
Test Test Elevation Moisture Unit Dry Relative Soil Test Location
No. Date Depth Content Density Compaction Type
(Feet) (%) (PCF) (%)
1 6-15-05 1157 5.5 115.6 9lN-NG 1 See Plate 1
2 6-15-05 1159 5.9 110.5 87N-NG 1 "
3 6-15-05 1160 11.9 114.0 90N 1 "
4 6-15-05 1162 12.4 114.0 90N 1 "
5 6-15-05 1164 7.5 117.7 93N 1 "
6 6-15-05 1166 8.0 116.0 92N 1 "
7 6-15-05 1168 8.2 115.6 91N 1 "
8 7-29-05 1170 9.4 115.0 91N 1 "
9 7-29-05 1172 9.1 114.1 90N 1 "
10 7-29-05 1174 9.7 115.2 9lN 1 "
11 8-06-05 1176 7.8 116.9 92N 1 "
12 8-06-05 1178 8.0 116.5 92N 1 "
13 8-08-05 1180 8.8 120.7 95N 1 "
14 8-08-05 1182 9.1 120.4 95N 1 "
15 8-08-05 1184 8.4 121.7 96N 1 "
16 8-09-05 1186 9.0 121.2 96N 1 "
17 8-09-05 1188 8.8 120.9 96N 1 "
18 8-09-05 1190 9.3 121.6 96N 1 "
19 8-09-05 1192 9.4 121.5 96N 1 "
20 8-10-05 1194 9.1 120.3 95N 1 "
21 8-10-05 1196 9.8 120.8 95N 1 "
SEE PLAN FOR TEST LOCATIONS
SC - Sand Cone ASTM D1556; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM 02937; J:j,-Nuclear ASTM 3017;
NG-Natural Ground + 85% = Passing Test; FG-Finish Grade "TEST FAILED, SEE RETES
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe.
W. O. No. 879501.22
'-it,.
I
I
'I
,
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Test Elevation Moisture Unit Dry Relative Soil Test Location
No. Date Depth Content Density Compaction Type
(Feet) (%) (PCF) (%)
22 8-10-05 1198 9.8 120.4 95N 1 See Plate 1
23 8-12-05 1198 9.0 120.9 95N 1 "
24 8-12-05 1199 8.2 121.1 96N 1 "
25 8-18-05 1192 8.1 123.1 97N 1 "
26 8-18-05 1193 8.0 125.7 97N 2 "
27 8-18-05 1194 13.0 116.6 92N** 1 "
28 8-18-05 1194 9.2 123.4 97N 1 "
27A 8-18-05 1196 9.9 120.5 95N 1 "
29 8-18-05 1196 7.4 120.0 95N 1 "
30 8-18-05 1197 8.9 119.8 95N 1 "
31 8-18-05 1198 7.2 121.7 96N I "
32 8-18-05 1199 8.0 120.3 95N 1 "
33 8-22-05 FG 5,2 121.5 96N 1 "
34 8-22-05 FG 5.6 120.0 95N 1 "
35 8-22-05 FG 7.8 123.1 97N 1 "
36 8-22-05 FG 7.7 119.9 95N 1 "
37 8-29-05 FG 7.8 120.9 95N 1 Slope
38 8-29-05 FG 5.5 120.5 95N 1 "
39 8-29-05 FG 5.9 119.8 95N 1 "
40 8-29-05 FG 6.0 116.1 92N 1 Driveway
41 8-29-05 FG 5.5 115.5 91N 1 "
SEE PLAN FOR TEST LOCATIONS
SC - Sand Cone ASTM D1556; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM 02937; ~-Nuclear ASTM 3017;
NG-Natural Ground + 85% = Passing Test; FG-Finish Grade **TEST FAILED, SEE RETES
THE SOILS COMPANY.INe.
W. O. No. 879501.22
\~