The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 27 Site Grading I . 1 . 'I '. '. - '. ~ ~ . I I . . I . I - TITLE SHEET JOB ADDRESS T'i &-3~-1 0>+ '-7 SITE GRADING PROPOSED RESIDENCE 31705 PIO PICO, TEMECULA AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA L.l) e>O -~dS G.e... DATE: April 11, 2001 CLIENT NAME: ADDRESS: STK ARCHITECTURE, INe. 2575 SAN JACINTO AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA 92583-5318 TELEPHONE NO.: 909/925-2504 SOIL ENGINEER NAME: INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INe. ADDRESS: 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue P. O. Box 937 San Jacinto, California 92581 TELEPHONE NO.: 909/654-1555 RECEIVED APR 1 2 2001 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT . . '. I INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INe Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583-4638 (909) 654-1555 FAX (909) 654-0551 Aprilll,2001 Project No. S168-065 ", L I I . . . . . I . . . I . I STK ARCHITECTURE, INe. Attention: Mr. G. V. Salts 2575 San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583-5318 Re: Site Grading, Residential Lot. 31705 Pio Pico, Temecula Area Riverside County, California Gentlemen: This report presents the results of our tests and observations made during the grading operation for the residential pad at the above referenced location. The following references were used during grading: . A report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residence, 31705 Pio Pico, Temecula, California" dated January 22, 2001 and prepared by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. . A plan entitled "Grading Site Plan" dated November I, 2000 and prepared by STK Architecture, Inc. . A plan entitled "Foundation Plan" dated November 1, 2000 and prepared by STK Architecture, Inc. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The site has been graded for a single-family residence. e. DATES OF INSPECTION: Our observations were conducted over a period required for the grading operation. A pre-grading meeting was held on February 20,2001 and the testing was completed on an intermittent basis from March 19 to March 28, 200 I. The approximate time on the job varied from one to seven hours per day. 1 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , D. GRADING OPERATION: 1. Type of Observations: Observations during grading were not made on a continuous basis. 2. Stripping: The site was stripped of vegetation prior to our arrival on the site. 3. Scarification: Surfaces to receive fill were scarified and compacted to a minimum of90 percent relative compaction. 4. Lift Thickness: Fill was placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches and was compacted by means of rubber-wheeled equipment. 5. Keying and Benching: The toe of the fill slope was keyed into dense native soil. 6. Overexcavation: Overexcavation was performed in the building areas. 7. Equipment: A scraper and bulldozer were used during the compaction on this project. E. TESTING - SUMMARY SHEET 1. Test Method: During grading frequent tests and inspections were performed by a representative ofInland Foundation Engineering, Inc. in order to verifY that the grading was proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Soil Investigation. Field density testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM D1556-90 test method. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction was 90 percent of the maximum dry density which was detenTIined in accordance with the ASTM D1557-91 test method. A summary of our field test data is appended. 2. Plot Plan: 3. Test No. and Date: 4. Test Location: 5. Test Deoth: 6. Dry Density: 7. Field Moisture: 8. Maximum Density: Yes, attached See summary See summary See summary See summary See summary See #10 Sito Grading-31705 Pia Pico, T omecul. Project S 168-065 - April 200 1 2 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. :3> I I 'I rl 1 , I II I I I I I :1 I II I 'I I I I I 9. Percentage compaction of each field test: See summary 1 2 3 Clayey sand, fine to coarse grained, dark brown. Clayey sand, fine to coarse grained, brown. Silty sand, fine grained with clay, red-brown. 0.00 129.0 126.5 131.5 11.5 11.5 8.0 11. Overexcavation and Deoth: Overexcavation was performed in the building areas to a minimum depth of2 feet below finish grade. 12. RETEST NIA 13. Tests in Original Ground: Tests were taken in original ground after scarification and recompaction. 14. Remarks: 15. In compliance with Preliminary Soil Report: Yes F. PLAN: A plot plan is appended indicating the approximate locations of the compaction tests. G. CONCLUSIONS:' On the basis of our observations of the grading procedures being used along with our compaction test data, it is our opinion that the grading has been conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Soil Investigation. The proposed foundations are much larger than those we anticipated during the preliminary geotechnical investigation. However, the loads they will support are relatively light. Therefore, we changed our recommendation to overexcavate a minimum depth of one times the footing width beneath the footing base. The soil conditions we encountered during our preliminary geotechnical investigation and during the grading operation indicate an overexcavation of two feet beneath the finished pad grade with the surface scarified and recompacted a minimum of six additional inches would provide adequate support for the proposed foundations and loads. Compaction testing indicates a relative compaction of at least 90 percent within the ,fill materials. Settlement analysis based on the soil conditions, the grading performed, and the proposed footings and loads indicates that differential settlements will be limited to less than one-half inch. Total Site Grading-3 I 705 Pia Pico, Temecula Project S I 68-065 - April 200 I 3 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. t\ II 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I settlements are expected to be less than one inch. It is our opinion that the proposed building pads are suitable for the proposed construction. The graded pads will provide adequate support for the proposed foundations. All footing excavations should be inspected in order to verifY that they are sufficiently embedded into satisfactory soils and are free ofloose and disturbed materials. On-site soils are observed to be predominately non-expansive. Expansive soil design criteria will not be necessary. Analytical testing of a representative sample of near surface soils indicates negligible water-soluble sulfates. H. GENERAL: The findings of this report are based upon our tests and observations performed during the grading operation. Compaction test data generally indicates satisfactory compaction throughout the fill areas. However, actual soil types in the field and compaction effort may vary between compaction test locations. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) has statistically determined the precision of the Maximum Density Test Method (ASTM DI557-91) and has found that a percentage of variation in the test results may occur. The criteria for judging the acceptability is presented in the text of the standard method. The acceptable range of two results for the Maximum Density is 4.0 percent of the mean value and 15.0 percent of the mean value for the Optimum Moisture Content. At this time, ASTM has not determined the precision and accuracy of the density of soil in place by the sand-cone method (ASTM D 1556-90). However, it is expected that variations in the field density test results are likely to occur due to the nature of the test. As a result, the accuracy of the relative compaction values reported are dependent on the precision of the ASTM test methods. It has been our pleasure to be of service to you on this project. contact our office. c. Respectfully, INLAND FOUNDATION MJS:LES:jg Distribution: Addressee (3) Site Grading-31705 Pia Pico, Temecula Project S 168-065 - April 200 1 4 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. '5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE Job Address or Tract No.: 31705 Pio Pico Locality: Temecula Owner: (~Pl..D S',o.c:r6 Permit No.: L.t:>oo -"225 ~ ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION (A) By Soil Engineer I certify that the rough grading work incorporates all recommendations contained in the report or reports for which I am responsible and all recommendations that I have made based on field inspection of the work and testing during grading. I further certify that where the reports of an Engineering Geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttress fills or other similar stabilization measures, such earth work construction has been completed in accordance with the approved design. Lot Numbers: . ProDosed Residence See final soils report number S168-064 dated 01-22-01 for test data, recommended allowable soil bearing values and other special recommendations. Remarks: No.:R.C.E.26409/G.E. 959 Soils Engineer: . (Signature) Date: A rill1 Site Grading-31705 Pia Pico, T emecula Project S 168-065 - April 200 1 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING RESIDENTIAL LOT 31705 Pio Pico; TemecuIa Area Mass Grading Fill Test Moisture Dry Relative Soil RcmarksI Test Depth Depth Contenl Density Compaction Type Retests No. Dale Location (ft.) (ft). (%) (pet) (".4) 01 03-19-01 Eaat Center Portion of House Pad. 2.0 2.0-2.5 10.6 121.6 94 I 02 03-20-01 Center ofEaat Slope. 8.0 8.0-8.5 7.2 113.9 90 2 03 03-20-01 West Center Portion of House Pad. 2.0 2.0-2.5 6.5 116.6 92 2 04 03-21~1 North end ofEaat Slope. 8.0 6.~.5 12.3 118.6 92 I oS 03-22~1 South end ofEaat Slope. g.O 4.04.5 9.4 113.5 90 2 06 03-22~1 Southeast Comer of Slope. 8.0 2.0-2.5 7.4 116.2 92 2 07 03-26~1 Southwest Comer of Tennis Court. 3.0 3.0-3.5 13.7 124.2 94 3 08 03-26-01 Southeast Comer of Tennis Court. 3.0 1.0-1.5 9.8 114.0 90 2 09 03-27~1 North Center Portion of Tennis Court. 3.0 0.0-0.5 11.6 122.7 95 I 010 03-27~1 North Center Portion orGarage Pad, 2.0 2.0-2.5 4.6 113.9 90 2 011 03-27~1 Center of House Pad. 2.0 0.0-0.5 7.8 115.7 91 2 012 03-28~ I Southeast Portion of Garage Pad. 2.0 0.0-0.5 8.0 115.1 91 2 Project No. S 168~65 '-ASTM 01556-90 (Sand Cone) \ Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. /..... . ...... ....... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... o ............ ...., I I I I /---- I I I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I @ ,...., , I I I @ I I I I I I I I I I I I en:: :z :z Vi 8 c:: :!:l I I I e I I I I I I I I I I @ " o o ;: ~ ~ o Z iil lJl .... Z Cl I I I ~ mO \0 Z O:U 0 ti '{?:!:: ~->-r1 m < "" ,~W 0 oo Z v. 1:>- CD .j:>. t:I0~ -< ' '" ZOO V;~8 al;:.... ~ g,'S'> o~ _ p",>-:t mW -.LJ :....~ I-l o=::;" ~iitO Z c"'o >< - r- -:"!1 o "U l":!! 'C ~Cll t'l1 )>:u 00 0 ::l'-Z .... 0 )>'0 '0 t:j.....< 0 m t.......- ~ oo m ~o "" g ~ o 00 v. t:j -tAl f'" n )>i5~ ~ tT1 "U..)> Vt ~ ~(J) - r-~ ",0> 0 0'1' . 00 ~81 IZ o cy I I ,I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GRADING INFORMATION FORM Grading Plan By: <;, T1L Prelim By: ~~ Contractor: I <l!'I \ ~ Staked By: ~ ~ 1, CLEARING & GRUBBING Date: Date: Foreman:l4>>-n.l Date(s): m, PREPARATION OF SURFACES RECEIVING FILL L Keyed & benched into bedrock or dense undisturbed soil -h Scarified,moistelled & compacted to 90% _ No preparation (explain) a. Site was cleared: ...x Prior to our arrival _ After our arrival (state method) IV. PLACEMENT OF FILL a. Source: x On-site soil _Import from b. Tree & root removal were perfOlUled: _ Under our inspection --K Prior to our arrival _ Not applicable (no trees) b. Equipment: ....!...... Scrapers _ Water Trucks or pulls ---1.... Bulldozer _ Vibratory Roller _ Sbeepsfoot _ "Pactor" Other c. Demolition included: age Pits , Septic Tank Leach Unes Well Inigation Lines Structure (s) Other Explain demolition process: c. Slopes: _ Rolled as fiI1ing progressed ..$. Overfilled and cut-back _ Left loose & tnlprocessed d. UllIDitable soils~' ow ml (mark on plan) Loose alluviumJcolluvimn Expansive soils Other Explain: d. Compaction: ..LASTM DI556-90 (Sand Cone) ASTM D2922-91 (Nuclear Gauge) >C" Max Density by D1557-91 _ Max Density by Cal-Impact ~ Tests indicate minimmn 90% _ Retests were performed after satisfactory compaction of failing tests e. Other features observed during clearing (e.g. saturated soils. groundwater, dumps, soil stains, odors, organic material, etc.): e. Explain lDlSatisfactory conditions which were not corrected: V. GENERAL II. PREPARATION OF BUILDING AREAS a. Overexcavalion required (complete where applicable): ....l.....- times fig. width below fig. base -L feet below existing surface _ feet below finish grade _ feet below footing base Other a. Expansive Soils: _ None observed _ Samples retwned to lab _ Extent estimated on plan ~ Per Prelim L- Exp Index) b. Does glading confOlUl with (check one): .25:.... Prelhninary Soil Report _ UBC Chapter 33 ~ Other -=--- (Yes /' No (circle one) ~no explain why b. Depth of overexcavation performed: 1'I\1j..) 2.- / '36N5/om1 f. c.. . Are limits marked on plan? Yes No (circle one) c. Foundation dimensions: 1 -L. 'I( I '2... ,I (01......31""" I J\' -roo "z," K/& If Sa.ut..<Z.6 ....x Foundation Plans Discussion with _ Other Technician: Project No.: ,1trs -; l(pli - tJ&>S Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. q