HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 224 Rough Grade Compaction
---~~
\....oT 2.?A T~+ qeS~
?::C55\0 AVcNU::A. ks\R~A.
\l::::'~. c.f.-.
\!2.?-!Ql
RECEIVED
S~ \-~Ov~v~
~,,0l&rMQ<' ~\~-to O~~~~\
0Jv~ CMV-,B . -V-e> . ", ~ ~.
~~~
S:~~~
JAN 221997
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENl
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROUGH GRADE COMPACTION REPORT
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 224. TRACT 9883
30518 AVENIDA ESTRADA
TEMECULA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. CA
FOR
CHARLES AND ELIZABETH WRIGHT
PROJECT NO. 96-059.COM
DATED SEPTEMBER 19. 1996
'0
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
LAKESHORE
En;gineering
C.onsulting Civil Engineering and Geologists
Client:
Subject:
September 19, 1996
Project No: 96-059.COM
Charles and Elizabeth Wright
P.O. Box. 1225
Temecula, CA 92593
(909) 695-3690
Compaction Testing Report
Proposed Single Family Residence
Lot 224, Tract 9883
30518 Avenida Estrada, Temecula, CA 92591
A.P.N. 919-161-005
Reference: Soil and Foundation Report
Dated July 30, 1996
P.N. 95-059.PI
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
This is to report the results of tests and observations made during the
p~acement of compacted fill on the subject site.
Periodic tests and observations were provided by a representative of
Lakeshore Engineering to check the grading contractors on compliance
with the drawing and job specifications. The presence of our field
representative at the site was to provide to the owner a source of
professional advice, opinions and recommendations based upon the field
representative's observations of the contractor's work and did not
include any supervision, superintending or direction of the actual work
of the contractors or the contractor's workmen. The opinions and
recommendations presented hereafter are based on our tests and
observations of the grading procedures used, and represent our
engineering judgment as to the contractor's compliance with the job
specifications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject lot is one of the few remaining unimproved lots in the
community of Meadowview, just to the east of old town Temecula. Each
property is individually designed and custom built, upper scale houses.
A ,soil and foundation investigation report was recently prepared for
the subject lot with our findings, conclusions and recommendations
presented in the above referenced report.
3
31606 Railroad Can.yon Road, #201 . Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987
I
tOeA TION MAP
"
T~.IMAj>&.lc.. P~. \I~ ,'''11.. &1m D1J.
,LAK:ESHORE
Engineering
MR. AND MRS. WRIGHT
30518 AVE. ESTRADA
TEMECULA, CA
Plcject No:
96-059.COM
Da18
9n9/96
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
N
N.T.S.
"
A.
FIgure No:
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
September 19, 1996
Project No. : 96-059.PI.COM
Page Two
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development will consist of a one and/or two story single
family residences of conventional construction, placed at grade with
driveway and front and rear yard/landscaping. Foundation plans were
made available by our client, Mr. Wright and the grading plan for the
site was prepared by Venture Engineering, at a scale of 1" = 20'.
The lot was rough graded per approved grading plan. The building pad
was graded with a transitional cut/fill situation at approximately
street grade.
Proposed leach field areas will be in native soils located in the front
and ,back of the house, with the septic tank towards the westerly side.
GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The rough grading operation was observed to be performed in the
following manner:
l. Vegetation, surface trash and miscellaneous debris were cleared
from the areas to be graded.
2. 'Unsatisfactory soils were excavated to expose competent materials
on which to start the fill. The maximum depth of fills placed was
approximately 10 feet located at the top of the westerly facing
fill slope.
3. ,A keyway approximately 12 feet in width and 3 feet in depth,
cut into and along the outer edge of the existing toe of slope. The
,keyway was inspected and found to be excavated into competent dense
soil.
4. The native soils exposed at the bottom of excavation were
inspected and are in our opinion, suitable for support of
compacted fill.
5. Approved soils were placed in layers on the prepared surface, and
each layer was compacted to the specified density before the next
layer was added.
6. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction content was 90
percent of the maximum dry density.
7. Maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined by
the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method.
/'
::>
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
September 19, 1996
Project No.: 95-059.COM
Page Three
8. Field density tests were performed utilizing the sandcone method
(A.S.T.M. D1556) and the drive tube method.
9. The soils used in the compacted fill consisted predominantly of
import Silty Fine Sand and onsite SAND (residuum).
10. The transitional cut portion of building pad was overexcavated and
recompacted to provide for a uniform subgrade fill blanket. The
rework consisted of removal of the upper 36 inches and
scarification of the lower 12 inches.
Field density 'tests were made during the placement of fill to determine
the degree of compaction and moisture content. All field density tests
ar,e listed in the "Summary of Field Density Tests", and their
approximate locations are shown on Figure No.1. Also shown are the
limits of the compacted fill placed during this grading operation.
, GRADING DEVIATIONS FROM PLANS
Near the conclusion of rough grading, the following rough grading
changes were observed on the subject site:
1) No major deviations were observed in the field when compared to
the approved grading plan. Pad grade was established and slopes
tracked. However, there are excess stockpile import fills
(approximately 100 yards) remaining on the lot that will require
removal from building pad.
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES AND COMPACTION TESTING
Soil samples obtained from the field were visually identified and when
necessary, additional laboratory testing was performed to confirm
identification. All soils were classified with the Unified Soil
Classifications System. The procedures outlined in A.S.T.M. Method
D1557-78 were used to determine the compaction characteristics of the
fill materials.
The results of our laboratory compaction tests are presented below:
Soil Tvoe
Soil Description
Optimum Moisture
Max. Dry Density
A
SAND (D.G.)
(Native)
8.0
l32.5
B
Sil ty SAND
(Import)
9.0
130.5
Cg
Lakeshore Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
September 19, 1996
Project No.: 96-059.COM
Page Four
Laboratory Expansion Test
A! Laboratory :Expansion Index Test was performed on a representative
soil sample recovered from within the proposed building area at the
subject site. 'The laboratory expansion test was performed in accordance
with U.B.C. Test Method 29-C, and the pertinent test results are
presented below:
Soil
Description
Moisture %
Before Test
Expan.
Index
Expansion
Potential
Depth
Si!lty SAND
IMPORT
8.4
< 22
LOW
Based upon a test result of 22, subgrade materials are considered to be
LOW in expansion potential. It is recommended that the appropriate
guidelines under "Suggested Guidelines for Design of Foundation/Slab
S~stems" be incorporated into the design and construction phases of the
project.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the final results of the tests, on observations of the
construction procedures used in the field and on our experience, it is
our opinion that the compacted fill shown on Figure No. 1 has been
pl'aced in accordance with the applicable portions of the job
specifications. Any fill added beyond the limits or above the grades
shown should be placed under engineering control and in accordance with
the specifications, if it is to be covered by the recommendations
herein and the reference report.
Based upon our field testing results, the compacted fill in our opinion
has been compacted to at least 90 percent relative density. The on-site
foundation soils exposed during rough grading are granular and
therefore considered LOW in expansion potential as verified in the
laboratory test results. Foundation should be constructed in accordance
with the attached guidelines.
Footings should be 12" by 12" minimum. For two story structures,
footings shall be a minimum of 15 inches in width by 18 inches in depth
reinforced with one no.4 bar at top and one at 3" from bottom.
CONSTRUCTED SLOPE
Cut and fill slopes were constructed with inclination and heights as
per grading plan. Based on our past experience in working with this
kind of soil in the Meadowview area, it is Lakeshore Engineering's
opinion that the proposed cut and fill slope will be grossly and
surficially stable as constructed.
Lakeshore Engineering
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
September 19, 1996
Project No.: 96-059.COM
,Page Five
: SURFACE DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of all
structures to :minimize water infiltrating into the underlying soils.
The homeowner should be made aware of the potential problems which may
develop when drainage is altered through construction of future
retaining walls, patios and pools. Ponded water, leaking irrigation
systems, overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground
saturation especially under footings must be avoided.
IFOOTING INSPECTION
Due to periodic inspections and the transitional cut/fill pad condition
left inplaced, footing excavations should be inspected by a
representative of Lakeshore Engineering prior to concrete placement to
verify proper ,embeddment entirely into competent soils.
Deepen footings will be required for footings close to and/or over edge
of slopes. A minimum distance of 7 foot to slope face (dayl ight)
condition is required.
At the time of the preparation of this report, only a single family
residence is proposed at this time. Any future appurtenance structure
such as a detached garage, office, barn, patio, spas or pools, etc.,
should be reviewed for subgrade suitability prior to construction.
Our findings have been
,professional engineering
engineering. This warranty
,express or implied.
obtained in accordance with accepted
practices in the fields of geotechnical
is in lieu of all other warranties, either
Re~pectfully Submitted,
LAKE SHORE ENGINEERING
ong, P.E
7442
6/30/2000
FY/fy
Enclosed: 1) SUGGESTED FOUNDATION GUIDELINES
2) PLOT PLAN
3) SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
4) SLOPE EROSION GUIDELINES
~
Lakeshore Engineering
I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSLTY TFST~
1sT FIELD ~ ~~
DATE ELEVA REFER- MAXIMUM a~
OF T I ON ErlCE DRY \iA'iER DRY ~ ,,<'" ,,-.; w
LOCATIOU \: "-'"to" IU11ARKS @~
NO. TEST (feet) CURVE DENS ITY C OiHENT DEr~S!TY ~'t-",,~ .
(pd) , (~) (pcf) Q;.'..; "c:J : ~E
j 19-/.3,1 Kf.:::i lovfl~ . -2 A 132-S 70 IU'S q:s 1/
'a
,
Z ICI"~ kDn-v ~ FI LLS, tl 6 13c'~ &-3 i17.7 tiCI V
13 it h " tl II II &.'1- 117.8 qD il
11 Ii II t3 II 11 8.j 11l3.6 ql I
, I
IS- R.lf., b il - II. z. $5'6 I
SL::,-fE. Ft u...> 'i'~ II ill.1-
lib ~l /1 -+s II I, jD-L. 117,0 qo ~&~i)'fS I
-
,7 (II 11 +;;; /1 11 0;./ /16 ''7 ql) /
I~ 11 1/ -+7 11 '" q,o il8 'S; ~H I
v' 1/ 17 VI , It gr /17-7 90 ,/
J 10 t1 II 77 II H Q'1 IITl 90 1/
II' /1 11 tq 11 w 8q 1/8'1 CJ1 1/
17.. H " 79 h II 9-z 1/6.j gc, J
,~
3 {I U -110 " ~1 '4' j (/1.1 qb t2., OF f+: /2. I
,(
t " h +/\ II 8-~ 117'b qc /
"
(/-;- ',i ~I t IJ 1/ I' 0-7 1/7/? qc I
176 q-F7 Cfb So, FACE:. -s(; 11 /.i q3 /12.s rO /
, 10 /
..(1 t, '5 . HleE.. f .~G n /11 CJo j(~.o
/8 11 Ptro 'R5/AJOR.K ~c A 132.5 8-2 I/'ro qo /
,;;. ,
Ii~ II 'J,.( IA ~ A II '1,2 /2/.6 1'1/ 1/
20 II v' /,.1 FC; A 1/ Cf, ( qz /
r '_LAICiESHORE I\A IlL:) IiI.Ul.S . \"i) ,QJ~H T.
1>oS: 18. AVE t::.~'TVJr:A. ~
- . Engineering I!'OM'" "'tAl Ll. (;A,
Proj. No' DaM' \ Tobl..
Con,sulting Civil Engineering and Geologists 06 .O<;q tD. "1\ lq\qb loF-ln
,
CI)
::2:
W
~
CI)
>-
CI)
Vi
Z
o
t=
i5
Z
o
()
w
e
<
II:
Cl
lD
;:)
lI)
e
w
>
o
II:
a.
a.
<
e
Z
<
I-
Z
W
I-
W
a.
~
o
()
Z
o
e
w
I-
()
;:)
II:
l-
ll)
Z
o
()
lI)
Z
o
~
e
Z
CI);:)
we
ZZ
-~
....J;:)
we
CtlJ
- <
.::> ~
C!J~
C~
WQ
~~
Cl)e
was
C!J~
C!J8
::>w
Cl)1I:
~\ ,
UJ
a..
~
w
a..
>
I-
::E
w
t;
>
en
Z
o
!;c
o
:z
~
o
l.L
o '; .g~lH_A:: ~~;\
~~)f~ , ~.. ~ ~ 'y~~ ~.
,...,~CO _/...,~CO
~.8i :i~r~.'.W:?g ~~!;
, ~".'-,0!J":_."""""'~':""'.',.J!"".'.,,...4F::'!t~y,~~ J. ,~~'!F
~? ,>,~ .;~';~'~'~~;>':'~',_:i~"'-{~!~~~' -
lVI. . it', n'.'''' ',' }""'''':I' ....,. "'"
-- ~:.,.,,:{., ,j,<'J~h~ M.-"':i',i";<
,,~ J . iF{o'-~'" <'....; ;;1' "::i!;; ~.
..., ,,~ s;;..' I: I: t
. == 0 a) a)
E '0 I- Ci5 ...,...,
:::J ,0) , -.~
'5l ,~ '
::E It)
,...
>
UJ
a..
~
w
a..
~
',,,
"'i"';..,-
.c !O
Cl ,C')
:f ,~
Ol
~ >
Ol 0
> ,.l:J
"C(
==
.9
. 1'0
It)
~
C\/
==
o ,0
...J C\/
~ 0
>
iii
'E
Ol
(5
a..
e:
o
'0
e:
III
a.
x
W
:::?
W
-
,x
'Ol
:c
E
,e:
:0
'0
:e:
III
:0.
,x
W
--- ", ~'-.~.~..~~-:' . "~~
o~ 0 I~
~c75 0
C')
Ol~ 0 I~
e:o 0
OCi5 C')
'~;~~':"
. d:t
0'.>,
'. . III
~==
....'.;c
-u
III III
~w
*
,,~
,;,c';t:;,\;,
~ffi5
o CO:::
~~~
x*O!l
o . a.
a)~o
~I-
E
l!?o
,Ill:::
'CO 0
~CO
*O!l
. a.
C\/~
iii'
e:
'E
-0
Z
o
<0
..,.,;
o~
1-== .e
.' en
ce-
a)
~
','
Q)~ 0 I~
e:o C\/
OCi) ~
o~ 0 I~
~c75 a)
.....
Q)~ 0 I~
e:o C\/
OCi5 ~
..;tIl. ,~'} .,",.eo
".'......_." - ""'.' .'--."'lI\;, .~.'~"'
: '-,'- . "'".'_ "~.~~. ."'7.',
~E '.c......E
III 0 == i;j 0
~, lS .,. COlS
~co ~~CO
*O!l x*O!l
I: Co a: I a.
~O C\I__o
I- ~ I-
o
~
~ ~ iii
0 0 e:
-'lij -- 'E
0" o III
Ze: Z-g 0 -
III III 'Z
::E ::E 0
~
.r:.
'5.
al
o
Cl
e:
'""
o
~
-
e:
al
E
Q)
~
o
-
e:
'Qi
a:
Cl
e:
'""
o
o
l.L
-
e:
Ol
E
Ol
~
.e
e:
'Qi
a:
.c
III
Ci5
~
o
o
l.L
~
Ol
1ii
E
'e:
al
a..
....
o
'e:
al
-
.5
~Cl
Ole:
CO '2
Olal
'Co.
l!!O
(!J(j
alO
010
l!!-
11l<(
(!J
Ul
Ul
Ol
e:
ti
:2
I-
.l:J
III
Ci5
~
o
o
u::
Ul
Cl
,S:
Ol
==
o
";;I~r
~-~ ~~{,
{:! rtJ;i, ,
/~~~ :f::c.: .'~ Q)'
""".~'.;.'!l!?E
, "'<'::31= e:
",:.::.1;; 0
'o'lij'U
""'-::I
""e:~
Q)Q)(;)
''CE<=
~~8
.l:J::I-
,) ::I 0'0
en8}.
Ul
al
Cl
l!!
III
(!J
'f.)
,.r,.,.,-,"
.....,;,.-:"'.
- ,;,i,;dIf.ic~~'( ..~i~:M~
~ENGINEERING .
, VENTURES, INC.
, : i LAND PLANNING. CIVIL ENGINEE?:!NG .;. _:J..NO SURVE':-':i'JG
January 22, 1997
City of Temecula
Department of Public Works
P,O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92598-9033
Re: Permit #96-115-GR
Lot 224, Tract 3883, MB 63/22
EV #270-1
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
.
RECEIVED
JAN 221997
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
This is to certify, for and on the behalf of Engineering Ventures, Inc" that the site grading and
building pad located on Lot 224, Tract 3883, MB 63/22, records of Riverside County,
California, have been determined to be in substantial compliance at an elevation of 102.00,
within a O,lQ:t. as shown on the approved Precise Grading Plan dated July, 1996, prepared by
Engineering Ventures, Inc, excepting the following items:
· Concrete driveway approach has not been constructed;
· Concrete pavement - drivewaylflatwork has not been constructed;
. 24" concrete V-drain has not been constructed;
· Concrete energy dissipater;
· Existing sump condition/standing water at the top of slope, north of the house pad, - not
per plan;
· Sand bags at the top of the slope and beginning of 24" concrete V -drain have not been
installed.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
RFF:vlp
c: Mr. Chuck Wright
. -------
...,.,..-- -:. -.,"\.
r" ')',,\..)' '-_,;; . '......
~\ \ -. - /./ .
,.,),/ 'I -, -: ^
~ '- (" ,-, ',;::- <",,', '
, ,,<:~,' -J.... t...... -:'><-; ,
(!(J;:~,~~~~:.,~~:; ":
.. '\.
\ -, r, "\ ,...."<'
'. ,.:. ....~~~~-~~,-~ :\j~:~"
1" ,_
------
,..~."'....-=o; .~-
.;.:35C::J RIDGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE ;::C:=": .. -'=.:"Y:;'::UL,.\ CJ\ S2~eo .. lS09) C33-b,-t::'.=.. -.:,^ 699-3569
\\
---- --
'PLOT PLAN ",.
~
N
N.T.S.,
.....
" '69
" ci~
\' 01--
N~
'\ '"
b)\
'!lo! ..
~ c;.
_.. . . H
o
N
o
...
o
"-
","
"0
"
I ~
" 'P,'" ..,,'. .
,',,,' ..,.,'
EXlPLANATION
X-20 APPROX. LOCATION OF DENSITY TEST
IJIL APPROX. LIMITS OF FILL INSPECTED.
LA~ESHaRE
Engineering
MR. AND MRS. WRIGHT
30518 EVE. ESTRADA
TEMECULA, CA.
Project No:
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 96-059. COM
Date Figure No:
9/19/96