0303-156 (OFC) Report of TestingrEvCI "In 176034573
r.
Pf i ��•i II -a �hC�•)..i`� r --. fd'IEI'•�T :�1� r'I—I� Q UO•�a�� Q• �.� p.2
4 1
' ---MADISON DEVELOPMENT
933 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91762
REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
DURING GRADING
OF POINT HAPPY
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Fite No.: 07074-02
01-02-753
-.00 n -nn•n ; c o��
i:9.^•;1j,1 !`- --'• iii !Pj 1?GO 34S73ffq.;}n__ Q• is i p.3
l
Earth Systems
Southwest 79.81113 country club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, G 92201
(760)345-1583
(900) 924-7015
FAX (760) 345-7315
February 20, 2001 File No.: 07074-02
01-02-753
Madison Development
Attention: Mr. Ed Alderson
Project: Point Happy
La Quints, California
Subject: Report of Testing and Observations
Performed During Grading
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest, dated March 8, 1999; Revised March 24, 1999; Report No.: 99-03-759
Submitted herewith is a report of testing and intermittent observations performed during the
grading on the above referenced project. Grading operations were performed by F & F Grading,
using conventional heavy equipment. Testing was performed as per authorization of Mr. Ed
Alderson.
Test results are presented on the attached test report sheet with their estimated locations plotted
on the accompanying plan. Compaction tests were performed in accordance with
ASTM D 2922-81, Method A or S, and ASTM D 3017-88 Nuclear Density Test Procedures.
Maximum Density-0ptimum Moisture were determined in the laboratory in accordance with
ASTM D 1557-91, Method A or C.
Test results are as follows:
Sod Description uses MLximum Density Optimum Moisture_
Olive brown silty Sand,
fine to coarse grained SM 119.0 pcf 10.5%
DISCUSSION:
1. The project is located on the northwest corner of Highway l 1 1 and Washington Street in
the City of La Quinta, California.
2. Pnor to grading, the site consisted of vacant desert lands with sparse vegetation.
C,DD i7 t �i7
17 .7 i 1 =Z 0M
MYK
1PfrM i„ Cr^i1t, .1 ti.C',T '� I '� '� 176034573 n`� 4
J 1 CI.,1.�1 C .H")NAEIl� CoQ )�0� Jla• 3 _ P. 4; p.4
February 20, 2001 - 2 - J File No.: 07074-02
01-02-753
3. The proposed development consists of 9 commercial structures with a combination of
wood and steel frame with a stucco coating.
4. The scope of our work was based on the plans and staking by others.
5. The site was cleared of pre-existing vegetation and pre -watered to help control dust.
6. The building pads were over excavated to a depth of 3 feet below pad grade. The
exposed surface was moisture conditioned and compacted.
7. Fill materials consisting of previously removed soils and other site soils were placed in
relatively thin lifts and compacted into place. .
8. A total of 42 compaction tests were performed.
9. Test results indicate that a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density has been obtained
in the areas tested.
10. The test locations are approximate and are determined by pacing and sighting from
prominent field features. In our work, we have relied on, topographic and survey
information provided by others.
11. Based upon intermittent observations and testing during the grading operations, on
January 5 through February 16, 2001 on this project, it is our opinion that the grading is
essentially in conformance with recommendations of the referenced geotechnical
engineering report, as well as the grading ordinances of the City of U Quinta.
12. As used herein,, the term `observation' implies only that we observed the progress of
work we agreed to be involved with, and performed test on which together we based our
opinion as to whether the work essentially complies with job requiremcnts.
13. With any manufactured product, there are statistical variations in its uniformity and in the
accuracy of tests used to measure its quality. As compered with other manufactured
products, field construction usually presents large statistical variations in its uniformity
and accuracy of test results used to measure its quality. Thus, even with very careful
observation and testing, it cannot be said that all parts of the product comply with the job
requirements and the degree of certainty is greater with full-time observation than it is
with intermittent observations and testing. Therefore, our opinion based on observing
and testing the work means that there is only a statistically based, reasonable certainty
that the work essentially complies with the job requirements.
14. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in
accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
15. It is recommended that Earth Systems Southwest (ESSW) be provided the opportunity for
a general review of any changes to the final design and/or location of the proposed
structures in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
����•. j. ���� I1=Ri... j.L'I�'.)�j Gt�'tL'.RMcI'd1 760 731-0202 17603457�,J0•i�221 P - 7 � p.5
February 20, 2001 '� -3 - ``J File No.: 07074-02
01-02-753
interpreted. If ESSW is not accorded the privilege of inaldng this recommended review,
we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
16. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of
his representative, to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein
are called to the attention of the architect and. engineers for the project and are
incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. It is also the owners'
responsibility, or his representative, to ensure that the necessary steps are takca to see that
the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
It is further understood that the owner or his representative is responsible for submittal of
this report to the appropriate governing agencies.
If there are any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reviewed bQPOFESS�1
SDG h �
! ce 39234 �
Phillip D. Clanton Craig S. P fxo. °='m
Supervisory TechnicianCE 38234 s1' CML
�
Gradingipdc/csh/dac OF CAVF�P
Distribution: 2/ VWison Development (Ontario)
4/Madison Development (La Quinta)
I/VTA File
1 /BD File
EARTIT SYSM4S SOUTHWES
-.nn n I -nn•n , . , c n.,.
r i �Oii i i Ph1'' firiC l S; fI ; _ =! r�PMEf`IT 7 60 , 71-�];G� 176034573 j•.J,1 , : �' p . 5, ? P. s
RXVORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTIbT�S
JOB NAME: Point Happy
FILE NO.: 07074-02
LOCATION; La Quinta, California
Test No I Date Tested I Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
'3
24
25
26
27
28
February 20, 2001
Elevation
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 HPG
FPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
In Plane
REPORT NO: 01-02-753
Pa e 1 of 2
DryDensity Relative Maximurr
In Place 1Compaction Density
10.5
Grading
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/05/01
Per Plan
01/08/01
i
Per Plan
01/08/01
i Per Plan
01/08/01
Per Plan
01/08/01
Per Plan
01/08/01
Per Plan
01/08/01
Per Plan
01/08/01
Per Plan
01/09/01
Per Plan
01/09/01
Per Plan
01/09/01
Per Plan
01/09/01
Per Plan
01/09/01
Per Plan
01/10/01
Per Plan
01/10/01
I Per Plan
01/10/01
Per Plan
01 / ] 0/01
Per Plan
01/11/01
Per Plan
01/11/01
I Per Plan
01/11!01
Per Plan
01/1 Vol
Per Plan
01/11/01
Per Plan
February 20, 2001
Elevation
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 HPG
FPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
3.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
In Plane
REPORT NO: 01-02-753
Pa e 1 of 2
DryDensity Relative Maximurr
In Place 1Compaction Density
10.5
114.0
96
11.2
109.2
92
12.7
109.6
92
10.7
110.7
93
9.8
109.5
92
10.2
107.9
91
11.2
108.2
91
12.8
114.0
96
11.6
109.2
I 92
10.8
109.2
92
10.5
110.5
93
12.9
107.1
90
13.6
107.5
9I
11.7
110.7
93
13.6
110.8 I
93
12.4
, 109.7
92
10.9
i 110.9
93
12.8
; 108.4
91
13.6
109.7
92
13.2
I 110.9
93
12.8
110.7
93
12.5
109.6
92
11.9
I 107.3
i
90
13.7
I 110.9
93
11.9
110.7
93
12.6
109.6
92
13.4
108.5
91
12.7
1110.9
93
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
1.19.0
119.0
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
�6 ,0L
r', r IC v ^ �r �) �� •i ] IIj 1 �. )JI.^'v. .
p,17 I0 r
i�
krPORT OF RELATIVE COWACTTUTdS
JOB NZ AIME: Point Happy
LOCATION: la Quinta, California
Test No I Date Tested Description
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A')
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
01/12/01
02/ 16/01
02/16/01
02/16/01
mncinI
Gra is
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Pian-
Per
ianPer Plan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Ptan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Per Plan
Elcvation
FPG
FPG
FPG
FPG
FPG
FPG
FPG
FPG
3.0 BPG
2.0 BPG
1.0 BPG
FPG
1.0 BPG
/-Moisture
In Place
11.2
92
12.0
10.1
10.6
12.9
11.3
11.0
10.2
9.4
9.6
87
7.6
FILE NO.: 07074-02
REPORT NO: 01-02-753
Page 2 of 2
Pry Density
Relative
Maximum
In Place
Compaction
Dcrosity
107.3
90
119.0
109.6
92
119.0
108.7
91
119.0
111.9
'94
119.0
109.7
92
119.0
109.5
92
` 119.0
113.6
95
119.0
112.3
94
119.0
107.5
90
119.0
108.0
90
119.0
111.9
I 94
119.0
110.6
93
119.0
109.7
92
119.0
February 20, 2001 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
�6 /
we 1.
QUA,.
.! •. I
1 1 91 S'awl"I WEE J 0%, 'Off - �
s
w
M
w
COMPACTION MAP
Project Name : POINT HAPPY
File No.: 07074-02
Earth Systems
`�� Southwest