Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-10; HOME AVENUE; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2019-05-24 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 485 Corporate Drive, Suite B Escondido, California 92029 Telephone: (619) 867-0487 ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES (714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 867-0487 McKellar McGowan May 24, 2019 888 Prospect St. #330 P/W 1607-03 La Jolla CA 92037 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 GR2017-0057 Attention: Scott Myers COO/CFO Subject: Project Grading Report, Building Pads, 849 Home Avenue Condominium Subdivision Project No. CT 16-10, Carlsbad, California References: See Attachments Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and authorization, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (AGS), presents herein our observations and test results pertaining to the recently completed grading of the building pads for the 849 Home Avenue Condominium Subdivision, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Specifically, this report summarizes the rough grading of the building pads for the project. Based on the results of the testing and observations by representatives of AGS, the work described herein is considered to be in general conformance with City Carlsbad Grading Code and the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical reports. This report addresses grading operations aimed at attaining finish grades for the subject building pads as reflected on the 10-Scale Grading Plan, Sheet 4 of 7, Drawing No DWG 507-6A, prepared by bha, Inc. of Carlsbad, California. Grading for the subject site was conducted in July 2018 and August 2018 with the surficial soils reconditioned in May 2019. Soil engineering observations and geologic observations collected during grading are summarized in the text of this report and the developed data are presented in Table 1. The approximate distribution of geologic units, removal elevations and compaction tests under the purview of this report are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. 1.0 GEOLOGY The subject site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges province occupies the southwestern portion of California and extends southward to the southern tip of Baja California. In general, the province consists of young, steeply sloped, northwest trending mountain ranges underlain by metamorphosed Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous-aged extrusive volcanic rock and Cretaceous-aged igneous plutonic rock of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. The westernmost portion of the province, where the subject site is located, is predominantly underlain by younger marine and non- marine sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges’ dominant structural feature is northwest-southeast trending crustal blocks bounded by active faults of the San Andreas transform system. May 24, 2019 Page 2 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.1. Subsurface Conditions A brief description of the earth materials encountered during grading operations for this portion of the site is presented in the following sections. Based on the referenced reports and our observations during site grading the site was mantled with undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits underlain by Santiago foirmation. 1.1.1. Artificial Fill- Undocumented (afu) Undocumented fill soils were encountered during grading overlying Old Paralic Deposits. As encountered, the undocumented fill soils were approximately 2 to 3 feet thick. As encountered, these materials generally consisted of brown, dry to slightly most, fine- grained sand with some silt in a loose condition. 1.1.2. Old Paralic Deposits (Map symbol Qop6) The site is underlain to maximum depth explored by Old Paralic Deposits. These materials can generally be described as orange brown to light brownish gray, slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense, fine-grained sand. The upper one foot was weathered and was removed during grading. At the contact between the old paralic deposits and the underlying Santiago formation is a coarse grained sandy to gravelly lag deposit approximately six to twelve inches thick and saturated. 1.1.3. Santiago Formation (Tsa) Although not encountered during grading, the bedrock unit underlying the site is assigned to the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation. The unit is composed predominately of a relatively massive grey green sandy silt stone that is fine- to coarse-grained to a silty claystone. Subunits of sandy siltstone and silty claystone are common throughout. 1.2. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered during grading within the subject site. It should be noted that water may develop at a later date, due to fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of grading. 2.0 GRADING Presented herein is a summary of observations collected during grading. The property was originally an asphaltic concrete parking lot with minor areas of landscaping. The existing driveways and parking areas consisted of approximately 5 to 6 inches of concrete pavement. Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the existing onsite surface vegetation and debris within the proposed limits was cleared, grubbed and disposed of offsite. Based on AGS's referenced geotechnical report, it was concluded that remediation of the upper surface soils would be required during site grading operations to provide suitable building pads. Presented herein is a summary of the removal and fill placement operations. May 24, 2019 Page 3 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2.1. Unsuitable Soil Removals Grading for the subject building pads consisted of rough grading to the design grades depicted on the 10-scale grading plans, prepared by bha, Inc. (Plate 1). Prior to placement of fill on the site, the compressible pre-existing unsuitable topsoil and highly weathered formational materials were removed. The unsuitable soil removal depths for the subject pads generally ranged from approximately three (3) to four (4) feet below existing grades. An existing seepage pit at the southwesterly portion of the site was removed to approximate 8 feet below finished grade. Removal bottom elevations are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. Removal bottom elevations onsite were determined utilizing the Grading Contractor’s Global Positioning System (GPS). Accordingly, all elevations presented on Plate 1 are based upon this information source. The maximum depth of fill under the purview of this report is approximately 8 feet. 2.2. Compaction Operations The excavation bottoms were observed and approved by representatives of AGS. The exposed removal bottoms were then scarified to an approximate depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557. Fill materials, consisting of the soil types summarized in Table 1, were then placed in thin, loose, lifts (approximately 8 inches), brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557. Compaction was achieved by a Cat D-8 dozer and other heavy grading equipment. Compaction tests were taken during the course of grading at approximately every one to two feet of fill placed. A summary of compaction tests pertaining to grading within the building pads is presented in Table 1. The approximate locations of these tests are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. 3.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Based on AGS’s recent testing, observations and review of the referenced reports, the building pads are considered suitable for support of the proposed residential structures. A final report summarizing our observations and compaction tests for improvements and utilities will be prepared once they are completed. From a geotechnical perspective the foundation elements for the residential structures can be constructed at this time. Additional recommendations for construction of the pool and adjacent improvements can be provided, if requested. The foundations for the subject residential structures should be constructed in general conformance with the following recommendations: 3.1. Expansion Potential Representative bulk samples of near surface soils from the subject lots were collected tested to evaluate their potential for expansion. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. Test results are summarized in Table 3.1. May 24, 2019 Page 4 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Table 3.1 Expansion Potential Building Area Expansion Index Expansion Potential Westerly Building Pads 0 Very Low Easterly Building Pads and Pool Area 0 Very Low 3.2. Foundation Design The proposed residential structures can be supported by conventional shallow slab-on-grade foundation systems based on the “Very Low” expansion potential. The following values may be used in the foundation design. Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 300 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 200 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.40 Settlement: Total = 3/4 inch Differential: 3/8 inch in 20 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building Code and structural design considerations may govern. Depth and reinforcement requirements should be evaluated by the Structural Engineer. Based upon the onsite soil conditions and information supplied by the 2016 CBC, conventional foundation systems should be designed in accordance with the following recommendations. ➢ Interior and exterior footings for one-story structures should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and extend to a depth of at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footing reinforcement should minimally consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two top and two bottom or two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom. ➢ Interior and exterior footings for two-story structures should be a minimum of 15 inches wide and extend to a depth of at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footing reinforcement should minimally consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two top and two bottom or two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom. ➢ Interior and exterior footings for three-story structures should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and extend to a depth of at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footing reinforcement should minimally consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two top and two bottom or two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom. ➢ Conventional, slab-on-grade floors, underlain by “low” expansive soil, should be five or more inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 or larger reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches I I I I I I May 24, 2019 Page 5 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. on center each way. The slab reinforcement and expansion joint spacing should be designed by the Structural Engineer. ➢ If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that a least seven feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slope. ➢ Isolated spread footings outside the footprint of the proposed structures should be tied with grade beams to the structure in two orthogonal directions. ➢ A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6) inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness, reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. ➢ Prior to concrete placement the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content. ➢ A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs-on-grade in portions of the structure considered to be moisture sensitive. The retarder should be of suitable composition, thickness, strength and low permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10-mil plastic membrane, such as Visqueen, placed between one to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. More recently Stego® Wrap or similar underlayments have been used to lower permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. The use of this system or other systems, materials or techniques can be considered, at the discretion of the designer, provided the system reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels. 3.3. Seismic Design Parameters The following seismic design parameters are presented in Table 3.3 to be code compliant to the California Building Code (2016). The project site is considered to be Site Class "C" in accordance with CBC, 2016, Section 1613.3.2 and ASCE 7, Chapter 20. The site is located at Latitude 33.1633°N, and Longitude 117.3462° W. Utilizing this information, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web tool (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps) and ASCE 7 criterion, the mapped seismic acceleration parameters SS, for 0.2 seconds and S1, for 1.0 second period (CBC, 2016, 1613.3.1) for Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) can be determined. The mapped acceleration parameters are provided for Site Class “B”. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, by utilizing Site Coefficients Fa and Fv for determination of MCER spectral response acceleration parameters SMS for short periods and SM1 for 1.0 second period (CBC, 2016 1613.3.3). Five-percent damped design spectral response acceleration parameters SDS May 24, 2019 Page 6 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. for short periods and SD1 for 1.0 second period can be determined from the equations in CBC, 2016, Section 1613.3.4. Table 3.3 Seismic Design Criteria Mapped Spectral Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SS 1.147g Mapped Spectral Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), S1 0.440g Site Coefficient, Fa (CBC, 2013, Table 1613.3.3(1)) 1.000 Site Coefficient, Fv (CBC, 2013, Table 1613.3.3(2)) 1.360 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SMS 1.147g MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SM1 0.598g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SDS 0.764g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SD1 0.399g Utilizing a probabilistic approach, the CBC recommends that structural design be based on the peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) having of 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (approximate return period of 2,475 years) which is defined as the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based ground motion calculator, the site class modified PGAM (FPGA*PGA) was determined to be 0.454g. This value does not include near-source factors that may be applicable to the design of structures on site. 3.4. Concrete Design and Corrosivity Testing Testing at the site indicates that the onsite soils will exhibit “Class S0 – Not Applicable” sulfate exposure when classified in accordance with ACI 318-14 Table 3.6. (per 2016 CBC). Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfates into soils and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels. It is incumbent upon the owner to determine whether additional protective measures are warranted to mitigate the potential for increased sulfate concentrations to onsite soils as a result of the future homeowner’s actions. Resistivity tests performed indicate that the onsite soils are corrosive to buried metallic materials. In the past on similar projects, corrosion protection typically consisted of non-metallic piping for water lines to and below the slabs or by installing above slab plumbing. Sampling from the onsite soils was performed and those samples were chemically analyzed for the major soluble salts commonly found in soils. Laboratory results are shown in Table 3.4. May 24, 2019 Page 7 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Table 3.4 Corrosivity Testing Results Lots pH Soluble Sulfates (% wt.) Soluble Chlorides (ppm) Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Westerly Building Pads 6.9 0.029 121 1800 Easterly Building Pads and Pool Area 7.0 0.022 89 2200 Test results determined by Anaheim Test Lab, Santa Ana, California. Test Method: Soluble Sulfates per CA 417, Soluble Chlorides per CA 422, Minimum Resistivity per CA 643 3.5. Retaining Walls The following earth pressures are recommended for design if retaining walls are proposed onsite. At rest earth pressures should be used in the design of restrained basement walls. Static Case Compacted Fill/Old Paralic Deposits (34° at 125pcf): Rankine Equivalent Fluid Level Backfill Coefficients Pressure (psf/lin.ft.) Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.28 35 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: Kp = 3.54 442 Coefficient of At Rest Pressure: Ko = 0.44 55 Seismic Case In addition to the above static pressures, unrestrained retaining walls should be designed to resist seismic loading. In order to be considered unrestrained, retaining walls should be allowed to rotate a minimum of roughly 0.004 times the wall height. The seismic load can be modeled as a thrust load applied at a point 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is equal to the height of the wall. This seismic load (in pounds per lineal foot of wall) is represented by the following equation: Pe = ⅜ *γ*H2 *kh Where: H = Height of the wall (feet) γ = soil density = 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) kh = ½ * peak horizontal ground acceleration = ½ * 0.537g Walls should be designed to resist the combined effects of static pressures and the above seismic thrust load. A bearing value of 3,000 psf may be used for design of basement walls. A value of 0.40 may be used to model the frictional between the soil and concrete. For sliding passive pressure both passive and friction can be combined to a maximum of 2/3 the total. Retaining wall footings should be designed to resist the lateral forces by passive soil resistance and/or base friction as I I I I I I I I I I I I May 24, 2019 Page 8 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. recommended for foundation lateral resistance. To relieve the potential for hydrostatic pressure wall backfill should consist of a free draining backfill (sand equivalent “SE” >20) and a heel drain should be constructed. The heel drain should be place at the heel of the wall and should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR35 or SCHD 40) surrounded by 4 cubic feet of crushed rock (3/4-inch) per lineal foot, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi® 140N or equivalent). Proper drainage devices should be installed along the top of the wall backfill, which should be properly sloped to prevent surface water ponding adjacent to the wall. In addition to the wall drainage system, for building perimeter walls extending below the finished grade, the wall should be waterproofed and/or damp-proofed to effectively seal the wall from moisture infiltration through the wall section to the interior wall face. Retaining wall backfill and drains should be constructed in general conformance to RTW-A. Final design of the waterproofing should be determined by the Architect. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. RETAINING WALL ALT. A - SELECT BACKFILL VER 1.0 NTS WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE PROVIDEDRAINAGESWALE D E S I G N GRA D E 1:1 (H:V) OR FLATTER H BACKCUTH/2min. SELECT BACKFILL (EI 20 &SE 20) <> NATIVE BACKFILL (EI 50)< DRAIN (1) NOTES: DRAIN: (1) 4-INCH PERFORATED ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE PLACED PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUNDED BY A MINIMUM OF 1 CUBIC FEET OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALEN T SUBSTITUTE AND WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE 12 in.min. DETAIL RlW-A May 24, 2019 Page 9 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. The retaining walls should be backfilled with granular soils placed in loose lifts no greater than 8- inches thick, at or near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Flooding or jetting of backfill materials generally do not result in the required degree and uniformity of compaction and, therefore, is not recommended. The soils engineer or his representative should observe the retaining wall footings, backdrain installation and be present during placement of the wall backfill to confirm that the walls are properly backfilled and compacted. 3.6. Utility Trench Excavation All utility trenches should be shored or laid back in accordance with applicable Cal/OSHA standards. Excavations in bedrock areas should be made in consideration of underlying geologic structure. AGS should be consulted on these issues during construction. 3.7. Utility Trench Backfill Mainline and lateral utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM: D-1557. Onsite soils may not be suitable for use as bedding material but will be suitable for use in backfill, provided oversized materials are removed. No surcharge loads should be imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete trucks or other construction materials and equipment. Drainage above excavations should be directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid saturation of the soils. Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will not be acceptable. 3.8. Exterior Slabs and Walkways 3.8.1. Subgrade Compaction The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557. 3.8.2. Subgrade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to at or near optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement 3.8.3. Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork should be designed utilizing four-inch minimum thickness. 3.8.4. Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately eight to ten feet. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete. May 24, 2019 Page 10 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3.8.5. Thickened Edge Consideration should be given to construct a thickened edge (scoop footing) at the perimeter of slabs and walkways adjacent to landscape areas to minimize moisture variation below these improvements. The thickened edge (scoop footing) should extend approximately eight inches below concrete slabs and should be a minimum of six inches wide. 4.0 LOT IMPROVEMENTS Final site grading should assure positive drainage away from structures, and positive drainage away from structures should be maintained. The use of gutters and down spouts to carry roof drainage well away from structures is recommended. Planter areas should be provided with area drains to transmit irrigation and rain water away from structures. Raised planters should be provided with a positive means to remove water through the face of the containment wall. Additional provisions need to be incorporated into the design and construction of all improvements exterior to the proposed structures (pools, spas, walls, patios, walkways, planters, etc.) to account for the hillside nature of the project, as well as being designed to account for potential expansive soil conditions. Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions for differential bearing materials (bedrock vs. compacted fill), ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure, and differential settlement/heave. All exterior improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals using appropriate design methodologies that account for the onsite soils and geologic conditions. The aforementioned considerations should be used when designing, constructing, and evaluating long-term performance of the exterior improvements on the lots. The homeowners should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as geotechnical issues that could affect design and construction of future homeowner improvements. The information presented in Appendix A should be considered for inclusion in homeowner packages in order to inform the homeowner of issues relative to drainage, expansive soils, landscaping, irrigation, sulfate exposure, and slope maintenance. 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report presents information and data relative to grading operations for the subject site. A representative(s) of this firm probed and tested at random locations in an effort to determine whether compliance with the project compaction, specifications, and applicable Building Code was being obtained. The presence of our personnel during testing operations does not involve any supervision or direction of the contractor or his work forces. May 24, 2019 Page 11 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Prepared by: STEVEN L. JESSUP Staff Engineer Reviewed by: ______________________________________ __________________________________ ANDRES BERNAL, Sr. Geotechnical Engineer PAUL J. DERISI, Vice President RCE 62366/GE 2715, Reg. Exp. 9-30-19 CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-19 Distribution: (1) Addressee (pdf) Attachments: References Appendix - Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines Table I - Compaction Test Results Plate 1 - Geotechnical Plan May 24, 2019 Page 12 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. REFERENCES Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., 2017, “Second Revised Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Design Recommendations for Proposed Residential Multi-Family Podium Structure (800 Grand Ave.) and Single Family (Home Ave.), 800 Grand Project, Carlsbad, California”, dated December 28, 2017 (Report No. 1607-03-B-2R2). ---, 2018, “As-Graded Statement for Building Pads 1 through 5, Home Avenue Condominium Subdivision, 849 Home Avenue – Project No. CT 16-10, Carlsbad, California”, dated August 2, 2018 (Report No. 1607-03-D-9). BHA, Inc., 2018, Grading Plans for Home Avenue (Condominium Subdivision), Sheets 1 through 7 of 7, plot dated June 29, 2018 (Drawing No. 507-6A). ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. APPENDIX HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Homeowners are accustomed to maintaining their homes. They expect to paint their houses periodically, replace wiring, clean out clogged plumbing, and repair roofs. Maintenance of the home site, particularly on hillsides, should be considered on the same basis, or even on a more serious basis because neglect can result in serious consequences. In most cases, lot and site maintenance can be taken care of along with landscaping, and can be carried out more economically than repair after neglect. Most slope and hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from a broken pipe, cesspool, or wet weather causes most damage. Wet weather is the largest cause of slope problems, particularly in California where rain is intermittent, but may be torrential. Therefore, drainage and erosion control are the most important aspects of home site stability; these provisions must not be altered without competent professional advice. Further, maintenance must be carried out to assure their continued operation. As geotechnical engineers concerned with the problems of building sites in hillside developments, we offer the following list of recommended home protection measures as a guide to homeowners. Expansive Soils Some of the earth materials on site have been identified as being expansive in nature. As such, these materials are susceptible to volume changes with variations in their moisture content. These soils will swell upon the introduction of water and shrink upon drying. The forces associated with these volume changes can have significant negative impacts (in the form of differential movement) on foundations, walkways, patios, and other lot improvements. In recognition of this, the project developer has constructed homes on these lots with “slab-on-grade” foundation systems, intended to help reduce the potential adverse effects of these expansive materials on the residential structures within the project. Such foundation systems are not intended to offset the forces (and associated movement) related to expansive soil, but are intended to help soften their effects on the structures constructed thereon. Homeowners purchasing property and living in an area containing expansive soils must assume a certain degree of responsibility for homeowner improvements as well as for maintaining conditions around their home. Provisions should be incorporated into the design and construction of homeowner improvements to account for the expansive nature of the onsite soils material. Lot maintenance and landscaping should also be conducted in consideration of the expansive soil characteristics. Of primary importance is minimizing the moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such design, construction and homeowner maintenance provisions should include: ❖ Employing contractors for homeowner improvements who design and build in recognition of local building code and site specific soils conditions. ❖ Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, driveways, patios, and other hardscape improvements. ❖ Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. ❖ Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. ❖ Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Alternatively, watering should be done in a uniform manner as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. ❖ Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts installed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or discharged well away from the structures. ❖ Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree. ❖ Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively constant moisture conditions. Sulfates On site soils were tested for the presence of soluble sulfates. Based on the results of that testing, the soluble sulfate exposure levels of the onsite soils were determined to be “negligible” when classified in accordance with the ACI 318-05 Table 3.6 (per 2016 CBC). Homeowners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain fertilizers, soil amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils otherwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. concentrations in near-surface soils to "moderate" or "severe" levels. In some cases, concrete improvements constructed in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by deterioration and loss of strength. Water - Natural and Man Induced Water in concert with the reaction of various natural and man-made elements, can cause detrimental effects to your structure and surrounding property. Rain water and flowing water erodes and saturates the ground and changes the engineering characteristics of the underlying earth materials upon saturation. Excessive irrigation in concert with a rainy period is commonly associated with shallow slope failures and deep seated landslides, saturation of near structure soils, local ponding of water, and transportation of water soluble substances that are deleterious to building materials including concrete, steel, wood, and stucco. Water interacting with the near surface and subsurface soils can initiate several other potentially detrimental phenomena other than slope stability issues. These may include expansion/contraction cycles, liquefaction potential increase, hydro-collapse of soils, ground surface settlement, earth material consolidation, and introduction of deleterious substances. The homeowners should be made aware of the potential problems which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, swimming pools, paved walkways and patios. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, over-watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. ❖ Before the rainy season arrives, check and clear roof drains, gutters and down spouts of all accumulated debris. Roof gutters are an important element in your arsenal against rain damage. If you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may elect to install them. Roofs, with their, wide, flat area can shed tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falling from the eaves collects against foundation and basement walls. ❖ Make sure to clear surface and terrace drainage ditches, and check them frequently during the rainy season. This task is a community responsibility. ❖ Test all drainage ditches for functioning outlet drains. This should be tested with a hose and done before the rainy season. All blockages should be removed. ❖ Check all drains at top of slopes to be sure they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. ❖ Keep subsurface drain openings (weep-holes) clear of debris and other material which could block them in a storm. ❖ Check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. ❖ Monitor hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any, irrigation is required. Oversaturation of the ground is unnecessary, increases watering costs, and can cause subsurface drainage. ❖ Watch for water backup of drains inside the house and toilets during the rainy season, as this may indicate drain or sewer blockage. ❖ Never block terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of cut or fill slopes. These are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. ❖ Maintain the ground surface upslope of lined ditches to ensure that surface water is collected in the ditch and is not permitted to be trapped behind or under the lining. ❖ Do not permit water to collect or pond on your home site. Water gathering here will tend to either seep into the ground (loosening or expanding fill or natural ground), or will overflow into the slope and begin erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. ❖ Never connect roof drains, gutters, or down spouts to subsurface drains. Rather, arrange them so that water either flows off your property in a specially designed pipe or flows out into a paved driveway or street. The water then may be dissipated over a wide surface or, preferably, may be carried away in a paved gutter or storm drain. Subdrains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during a heavy rain. ❖ Never permit water to spill over slopes, even where this may seem to be a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill slopes, can eat away carefully designed and constructed sites. ❖ Do not cast loose soil or debris over slopes. Loose soil soaks up water more readily than compacted fill. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide when laden with water; this may even affect the soil beneath the loose soil. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that loose fill is not dumped above your property. ❖ Never discharge water into subsurface blanket drains close to slopes. Trench drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other means of disposing of water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if located close to slopes, may cause slope failure in their vicinity. ❖ Do not discharge surface water into septic tanks or leaching fields. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different purpose, but they will tend, because of their construction, to naturally accumulate additional water from the ground ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. during a heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as subsurface subdrains, and is doubly dangerous since their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. In many areas, the use of septic tanks should be discontinued as soon as sewers are made available. ❖ Practice responsible irrigation practices and do not over-irrigate slopes. Naturally, ground cover of ice plant and other vegetation will require some moisture during the hot summer months, but during the wet season, irrigation can cause ice plant and other heavy ground cover to pull loose. This not only destroys the cover, but also starts serious erosion. In some areas, ice plant and other heavy cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increase in weight and weakening of the near-surface soil. Planted slopes should be planned where possible to acquire sufficient moisture when it rains. ❖ Do not let water gather against foundations, retaining walls, and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by subdrains to carry off the excess. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through the wall, causing dampness and leakage inside the basement. Further, it may cause the foundation to swell up, or the water pressure could cause structural damage to walls. ❖ Do not try to compact soil behind walls or in trenches by flooding with water. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine-grained soil, but it could damage the wall foundation or saturate the subsoil. ❖ Never leave a hose and sprinkler running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance ground saturation which may cause damage. ❖ Never block ditches which have been graded around your house or the lot pad. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not let water become ponded above slopes by blocked ditches. ❖ Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. ❖ It should be the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the resident's risk. ❖ The resident is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. The burrowing animal control program should be conducted by a licensed exterminator and/or landscape professional with expertise in hill side maintenance. In conclusion, your neighbor’s slope, above or below your property, is as important to you as the slope that is within your property lines. For this reason, it is desirable to develop a cooperative attitude regarding hillside maintenance, and we recommend developing a “good neighbor” policy. Should conditions develop off your property, which are undesirable from indications given above, necessary action should be taken by you to insure that prompt remedial measures are taken. Landscaping of your property is important to enhance slope and foundation stability and to prevent erosion of the near surface soils. In addition, landscape improvements should provide for efficient drainage to a controlled discharge location downhill of residential improvements and soil slopes. Geotechnical Review Due to the presence of expansive soils on site and the fact that soil types may vary with depth, it is recommended that plans for the construction of rear yard improvements (swimming pools, spas, barbecue pits, patios, etc.), be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with local conditions and the current standard of practice in the vicinity of your home. Additionally, recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study report apply to all future residential site improvements, and we advise that you include consultation with a qualified professional in planning, design, and construction of any improvements. Such improvements include patios, swimming pools, decks, etc., as well as building structures and all changes in the site configuration requiring earth cut or fill construction. May 22, 2019 P/W 1607-03 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TABLE 1 Page 1 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) A Medium brown silty sand 8.9 130.7 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. May 22, 2019 P/W 1607-03 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 (cont'd) Page 2 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 TEST NUMBER/LOCATION/ELEVATION KEY S - Sewer Trench I - Irrigation Trench SD - Storm Drain Trench E - Electrical Trench JT - Joint Utility Trench W - Water Trench RTW - Retaining Wall FTG - Footing FG - Finish Grade SG - Subgrade CG - Curb and Gutter Subgrade B - Base AC - Asphalt Concrete Finish Grade BC - Asphalt Concrete Base Course CC - Asphalt Concrete Cap Course -R,R1,R2 - Indicates Retest * Rock Correction- Estimated Percent Retained on #4 Sieve (Method A) or 3/4 inch (Method C), Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content adjusted per ASTM D 4718 Depth Moisture Dry Density Rel.Proj.Test Pass Test or Soil Rock (%)(pcf)Comp.Spec.Type or Date Number Location Elev.Type Corr.*Opt.Field Max.Field (%)(%)(S/N)Fail 07/18/18 112 Home Avenue Pad - West 56 A 8.9 9.2 130.7 121.6 93 90 N Pass 07/18/18 113 Home Avenue Pad - West 57 A 8.9 10.7 130.7 118.8 90 90 N Pass 07/18/18 114 Home Avenue Pad - West 58 A 8.9 9.5 130.7 120.0 91 90 N Pass 07/19/18 115 Home Avenue Pad - Seepage Pit -6 A 8.9 10.7 130.7 122.6 93 90 N Pass 07/19/18 116 Home Avenue Pad - Seepage Pit -3 A 8.9 10.5 130.7 121.4 92 90 N Pass 07/19/18 117 Home Avenue Pad - West 57.5 A 8.9 11.1 130.7 119.0 91 90 N Pass 07/19/18 118 Home Avenue Pad - West 56 A 8.9 9.2 130.7 123.5 94 90 N Pass 07/19/18 119 Home Avenue Pad - Road 57 A 8.9 9.8 130.7 120.1 91 90 N Pass 07/20/18 120 Home Avenue Pad - Road 58 A 8.9 11.0 130.7 123.2 94 90 N Pass 07/20/18 121 Home Avenue Pad - Road 58 A 8.9 9.3 130.7 122.7 93 90 N Pass 07/20/18 122 Home Avenue Pad - Road 58 A 8.9 10.2 130.7 121.5 92 90 N Pass 07/20/18 123 Home Avenue Pad - West 57 A 8.9 9.4 130.7 118.4 90 90 N Pass 07/20/18 124 Home Avenue Pad - West 58 A 8.9 9.0 130.7 123.8 94 90 N Pass 07/20/18 125 Home Avenue Pad - West 59 A 8.9 11.6 130.7 122.9 94 90 N Pass 07/24/18 126 Home Avenue Pad - East 56 A 8.9 9.6 130.7 122.6 93 90 N Pass 07/24/18 127 Home Avenue Pad - East 57 A 8.9 9.3 130.7 120.4 92 90 N Pass 07/24/18 128 Home Avenue Pad - Pool Area 58 A 8.9 9.1 130.7 123.9 94 90 N Pass 07/24/18 129 Home Avenue Pad - Road 58 A 8.9 9.9 130.7 122.2 93 90 N Pass 07/24/18 130 Home Avenue Pad - East 58.5 A 8.9 10.1 130.7 119.6 91 90 N Pass 07/24/18 131 Home Avenue Pad - East 58.5 A 8.9 9.1 130.7 119.7 91 90 N Pass ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. May 22, 2019 P/W 1607-03 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 (cont'd) Page 3 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-12 TEST NUMBER/LOCATION/ELEVATION KEY S - Sewer Trench I - Irrigation Trench SD - Storm Drain Trench E - Electrical Trench JT - Joint Utility Trench W - Water Trench RTW - Retaining Wall FTG - Footing FG - Finish Grade SG - Subgrade CG - Curb and Gutter Subgrade B - Base AC - Asphalt Concrete Finish Grade BC - Asphalt Concrete Base Course CC - Asphalt Concrete Cap Course -R,R1,R2 - Indicates Retest * Rock Correction- Estimated Percent Retained on #4 Sieve (Method A) or 3/4 inch (Method C), Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content adjusted per ASTM D 4718 Depth Moisture Dry Density Rel.Proj.Test Pass Test or Soil Rock (%)(pcf)Comp.Spec.Type or Date Number Location Elev.Type Corr.*Opt.Field Max.Field (%)(%)(S/N)Fail 07/27/08 137 Home Avenue Pad - Road 57.3 A 8.9 10.1 130.7 123.4 94 90 N Pass 07/27/08 138 Home Avenue Pad - Road 57 A 8.9 9.3 130.7 121.7 93 90 N Pass 07/31/18 141 Home Avenue Pad - West 58 A 8.9 9.3 130.7 121.0 92 90 N Pass 07/31/18 142 Home Avenue Pad - Road 59 A 8.9 10.0 130.7 123.3 94 90 N Pass 08/01/18 144FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 9.3 130.7 124.7 95 90 N Pass 08/01/18 145FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 10.6 130.7 125.0 95 90 N Pass 08/01/18 146FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 9.2 130.7 125.3 95 90 N Pass 08/01/18 147FG Home Avenue Pad - East FG A 8.9 9.0 130.7 124.9 95 90 N Pass 08/01/18 148FG Home Avenue Pad - East FG A 8.9 10.3 130.7 125.8 96 90 N Pass 08/01/18 149FG Home Avenue Pad - Pool Area FG A 8.9 9.4 130.7 126.1 96 90 N Pass 05/17/19 276 Home Avenue Pad - West -1 A 8.9 9.5 130.7 119.1 91 90 N Pass 05/17/19 277FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 10.1 130.7 124.3 95 90 N Pass 05/17/19 278FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 9.2 130.7 121.9 93 90 N Pass 05/17/19 279FG Home Avenue Pad - West FG A 8.9 11.0 130.7 123.7 94 90 N Pass 05/21/19 280 Home Avenue Pad - East -1 A 8.9 10.6 130.7 125.5 96 90 N Pass 05/21/19 281FG Home Avenue Pad - East FG A 8.9 9.3 130.7 118.1 90 90 N Pass 05/21/19 282FG Home Avenue Pad - East FG A 8.9 9.5 130.7 123.7 94 90 N Pass ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 55.5 afe (Qop) ((Tsa)) 147FG 131 127 148FG 126 55.5 55.5 55.7 56.7149FG 130 128 119 121 137 129 138 124 141 117 54.8 55.0 55.0 123 144FG 114112 54.5 afe (Qop) ((Tsa)) 113 145FG 55.0 125 146FG 116 115 54.8 55.0 142 118 120122 51.5 Seepage Pit Removal 279FG 278FG 282FG 280 281FG 277FG276 LEGEND ENGINEERED FILL OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS SANTIAGO FORMATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF COMPACTION TEST APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF REMOVAL LIMIT OF REPORT 55.5 Tsa 101 Qop afe BRACKETED WHERE BURIED 6'/E W\8 I "'IE 19 38) I{., 2, \ 6' LATERAL CON~EC ON TO EXIST 8" MAIN IPE~S-7 • 1 1) Cl - ;1 I :'\ 1/) J (s713,J / I I <{ / I I J+/f},_ 3 HOM6 A VE ; I I 1+0r.00£PVT DWY / I I ~ i I I I / I I VJ fl-'o 56-S I I ~ ,,. I a I -'---1 -I s [P I I 0 3 I -~-~~+--?F~~'°',,...--I I 1 l I D >--4H'l';;7"~~--\?tc::--f?";-w<' -----k''----',;rn I I I I I I I I I I I I NOTE: I I FOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN DESIGN SEE DWG 507-6, I I I -I I I I I --+---' I I I I I I 18.0' g ~I ;:I; R: I -c:, -PROPERTi'LINE"=' I I C >--' ~~ -GS c:, ~ 5 ' ~ s I ,o - ' ' ' ,, " t I I I ' • I· ~ ' , I <ci ·-- "" c:, t® s: f--_ ,s59 eoi @ ~ G @ ~ ~,.? " s ii • 9'o· • (3) STEPS 6" RISERS co FF-59. 75 FP=58.40 r I I I I I I I I I • (3) STEPS • 6" RISERS I --.__ I~• • ",, sas.Z-,o ·6'-2 I; L ____ _ FF-59. 75 FP=58.40 ----'-__,'"-1 0, 00 ' S N • <" s;,;--; TG 58.8 ,o • IE 58.05 CJ FF-59.75 FP=59.00 • ,----,,,, ~ 'PORCH 1 ~: Li:!' • I I I _ '{F=59.58 k ..Jlllr;)_ __ ..JIII I 4" STEP Cr S A A..::::. 0,.c., I\ I\ 5-",,-2 I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I 1::J I 1• I \,;/ \ L __ ~ __ j "" GF = 59.25 s® GF a ,--;i;,--7 -.iir - --.;ii PORCH I .... ---•=59.40 \ !;: \ I \ I-\ I I \ I \ I I ,, \ I \ I ~ \ I \ I ~ \ I • \ I fS i• -----• V ~ : 99· I (1) BOLLARD (,' 1/ WM-04, TYPE A ----____ _j FF-59.57 FP=58.82 l"wBs-~- L----==--------~ <" s TG 58.6 l?c.01E 57.37 • 2% MIN. F l©a T a c:, R/W R/W I 72"SQUARE FG 58.4 D-27 FG 56.72 BROOKS BOX TG 56. 74 TF 57. 75 TP 56.75 _13% FL 56.08 BF 56.75 FILL BOX 12" BELOW 4"/E (ROCK=3/4"-7 ") 0-27 FG 56.93 R/W I IE 55.92 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE @ 7.0% DETAIL 'A' NOT TO SCALE 72"SQUARE BROOKS BOX TG 56.93 FL 56. 29 ~E:C::=::1~-L],-!/;'!:_P'__5~5~.§_]_8 7 -= = r:u,.~6" PVC SD (2) 3" PVC _. .· IE 56.36 PIPES @ 1% - FILL BOX 72" BELOW 6" IE (ROCK=3/4"-7") DETAIL 'B' NOT TO SCALE 6' HIGH CMU WALL TG 58.2 FG 58.4 IE 56.45 6' YARD DRAIN 6"1~=== 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE @ 1.0% IE 55.96 I 0 -27 FG 57.82 FL 57.78 FILL BOX 72" BELOW 4"/E (ROCK=J/4"-7") SD CLEANOUT FF=59. 75 FP=58.40 IE 56.66 ANG.PT. 72"SQUARE BROOKS BOX FG 58.4 TG 57.82 TF 57. 75 TP 56.75 -6% IE 55.82 %'.@W!f :«<&&?!f?!- BF 56.75 BO TT 54.82 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE @ 7.0% DETAIL 'C' NOT TO SCALE TW 58.60 FS 58.10 , _, ., , .. 6" SCH80 PVC SD IE 56. 78 CATCH BASIN 13 LF @ 1.0% (0-08 SINGLE) 6' HIGH CMU WALL TG 58.2 FG 58.4 IE 56. 45 6' YARD DRAIN 6"~=== 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE @ 7.0% IE 55.96 TRAFFIC RA TED GRATE r · .... , ,: , 4" SCH80 PVC PERFORATED SD PIPE DETAIL 'D' NOT TO SCALE I j l • I ___ I FS 60.50 58.72' i ----7 • • a • a POOL AREA PER I FG 59.3 "' "' c; I SEPARATE PERMIT c:, HI.PT. <c <c t2 L FP=60. 17 _J t2 ---- FG 60.2 FS 60.40 FS 60.50 • FS 60.40 FS 60.40 FS 60.40 FG 59.1 FS 59_3 5 .. ' ® GF ~ 59.55 -r -----i.ir - --.ii~ ~ PORCH I ,,. ,--<o ,--7 \ '.)' \ I \ FF=59.88 \ j'J \ I I \ I \ I ~/ (7) \BOLLARD\ I ~ WM---\04, TYPE \A I ? "' \ I \ k,~C 1'J. " V ~• 99· • • TC 60.25 FS 59. 75 " I G'--_j • • 2% MIN. I © bl-lA,lnc. ® FS 60.30 . -~\) J ,., -------ro(J• -_.-~0 ,-. land planning, cMI englneenng, suiveylng RONALD L. HOLLOWAY RCE 29277 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 DATE PRO RTY LIN CONSTRU 24' W/0, ·® •® ·© ·® ·© <D ® ® (i) 0 ® <D @ 5' WIDE 6" PCC 7" WAT£ S!DEWAL 4" PVC 6" WIDE T.URFBLO 6" SEW£ 6" SEW£ VISITOR 7' CURB LANDSC. 4" PCC ) • ® @ 1. a' ~D>e----..,,--=,-r,s::;i:cwn:-1VT---c,rv--= V, "'"·"' ,,,err.. 7"7".7r1"7,-71,, o,-=c,,v-"------- 6' HIGH CMU WALL (BY OTHERS) ® @ SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC EASEMENT PER DOC. _______ REC. ______ _ 6" PCC CURB PER G-1 ® © @ BACKYARD AREA INSTALLED BY OWNER & SHALL BE PERM/ABLE MATERIAL FOR STORM PERMEABLE PA VERS DRIVEWAY (SEE DETAIL BELOW) WATER PURPOSES © ® © 0 ® ·@ ·® DOMESTIC WATER LINE TO UNITS (SEE PLUMBING PLAN) TRANSFORMER (SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR DETAIL) POOL EQUIPMENT (BY OTHERS) NEW UTILITY POLE/DOWN GUY WIRE (BY OTHERS) 4" SEWER LATERAL PER S-7 7" WATER METER PER W-3A 0 7.5" !RR/GA T!ON WATER METER PER W-4 6" DIA YARD DRAIN/GRATE (NOS MODEL 40 OR APPROVED EQUAL) ~ A/C UNIT t,,/R/GI TRASH RECEPTICLES * ITEMS AS SHOWN ON OWG 507-6 (IMPROVEMENT PLANS) PERMEABLE CONCRETE JOINT CURB PA VERS • , 2" BEDDING LA YER-..,,'T7777V,'"7'.T7T;Y-7777777P'.T77--:T7~==ic''~• ''i==~lc--- AASHTO #8 12" RESERVOIR LA YER AASHTO #2 or #3 FILTER LA YER AASHTO #8 4" SCH80 PVC PERFORATED SD PIPE SUBGRADE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT BMP DETAIL NOT OT SCALE ' • ADJACENT MATER/Al 3" INFILTRATION STORAGE LA YER PLATE1 Project# Reporif _, P/W 1607-03 1607-03-C-12 MAY 2019 II AS BUIL T11 1 o· 20' 30' RCE ___ EXP, ___ _ DATE SCALE: 1" = 1 O' REVIE',/ED BY• INSPECTOR DATE l---!---+-----------+--+--+--+---11 SH4EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH7EETS I ~=='....'::::=::::E::N::::G:::I::::NE::E::R::::I::::N:::G=D::E::P=A::::R::::T::::M::E N::::T===--'::::=::::::: GRADING PLANS FOR: 1 DA TE INITIAL DA TE INITIAL DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL HOME AVENUE (CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION) GR2017-0057 PRECISE GRADING DESIGN P.U.D 16-12 APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DWN BY: AV CHKD BY: __ _ RVWD BY: JASON S. GELDERT RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 18 DA TE PROJECT NO. CT 16-10 DRAWING NO. DWG 507-6A