Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 16-12; BOWLING RESIDENCE; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2016-08-02COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS August 2, 20 16 Mike Bowling MB Builders 403 South Las Posas Road San Marcos, CA 92078 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California References: Please see page 9 Dear Mr. Bowling: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The control of drainage from lot development is essential to the future performance of the structure. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This opportuni ty to be of service is greatly appreciated. Mark Burwell, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist P.O. BOX 230163 • ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023 • (858) 755-8622 ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared for: Mike Bowling MB Builders 403 South Las Posas Road San Marcos, CA 92078 August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL P.O. Box 230163 Encinitas, California 92023 Coast Geotechnical INTRODUCTION August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page3 oflO This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of existing fill deposits in the building envelope. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Bill Yen and Associates. LABO RA TORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Description Tan to brown, fine and medium-grained sand slightly clayey Maximum Dry Density (p.c.f.) 127.8 Optimum Moisture (%) 10.2 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Soil Type A The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene-age terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are covered by fill deposits. Coast Geotechnical DISCUSSION August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 4 of 10 The grading contractor on this project was JC Grading. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, prior to overexcavation. Rough grading was performed from approximately July 21, 2016 through July 27, 2016. 2) The existing fill deposits in the residential building pad was removed with a D-4 Caterpillar dozer to a depth of approximately 3.0 feet below existing grade and stockpiled. 3) The base of the removals exposed dense terrace deposits, as anticipated in the Geotechnical Update Report. 4) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 to 8.0 inches, moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with the D-4 dozer. 5) However, density testing in the northern portion of the pad suggested low moisture content with less than 90 percent relative compaction. The fill was removed, moisture conditioned Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 5 of 10 to above optimum moisture content and re-compacted. Re-testing suggests that the fill was compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 6) The residential pad was overexcavated to approximately 3.0 feet below existing grade. The overexcavation was extended laterally approximately 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint. Minor amounts of imported fill consisting of fine and medium-grained sand was imported and excavated from the driveway to achieve pad grade. 7) The proposed driveway will need additional fill to achieve subgrade. 8) Laboratory testing suggests the mixture of soils utilized as compacted fill reflect an expansion potential in the very low range (E.I. 4 ). 9) The results oflaboratory testing of a representative sample of the pad grade fill soils suggest a water soluble sulfate content of 0.008 (negligible). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 6 of 10 2) The soil parameters for foundations and slab design recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation remain valid. However, interior slabs should be provided with "softcut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on center maximum each way. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The softcuts should be a minimum of ¾ inch in depth, but should not exceed 1 inch deep maximum. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. A void wheeled equipment across cuts for at least 24 hours. Provide re-entrant corner (270 degrees corners) reinforcement for all interior slabs consisting of minimum two, 10 feet long No. 3 bars at 12 inches on center with the first bar placed 3 inches from the re-entrant corner,. Re-entrant corners will depend on slab geometry and/or interior column locations. 3) Structural footing excavations should be observed by an engmeenng geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of forms and steel. Additional fill placed including the driveway should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engmeer. Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 7 of 10 4) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be moistened and tamped in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. 5) It is our understanding that the proposed driveway has been changed from concrete (PCC) to pervious asphaltic concrete. The pervious concrete should be designed in accordance with the manufacture's specification and city requirements. The subdrain should be schedule 40 and should be covered by a minimum of 12 inches of Class 2 base to reduce the possibility of crushing from wheel loads. Pavement Design The following preliminary pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways: Pervious asphaltic concrete per manufacture's specifications 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 8 of 10 Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. 6) All the recommendations in the referenced Updated Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan Review and Foundation Plan Review which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density (compaction) testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion, based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated September 23, 1999 2) GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 12, 2001 3) ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical January 7, 2004 4) SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence and Subterranean Basement Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2004 August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page9 oflO Coast Geotechnical 5) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Residence and Subterranean Basement Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2004 6) GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated May 23, 2016 7) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2016 8) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2016 August 2, 2016 W .0. G-659416 Page 10 of 10 FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Test Date No. 07/21/16 1 07/22/16 2 07/22/16 3 07/22/16 4 07/25/16 5 07/25/16 6 07/25/16 7 07/25/16 8 07/25/16 9 * Failed tests, Soil ~ Pad Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Height Content Density % Soil Location Of Fill 1 (pcf) Compaction ~ See Map 2.0' 9.5 109.6 86* A See Map 2.0' 7.7 107.5 84* A See Map 2.0' 11.1 116.7 91 A See Map F.G. 11. 3 115.7 90 A See Map F.G. 10.5 108.5 85* A See Map 2. 0' 8.7 106.2 83* A See Map 2.0' 10.5 115.0 90 A See Map F.G. 11.1 119.3 93 A See Map F.G. 10.5 119.0 93 A area fill removed, moisture conditioned and recompacted TABLE II Expansion Index Test Results Expansion Potential 4 {very low) Sample Pad FIELD TEST RESULTS (Continued) TABLE III Water Soluble Sulfate California Test 417 Sulfate Content (%} 0.008 (negligible) G-659416 111l00111U ll"XU" PUCA.ST r COIOCft CUCH MPI (),t [0. / rte.=~ ,~.lln. I I L 4"•AICPIP't:r01t rSffCMAN I ~ll'fl)ll.l.l[D PIP[ ltrlStAUA.TlOt,I S(CIIOH\'ICW SECTION A·A. 1 YptCAL DHIVEWAY SECTION l,QW,U: CONSTRUCTION NOTES· 0 CRADC 10 DIWN P0t P\,U,I. ~ ID~~~l~:c~--~-= ~~4S"=~ ~ nc: sou DICfrCDt 0, WOIII' @CONSTRUCT MIC 8-1 6-IIICII COJ,OtCtt a.111t3 M:R S011rSD C-15 © CC.,S1111Jtl P(#fll'O.IS A.C. hVM, POt SlCIOI _._.. @=: i~~~t~ O'l mt.Ml.Oil CAT(>( MSIN WM Ttwn: QtAT(. _. @ CONSntvcl t"lcl" P\1: CATCH 8,4.SIW 1ilflM N; CAlTt (!)CONSTtl.CT ••• N; OltA.N. Will';™ NC SU)P(" Pell 11\J..N @ CONSTIIUCT SIXWAllt 1..1C1C11 ca.t.Jr<I PO 101tSO 0-21 @ lrrlSlALL ••• KRfOIWCD P-.C PCA OC'l'.U.. A @~o:,~~-ft\V'M0H[ RtS{l. t.A11.C tvltlSDI (10 8C (!} ~-t..,~ ~~'= ~ = =r= POWI nl. DETAIL A CATCH BASIN@ DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. "'= APN 1564-42--47 l l! -~~-~~ APN "'56-142-08 GRADING PLAN . SCALE: Reduced LEGEND DENSITY TEST LOCATION (APPROX.) LIMITS OF BUILDING PAD FILL (APPROX.) / I """"'""-111.0CJC WALL ~s.,·• / (!> I l I (rut) 1 NCH • 10 rca .. "'"'"""""' rou •·•-\ ~ tm"tT00'"t tod '--·~;;i...--,,----- SECTION 8-8: V\-£EP SCREED ANO YARD DRAIN '°'°"' EXJSTING EASEMENTS 00l1 ID.a {AS(Wfh'f POI r/f> U.»1 0.lt. Jl(COltDCO .1-27-IKI DOf2 OA,l,ltiAC( rASOIOif100TTOI C,t,IIU,e,t,OP(lt ~NO. 14)11 ll[0»0(l) 12-11-2002 otl#J lm..ffY u.so,on ro SOC,,[ POI ,U lr,10. 200.1-11~0 ltl'.COlt0(0 2-111-100), QHt,101 t( P\.OrttD POI DCCC "AS BUILT" COAST GEOTECHNICAL G-659416 I I I I I I .1-· I I I ·1-· !1 I I I I ·1 I 11 i COAST GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOWGISTS August 2, 2016 Mike Bowling MB Builders 403 South Las Posas Road · San Marcos, CA 92078 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Residence and Attached Garage · Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California References: Please see page 9 Dear Mr. Bowling: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the_ rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Bas~d on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an.adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The control of drainage from lot development _is essential to the future performance of the structure. If you have·any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Engineering Geologist P.O. BOX 230163 • ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023 • (858) 755-8622 . ,._, I I ROUGH GRADING REPORT I I I Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive I Carlsbad, California I I I Prepart;d for: Mike Bowling MB Builders I 403 South Las Posas Road San· Marcos, CA 92078 I I I I August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 I I I Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL P.O. Box 230163 I Encinitas, California 92023 I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical INTRODUCTION August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 3 of 10 This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of existing fill deposits in the building envelope. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Bill Yen and Associates. LABO RA TORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Description Tan to brown, fine and medium-grained sand slightly clayey Maximum Dry Density (p.c.f.) 127.8 Optimum Moisture'(%) 10.2 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Soil Type A The subject property _is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene-age terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are covered by fill deposits. I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical DISCUSSION August 2, 2016 .W.O. G-659416 Page 4 of 10 The grading contractor on this project was JC Grading. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, pnor to overexcavation. Rough grading was performed from approximately July 21, 2016 through July 27, 2016. 2) The existing fill deposits in the residential building pad was removed with a D-4 Caterpillar dozer to a depth of approximately 3.0 feet below existing grade and stockpiled. 3) The base of the removals exposed dense terrace deposits, as anticipated in the Geotechnical Update Report. 4) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 to 8.0 inches, moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with the D-4 dozer. 5) However, density testing in the northern portion of the pad suggested low moisture content with less than 90 percent relative compaction. The fill was removed, moisture conditioned I I I I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 5 of 10 to above optimum moisture content and re-compacted. Re-testing suggests that the fill was compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 6) The residential pad was overexcavated to approximately 3.0 feet below existing grade. The overexcavation was extended laterally approximately 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint. Minor amounts of imported fill consisting of fine and medium-grained sand was imported and excavated from the driveway to achieve pad grade. 7) The proposed driveway will need additional fill to achieve subgrade. 8) Laboratory testing suggests the mixture of soils utilized as compacted fill reflect an expansion potential in the very low range (E.I. 4) . 9) The results oflaboratory testing of a representative sample of the pad grade fill soils suggest a water soluble sulfate content of 0.008 (negligible). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. ----------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 'I I Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 6 of 10 2) The soil parameters for foundations and slab design recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation remain valid. However, interior slabs should be provided with "softcut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on center maximum each way. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The softcuts should be a minimum of ¾ inch in depth, but should not exceed 1 inch deep maximum. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. A void wheeled equipment across cuts for at least 24 hours. Provide re-entrant comer (270 degrees comers) reinforcement for all interior slabs consisting of minimum two, 10 feet long No. 3 bars at 12 inches on center with the first bar placed 3 inches from the re-entrant comer,. Re-entrant comers will depend on slab geometry and/or interior column locations. 3) Structural footing excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of forms and steel. Additional fill placed including the driveway should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engmeer. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 7 of 10 4) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand (S.R greater than 30) to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be moistened and tamped in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings: This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving.the utility or the footing away from one another. 5) It is our understanding that the proposed driveway has been changed from concrete (PCC) to pervious asphaltic concrete. The pervious concrete should be designed in accordance with the manufacture' s specification and city requirements. The subdrain should be schedule 40 and should be covered by a minimum of 12 inches of Class 2 base to reduce the possibility of crushing from wheel loads. Pavement Design The following preliminary pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways: Pervious asphaltic concrete per manufacture's specifications 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils I :I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical August 2, 2016 -W.O. G-659416 Page 8 of 10 Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive.base materials. Class 2 base materials sho~ld have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. 6) All the recommendations in the referenced Updated Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan Review and Foundation Plan Review which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density (compaction) testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion, based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Coast Geotechnical 1) 2) 3) 4) REFERENCES PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated September 23, 1999 GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 12, 2001 ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Five (5) Lot Subdivision Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Map 2169 Carlsbad Tract 98-16 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical January 7, 2004 SUPPLEMENT AL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence and Subterranean Basement Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2004 August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 9 of 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :I Coast Geotechnical 5), 6) 7) 8) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Residence and Subterranean Basement Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California· Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2004 GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated May 23, 2016 FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proppsed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21, 2016. GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Residence and Attached Garage Lot 2, CT 98-16 2792 James Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 21; 2016 August 2, 2016 W.O. G-659416 Page 10 ofl0 I 1· I I I I I I I ENCLOSURES . 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 Date 07/21/16 07/22/16 07/22/16 07/22/16 07/25/16 07/25/16 07/25/16 07/25/16 07/27/16 * Failed FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density 9,. 0 Soil No. Location Of Fill g. ..2. (pcf) Compaction ~ 1 See Map 2.0' 9·_ 5 109.6 86* A 2 See Map 2.0' 7.7 107.5 84* A 3 See Map 2.0' 11.1 116.7 91 A 4 See Map F.G. 11. 3 115.7 90 A 5 See Map F.G. 10.5 108.5· 85* A 6 See Map 2.0' 8.7 106.2 83* A 7 See Map 2.0' 10.5 115.0 90 A 8 See Map' F.G. 11.1 119.3 93 A 9 See Map F.G. 10.5 119.0 93 A tests, area fill removed, moisture conditioned and recompacted Soil ~ Pad TABLE II Expansion Index Test Results Expansion Potential 4 (very low) ~-------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sample Pad FIELD TEST RESULTS (Continued) .TABLE III Water Soluble Sulfate California Test 417 Sulfate Content (%) 0.008 (negligible) G-659416 - -- -- L 8"00~1212 U'"rl?" PIIUASl r CO,.Cl'(T( C4tCt1 !IASN 0A (0. I •I TIWTC GltAl( I ,:.e86RIY. 1~1.Mfl. , •·• PVC PIP( FOP rSIT[ Oltlll,I , J sec CltOSS S(CfOoil atLOW - - - -- SEC I ION A-A.·, Y~CAL URIVEWAY SEC noN CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 CJU.O[ TO OAA.IN P(II PV.N, JYPC-\1. {1) COWSTl!UCT COHCRITC OltlV[ WAT ltrTH :!i-1/2 IHCH(S C()HClltf[ OYCII COW,"(l[D 8ASC, CONCll(l[ Siu.t.L BC )60-C-.l?!IO. 8'Sl S<W.L II( CO .. P.\ClEO .t.S CllRCCl(D IN TM( SCll.S [NCB<,lt(lt 0, WORK Q) CCNSTRUCT m>( a-1 6-INCl1 COHCRCTC CURD ru !:ORSO C-11 0 CONSlltuCI PCINIOUS AC. PAVIIIC PEIi S(CTION A-A @CONSTI!\A:l 12'"rl1" 8R00K111) 0A (0t#v'"'-[N1 CATCH EIA.Sllf Will-I flW"FC CIUiTC. ll'llol ~ IIN[llt [l(VAIION P[R Pl.,t.N @ CCIJ,ISTIIVCT ll"'XII" PVC CATCH &\SIN WITH PVC CHAT[ CD CO,,StRuCT ••• PVC OIWM. LCNCfH UICI SLOP( P{II Pl.>-M @ CO-,STRUCT SIOCW"I..K UNOCR DRAIN P(II SORSO D-21 @ IHSTAU. 4 •• P(m'ORATCO PIP[ PCII O(T.ll. A @ ll[LOCAT[ 0(1$1-,C [LCCTl!IC RISCR. T(L(PH()t,I( RIS(R. CA81.C 1\1 111S[A (10 BC P[RfOR.,CO IN UTl.lTY PRCMOERS) • ® ~~1=-t~i:~~~ ~~~==~~I~ gg::g~ POINI, 10 11[ OET All A· CATCH BASIN @ ORIVEWA Y ENTRANCE ,osc,u APN '158-142-47 I j .... -CXl51 ,a·• STOSN ORAtN APN 158-142--08 i. ~~!'!'!..~ GRADING PLAN" SCALE: Reduced LEGEND e 1 DENSITY TEST LOCATION (APPROX.) t~~~ ' I (rttf) 1 IICH • 10 f'[[T - - I~ \ .. ~,J LIMITS OF BUILDING PAD FILL (APPROX.) WUWil TtN. RU JJ1JO DPIICD; O/JO/'l018 .... -·-----~ ...... ~-----~ ---__ ... ,~. --...... -~.-----... ~-----~ ....... - - - --- - O:ISt ll'OOO(M r[NC[t;'t .... , ·!! ie,-2roo"t f!/OJt ,. -~" .i:::::1-----,;---- RtYISlOM DCSCRIP TION SECTION B-8: \1\1:.EP SCREED AND YARD DRAIN .. sc,u E.XJSTING EASEMENTS DOIi ~ tAS[W[NT PCR r/P "ll1 O.R. R[C0QOCO J-27-11611 0012 l)lWIW:;( CASOtOO TO em or CAA\.S9liO POt IMP NO. usu 1tCCOROCD 12-11-2002 OOl,)UT1.J1YEASCIIIOfllOSOC&[POtrUNO, 200J-17~ RCCOROCD 2-1&-200J. Cl,NNOl 8[ Pl.OntO PO OCCD "AS BUILT" RU lJllO COAST GEOTECHNICAL G-659416