@ACI - Rancho Mission Viejo 312 R13

Project: Rancho Mission Viejo Tract 17562

Job No.: 312

Item No: 9901

2015_07_16 RMV RG Model Area 1 Includes:

  • 3D rough grade surface for Area 1
  • 2D / 3D linework as specified
  • Layer List with layer names, descriptions, and colors

 2015_07_21 RMV RG Model Area 1 R1 Includes:

  • 2:1 extended to lot line on pads with ditches along backline
  • Revised pad 107 to extend setback across entire front of lot per Troy's request
  • Added atypical side yard slopes (cut slopes) on pads 51-53 and 70

      2015_07_23 RMV RG Model Area 1 R2 Includes:

    • Updated and stitched together new CAD from Rev 3 with original CAD and previous model.
    • Revised TC grades, RW, Parkway Toe, Street Undercut on south end of Street R and south end of Street P.
    • Revised elevation of pads 85 and 107.

      2015_07_24 RMV RG Model Area 1 R3 Includes:

    • Revised TC grades, RW, Parkway Toe, Street Undercut on V Street between Airoso and W Streets.

      2015_07_28 RMV RG Model R4 Includes:

    • Complete RG model for Areas 1 and 3
    • Completed model for Area 3 and combined with Area 1 R3

      2015_07_30 RMV RG Model R5 Includes:

    • Added text for pads

      2015_08_04 RMV RG Model R6 Includes:

    • Completed RG model for Area 2 and combined models for Areas 1, 2, and 3
    • Added text for TC to the design map

      2015_08_10 RMV RG Model R7 Includes:

    • Revised RG model for Area 2 to include clubhouse changes
    • Added text for RG to the design map
    • Broke model into 1) A1 and 2) A2-3

      2015_08_18 RMV RG Model R8 Includes:

    • Revised RG model for Area 2 to include alley changes in Lot 17/18
    • Completed RG model for Area 5
    • Broke long 3D lines into smaller segments for easier stakeout
    • Two models are provided:
      • Area 1
      • Areas 2, 3, 5 combined

      2015_08_18 RMV RG Model R8a Includes:

    • Billing only for charge back to RMV
    • Work done to revise RG model for Area 2 to include alley changes in Lot 17/18 (included in R8 model)

    2015_08_26 RMV RG Model R9 Includes (no charge): 

    • Added 4ft-4in bench to backs of 2 retaining walls 
      • Back of Lot 21 (west side)
      • Between Lot 30 and Airoso St
    • Corrected the following vertical curve areas:
      • Area 2, Private St, south side cul-de-sac, 50ft VC, lower UC 0.25ft
      • Area 2, Private St, north side cul-de-sac, 50ft VC, lower UC/RW 0.21ft
      • Area 3, AL St, westernmost VC in cul-de-sac, 50ft VC, lower UC/RW 0.16ft
      • Area 5, B St, north side, 80ft VC, raise UC/RW 0.20ft

    2015_09_07 RMV RG Model R10 Includes: 

    • Completed RG model for Area 4
    • Area 4 is combined with Area 1
    • Only Area 1-4 is provided - not changes are made to Areas 2-3-5

    2015_09_18 RMV RG Model R11 Includes:

    • Updated Lot BY at Lot 146 to make top of slope 2% up from top of RW (previous model sloped down from top of RW to top of slope)

    2015_09_22 RMV RG Model R12 Includes:

    • Plan Rev 3 changes
    • Added new grading information for Lots 60 and 62
    • On Lot 61, added low point to the silt basin and added FG grades (544.4, 544.7, 544.6, 544.5) to NE portion of the lot near the parkway per direction of Jerry Lopez. In the original model, the 2ft back from RW was calculated and it did not match the FG grades shown. Jerry advised to make a vertical cut there to add the FG grades. This results in a 2% grade to the south per the plan. 

    2015_10_15 RMV RG Model R13 Includes:

    • Latest changes received from Jerry Lopez (plan sheets with redlines attached).

     Assumptions / Notes:

    In Lot 33 (first left on AH St when turning off of Airoso St), the RG on the right end of the T is 478.5. This is assumed to be 476.5.
    In Lot 39 (last left on AK St when turning right off of Andaza St and left off of AM St), the first RG grade is 471.9. To match the correct slope, this is assumed to be 473.9.
    In Lot 16 (first rigth on Esencia Dr when turning south from Airoso St), the first RG grade is 529.2. This is assumed to be 527.2 to match slope. The end (straight in) is 527.8, this is assumed to be 528.8. The middle RG on the right is 527.1 and this is assumed to be 529.0. Slopes and comparison to other alleys is used to change these grades.

    For retaining walls between RW and pads, assume 2% up from RW to bottom of wall and top of wall set to TW elevations shown. 

    No TC grades are given on AF / AG St, so top of undercut is elevated to 1.64ft above RG grades shown. 
    In Lot 24 (third left on A St when turning south from B St), the first RG grade is assumed to be 512.6 to match the 1% grade, instead of 469.7.
    in Lot 26 (first left on A St when turning north from B St), the TCs at the alley of the entrance are labeled 521.5. This creates a hump on the west side of A St. These were assumed to be typos and adjusted to 519.1 on the north side of the alley and 518.94 on the south side of the alley.

    The east end of Chiquita Canyon on the north side has slopes drawn inside the curb. Since the model is only being built to the northern RW, the slopes / contours were ignored.

    In the unlabeled street east of the kidney-shaped park on Esencia Dr (Lot 61), when you offset the TC in 1.5ft to get to top/bottom of street undercut, these lines do not line up perfectly with the alley undercut lines. The T2-T2 section for that street shows 2ft wide C&G.
    The two RG grades (541.1 and 540.6) at RW on the southeast side of the kidney-shaped park do not seem correct. All the other RG grades on this line match well with top of RW grade (TC + parkway width X 2%). The grades calculated at these points are 541.32 (0.21ft higher) and 540.87 (0.27ft higher).
    The FG grades given in the northeast quadrant of the kidney-shaped island do not follow the calculated grades from TC. Grades in question are 544.4, 544.7, 544.6, and 544.5.
    The tops of the slopes at the intersection of AA St and Airoso St are omitted. Adding a 2:1 slope from parkway toe up to top fo slope, gives a top of slope elevation higher than pad elevation. The slope goes from pad line directly to parkway toe.
    All flowlines between and beside pads are omitted from the model per Troy's direction. (Example: flowlines between Lot 44 and Chiquita Canyon Dr and between Lots 43 and 44)