1993-3514 G
-¡ / '- c::;-
t (.;,
Category
~c- ' I {
,,' ') { \'
G¡
Street Address
I
. .~ 2 (. 6 C;
Serial # '
I
Name
Description
Plan ck, #
Year
recdescv
8
8
FOR
. Civil Engineering
. Land Planning
. Structural
. Surveying
fõ)~ @ ~~~~\ID
Uü APR 0 8 '993
ENGINEERING SERTVAI~ES
CITY OF ENCINI
APRIL 8,1993
HYDROLOGY STUDY
THE PANEK RESIDENCE
DESCRIPTION:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN
526 DUSTY ACRES COURT
OLIVENHAIN
PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF P.M. 16589
OWNER:
«~~~:~)
\,\ \ ~ ~,¡ ll'< J il
.,', ' \ ." ,', ~,.. )' . ,,'1
\' )'( \ ' 'P; ;
'\\ \. -, " /I
'" ,., '\" i '¡""I" ~ /'
\li>, "..,,-"i\",l-ø/ ,<,,"'/1
"'//> "--"', (""'-y
\<~E;~';; ,
TIM & LINDA PANEK
526 DUSTY ACRES COURT
OLIVENHAIN, CA 92024
909-694-6732
ENGINEER:
LOGAN ENGINEERING
120 BIRMINGHAM DRIVE, S
CARDIFF, CA 92007
619-942-8474
120 Birmingham Dr., Suite 110 . Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 . 619-942-8474
8
8
z o.ç ~
rj: .. ..Dt.s (G,.J e12I""~A
¿> ?:PI CJ)J~~ "v~I~J ~ 'fT<DtEDv(2.G MA~vAt.\\
.. 12Å-1"lð~kL- ~í2~AULA ~ Q::. C-I A
III ~E:re(.GN~G. f-l"¡PRDL-oG-/ ~Uf)"1 fð/Z. -r:P..tv1. Ø1-(40
'1'121\1 Ä--1£ 12oA~ "PL-A~ 1=01<. WH\S'PEí~ WtrJD ~f2.
vvJG, N.J. D\el-K.
* ~10R,,~ WA-'Íb< ~12- 1H~':; Á\2£A l? l~íÐ2..<~E¡YíE.Þ
?;J-{ y..\ f-Hs 'YES<=: WI t-(Þ ~ KðU1EP 1D ?~Di<rJ\
~\t-.\ &1"51"&1\ \~ -eAN~~O ~AN,A f~ 'KoAv-
III 1)-gA\rJA6~ '"BA? ,J ~OI2. 1HlS L.ö l' I'? ðr-1L--/ 1'Kf
(A1' t'\ sa r.
§.
~~p(20LOGti
À :: ö.4'7 kc-
~:; 1-~4 I~/HTZ
1:,e, ::: ~.o MI,J (~UME't) ')
t? '00:: O.4-t7 (1,G4) (o,Á~ ~ l..r;c.(?
" C-öJ QL.J51 D J :
..~,~\tG. &,00 \~ 12ELkT't\ ~L.."¡ 4f"'Å-/...L..J ~,AJDA\2D
CD~~\l'C,l1()~ ~l'as f6~ ~..f".'g. --sf-{cù\--P
-:e£ A-DEGJ k1"t .
L»G' ~ AH€ef ~VJ ¡ A(le\ WÅ(,.((~)
" '
,,' "
)
". '
,"',
":"
','"
'. ..
-"
.
.: ' .
, , ,~ h ....
.
8
8,-
. . --
..
tAILE Z
IUHOFF COEFFICIENTS (Mn-L IETHGD)
. ..'
'.
DEVELOPED AREAS coefflcl."~.!
5011 ~ (1) to
J.and Use -0'
It . C
- - - - -
Residential:
. Single Fani Iy .Ita ."S .50 .55
Hut ti -Uni tS ."S .50 .60 .70
Hobi Ie homes ."S .50 , - .55 if!-
Rural (Iots'greater chan 1/2 acre) .)0 ,.)5 ."0 ."S
C~rc:iat<2) .70 .75 ¡' .80 .8
. ~ Impervt ous
Industrhll (2), .80 .85 .90 ,.95.
9crJ. Impervt ous
NOTES:
, .
, (1) Soil, Grouo uns are avanable at die offices of the Department of Public Works. ,
. .
, (2~h~re actual conditions, deviate significantly from the tabulated ¡~pe~ious-
ness values of 8~ or~. the values liven for coefficient C. "Y be revised
by 8lUlttplytng 8~ or ~ by the ratio of actual hllpervlous}'CSs to ,the
tabula:ed imperviousness. However. In no case shall the final coefficient
be less chan 0.50. For exacple: ' Consider coanerci al property on D loi 1.¡Taup.
Actual I~perv¡ousness
-SOl
Tabulated l..perviousness - ~
. '
Revised C -1æ'. 0.85 - 0.5)
. ...
.
, .' , .
. .
. ;
JV-A-'
- .
. .
.. .
, APPENDIX ¡X-8
, a.,Y. '11'
: .
" ,
.' '.
-. --.. -.-- -:-- ~~-_._. ,
,~ --.-.-----., --.- ..',
"
, .....
. '.';
JNTENSITY-DUMTlori DESIGN CHART
....
< 1_1_-""'.
~
: ..' ~10' 15 20
40 50' 1
30
2
. 3
4
5 6
*Not Applicable to Desert Region
., .
APPENDIX XI
TV.A-U
".: .:,;,.:'":.-'.
-
-
.. . ..
-.
-
r-
,-
-
-
-
----.
-
I
~
covrrrr OF SArt .GrECO '
DEPARTMNT OF SANITATION &
FLOOD COfrTROL
3,8
!.
45'
.
--..-, .....-- _. .~ ..
Pie.. ,. Itf .
U.S:OEPAR'nIEN r OP' COM~IERCt
. .Aft8AI. oe&A-le AltO AT. o...UI.,e AD¡ INIITItA"O1C
"'IN" nvolll .ltA.CH, 0',.C8 0' II ".oLOay. ICATIOHAL. WUTIII:. IIRYlCI
30'
...
...
~
, . .
i .~
118'
Its'
30'
. 11t
)01
151
15'
-
I ,
I
8
I
-.
. I
,
11,8
.. -
-
-
.:---
.
. JI
coum OF SAN DtECO
DEP^RntEHT OF SANITATION ¡..
fLOOD COHTROL I "
"5'
]0'
15'
,,8
"5'
..r..,',,;:','.
-
- -' -. -
-. -' -
-
-
'.
.....~. ~
u.s. DEPAR1\II..:" .' OF COMMERCE
.""""'10 OC.""'C .- AT' .,..'IIIUIIC AIt"'NII"18"T1UN
...CIAIo ftVD'1I ....Ct', on,cl 0' II ItllO,",)OY, "ATIU""" -II"TII" II"",CI
30'
, III
.,' ...
i I.'
I"~ ~
~-'"
, 1,,8
115' .
'0'
l'i'
. - 1178
.
)0'
I~' '
'. ~.
,
,
I
8
11,8
.
I
July 16, 1993
Tim and Linda Panek
526 Dusty Acres Court
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject:
Reference:
BARRY AND ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
P.o. Box 348
Encinitas, CA 92023-0348
(619) 753-9940
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Proposed Single-Family Residence
Portion of Parcel 4, PM 16589
526 Dusty Acres
Encinitas, California
1.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
Portion of Parcel 4, PM 16589
526 Dusty Acres
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Barry and Associates
Dated May 5, 1993
2.
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Dusty Acres and Whisper Wind Drive
T.P,M. 88-110
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Barry and Associates
Dated June 10, 1992
3,
PAVEMENT SECTION
Dusty Acres and Whisper Wind Drive
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Barry and Associates
Dated May 4, 1992
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Panek,
In response to your request, we have performed field density testing
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 was compacted to a minimum of
90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at
(619) 753-9940. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
A.R, BARRY AND ASSOCIATES
C(((o¿
A.R. Barry~.
Principal Engineer
t;,.
. ,.
COMPACTION REPORT
Proposed Single-Family Residence
Portion of Parcel 4, PM 16589
526 Dusty Acres
Encinitas, California
Prepared for:
Tim and Linda Panek
526 Dusty Acres Court
Encinitas, CA 92024
July 16, 1993
w.o, G-1314
Prepared by:
A. R. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 348
Encinitas, California
"
July 16, 1993
W.O. G-1314
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
This
report presents
the resul ts
of
our observation and
field
density testing on the subject property. The project entailed the
removal and recompaction of on-site deposits in order to develop a
level building pad.
Granular non-expansive soil was used to cap the
lower pad.
The results of our density tests are present on Table I.
The approximate location of these tests is shown on the enclosed
site Plan, Plate I.
LABORATORY TEST DATA
The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was
performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-78.
Field density tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556.
The results of the
laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil used as compacted fill
on the site, is summarized below:
Description
Maximum Dry Density
(P.c.£.)
Optimum
Moisture (%)
Sandstone, medium grained,
tan to brown inter-bedded with
pale green sandy claystone
mixed with surface silty sand
119.1
11. 2
EXPANSIVE SOILS
The surface soils in the northerly pad areas exhibit a potential
expansion in the low to medium range, however, this pad will be used
as a riding area and will not contain a structure according to the
July 16, 1993
W.O. G-1314
Page 2
plans.
The southerly pad, however, has been capped with 5' of non-
expansive soil to accommodate two structures as shown on the grading
plan.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
See Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report (Reference No.1)
DISCUSSION
The following is a discussion of the grading operations as they were
performed on the site:
1.
All surface deleterious material was removed and disposed of
off-site, prior to the placement of fill.
2.
The area of the proposed pads was excavated to a maximum depth
of approximately 6.0 feet below the existing grade.
Excavated
materials were mixed prior to placement.
Fill consisting of a
mixture of excavated materials was placed in lifts 6.0 to 8.0
inches thick, moistened as required and compacted with heavy
earth-moving equipment.
3.
Seepage was discovered at the top of the cut bank to the west,
adjacent to the west property line.
It was determined that the
neighbor to the west had left the garden hose on for a week.
July 16, 1993
W.O. G-1314
Page 3
The water was shut off and in a week the surface water had
somewhat dried up.
4.
The southerly pad was capped with a 5 foot deep layer of non-
expansive soil, excavated on site and stockpiled for capping.
5.
The fill extends approximately
6.0 lateral
feet beyond the
building perimeter and was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of
the laboratory maximum dry density, as indicated by our test
results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations
Footings may be designed for a bearing val ue of 1500 pounds per
square foot, as indicated in the preliminary geotechnical report.
The depth of the footings should be a minimum of 12 or 18 inches
below
the
lowermost
adjacent
grade
for
one-
and
two-story
structures, respectively.
Footings should be reinforced with two
No.4 bars located 3.0 inches from the base of the footing and two
No.4 bars located 2.0 inches from the top.
Slabs on Grade
Garage slabs
on
grade
should
be a
full
4.0
inches
thick
and
reinforced wi th No.
3 bars,
placed 24 inches on center in both
directions.
The proposed slabs should be underlain by a minimum of
2.0 inches of sand.
Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a
..
July 1G, 1993
W.O. G-1314
Page 4
minimum G.O-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be
placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two-inch
layer of sand.
~!,ainaqe
Pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the
residence to a suitable location.
Water should not be allowed to
pond or
flow onto slopes.
Roof water shoul d be colI ected and
conducted to a suitable location, via non-erodible devices.
The
drainage swale at the top of the cut bank should be excavated and
recompacted with a hand whacker in the area of saturation due to the
neighbor's garden hose.
Water collected at the base of the easterly
fill slope to be checked for drainage to the street.
utility Trench Backfill
We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least
one foot
above the
top of
the condui t .
The bedding shoul d be
flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit.
On-site
material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, may
be utilized for backfill above the bedding.
INSPECTIONS
All
structural
footings
excavations
should
be
inspected
by
a
represen ta ti ve of
this
firm,
prior
to
the placement
of
steel.
"
July 16, 1993
W.O. 0-1314
Page 5
Additional grading operations for subdrain trench backfill should be
inspected and tested by this firm.
LIMITATIONS
1.
This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made
without our knowledge and written approval to the slope or pad
grade on the subject lot, subsequent to the issuance of this
report.
All
ramps made through s lopes and pads,
and other
areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted
fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be
reviewed unl ess such backfi 11 ing operations are performed under
our observation and tested for requi red compaction.
Loose
material
cast
over
compacted
slopes
shall
negate
our
certification of slope face compaction, unless the material is
removed in accordance with our instructions.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at
(619) 753-9940.
This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
A. R. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES
?~ ~P'E.
Principal Engineer
,.
TABLE I
Moisture Dry Relative
Test Test Content Density %
- No. Location ~Iev~ % (pcf) Compaction
1 See Map 139 17.6 113.3 FAIL*
(too wet)
2 See Map 138 12.1 112.4 94.5
3 See Map 137 13.0 106.8 90
4 See Map 140 13.3 108.6 91. 2
5 See Map 140 11.1 111.1 93.4
6 See Map 141 14.9 117.4 92.4
7 See Map 140 14.5 117.5 92.5
8 See Map 142 11. 2 109.8 92.3
9 See Map 142 10.9 108.7 91. 4
* Fai 1 ed test I area reworked unti I 90 percent of the 1 aboratory
maximum dry density was obtained.
. ,'.
'.
-\
I
---~- -
GRADING
LEG EN'D
PLAN
B-1
~ BORING LOCATION (approxo)
Ie
DENSITY TEST LOCATION
(APPROX)
[.-
. ---- - -- -
0
'Do
20'