The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-4503 EX/G Street Address Category Serial # Name Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv S � SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 619- 280 -4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 March 8, 1996 DuVivier Construction SCS &T 9511240 285 North El Camino Real, Suite 212 Report No. 3 Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Grading Operation, Lot 29, Olivecrest Drive, Encinitas, California. REFERENCE: "Updated Geotechnical Report, Lot 29;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; November 27, 1995. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to confirm that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., performed testing and observation services during the grading operation of the subject lot. The grading operation was performed in compliance with the minimum recommendations provided in the referenced report. It is our opinion that the lot is ready to receive the proposed improvements. The foundation recommendations provided in the referenced report are still appropriate and should be implemented. However, since the cut portions of the lot were not undercut, all footings should be founded on formational soils. If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. Q �pEissi , B. A p� F � � Da 'el JB.dler, R. .E. #3603 W ;10 3603 DBA:mw cc: (6) Submitted lr -� PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (619) 259 -8212 WAYNE A. PASCO FAX (619) 259 -4812 R.C.E. 29577 October 31, 1995 PE 658 City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 L Attn: Blair Knoll, NOV 1 1995 RE: LOT 29 MAP 11529 (GRADING PLAN) ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS Dear Mr. Knoll: The purpose of this letter is to address the impact of the storm runoff on the drainage system proposed on the above referenced Grading Plan. The total runoff as determined by the attached calculations is 0.73 cfs. This runoff is the confluenced value of all of the upstream sub - basins. The largest sub -basin generated 0.27 cfs. This flow is intercepted, contained, and conveyed in an earthen swale to a 12" x 12" plastic area drain. the capacity of the area drain is figured using the formula: Q =3.OP Dr.S = 3.0 (4)(1) = 12 cfs where Q = capacity (cfs), P = perimeter and D = depth of headwater available. Divide 12 cfs by 2 to allow for the grate. The resulting capacity is 6 cfs/grate. Therefore, 12" x 12" grate is adequate. The flow depth of 0.73 cfs in a 6" PVC pipe is 3.1" deep. Therefore 6" PVC is adequate to convey Q roo to the point of discharge. Finally, the velocity of Qroo at the point of discharge is 7.3 ft /sec. Therefore, a type 2 rip -rap energy dissipater per S.D.R. S.D. D -40 with No. 2 backing, 1 foot thick with one layer of woven filter fabric 3 feet wide x 6 feet long is adequate to slow down and spread out the concentrated flows to non - erosive level, (see calculations attached). It is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the drainage system as shown on the above referenced Grading Plan is adequate to intercept, contain, and convey Qroo to the proposed point of discharge. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours FESS/ PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. ��p e �F A. pN'�! F /0P low° �� C -D 3 0 Wayne Pasco, President L " RCE 29577 NO. 29577 'rA CIVIL A�' Of GAL \F�� * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA. 92075 Ph. (619) 259 -8212 fax: (619) 259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * Hydrology Analysis: Duvivier Residence, Lot 29- Olive Crest. PE 658 * 100 YEAR STORM 10 -31 -95 MS * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 658A.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:31 10/31/1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 231.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 228.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.898 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.493 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) « «< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.8 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 227.50 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 226.50 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) .27 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) .59 TC(MIN.) = 8.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.49 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE .27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 229.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 228.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = .50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.938 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) .13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) .04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) .13 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = I ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.94 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .13 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 .27 8.49 5.2.44 .09 2 .13 7.00 5.938 .04 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 .37 7.00 5.938 2 .39 8.49 5.244 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .39 Tc(MIN.) = 8.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .13 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW) « «< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 3.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.3 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.6 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 226.50 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 219.60 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 3.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .39 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .05 TC(MIN.) = 8.54 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.54 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.22 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .39 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 20.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = .20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.427 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.377 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) .12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) .03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) .12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.38 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE .12 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 .39 8.54 5.223 .13 2 .12 5.00 7.377 .03 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 .40 5.00 7.377 2 .47 8.54 5.223 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) .47 Tc(MIN.) = 8.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) .16 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.7 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.4 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 219.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 218.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .47 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.,) _ .12 TC(MIN.) = 8.66 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.66 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.18 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .16 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .47 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 20.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 219.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.80 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.129 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 7.377 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .12 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.38 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE .12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS I'D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 45.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 231.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 227.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.352 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.377 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) .24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) .06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) .24 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) ««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 3.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.8 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.9 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 226.50 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 218.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 47.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 3.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = I PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) .24 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) .10 TC(MIN.) = 5.10 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.28 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE .24 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 .47 8.66 5.175 .16 2 .12 5.00 7.377 .16 3 .24 5.10 7.285 .06 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 .69 5.00 7.377 2 .70 5.10 7.285 3 .73 8.66 5.175 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .73 Tc(MIN.) = 8.66 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .25 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW) « «< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 7.3 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 218.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 214.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 60.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .73 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .14 TC(MIN.) = 8.80 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .73 Tc(MIN.) = 8.80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .25 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS J . E '. e . � l CD CD M� •.w f M M cn cn . / o.4 1 0 M o . [.r cm 1 1 1 CL. t.... 1 O CN " M v N z 1= Q ca m '`} 11 F w a O z ^ N cm O 0 00 L _ W ar < M 4 •� 0 0 O G to z u M Zta.J a V u y o C M i a 2 H H Q < O oLlio vi ou X, v I ¢ c c " ) O W -i N w in u' i is 1- I " i A u w 4 " 11-A-7 h I m m u^ I 1 1 1 c c c c 8$ ?+ JJG I 1 1 1 q q q a N N N N > y O ± n U' U' C! .N .N .N m m ollq „" o 0 o rl m v_m v_m a a O a .. Oc.. n —d n...C. n _C. I.- = +vc `o + v N _ U.0 W c I t 1 i r+ G. C } y m j Q� V d 1 1 I 01 0` O C m J o _4- O COQ H e o O {m. m w M .4 C, O L N O O W aN N n in VN .0 p o t r � ( e � �r n u �L C O C) s 10 O e O f` •r n 'r or }LLOU v LV„ _ N Y1 _a ^ •n or - t O L O q� COT- %0 .1 o v n U Q N 1 1 .0 e c N ^' p 02 �o p -0 ... !. c h 8 . U r 0 OC�OO + d— O 8 U �- A L 0.0 c: a 4 : e r- m -. IL a o o d o Q 1 +- in+ C4 at vie a uo O a- C __ g e + O�� O � � N G Ob N^_ N� cl 40 On p • u Lb O „ N O- 7 C Z U O N O% } O h > = 00 Z TAO U < g 1 Uo o car r d UN y r > d `�- Q' _H OO m ` L L L t < Y NzL L 0, O to �Oa Op} U7 _ q d O p{a ~ L� N N N C i I O X � m L q p W J ' - � O f L C L O E U O E O U _ .00 S� 8 S O U L O < q 4 C� U „i N L �cON 0 m O O O L t O . o W =� F 2 e U O C C$ U �b I is ` 1 e O OE O V ►- m — � �— C e 00 e a r 6 ao w o u o F moo p N C t 1 �_Z N �An N bb c 4- t p L U q c $ e c a g i + n o 0 0 0 O -d--- c o O N ^ m U N .PN-- N�SIr� Ir��_ 2^ ` n :9 �± O 'O U q 'D L h U < d O 1 \ I� I �3 \ a � e _ C , y a 0 1 V O WW N C7W RO3 p QY U� p� O Z Op � N Q GZ �p= WO a a'Q�� ^ M� U Ix Z Z ZW� NQ 4J�a' M � p p W �N W =3 i r.4 w Q ZZ Z 2 =2_ DSO J ~ 9 a � W�/7�U WOQw�Cj 4i �OW ZZOQ�I� Qm< p= �O W1ri�t�fnU =F m m Z FZ F� m 5p aU =z } N Wm a �a F- -{U.< M Z zW OF- �O N31-W p� W 00 v1 ZW <m� Z� as W U w�-Oo W C7 Z WN N� L.1W o - W p UUU _ jaz JWF i i 0 0 :. W �� 5rn e,% 1 S� i T 1 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LOT 29 OLIVECREST DRIVE 1 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA i 1 1 PREPARED FOR: i DuVIVIER CONSTRUCTION 285 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 212 1 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 1 1 DEC 0 519 ENGII`IEOM- Oi i `( F ENCINIT PREPARED BY: SOUTHERN SOU N CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. 1 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 i 1 Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 g g ' t v-1 SOIL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA & TESTING, INC. ' 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 619 - 280.4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 November 27 1995 DuVivier Construction SCS &T 9511240 285 North El Camino Real, Suite 212 Report No. 1 Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Updated Geotechnical Report, Lot 29, Olivecrest Drive, Encinitas, California. ' REFERENCES: 1) "Grading and Erosion Control Plan for Duvivier Residence;" Pasko Engineering; undated. ' 2) "Report of As -Built Geology and Field Observations, and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Shell ey-Ol ivenhain Subdivision;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; Project No. 8811059, Report No. 4, dated August 25, 1986. 3) "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Shell ey-Ol ivenhain ' Subdivision;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; Project No. 25086, Report No. 1, dated May 22, 1984. ' Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this updated geotechnical report for the subject ' site. The scope of our work consisted of a review of the referenced reports and grading plan, a site visit by a member of our engineering staff and providing site preparation and foundation ' recommendations for the subject project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' It is our understanding that the subject site will be developed to receive a one and two story split level residential structure of masonry and wood -frame construction. Shallow foundations and conventional slab -on -grade floor systems are anticipated. Masonry retaining walls up to ten feet high are proposed. Grading will consist of cuts and fills up to nine feet and six feet deep, ' respectively. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Olivecrest Drive, in the Olivenhain area of the City of Encinitas, California. The site is presently vacant and is surrounded by residential me i SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Page 2 ' structures to the north and southwest, by Olivecrest Drive to the northwest, and vacant land to the east and southeast. The site consists of Lot 29 Map 11529. The subdivision was mass graded in ' 1986. However, this lot was left essentially undisturbed. SOIL DESCRIPTION It is anticipated that the site is underlain by minor fill, topsoil /slopewash and Torrey Sandstones. ' Minor fill soils associated with the construction of Olivecrest Drive may exist at the northwestern corner of the site. The rest of the site is underlain by topsoil /slopewash deposits. Typically, this ' material consists of loose silty sands and clayey silty sands and should not exceed an estimated four feet in depth. Torrey Sandstone deposits underlie the surficial soils. These deposits typically consist of dense to very dense silty sands. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the development ' of the site as presently proposed, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. GRADING SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing vegetation and deleterious matter from the area of the site to be developed. Existing fill and loose surficial ' deposits underlying proposed fill areas and settlement - sensitive improvements should be removed to firm formational soils. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91, Method A or C. The soil removed should then be replaced as compacted fill. ' Minimum horizontal removal limits of this operation should be four feet away from the perimeter of the improvements or the property line, whichever is less. UNDERCUT: The cut ortion of the ad should be undercut to a depth of three feet from finish P P P ' pad grade. The bottom of the excavation should be sloped toward the fill portion of the pad. SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Page 3 ' SURFACE DRAINAGE: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away from the structure and top of slopes. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to foundations. Rain gutters should be connected to appropriate drainage devices. EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural ' fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and ' beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D- 1557 -91, Method A or C. ' SLOPE STABILITY ' GENERAL: Although no significant slopes are anticipated, it is our opinion that fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination will possess an adequate factor -of- safety with respect to deep seated rotational failure to a height of at least ten feet provided the ' recommendations of this report are implemented. r TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES: Temporary cut slopes exposing formational soils should be constructed at a 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination. Slopes exposing loose surficial soils or ' compacted fill should be constructed at a 1:1 and 0.75:1 inclination, respectively. All temporary cut slopes should be observed by a representative from our office to ascertain whether unforeseen I adverse conditions are encountered. No surcharge loads such as soil stockpile should be placed within a distance from the top of slopes equal to eight feet. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed structure. The ' footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, ' respectively. A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings. This bearing capacity may be increased by one -third when considering wind and /or seismic forces. Footings 1 SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Page 4 located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum distance of seven feet exists between the footings and the face of the slope. In addition, for retaining wall ' footings in similar conditions, a minimum setback of ten feet should exist between the footing and the portion of the footing developing passive pressures. REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with one No. 5 bar positioned near the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. ' CONCRETE SLABS -ON- GRADE: Concrete slabs -on -grade should have a thickness of four. inches and be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each ' way. The bars should bend down at least 12 inches into the perimeter footings and should be positioned at mid - height in the slab. The slab should be underlain by a four -inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. This blanket should consist of 100 percent material passing the half -inch screen and no more than ten percent and five percent passing #100 and #200, ' respectively. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen barrier should be placed on top of the sand layer. A two - inch -thick layer of silty sand should be placed over the visqueen to allow proper concrete curing. EXTERIOR SLABS -ON- GRADE: Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Walks or slabs exceeding five feet in width should be reinforced with 6 "x6 "- W2.9xW2.9 (6 "x6 "-6/6) welded wire mesh and provided with weakened plane joints. Any slabs between five and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joints at the center lines. Slabs exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint located three feet inside 1 the exterior perimeter as indicated on attached Plate Number 1. Both traverse and longitudinal weakened plane joints should be constructed as detailed in Plate Number 1. Exterior slabs adjacent to doors and garage openings should be connected to the footings by dowels consisting of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 -inch intervals extending 12 inches into the footing and the slab. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: It is anticipated that the prevailing foundation soils are ' nondetrimentally expansive. The recommendations presented in this report are applicable to this condition. The expansive potential of the foundation soils should be verified during grading ' operations. ' SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Page 5 ' SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the ' recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. ' ATI GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW The radin and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the g g ' recommendations contained in this report are implemented and no revised recommendations are necessary due to changes in the development scheme. ' EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: The minimum foundation recommendations presented in the foundation section of this report are also applicable for retaining walls. However, a minimum foundation depth of 12 inches may be utilized. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one -third for ( seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one -third. The upper 12 inches of soil should not be considered when calculating passive pressures for exterior walls. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 32 pounds per cubic foot. For restrained walls, a soil pressure of 52 pcf should be assumed. ' These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. This value assume a granular and drained ' backfill condition. Waterproofing specifications and details should be provided by the project architect. A typical wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 2. ' SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Page 6 WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN OBSERVATION: The geotechnical engineer should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been applied and that the subdrain has been properly ' installed. However, unless specifically asked to do so, we will not verify proper application of the waterproofing. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfiiled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values with the exception of the allowable soil bearing g pressure, do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. ' If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN. CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. 1 Q �pFESSfpy� l Daniel B. Adler, R.C.E. #36037 �0� B. Ail F�c V a� Fes A DBA:mw a N0. 36037 cc: (6) Submitted �c EXP. 6 30 - 9'') J} M%. %. 'elf OF Ciiac IAL TRAVERSE JOINTS LONGITUDINAL CONTROL TR E JOINT JOINTS W (ft) TRANSVERSE 3' CONTROL W/2 JOINTS 3' W (ft) JJO 3 W/2 W/2 SP SLAB ON GRADE 10 FEET OR GREATER IN WIDTH SLAB ON GRADE 5 FEET TO 10 FEET IN WIDTH NOTE: 1. 'W' SHOULD NOT EXCEED 15 FEET. 2. JOINT PATTERN SHOULD BE NEARLY SQUARE. ' TOOLED OR SAWED JOINT *T/4 REINFORCEMENT • *T/2 PER REPORT (2' MIN. COVER) *T 1 ' *T = THICKNESS PER REPORT CONTROL JOINT DETAIL NO SCALE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: LOT 29 OLIVENHAIN �� SOIL &TESTING, INC. B Y: DBA DATE: 11 -27 -95 T I JOBNUMBER: 9511240 Plate No: 1 r r —1 % SLOPE MINIMUM _ 6" MIN. 6' MAX. o WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS .o 0 o • 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN ' 6000 OR EQUIVALENT o ' 0 GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL o ' 0 12" TOP OF . o ° O CES R CONCRETE SLAB • o 6' MIN. n 0 1 ' MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE r 1 RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE r r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOT 29 OLIVENHAIN r SOIL & TESTING, INC. Jay: DBA DATE: 11 -27 -95 jog MU M gER: 9511240 Plate No: 2 r IC I , APPENDIX I' SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Appendix, Page 1 LOT 29 OLIVECREST DRIVE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERALINTENT r The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, r preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report I and /or the attached Special provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that my may provided his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provided these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommended rejection of this work. r Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -82 Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -64 or ASTM D -2922 SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Appendix, Page 2 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing r benching the natural round the areas to be filled shall be scarified g g g to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (20 percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter t than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities no to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will c be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Appendix, Page 3 the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Appendix, Page 4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over- built and cut -back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density in 1 it tests the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading„ these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than the allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative SCS &T 9511240 November 27, 1995 Appendix, Page 5 or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29 -C. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required.