HomeMy WebLinkAbout2857_Bentley WyHwIfin tonGelchnical
n8ificefing,
October 9, 1995
Mr. Bernist Mazur
DIAMOND BAR EAST PARTNERS
3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300
Torrance, CA 90503
SUBJECT: Response to the City of Diamond Bar Memorandum for 2857 Bentley Way,
Lot 26, Tract 47851, Diamond Bar, CA HGEI Project No. 91-02-0109A-26
REFERENCES: 1) City of Diamond Bar Memorandum from Mike Myers to Anne
Garvey for the Subject Lot, Dated September 29, 1995
2) Geotechnical Review of Precise Grading Plan, Foundation Plan &
Details for the Subject Lot, Dated December 6, 1994, by HGEI, Project
No. 91-02-0109A-08.
3) Grading Plan for the Subject Lot, Revised August 7, 1995, by Lanco
Engineering.
3a) Grading Plan for the Subject Lot, Revised October 9, 1995, by
Lanco Engineering.
4) "Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1 Through 17 and 20
Through 48, Vesting Tentative Tract 47851, Diamond Bar, CA," Dated
October 11, 1994, by HGEI, Project No. 91-02-0109A.
Dear Mr. Mazur:
In response to a request from Richard Gould with JCC Homes, Harrington Geotechnical
Engineering, Inc. is presenting this response to the referenced City of Diamond Bar
Memorandum.
The memorandum, a copy of which is attached, contains two comments related to the
recommended foundation setback distance from ascending and descending slopes
presented in our letter/report of December 6, 1994, (Ref. 2). Those recommendations were
based upon, in part, our experience with the subject tract development and other projects.
Batavia Business Center, 1938 North Batavia Street, Suite N, Orange, CA 92665 (714) 637-3093 . (800) 924-7645 ® FAX (714) 637-3096
DIAMOND BAR EAST PARTNERS
Project No. 91-02-0109A-26
October 9, 1995
Page Two
It is our opinion that, although the setback distances presented in the referenced
letter/report do not meet the requirements of Figure 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code,
1994 Edition, they do meet the requirements and intent of Section 1806.4 of that code and
thus could be approved by the City under the provisions of Subsection 1806.4.6, Alternate
Setback and Clearance. However, the memorandum indicates that the City of Diamond Bar
is not going to allow alternate setbacks for this lot and is requiring the more stringent
requirements of Figure 18-1.
The grading plan has been revised to show the correct slope location since our letter of
December 6, 1994, was prepared. The retaining wall shown on the previous and current
plans (Refs. 3 & 3a) does meet the requirement for the H/2 setback as defined in
Subsection 1806.4.2. Also, the top of slope location shown on the current plan (Ref. 3a) has
moved slightly further from the house. For the revised position shown, the minimum
horizontal distances from the outside bottom edge of 18-inch-deep footings to the
descending slope face exceeds the H/3 distance required by Figure 18-1 by several feet.
Thus, deepened footings should not be necessary for this residence.
It is our opinion that grading depicted on the revised plan dated October 9, 1995, was
completed in substantial compliance with the recommendations contained in Ref. 4 and is
acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint we make no representation as to the accuracy
of dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design.
We trust this response is acceptable to the City. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please call.
Very truly yours,
HARRINGTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC.
Prepared By:
Attachment
Q \ DOCS\08AR\0108-26. RSP
Reviewed By: