2009-10153 GLine: s7 OU 3 301 6
i t 1 1 v r L' " 1 1 Iv 1 1 H J
J�� yl_� � ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPAR B7 "j
D �T 505 S. VULCAN AVE. j
-AP6 SZZ— 'f W ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT
PERMIT
NO.: 10153GI
PARCEL NO. 254- 030 -2900
PLAN
NO.:
10153G
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1521 NEPTUNE AVE
CASE
NO.:
08147 / CDP
APPLICANT NAME TENAJA CA, LLC
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
1,149.27
MAILING ADDRESS: PMB 496 P.O. BOX 30000
PHONE
NO.:
7.
CITY: JACKSON STATE: WY ZIP:
83002 -
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
CONTRACTOR : ASKEY INC.
PHONE
NO.:
619- 444 -4401
LICENSE NO.: 785030
LICENSE TYPE:
C12
ENGINEER : RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
PHONE
.00
760 - 942 -1106
PERMIT ISSUE D 2/10
PERMIT
.00
------------
PERMIT EXP. DATE: 4/2 ll PERMIT ISSUED BY:
/%ss
✓ / /�/
- - - - --
INSPECTO RON BRADY
--- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
1.
PERMIT FEE
.00
2.
GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
5,746.34
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
1,149.27
6.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
114,978.00
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FE
.00
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
.00
9.
IN -LIEU UNDERGRN
.00
10.IN
-LIEU IMPROVMT
.00
ll.PLAN
CHECK FEE
.00
12.PLAN
CHECK DEPOSIT:
.00
------------
- - - - --
DESCRIPTION
OF
WORK ----------
- - - - --
PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK,
DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL ALL PER APPROVED
PLAN 10153 -G. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER
APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS. CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT REQUIRED FOR ROW WORK. LETTER DATED OCTOBER 26, 2009 APPLIES.
- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION 4 VI -)I v
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED I -//
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION — I 11
FINAL INSPECTION
V75,0 M Wa FM "9w
Of"" FEW,
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STA
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS '
ANY PERMIT ISSU5D PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. /
S EGNATfJRE DATE SIG ED
ziao�l% 70-753 -�'d
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHE
Resource
Development
Corporation
CML ENGINEERING • 5URVEYING • PLANNING
Date: July 10, 2011
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Engineer's Pad Grade Certification for Project No. 08 -0147 CDP and
Grading Permit No. 10153 -G
Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a
Pad Certification Letter for 1603 Crest Drive, Encinitas. As the Engineer of Record for the subject
project, I hereby state that all rough grading for this project has been completed in conformance
with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas Codes and Standards.
23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevation as field verified and shown on the
approved grading plan:
Area Pad Elevation per.Plan Pad Elevation per Field Measurement
Basement Level 80.8 80.8
Main House Pad 90.0 90.0
Guest House Pad 95.8 95.8
—K, By: Engineer of Record Date: 1)
Tian Donald, R 175
License Expires 3/31/2012
BRIAN
DONALD
No. 26175
CIVIL
2410 5TROMDERG CIRCLE • CARL56AD, CA 92010 • TEL (760)942 -1106 • FAX (760) 730 -3059
r.
C - Story Poles, Inc.
Chris Collins
.
N" E - �A
S(r5' Z
OATE -7--7-tf d /0 -b c
38
NWL Sr DE EL -
LF OL4
+ -
CL
-
S
�
-(z�
38
MH F2r
pEF S
CAL• u
ve F�LAi
FE tin A,
r F
L_�_VEL
14 c-- -s L
i Si �
5Rr7R
A IN E
Es, p:515)
Ri�ource
C��veiopment
Cor"poratiori
CML ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
00_,�7
Date: November 26, 2011
Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Grading Permit No. 10153 -G1
The grading under permit number 10153 -GI has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As
Graded Plan ".
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that the lot drainage conforms with the
approved grading plan and that the swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street
and /or an appropriate drainage system.
All the Low Development, Source Control and treatment Control Best Management
Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice
Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the required
maintenance covenant(s).
- ' — rruN26 Engineer of Record: Dated: 11/ �
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's
signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and
will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility:
Engineering Inspector:
Dated:
2410 5TROM13ERG CIRCLE • CARL515AD, CA 92010 • TEL (760)942 -1106 • FAX (760) 730 -3059
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Chicago Title Company Escrow Division
AND WHEN RECORDED MAILTO
AND MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO:
Tenaja CA LLC
P.O. Bo: 1860
Bentonville, AR 72712
Order No. 930020516 -U50
Escrow No. 7685 -LM
Parcel No. 254 -030 -28 -00
D 0 C # 201 0 - 0409459
11111111111111111 { 11111{ I111111111illlllllllllllllllllll
SPACE
GRANT DEED
AUG 10, 2010 8:00 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
DAVID L. BUTLER. COUNTY RECORDER
FEES: 1351.00 -
OC OC
PAGES: 3
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS S1 .320.00 and CITY $ (1 r
X computed on full value of property conveyed, or 9 J
computed on full value less liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale.
unincorporated area: X City of Encinitas, and
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Rabab Binno, a married woman as her sole and separate property
hereby GRANTS to
Tenaja CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
the following described real property in the County of San Diego. State of California:
The Southerly Forty -Five Feet of Lot Fourteen in Block "F' of South Coast Park No. 5, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, as shown on Map No. 2078, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, State of California, said Southerly 45 feet being measured at right angles Northlery from the
Southerly line of said Lot 14; more particularly described as per EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Continued on page two ...
(AL� \Pvq�-,)
zI �4c �44tkh
ltif �.IQf�PAlAtL'
Date June 29, 2010
R Binno
Michigan
STATE OF C*HFe*WA
COUNTY OF 04 IGIQ tJ
On 3(Aiy 15, }olobefore me,
personally appeared
t S.S.
) I�►Imbe,rl� ShRI(�I
(�f Cf fe01NM Dt 1�f NrKtli
TIabab 13Ino0
9583
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /sh0they executed the same in his/her /their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of C44ferma that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct. M (Gwsail
WITNESS m hand and official
S,gnetnrc
iY1�l1M
M*WIF /1tl�c • MtlYDon
w cargrabn [tow Aug 26 ml
IN Co Kart
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9584
THE SOUTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 14 IN BLOCK "F ", OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 5, IN THE
CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP
NO. 2078, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
NOVEMBER 21, 1927, SAID SOUTHERLY 45 FEET BEING MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES
NORTHERLY FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14.
ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 13
SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER AS LOCATED
BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 5 MAP NO. 2078. SAID CORNER
BEING 4X4 REDWOOD POST IN THE EAST BOUNDARY OF NEPTUNE AVENUE AS SHOWN
BY SAID MAP NO. 2078; THENCE NORTH 0 031'30" EAST 418.51 FEET ALONG THE
BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SECTIONS 4 AND 5 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THIS
POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 14, BLOCK "F" SOUTH COAST PARK
NO. 5, AS PER MAP NO. 2078; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY NORTH
0 °31'30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 47.88 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 14
IN BLOCK "F" FIRST ABOVE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 70 °33'15" EAST ALONG SAID
PROLONGATION 49.80 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLINE OF NEPTUNE AVENUE
ACCORDING TO MAP NO. JL4 AND CENTERLINE OF VACATED NEPTUNE AVENUE
ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 2078; THENCE SOUTH 15 °47' 15" EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE
OF NEPTUNE AVENUE; VACATED TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 14 AND 15 BLOCK "F' MAP NO.
2078; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE DIVIDING
LINE BETWEEN LOTS 14 AND 15 BLOCK "F" MAP NO. 2078 TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
APN: 254 -030 -28
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
3569 Fdth Ave.. Suite 100
San DieOC, CA 92703
& Associates Fas 619. 29 q. 6900
Plan Review Services, Inc.
vmwsmrconsultinggroup. mm
APPROVAL LETTER
April 12, 2010
Mr. Steven Nowak
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633
RE: Project Name: NEPTUNE NORTE BEACH HOUSE - TEMPORARY SHORING
Project Number: 254 - 030 -29
Dear Mr. Nowak
In response to your request, SMR & Associates Plan Review Services, Inc. has reviewed the
documents submitted for the above - referenced project and finds that the documents meet our
approval with the following exception: None
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if
we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
CRAP R. Aecnrie}ne Dl�n Devimu Cnnrinne Inn
Mehdi Rashti, S.E.
Principal
MR: Ahmad Zadeh
Enclosures:
(1) Attached 3rd check set containing plan, calculations and FOR responses for 2nd
check set
FLC FLORES LUND
CONSULTANTS
April 9, 2010
SMR and Associates
3569 Fifth Ave., Suite too
San Diego, CA 92103
Subject: Neptune Norte Beach House - Plan Review Response
To all applicable parties,
The purpose of this letter is to address the Plan Review questions received April 1, 2010. The issues
are addressed below:
4. Minimum construction surcharge of 72 psf has been applied to beam calculations. See revised
calculations dated 4 -9 -10 for all applicable changes.
5. Sloped lagging detail has been removed. The typical construction slope cut will be utilized in lieu of
the sloped lagging detail. This change came as a result from typical construction practices and
collaboration with the shoring contractor.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. If you have any questions or need
further information on the above, please contact me at anytime.
Very Truly Yours,
Flores Lund Consultants
A A - J- .L -..-.-
Structural Design Engineer
7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego. California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 - FAX (858) 566 -0627
Civil and Structural Engineering www.florealund.com
Structural Calculations
for
NEPTUNE NORTE BEACHHOUSE
TEMPORARY SHORING
ENCINITAS, CA
Prepared for:
WESTERN FOUNDATIONS AND SHORING, INC.
Project #: 10009
Date Issued: 3/4/2010
Revision Date: 411/2010
Revision Date: 4/9/2010
Prepared By:
rLC FLORES LUNO
C O N S U LTA N T S
7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego, California 92121
Civil and Structural Engineering
°,.�oFess�oN'
a�F4�O RAYMO
i�f3�fLOR y
_ w Y►'I�IA �a
No. 180
* REN.8- 11
s� STRUCTURAL
9TH
op CAIYF�Q
(858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627
www.floreslund.com
Active Pressure:
Passive Pressure:
Max Passive Pressure:
Factor Of Safety:
Arching:
Design Parameters:
FLG PLOAEB LUND
GON6L11-7AN76
Beam Callouts
Design
Cut (ft.)
Cut on Sch. (If
different from Cut)
urch (sf)
-poun()
Pfdk
Wound (ft.)
Spacing (ft.)
Caisson Dia. (in.)
Space between PL and
F.O.W. (inches)
N 1
5
72
5.33
0
8
24
N2 -N7
10.5
72
5.33
4.5
8
24
N8
5
72
5.33
0
8
24
s
(1)
PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8 * -0. O.C.
Temporary Soldier Beams:
Ni
IPLG PLOq.B LUNG
Q01SISULTANTS
Active
35 pcf
Cut Ht.
5.0 ft
Caisson Dia. 24 In.
Passive
300 pcf
Spacing
8 ft
Arching 2
Pmax
psf
Cut on Sdied
0 ft
Req. FOS 1.2
gacbve
175 psf
Pactive
3.5 kips
Hacctive 1.7 ft
gsurch
72 psf
Psurch
2.9 kips
Hsurch 2.5 ft
Hound
5.33 kips
Wound 0 ft
Minimum
Embedmen 9.0 ft
M.A.
8.23 ft
As seen In KEY
Toe
1.54 ft
=Emb - Toe /2
Reactions
Allowables
Rb
24.31 kips
Rb
29.72 kips
Embedment F.S. = 1.22
Rt
12.6 kips
Rt
15.2 kips
Overall= 1.22 1.21
Beam Moments
M.A.
3 ft
ignore top (1.5
x Caisson Diameter of soil)
Msoil
16.3 k'
Max Beam Depth? no max inches
Msurch.
15.8
Wound.
16.0
Mu(temp.)
77.1 W
Minimum
Use W16X26
Total Equivalent Uniform Load =
8/3 W
phiMn= 166 k'
= 3.5
Ixx= 301 iW4
Amax =
W x IA3
k
15xExl
=
0.01 inches
(1)
PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8' -0' O.C.
Temporary Soldier Beams: N8 PLG rLOpl9 LUND
Mu(temp.)
Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W
= 3.5
Amax = W x I ^3 k
15xExI
= 0.01 inches
61.6 k' Minimum
Use W16X26
phiMn= 166 k'
Ixx= 301 inA4
(3)
CONSULTANTS
Active
35 pcf
Cut Ht.
5.0 ft
Caisson Dia.
24 in.
Passive
300 pcf
Spacing
8 ft
Arching
2
Pmax
psf
Cut onSched
0 ft
Req. F05
1.2
gactive
175 psf
Pactive
3.5 kips
Hacbve
1.7 ft
qsurch
72 psf
Psurch
2.9 kips
Hsurch
2.5 ft
Pfound
5.33 kips
Wound
0 It
Minimum
Embedmen
9.0 ft
M.A.
8.23 R
As seen in KEY
Toe
1.54 ft
=Emb - Toe /2
Reactions
Allowables
Rb
24.31 kips
Rb
29.72 kips
Embedment F.S. = 1.22
Rt
12.6 kips
Rt
15.2 kips
Overall= 1.22
1.21
Beam Moments
M.A.
3 ft
Ignore top (1.5 x
Caisson Diameter of soil)
Msoil
16.3 k'
Max Beam
Depth? no max
inches
Msurch.
15.8
Mfni md.
16 n
Mu(temp.)
Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W
= 3.5
Amax = W x I ^3 k
15xExI
= 0.01 inches
61.6 k' Minimum
Use W16X26
phiMn= 166 k'
Ixx= 301 inA4
(3)
FLC IPLORES LUNG
CONSULTANTS
LAGGING DESIGN:
VERIFY ADEQUACY OF 3 x 12 LAGGING BOARDS. TAKEADVANTAGE OF SOILARCHING BETWEEN
SOLDIER BEAMS.
AT DEPTHS BEYOUND Ham,,= CLEAR SPACING / (2- TAN(45- (0/2)).
SOIL PRESSURE REACHES A MAXIMUM, CONSTANT VALUE DUE TO ARCHING ACTION OF THE SOIL.
FROM THE PREVIOUS SHEET:
SPAN: 8'-0"
FOR 24" DIAMETER CAISSON: Hum =5.2'
FOR 36" DIAMETER CAISSON: HIw =4.8'
BY INSPECTION, THE 24" DIAMETER CASE 15 MORE CRITICAL
PNmm = yl.jan(45 -02)
= (120 pcf)(3 ft)tan(45 -30/2)
= 208 psf
W = 240 plf PER FOOT OF BOARD
M = WI Zln nIfIP] S21 Po
M = 1687.5 lb -ft = 20,250 lb -in.
FOR 3 x 12 LUMBER, b = 3 in.
S = (12 in.)(3 in.)7 /6= 18 in3 /ft
fbero. = (20,250 lb-in.) / (18 in' /ft) =1125 psi
PER CALIFORNIA TRENCHING & SHORING MANUAL 10 -6
-MAX LAGGING LOAD = 400 psf
- LAGGING DESIGN LOAD= 0.6
-PHmm = (400 psf)(0.6) = 240 psf
�1 +�.�����.Y -v ,.I ,�Y+iYVl YY1V 111- IVIIIY U•1
USE: DOUGLAS FIR -LARCH (north) (No.1 or No. 2) OR HEM FIR
%= 850 psf
fb=(fb)(CACfU)(Cr) =850x 1.2Sx1.2x1.0= 127Spsi>1125psi MEMBEROA.
7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego, California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627
Civil and Structural Engineering www.flaraslund.com
APR 122010
l
Structural Calculations
for
NEPTUNE NORTE BEACHHOUSE
TEMPORARY SHORING
ENCINITAS, CA
Prepared for:
WESTERN FOUNDATIONS AND SHORING, INC.
Project #: 10009
Date Issued: 3/4/2010
Revision Date: 4/1/2010
Revision Date: 4/912010
Prepared Bv:
FLORES LuNO
C O N S U L T A N T S
RAYMO- D r�
ND. I
* REN.6a -11 *:=
P� STRU(TURAI: �e =
.47Te OP CAL
7220 Trade Street. Suite 120 • San Diego. California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627
Clod and St"esurel Engineering www.floreelund.com
F L G F-L_ORES LLW,0
CONSULTANTe
7220 TRADE STREET, SUITE 120
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -2325
TEL (856) 566 -0626
CANTILEVER SHORM -3 KEY:
MMAZ
"m occuw
1
PROJECT_
SHEET No._
CHECKED BY
xp
/ 73
REACTIONS:
OF 1
AJ DATE. 2009
Rt^AI F NTR
DE51GN PARAMETERS:
B•Flc e• SSOI
OILLS
Iii • IRAwye • REPORT
x CUT x 5PAChYn=fia
x SPACWj -R
CUT x SPACING -FA.,
R_ P,�X (HAc" + M.A.) + %.cu x (Hm,.,, + M.A.) + P.a.o x (H,,.+ M.A. )
B- EMB/2
RT = R,-(Pr,w. + pa' + P„am )
ALLOWABLE REACTIONS:
Re= (3 x P x IEMB-TOEA x P+ ,25 x (EMB -TOE)) x CAISSON PIA. x ARC;WlW4 x INC.
RT = EMBEDMENT x P x CAISSON DIAMETER x ARCHING x INCREABE
51ZE BEAM:
ADD 15% EMBEDMENT DEPTH TO THE MaIENT AW . 0.15 x EMBEDMENT
M, L =P,r,Mx (H,a,, +,15xEMB)+ 19,,,a4 x (H,,„ +.15xEMB)+ P„.x (H,p,m +.15xEM5)
M, =1.4 xM,mL/ 1.25
Active Pressure:
Passive Pressure: 3(
Max Passive Pressure:
Factor Of Safety: 1
Design Parameters:
FLG rLOA■e LUNG
CONS UL7AN76
PLG rLoaeeLuNo
corvsuLTANTs
Design Results
Callout
Beam Size
Deflection
Reg, Moment
Embed. (ft.)
N1
W16X26
N1
W16X26
0.01
77.06
9
N2 -N7
W18X3S
0.14
243.45
15.5
N8
W16X26
0.01
61.65
9
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
Ll
No Section,
0
0.00
0
0
No Section,
0
0.00
0
Results for Schedule
Callout
Beam Size
Cut on Sched.
Emb.
Total
N1
W16X26
5
9
14
N2 -N7
W18X35
10.5
15.5
26
N8
W16X26
5
9
14
Section, Re
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Re4
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Rex
0
0
0
Section, Re
0
0
0
Section, Re
0
0
0
Section, Rel
0
0
0
(1)
PER SOLDIER BEAM ® 8'-0' O.C.
Temporary Soldier Beams: N1
ry
FLG PLOW ■s �utio
CONBUI.TANTB
Active
35 pcf
Cut Ht.
5.0 ft
Caisson Dia. 24 in.
Passive
300 pcf
Spacing
8 ft
Arching 2
Pmax
psf
Cut on srhed
0 ft
Req. FOS 1.2
qactive
175 psf
Pactive
3.5 kips
Hactive 1.7 ft
gsurch
72 psf
Psurch
2.9 kips
Hsurch 2.5 ft
Pfound
5.33 kips
Wound 0 ft
Minimum
Embedmen
9.0 ft
M.A.
8.23 ft
As seen in KEY
Toe
1.54 ft
=Emb - Toe /2
Reactions
Allowables
Rb
24.31 kips
Rb
29.72 kips
Embedment F.S. = 1.22
Rt
12.6 kips
Rt
15.2 kips
Overall= 1.22 1.21
Beam Moments
M.A.
3 ft
Ignore top (1.5 x Caisson Diameter of soil)
Msoil
16.3 k'
Max Beam
Depth? no max inches
Msurch.
15.8
Wound.
16.0
Mu(temp.)
77.1 k'
Minimum
Use W16X26
Total Equivalent Uniform Load =
8/3 W
phiMn= 166 k'
= 3.5
Ixx= 301 inA4
AmaX =
W x IA3
k
15xExI
=
0.01 inches
(1)
PER SOLDIER BEAM ® B' -0' O.C.
F G
Minimum
Embedmen 15.3 ft
Toe 2.63 ft
Reactions
Rb
Temporary Soldier Beams:
N2 -N7
am
oo� se� n Ns
=Emb - Toe /2
Active
35 pct
Cut Ht.
10.5 ft
Caisson Dia.
24 in.
Passive
300 pcf
Spacing
8 ft
Arching
2
Pmax
psf
Cut on scned
0 ft
Req. FOS
1.2
gactive
367.5 psf
Pactive
15.4 kips
Hactive
3.5 ft
qsurch
72.00 psf
Psurch
6.0 kips
Hsurch
5.25 ft
Pfound
5.33 kips
Wound
5 ft
Minimum
Embedmen 15.3 ft
Toe 2.63 ft
Reactions
Rb
63.40 kips
Rt
36.6 kips
Beam Moments
=Emb - Toe /2
M.A.
3 It
Msoil
100.3 k'
Msurch.
49.9
Wound.
40.0
M. A.
13.94 ft
As seen in KEY
=Emb - Toe /2
Allowables
Rb
76.33 kips
Embedment F.S. _
Rt
44.0 kips
Overall= 1.20
Ignore top (1.5 x Caisson Diameter of soil)
Max Beam Depth? no max inches
Mu(terri 243.5 k'
Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W
15.4
Amax = W x 1 ^3 k
15xExI
= 0.14 inches
(2)
Minimum
Use W18X35
phiMn= 249 k'
Ixx= 510 W4
1.20
1.20
PER SOLDIER BEAM ® 8' -0' 0 C
Temporary Soldier Beams:
N8
PLG
CONEi IIeT NND
Active
35 pcf
Cut Ht.
5.0 ft
Caisson Dia. 24 in.
Passive
300 pcf
Spacing
8 ft
Arching 2
Pmax
psf
Cut on Sched
0 ft
Req. FOS 1.2
gactive
175 psf
Pactive
3.5 kips
Hactive 1.7 ft
qsurch
72 psf
Psurch
2.9 kips
Hsurch 2.5 ft
Pfound
5.33 kips
Wound 0 ft
Minimum
Embedmen
9.0 ft
M.A.
8.23 ft
As seen in KEY
Toe
1.54 ft
=Emb - Toe /2
Reaction
Allowabl
Rb
24.31 kips
Rb
29.72 kips
Embedment F.S. = 1.22
Rt
12.6 kips
Rt
15.2 kips
Overall= 1.22 1.21
Beam Moments
M.A.
3 ft
Ignore top (1.5
x Caisson Diameter of soil)
Msoil
16.3 k'
Max Beam Depth? no max inches
Msurch.
15.8
Wound.
16.0
Mu(temp.)
61.6 k'
Minimum
Use W16X26
Total Equivalent Uniform Load =
8/3 W
phiMn= 166 k'
= 3.5
Ixx= 301 inA4
,&max =
W x JA
k
15xExI
=
0.01 inches
(3)
F LC CONBUL uam PROJECT SHORING LAGGING DESIGN GUIDELINES
CCNel1LTANTO
7220 TRADE STREET, SUITE 120 SHEET No. 1 OF 1
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -2325 CHECKED BY, AJ DATE. 2009
TEL(858)566 -0626 CCAI F NTS
rn tax) wua i
LAGGING DE51GN GUIDELINE5
FORGE AGTINCs ON LAGCTINC
C
ARCH. Q
ACTION {puXLl)
LINE
�
7/7 3
J d)
LEAN ✓
CONCRETE
FAILURE
CYLIN-
DRICAL
WALL
L-
Ttan = (45 -0/2)
HI =tan = -0
PuLI ( 5LI+ p
(2) FOR GRANULAR 501L (FOfJ14A (1))
P„= YHI(taA(45 -0/2)) FOR HX<HI
Pte= YL2(tanY45 -0/2))
tan (45 -0/2)
F'„= YL2(tan(45 -0/2)) FOR HX>HI(I)
FOR G0HE5IVE SOIL (FORMULA (2))
F. YHI(taK45 -0/2)) - 2Ctan(45 -0/2)
P„= YL2tan(45- 0/2)- 2Gtan(45 -0/2)
= (YL2- 2G)tan(45- 0/2) -2
C = UNIT COHESIVE STREW3TH
SECTION AT �
FLC FLORES LUNG
CONSULTANTS
LAGGING DESIGN:
VERIFY ADEQUACY OF 3 x 12 LAGGING BOARDS. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOIL ARCHING BETWEEN
SOLDIER BEAMS.
AT DEPTHS BEYOUND Huu= CLEAR SPACING / (2- TAN(45- 0 /2)).
SOIL PRESSURE REACHES A MAXIMUM, CONSTANT VALUE DUE TO ARCHING ACTION OF THE SOIL.
FROM THE PREVIOUS SHEET:
SPAN: 8' -0"
FOR 24" DIAMETER CAISSON: Huar5.2'
FOR 36" DIAMETER CAISSON: Hunr-4.8'
BY INSPECTION, THE 24" DIAMETER CASE IS MORE CRITICAL
Px Mu, = yI.Jan (45 - (t/2) PER CALIFORNIA TRENCHING & SHORING MANUAL 10 -6
_ (120 pcf)(3 ft)tan(45 -30/2) -MAX LAGGING LOAD = 400 psf
= 208 psf - LAGGING DESIGN LOAD = 0.6
-Ps„ = (400 psf)(0.6) = 240 psf
W= 240 plf PER F00T OF BOARD
M =WL'/8 = (240plf)(7.5') L( SPA CING)=8'- 2(.5 FLANGE WIDTH= MIN 6 ")
M = 1687.5 lb -ft = 20,250 lb-in.
FOR 3 x 12 LUMBER, b = 3 in.
S = (12 in.)(3 in.)'/6= 18 in' /ft
fb n4 = (20,250 Ib -in.) / (18 in; /ft) = 1125 psi
USE: DOUGLAS FIR -LARCH (north) (No.1 or No. 2) OR HEM -FIR
fb = 850 psf
fb =(fb)(C0)(4U)(C1) =850x 1.25x1.2x1.0= 1275 psi> 1125psi MEMBERO.K.
7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego. California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627
QW! and Structural Engineering ww Jloraalund.com
EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I"
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071
(619) 258 -7901
Fax 258 -7902
TENAJA CA, LLC
P.O. Box 1860
Bentonville, Arizona 72712
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Single- Family Residence
1521 Neptune Avenue, APN 254- 030 -29
City of Encinitas, California
Ladies & Gentlemen:
APR 2 2 2010
December 23, 2008
Project No. 08- 1147A3(2)
In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation at the
subject site to provide the soil engineering criteria for site grading and recommend an appropriate
foundation system for the proposed single - family residence.
Our investigation has found that the site is generally underlain by topsoil and slopewash to a depth
of approximately 2 feet below existing grade. Dense sandstone of the Terrace Deposits Formation
was underlying these soils to the explored depth of 13.0 feet. It is our opinion that the proposed
development is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented in
the design and construction.
Should you have any questions with regard to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to
contact our office.
Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E.
RCE 54071, GE 2704
MSD1md
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOLOGY...........................
GeologicSetting ......................................... ...............................
SiteStratigraphy ......................................... ...............................
SEISMICITY..........................................................................................................
..............................V
GRADINGAND EARTHWORK ...................................................................
..............................4
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
.............................66
Clearingand Grubbing
..............................9
SCOPEOF SERVICES .........................................................................................
..............................4
.......................................................................................
2007 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...........................................................
..............................7
PROJECTBACKGROUND .................................................................................
.............................4
10
Method and Criteria of Compaction ......................................................
SiteDescription
..............................4
..........................................................................................
......................................................................................
ProposedConstruction ...............................................................................
..............................4
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
........................... ..............................5
GEOLOGY...........................
GeologicSetting ......................................... ...............................
SiteStratigraphy ......................................... ...............................
SEISMICITY..........................................................................................................
..............................V
GRADINGAND EARTHWORK ...................................................................
..............................9
RegionalSeismicity ....................................................................................
.............................66
Clearingand Grubbing
..............................9
SeismicAnalysis
...............................
.......................................................................................
2007 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...........................................................
..............................7
Geologic Hazard Assessment
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION ..............................
Compressible Soils ............... ...............................
ExpansiveSoils .................... ...............................
Groundwater......................... ...............................
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.............................9
FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS...........
SETTLEMENT ....... ...............................
TEMPORARY SLOPES ........................
RETAINING WALLS ...........................
TRENCH BACKFILL ...........................
DRAINAGE............ ...............................
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW .........
............................................... ............................... 11
............................................... ............................... 11
............................................... ............................... 11
12
............................................... ............................... 12
............................................... ............................... 13
......... ............................... 13
2
GRADINGAND EARTHWORK ...................................................................
..............................9
Clearingand Grubbing
..............................9
...............................................................................
StructuralImprovement of Soils ................................................................ ..............................9
10
Transitions Between Cut and Fill ...........................................................
...............................
10
Method and Criteria of Compaction ......................................................
...............................
ErosionControl
............................... 10
......................................................................................
10
StandardGrading Guidelines .................................................................
...............................
FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS...........
SETTLEMENT ....... ...............................
TEMPORARY SLOPES ........................
RETAINING WALLS ...........................
TRENCH BACKFILL ...........................
DRAINAGE............ ...............................
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW .........
............................................... ............................... 11
............................................... ............................... 11
............................................... ............................... 11
12
............................................... ............................... 12
............................................... ............................... 13
......... ............................... 13
2
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- II47A3(2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIMITATIONSOF INVESTIGATION ................................... :..:....................... ........................... 13
ADDITIONALSERVICES .............................................................................. ............................... 14
PLATES AND FIGURES
Plate 1- Location of Exploratory Boreholes
Plate 2 - Summary Sheet (Exploration Borehole Logs)
Plate 3 - USCS Soil Classification Chart
PAGE L -1, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ............................................... ............................... 17
REFERENCES................................................................................................... ............................... 18
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08-1147A3(2)
INTRODUCTION
This is to present the findings and conclusions of a limited geotechnical investigation for a
Proposed two -story over basement, single - family residence and a one -story accessory guesthouse to
be located at 1521 Neptune Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, California.
The objectives of the investigation were to evaluate the existing soils conditions and provide
recommendations for the proposed development.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following services were provided during this investigation:
O Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical reports
and maps pertinent to the project area
O Subsurface exploration consisting of four (4) boreholes within the limits of the proposed area
of development. The boreholes were logged by our Staff Geologist.
O Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed
in moisture - resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis.
O Laboratory testing of samples representative of the types of soils encountered during the field
investigation
O Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which provided the basis
for our conclusions and recommendations
O Production of this report, which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our
findings and recommendations for the proposed development
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The subject site is an irregular- shaped residential lot located on the east side of Neptune Avenue, in
the City of Encinitas, California. The property, which encompasses an area of 10,360 square feet is
occupied by a two -story house. The site slopes gently to the west. Vegetation consisted of grass, a
few trees and shrub. Site boundaries include Neptune Avenue to the west, an easement to the east
and residential parcels to the remaining directions.
It is our understanding that the existing structure will be demolished and replaced with another
single- family residence and an accessory guesthouse. The structures will be one and two -story,
partially over a basement, wood - framed and founded on continuous footings with slab -on -grade
floors.
4
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
On December 4 and 10, 2008, four (4) boreholes were drilled to a maximum depth of
approximately 13.0 feet below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the
boreholes are shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A
continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of drilling and is shown on Plate
No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet ". The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the
filed identification procedures set forth on the attached Plate No. 3 entitled "USCS Soil
Classification ".
Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the pertinent
engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory- testing program included
moisture and density, maximum density and optimum moisture content, direct shear, particle size
analysis and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM
standards and other accepted methods. Page L -1 and Plate No. 2 provide a summary of the
laboratory test results.
GEOLOGY
Geologic Settin>
The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California The coastal areas of the province in Encinitas are typically made
up of Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Qt).
Site Stratieranhv
The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field
investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface conditions
may not be represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field
investigation are presented on the exploration logs provided on Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs
provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types.
Topsoil
Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other organic
materials, which supports vegetation. Topsoil observed in the boreholes was generally 6 to 12 inches
thick and consisted of dark brown, silty sand that was dry, loose and porous in consistency with minor
amounts of organics (roots and rootlets).
Slopewash ( Osw )
Slopewash was encountered below the topsoil to a depth of approximately 2 feet and consisted of
loose sand with silt that was damp.
5
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
Marine Terrace Deposits ( Ot )
Terrace deposits were observed below the slopewash layer. They generally consisted of tan, silty fine
sand. The moisture content ranged from damp to moist and the materials were medium dense to dense
in consistency.
SEISMICITY
Regional Seismicity
Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking
place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most parallel
and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is
located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking from
earthquake events along nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in
evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance from
the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile.
According to the Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Alquist -Priolo Special Studies
Zones Act), quaternary faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface
rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially- active" faults are those faults
with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11,000 to 16,000 years old.
Seismic Analysis
Base on our evaluation, the closest known "active" fault is the offshore trace of the Rose Canyon Fault
located approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) west of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is the design
fault of the project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and ground acceleration.
The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods (Egseach ver 3.0, Blake,
2000) for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. The site is subject to a Maximum
Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon fault, with a corresponding Peak
Ground Acceleration of 0.45g. The maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum
earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a 100 -year time period.
The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground
motion, which contains repetitive strong - energy shaking, and which may produce structural
deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is referred to as the
Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slosson
(1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for
earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the above, the calculated Credible
RHGA at the site is 0.29g.
11
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
1856, from a seismic event in Japan. The site is also not subject to seiches (waves in confined
bodies of water).
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed
structural development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations
provided in this report will be properly implemented during structural development.
Based on the low expansion potential of the granular near - surface soils, it is our opinion that the
building pad may be constructed using the on -site materials. In order to provide a uniform support for
the structures, overexcavation and recompaction of the structural portion of the building pad will be
required. The foundations may consist of reinforced continuous footings with conventional reinforced
slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the Foundation and Slab
Recommendations section of this report.
Compressible Soils
Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the sedimentary bedrock, which
underlies the site. However, loose topsoil and slopewash were typically encountered to a depth of
approximately 2 feet below surface grades. These soils are compressible. Due to the potential for soil
compression upon loading, remedial grading of these near- surface soils (including overexcavation and
recompaction) will be required.
Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil
compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low - settlement
assessment assumes a well - planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations regarding
mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Recommendations
section of this report.
Expansive Soils
An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the terrace deposits to
determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index
of 0 was obtained which indicate a low expansion potential for the foundation soils.
Groundwater
Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The subject site is located
at an elevation of approximately 90 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to
affect the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor
surface drainage are presented in the Drainage section of this report.
E
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and
information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field
investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is
suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations set forth are
implemented during construction.
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
Based upon the proposed construction and the information obtained during the field investigation, we
anticipate that the proposed structures will be founded on continuous footings, which are supported by
properly compacted fill or dense sandstone of the Terrace Deposits Formation. The following grading
and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed, and
should be verified during construction by our field representative.
Clearing and Grubbing
All areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of vegetation. Vegetation
and the debris from the clearing operation should be properly disposed of off -site. The area should be
thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to
the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects
should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials as recommended in the Method and
Criteria of Compaction section of this report.
Structural Improvement of Soils
Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates that loose topsoil and slopewash
cover the site to a depth of approximately 2 feet below existing grade. These loose surficial soils are
susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristics, we recommend the
following:
* All topsoil, slopewash and other loose natural soils should be completely removed from areas,
which are planned to receive compacted fills and/or structural improvements. The bottom of
the removal area should expose competent materials as approved by ECSC &E geotechnical
representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should be
scarified a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture- conditioned within 2 percent above the
optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D -1557 test method).
* Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pad to a minimum depth of
4 feet below existing grade. The limit of the required area of overexcavation should be
extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint).
* For non - structural areas, such as driveways, we recommend overexcavation to a
minimum depth of 2 feet below existing grade.
E
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
• Soils utilized as fill should be moisture- conditioned and recompacted in conformance
with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The
depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the
field by a representative of ECSC &E.
Transitions Between Cut and Fill
The proposed structures are anticipated to be founded in properly compacted fill or dense sandstone of
the Terrace Deposits Formation. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structures should be
eliminated during the earthwork construction as required in the previous section.
Method and Criteria of Compaction
Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other
deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform
loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be
moisture -conditioned within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D1557.
The on -site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be
used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import
source(s) should be evaluated and approved by ECSCE prior to delivery to the site. Care should be
taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive.
Erosion Control
Due to the granular characteristics of the on -site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may
be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, sandbags,
silt fences, straw wattles, siltation basins, positive surface grades or other method to avoid damage to
the finish work or adjoining properties. All site entrances and exits must have coarse gravel or steel
shaker plates to minimize offsite sediment tracking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be
used to protect storm drains and minimize pollution. The contractor should take measures to prevent
erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been
installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and
eliminate areas where water might pond.
Standard Grading Guidelines
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard -of -- practice methods for
this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of
the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the
Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern.
10
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS
a. Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to a minimum depth of 24
inches for the two -story over basement portion of the structure into the dense sandstone of the
Terrace Deposits Formation, and 18 inches for the only two -story portion into properly compacted
fill soils. Continuous footings should be at least 18 and 15 inches in width respectively and
reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and
the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings. Footings for the proposed one -story
guesthouse should be at least 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide and reinforced as above. The
above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of the project
structural engineer requirements.
b. Interior concrete floor slabs should be a minimum 5 inches thick for the two -story over basement
and 4 inches for the one -story guesthouse. Reinforcement should consist of 43 bars placed at 16
inches on center each way within the middle third of the slabs by supporting the steel on chairs or
concrete blocks "dobies ". The slabs should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 10 -mil
visqueen moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all -
concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of
4 -inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks.
c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slabs, the 10 -mil plastic
moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of
coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent
passing the #200 sieve.
d. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of
continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into
properly compacted fill soils or the dense sandstone of the Terrace Deposits Formation. This value
may be increased by 960 psf and 440 psf for each additional foot of depth and width respectively to
a maximum of 4,000 lb/ft2.
e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the
friction of concrete to soil_ An allowable passive pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 is recommended. The soils passive pressure
as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading.
SETTLEMENT
Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and
minor thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building loads,
total and differential settlements should be within acceptable limits.
TEMPORARY SLOPES
For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of
4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height
11
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio.
OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction.
RETAINING WALLS
Cantilevered retaining walls should be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 35 psf/ft (35
pcf EFP) for approved granular backfrll and level backfrll conditions. Where cantilevered walls
support 2:1 (hor:vert) sloping backfrll, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increased to 45
pcf. Cantilever walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform
lateral pressure equal to one -third (1 /3)the anticipated surcharge pressure.
Restrained walls, such as basement walls should be designed utilizing an "at- rest" earth pressure of 60
psf/ft (60 pcf EFP) for approved granular and level backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform
surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one -half (1/2)
the anticipated surcharge.
Retaining wall footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
Retaining walls that are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minimum
daylight distance of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope face.
Soil design criteria, such as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as
recommended under the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section, may be incorporated into the
retaining wall design. The design and location of retaining walls should be reviewed by our firm for
conformance with our recommendations.
Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the structural engineer and appropriate back
drainage provided to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimum we recommend a
fabric- wrapped crushed rock and perforated pipe system. At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free -
drainage crushed rock should be provided.
The remaining wall backfrll should consist of approved granular material. This fill material should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D -1557
test method. Flooding or jetting of backfrll should not be permitted. Granular backfrll should be
capped with a minimum 18 inches of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfrll and prevent
saturation.
It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining
structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement
greater than that associated with active or at -rest conditions. In this regard, the contractor should
take appropriate precautions during the backfrll placement.
TRENCH BACKFILL
Excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and
compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to
a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfrll should be uniformly watered and
12
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill should be on -site
soils or non - expansive imported soils, which should be placed in thin lifts, moisture - conditioned
and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
DRAINAGE
Adequate measures should be undertaken to properly finish grade the site after the structure and
other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent
properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via
rain gutters, downspouts, surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this
area. A minimum gradient of I percent is recommended in hardscape areas. For earth areas, a
minimum gradient of 5 percent away from all structures for a distance of at least 5 feet should be
provided. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed
to approved drainage facilities. Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to
minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations,
footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of
the structure and other improvements.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
Our firm should review the foundation plans during the design phase to assure conformance with the
intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by our
representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the
plans and specifications.
LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in
this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others
without the written consent of the client and ECSC &E, Inc.
The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of
site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between exploration
trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by
construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions
must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC &E and designs adjusted as required or alternate
designs recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated
into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and
subcontractors cant' out such recommendations in the field.
13
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may
be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to
review and should be updated after a period of two years.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral
parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering,
Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential
claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are
provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development.
Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L -I and References are parts of this report
Respectfully submitted,
ro. cc 27o S
o >�F'
� 4z
RCE 54071, GE 2704
MSD\md
14
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
PLATE NO.2
SUMMARY SHEET NO. 1
BOREHOLE NO. 1
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface TOPSOIL
dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty fine sand with rootlets
0.5' SLOPEWASH (Qsw)
brown, damp, loose, poorly- graded sand with silt
2.0' TERRACE DEPOSITS FORMATION (Qt)
tan, damp medium dense, silty fine sand
3.0' R .1 {< 4 [t
5.0' becomes moist and dense
7.0' bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 12/4/08
BOREHOLE NO.2
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface
TOPSOIL
dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty fine sand with rootlets
1.0'
SLOPEWASH (Qsw)
brown, damp, loose, poorly -graded sand with silt
2.0'
TERRACE DEPOSITS FORMATION (Qt)
tan, damp medium dense, silty fine sand
4.0'
becomes moist and dense
7.0'
.. .. ,. u
8.0'
tan, moist, dense, poorly graded sand
13.0'
bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 12/4/08
15
A
103.4
VA
104.8
IM
MF
IN
6.2
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
PLATE NO.2
SUMMARY SHEET NO. 1
BOREHOLE NO.3
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface TOPSOIL.
dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty fine sand with rootlets
1.0' SLOPEWASH (Qsw)
brown, damp, loose, poorly - graded sand with silt
2.0' TERRACE DEPOSITS FORMATION (Qt)
tan, damp medium dense, silty fine sand
4.5' becomes moist and dense, poorly - graded sand with silt
7.0' bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 12/10/08
BOREHOLE NO.4
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface
TOPSOIL
dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty fine sand with rootlets
1.0'
SLOPEWASH (Qsw)
brown, damp, loose, poorly- graded sand with silt
2.0'
TERRACE DEPOSITS FORMATION (Qt)
tan, damp medium dense, silty fine sand
4.5'
becomes moist and dense
7.0'
bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 12/10/08
Y = DRY DENSITY IN PCF
I['.
Y
104.0
M
3.4
Y M
102.4 4.1
M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN %
MAJOR DIVISIONS ISYMBOL
RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES
DESCRIPTION
U.S. STAaNDARD
GRAIN SIZE IN
GW
SIEVE SIZE
MILLIMETERS
BOULDERS
I Above 12 Inches
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL -SAND
COBBLES
12 Inches To 3 Inches
305 To 76.2
MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
GP
76.2 to 4.76
Coarse
GRAVELS
76.2 to 19.1
(MORE THAN A
'/ Inch to No.4
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND
SAND
OF COARSE
4.76 to 0.074
MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES
GMM
4.76 to 2.00
Medium
FRACTION
2.00 to 0.420
>NO.4 STEVE
No. 40 to No. 200
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES
SILT AND CLAY
SIZE)
1 Below 0.074
GC
COARSE
GRAINED SOILS
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
(MORE THAN % OF SOIL >
S W
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE)
WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SP
SANDS
(MORE THAN %
POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,
OF COARSE
I= OR NO FINES
SA`I
INACTION
< NO. 4 SIEVE
SILTY SANDS, SILT -SAND MIXTURES
SIZE)
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
ML
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK
FLOUR SILTY OR CLAYEY FIVE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS &
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
CLAYS
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS,
<50
SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
OL
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS Of
LOW PLASTICITY
(MORE THAN '/s OF SOIL <
�,
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE)
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS
SILTS &
FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
CH
CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
>50
CLAYS
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Pt
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
CLASSIFICATION CHART (UNIFIED SOIL CLAJJIr1C:AllUN JYbILid)
CLASSIFICATION
RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES
U.S. STAaNDARD
GRAIN SIZE IN
SIEVE SIZE
MILLIMETERS
BOULDERS
I Above 12 Inches
Above 305
COBBLES
12 Inches To 3 Inches
305 To 76.2
GRAVEL
3Inches to No.4
76.2 to 4.76
Coarse
3 Inches to'/. Inch
76.2 to 19.1
Fine
'/ Inch to No.4
19.1 to 1.76
SAND
No. 4 to No. 200
4.76 to 0.074
Coarse
No. 4 to No. 10
4.76 to 2.00
Medium
No. 10 to No. 40
2.00 to 0.420
Fine
No. 40 to No. 200
1 0.420 to 0.074
SILT AND CLAY
Below No. 200
1 Below 0.074
GRAIN SIZE CHART
EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I"
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071
U.S.C.S. SOIL CLASSIFICA'
A
�tl
5w
v
rm
o-
W��
Ito
u rr u.. -
PLASTICITY CHART
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 08- 1147A3(2)
PLATE NO. 3
DECEMBER 23, 2008
Direct Shear Test Results
eA
{S
�A
■Shear Strength at 0.2
inches of Defamation
� a.o
e
h tb
r
t
a za
/
tb
/
la
/
Pressure (kef)
ob
/
oa
OA
e! fa tb 20 26 ]a ]b
LA
Confining
INTERNAL
COHESION
FRICTION
INTERCEPT
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION ANGLE DEG.
PS
1515 -1521 NEPTUNE AVE
REDDISH BM r-M SILTY Snrn
@T
Shear Strenoth at
33
262
02 inches of Def ation
EC SOIL
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL &TESTING
BY:
CA
DATE: 12/8/2008
OB NUMBER:
0812031
APPENDIX
Pressure (kef)
TENAJA CA, LLC PROJECT NO. 08- 11.17A3(1)
REFERENCES
1. . "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single- Family Residence, 1515 Neptune Avenue, APN 250-
030-28, City of Encinitas, California ", Project No. 08- 1147A3, Prepared by East County Soil
Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated December 18, 2008.
2. 2007 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2 ",
Published by International Code Council.
3. . "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Two -Story, Single - Family Residence, 733 Stratford Drive,
City of Encinitas, California ", Project No. 04- 1147C7, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation
and Engineering, Inc., Dated September 30, 2004.
4. "Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 268 Sunset
Drive, City of Encinitas, California ", W.O.# P- 1172 -1, Prepared by A.R. Barry and Associates,
Dated May 26, 2000.
5. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering: Design and Construction ", by Robert W. Day, 1999.
6. "1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions ", Published by
International Conference of Building Officials.
7. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to
be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code ", Published by International Conference of Building
Officials.
8. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California ", Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996.
9. "Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Testing, Proposed Single Family Residence, Parcel 1 of
Lot 1, Block 7, Map 1776, Leucadia, California ", Project No. 451.1, prepared by Hetherington
Engineering, Inc., dated January 24, 1990.
10. "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual -.2 ", by Department of Navy Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, May 1982, Revalidated by Change 1 September 1986.
18
VA
hL
EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I"
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071
(619) 258 -7901
Fax 258 -7902
TENAJA CA, LLC October 26, 2009
P.O. Box 1860 Project No. 08- 1147A3(2)
Bentonville, Arizona 72712
Subject: Addendum to Limited Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Single - Family Residence
1521 Neptune Avenue, APN 254- 030 -29
City of Encinitas, California
Reference: "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 1521 Neptune
Avenue, APN 254- 030 -29, City of Encinitas, California 92024 ", Project No. 08-
1147A3(2), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated
December 23, 2008.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to address Item # 17 from the City of
Encinitas Third Party Review letter for the proposed single - family residence at the subject site
Liquefaction has been addressed in the referenced geotechnical report under the Geologic Hazard
Assessment section, on Page 7.
For the design of the retaining walls, an increase in loading due to earthquake motions of 24 pcf
equivalent fluid pressure may be applied. The distribution of this additional load should be triangular
with the base at the top of the walls in opposition with the static load distribution.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectful
Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E.
RCE 54071, GE 2704
MSD /md
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
MR. BOB NORWOOD
P.O. BOX 1860
BENTONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72712
Ri 'I Cr^
LI
Reference: 1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE
Regarding: 1521 NEPTUNEAVENUE —
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Dated as of: August 11, 2009 at 7:30 AM
OrderNo.: 980041779 -P14
In response to the application. for a policy of title insurance referenced he Chicago Title Insurance Company hereby
reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as Of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance
describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by
reason oiany defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage
pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set
forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less
than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the
Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's
Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages
are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which
issued this report.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a
policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a
policy of title Insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Chicago Title Insurance Company.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth In Attachment One
of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not
covered under the terms of the title insurance oolicv and should he carefully considered_
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not
list all bens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
The form of Policy or Policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is
PRELIMINARY REPORT ONLY
Visit Us On The Web: Chicago Title. com
Title Department:
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
2365 NORTNSIDE DR. #600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
(619)521 -3400 Fax:
Patty Meredith
Title Officer
PPEFPS - OB/ 25107 AA
(619)528 -1671
01
SCHEDULE A
Order No: 980041779 P14 Your Ref: 1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE
1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
A PEE
2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
TENAJA CA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
3. The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of SAN DIEGO
and is described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION
raec 1 DESCRIPTION
Order ho. 9800417-79
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF MYRTLE
STREET AND THE WEST HALF OF NEPTUNE AVENUE (VACATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE) IN
NORTH LEUCADIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 524, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL 6, 1888, AND LOT 13 AND THAT PORTION
OF LOT 14 IN BLOCK F OF SOUTH COAST PARK, NO. 5, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
2078, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER
21, 1927 ALL IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID LOTS 13 AND 14 SOUTH 190 26' 45" WEST 55 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH
AND 45 FEET NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF NORTH 700 33' 15"
EAST 210 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID NEPTUNE AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 150 43' 30" WEST 45 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID MYRTLE STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE SOUTH 740 16' 3D" WEST
34 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF SOUTH 820 53' WEST 56.17 FEET AND SOUTH 740 33' 15" WEST
120 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SCHEDULE B
Page I
Order No: 980041779 P14 Your Ref: 1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in the policy
form designated on the face page of this Report would be as follows:
A 1. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, TO BE
LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 THAT ARE A LIEN NOT YET DUE.
B 2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS OF PROPERTY TAXES, IF
ANY, MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 0.5, CHAPTER 3.5 OR PART 2,
CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF
THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A RESULT OF
THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE VESTEE NAMED IN SCHEDULE A; OR AS A RESULT
OF CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING PRIOR TO DATE OF
POLICY.
C 3. PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR SHOWN BELOW ARE PAID. FOR INFORMATION
PURPOSES THE AMOUNTS ARE:
FISCAL YEAR: 2008 -2009
1ST INSTALLMENT: $9,501.55
2ND INSTALLMENT: $9,501.55
EXEMPTION: $NONE
CODE AREA: 19084
ASSESSMENT NO: 254- 030 -29
D 4. SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009, ASSESSED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF
THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
DUE TO: OWNERSHIP CHANGE
1ST INSTALLMENT: $3,739.48 (PAID)
2ND INSTALLMENT: $3,739.48 (PAID)
CODE AREA: 19084
ASSESSMENT NO.: 879- 095 -68 -87
ISSUE DATE: MAY 23, 2008
P 5. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS
RESERVED IN A DOCUMENT (NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE PRESENT
OWNERSHIP OF SAID EASEMENT)
PURPOSE: TELEPHONE AND /OR ELECTRIC POLES AND LINES AND FOR
SEWER, WATER AND /OR GAS MAINS AND PIPE LINES
RECORDED: JUNE 19, 1943, IN BOOK 1520 PAGE 74, OFFICIAL
RECORDS
AFFECTS: THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SAID EASEMENT IS
NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD.
Page 2
SCHEDULE B
(continued)
Order No CAnn41779 P14 Your Ref: 1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE
F END OF SCHEDULE B
c NOTE NO. 1: YOUR OPEN ORDER REQUEST INDICATES THAT A LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY WILL BE ACQUIRING, ENCUMBERING OR CONVEYING REAL PROPERTY IN YOUR
TRANSACTION. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 'THE CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
ACT, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 1994" THE FOLLOWING WILL BE REQUIRED:
1. A COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION (AND ALL AMENDMENTS, IF ANY)
THAT RAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
2. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THIS COMPANY BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE
OPERATING AGREEMENT. THE COPY PROVIDED MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE
APPROPRIATE MANAGER OR MEMBER THAT IT IS A COPY OF THE CURRENT OPERATING
AGREEMENT.
3. IF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS MEMBER - MANAGED THEN THIS COMPANY
MUST BE PROVIDED WITH A CURRENT LIST OF THE MEMBER NAMES.
H NOTE NO. 2: WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES
NAMED BELOW IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE EFFECT OF
DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS, LIENS, DECREES, OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH DO NOT
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT WHICH, IF ANY DO EXIST, MAY AFFECT THE
TITLE OR IMPOSE LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES THEREON.
PARTIES: MEMBERS
(NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE SEARCH
AND EXAMINATION OF TITLE UNDER THIS ORDER. ANY TITLE SEARCH INCLUDES
MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY, AND HAVING A COMPLETED STATEMENT OF
INFORMATION ASSISTS THE COMPANY IN THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH
APPEAR TO INVOLVE THE PARTIES BUT IN FACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE
SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. BE ASSURED THAT THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS
ESSENTIAL AND WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL TO THIS FILE.)
r NOTE NO. 3 : THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT WAS
IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER APPLICATION ONLY BY STREET ADDRESS OR ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER. THIS LAND HAS BEEN LOCATED ON THE ATTACHED MAP. THE USE OF
A STREET ADDRESS OR ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER CREATES AN UNCERTAINTY AS TO
THE CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LAND INVOLVED IN YOUR TRANSACTION.
PLEASE REVIEW THE MAP. IS THE CORRECT LAND LOCATED ON THE MAP? IF YOUR
TRANSACTION INVOLVES OTHER LAND OR MORE LAND OR LESS LAND THAN THAT LOCATED
ON THE MAP YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ADVISE YOUR TITLE OFFICER OR ESCROW
OFFICER.
s NOTE NO. 4: IF A COUNTY RECORDER, TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ESCROW COMPANY,
REAL ESTATE BROKER, REAL ESTATE AGENT OR ASSOCIATION PROVIDES A COPY OF A
DECLARATION, GOVERNING DOCUMENT OR DEED TO ANY PERSON, CALIFORNIA LAW
REQUIRES THAT THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT REGARDING ANY
UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS. SAID STATEMENT IS TO BE IN AT LEAST 14 -POINT BOLD
9 bk
Pa 'r 3
Urd,T N 0 980041779 P14
SCHEDULE B
(continued)
Your Ref: 1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE
FACE TYPE AND MAY BE STAMPED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF ANY DOCUMENT PROVIDED OR
INCLUDED AS A COVER PAGE ATTACHED TO THE REQUESTED DOCUMENT. SHOULD A
PARTY TO THIS TRANSACTION REQUEST A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENT REPORTED HEREIN
THAT FITS THIS CATEGORY, THE STATEMENT IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MANNER
DESCRIBED.
x NOTE: IF THIS COMPANY IS REQUESTED TO DISBURSE FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS TRANSACTION, CHAPTER 598, STATUTES OF 1989 MANDATES HOLD PERIODS FOR
CHECKS DEPOSITED TO ESCROW OR SUB - ESCROW ACCOUNTS. THE MANDATORY HOLD
PERIOD FOR CASHIER'S CHECKS, CERTIFIED CHECKS AND TELLER'S CHECKS IS ONE
BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. OTHER CHECKS REQUIRE A HOLD PERIOD
FROM THREE TO SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED.
NOTE: ANY FUNDING WIRES TO CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY ARE TO BE DIRECTED AS
FOLLOWS:
BANK OF AMERICA
100 WEST 33RD STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10001
ABA 0260- 0959 -3
CREDIT TO CHICAGO TITLE DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT
NO. 12351 -50751
FURTHER CREDIT TO ORDER NO: 980041779
ATTN: PATTY MEREDITH
JN
23, c3nx
TITLE OFFICER
ICS
I e
01 Vt �i
1 AVOCADO ST
M,. IIIF IT W� .k M•YWY N
O ucw+ef II !
M QsA 0.)
O• 0,
Oro le ! Ai F
O// • �! M 1 PM 1 i it ]e
O !� O.w x
O1 ae2 IG
Y
e
SHY
254 -03
I -.100•
/'
A812002 arA 0
tl
Y'
1
MAP 2018 • SOUTH COAST PARK NO.5
SEC 4 - T19S-R41 - POR N1 1/4
(MAP 524 • NO.LEUCAOTA - POR BILK 901
ROS 6629,12002,15110
)UN 1 7 7007
i
L.,
ON
.PPPOV IGC
Nf4 [OGIUUPT 011
_NIN
5117 I
7
i
::>; I -•NHS.
15
WE MYAL
1.7
1 �
1-
14
n
y
"llhis plat IS for your old III locoing, your 111.941
,n»
Fpp r
Wilh mkeence to strecin a9d 0:111`r parcels.
While this is belleved to be the
e� f O�
15
4
plat cmract,
—t
I
Company assumes uo Ilabi lily for nay loss
m F
Z �PGI7 t3t.K ''tl
ni'cnrrinll by Henson of m irmcc Iluvcon"
yl
c
>ti 1 /f'T•1�
�I
DETAII.I I IN "50 PT
f
,
d
_
~
I;d
t,N
1 �i � MIY NDI RJ1 �fiiG "tq eA PSI
Its 01[00 OOaelr AAlAiOAlA all to fba IO Of
Y
e
SHY
254 -03
I -.100•
/'
A812002 arA 0
tl
Y'
1
MAP 2018 • SOUTH COAST PARK NO.5
SEC 4 - T19S-R41 - POR N1 1/4
(MAP 524 • NO.LEUCAOTA - POR BILK 901
ROS 6629,12002,15110
)UN 1 7 7007
i
L.,
Resource
Development
Corporation
CML ENGINEERING " 5URVErNG " PLANNING
Project Description:
Project Location:
City of Encinitas Project No:
City of Encinitas Dwg No:
XT 12 MIMI
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for Permit Fee Purposes
Neptune Norte Beachouse
1521 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia
08 -147 CDP
10153 -G
b��l -
Date. 10 -OCI-09
ROC Job Number: 0 &0078
Item Reference Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
PRIVATE GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Onsite Cut & Fill (Remove and Recompact)
Soils Engineer
200
c.y.
$20.00
$4,000
Excavate and Export
Soils Engineer
1,200
c.y.
$27.50
$33,000
12" Landscape Drain
NDS 1200
8
ea.
$50.00
$400
6" Driveway Grate Drain
ACO Drain K100S
30
I.f.
$50.00
$1,500
4" PVC Drain Pipe
SDR 35
250
Lf.
$20.00
$5,000
Storm Drain Sump Pump
Detail on Plans
1
ea.
$5,000.00
$5,000
Masonry Retaining Walls
SDRSD C -1 & C -3
2,100
s.f.
$29.65
562,265
Subtotal Private Grading and Drainage Improvements
$111,165
PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS
AC Pavement & Base
Soils Engineer
400
s.f.
$2.50
$1,000
Subtotal Public Street Improvements
$1,000
EROSION CONTROL
Gravel Bag Inlet Protection
Gravel Filled Sandbags
100
ea
$1.00
$100
Gravel Bag Dam
Gravel Filled Sandbags
0
ea
$1.00
$0
Silt Fence
Caltrans BMP SC -1
0
1. 1.
$1.60
$0
Construction Entrance
Detail on Plans
240
s .
$5.25
$1,260
Subtotal Erosion Control $1,360
Subtotal Private Grading Public Street and Erosion Control
Contingencies (10 %)
TOTAL PRIVATE GRADING & DRAINAGE, SITE WALLS, PUBLIC STREET, and EROSION CONTROL
' BRIAN \'Z
DONALD z'
No. 26175
CIVIL
Professicr.ai -/
2410 5TROM13EPG CIRCLE • CARL513AP, CA 92010 • TEL (760)942 -1106 • FAX (760) 730 -3059
$113,525
$11,353
$124,878
Resource
Development
Corporation
CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • RLANNING
Project Description:
Project Location:
City of Encinitas Project No:
City of Encinitas Dwg No:
Off 12 2009
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for Bond Purposes
Neptune Norte Beachouse
1521 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia
08 -147 COP
10153 -G
Date: 10 -Oct-09
RDC Job Number: 08M7B
Item Reference Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
PRIVATE GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Onsite Cut & Fill (Remove and Recompact)
Soils Engineer
200
c.y.
$20.00
$4,000
Excavate and Export
Soils Engineer
1,200
c.y.
$20.00
$24,000
12' Landscape Drain
NDS 1200
8
ea.
$50.00
$400
6' Driveway Grate Drain
ACO Drain K100S
30
If.
$50.00
$1,500
4' PVC Drain Pipe
SDR 35
250
If.
$20.00
$5,000
Stone Drain Sump Pump
Detail on Plans
1
ea.
$5,000.00
$5,000
Masonry Retaining Walls
SDRSD C -1 & C -3
2.100
s.f.
$29.65
$62,265
Subtotal Private Grading and Drainage Improvements
$102,165
PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS
AC Pavement & Base Soils Engineer 400 s f $250 $1,000
Subtotal Public Street Improvements $1,000
Gravel Bag Inlet Protection
Gravel Filled Sandbags
100 ea
$1.00
$100
Gravel Bag Dam
Gravel Filled Sandbags
0 ea
$1.00
$0
Silt Fence
Caltrans BMP SC -1
0 I.f.
$1.60
$0
Construction Entrance
Detail on Plans
240 sf.
$525
$1,260
Erosion Control
Subtotal Private Grading Public Street and Erosion Control $104,525
Contingencies (10 %) $10,453
TOTAL PRIVATE GRADING & DRAINAGE, SITE WALLS, PUBLIC STREET, and EROSION CONTROL $114,978
BRIAN
DONALD
No. 26175
CmL
Professional
2410 5TROMBERG CIRCLE • CARL513A0, CA 92010 • TEL (760)942 -1106 • FAX
Resource R!, Development Corporation sE
CMLENGINEEKING • 5URYEYING • PLANNING ENGIF;[EkIIVG SERVICE
' CITY OF ENCINITAS
JN08 -007B
!D� f August 10, 2009
) I Page 1 of 8
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
NEPTUNE NORTE BEACHOUSE
CDP 08 -147
1521 NEPTUNE AVENUE, LEUCADIA
Hydrology Calculations by:
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Cl
BRIAN
DONALD
Brian Donald, RCE 26175 No. 26175
License Expires 3/31/2010 CIVIL
CAI-
2410 5TROM13EPO CIRCLE • CARL513AD, CA 92010 • TEL (760)942 -1106 • FAX (760) 730 -3059
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942 -1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
JOB CFS 7: 7
$HEEL
OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
NEPTUNE NORTE BEACHOUSE
(CDP 08 -147)
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AND DRAINAGE DESIGN
The project associated with the accompanying runoff calculations is the demolition of an
existing single family home and guest house on the project site and the construction of a new home
and guest house. The basic site design concept for the new home is similar to the original site
design in that the main living level will be constructed over a basement level garage close to the
existing grade at Neptune Avenue. The new basement level will be below the street and the original
street level garage and will require a drainage sump pump to be installed to prevent the garage level
from flooding during a rain event. Existing surface runoff patterns will be generally left as they are,
flowing from the high easterly end of the site, westerly toward Neptune Avenue.
100 Year peak flow runoff calculations were performed to determine storm water runoff
qw itities in accordance with the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual. The site is approximately
60`,o impervious corresponding to a runoff coefficient of 0.79 for a soil type "D" (soil type specified by
City of Encinitas policy). The peak 100 year flow to the storm drain sump pump was calculated to be
0.16 cfs. The total 100 year peak flow from the site draining onto Neptune Avenue is 1.30 cfs
corresponding to a 5 minute time of concentration and 6.6 in /hr rainfall intensity.
The proposed project adds only 50 square feet of impervious surface area from the
pre- construction condition (0.5% of the project site). The increase in storm runoff from the proposed
new home construction (0.002 cfs) is considered insignificant in terms of any kind of drainage
design consideration issue. All of the site runoff is directed to two planters at the northwest and
southwest corners of the site where bio- filtration of runoff can occur prior to discharge to Neptune
Avenue.
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, Cal'domia 92010
(760) 942 -1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
JDs Z)8 —='7
CALCULATED BY 'I?A2 DATE
CHECKED
DATE
Cary of San Diego
Hydrology M anual
SuY Hytroiopc Qalp
J 1f
" !^ •--.. f.J � � GSA
Gmwo SITE
GmQC
GMV D
- FrwY 1+ 1
Data Uneaaiede
i
+i r
t �: • ... 3 Noy. Lea a
amt
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942 -1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
SHEETNO. --r �Q Or
CALCULATED BY uT) DATE Z
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
County of San Diego
Hydrology M anual
feinfalllmDlwials
100 Y1�1/91[ 1 -24 Nw
." 16g1 winl uncles)
P24 = 4.0 INCHES
MWNr
amec'
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942.1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
i
Joe C r% - m'7
SHEETNO. �_']
OF
CALCLLATED BY
DATETI�
CHEC1ff_O BY
DATE
WN•11 mp wah
100 YeaAArmI 6,cra -6 Hwy
Isop wial (arcftes)
P6 = 2.5 INC
Nky Naes
go•n.3n2rVM]
r4 rGgUYlaAfBp+waan++ma
"I
�� ar
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942 -1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
NRCS Elements
Undisturbed Natural Terrain
Low
Low
Low
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
High Density Residential
CommerciaVlndustrial
Commercial/Industrial
CommerciaUlndusuial
CommerciaUlndustrial
MWM��M
SHEET NO. Cn
CALCUUATEDBY •-��
CHECKED BY _
Table 3 -1
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS
Land Use I Rlmoff COefclenl "C'
Elements
Permanent Open Space
Residential, 1.0 DU /A or less
Residential, 2.0 DU /A or less
Residential, 29 DU /A or less
Residential, 4.3 DU /A or less
Residential, 73 DU /A or less
Residential, 10.9 DU /A or less
Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less
Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less
Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Professional/Commercial
Limited Industrial
OF 7 /g /jam
DATE ' I
DATE
-The values associated with ON. impervious may be used for direct calculation or the runoff coefficient at described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious
runoff coefficient, Cp, for the roil type), or for aress then will remain undisturbed in papemity. Justification must be given that the srea will remain oamral
forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest).
DU /A - dwelling units pa acre
MRCS - National Resources Conservation Service
�o
Salmi I YPi
bl Ei- 7un14-01> lCIIG 1
Soil Type
% IMPER.
A
B
C
D
0a
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
10
0.27
0.32
0.36
0.41
2D
0.34
0.38
0.42
..0.46
25
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.49
30
0.41
0.45
0.48
0.52
40
0.48
0.51
0.54
0.57
45
0.52
0.54
0.57
0.60
50
0.55
0.58
0.60
0.63
65
0.66
0.67
0.69
0.71
80
0.76
0.77
0.79
0.79-
80
0.76
0.77
0.78 _
0.79
85
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.82
90
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.85-
90
0.83
0.84
0.84
.0.85
-The values associated with ON. impervious may be used for direct calculation or the runoff coefficient at described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious
runoff coefficient, Cp, for the roil type), or for aress then will remain undisturbed in papemity. Justification must be given that the srea will remain oamral
forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest).
DU /A - dwelling units pa acre
MRCS - National Resources Conservation Service
�o
Salmi I YPi
bl Ei- 7un14-01> lCIIG 1
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942.1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
iii M
CALCULATED BY 5D DATE
CHECKED
DATE
0
x
4
a
n
50 Tjr
5•
so
4s's
4og
35
30
2.5
Application Firm:
(a) Selected frequency 100 year
(b) P6 = 2_5 in... P24 = 40_ P6 = 62 h(21
(c) Adjusted P6(2) = 2_5 it
(d)a= 5_0 min. (Assumed Minimum)
(e) I = 6_6 n.rtv.
Note: This chart replaces the Inamsity- Duration- Frequency
curves used since 1866.
Intensity - Duration Design Chart - Template
,iazw,jCeunq My0rop1do9y Wnua r Our Design Cluini116
\.\!\
����l�111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�
1 1A
z .. ss
s ss
4
43
s
ss
a
- I I
I I
I I
®IomIlluiuuu
1
I
Directions for Application:
6 689
.0 912
1084
1116
13.17 'II.Ip
1681
11111
4s4 bap
a6T14S1
a9 riv
6.b 1w9
696 610
saa4
44
0.14
1;19
aN
T1!
6M
10.60
a429YI
UB�i.1a
tlfa
Izn
iQ11
1.19
IM .269
1 1]0'1:16
Ip8 112
ass 14
0m "ts4
115
IX
186
zse
za6
9.m
lum 9''%/
190 an
a49'9i0.
4ai
a1a,
116
aa9
2.12
416
1.10
i7s
8.10
aw
218
6ali
�.Q>'
4.19
146
a.W
1.86
ae
6.11
weti
110
}19
2.
(1) From precipitation .. determine
QY I= 1.
a-0o ON 1.1
:N■!
211! 9w1
1W 1.01
f�9-1i
\ay1
39
6150
1C2
: �1111111111111111111111111111111111111111Illllll
1
+.N
ads
a2a
11s
ON 161 a'"
am
102 1.19
1
I1a
®��i1dW6
t.m
101
I 919 a." an
on
am 1m
1u
1.9z
1.n
I'm
1.
vo am 019 a6s
ass
iai:
i;!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
v1
1.M
Iw
022 199 01 ,
"ON
076
161
EQUATION
I■
yr maps induced
' ' ' "
I ao
����������!
OA1
069 086
0.16
0.91
016
O.T6
0.94
O.M
t.m
0.1p
1.ID
1DI1
Fig
0.12 0.26
142
0.60 Ob9
Design
IIi1110410
HIS
IS
III
!IIIIIIIIilllllllillillllll
I�
lia-REEN
�m
of 45%
1111
.
�'
ll111111111190�111111111111111,
(3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the fight side of the chart
' 1��1'11
IIIIII00
1111slill!!!1116116S;1111P
(4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines
1♦
IIIi�Illi!
11111!lllii�!�IIIlulllllu!i1
;ll
!iii
! I!!IIIEI�NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIB®
(5) This line is the intensity-duration curve for the location
being
0
x
4
a
n
50 Tjr
5•
so
4s's
4og
35
30
2.5
Application Firm:
(a) Selected frequency 100 year
(b) P6 = 2_5 in... P24 = 40_ P6 = 62 h(21
(c) Adjusted P6(2) = 2_5 it
(d)a= 5_0 min. (Assumed Minimum)
(e) I = 6_6 n.rtv.
Note: This chart replaces the Inamsity- Duration- Frequency
curves used since 1866.
Intensity - Duration Design Chart - Template
,iazw,jCeunq My0rop1do9y Wnua r Our Design Cluini116
3 -1
1 1A
z .. ss
s ss
4
43
s
ss
a
- I I
I I
I I
14-VA:
1
I
I
431.
6 689
.0 912
1084
1116
13.17 'II.Ip
1681
2fa S11
4s4 bap
a6T14S1
a9 riv
6.b 1w9
696 610
saa4
44
0.14
1;19
aN
T1!
6M
10.60
a429YI
UB�i.1a
tlfa
Izn
iQ11
1.19
IM .269
1 1]0'1:16
Ip8 112
ass 14
0m "ts4
115
IX
186
zse
za6
9.m
lum 9''%/
190 an
a49'9i0.
4ai
a1a,
116
aa9
2.12
416
1.10
i7s
8.10
aw
218
6ali
�.Q>'
4.19
146
a.W
1.86
ae
6.11
weti
110
}19
2.
b.tl
_aro
u
"t.ta
a9
.1
QY I= 1.
a-0o ON 1.1
1.n
1.4
211! 9w1
1W 1.01
f�9-1i
0
39
an am oez
1C2
110 1Aa
1
+.N
ads
a2a
11s
ON 161 a'"
am
102 1.19
1
I1a
l.ro
t.m
101
I 919 a." an
on
am 1m
1u
1.9z
1.n
I'm
1.
vo am 019 a6s
ass
ani os1
1.14
1.11
v1
1.M
Iw
022 199 01 ,
"ON
076
161
0.
1.09
1.19
I ao
I 99
0.19 aR 1a.
OA1
069 086
0.16
0.91
016
O.T6
0.94
O.M
t.m
0.1p
1.ID
1DI1
Fig
0.12 0.26
142
0.60 Ob9
3 -1
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
2410 Stromberg Circle
Carlsbad, California 92010
(760) 942 -1106 rdc @rdc2000.com
100 Year Storm Peak Runoff Calculations
JOB
SNEFI NO,
OF
Q�
CALCL ATED BY N /
CHECKED BY
DATE
DATE
C "I'A
Area No. 1
Northerly 112 Roofs and Site
Q=
C "I'A
A (Site)
C I
Q100
acres
runoff coef in /hr
0.09
0.790 6.6
0.47 cfs
Area No. 2
Southerly 112 Roofs and Site
Q=
C`I'A
A (Site)
C I
Q100
acres
runoff coef in /hr
0.13
0.79 6.6
0.68 cts
Area No. 3
Driveway and Entry Stairs
Q=
C "I "A
A (Site)
C 1
0100
acres
runoff coef in /hr
0.03
039 6.6
0.16 cfs
Total Peak Runoff to Street from Site
= Q1 + Q2 + Q3 = 1.304 cfs
Pre and Post - Construction Runoff Differential
Proposed Construction increases Impervious Surface Area
by approximately 50 sq ft.
delta Q = delta C ' I ' delta A
delta A delta C I Q100
(1.0-0.79)
acres runoff coef in /hr
0.001 0.21 6.6 0.002 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA MAP
NEPTUNE NORTE BEACHOUSE
1521 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas
CDP 08 -147
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 10 20 30 40 50
it
LU
u,
'
W'i
I
- -
TL
ZI
'i
LU
i
Drainage Area No. 1
Q
I
0.09 Acres
Drainage Areal
w l
i
z
No. 3
�
0:03 Acres
'--
a.
ZDrainage
100 =0.2 ds
- o -
Area No. 2
f
I
i
0.73 Acres
ca o
q0
q
I