1996-4699 G
Street Address
q/~~
Cate ory
I
L/ if ()qc¡
Serial #
1~/líL/ Muf
Name
I ~fft
Description
Plan ck, #
/1f Lf
Year
recdescv
.
" "'~~
r;¥""';)-~
'. ").....'...'t.'...I...;J . n \"~ -~".'
" '""n ~ 'I œ fñ '
"",.,:.,.,':j¡~...,.: ./1"
'-- --.. 'é>;_..,- . n ¡
SEP- 5f9$!/.V1
- ,~,~~J I
"~,..~ I
"""", . .. .; '11 I ,;.. S .
~-""--'~")
.
ERNEST R. ARTIM
P.O. BOX 99725
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
92169-1725
(619)230-9492
Project Number 94-85g
August 28, 1996
City of Encinitas
Planning Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024-3633
Attention: Ms. Diane Langager
Associate Planner
Subject: Additional Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information
Hooker prope~-.l.Q30 ~eptune Avenue, Encini taB, California
Case Number ~l,~~ ~
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we are
pleased to submit the following review of additional data relative
to the subject property. This review is relative to the as-built
conditions and plans for the project dated 4-16-96 with revision
dates of 6-6-96, 6-7-96, aod 6-20-96. In essence this review is of
the as-built plans and site conditions.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW
In general, we note there have been changes and additions to
the crib wall constructed on the site. We understand these changes
were made in the field at the time of construction by the owner/
contractor/builder. The changes involve the addition of:
1. two additional stringers of crib wall members to the top of
the lowest existing crib wall,
2. extensions/additions of crib wall stringers near the base
of the lowest existing crib wall (see detail A-A' on plans),
3. extensions of three to four stringers of crib wall members
along and to the south property boundary to the lowest three
of the existing crib wall members,
4. Addition of a "free standing" section of crib wall along
and to the south property boundary between the upper two
existing crib wall members.
.
.
Page 2
Project Number 94-85g
August 28, 1996
REVIEW DETAIL COMMENTS
A. The first two changes noted above, although not shown on
project plans, appear would have been addressed by the previous
geotechnical reports and data. This does not apply to any segments
of wall and/or members that extend south of, and beyond the south
property boundary, and onto the adjaceht property.
* For purpose of the project, there should be a letter in the
files from the project soil/geotechnial engineer indicating
the height change and addition near the base of the lowest
crib wall depicted by section A-A' is acceptable and meets
the guidelines of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and
the previous geotechnical reports and data for the project.
B. The second two changes noted above (numbers 3 and 4) have
not been previously addressed by the geotechnical reports and data
for the project.
* The original purpose of the grade beam along the south
property boundary was for the control of erosion from south
of the site and for support of the crib walls on the site.
* The additions extend from about 1 to 5 feet beyond what is
assumed to be the south property boundary. These extensions
extend beyond the south property line grade beam and thus
have no support or protection from erosion. what will be
done to protect these devices from erosion? Will another
grade beam have to be built to protect these crib wall
extensions onto the adjacent property? There are no apparent
tiebacks or erosion foundation support for these crib wall
extensions, or are they present but not shown on the plans?
Even if a toe grade beam has been built, what will prevent
erosion from behind the wall?
* What influence will these extensions have onto the adjacent
property? Is there a potential impact to the adjacent site
and what will be done in the event of erosion undermining
of the crib wall extensions? In our opin~on, based on the
data shown, the extensions onto the adjacent property are
not in conformance with the previous project plans, will
impact the adjacent property, and are not in conformance
with the city of Encinitas Municipal Code.
C. Are the reviewed plans actual as-built plans and/or are the
actual field conditions different than those shown on the reviewed
plans?
,
.
.
Page 3
Project Number 94-85g
August 28, 1996
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL REVIEW
Because of the observations noted on page 2, we contacted
the engineer for the project to discuss the plan conditions as
compared to observed field conditions. The engineer noted there
had been changed field conditions and all field work had been
documented with photographs. We met at the site to discuss the
actual field conditions as well as review photographic records.
Based on the meetings and review of the photographs as
compared to the actual field conditions, we note that certain
segments of the existing crib walls had previously existed off
site as shown on the as-built plans. The only actual "new" part
of the crib walls was the small segment removed so that a grade
beam could be constructed along the south property line. Because
these wall extensions previously existed on the adjacent property
there are no new wall segments extending off-site. The actual
conditions were not known because there was a thin cover of soil
and vegetation over crib wall members.
The project engineer has now corrected the design plans so
that the off-site extensions are shown as on the as-built plans.
The enginner has also prepared a letter dated July 30, 1996 that
clarifies the changed field conditions, as well as addresses
other concerns noted on page 2 of this letter report. The July
30, 1996 letter should be a part of the geotechnical data for
the project.
CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS
The project as-built plans conform to the revised and
corrected project plans. The as-built plans and project appear
from a geotechnical perspective to be in general conformance with
the City of Encintas Municipal Code.
An as-built geotechnical report reviewed and signed by both
the soil/geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist shall be
completed and submitted to the City of Encinitas. The project
shall not be considered complete until the as-built report is
received and the content of the report accepted by the City of
Encinitas.
.
.
Page 4
Project Number 94-85g
August 28, 1996
Should you have any questions, or require additional
service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully,
E~~im
CEG 1084: expo 3-31-97
Distribution: (3) addressee
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
-I
I
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- It.t
\
.
"'"
, ",
.
BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSIS
1 0 3 0 NEPTUNE AVENUE
LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
MR . AND MRS. GARY HOOKER
BY
CHARLES J. RANDLE , PE
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
619 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE, SUITE 207
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
AUGUST 29,1994
.
NUV ¡ b ¡QCJ4
, ~';:I
,.
i
,
cny OF ENCINiTt\S )
~ .;;;.. , .: ;,,::,.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I N.C,E.E. *4170. CA R.C.E. ¡ IC-22096. AZ R.C.E. 11'11971 . NV R.C.E. 11'3037. WA C.E. 11'10776
:. IL. STRUCTURAL. AND SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY .SURVEY . CEFmFIED INSPECTION .SOll AND MATERiAl TESTING. FEASIBllrTY STUDIES. COmRACT MANAGEMENT
.
.
August 29,1994
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. Randle, P.&, President
619 So. Vulcan Aftllue, Suite 210
Encinltas, California 92024
Phone: (619) 944-4124
Fax: (619) 942-6043
Mr. & Mrs. Gary Hooker
1030 Neptune Ave.
Leucadia, CA
Subject:
Bluff Stability Analysis
1030 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California
Submitted herewith is a summary of our findings regarding the
current conditions existing crib walls constructed behind your
residence. The study was undertaken to evaluate foundation
conditions of the walls and the gross stability of the bluff. This
analysis includes an analysis of the site with respect to slope
integrity; both from a static condition and with respect to the
impact of seismic activity.
site Conditions
The existing bluff descends approximately 86 feet from the
residence down to the Pacific Ocean. A series of seawalls and crib
walls have been constructed from sea level up to the top of bluff
behind the residence. It appears that the lower portion of the
slope is underlain by dense sandstone. A near vertical slope at
the base of the slope is covered with shot-crete of unknown
thickness. The existing concrete retaining wall of approximately 8
feet in height was constructed on this sandstone ledge, providing
approximately 10 foot wide of level area. Above the wall, four (4)
separate units of crib walls were constructed to retain the bluff.
Backfill above these crib walls are relatively steep (approaching
50 degrees to the horizontal). Detail of the site topography is
indicated in our enclosed site Topographic Map and Cross Sections,
Sheets 1 of 2 to 2 of 2.
Geotechnical Conditions
Four test pits were excavated at the base of each crib wall
revealing that the crib wall foundations were constructed on a
loose to moderately dense, sandy fill-soils. The soils were damp
to dry at the surface and moist as depth increases. Probing of the
slope surface and in the crib-cells indicated that the backfill is
compact and does not represent any threat to the bluff stability.
The bluff face, along the south property line reflects evidence of
localized slope distress. A part of this analysis addresses this
condition with the inclusion of two alternate stabilizing systems.
Similarly, a grade beam tieback system is recommended to assure
that west facing bluff stability will meet, or exceed UBC limits
for site stability (i.e. minimal factor of safety @ 1.5 static; 1.0
seismic) .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
.
.
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 2
All crib wall foundations are embedded in approximately 12 to 18
inches of fill soils. The existing adjacent soils provide minimal
passive resistance to the wall; therefore the resistance relative
to passive earth pressure has been equated to zero in this
stability analysis. site exploration and test pit information is
logged and presented in the enclosed Test Pit logs, Plate A-I
through A-4. Approximate location of Test pits are shown on the
enclosed Site Plan, Plate A.
Slope Stability Analysis
Slope stability analyses were performed for the existing bluff and
cribwalls. The results, as presented in Appendix A, indicate that
the existing bluff is marginally stable (S.F. *1.10) for the static
condition, this is without any remedial effort. The general slope
condition is stable with slope distress evidenced along the south
property line, this is located on the adjacent property owners
land. Due to this condition and the adjacent property owners
reluctance to invest in a remedial repair, it is the intention of
the owners (Mr. and Mrs. Hooker) to include the maintenance of the
southerly property line along with the requirements necessary to
insure competent bluff stability of the westerly facing bluffs.
To improve the stability, we recommend adding three (3) rows of tie
back anchors to the slope, one (1) row at the base of the three
cribwalls constructed integral with a four foot by eighteen inch
reinforced concrete grade beam. This system is proposed for the
west facing bluff. By varying the tie-back loads and angle of
inclination, the safety factor of 1.93 is obtained. The equivalent
seismic value of 1.49 is also realized. NOTE: these values exceed
the UBC requirements. The analysis incorporates tieback loads of
50,000 pounds, with an inclination of 20 degrees, is required for
each anchor. See Appendix (Structural Calc's) Tieback spacing is on
eight (8) foot centers. Location of the recommended anchors and
details are presented in the enclosed plans.
Anchor Design
All Anchors should be designed using skin friction value (i. e.
shear) of 750 pounds per square foot. Each anchor should be
designed to a minimum capacity of 50,000 pounds. Because the crib
wall could not withstand external pressure, we recommend that the
anchor should be "locked off" in a manner which will preclude
stressing the existing crib wall members.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker
Page 3.
The anchors will require testing to insure the load capacity is in
excess of 150% of design. This test will require shoring in order
to evaluate the anchor, yet not cause damage to the existing crib
wall. In the event this testing procedure causes distress in the
wall, appropriate remedial repair will be required to insure that
the complete system (crib wall, grade beam and tieback) are not
compromised.
All anchors should be installed at an angle of 20 degrees to the
horizontal, in the event this requires revision, contact the
undersigned for revised anchor loading.
The unbonded length of the anchors should be 10, 20, and 15 feet
from the crib wall faces for the upper wall to the lower walls,
respectively.
The repairs for the south property line are also presented within
the enclosed plans. This system provides for an immediate repair
necessary to contain the bluff distress, and insure a long term
repair for the mid bluff erosion.
To summarize this information, which is presented to reflect a
preemptive measure; the following specific conclusions have been
developed relative to this site and the adjacent property. Please
be advised, all topographic plans are current, as of this writing.
These maps are attached as Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 (see Appendix A).
1. Based on our experience and specific survey data site specific
to this property, the common property boundary ( south property
line) has evidenced erosion since the first survey conducted in
January, 1994. Or wi thin a time frame of 7 months, continued
distress is evident, primarily due to erosion. This continued
condition left unchecked will eventually create failure to both
impacted properties, which will eventually lead to upper bluff
weakening and associated structural failure to the si te
improvements.
The Hooker west facing bluff remains relatively free from erosion
and mid bluff distress, which is a testimony to the landscape, (re:
Disneyland Ice Plant and continuing maintenance). However, the
impact on the distress within the south property line impacts the
Hooker site. This eventual erosion will deteriorate the lateral
support required to maintain site stability and the bluff integrity
will be compromised; thus leading to predictable upper bluff
failure which creates failure within the foundation soils which
support the site improvements.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I
.
.
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker
Page 4.
Based on the predictable nature of the Encinitas bluff erosion and
associated block fault failures and general instability, it is
prudent to consider the request for permission to construct
"preempti ve" measures on an EMERGENCY basis. The time period of
less than one year has evidenced the rate of bluff distress to the
point where immediate action is required to stabilize the joint
property line. Any further delay will cause increased erosion and
distress, leading to further slope instability.
2. Geologic conditions which relate to this consideration have been
included as a separate part of this presentation; see Appendix C.
The pertinent test data is included within the calculations and is
summarized as a part of Appendix C. It is significant to recognize
that the block fault potential wi thin the lower bluff has been
identified and the ever present threat to the general site
instability exists. Without the suggested general bluff structural
system, the site will be threatened by any loss of lower bluff
support.
3. The effects of the condition presented herein and the impact of
the potential failure which will result from the lack of
"preemptive" maintenance will result in general slope instability
which inevitably leads to landslides, either as the classic
rotational failure, or as a type of block fault distress.
4. The entire structural system is proposed to be constructed at
or below existing ground surface, with the exception of the grade
beam located at the face of the existing crib wall. This will be
constructed in a manner to extend 2 feet above the current bottom
of wall. The construction will require nominal excavation and the
effect of this work will not compromise the stability of the
adjacent lands.
5. This system will have no impact on the current hydrology of the
site, nor will this work impact the general area surrounding the
work site.
6. Essentially the erodibility of the completed work which will
include a landscape planting similar to the current (and
successful) ground cover; which has resisted erosion, prevented
water induced erosion and provides a deep rooting system which
insures the success of the ground cover.
7. The effect of marine erosion will have limited impact on the mid
bluff stabilizing system; however, this factor has been partially
addressed by the construction of a lower bluff (beach level)
concrete wall extending to approximately elevation 8 msl.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker
Page 5.
The proposed "Adopted Plan" by the City of Encinitas will address
the impact of continued marine erosion. Until this action is
implemented, Mr. Hooker has been responsible to the maintenance of
his work, which in effect has (to some large part) included the
lower bluff and the mid slope stabilizing efforts and the required
maintenance of these facilities.
8. The analysis for seismic has been evaluated and the proposed
structural system is stable in the unlikely event of a seismic
event. However the structural analysis meets the minimum factor of
safety (1.0). This analysis provides a factor of safety on the
order of 1.49. The static condition yields a factor of safety of
1.99.
9. Slope stability in this area is now a well proven fact of life.
The combined efforts of numerous engineers who are expert in their
field (both private and public) have addressed many potential
causes of factors which may diminish slope stability. Among these
are the potential of water induced forces, such as pore pressure
effects, ground water concentrations, lack of drainage devices and
the everpresent acts of individuals who frequently cause slope
distress. This site is not impacted by these conditions. Naturally
the ever unpredictable nature of man cannot be identified; however
the site is well protected from unauthorized traffic and this
factor should be considered as negligible.
10. Alternate solution have been considered during the analysis of
this site. Based on our extensive experience, this solution will
provide the most cost effective "preemptive" measure and similarly
the nature of the proposed system will have the least impact on the
bluff's natural appearance.
11. The life of this works will exceed 50 years, provided that the
general area is maintained. This relates to reasonable responsible
care which is evidenced by the past years of work by the owners,
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker and family. This coupled with the anticipated
works which will be a part of the City's future involvement in the
proposed bluff comprehensive plan.
12. The slope failure (daylite) line is represented on the
stability analysis figures which are a part of Appendix A.
In summary, the above report and attachments are presented to
reflect our professional opinion that the works proposed will
contribute to the specific site stability and assure the owners
that their southerly boundary will be assured of adequate lateral
support.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker
Page 6
12. (cont.) At no time will this structural system have a negative
impact on the site general geologic stability. In fact the proposed
system will enhance the overall gross stability of this site.
Furthermore, this work will not impact the structural integrity of
the surrounding properties, sea bluffs or public lands.
This report reflects the general state of the industry, especially
the current knowledge which has been developed as "Coastal"
engineering, as it relates to the interface of geotechnical and
structural engineering. The ultimate assurance that the recommended
design concept is constructed is a joint responsibility of the
owner and the responsible engineer, They must be assured that the
contractor is qualified and is capable to provide the expertise
necessary to construct the works as presented in this report and
associated drawings. To this end, the undersigned must be apart of
the contracting process and have a representative on site during
the construction operations. The finished project will require a
complete As-Built document and plans to assure that the design has
been correctly executed. This document will also serve to reflect
any changes required during the construction.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
Enclosures:
Plate A: Site Plan, Plates 1 and 2 of 2
Plates A-I through Plate A-4: Test Pit Logs
Appendix A: Slope Stability Analyses
Appendix B: Structural Calculations
Appendix C; Geology and Design Data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¡¡
I'
I
I':.
I
I
SITE
I 1IO'1"ro s~ LA 1\{
I
I\+,~
:.\;'.l',"~
Î',o¡
, ,
.
.
"01
^,
":
-
II
~'tJ
.30
~5
........' J;' ':-._-"
,'.
... '
40
.'
, "";;"'-0"':
....x
" ','. 0
4"', ..'.,.
'ø~ . ~o
- - -'~ < "..,....,/" "
," ---,' ",,/
'j :"'~" ,',
~ ,,:", ".. ~~
" .' ,""-, /,,-
/ ," ~",
, ,'".... n
r ,...../) ~
- -,,-/ __,f,-",., c.O ~
,.. .' u'
,", '.~ i /,/ ;j
. ,-,---"'2"'" ,.....----""65
j , 1/1 ,,/:~"~:+"'-:-..'
50
.,: --'
C8
!"
ÑX
..___=,70
.., ._._"0_"-- 0' . 75
1
.. ! 0,
"-'-~.
85
85
r ~-"
, "' 1
- -
X¡: ,
~I
I
NEPTUNE AVENUE
I
LEGEND
~.
~ TEST PIT LOCATION
PLATE A
I~:'!
i:~~ ~
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
.
.
TEST PIT lOG
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1994
ENGINEER: V. S.
B
i
i!
g
SITE ADDRESS: HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
LEUCADIA, CA
-
-.1
~
§ ~,'. '.' .
- " .
3'
I' ' , GY' '~ .4
t- : ,";, :" :. "'.' " ,: .. .', .,.'.' :~
.' '<;>:.~'.~::'~fi\.:.:.;::<, ::'~:':' ..', ",
+-1',:>< ?~C <~<::: ,::,: .
,,;.; ;~,:,:@~:'>~. '<~:
;::: ;;;:, ¡::, ;/;:,. ~:.~: <; ::
.4 .
'!I
. .~
.4 .
l'
TEST PIT 1
1, Fill: Tan, SAND, loose,
2, Terrace Deposit: Dark brown, SAND, medium grained,
3. Terrace Deposit: Light brown, SAND, coarse grained,
TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 3 FEET
A-1
<I"",",.,
'0, .. ., ..\
,:':' "' ",j
.~+,~¡;j
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
:'::::: :'c.~..:. ;.~""~ .,..'.. .:. '. .~~ .
:,'..'. :... .'q\..:..'::':.~':..:
~,'",::-.-:..: ~,!~. ':'~:.': ;-<~"~':".~ :',
:';,"'~:',':"""~":::'.."'",,"",":'"
.
TEST PIT LOG
DATE: JANUARY 17,1994
ENGINEER: V, S,
SITE ADDRESS: HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
LEUCADIA, CA
" ,
, "
I.~'
2,~'
I'
TEST PIT 2
.
a
I
-1
;r:
~
-oJ
~
, § ,4'" '~'
41 '
~
,41 '
1, Fill: Dark brown, SIL TV SAND, loose, lots of rootlets.
2, Terrace Deposit: Tan, SAND, dry,
TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 2.5 FEET
A-2
1:,,-,
.", ;;
í;';
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
TEST PIT LOG
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1994
ENGINEER: V, S,
SITE ADDRESS: HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
LEUCADIA, CA
€I
I
....,¡
tr!
~
....,¡
-1
~
, § ,4'" '~' '
- , ' ,
, ,
,4 ,
I'
, ,:""",,:CD>, ",' " ,~' ~
:",-' ""'", :", "";,, "', "~ ð
,: ,:, ..:-.. ,',"'~ :' ", ~: :", " ,
2'
I' .
':":"::;:'::::':@"::":'::<::"":"',\.:
" ,.2." .. .
<:;> ;. :<,~';:':~>
" '-, ,'", ',"
'" ."' ," '
TEST PIT 3
1, Fill: Dark brown, SAND, , loose.
2, Terrace Deposit: Tan, SAND, dry
TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 2.0 FEET
A-3
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
TEST PIT LOG
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1994
ENGINEER: V. S,
&
I
~
~
~
~
~
~ A"".. "
, ~". <!
SITE ADDRESS: HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE
LEUCADIA, CA
I
2'
--L
. 4S .
~
4
" "A
TEST PIT 4
1, Fill: Medium brown, SAND, dry, loose,
2, Terrace Deposit: Tan, SAND, dry
TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 2.0 FEET
A-4
I",
'\.
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
APPENDIX A
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
-- --
175
150
125
Y-Axis
Cft)
100
75
50
25
-
- -."
-
-
- -
- -
-
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability Analysis
Ten Most Critical. C:HOOX1.PLT By: JWN 07-18-91 2:11p~
" FS
1 1.10
2 1. 15
3 1.17
4 1.25
5 1.26
6 1.28
7 1.31
8 1.33
9 1.35
10 1.42
0
0
25
10 9
50 75 100 125
PCSTABL5M FS ~in=I.1
1
150 175
X-Axis Cft)
200
-
225
-
250
-
-
.
~
()\j
~
~
~
-\
~
6
I
.
.
I
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
I
Unit Weight of Water =
62,40
I
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point X-Water Y-Water
No, (ft) (ft)
1 .00 .00
2 250.00 ,00
I
I
I
BOUNDARY LOAD (S)
1 Load(s) Specified
Load
No.
X-Left
(ft)
X-Right
(ft)
Intensity
(lb/sqft)
Deflection
(deg)
-I
I
1
141. 00
170,00
200,0
,0
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface,
I
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
I
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated,
I
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 40.00 ft.
and X = 100,00 ft,
I
Each Surface Terminates Between
and
X = 112,00 ft.
X = 185,00 ft,
I
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = ,00 ft,
I
10.00 ft, Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 19 Coordinate Points
I
I
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 60.00 26,00
2 67,12 18.98
3 75,23 13,13
4 83,36 7.30
5 91. 95 2.19
6 101.91 1.34
7 111.91 1.24
8 121. 91 1.28
9 131. 91 1.40
10 141.60 3,89
11 149.34 10.22
12 155,48 18.11
13 156,34 28,07
14 156,38 38.07
15 156,43 48,07
16 156.46 58.07
17 156,48 68,07
18 156,52 78.07
19 156,57 86,00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =
8,932
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined, They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First,
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By
6 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 86.67 54,18
2 96.34 56.71
3 105.83 59.87
4 112 , 11 67.65
5 118,49 75.35
6 121. 77 84,36
*** 1. 095 ***
Individual data on the 7 slices
I
I
I
I
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1 9.7 2508,2 ,0 .0 ,0 ,0 .0 ,0 .0
2 9.5 6949.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,0 .0 .0
3 3,2 2679.7 ,0 ,0 .0 ,0 .0 ,0 ,0
4 3.0 3994,4 .0 .0 .0 ,0 .0 .0 ,0
5 ,1 213.0 .0 .0 .0 ,0 ,0 .0 .0
6 6,4 9408.6 .0 .0 ,0 .0 .0 .0 .0
7 3.3 1718.3 ,0 ,0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
07-18-94
2:14pm
JWN
C:HOOKl,DAT
C:HOOKl,OUT
C:HOOKl,PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability
Analysis
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
18 Top Boundaries
21 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No, (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 .00 3.00 30,00 3,00 3
2 30,00 3.00 34,00 13,00 3
3 34,00 13,00 40,00 13,50 3
4 40,00 13 ,50 42.00 15,00 1
5 42,00 15,00 42,10 22,00 1
6 42,10 22.00 59,00 23.00 1
7 59,00 23.00 60,00 26,00 1
8 60.00 26,00 65,00 29.50 1
9 65.00 29.50 67.50 37,00 1
10 67.50 37,00 72,50 37,50 1
11 72,50 37,50 81. 80 44,00 1
12 81. 80 44.00 85.00 53,00 1
13 85,00 53,00 109.00 70,00 1
14 109,00 70,00 112.00 83,50 1
15 112.00 83.50 129.00 85.00 1
16 129.00 85.00 129.10 86,00 1
17 129.10 86,00 135,00 86,00 1
18 13 5.00 86,00 250.00 86,00 2
19 40.00 13,50 62.00 17,00 2
20 62.00 17.00 135.00 86,00 2
21 40.00 13,50 250,00 14.00 3
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No.
1
2
3
120.0
125.0
135,0
125,0
127,0
135.0
150.0
350.0
600.0
30,;}
32.0
45.0
,00
,00
.00
.0
.0
.0
1
1
1
- -
-
175
159
125
Y-Axis
Cft)
199
75
59
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability Analysis
Ten Most Critical. C:HOOKT4.PLT By: JWN 97-18-94 1:57pM
#I FS
~ ~.93
2 ~ .99
3 2.03
4 2.03
5 2.~2
6 2.20
7 2.22
8 2.23
9 2.25
~o 2.28
9
9
25
'::::::::~':~:~'.~".~ ::~~:::~:::::.:.:,~~.:~:~;;~~~::.:.:.:::::::::.:.:.~;?~::..... .,~."
59 75 199 125
PCSTABL5M FS Min=1.93
159 175
X-Axis Cft)
3
299
225
-
259
-
-
.
š
~
~
~~
-l
'J\
~
~
¿
~
..,....-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
18 Top Boundaries
21 Total Boundaries
Boundary
No.
X-Left
(ft)
.00
30.00
34,00
40,00
42,00
42.10
59.00
60.00
65.00
67.50
72.50
81. 80
85.00
109,00
112.00
129,00
129.10
135,00
40,00
62,00
40.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
07-18-94
1:57pm
JWN
C:HOOKT4,DAT
C:HOOKT4.0UT
C:HOOKT4,PLT
X::"'Right
(ft)
30,00
34,00
40.00
4'2,00
42,10
59,00
60,00
65,00
67,50
72,50
81. 80
85.00
109,00
112.00
129.00
129.10
135.00
250,00
62,00
135.00
250,00
fS~
-
f.~
¡v1AY
I Û
-- ,I
/'" --
]/) 5tf15"rt1!<~,
\
\
,
,.., /JriU
5 L..¡:/'
/ (J~{" I O/~" Ó
.J /"JV V . .~:
, p
~fh '-. -:'; I: r;
1. . / I ¿..ô ~
þJ() ¿;p,(;f-J
~¡J
I
I
\
"~
~
\~-1
/
,-_/'/
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability
Analysis
150.0
350,0
600.0
30.0
32.0
45,0
Y-Right
(ft)
3,00
13.00
13,50
15,00
22,00
23,00
26.00
29.50
37.00
37.50
44,00
53,00
70.00
83,50
85,00
86,00
86,00
86.00
17.00
86.00
14,00
Soil Type
Below Bnd
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
Y-Left
(ft)
3,00
3,00
13.00
13 ,50
15,00
22.00
23.00
26.00
29.50
37.00
37,50
44.00
53.00
70.00
83.50
85.00
86.00
86,00
13,50
17.00
13 .50
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez,
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param, (psf) No.
1
2
3
120.0
125,0
135.0
125,0
127,0
135.0
.00
,00
.00
.0
.0
.0
1
1
1
I
.
.
I
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
I
Unit Weight of Water = 62,40
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point X-Water Y-Water
No, (ft) (ft)
1 ,00 ,00
2 250,00 .00
I
I
BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
1 Load(s) Specified
I
Load
No,
X-Left
(ft)
X-Right
(ft)
Intensity
(lb/sqft)
Deflection
(deg)
I
1
141.00
170,00
200,0
.0
I
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface.
I
TIEBACK LOAD(S)
3 Tieback Load(s) Specified
I
Tieback
No.
X-Pos
(ft)
Y-Pos
(ft)
Load
(lbs)
Spacing
(ft)
Inclination
(deg)
Length
(ft)
I
1
2
3
65.17
82,16
109,22
30.00
45,00
71. 00
75000.0
150000,0
75000,0
8.0
8.0
8.0
20,00
20,00
20.00
40.0
45.0
30,0
I
NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks
Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between
Individual Tiebacks,
I
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified,
I
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated,
I
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 40,00 ft.
and X = 100,00 ft.
II
I
I
I
Each Surface Terminates Between
and
X = 112,00 ft,
X = 185,00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
10,00 ft, Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 13 Coordinate Points
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No, (ft) (ft)
1 60,00 26,00
2 69,53 29,04
3 79.33 31,02
4 89,13 33.03
5 99.09 33,82
6 107.79 38.75
7 116.63 43,44
8 125.96 47.03
9 131.89 55.08
10 134.03 64.85
11 134,22 74,85
12 134.45 84,85
13 13 4,62 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 17,137
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 60.00 26.00
2 67.12 18.98
3 75.23 13.13
4 83.36 7,30
5 91. 95 2,19
6 101.91 1.34
7 111,91 1.24
8 121. 91 1.28
9 131.91 1. 40
10 141.60 3.89
11 149.34 10.22
12 155,48 18.11
13 156,34 28.07
14 156.38 38,07
15 156.43 48.07
16 156.46 58.07
17 156.48 68.07
18 156.52 78,07
19 156.57 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =
8,932
I I
I
I
I
The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined
By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading,
I
.
.
I
Failure Surface Defined By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 80,00 42.74
2 90.00 42,91
3 97,48 49.55
4 104.40 56,77
5 105,78 66,67
6 113 .27 73.31
7 119,62 81. 03
8 121.35 84.33
I
I
I
I
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =-12.904
The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined
By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading,
I
Failure Surface Defined By 10 Coordinate Points
I
I
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 80.00 42.74
2 89.89 41. 28
3 99.84 42.33
4 109.67 44.16
5 116,10 51. 82
6 123.78 58,22
7 13 0,59 65.55
8 135,80 74,09
9 135,91 84,08
10 136,37 86,00
I
I
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =*******
I.
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
I
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 8 Coordinate Points
I
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No, (ft) (ft)
1 86.67 54.18
2 95,97 50.50
3 105,95 51. 00
4 115.39 54.29
5 124,75 57.84
6 129,26 66,76
7 131.28 76.56
8 131.32 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = -2.644
I
I
I
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 7 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 100,00 63,63
2 108.79 58,85
3 118.79 58.79
4 126,83 64.73
5 134.10 71,60
6 134.61 81. 59
7 134.64 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =-40.973
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined, They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 53,33 22.66
2 62,88 19.69
3 72.84 18,74
4 82,81 19.51
5 92,77 20.37
6 101.14 25.84
7 107,21 33.78
8 114,68 40.43
9 117 ,39 50.06
10 121.04 59.37
11 121. 50 69.36
12 123.38 79,18
13 125.19 84,66
*** 1. 925 ***
- -
-
15a
125
Y-Axis
Cft)
laa
175
75
sa
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability Analysis
Ten Most Critical. C:HOOHT4S.PLT By: JWN a7-1B-94 2:23p~
" FS
1. 1.. 49 ~If---'---- ,
2 1. .52
3 1..52
4 1..57
5 1. .62
6 1. .66
7 1..68
8 1..68
9 1. .69
1.0 1..71.
a
a
"""""""""""""""'..::::.,.,................""'"...,
25
sa 75 laa 125
PCSTABL5M FS ~in=1.49
15a 175
X-Axis Cft)
2
2aa
225
-
25a
-
-
.
4
~~
Lf) ~
~C)
~ ~
i"
I^.
~
~
I
I
.
.
** PCSTABL5M **
I
I
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
I
I
I
I
I
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
07-18-94
2:23pm
JWN
C:HOOKT4S.DAT
C:HOOKT4S.0UT
C:HOOKT4S.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Hooker Residence-Slope Stability
Analysis
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
18 Top Boundaries
21 Total Boundaries
I
I
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No, (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 ,00 3,00 30.00 3,00 3
2 30.00 3.00 34.00 13.00 3
3 34.00 13.00 40.00 13.50 3
4 40.00 13.50 42.00 15.00 1
5 42,00 15,00 42.10 22.00 1
6 42.10 22,00 59.00 23.00 1
7 59.00 23.00 60.00 26.00 1
8 60.00 26.00 65.00 29.50 1
9 65.00 29,50 67.50 37.00 1
10 67,50 37,00 72.50 37,50 1
11 72.50 37.50 81.80 44,00 1
12 81. 80 44.00 85.00 53,00 1
13 85.00 53,00 109,00 70.00 1
14 109.00 70,00 112,00 83.50 1
15 112.00 83.50 129.00 85.00 1
16 129.00 85.00 129,10 86.00 1
17 129.10 86.00 13 5.00 86.00 1
18 135.00 86,00 250.00 86.00 2
19 40.00 13.50 62.00 17,00 2
20 62.00 17.00 135.00 86,00 2
21 40,00 13.50 250.00 14,00 3
I
I
I
I
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
I
I
I
I
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pet) (pet) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No.
I
2
3
120.0
125.0
135.0
125.0
127.0
135.0
150.0
350.0
600.0
30.0
32,0
45.0
.00
.00
.00
.0
.0
.0
1
1
1
I
I
.
.
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
I
I
Unit Weight of Water =
62.40
I
I
I
.1
I
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point X-Water Y-Water
No, (ft) (ft)
1 .00 ,00
2 250.00 ,00
BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
1 Load(s) Specified
Load
No.
X-Left
(ft)
X-Right
(ft)
Intensity
(lb/sqft)
Deflection
(deg)
1
141. 00
170.00
200,0
.0
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface,
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of ,150 Has Been Assigned
I
I
I
I
A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure =
.0 psf
TIEBACK LOAD(S)
3 Tieback Load(s) Specified
Tieback
No.
X-Pos
(ft)
Y-Pos
(ft)
Load
(lbs)
Spacing
(ft)
Inclination
(deg)
Length
(ft)
1
2
3
65.17
82.16
109,22
30.00
45.00
71.00
75000.0
150000,0
75000,0
8.0
8,0
8.0
20.00
20,00
20.00
40,0
45.0
30.0
I
NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks
Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between
Individual Tiebacks.
I
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
I
I
I
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 40.00 ft.
and X = 100,00 ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between
and
X = 112,00 ft.
X = 185.00 ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft,
10,00 ft, Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface,
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 60,00 26.00
2 67,12 18,98
3 75,23 13,13
4 83,36 7,30
5 91. 95 2,19
6 101,91 1.34
7 111.91 1.24
8 121. 91 1.28
9 131.91 1.40
10 141 , 60 3,89
11 149,34 10.22
12 155.48 18,11
13 156.34 28,07
14 156.38 38.07
15 156.43 48,07
16 156.46 58,07
17 156,48 68.07
18 156,52 78,07
19 156,57 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =
4.797
The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined
By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading.
Failure Surface Defined By
8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 80.00 42,74
2 90.00 42,91
3 97,48 49.55
4 104.40 56.77
5 105.78 66,67
6 113.27 73.31
7 119.62 81. 03
8 121.35 84.33
Factor Of Safety For The preceding specified Surface =-25,247
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 80.00 42.74
2 89,89 41. 28
3 99,84 42.33
4 109,67 44.16
5 116.10 51. 82
6 123,78 58.22
7 13 0.59 65.55
8 135.80 74,09
9 135.91 84,08
10 136,37 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 21,261
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 86.67 54,18
2 95.97 50.50
3 105.95 51. 00
4 115.39 54.29
5 124.75 57.84
6 129,26 66,76
7 131.28 76.56
8 131.32 86.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = -3.703
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First,
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specifiéd By 13 Coordinate Points
I
I
I
I
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 53.33 22,66
2 62.88 19,69
3 72.84 18,74
4 82.81 19,51
5 92.77 20.37
6 101,14 25.84
7 107,21 33.78
8 114.68 40.43
9 117.39 50.06
10 121. 04 59.37
11 121. 50 69,36
12 123.38 79.18
13 125.19 84.66
*** 1. 489 ***
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Individual data on the 23 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1 5.7 715.3 ,0 ,0 .0 .0 107.3 .0 .0
2 1.0 451.2 .0 ,0 ,0 ,0 67,7 .0 .0
3 2.9 2375,1 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 356.3 ,0 ,0
4 1.8 1933.8 .0 ,0 425,6 -16,7 290,1 .0 .0
5 ,3 400.5 .0 ,0 117,1 7,3 60.1 .0 ,0
6 2,5 4185,7 .0 .0 1170,4 232,1 627.8 .0 .0
7 5.0 11081. 4 ,0 ,0 2946.6 1643,0 1662.2 .0 .0
8 ,3 772.6 ,0 .0 181,8 147,8 115.9 ,0 ,0
9 9,0 23984,8 ,0 .0 2692,0 1207.3 3597,7 ,0 .0
10 1.0 3216,0 .0 ,0 406,4 149.7 482.4 .0 .0
11 2,2 8179.0 .0 .0 967.7 346,7 1226.8 ,0 ,0
12 7,8 34168,9 .0 ,0 4129.9 1775.8 5125,3 ,0 ,0
13 8.4 39678,1 .0 ,0 7259,7 1013 ,6 5951. 7 .0 ,0
14 6.1 27593.7 .0 ,0 4973,8 572,4 4139,1 ,0 .0
15 1.8 7707,5 ,0 ,0 1051. 4 524,2 1156,1 ,0 ,0
16 3,0 14806,7 .0 ,0 1631.1 929.8 2221.0 ,0 ,0
17 2,7 14646,5 ,0 .0 1334.9 842,2 2197,0 ,0 .0
18 2,7 12840,2 ,0 .0 4055.0 245.2 1926,0 ,0 .0
19 3.6 13177,6 ,0 ,0 3965.2 497,9 1976.6 ,0 ,0
20 .5 1129.2 ,0 ,0 5191.4 -557.0 169.4 ,0 ,0
21 .9 1386.0 ,0 ,0 2316,2 1018.7 207.9 ,0 ,0
22 1.0 912.9 .0 ,0 1604,0 1292,0 136,9 ,0 ,0
23 1.8 579,8 .0 ,0 1134,2 670,3 87.0 ,0 ,0
,J
~i
'~ ij
I
I
I -SrL A.
I
I
I
I
I
I tv
G~E" 13DJM (N'OA' ~StJUTII) .
TI£:13~CI{ Ð~TA/L - W6~T FAc/Mi
ßL.{JFF
-, .
r
--
-- II )
. Q~Dê: ,/50
'- - "
~. --. --- '. " . 8//1
--~
4- H.s- co~
64 CI-I S /12£
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/8k¡",
#4.?) '/ /1
(á/ /, ,r-
0& 3/ De::.
A
--=--
UPP£~ WLJLL /D'
M /0 V\IØ¿L 20
L¿J lUg¡¿ . y.¡jJ,¿¿ 15
ß~
\~.
¡
-
35
35
36
I
I
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I,. ?
I
I
I
.
.
1-100 ~e. ~ I O~C4ì
LOAP CAPACI rv . SQ,-" ,
f'AtG.e t 0 F /
'7jz.°lq'f
T1:.T I".OM)
(,,¡~~ 1 UJC~)
tilt Dvw( OA~>
G;MoIE' LSO
8' sPÅ'~,..,J~ wi
~ I CAtJfriLC; "r=P-
Af EAJOS
A~t!~GIZ l-{)~ 4~:' 1.'$1, ILSf
Mf)" t. 7 AI.." (ð;",.~ .J~b""
V )..~ 't? I/. I. ~b" B/1.. ..._-~ .lO.f,""
'V.-e,., 1 'l.. fUOo-' II IL~.lY:..'" I~ r,
cp "fJ, ., ..~ It,8~ > \{" O. tL
I?w,'" ~ A,' 'l..'/i:..~7 >,,12. Q ',lre,¿;x~&." !iJ
t ..,.-þ-o "~,2í" (~...~ /. ,~/'
8.s-& ~~ 1,7 . ,
t PUlJeMIÑG S\k:").~ ... .4 J( 1y.~,{e,J;""{<i)-)(-;e,r; ( '+ (~OOOõ S tqt"-"
pv. I, 7 J( 5"0 'b5:e-~ ,
V ~ '& 2. 12 o~o-' x '+er ( I If-' 60;.¡..fl- , '
4J/c. ::; SIt J ~~..> 42.,>'" o.~,
ll..~ 10.6. ,.,
~NDING -; K<.J % ~ -="5'f.... q 2 ,030(0 J( io . .00 lOt.
1. -. /';3 ~. OOIG!~ 481< l¥ ..... þ 91 a'l ¡ 4#--'> ðonr
~ ç¡Ot:)
¿ , As¡'I1~= ,002. J'. itÄï8 . , 'l-3z.. 0' fÞ <f@ 1I (y)
~ -.¡ "-"'... ßOTH ~(OŒ)
" , ;.', II/, ~")
I srL... Ie, a~ K ~~ ,~ lit ~~/
If ~ ell L '.. ",,'!. ~-!,SJ
""#';-CQ/Jr, -... ... ~t.o'l;..7>"'(;"'~
G'AC4; 9lPG
( r~~ 18"J
'.
~~
c::~~ o~"
c.v~
\
"
,
I "0'" \0\1\ o~ëf 'Q, 8 '-0 Me>, 4:: ,
'.
.......
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
..,
-,
..
DEADMA~ 4'- 6» WIDE,
DYWIDAG IN CENTER
OPTION, TIE BACK
(LOAD 50 K)
25'- 0"
EXISTING GRADE
11/=="711=111
11/=111=111
to
lO
'<t
I
'<t
7 - #4 EA. WAY
"
3» CLR.
( TYP . )
~ 1 1/2»x 8» SQ,
WA TER PROOF ~
.
lO
.
A,
N
I
3» MIN.
CONC. COVER
-
N
12»
"DEADMAN"
OPTION TO TIEBACK
#8 (TYP.)
3» CLR.
(TYP.)
NOTES:
1. MIN. DEPTH OF CASSION SHALL BE 15'- O'
CENTER LIt,£, FROM BOTTOM OF GRADE BEAM.
2. ALL REINF, BARS SHALL BE GRADE SO
UNlESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
SECTION B-B
NOT TO SCALE
3. UlTIMATE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE SHALL
BE 2500 PSI AT 28 DAYS.
4. STEEL PlATES SHALL BE A3S.
5. PRE-STRESS IN DYWIDAG SHALL NOT
EXCEED 10,000 LBS.
..
...
-
..
..
-
..
-
-
PROPERTY~I
LI NE ì
I
I
~ 1 1/2»x 8» SQ.
WATER PROOF
1//=111=111
I
I
I
3» MIN. I
CONe, COVER Y L
FUTURE 4x I
LAGGING
a
-
to, B
#8 (TYP.)
I
TIES-
#4 @ 12"
I
3" CLR.
12»
18» DIA.
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
t,
.
4 - #6 CONT.
EACH SIDE
B
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Uoo ~ fl, (tGè;. I 0 (: ~œ
Gtl-A o~ t>M - >OcJTH r=ND
~
Q)
I
4
u.-t'
----
U2-' "'"
~ ~~I~
,
10 7.lt'
---
't,'ø~
?..
~
1- 'rl
¡~ -t- .
ë ~ +€c~,DO3
€5= . 0O2ol,9
WOt)::: 1.7)<4.5)1. 4/2, :: ,,2.+j'
CA\S$ON P'" a 12>x '?;obJtS + '~Jt.'3g?>,)Í512. ~
~ t'f.qll- +-12.,. q. = ?>2., ~I"
! Y "! ,1'1/1 )( 2.5 + 12..'1-)( S" ~~ ~ 2.Ki.
.2.~
Fo~ PA~IW t:¡\i.ftt- P~\J~ Of ~5'O Pc.~
Pp~ ': ',~.,.3soJ( "ìt. :r q.45"~ » ~,IO
Me) z '1,1 )t 7.18 z '5.~ I~
X -:: ,003 ,)Í 13 ~ 7.b~ II
b , 00501.:::/1
II
~b ~ .8[; X l.be:¡ 4: 6.5~
.
.
2>-'1-'14
C-I .
H 'h ISSO ~
12.'
CA's.~opJ
tg'f
t1 7 '1~"1f. : ,3"3
l 18 .
A ~ . 2,h)t 182--; t!3lf.2-J ~ 1-
f1 ) .073 IC ,~3 ~ 42b IN~
0 .
X ~ 5, I'/
"
Y ~ 5, I + !;,3 J. 10, <r
C ~ bs,3 X i z. : 75. ¥- "-
u lo.'f '
fc;.."Z 7S,Y- ~ ,8~ "-S; 0 I ~ ,
II ¡>Cf ,z,
A ~ 15,V- : I.fH) CJ"
5 , 'I ~ 60
A~ -: t If. 11+15,"'" ~ "'5 IrJ 1-
V c;.. 't 2.1 zooo 'It 1~5 = Ilf-,e,~
V .If ~bo JlIO~ ': 20,& V-
~ "1 12. V. ~ 3 ç: G "-
h..
f V}'\ % 30,31L > "v "2. 23,2.1£- O,}'-.
'/~
. ' ~%J
I ~,
,~ ~"'C"" I
I
!
I
~
l FUTU(!.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ijCo¡t.£tI- ~ lOGNŒ .
2.;,1.i....J.L.J~}"l.~ '1-/' G~oe bE',4tM
+ . -~ (~fJ ~ . ~'2.
""
Me) ': ./'12.. Jt 20"" -+- Z3,z,)t 4.5
"1dC '0
a ~O.~.... to4-.'f ~ 1?>5 I~
V U MA'f..:' , I~ +- t.~z..( If <t- 7) -= 35"lL-
20
'Ie, ~ i.1føO ')( liJ( 2o,Z " 32.,5" ~
'-TIE> -tCte.ttl VS"l 1y.1i~oJ( 2Ø.~ 40 ~
- - '~.I 7ZQtL
Vr¡ "t .1
~ V'f\" , 2. OIL '1 "V" 3S.1 ,, ~ '
F ~ IS ~ 20,t./n.. CJOo -::. . bIZ-
ILu" Zz.1
5:. ~)C. "3~3 -:. , oo'fl{.lfJ, > ~HI.v.
4-sz.. /",ta"
.
8 -'1 -tj 'f-
C-2..
,
~I
1
24-1}
'bit
4=:It ¡; CaNT,
ßOTIr ,?1t>Efo
---
(-' P!<-1> fË~T'f
L, tJ~
--- -....... r ~VTOQk G ~
. ---
.......
4)( LAG.G. \ ÑG:
As Il€~ \ Q...b:"V
Tlf B/l-c,lL- 'Tv 'Z 2.0)( "\2.~ ?3,'2..+-1.. (~s.z..)((¡,
12.2.+2-3,'2. + 20.'1 :. .Çc,,3 ~
I"f DYw\ DAG 1\
~""e..\rJG ~ A 'Z S"b.3 J( 1,2.5 ; 59 \ ,~t. G~OE ISO I
'7 ~ 185' /(2..0 '
œ. 8~b)(lt\
Dtr:À P MA.J
t ' 13 x ~~ . 't.~' I. 'f
,
F ~ s::¡ os ~'3.~ ~ Foe- b ~ 4'-1, cl:'~
Pp~ 1. . 3S )C. 4-.~)( G,£iL -a ~3.~ 'I- > f ~ 33, Z. "-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Hoo It.ð- ~,OE:NCe
.
.. "
8 -c¡ -9lf
C-3
,
2.5-0
rO~{LAQIi ß>M
>"»
DGA-P MA tJ Co,.Ji,
~~
r
~(
\Q
--.d-
,
't
1 h if D L(VA'DA c;,
15"lbPsr
,
b~4{'
Mu ~ 1,7)( 151(;;)( 4.;~ft ~ h,I"'-
\7U ~ /.~5"}( 5b.3 ~ 70,V-""'"
Pv ~ .gç)f y. 11.7200001)( 4-{8+e,r)BI~ ":ð5.3'1-)"u~7o,'f o ~
F~ ,072,;
\lù t '/2-.
<s .. ~ (. Db If? ~ ,002/' <. rs1-1l.J
AS" 1.33)1,ocn""n<ð.s,, 4,S"x 12. þ 1.~2.o ¡ r2 4fy..EÀ~\;
W $oIl- ~ 4 x 10 x I I Cb L ., 4 L
é1l) .c,~ :: ~~:2..x l,S-
L ~ 2..5"'
[r ~ Il J
'I'
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Høo .(¡ t- e.e- s I 0 e tJ ca
Op-rlO~
PAGe I oF' :;
7/" fI"I
I 'f Ptr'w OAG:~
~~O£ ,~
ð-o (J,CI
~\t
.
~
UfPG'Q.. L¡VE\.. TIe ~QI.~
PES'~,.J Fbf.. ~'tJ..DA-Þ OF 100'"
CoNe:. SLJ~'~.'&.OAO~ 100,.. I,"" ~sç
b It&
'a- ., 1fC..
Mt,Ja 1.7".1,,",- ðlH) ':. 1,,0
V tJ ~ I,?. 1,5"'" f, 15 It &/1. s /2.2. ~
" . t ~ it It,,'~ . I~,O¥--
C ,~
~c. 12.ð> VI,)
1=""."'" 1t1J1 ð'.?
~ . 10417)( l-o 2 , 001 b6
A!; ~ As ' '~7 a ï'
C¿DS> C!>N,
. ~
~ c:s .. ~ e "~l
W,,1 ,.71C1${,~ð~ 2J,2.?'" ~/I
Mu. 2l.22-"-+7~ ~ ItfI.71~
Ýu t 2J.U,.- ~.?'" ~,2~
Vc." 2.12.0oo'..,I2. l.z.,~. ?'s,7b
V,. ."u' ~ '°" 2.1,( .5'l. i
6 VÞ1 ~ ii, (,'"
, q V... ~ ',.ß~ >"1)
\l , ¿ ~ , oDS;
~ ,51(. c..J
t\ $ . '8.cr~)If 12. at 2JJ. - Cö I , 77011
~
LI.:.£!
l!o II 'G'"
If 'f ~ ¡'/'
~0T)0+ s,"~
I ,¡" ( zðl
~CfH 4'08>
I ~ ~ hJ
Low~ 1.... LeveL ì~AC.~
-
2 - "14> D'I'W I OAG ~
@ s'~o" ^,PA~i
(!. ,..0'" o,c,
CONC. S~Àb LOAf) ~ ~ ~,lo t'Cosr
M .. /,1..3.10"'/ z ZZ.' Iy.o
U /to
...
V. ' 1.?JltI.7ø,,2. . It.Si
tJ t4o
1V,," J~,8 >"1)
)i.~~ t2L" ~ 1°' Q. .OSIz....:h 1.0017
.tl~ } ho
J.s. , .040 c/' I It If\!. (, . &/lfM Ç,11e> ~
"'êM t, Q.eoJF A v t . 2.to" ~on~ <; \ Oil, J ... If@. \I ~,~ (1/) I
SLA~
IT, lðwl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I... "~~-,:,"'~~,,:, :':;,
.
K)o r...;,. 2. Il.t$ f 0 eÑc.e
.
LOW~~ t..GV&~ CO~t. ~ CILOS~ e,aAM
WcJ' I.?- " Jl3.7, . 37.7'1-t.{
MtJCIttvr 7 ~ 1. 141- It ',S7-2.. ... .4 2. W, . &.
Mil,.. .. ~7.1¥ A 'ïa -42.'t-' ~ 127,.,.1w.
"u . 17,7 'f ~ (3 ... z) ~ '37.7 tL
¡,E ßA ~ A,J ~~¡;
L . 100 .. 50'
. 210'1I,ì!1I'/1>'J.
: 1-:1
":C':'T ,~,
,-" ,..., " "",...,- . ""'" -,' 0- -, - - -', _"0
PAG e 2. oF' 5
7/1'/~ ~
SAMe AS
UP'e~. LJetJê-l-
I
'I' ~
)$
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ij
'JJ
I
61
,
f
I
J- h '-'::"""",:":'::'
..91
~
¡
I
.
.
ñ -
,
I
¡
0/.
ì " u- .
!
..9 I
,
,
.
(
I
~.I O~ ð~
. ,h, I
l."
,..;
..
t:
'^
...J
l..lJ
">
w
-1
aL
w
<l..
Q..
~
- ,-"-,T '....,
.
1 ' ~~iJ
..
,
¡
,
\
.. ,- - "-
¡
¡
¡
,q
ij:
f
..)
w
>
~
~
UJ
"3
0
-J
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOO~
.
in~ D'r'WIOAG
G~O\i iSO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I - ~ -- - '---
- ,.~,~~--
"- -...;, ,..
,~ ... t;;ll
.,.". ~~ ... 0 ~ ') .
. þ'~1'. ci"yJ~"'\-
Se:c.TIO~ ~
N,T.;, lV
I. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
" .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~Od :: O'?,?t"E£, T '3
Uoc ~ £et¡,. 0 /i"¡ Gfi
.
.
~
r,~ .. 3" II
.
PPtG.. 5 0' s
7/v:... 'III
4t' ßø~ ç,oe,
,~ Fo,. QI.., ~
.
, II
,~ M"j.
, .
.
0 ~W\ DACâ CA~ ~
po P. QhJ c:. R.tinæ
~~~~ ø
: III
-.-~- "
CP: ., 0 .øt -40 . 4fØO PSF
I1/tr1
'N;: 'fœ('~ t 2()O() #1'
ßo", &11 os I'~~J.JI-I'
7' ~f M:: II '!JIJJJ(71¡i a ~2.," II&.
~' ~
StÞ1J M 9 I, fl'i.f2. ,. ~3,~~ I~
-511... . .cs ~r ~ J ~.~ )( fl.... 2.2.,'2-"...)
Pv , 18
~10' .. II, I /tJJ
,I' .
;.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
Hoo~'" ŒSloeNCG
ENO Of UI&WM,LS-
J/o'
.
.
p'þ.GS A' (JÇ.!
7/ViÞ/",.
aD;, ,*,.
I
1"5 IO;t6J(~
IT! ßk'fXj&
TI'; &AQt.( FoR.CI ~T. a. 17" ',~~ It 2 ':0 45., t'o- ¡ or.
. Tor 2~,'~
~A():G'lrJC: (;owe.
1." -
.
~
L.AGG. , N ~
1'0'
, I D~,OAû
II orW! o~
(,Iru .-/;7 -8- fo ~ ~ +-/1
Mu ~ ,. ~ ,..... .
V", I 1.7z:.f'.
V,," t r ~ x. 2.... l' .. 'I, '2.~tl.
qVc:. .. 3.bSlL. > Vu ð, It..
K~...fJ. ....t tS'
0 , 0" " '"T
~ s ,ao'1'+Î
~ a. I ".~ Q '.'
W ODD M'" ~.¡Q I,,",
VI.' t' ~
'\
S ~ 4g l~
,
C 1,(, t( I.)
1~'- G)
I 2-*5"" ~~~
I J~"" F~A~l
~ ~.a PS i 0 ILL'
~oT. L,,' ~. 48'
~
TÞr \..f> s..!1Jt- . ~II
. 2.09 "~~
/ ð 'q, DtlL.t.)
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
¡tOOt'-' ~ ~I P& IJ a
PAce A 2 OF 2.
EÞJ~ of Ce.ltlW~UJt.~
~tlSi
~p.. I!> WALL
rs S~If.¡( ~
f!t I';f, c;MÞe:'
't~ ß,c3 ~h,
. ..---'--
ß IO~'" ~
'.
ts ð IlJ ~JI¡.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
HØt!..E:J4. lESt OEÑt;'6
ENp OF C"'~WALt.S
PAC¡\ã A - 3 OF:3
7/"'/e¡tt
r.s ðK¥.~
5'^CIii~ rs ð. 'I )( X. WliL.o
st O'fwt OM
(j\ QM)e . 50 1
L, "'1ft I
. Pk Sftu iE G)Q.our
,
LAGG I N &: r;, It L.c.J,..,t>=f'. ~
o~ Pru=c..t-~r (;OAJe I PfjiL ~
G;w. D..J 1l&J'N'-5~'1"
. TO PU'ÆC"f srei(. p~,t-J"', lTVP:)
rs IO~~.~
j/
I 0 '¡' ~n o~
G;~O& 150
Le.J' 4&'
I
J
Nor; s P~f£CT ~16et.
~
t 2"
W! Epoxv PA'ÑT.
=
~
-
2-5 Gf.AO. ~o
Œ)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
APPENDIX C
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DATA:
1. Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
A. Upper Terrace.........30
B. Mid Bluff.............32
C. Cemented Sandstone....45
2. Active and Passive Pressures
A. Use UBC Values
3. Tie back Anchor, Shear
A. 750 pst
4. Friction
A. 0.40
5. Soil Unit Weight
A. Upper Terrace.......115 pcf
B. Mid Bluff...........115 pcf
C. Cemented Sandstone..120 pcf
GEOLO.SETTING
ReE!'ional GeoloE!'ic S ettinE!'
I
,-:¡
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I'
I
I
.
The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province
of Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is
characterized by north west trending mountain ranges
separated by subparallel fault zones. The mountain ranges are
underlain by basement rocks consisting of Jurassic
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks and Cretaceous
igneous rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Later
Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sediments have been
deposited to the west of mountain ranges.
The upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary rocks flanking
the western margin of the mountains are generall~' comprised
of detrital marine, lagoonal and non-marine sediments
consisting of sandstones, mudstones and conglomerates. These
sedimentary formations are generally fiat-lying or dip genU.}'"
to the northwest in the subject area.
The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major
active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults are the
major tectonic features. Both are strike-slip faults with
predominantly right-lateral movements. The major tectonic
activity appea-rs to be a result of right-lateral movements on
faults within the San Andreas Fault system.
I
I
I
I
DestabilizinE!' Characteristics
*
The number and degree of jointing and fracturing
that occur in the areas presenting this condition;
:!I
The direction and stcet' dip an~le of the joints
and fractures of the Torrey Sandstone;
*
Erosion and undermining of the lower portion of
the Torre.)' Sandstone by wave action, creating an
unstable condition of the areas presenting
jointing and fracturing. Failure of these materials
could create a hazard condition to the beach-
going public below and possibly result in loss or
undermining of foundational soils from beneath
the up-slope structures.
".
*
T.he Torrey Sandstone typically fails in the form
of large blocks that separate from the near-
vertical clift often leaving the overlying poorly
cemented and poorly çonsolidated terrace deposits
with no down-slope support thus creating a
landslide condition and a hazard to the public
down below and to thè up-slope structures;
*
The inadequacy of erosion protection either
natural or artificial leaving the face of the sea
bluff exposed to weathering from the environment
such climatic changes, rain runoff, animal
burrowing etcetera; and from human activity such
as up-slope landscape watering, non-planned
construction etcetera, thus eroding and/or
weakening the natural condition of the materials
on the face of the sea bluff.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
.
.
Landslidin!Z" and Slope Stability
Based on our
reconnaissance
landsliding on
Ground Failure
review of pertinent documents and our
there are no indication of deep seated
or adjacent to the subject site.
Failure>. within the upper portion of the bluff (terrace
depostis) is a distinct possibilit~, should a significant
earthCIuake occur along the Rose Canyon Fault or other active
faults in the Southern California Region.
Sea Cliff Rel/'eat
A variet,y of faclo/'s ma~' affect the rate of retreat of coastal
sea cliffs composed of materials similar to those existing along
the westerly project boundar.).'. These factors include but are
not limited to, the degree of induration of the sedimentary
materials composing the sea bluff, frequency and intensity of
wave and storm action, degree of orientation of fracturing,
amount of uncontrolled drainage runoff from adjoining up-
slope areas and other sources etc.
Studies performed for similar bluffs and environments
(Reference 1), have indicated that a conservative bluff retreat
rate of 0.2-0.3 feet per year. or 10-15 feet in about 50 years
may be applicable for the subject project. This rate is
supported by aerial photographic records. Given the poorl.}'
cemented nature of the terrace deposits, unprotected bluffs
composed of this material may retreat relatively faster than
protected bluffs or more cemented formations. It is important
to mention that bluff retreat is episodic, site-specific and
strongI:,.' related to meteorological conditions, geologic
conditions and erosional agents.
Field reconnaissance of the sea bluff in the subject site
suggest the following stabilizing and destabilizing
characteristics in the current condition:
S ta bilizinsr c haracte ristics
*
The lower 22 to 25 feet of the sea cliff is
composed of moderately cemented and competent
Tor rey Sandstone materials;
*
The Torrey Sandstone Formation appears jointed
and fractured only in localized areas on the
subject site;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
9.
10.
11.
12,
.
.
APPEND IX A
REFERENCES
1.
ArUm, E,R., 1985, "Erosion and Retreat or Sea Clilts, San Diego
County", publIshed research excerpt from California's Battered
Coast, Proceedings from a Conference on Coastal Erosion, San
Diego, California", edited by Jim Mcgrath, dated September, 1985,
.,
..,
"Prelimina ry Geo technical Exca va tlon, Bradley Res idence, Lo t
Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California", prepared
by Buchanan-Rahilly. Inc., dated October 27, 1986
3.
"Gt:>otechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property 560
Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CaliCornia", prepared by Owen
Consultants, dated June 30,1989.
4.
Ei s enberg, L.L, 1983, "Pleis t ocene Marine Terrace and Eocene
Geology, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe.Quadrangles, San Diego
County, CalHornia", Haster of Science Thesis, SDSV, dated
Sept ember 20, 1983.
'.
5.
Weber, F.H., 1982, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides,
and related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San
Diego County, California", CDMG Open File Report 82-12 LA, dated
July 1, 1982.
6.
Abbot, P.L., (Editor) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition or the
Eocene St ra ta in the Northern San Diego County, California,",
San Diego Association ot Geologists Publication, dated April 13,
1985.
7.
Tan, S.S., 1986, "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle,
San Diego County, California", California Division of Yines and
Geology, Open File Report.
8.
Kuhn, G.G. and F.P. Shepard, 1983, "Coastal Erosion in San Diego
County, California", in Guidebook to Selected Geologic Features,
Coastal Area of Southern San Diego County, SDAG/AEG October,
1983, G.T. Farrand Editor.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, Shore Protection Manual,
Volumens I and II.
Kuhn, G.G. and F .P. Shepard, 1984, "Sea Cliffs, Beaches and
Coastal Valleys of San Diego, California", Vniv. Calif. Press.
Kern, K.R., 1983, "Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego:, Pickle
Press, San Diego California.
Ziony, J.I., Wentworth, C.)!., Buchanan-Banks, J.K. and H.C. Wagner,
1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal
Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-585, Scale:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13.
14.
15.
.
.
"County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326-16771
scale: 1 inch equals 200 feet, dated September 17, 1975",
"Earth Systems Design Topographic Survey, scale: 1 inch equals
40 feet, dated June 1992",
"Earth Systems Design Group aerial photographs scale 1 inch
equals 300' flown June 8. 1992".
."
~.~
"~ :-.;
~~.
~ ~ ~h
~~~I\
~':5) .
~.~. r
~ '.
="
~ ~ 1t
~. ..~,
~ .~
.,,-
iE:-
~~.
./'
0 C. t.. ¡:.. ~
C\~\c
?Þ-
11
....
..J
C
U
'"
t:!
to-
i
CEA[)I, AN: <4' - 6. llDE,
DY1IDAC IN CENTER
(fITlON,TlEBACK
(LOAD 50 K)
7 - ,. [A, WAY
.
'"
I
'"
.
.
.1,
.
fl.' 1/2". .,. SQ,
. A TER PROŒ"",
.
N
I
N
"
12-
25'- O'
PRŒ'ER 1Y -........ !
Llt£ ,
I
,
I
I
3- 'UN. ,:
ax:.y\ L.
l..'CC I N: ~
.'
:2 8
" ,8 (TYP. )
I
11£5-
,..,2"
I
3. Q.,R,
I
I
81
J. Q,R,
(TYP. )
"DEADM&L
oPTiëif1õ'ìT£SA Q(
NlTIS:
I, IIIN, CD'TH CF CASSIOI SHIU. lIE 18'- 0"
ŒHß]t Uti:, ,... IIm~ CF GWI£ l[ioii.
2, H.L 1lE1"', IARS StW.L IE GWI£ III
IK.DS OTKJIIIIE: IIITUI,
~. u.TlIlA1t: SJIII)Cnt rI c:øcx1t: StW.L
IE 2IGO Pli AT . Oo\TS,
4, Itm. ft.AtU M'U IE A31.
12"
IS" DIA.
18" DIA,
SECTION A-A
tÐT TO SCALE
SECTION B-B
tÐT TO SCALE
I, PC-SKIS IN onlOo\G IIWL lilT
DIIZID to , OlIO ~ .
'.
EXIST, CRIBWALL
M-------------------
__----70
TOTAL CF 7
18- CIA,
CA I SS0'6
60 - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - -
B
--___---60
B
, ."
EXIST,
-----__----50
alz
1-
02
U)
.-
~ - - - - - - - - - - - .0
<40 - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL CF 5
TIE BACKS
----------------~
EXIST, CRIBWALL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20
, 4
"
.
.
,--,-",_.~-<..ß',"'~"U'" "","-' '""'h
NOV I 81994
F ENCINITAS
ADDENDUM; BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSIS
1030 NEPTUNE AVENUE
LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA
**
Relationship of Bluff Stability Analysis to Structural design Improvements for
1030 Neptune Avenue; Submitted by Adams Design Associates, Inc. (Plans
Attached)
**
Relationship of Bluff Stability Analysis to Existing Tram and Concrete
Stairway
FOR
MR, AND MRS, GARY HOOKER
BY
CHARLES J, RANDLE, P,E.
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
619 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE, SUITE 207
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
.IL ENGINIŒIUNG CONSUL'fAN'I'S.
c. J. RandlCi, P,E., Pra'ideot
(i19 So. Vulcull AnOdCl, Suite llO
Encinita."I, CalIfornia 9%014
PJIOUe: (619) ~r4441Z4
Fax: (619) 94¡.()O4J
September 20, 1994
Mr. and Mrs, Gary Hooker
1030 Neptune A venue
Leucadia, CA 92024
Subject:
Addendum to Bluff Stability Analysis
1030 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California
In our submitted findings for the coastal bluff at 1030 Neptune Avenue, we referenced plans
which indicate the presence of an existing tram and concrete stairway providing access from
the bluff top to the ljeach along the northern bordèr of the property, You have requested
that we provide an analysis of these bluff structures relative to pennitting actions you intend
to pursue with the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission,
You have also requested that we review plans which entail remodeling and structural
additions to the existing residence at 1030 Neptune, and a detennination as to whether
existing bluff conditions would impact your opportunity to pursue building pennits for such
development.
'.
Existing Tram and Concrete Stairway
Photo documentation indicates that a wooden tram with concrete anchor support has existed
on the site since approximately J971. This structure currently presents no positive or
negative impact to bluff stability, Should removal occur, the anchor supports should be
removed at ground level and no further sub-surface disturbance should be allowed.
Within the past ten years, a solid concrete stairway has been placed immediately adjacent
to the tram, Photo documentation illustrates that the location of the stairway was once
impacted by drainage from the development throughout the surrounding neighborhood. A
substantial cavity developed from the top of the bluff to the beach where it appears that
massive amounts of water were directed. Subsequent to this bluff damage, it appears that
the cavity was filled with rip-rap and packed loosely with full material. There appears to
have been no attempt to stabilize this damaged portion of the bluff -- merely to cosmetically
cover the surface blemish.
N.C,E.E. ,.4110 . CA R,C.E. IC,22096 . AI. R,C.I:. 111971 . NV R.C,E. 13031 . WA C,E. 110775
:~ 'IL S-:-"'UCT'JRAL. AND SOILS ENGINEE;:'<G . GEOLOGY .SURVEY . CER'T1FIED INSI'ECT'.ON .SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING. FEASISILrT'Y STUDIES . cc~¡¡;..4:-: YANAGEYEI.,'T
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSUL TAJ.'fTS
C. J. .RAJ."'IDLE. P.E.. President
1529 Grand Avenue. Suite A
San Marcos. CA 92069
Phone: (760)471-6000
Fax (760) 736-0185
D V
\ c; \ I
bL
JUL 01 1997
,--c
E"'i\lc,r\lr::::PiP,;(), (~:.;:::nv\Cc:.v
-"I, -O"CL,,1,."'-",' oJ-- "'.~'~
CITY OF ENC\NII h::;'
June 10, 1997
Mr. and Mrs, Gary Hooker
1030 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Response for the Absence of Report Dated September 20, 1997 Certification of Upper and
Lower Bluff Stabilization System
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hooker:
The final approved procedure for remedial work done on the bluff face was amended in a written
report dated September 20, 1994. The essence of this report was to amend the previous design
criteria which included caissons to be placed within the downhill slope, The basis for the revision was
for safety purposes. This amended report eliminated the caissons which were a part of the down
slope grade beam, The revised plans are attached which reflect the complete stabilization project.
Based on the attached tests and inspection reports, the bluff stabilization system is constructed
according to the attached plans. The overall bluff stability is a function of maintenance; continual
care of the constructed support system and the maintenance of an adequate ground cover across the
entire face of the bluff located at 1030 Neptune, Encinitas, California are an essential requirement.
Also attached are the test results and observations which are pertinent to the proposed development
of the residence which is located at the upper portion of the bluff; this refers to the residential
construction designed by Adams Design Associates, Architects and constructed by T ekton.
In SllII1II1a1y, the geotechnical restrictions which have been placed on the development of this entire
site have been addressed adequately. Construction., testing and procedures have been inspected by
representatives in this office and the undersigned, .
Based on all of the above, the site in its entirety does conform to plan specifications which were
presented by this office.
N, C.E.E. #4170 . CA #22096 . AZ #11971 . FLA #50277 . LA #26535 . NY # 3037 . OH #30754 . PA #11063 . W A #10776
CIVIL. STRUCTURAL aød SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY. SURVEY. INSPECTIONS, SOIL and MATERIAL TESTING, CONTRACT MANAG",-"",""
II
i .1
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Should you require further clarification of this information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Charles 1. Randle, P,E.
RCE 22096 CA
President
Attachments: Copy of plans
Test results and observations
cc:
Mr. Hans I ensen, P .E .
City ofEncinitas
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I N C E.E. #4170 . CA R.C,E. #C.22096 . AZ R.C.E. #11971 . NV R.C,E. #3037. WA C.E. #10776 T
. . TEF11AL TES71NG . FEASIBILITY sruCII:S . CCNmAC". MANAGE!.!EN
C IL, STRUCTtJAAL. ANC SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY .SURVEY . CERi1FiEO INSPecT10N .SOIL AND 1M .
I
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. Randle, P,E., President
1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 7~~18S
October 21, 1996
Mr. Gary Hooker
1030 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA
Subject:
Foundation Inspection
Hooker Residence
1030 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA
Dear Mr. Hooker:
We have performed a SÌte inspection of the b1ri1ding pad, utility trenches located under the proposed
building slab and bottom of foundation for the garage and utility building. Said improvements were
perfonned in accordance with the recommendations shown on the soil report prepared by this office,
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Civil Engineering Consultants
~
C~ksJ,~dk,PE
RCE 22096, President
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. R.:mdJe, P.E., Presideot
m9 Grand Aveoue, Suite A
SaD Marcos, CA 9Z069
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 7J6-4)185
October 2,1995
Adams Design Associates, Inc
829-B Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Sir,
This letter from the soils engineer confirms that the foundation
plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that
it has been determined that the recommendations ,in the soils report
are properly incorporated into the construction documents.
Addi tionally , the new work that is wi thin 40' of the sea bluff"
conforms to the city ordinance.
There are no
,requirements ~backs
¿
as submitted.
C. . Randle, PE/
RCE 22096 President
N.c.E.E. #4170 . CA A.C,E. #C-22096 . AZ A.C,E. #11971 . NIl A.c.E. #3037 . WA c.E. ¡ I10776
smucruRA1.. AND SOILS ENGINEEANG . GEOLOGY .suRVEY. cs:mFIED INSPECTTON -SOIL ANa MA 1'I:RAL 1ëS'I'1NG . FEASlSIUTY S'I\IOIES . CONmACT MAHAGalENT
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
CML ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. Randle, P.E., President
1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 736-0185
August 20, 1996
TEKTON Master Builders, Inc.
200-B NorthHWY 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attention:
Mr. Davis Woodward
Subject:
Hooker Residence
1030 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA
Dear !vIr. Woodward:
We have been infonned that a Caterpillar C963 (track, ftont end loader), is being used on the
subject project for fill and compaction operations. We recommend that an alternative method of
compaction be used to minimi7,e vibration due too possible negative affects.
This firm is not responsible for any damage to the site or adjacent properties, cause by these
operations.
Sincerely,
Civil Engineering Consultants
~
Charles J. Randle, PE
RCE 22096, President
/(L£ G, { If: V V1!j
Tr *!~D ø~/ vU
N.C.E.E. #4170 . CA R.C.E. #C-22096. AZ R.C,E. #11971 . NV R.c.E. #3037. WA C,E. #10776 NTAACTMANAGEMENT
L. STRUCTURAL. AND SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY .SURVEY . CERT1AED INSPEC'I1ON .SOIL AND MAì'EAIA1. "ÆSi1NG . FEASIBILITY SiUDIES . co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-----
August 20, 1996
MR. CHARLES RANDLE
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
1529 Grand Avenue, ste A
San Marcos, CA 92069
RE:
1030 Neptune Avenue
Leucadia, CA
Dear Mr, Randle,
In response to your letter, dated August 20, 1996, regarding
the ground vibration caused by the C963 track loader in compacting
the fill at the subject project. We have slowed the operation speed
to a rate that has stopped ground vibration except in the areas
directly adjacent (within a few feet) of the work being performed.
We have felt for ground vibration in the neighbors house to
the south, the driveways of the two houses to the north and on the
bl uff top of the project. We did this by standing in our bare
feet, feeling wi th our hands on the ground and sitting on the
ground, We felt no vibration in these areas,
We hope this addresses your concerns
recompaction methods being used on our project.
regarding
the
Very truly,
TEKTON MASTER BUILDERS
fLM?Ù~
Davis Woodward
Project Manager
cc:
Job File
DWjjss
t- N. Hvvy 101
Eneinitas. CA 92024 (6 1 91 436-3333
Lie, No, 8-520474
Fax (61 8) 436-2980
<С
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CML ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. RaudJe, P.£, President
1529 Grond Avenue, Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 736-0185
July 30, 1996
City ofEncinitas
Building Department
Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: Footing Inspection
10 0 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California
re: Grade Beam and Footing (Under Existing Structure),
The subject inspection was conducted on July 28, 1996, This correspondence confirms that the
referenced excavations confonn to the plans as amended by this office,
The footing widths have been excavated the required additional width per revisions, The grade
beam is 23' 6" and is in a north to south direction adjacent to, and east of the portion of the
existing structure,
Should you require clarification of this information, contact the undersigned
N,C,E.E. *4170 . CA R.C.E. *C-22096 . AZ R.C.E. *11971 . NV R.C,E. *3037. WA C.E. *10776
I c: IL, STI'lUcn.JAAL, ANO SOILS ENGiNEERING. GEOLOGY .SURVEY . CSñT1FiEû INSPECõ10N .SOIL AND MATErI1AL 1ëSi1NG . FEASIBILITY snJCIES . CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
II
II
I
II
I
!I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. Randle, P.E., President
1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A
SaD Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 736-0185
City ofEncÏnitas
505 S. Vulcan Ave.
EncÏnitas, Ca, 92024
Subject: Foundation Revision; Hooker Residence, 1030 Neptune; Leucadia, Ca.
Re: Spread Footing Configuration
The following recommendations relate to the continuation of construction at the Hooker site, 1030
Neptune, Leucadia, Ca.:
Results of tests taken at the equivalent, bottom of footing grades, indicate areas of loose sand
material which will require over-excavation and revisions of the construCtion plans according to the
attached detailS # 1 & #2 .
The premise is to develop a foundation system which complies with the plan specifications; yet can
be constructed in such a manner as to prevent any excess vibration throughout project site. This will
require the following steps, to h1sure an adequate soil bearing value for the structural system and
provide a means of constructing the project without any further delay.
The area apprmdmately 25 feet east of the remaining structure, will be constructed on manufàctured
fill materials compacted to 90 % of relative compaction. The footings in this area will not require
any additional excavation or sizing to satisfy the requirements of the foundation system
The area east of this zone will require testing at the bottom of footings. In the event that the exposed
bottom offooting materials is less than 85% relative compaction; an additional 2 feet of excavation
will be required vertically and the horizontal dimension will be increased 1 foot on each side of the
footing. This, in essence, will develop an increased bearing area which will reduce the soil contact
N.C.E.E. #4170 . CA R.C.E. #C-22096 . AZ R.C.E. #11971 . NV R.C.E. #3037. WA C,E. #10776
L. STRUCT1JRAL, AND SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY -SURVEY. CEfmF1EO INSPECT10N .SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING . F""cASlBIUTY STUDIES. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pressure to approximately 900 PSF. The over-excavation of2 vertical feet will then be backfilled
with 1 Y2 inch minus rock. The gravel should be put in place, in two lifts of 1 foot each. This gravel
will then be leveled and the foundation reinforcing steel may then be put in place. Please note: the
balance of the excavated area may then be replaced with concrete throughout the enlarged footing
contact area.
Footings tested between 85% to 90% of relative compaction, shall have the effective bearing area
increased by a similar 1 foot lateral dimension on each side of the footing, see Detail No.2,
Sincerely,
CharlesJ,RBn&e,PE
RCE 22096
President
cc: Hooker/ Tekton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
II i
11. :5TD.
, . ----,
~/ : 1=TG;.
-"{II
ø
5TD-.{ I'Ll!.
FTGi.1
~
~.~ !?~ J ð r4' ~ ~
- þ Ii' '
_9 6.""~ 17 .
~ Co; 0
fu fJj~ <; ð ~ø flD,'p ,A ~
I ~ D ,¡( ~ ~
"/ / 6 t/~<f-... L.J
/ þ ~ D,...
II?: /;. rr~ .
. \.. \N-PLACE' SO\L DENSITY @ LE:~S
THA..N ð~~ REL. c.otv\?
NOTE: WHERE IN-PLACE DENSITIES ARE LESS THAN 85% RELATIVE COMPACTION,
FOOTING SHALL BE OVER-ECXAVATED TO 2 FEET BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING,
REPLACE SOIL WITH l~" MINUS GRAVEL IN 2 ONE FOOT LIFTS.
Î Yz. II I"i \ t-J U 5 G\RA VEt-
\N Z -ðNe: FT. LiFTS
~
11
DETAIL - CASE1
I
I
I
/I,A::; ~
(\N- PLAGe:: ..soIL Dt=.NSITY
@ ð:S'7d RE:L. COy..p, ORGR=:r\"TE"R.
NOTE: WHERE IN-PLACE DENSITIES ARE 85% OR GREATER,WIDEN STANDARD FOOTING
BY 1 FOOT EA. WAY TO INCREASE CONTACT AREA, RESULTING IN REDUCTION
OF CONTACT PRESSURE FROM APPROX. 2,000 PSI TO APPROX. 888 PSI.
(ASSUME 4'x4' FTG. TO 6'x6' FTG.)
I
I
I
!A~ //~
I~ /I ~" -:;¡
~ADD'L. ,STD.
\'-0" FTG¡.
DETAIL - CASE2
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIVll.. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
1529-A GRAND AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
(619) 471 - 6000
July 30, 1996
Mr. and Mrs, Gary Hooker
1020 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Plan Revision: 7-30-96
1020 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California
re: Field Changes (i.e. Changed Conditions).
The following and the attached revised plans are submitted to clarify the work on the westerly
bluff repairs at the subject site.
Field excavation revealed a changed condition regarding a crib cell at the toe of the excavation
for the grade beam being constructed along the south property line. This 5""úUcture was originally
constructed as a part of the lower wall and was buried, Essentially this devise acted as an anchor
for the southerly portion of the first (lowest wall), The cell has been excavated and backfilled in
part with concrete, This further stabilizes the "anchor", the balance was filled with onsite soils,
compacted and tested, This devise is approved as an addition to the plans and will add to the
gross stability of the site repair.
Similarly, crib walls (second and third walls measured from the lower elevation) were partially
constructed on the adjacent southerly property, In order to excavate and build the southerly
grade beam, it has been necessary to remove a portion of the original wall and then replace the
members with new crib elements. However, no new construction is proposed within the adjacent
property.
The revised plans is attached to clarify these findings (re: location of second and third wall
southerly termini). Additionally, a low structure is proposed to be constructed between the third
and forth (upper most) wall. This will consist of no more than two crib members in height and
will be covered upon completion of the backfill of the southerly grade beam. The purpose of this
intermediate structure is to resist downhill movement of the slope soils, Similar resistance is
achieved by the replacement of the walls referenced as two and three and the anchor previously
described. See plan view, Sheet 1 of 3 and the profile, Sheet 3 of 3,
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Finally, work was conducted which was not in confonnance to the original plans, This included
the construction of five new crib courses placed on the lower wall and a seven course high cell at
the south end of the level area (behind the concrete sea wall), These have been removed to
confonn to the revisions noted on Section F-F , Sheet 1 of3 and Section A-A and Detail A on
Sheet 3 of 3. The added two rows of crib wall is per the undersigned direction; this will add to
the lateral stability of the second wall (re: toe depth and resistance to sliding), The retention ofa
part of the cell added at the south end of the level area is to again add resistance to down bill
movement of the completed backfill soils. Note: this addition is restricted to be below the
adjacent concrete walls which are a part of the original seawall, This provision is to minimize
any visual impact when viewed ITom the beach,
As noted on the plans, permission to grade on the adjacent property has been obtained ITom the
southerly property owners,
Should you require any clarification of this infonnation, please contact the undersigned at the :
letterhead address.
. . Randle, PE
RCE 22096 CA
President
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of
Encinitas
'--=/
July 29, 1996
Mr, Charles Randle
Applied Engineering Group
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92069
SUBJECT: Cribwall Additions for the Hooker Bluff Stabilization System; lû3û Neprune Ave.
Dear Chick:
The proposed cribwall additions to the Hooker Bluff Stabilization System, originally authorized
under Major Use Permit No, 94-224 MUP/CDP, shall be subject to Third Party Geotechnical
Review prior to a determination being made as to substantial conformance with the original
Major Use Permit. Based on a field visit conducted by the City's Geotechnical Consultant, Ernie
Artim, and yourself; it is my understanding that revised plans and a clarification letter are to be
submitted for Third Party Geotechnical Review and,Engineering Department review.
An additional deposit of $360,00 to cover costs associated with the Third Party Geotechnical
review shall be submitted at this time, Mr, Artim estimates 3 to 4 hours for completion of the
review (see attached estimate) which includes the site inspection conducted last week. The
required deposit needs to be submitted before Mr, Artim can be authorized to proceed with the
work,
Please submit the revised plans, clarification letter and required deposit as soon as possible to
allow the project review to. proceed, If you have any questions in this matter please do not
hesitate to contact me at (ói9) 633-2ïl4.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ j
<--1-1 ~ - - ~7t~~.\ L-.
Diane S. Langager uV
Associate Planner
cc:
Bill Weedman, City Planner
Ron Brady, Engineering Inspector
Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer
Blair Knoll, Assistant Engineer
Gary Hooker
Dlf: 96-036 (7/29/96)
TEL 6l')-(d3-260() / FAX 6l')-(¡;33-2h27
'50'> S, Vulcan :\\'enue. Encinitas, California 92024-3633
TOO (j19-n33-2700
recycled paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'mo. rn@rnu w ~-.~
! t , ! \ \! I
I. ". 1'\ JL 2 5 ' : ""' ,
,I', " I
:::UI-~~:l
" '~';TY OF E .:~
ERNEST R. ARTIM
P.o. BOX 99725
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
92169-1725
(619)230-9492
Project Number 94-85g
July 24, 1996
City of Encinitas
Planning Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024-3633
Attention: Ms. Diane Langager
Associate Planner
Subject: Additional Fees Required to Perform
Additional Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information
Hooker Property, 1030 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas. California
Case Number: 94-224 MUP/EIA
In accordance with your request, we can provide services for
additional review of the subject project. Additional services will
likely require about 3 to 4 hours of time at an hourly rate of $90.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
~~tim
CEG 1084; expo 3-31-97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6í26/96
To; The City ofEncinitas
The W1dersÍgn~d o\vners of the property at 1024 Neptune have given pennissicnto Gary
and Gail Hooker and their hired help to have access to the cliff front from our property
as needed during their project.
~
Ruth Kilpatrick
Robert C. Kilpatrick
Linda Kilpatrick
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ICW!
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. ~ndle, P,E., President
lSZ9 Grand Avenue, Suite A
San Marcos, CA nO69
Phone: (619) 471-óOOO
Fax: (619) 136-0185
June 21, 1996
Jack Cavanagh
Contractor/ Hooker Site
Subject: Hooker Bluff COnstructiQn
Ref: 1020 Neptune Ave.
NOTE: Please do not work on adjacent property to the south without -the neighbors specmc letters
of permission for consmction and grading,
Thank you for your compliance,
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSUlTANTS
A
Charles J. Randle, PE
RCE 22096
President
N,C,E.E. #4170 . CA R.C,E. #C-22096 . AZ R.c.E. #11971 . NY R.C,E. #3037 . WA C.E. #10776
STRUC11JRAL. AND SOILS ENGINëcRING . GEOLOGY .SURVEy . CSTTFISJ INSPecnON oSOlL AND MA~IAL TESTING . FEASlSIUTY SitJCIES . CCNmACT MANAGEMENT
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTAJ."iTS
c. J. Randle, P.E., President
1529 Gr:md Avenue, Suite A
SaD Marcos, CA 92069
Phone: (619) 471-óOOO
Fax: (619) 73ó-ð185
City of Encinitas
Building Inspection Dept,
505 S. Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, Ca. 92024
Attn: J\1r ~on Brady
Subject: Hooker Bluff Construction
Ref: 1020 Neptune Ave,
Dear Ron,
/----"""
We have sent two copies of a revised set ofplans dateØ~ June 20, 199p~ under separate cover.
',~
Please note: These revisions reflect, what were to have been, an increase of two courses of cnòwall
at the lowest cnDwall sttucture. These two courses were added to increase lateral resistance against
sliding for the grade beam and wall behind it. Obviously, the owner chose to construct several more
stretchers. They have been instructed to remove at least two stretchers.
Again, related to the cnD\V-alllbox-like structure located in the southeasterly comer of the sand zone,
behind the concrete seawall; this was an extension of a conversation, specifically, for a low crib
structure to be built in such a n1anner that it would not be visible ttom the beach. The intent for this
was to act as a base support or buttress-like sttucture to support the backfill of the uphill grade beam.
Note: This beam (easterly to westerly direction) is to be completely backfilled with sand, However,
it is obvious that the owners built several more stretcher heights than were discussed. The owner
N,C,E.E. #4170 . CA R.C.E. #C-22096 . AZ R.C,E. #11971 . NY R.C,E. #3037. WA C,E. #10776
II.. STRUCTURAl. ANa sorloS ENGINEEMING - GiroLCGY -SURVEY - Cs:mAEC INSPECTION -SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING - FEASIBILITY STUDIES - CON"mACr MANAGEMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
has been instructed to remove at least four courses, Further discussion will be forthcoming with the
City ofEncinitas for approval for these non-structural extras to the scope of work.
Also noted on these plans, the extra two courses of cribwall placed at approximately the third points
of the east-west retaining structure are to prevent down-hill sliding of the backfill proposed for this
completed project.
To summarize, the work that initially was contemplated at the Hooker residence was to include this
side-hill structure with its associated ties to the existing cribwalls. All of this work was to have been
back-filled upon completion and landscaped in a manner similar to the existing property,
Section EE is a section which is intended to provide a connection of the existing slab-on-grade which
exists at the uppennost cribwall. The intention for the proposed cantilever-like slab was for the
continuity of this StructUre, running :&omnorth to south, varying in width of3 foot 6 inches maximum
at the current dimension and will be narrowed in such a manner as to overlay the existing soil and
proposed grade beam.
Our staff is currently developing an "as-built" of this work to date. This "as-built" will be submitted
to the City ofEncinitas for approval, (i.e.; the block-like structure at the base of the wall and the
additional cribwalls which are being placed at section FF). These as-built drawings will show the
proposed finish grade along the downhill slope.
Thank you for your consideration during this process. ,As I have repeated to you, verbally and in this
correspondence, the owners have been appraised of the work that they did which was in non-
conformance and they are prepared to remove the entire cribwall construction. However, I do wish
to point out that portions of this work will be brought to the city for your review as this will lend
stability and overall slope integrity to the project. It is our intention, however, to develop this
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
concept without impacting the visibility ftom the beach and causing concern to either the City of
Encinitas Planning Department and/or the Coastal Commission.
Sincerely,
Civil Engineering Consultants
Charles 1. Randle, PE
RCE 22096
President
cc: Craig Randle (on-site)
Jack Cavanagh (Contractor on-site)
Gary Hooker
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tv
CML ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
c. J. Randle, P.£., President
1529 Grnnd Avenue, Suite A
SaD Marcos, CA 921kí9
Phone: (619) 471-6000
Fax: (619) 736-0185
August 11, 1995
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker
1030 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject:
Construction of new residence.
Re:
All construction behind 40 foot setback line from top
of slope.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hooker,
This correspondence is being written to you, as my client; however,
the premise of the discussion herein should be directed to the City
of Encinitas, your architect, structural engineer and to the City
of Encinitas Planning Commission. Essentially the thrust of this
report is to address the mindless restrictions which are constantly
being setup as barriers to the development of your property.
The existing slope stability for your residence is stable with
ei ther the old dwelling and with, or without the proposed new
dwelling. The particular configuration which you currently have on
your bluff has withstood a considerable amount of what is referred
to as wind erosion, rain impact and whatever other and usual
potpourri of middle, upper and lower bluff distress which is noted
throughout the Encinitas and Leucadia bluff areas. In fact, your
bluff has not been a victim of bluff distress since you constructed
the existing stabilizing system. However, your neighbor located to
the south has permitted your common bluff property line lateral
stability to diminish to an excessive unsafe level; this will be
discussed further within the text of this report.
I wish to stress that any changes to your slope either in part or
parts will be foolhardy. Your stability relates to the entire
bluff as a whole entity and not a series of parts acting
independently. Any requirements to eliminate any part of your
bluff system is merely a mindless and ill conceived attempt to
extract a "pound of flesh" as punishment for having constructed
your slope without what is, in the minds of the planners, "work
done without a permit".
To summarize the bluff situation, any attempt at revision by others
will clearly impact the stability of your improvements on the bluff
and your residence. Furthermore, adjacent properties (including
the beach) may be negatively affected.
N.C.E.E. #4170. CA R.C.E. #C-22096 . AZ R.C.E. #11971 . NV R.C.E. #3037. WA C,E. #10776
STRUCTURAL, AND SOILS ENGINE=.:RfNG - GEOLOGY -SURIIEY - CERTIFIED INSPEC'1'10N -SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING - F:"cASlBIL!TY sruCIES - CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 2
The caissons which were included in the existing residence's design
are unnecessary and also it must be clarified that these piles
have no relation to the overall stability of the site and more
particularly these piles are not a part of a bluff stabilizing
system.
Since my last involvement with the design of this project, there
apparently has been a new ordinance which has been created by the
City of Encinitas regarding the owner's signing a statement that
they would not attempt to repair foundation improvements within 25
feet of the bluff. This ordinance is merely more rhetoric by a
group of individuals who are knowingly resisting necessary and
often minor repairs to the existing improvements on private
property.
The general scope or direction of this new ordinance appears to be
imposed by the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal
Commission is not motivated by any meaningful analysis of limits
they attempt to place on private 'property owners. My experience
has been one of frustration when attempting to develop a
reasonable, yet environmentally sensitive repair to works within
the Coastal Commission jurisdiction. The projects that are being
submi tted by myself and other professional engineers are being
reviewed by amateurs who are not experienced and are not competent
to evaluate a structural system determined by the engineer for the
development of a repair plan. The commission is comprised of land
planning oriented staff and environmentalists who lack technical
and as previously mentioned experienced professional engineering
expertise.
This premises (caissons) which created an issue has been removed.
Upon the owner's request, the entire residence will be constructed
on a spread footing. These will be either continuous or isolated
spread footings.
Design criteria will be as follows:
A.
Prior to constructing footings, this native soil
shall be compacted to a depth of 24 inches below the
bottom of footing by a width which represents the
footing width plus 2 lateral feet. Minimum footing
depth shall be at least 24 inches.
B.
Design unit weight for dead and live loads shall be
2500 psf for footings placed 24 inches below grade.
This value may be increase 500 psf for each
additional foot of depth, to a maximum of 4000 psi.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 3
C.
This value may be increased 1/3 to resist seismic
loads, or to a lesser limit if desired by the
structural engineer.
D.
A coefficient of friction for concrete on dense
sandy soil may be 0.4.
E.
Active pressure for level backfire shall not exceed
37 lb/CF of depth.
1.
The existing dwelling does not require any construction
revision and currently is stable. The owners were
advised that a caisson/grade beam is the Dreferred
foundation svtem for this development. However, in
order to address the numerous agency stipulations this
existing dwelling and the proposed addition will be
constructed on the afore described spread footings.
It is significant to recognize the impact of these
restrictions which are City Planning and Coastal
Commission oriented. In order to maintain some mundane
control of this development and other projects of
similar scope; engineering design has become secondary
to the agencies' multiple restrictions which actually
prevent design options. Good planning and good
engineering should be able to co-exist when considering
a repair within the bluff's fragile geologic
composition.
2.
The issues which are now to be addressed are in response
to the Coastal Commission staff and the City of
Encinitas Planning Department's review.
Emergency response was required during an unusually
heavy storm in or about 1972. The lower wall (beach
level) was damaged and necessitated reinforcement to the
concrete retaining wall. Any addition to the wall were
along the lower bluff line, or inland. No beach area
was "LOST" to this construction.
Additional stabilizing structures (3 crib walls) were
further constructed to maintain stability of the MID
BLUFFS. This MID BLUFF instability was a result of this
loss of toe of slope caused by the 1972 heavy storm.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 4
The landscaping has been effective, and is mostly a deep
root ice plant (Disneyland variety). This bluff also
includes a concrete stairway and series of landings
which contribute to the stabilization at the northerly
property line. This area is comprised of massive
boulders which have acted as an erosion controlling
device. This area was once a drainage channel which
exhibited considerable deep drainage induced gullies.
This remedial action is now a significant part of this
slope global stability.
In essence this slope represents a group of supporting
systems all of which are necessary to maintain overall
stability. Removal of any of the parts will jeopardies
the whole. Thus a "punitive" act to require removal
of the bluff's parts will create a potential failure.
The bluff stability, though stable across the west
facing slope is currently being threatened by the
deterioration of the southerly property line. The
adjacent landowner is elderly and does not plan to
remediate the pending slope failure. Thus, in light of
a failed lateral southerly slope containment, an
immediate repair is necessitated; as presented by this
office on August 29, 1994. Without immediate response
imminent slope failure will impact the currently stable
bluff face leading to potential loss of improvements on
either adjacent properties, possibly beyond the two
neighboring property owners. In this light an
emergency response is required to avoid considerable
damage and property loss.
3.
The proposed development plan for the bluff remediation
and the works proposed for development east of a 40 foot
line project from the top of the bluff will not impact
the adjacent properties. In fact erosion and overall
stability will be enhanced. This project will in total
create a stable condition throughout the limits of the
Hooker property will easily expect a 75 year life,
logically longer. Naturally normal maintenance is
necessary to insure this long life.
Historical data related to the rate of bluff retreat
frequently has been on the order of approximately 1 to 5
feet each decade. However, this site has virtually
4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 5
maintained a stable configuration since 1972, when the
lower wall was repaired.
Based on several slope stabilities analysis, the
repaired bluff will exceed a factor of safety of 1.5.
Furthermore this condition will not deteriorate over the
estimated life of 75 years, or longer. This condition
is contingent on reasonable maintenance and not
withstanding extreme natural acts, such as severe
storms, extreme wave action or seismic events; the works
will have a 75 year life.
Finally, to address ten conditions required by city planning.
The following is presented for your edification:
1.
Maximum wave heights are determined to be on the
order of 13+j-feet. The lower bluff improvements
are capable of withstanding infrequent
overtopping.
2. Measured tidal data is as follows:
MHHW ----------- 9.31
MSL ----------- 6.52
MLLW ----------- 3.58
Datum = 0.00; BM 13-1926 Municipal Pier Bench
Mark.
3.
Estimated erosion rate:
without preemptive measures, no impact due to
existing lower bluff structures. Otherwise, as
discussed above, erosion would be on the order
of approximately 0.5 feet per year; this is a
value which is hypothetical as if the seawall
was not in place.
4.
Beach quality sand appears to be the predominant
soil type within the midterrace sands located
from approximately 15 feet (msl) to elevation 60
+j- feet (msl). This quantity is on the order of
20 to 30% of this total.
5.
The proposed bluff repairs will significantly
improve the adjacent mid bluff stability to the
south. The north property stability will be
enhanced due to general improvement in site
lateral support.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. &. Mrs. Hooker
Page 6
10.
6.
Scour is not a consideration, as the existing
wall and continued improvements are founded at
depth at or on dense formation material which
'precede scour at the base of the wall.
Design life exceeds 75 years. Nominal
maintenance is expected on an annual basis.
Maintenance in response to heavy storm impact or
similar acts of God naturally will require
periodic repairs.
7.
8.
There are no alternate designs, as removal or .
revision of the existing bluff system will have a
severe impact on the site gross stability.
Southerly improvements are minimal and purposely
designed to be at or below ground level. Without
the southern lateral support, a catastrophic
bluff failure will result, potentially impacting
the adjacent lands including beach debris.
9.
The construction area involves approximately 30%
of the mid bluff including the south property
line.
Construction techniques are proven methods, a
considerable amount of hand excavation will be
necessary. Naturally, the construction of the
wood frame structure is basic.
This site withstood the 1982-83 storms. The
proposed construction will withstand the impact
of storms on the order of the 82-83 weather.
At no time will this work impact the beach. All
staging will be from the top of the steps. The
bluff impact is minimal, as particular emphasis
has been placed on the design to be at below the
current buff face. Construction east of the 40
foot setback will have no impact on the beach or
beach bluffs.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Hooker
Page 7
For any clarification of this information, please contact the
undersigned.
cc:
Sincerely,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
]
I
I
Ii
I
I
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I I
I
I
I
II
I I
I
,
I
I I
I
,
I
i
I I
i
I I
I
I
I
I
¡
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
ENCINIT AS, CA
UPPER AND LOWER BLUFF
SOIL TYPES/MAX DENSITIES
SAMPLE # LOCATION SOIL TYPE MAX DENSITY OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
-----'--~--------,--"-- ..--- "'----------------- '-__un_, -u ___n__"_"_-, "
1 -_~E~_~I~fL_n _ß~QQ!~h.Bro~~L£!!1e-Med L§!!!Yn§~r1~ ....., 129.2 9.7
--"-------"-- '._,,---""",-,-----""-",---"" "-,--"----"- "-"_""._mu"__- ,--
2 _~e~!_~I~fn__- ----""-'--" _ê rQ~!"!fj!"!~_~~!Y_§~r1Qm_,u--- -.... - - - 121.2 9.4
---- 'u-"------ '__"m,__,,__",--"--- __"On - '"-"-_.. __un
3 _~Ee~~_ê!~fL_.__- Blend of No.1 & 2 125.2 9.3
-~,---- ---- ---"- ---"_.------- "-------,---_._"-- ,---,- ----- ---------
4 UQ~r Bluff Fill Sand #30 <Lmp°!:!ì 130.0 9.3
1 Lower Bluff Fine Brown Sand 110.5 11,0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT
HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
ENCINITAS, CA
LOWER BLUFF
DATE MADEl AGE TESTED LOCA TI
-'DAYS}
~16/9~- -l- 7_== ---S9.~!h~~~J~r~~~~~n1.L!r!!~~ 1_~~-, ---~11Q===,_,-~QQQ.__n_-
14 Southern Grade Beam. Truck 1 3010 3000
.~ 28=_~-==SouihãrnGra~~J3ea~~'T~~ëkJ-=~,- ==~35QQ.==,'= '=---3QQQ.-=-_~=~'
--5H679ir-I--¡ ,-_u_- -Southern Gradë-Öeani;Tru-ck-2--'-' --'.---3060------' -----:möó--".--'
14- -----Soüthern GradeÖeam7Truck~ 352Ö-~00Õ-
28 Southern Grade Beam, Truck 2 382Õ-- -3000-
-g¡23/96
7
14
28
-5/23/96 -
7
14
28
Lower Grade Beam. Truck 1 2750 3000
Lower GradËtBeam. Truck 1 3560 ~oo--
-[õwer Grade Beam. Truck ~ -4480- -3000--
------ I---
Lower Grade Beam. Truck 2 2230 3000
Lower Grade !!ea'!1lruCk2- - 28?~- -~OOQ-
Lower Grade Bea~.Truck 2 3510 1-- 3000-
6/07196
a"'iddIe Grade Beam IN" 10 S.) l " 2400 1---1000
14 Middle Grade Beam (N. to S.) .. . 3;!;!Q----1QQ~
~- Middle Grade Beam (N, to Sl. - 3610 3000
:::@1!"d i~ :~::;lt~¡~--=-:I~~:lHf==:I--:II=:-~
-
-
-
-
HOOKER RESIDENCE
1030 NEPTUNE AVE
ENCINITAS, CA
UPPER BLUFF
6/11/96
__1__1 ~.6 89,7
2 87.9 84.7
'3 --ãY987:2
4 89~ 81~
5 83.4 849
6 83.4 85.7
-- -----
7 83-:-4 85.2
8 83.4 86T
9 83-:4 ----a5~õ-
Hf 83.4 ~
11 81.9 85.3
12 81.9 86.1
13 81.9 66.4
14 81.9 89.4
6118196
6120196
8120196
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.8
85.8
87.8
86.8
88.8
88.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
59 FG
60 FG
61 FG
92.3
90.2
90.6
DATE
25 85.0 92.1 49 89.0 90.4
26 85,0 '933--- ---00 89.0 91:2
27 -66.0 --92:8 - ---51 ,- 89:5-942
-~- 28 86.0 -93I -- ~. 89.5 :=',93.1
29 88.6 93.7 1014/96
30 88.0 94.1 --- 53~ 92,3
>---::=:1 !1 65. ~:1: ..M. 002 -~!~
~~ , --:: =::.: -~~~ _10'li~_~~=~ ~ :_~~-,~!
34 85.0 90.3 57 91.4 90.4
35 85,0 0 90.1 - ----¡j8 9n 90.7
36 66.0 93.7 1018196
37 87.0 66.4
38 84.8 66.9
39 85.8 94.2
40 85.8 93.8
41 86.0 90.5
42 88.0 91:2
43 89.0 90.3
44 89.0 91.0
45 84.5 86.6
45 Retest 93.7
82.7
84.3
90.4
91.3
92.6
93.2
90.0
90.2
92.5
91.7
8/23196
8/24196
46
41
48
81.0
81.0
88.0
91.3
86.1
90,6
LOWER BLUFF
6124196
:t o. ~~:=:
3 See Plens 81.8
,~3196 1__--_- ~===
4 See Plans 86.2
'5 See Pians "-86.7
'6 See Plans '--sn
'-7 säÐÞiãns --Stf'1
-
-
-
-
-
, ,':1'0
- --
,"'~~I:.JII:';'.,
, , ' ~';s.~ .
;~, "I-, I I i
" "; I ":, I \!~ I
~'I \ '
.O '", I '"
t :, ' L
::. "Ii'll ~
I ' (:
, !
-
-
-
l'
',-
; I
:'\ ¡I
'"
,\'
'1.:0
'" ~
I
.
'~~
"
,
htr, hi I
I" '1
"fi@ o , i
~ '1. r I
I, I ~. \
"°" '1
,{" ...
,
"
I.....
,I
, , ,~":~
'; \,'\
@'~'~.
110:-,
~'\ "'~.,
'~I'
t"7
~ "
"
,
"l\\
'i ,\ ,-
\"\~
\,,:\~
,"II
! ,,;
,
f@
t:
,~
,
~
<V
"'~r'
"\-, :
+-. "
, ,/ ;'.'r I~ i ~ ' -
,', j, t ~~
,:(~rr;:1 r' :~
'I~ I :f
, I'
"/,
, I
: I' I.
¡I'Ir:,!'-1
'1,1 ,
," ;
~
~
~
.
~i
I,', : '," '" ,~~~..1:',!~I.~
, :~
,-' ,'- "~I
(f).i ~~ , };Hi1 ~~..:
S ;;- 1', ' ,"t'i, ,\
; , I::',
. . " I .
1'-;~1 '~'j ,
" ,J I
tJ) .. L:@
f'J 54 ,1,("4
"".
I, }~
~ ..
"
, ',', I'
I . ' ,
" ; .' ,~ I.~"
I'
6'\
~
"
,~~I; I
~~
tS;\ I~
V£.) ,~r.l
@
, -r .¡:-
.'fT-' ..,
,"L. ",
'>. '
, , 1° ,1"
'..,' . ,
,...(H
'1
!!~
; -:.
::~I "~!
"I:.i '~I oI!' '
"'\ .' ..ofl . ,r.
,,'
"~"'--:;'
, ','
@ E~~~ ,"
H¡~ ,I
@ ~~~~~~, ~i
:1 § ~ ~ v::::; ~j' ~:,'
:. =:I:! \' it,
" ' ~..;! . floI,
'" ,!I ~:: r
-\ ',10 t ~ I' '. ,.
L;:, . ~ :: ,. ,J .! ,I
r , :'~ fi:: 'I .:.,' I.-
M ~~~:~.,rJu'j~'~'
. ;1 ~:~ "~" ' .¡ ::,
@ ..:I""'¡ ,
,... ~ :¡ . ru 71F ,-,
..'" ~ ;q ~ ~I
: : ¡¡ ii: ï./
~ § ~ ~': 'I
ii y. ~
"
,~I ","
... ",
~ ~ t:
~ ,~~
c: Þ ~
B 5' ~
.. ~
, .
,~~
ï~t
!r-~:~
" ,l
'I', 1
'!' ,
'I ~ "
.;
\"
,\ '. ': l! \,
. 1- ~ !,' :.
.1 " 1
., ' I
,..~
~
<:V
. ~
\'" ~
"~
:'-..:2J: ,--..
-I
.,
",
"
.1'
,
. ... ',I' ;
'I'
"--,.._---, ,.
-
r-
-
-
z.
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I B-27-.DOC 9/24/96
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, p, O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 961 2042
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Tekton
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixture(s}:
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Upper Grade Beam
San Diego Ready Mix
75
390
CR
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number:
Samples Tested By: KN
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
A, ea, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
5592
5593
5594
8-27-96
8-28-96
9-03-96
6.00
28.27
77,000
2,720
7
3,000
9-10-96
9-24-96
89,250
3,160
14
120,000
4,240
28
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards.
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied.
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineer Consultants
Reviewed By:
w/~~~
Michael B, Wheeler, RCE #45358
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 8-27-.DOC 9/13/96
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. 0, Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612042
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Tekton
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixture(sj:
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Upper Grade Beam
San Diego Ready Mix
75
390
CR
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number:
Samples Tested By: KN
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
5592
5593
5594
8-27-96
8-28-96
9-03-96
6,00
28,27
77,000
2,720
7
3,000
9-10-96
89,250
3,160
14
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards,
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied.
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineer Consultants
Reviewed By:
~~~~
Michael B, Wheeler, RCE #45358
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P, 0, Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
I
I
I
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612042
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Tekton
Permit No:
Plan File No:
I
I
I
I
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixrure(s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Upper Grade Beam
San Diego Ready Mix
75
390
CR
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number:
Samples Tested By: KN
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
I
I
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days:
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
I
I
I
5592
5593
5594
8-27-96
8.28-96
9-03-96
6.00
28,27
77,000
2,720
7
3,000
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others, Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. .
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied,
I
Distribution:
I (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
I
I
I 8-27-,DOC 9/4/95
Reviewed By:
~~4~L
Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612998
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
I
I
I
Permit No:
Plan File No:
I
I
I
I
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixture(s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Middle Grade Beam (N, to S,)
Escondido Ready Mix
383
Client
Slump~ Inches:
Ticket Number: 102058
Samples Tested By: DRB
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
I
I
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
I
I
2277
2278
2279
6-07-96
6-10-96
6.14-96
6,00
28,27
70,250
2,480
7
3,250
6-21-96
7 -05-96
94,000
3,330
14
102,000
3,610
28
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards,
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied.
I
I
I
I
I
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineering Group
I 6-07-A.DOC 7/8/96
Reviewed By:
-W~4~
Michael B. Wheeler, ACE #45358
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 5-07-A.DOC 5/21/95
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P, 0, Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612998
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Con tractor:
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixture(s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Middle Grade Beam (N, to S,)
Escondida Ready Mix
383
Client
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number: 102058
Samples Tested By: DRB
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
2277
2279
2278
6-07-96
6-10-96
6-14.96
6,00
28,27
70,250
2,480
7
3,250
6-21-96
94,000
3,330
14
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others, Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards,
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied,
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineering Group
Reviewed By:
-u;/~4~
Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 6-07-A.DOC 6/17/96
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RrvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612998
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
Admixture(s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Middle Grade Beam (N. to S.)
Escondido Ready Mix
383
Client
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number: 102058
Samples Tested By: DRB
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
Laboratory Number:
Mark:
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
2277
2278
2279
6-07-96
6-10-96
6-14-96
6,00
28,27
70,250
2,480
7
3,250
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards,
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied.
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineering Group
Reviewed By:
u/~~
Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. 0, Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612998
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Location: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
I
I
I
I
Owner
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
A dmix ture (s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
I
I
I
Laboratory Number:
Mark: T-2
Date Made:
Date Received
I Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
I Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
I Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
Lower and south grade beams
Escondido Ready Mix
604
Client
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number:
Samples Tested By: ORB
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
1683
1684
1685
5-23-96
5-24-96
5-30-96
6.00
28.27
63,000
2,230
7
3,000
6-06-96
6-20-96
81,000
2,870
14
99,250
3,510
28
I
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
I receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards.
This agency makes no other wa"anries express or implied.
I
istribution:
I 2) Applied Engineering Group
I
I
I -238.DOC 7/16/96
Reviewed By:
M~ ¿.:(:1taø ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. 0, Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321
Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report
File Number: 9612998
Project Title: Hooker Residence
Project Locadon: 1030 Neptune
Architect:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Owner
Location In Structure:
Material Supplier:
Mix Designation:
A dmix ture (s):
Time In Mixer (Minutes):
Truck Number:
Samples Fabricated By:
Laboratory Number:
Mark: T-1
Date Made:
Date Received
Date Tested
Diameter, Inches
Area, Square Inches
Maximum Load, psi
Compressive Strength, psi
Age Tested, Days
Required 28 Day Strength, psi
Permit No:
Plan File No:
Lower Grade Beam
Escondido Ready Mix
406
Client
Slump, Inches:
Ticket Number:
Samples Tested By: ORB
CC Temp:
Air Temp:
1680
1681
1682
5-23-96
5-24-96
5-30-96
6.00
28,27
77,750
2,750
7
3,000
6-06-96
6-20-96
100,500
3,560
14
126,750
4,480
28
Specimen sampling, identification and notations regarding field inspection were provided by others. Only specimen curing from the time of
receipt and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards.
This agency makes no other warranties express or implied,
Distribution:
(2) Applied Engineering Group
5-23A.DOC 7/16/96
Reviewed By:
Mi~~¿:Ú~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTIN"G, mc.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P,O, BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2S0-4321
747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544
COi\1PRESSIVE STRL~Glli TEST REPORT
FILE NUMSE:=ì 9612998
DATE: May 23, 1996
[] CONCREïE (ASTM C39)
0 MORTAR (USC 24-221
0 GROUT (ASTM C1 01 9)
0 PRISMS (ASTM ;447)
0
PROJEC7 TITLE
Hooker Residence
PROJECT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
ENGINEE:=ì
CONTRACTOR
Applied Engineer Consultants
PERMIT No.
PLAN FILE No.
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
Southern Grade Beam, truck #1 (2:00pm)
Superior Ready Mix
ADMIXTURE(S)
MIX DESIGNATION
3/8" 75K
TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES
SLUMP. INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED BY
Client
KN
TRUCK No.
TICKET No,
LABORATORY No,
MARK 2 14"39 1440 1441
.
DATE MADE 05-16-96
DATE RECEIVED. 05-17-96
DATE TESTED 05-23-96 05-30-96 06-13-96
DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00
AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 I
MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 69,000 85,000 99,000 I
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 2,440 3,010 3,500
AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 14 28
,REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000
UNIT \Vï./CU. FT, (PLASTIC) ... V'"
-J
DISTRIBUTION (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTIN"G, INC.
REV':W-¿/ 4Ú'~/
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
6280 RlVERDALE STREET, P,O, BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2S0-4321
747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCO~'DIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7~-4544
COi\.1PRESSIVE STREL'lGTH TEST REPORT
FILE NUM5ER 9612998
DATE: May 23, 1996
(] CONCREïE (ASTM C39)
0 MORTAR (USC 24.22)
0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) !
~
PROJ::CT TITLE
Hooker Residence
PROJ::CT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
0 PRISMS (ASTM E447)
0
ENGINEER
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT No.
Applied Engineer Consultants
PLAN FILE No.
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
Southern Grade Beam, truck #1 (2:00pm)
Superior Ready Mix
ADMIXTURE(S)
MIX DESIGNATION
3/8" 75K
TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES
SLUMP, INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED BY
Client
KN
TRUCK No,
TICKEï No.
I LABORATORY No. 2 1439 ~ 1440 I 1441 I
-
MARK
.
DATE MADE 05-16-96
DATE RECEIVED 05-17-96
DATE TESTED 05-23-96 05-30-96
DIAMEïER, INCHES 6.00
AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ¡
MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 69,000 85,000
COMPfŒSSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 2,440 3,010
AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 14
REQUIREO 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000
UNIT \VT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC]
DISTRISUTiON (2) App 1 i ed Engi neer Cons u 1 tants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, mc.
REVIW/ /' 4ú/-/
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
~
6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P,O, BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321
747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544
COMPRESSIVE S"fRL"lGTIi TEST REPORT
FILE NUMBER 9612998
PROJECT TITLE
Hooker Residence
PROJECT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
CONTRACTOR
Applied Engineer Consultants
DATE: May 23, 1996
~ CONCRETE (ASTM C39)
0 MORTAR IUBC 24.22)
0 GROUT(ASTMC1019)
0 PRISMS IASTM E447)
0
PERMIT No.
PLAN FILE No,
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
South Grade Beam, truck #2 (5:45pm)
Superior Ready Mix
ADMIXTUREIS)
MIX DESIGNATION
TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES
SLUMP, INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED BY
Client
KN
3/8" 75K
TRUCK No.
TICKET No,
I LABORATORY No.
MARK
1
DATE MADE
DATE RECEIVED,
DATE TESTED
DIAMETER. INCHES
AREA. SQUARE INCHES
MAXIMUM LOAD, laS
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI
AGE TESTED. DAYS
REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI
UNIT WT./CU, FT. (PLASTIC)
1436
1437
1438
l
06-13-96
108,000
3,820
28
05-16-96
05-17-96
05-23-96
6.00
28.27
86,500
3,060
7
3,000
05-30-96
99,500
3,520
14
DISTRIBUTION (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, Ca. 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
RW~~~L/
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P,O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321
747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDa, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTII TEST REPORT
A~NUMBER 9612998
DATE: May 23,1996
ΠCONCRETE (ASTM C39)
0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22)
0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019)
0 PRISMS (ASTM E447)
0
PROJECT TITLE
Hooker Residence
PROJECT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
CONTRACTOR
Applied Engineer Consultants
PERMIT No.
PLAN FILE No.
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
South Grade Beam, truck #2 (5:45pm)
Superior Ready Mix
ADMIXTURE(SI
MIX DESIGNATION
3/8" 75K
TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES
SLUMP, INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED BY
Client
KN
TICKET No.
TRUCK No,
LABORATORY No.
MARK 1 1436 1437 1438
.
DATE MADE 05-16-96
DATE RECEIVED 05-17-96
DATE TESTED 05-23-96 05-30-96
DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 I
AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ¡
MAXIMUM LOAD, Las 86,500 99,500
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSi 3,060 3,520
AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 14
REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000
UNIT WT./CU. FT. [PLASTIC)
DISTRIBUTION (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, Ca. 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SO~ & TESTING, INC.
REVW~ý~
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fk,~ -1ø-3
~ SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
:s,.. (6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P,O, BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321 "\
'-.-!...; 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544
I
COMPRESSIVE STRL'iGTH TEST REPORT
I FILE NUM5:R 9612998
PROJECT TITL: Hooker Res i dence
PROJECT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
DATE: May 23, 1996
Œ CONCR:!: (ASTM C39) ¡
0 MORTAR (U3C 24.22) :
0 GROUT (ASTM Cl019J !
0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) I
I
r
ENGINE:R
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT No,
0
Applied Engineer Consultants
PLAN FILE No.
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
Southern Grade Beam, truck #1 (2:00pm)
Superior Ready Mix
AOMIXTURE(S)
MIX DESIGNATION
3/8" 75K
TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES
SLUMP, INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED 3Y
Client
KN
TRUCK No.
TICKET No.
LABORATORY No.
MARK
14'39
1440
1441
2
DATE MADE
DA T: REC:IVED.
05-16-96
05-17-96
05-23-96
6.00
28.27
69,000
2,440
7
3,000
99,000
3,500
28
05-30-96
DATE TESTED
06-13-96
DIAMETER, INCH:S
AREA,SQUAREINCHES
85,000
3,010
14
MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI
AGE TESTED, DAYS
REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI
UNIT 'NT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC)
DISTRISUTiON (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
R-=V'W~L/ 4~~
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P,O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321
747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544
COMPRESSIVE S1'RL~Gm TEST REPORT
FILE NUMBER 9612998
DATE: May 23, 1996
ΠCONCRETE (ASTM C39)
0 MORTAR (UBC 24-221
0 GROUT(ASTMC1019)
0 PRISMS (ASTM E447)
0
PROJECT TITLE
Hooker Residence
PROJECT LOCATION 1030 Neptune
ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT No.
Applied Engineer Consultants
PLAN FILE No.
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE
MATERIAL SUPPLIER
South Grade Beam, truck #2 (5:45pm)
Superior Ready Mix
ADMIXTURE(S)
MIX DESIGNATION
3/8" 75K
TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES
SLUMP, INCHES
SAMPLES FABRICATED BY
SAMPLES TESTED BY
Client
KN
TICKET No.
TRUCK No.
LABORATORY No.
MARK 1 1436 1437 1438
DATE MADE 05-16-96
DATE RECEIVED 05-17-96
DATE TESTED 05-23-96 05-30-96 06-13-96
DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00
AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27
MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 86,500 99,500 108,000
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSJ 3,060 3,520 3,820
AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 14 28
REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000
UNIT WT./CU, Ñ, (PLASTIC) b I.;"'"
DIST.RIBUTION (2) Applied Engineer Consultants
1529-A Grand Avenue
San Marcos, Ca. 92069
Attention: Don Bets
SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
RW~~~
Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358
-,
-
-
-
2ØØ
1.59
Y-Axis
CFt>
1.00
59
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HOOKER RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Ten Host Critioal. C:HOOK1.5.PLT By: ERR 94-a3-96
It F"S
1. 1..01.
:it 1..04
3 1..1.1.
4 1..1.3
5 1..1.6
6 1..27
7 1..a7
8 1..42
9 1..58
1.0 1..95
E~.
-
9
9
Sot 1
No.
1.
a
3
TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru PolC'e Ple:c
(pct) (pct) (P.t) (de-g) PalC'aM PIC'... SUlC'clt
1.30 1.35 1.50 S2 0 0 W1.
1. 25 1. 37 350 37 0 0 141.
1.35 t.35 600 45 0 0 Wt.
91.0
59 1.99
PC8TABL5M F8Min;1..91.
--L
1.59
)(-AKis <Ft>
-
-
-
-
5:491""
a99
359
-
-
-
aoo
.150
Y-Ihci s
(,t;)
.100
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HOOKER RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Ten Host; Critioal. C:HOOK.14.PLT Hu: ERR 94-33-96
.. F'$
1. 1..29
a .1.33
3 1..4'5
4 .1.46
5 .1.54
6 1..61.
"I .1.63
8 J..8'5
9 2.06
.10 3.65
S-\-.-;::,.,IC
0
0
Soil
No.
.1
3
3
TotWt SatWt C fhi Ru Po:r. Pi.:¡:
(pct') (pct') (P.C) deg) Pa:raM P:r... Sureø
.130 .135 .150 33 0 0 W.1
1.35 .13"1 350 3"1 0 0 Wl
J.3'5 .13'5 600 45 0 0 W.1
Ð
9
.10
50 .1ue
PC8TABL5H FSMin~.1.39
-!
.159
)(-AKis crt)
-
-
-
-
5:38pM
a99
35Q
-
-
-
399
.159
Y-A)(Ì s
<t't>
.199
59
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HOOH£R R£8ID£NC£ SLOP£ STABILITY ANALYSIS
Ten Most Critioal. C:HOOH7.PLT By: £RR 94-33-96
tI FS
~ ~.~8
3 .1.30
3 ~.26
4 .1.37
5 .1.35
6 ~.44
7 .1.44
8 ~.69
9 ~.O9
.10 3.46
s-rp
k~ Î tf~
Q
9
Soil
No.
.1
3
3
Tot"t Sat"t C Phi Ru Po~. PI.~
(pct') (pcI") (psI") (deg) Pa~aM P~... Su~C.
.130 .135 .150 30 0 0 W.1
.135 .127 350 33 0 0 Wi
~35 ~35 600 45 0 0 "J.
91.0
.-l ...</- .V,.'.
59 .1Q9
PCSTABL5M F8Min~.1..18
---!
.159
X-A)d 5 (,. t)
-
-
-
-
5:.15pM
399
359
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Jk,ø ~1. tEst " IE IV U£
~-'9. 'If::,
SHr 1 o :'
E~W G..I-~ ~e')..""" k'\ P?-oP:¡;~r'( '-iNé-
ïJe9-rlC+l.,~ ~p' 3.'" 45 ... 158
W""kr ~
Sf,;
Uj.. Avn.., t.2/ZPSF
iA-¡JT.1.7"3,S'~~62.. Ib7ð ./'
rl.:~""
Œf: D
'~
~
~
1 ,~
1
1
Iq'
17'
I'"
ð"( MOÞ1c~.. 0 l~rtl &u r 1011.1 ~
" bt.. ~IG'O\n~ ~ (!!;
A-
I.f)
",., "'7,11
@
@
e
\~
+6ð." .. s:D,5'
- 4,' "5,5
-3.2 -fo7/t
-I,' -f,ð
iq.~
+-Bf! /OS
" " .7.1, "'7.b ..S'1,) -7f,l5 .,.. t;.3 -u.;
t7,(j ;~3
D
hot
- -144.8
Nt,)
f
1" ,'H. -f'H l
b'1-¿~
)MÐr~
22,.100
It s 4+,0 ¡jr'
\
\
M~\ CC,JDI rl 0"'; :
FoP- d .2/4-,)" Vc.:: '2..13000 '" /f2..( 14f-.S" s ".7 I-
b:t 'H..II <:þ,'e,. ::: ~7 '" > VÝJt1A{ l' tZ.z.~ 01 \'-'
F ~ 4-2. ~ /If,Si:'Z.Ooo ~ 73'
Kv ~ ¡q; ) -: 10037' > ~"" ~
AS "1 .00 376 ~ '+1.. :¡ I'+.S ... 'l, z.~ eLl
[}~ .3~~!5;1
rrJ~" "ïB"fIl
~ ... ~I-&
- --"
I ~
L7,"l; 1
'1
-I. 0 0 -- . .. . '.'" 0"
I
I'
I-
I
.1
I'
,I
I
:8. .-.. "
I "'" '. '0." -..
.1
I
I
I
I
..1 ~...._.._... .-... B' -
-I" --"'...O'-""
I
Hoof'-""" ~ I OGrJce
F.QI.. .1"I{?', Co,.Jo I rlC,J (' ~ B)
'" m..- . . .... Ko ~ ~j¡ - 81.
.. ~. . 00 I 6 ..(. <s M iN
As:l I,;:;'x . OCtG xw" ;t./'t.S" -/. -;, a JJ
. .Sv tP,qL'r Ão\" 6;~O~ ~Ã+'1S'
.. .-.- ..--- .. As &. r::~. ,'fZ Q~
.. .-... ... ..¡JIE ~~.. ~T.@..
L. os j:;, ì .,. JS'
z.,C'f t..1!i
0 --.,.. . - ..-
. . .. BO'
--. - . .-.
.. -... ..-""
. .. .. 0.'
.. -"""
~ -Iq .q"
Se;.\ 2. 0 t;
. -... ...-
+iFG 8orH S"¡ ¡)eSt \
Cc,.Jr, . I
._...-J
[+1f.SI
J
,
I
I 1 '
L :!S'HIN,¡
=MPÆD
,
,
'f
.~
~
;
1
..
.1
~
j
J
~
i
.
ì
;.
'j
;
¡
..-
S)
- JJoIfI '- "" DE.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
4 -I'l-~'
D-J o~)
'Ii,
Ð
:ù..
J I
--
- --- ---
-~
--
-~~- '- 7ù
--~,- .-..
-----
'--
n :
n
j
-i .
'-"-- - 60
'-
l'
1\ I
ei
.0 ¡
[XIS1. CR1BWAL
~DD )' # b )( 2cJ-o"
OJJ I J~I~ F:ACG
EX 1ST,
-50
'.p-'" "'.. --"" '" --- -,.. ---'--.
'~- .T\~ TD ff) \~"Y:;'1À'LC
1JJl~m~ Ti\G lòf; íb9-~4S \2OtJl~1
-- ~ -ro ~Sm~ --T- 4,0
n
in
l:: ."
~ 'w
I .(';1
.. .
Z iN
~ oIL
... .It.
J.. I
L ' -
.'11
<r 1 if.
:=! ; I
q- It.
ei . rt
II
51 ~¡¡:
. !ll
en ,,1
ri
axl
CL
IT i
I
'--:-,-"~ "--.
--.._~ -.--- -'- ---- -.' 30
-- -- -~ ""'- ---.
- -- -- -- 20
GF-?ADEBEAM ALONG
SOUTJjERk~ PROPERT_\CJ=.LNc.
SCALE. 1"= 10' .
AA;c 14:'1- tE> ¡ 0 W1-JCE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
."; ff
.' -
¿¡ - 19-<; i:
" .. 2.. OF" 3
f-!,Ol) US- Cc.Jì' .
(;~o. I?JM ~(¡
&0;, OF- a..l1!þ~.4r(.¿,.
I'
!-ð
--~
J-&J.
~
i
/
~
400
-
,,"0 () z. .. ~ Co"'; ì .
< p::;~. -@
p~@
1" I f 0\'111, OALÕ"
....., -~
-.-
-'~...~ ---~
- ..~. ,...~ ~
L~IS'
Sf CTION !D\
tJ.ilS, ~).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
3 êt.e
T'1P,
~._--
. riG") 11-J $-tZ- n~
nt:> ir3 Qe.IZ"O.c.. T1tP"
D.øl or.>
ADD 3 iF G x 201-0 .41 9c:crlo¡J @ 0";'-'7'
, ~ ¡ '.-&
, A-O ¡)
/ tJ.KSk9Jt:o ;.
~/
~I/ .API>
~/ '2-:rr- 5" ß Irk ~J:
-i - l
~-+
. I
'}
-"-
'f 11'- (, Cø~.,., êÄ F~
TI.fP, ~SGCÎION (Â)
¡J I r, s. '...-...-
- .--rt
...
5f'-l c:G: OtJïSIOE' PAc¡;
~;II Ai 1-Â~ $1)
I /Ù~ Or;. F)a¡
33" &£T\VIJ iJrT'c'Y.,.
S ¡Jp~ Q~1'"
,A/e) ~"'1i - S' Qt.I rt ~
G~\)G" 6t:"'A.~ S
f I-t,
SEGT ION ñ-'¡
~7
I
¡, tJt..T ¡""'ArE' 01,...., P~~I 0""; S'~,.J Ciru OF: aNc:J2J::-r' s~¿. ~ 3 c.:.'YX) p>;
Ai' 2;! P ,4.1(1)
2... j2.Ja, "'t:'. g~ ~~ u... ~¡; O¡;pot.MEi'Q - c;~M:)G" Go t ðJ.., p¡,.'( ¡o
ASÎI', A.. ~IS'.
tJ om ~
&~ ¡e-J D I:: Bli2J M (#O}f Th / . S¿J¿/T)j )
TI£:13¿C/S УTAIL - W6~r FAG/Me
ßLuP¡: /
.,
I
I
,
;
i
!
A
Ii P. £p-¡ WLJ t.L /0- .
/0 VV}1 ¿¿ 20
iLJ w€;e , y.¡¿¿¿ /5
-=-
(1
.
55
3:5
I
I
I
I
I
$,0
r\
.(~~ /.. c' ~
. 6Y. ~/ S1P(p>
1, ;2) -
J
-"
I
I
I. .
I.
I"" .
I
I
I"
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I.
I,p
Hoc ~r.. ~ I De-NClS
LO4() CAPACi rf . SQ.;.ø .
r~ L-Q~ ,,~¡' .~ ~ /Nc.~)
PPtG.~ t 0 ~ I
7j 2.o!q tf
,'t [)y,W¡ OA4.>
G~1i" (so
g I Sf..4<. JI7J~ WI
~ CA..J(J';'I.G' vr=(1..
Ar eAJO5
- '-". . .
Ay'~(l.p,GG '-D~ q~'~ I,Çt \LS,.
Q"" b ~
Mv'" t.7 IIo¡..Sb '<~/I"-~..I.Q
Vr;.." t,7 ¡( II)b. 0/1.. ..._!-. .1.0.{, ~
. .
~.. t 'Z, V~o" ¡t I~~..l'f__-s. /S' ~
c:p ,,~ ' .. _! 1'Z..8i'- >~, Odt..
(;&'¡;¡ ~ A' z'/i::'l ',12. a ~-Cre,.ßX~&)( ~
L ~-O"4.z.r"'JC"0.. ._~ 1,/81'. .
C. 'Ta a.S«- '2,.... Z,,7 ' .
t PU¡.JCZit (.veL s~-,,~ . .4 J( tY--'1I..{.e,.f" of- (lf1>t-.-B¡¡ ¡( ,+J< Tiooo" s tq( I'"
Pv s /, 7 J( 50 '65-.e-I!-
V Coo ~ 'l. ~ 2. OOO';Ie '+f;-Jt. I If- l 60,+.!- ,
dJI. . ~ SJ. 1 ~~-) 4Z.5"" O. t(.
Ie.
. ~....O¡N" ~ K-u' -:~q: -=5'+- 'g. .030'" "'lö . . 00 IO'l..
1 - /;3 x, OOtG-ê-.( 48)( J.¥ ...... . c¡ / C1" 141rS" &n,.1
~.c . L ç¡ OlE) ¡
----....... ~ = , 00 Z J'o 0, i Äï ð 11 , c¡.'31.- t: II fÞ. r-@. tI (y )
< ~I ),114 --..... '0". 8~ S(OŒ'$
, 'I II '1'
I srt-. æ.. 8~0r( ~~ I~ leA ~{)
It 5' e,l IL '. ~".S' ~~ ~I
r.¡.1J:';-~iJj, _'_'0- ~ 1...o'f~.7)...(¡;;
G'ÁCJ; t;tOG
.... . .....
{ ï~ /81/]
~-i
C.,,~ "
'-"t"B s. .
'V~
\
"
If .>. Ie .
I 0'( \4J \ O,A..~ °Q.. 3 -0 ~, (; .
",
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. J.Joo ~ ¡z... ~ lOt.: ,\lCG
G~O~ e,M - SoClT11I:/VO
~ ~I
\1J
0
I j
4 3~ JL
" j
I 1\ 1
.S' ~
!1 ij/
tJt.f1 ""¡t.- \\:
u.~
1..31l
' .:~
~ 3'Z."
,
Ie '7,tt'
---
G).I,,"'"
~
T Irl
t~. ,
~ -r- € ~ ,oo~
-,c
€s:: , ()O20'~
'. -' - - -
¿'-'-'14
C-I .
.. "-:-'-""".--'r"-
C4 a:;; 1,71< 45 x 4-ì~ :: "l +1' :-
CA \ S5>O)o.) P'" a 13 X ':0'11 5 + I;.... '3&3 J' 5/2. ~
.:: ICf.t1~ +-12., If = ~ 2.,:,~
~ '/ ': Jlf/:¡ )t 2.S -+ ':LIfo)( 5 w ~ ~ 2.d.
~2,~
~Q- p~)\¡,\: læA:i..f¡t. P~\7~ o~ =~D PCI='
PPIN.. -: IS rt.~so)( b Ä = q.4~ > ~,IO
H c""',~o J
12.'
Me-) z '1.1 X 7.18 ~ '5,; IV-
i -:: ,003 1< 13 -s 7.6'7 I'
b , ODS-alae:,
~b ~ . 8~ ~ 7./aC¡ ~ G. 54 II
n 7 . ,.~~ -: . 3 ~ 3
t 18 '.
A ~ ,2.b;t 131.. =.ß i¡-,2-¡ AJ ~
11'~,O73J(,~3:. 42.GJAJ~
0 .
X ~ S, J " .
. /I
Y : 5:1 + 5',3 ,. 10/'-
c ~ hs,3 x '¡z. - 7s:y.."
(.¡ 1O, If. - I
Fe.. -:: 7s'r¡.. ~ . 89t.s;
I) ;"+.2,
A:s '" 1c¡5.'f : I, <f(J CJ II
, :1C60
cJ:. ~ ~ '%.
A~ -: ~ ~ l'fIS, ~ ",;; ItJ
y c.. ~ 1.12,000 'It I bS : 19-,81:-
,/ . If)i'C:o ",'O~ - 2O.g 1'-
V ~ -
s /2. V. ~ 3£:G"'"
h..
f "\1. : 30,3\L > "ù~ 23.2\'- C,jL..
CAI$~O7J )
1314' \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ijOO¡t.Ett- ~IOGNCE , .
'2."" 2.~
z,)1 1.. ,,' ,J 1..}\ w-.'~ bt'L'f-/J G~Qe ~E'~'~ ': .. :--.
~ ~ (_tI .
"
MtJ ': .&12. 70 2.0 Á!L + ZJ.Z¡¡, 4.5
,., Þ:tt. / Q
;a ~O. G +- IO4-.'f -:. I ~S ~
V (J /'1,1.c",:' , /2. -r t1.z{li -t- ~ ': 35\1 II-
2tj
Ýc, , '2-1tøo '~ Ii" ~,Z ~ 32..S"'"
ITIE> ~ ~e.'1.1 VS"t' If 1/ ~o)( 20 ~ 40,~
- It. Vr. ~ 7 z..~ I£-
~ "'r\. '" , 2. 0'1- > "I,)" 35.} 0 I ~ .
-- 1-
I" ~ t8>t 2°'~1J2.ðOO ~. biz.
IL() ~ 2.2./
5 :. ~~ 13;'3 ~ , Oo'f-tf'f3 > ~H/.v,
~ ~ l,"ta"
"""" ..,..--...
""" .
8.'1-9 ¥-.
'C-2-
r
2c'
r
2,4..t!
r
; ~~"
(-' p~~ fE~T",
L\ IJI:
--- ~r ~VTO~ G~
. -----
TI ç;; ~,Aot c.\.L- . Tv ~ zo ~ ," \ z..f- ?2>,2. foo 'Z. .( 2.3.2- :t lr,
12..2.+'-3,7.. +20,'1 ~ ~,31'-"
II ~ DYw\ DAC ¡
~,A.q".\í'lG ~ A,: S"h,31( 1,2.5' " S9 \ \~1. GItAOE ISO!
'7:Æ .8S'¡(¡.o ' r fe, S~b)( ,{:
4 ~ f, CoN\.
BOT (- 7¡C~" \
4)( LAG.a.1 NG:
As ~6(u I \2..1="1'
Ol:~ 0 MA¡.J
t -: 13:< I./IC if"'" I. v-
'1.7
,
F:: .%, !"II ;3,2,. "" ~ot- b ~ 4-'-6 d:'~
,7
P J,. 'tC- ¡) It-
P)rS : , 3S}C. 4-.;x G,5/z.. ~ ;3,3 >1 :33.~
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
.:1
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hoc k.a- e.es I 0 I:: N ce
Dr:~o MA tV Cc,.Ji,
~
~(
\Q
=~
,
't
~
_\
~
"." . ',-,
'..... '...
=~.. ð -C¡:"9lf '.'"
c-~ .
...', .,..
.--- -, .
r
,
2.5-0
roG{4\Q\ã ~M
»>
"
'? Cd~ Go .
f1~ì~c,~IO~
'~lbP$F'
'"f DI(VÅ'OAG,
J
b~4-",
. ~ ~ \~
Mu ~ 1,7)( ISIG~ 4':I:;fi; ~ 8,1
\70 ~ ',.1..5";( ~3 "t 70,cr\l-
Pv, Jo I 3Ç )f y.. JCTz.co () \t '+( ~ +i,i) 8 ~ ~ 85.3~) ,,() ~ 7oJ o. ~
F -=- , o7~;
14,; t fl2..
~ 1t ~ Jt. Ob'f? ': .0021' <. ~~ ,.J
AS~ '.33)t,OÒ2.1' >( ð,s'll 4.5':( 1'2."'" /"zalt [71f~EA~~
W9JI'- -,: 4x IOX,ICo L -: 4L
. ~l) >C,S- : ~:'.'2.)C. I,$'"
L ~ ZS'
[r ~ I~J
-
-
-
-
-
~-~-
------
----
0 ===--
-..----:::--
-~--
--~~ -
-
HEW G\~P~ BE:A\-/\(,I.(P-) ---------.
"'---
\---
\e
~.
E X\~T. CR\6-WAL'-
ME.MðE~5 (T~P.)
r--
\
PLAN
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I' ~
1
1
1
I '
I
I/'
1
I
1
DETAIL "A"
NoText
NoText