The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-4615 G/TE Street Address ~((p4 I Jf7J I ~ 3 Serial # ....._.._._-~-~-_.. Category QS-- l j -=r Name bu? Description Year Plan cK. # ~~",.~^""..., , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 528 - 532 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. BUD FISCHER c/o WALLACE E.CUNNINGHAM, INC. P.O. BOX 371483 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92137-1483 W.O. 2655-A-SC APRIL 26, 1999 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Geotechnical. Geologic. Environmental 5741 Palmer Way. Carlsbad, California 92008 . (760) 438-3155 . FAX (760) 931-0915 April 26, 1999 W.O. 2655-A-SC Mr. Bud Fischer c/o Wallace E. Cunningham, Inc. P.O. Box 371483 San Diego, California 92137-1483 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, 528 - 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Gentlemen, In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation of the proposed building area at the subject site. The purpose of our study was to provide a site specific evaluation of earth materials underlying the proposed building site and to provide preliminary recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, and foundation design/construction for the proposed improvements, based on our findings. Unless specifically superceded in the text of this report, the conclusions and recommendations presented in Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. SEC (1995, 1996a, 1996b and 1998) are considered valid and applicable. This report does not include a slope stability analysis of overall bluff stability. It is our understanding that this analysis has been provided by others, and appears to have been approved by the governing agency. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data provided by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) as well as a review of additional documents in Appendix A, field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed development appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: . Based on the occurrence of recent bluff failures within the bluff slope area, both the sea cliff and upper bluff below the subject property were recommended to be stabilized (SEC; 1995 and 1996b). It is our understanding that the stabilization work has been completed with observation and testing services provided by SEC. Based I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I on our review, it appears that the analysis and recommendations provided by SEC was performed in accordance with current standards of practice. . A report of construction testing and observation services during seawall and caisson/tieback construction was not available for review by this office. It is recommended that the consultant of record for seawall and caission/tieback construction provide such documentation to the client and GSI prior to residential construction, so that an evaluation of the proposed improvements impact on existing subsurface structures can be made. . Existing fill, topsoil/colluvium and near-surface terrace deposits evaluated within the site are not considered suitable for the support of fills and/or structures in their present condition. Recommendations for the treatment of these soil materials are presented in the earthwork section of this report. . Terrace deposits will be encountered during site earthwork. These materials at depth are considered competent for support of settlement-sensitive structures in their existing state. . Soils with a very low expansion potential and negligible sulfate exposure underlie the site. . Subsurface and surface waters are not anticipated to affect site development. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. SEC (1996a) recommended that irrigation should be set back 40 feet from the top of the bluff, and GSI concurs with this recommendation. . The seismic acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed improvements. . Conventional foundations or post-tension slabs may be used. A 40 foot setback from the top from the top of the bluff to the building foundation system is recommended (SEC, 1996a), and GSI concurs with this requirement. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC Page Two GeoSoils, IRe. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Distribution: (4) Addressee ~ Robert G. Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1 JPF/RGC/DWS/mo Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC Page Three GeoSoils, IRe. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PREVIOUS WORK .......................................................3 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................4 EARTH MATERIALS........................................ ..............4 Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Topsoil/Colluvium..................................................4 TerraceDeposits ..................................................4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY .....................................5 Faulting..........................................................5 Seismicity ........................................................5 GROUNDWATER ........................................................ 7 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................7 Classification......................................................7 LaboratoryStandard................................................8 ExpansionlndexTesting ............................................8 Shear Testing .....................................................8 Sulfate Exposure ..................................................8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... ... 9 General..........................................................9 Earth Materials ....................................................9 FillandTopsoil/Colluvium......................................9 Terrace Deposits .............................................9 Expansion Potential ...............................................10 Subsurface and Surface Water ......................................10 Seismic Hazards......................................... .........10 Slope Stability.......................................... ..........11 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Grading ..................................................11 Site Preparation ..................................................12 Removals .......................................................12 Fill Placement ....................................................12 Overexcavation ...................................................12 TemporaryConstructionSlopes .....................................13 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECOMMENDATIONS-FOUNDATIONS....................................13 Preliminary Foundation Design ......................................13 SeismicShakingParameters ..................................14 Foundation Settlement - Structural Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conventional Foundation Construction ................................14 Post-TensionSlabFoundations......................................16 FOOTING SETBACKS ...................................................18 EXTERIORFLATWORK ..................................."...............18 RETAINING WALLS .....................................................19 General .............................-............................19 RestrainedWalls..................................................19 Cantilevered Walls ................................................20 Wall Backfill and Drainage ..........................................20 RetainingWallFootingTransitions ...................................21 RECOMMENDATIONS-POST EARTHWORK .................................21 Planting and Landscape Maintenance ................................21 Additional Site Improvements .......................................22 Additional Grading ................................................22 FootingTrenchExcavation .........................................22 Drainage ........................................................22 TRENCH BACKFILL........................................ .............23 PLAN REVIEW .........................................................23 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS............................... .............23 FIGURES: Figure1-SiteLocationMap .........................................2 Figure2-CaliforniaFaultMap........................................6 ATTACHMENTS: AppendixA-References ................................... Rear of Text AppendixB-BoringLogs .................................. Rear of Text Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines. . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text in Pocket Mr. Bud Fischer Ale: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Table of Contents Page ¡¡ GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 528 - 532 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2. Exploration of near surface soil conditions consisting of the hand excavation of four auger borings for geotechnical logging and sampling. 3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 4. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. An analysis of bluff slope stability was performed by others (SEC; 1996a, 1996b) and is not included in the scope of this investigation. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site, located at 528-532 Neptune Avenue, is situated atop a west facing coastal bluff over-looking the Pacific Ocean, in the City of Encinitas, California (see site location map, Figure 1). Topographically, the proposed building area slopes gently eastward, away from the top of bluff toward Neptune Avenue at gra~ient on the order of 10:1 to 12: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The bluff itself, is approximately 98 feet in height and descends from the site to a sand and gravel beach at gradients that vary from approximately 1:1 within the upper bluff slope to near vertical within the lower sea cliff. Existing improvements to the subject site consist of two single story residential structures, studio, detached garage and associated exterior flatwork and landscaping. Based on our review of a grading plan prepared by Wallace E. Cunningham, Inc., proposed development appears to consist of removal of the existing structures, site preparation and construction of a new multi-story structure, including new driveway access to Neptune Avenue and the construction of a reflecting pool, miscellaneous exterior flatwork and landscaping. Based on a review of the grading plans and SEC (1996a) the new structure shall be constructed no closer than 40 feet to the top of the bluff and landscape irrigation should not be allowed within 40 feet of the top of bluff. GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I PACIFIC I I I I Base Map: I I 0 ~ Scale I I OCEAN The Thomas Guide, San Diego County Street Guide and Directory, 1999 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Map, page 1147, 1'.=1/2 mile 1/2 ~ .. N 2655-A-SC 1 I Miles w.o. SITE LOCATION MAP I Reproduced with permi..ion granted by Thollla. Bros. Maps. Thi. map I. copyrighted by Thom.. Bros. Ma,.. It Is unlawful to copy or re,roduce all or any ,art thereot. whether for personal use or resale. without ,ermisslon. All rights reserved. Figure 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PREVIOUS WORK Previous geotechnical work has been provided for this property. A brief summary of this work is provided in the following discussion. . A geotechnical and geologic investigation was performed for the subject site, and adjacent properties, by Earth Systems Design Group (ESDG), with their findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in ESDG (1992). This report concluded that instabilities within the unprotected sea cliff and bluff slope "present a permanent hazard" to existing improvements. Based on their analysis, and at the direction of the homeowners contracting the evaluation, recommendations for a rip- rap revetment only, were provided. . Due to slope failures occurring within the bluff slope at the subject site during 1995, an update geotechnical report was prepared by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC, 1995). Based on the findings presented in ESDG (1992) as well as the findings presented in SEC (1995), this report concluded that the construction of a lower bluff (sea cliff) seawall would restore a "qualified factor of safety" to improvements located within residential properties near the bluff top. . Due to continued slope degradation, approximately occurring during May - August, 1996, an additional update report was prepared by SEC (SEC, 1996b). Based on the additional analysis performed, stabilization of the sea cliff (seawall) and bluff slope (caissons and tiebacks) was recommended. SEC (1996b) also indicates that the construction of the seawall/caissons-tiebacks should increase the stability of the bluff slope based on calculated factors of safety of 1.69 (static) and 1.30 (pseudo static). . It appears that a third party review of geotechnical information regarding the site was prepared by Ernest R. Artim and dated May 19,1996. This document was not available for review by this office. In response to the Artim review, an additional report was prepared by SEC (SEC, 1996a). . At the request of Mr. Bud Fischer, SEC prepared a letter (SEC, 1998) discussing the depth of the tiebacks below the ground surface. Based on our review of this letter, it appears that the depth to tiebacks at a distance of approximately 40 feet from the top of bluff are approximately 10 to 14 feet below existing grade. . A proposed monitoring program for the bluff slope below the subject property was prepared by SEC and a summary was issued on March 2, 1999. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge w.o. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 3 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The summary by GSI presented above is based on a review of available geotechnical documents provided by the client and presented in the Appendix A (references). A report of construction testing and observation services during seawall and caisson/tieback construction was not provided. FIELD EXPLORATION Field studies conducted during our evaluation of the property for this study consisted of geologic reconnaissance mapping and excavation of four exploratory borings, completed with a hand auger, for evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions. The borings and were logged by a geologist from our firm on April 6, 1999, who also collected representative samples from the borings for appropriate laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B, and the locations of the borings are presented on Plate 1 . EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered in preparation of this evaluation consist of existing fills, topsoil, and quaternary age terrace deposits. Fill Existing fill materials were encountered to a depth of 4 feet, within the southwestern corner of the site and consist of brown silty sands. Where observed, these materials appear to be moist and loose and are considered unsuitable for the support of structures in their present condition. Topsoil/Colluvium Topsoil/colluvium was encountered within 1 foot of surface grade and generally consist of light brown to brown silty sand. Where observed, these materials are typically moist to wet and loose. Topsoil/colluvium is considered unsuitable for support of settlement-sensitive structures in their present state. The expansion potential of these materials is very low. Terrace Deposits Terrace deposits generally consist of brown to reddish brown silty sands. Where encountered these materials are typically moist and lose to medium dense within 1 to 3 feet of existing grades, then become moist to dry and medium dense. The expansion potential of these materials is generally very low. Structure within these deposits is generally massive to weakly bedded. While bedding was not observed in excavations completed by this office, these materials are typically subhorizontal. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC April 26, 1999 Page 4 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Additional geologic units underlying the site, but not encountered during this evaluation, are discussed in ESDG (1992). FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed for development (Jennings, 1994; Eisenberg, 1985), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include--but are not limited to--the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAUL T (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAUL T, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the IImaximum crediblell and IImaximum probablell earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAUL T. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.41 g to 0.46 g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.26 g to 0.32 g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I I ",""" \\ '\ / a I 50 ¡ 100 I s CALE (MiJes) SAN FRANCISCO SITE LOCATION (+): c:::. ------------ Latitude - 33.0560 N Longitude - 117.3006 W Fischer CALIFORNIA W.o. 2655-A-SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I " " " " " " """ """ """""" """" " "" " " """ " """""" " " " "" """"" " """"" ..""" """ " " " """ """ """"" " " """ """" " """" ..""" """ """ """"""" """ """" " " " """ "" " " """ "" AB BREVIATEDFAULT . NAME . APPROXIMATE~[),S'I"ÄNCES MI LESS (KM) Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 18 (29) Elsinore 28 (45) La Nacion 18 (28) Newport-I nQ I ewood-Offsh ore 10 (16) Rose Canyon 3 (5) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 28 (46) GROUNDWATER Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report. Subsurface water is not anticipated to adversely affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious, at the time of our investigation. Previous geotechnical work provided by ESDG (1992) noted the presence of groundwater at a depth of approximately 65 feet below pad grade within an exploratory boring, and seepage from fractures within bedrock at the face of the lower bluff (sea cliff). It is our understanding that previous geotechnical reports (ESDG, 1992; SEC, 1995 and 1996b) have considered the presence of groundwater in slope stability analysis. The existing seawall, which now covers portions of the sea cliff face, should have built-in provisions for the drainage of bedrock seepage from behind the wall. However, since as-built documentation of the seawall was not available for review by this office, this could not be verified. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. " Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 7 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil type encountered on the site. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below: .., ,...... ....,.... . ,..... .,..,... ... ...'....~~~~~~~~~I~W~.~........ 13.0 Expansion Index Testing Expansion index testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to UBC Standard No. 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (1997 ed.). The test result is presented below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC Table No. 18-I-B. Silty SAND .... ...... ... ........ ... ...... . ... ... ..... ........ ... ............ ......... .......... .... ... .......... ........... ... ..... ..... ............ ....... .. ... . ........................ . ...... ......... .............. .... ............................ .. ...... .......................... ................................ ........... ...................... ..... .......... ......... ..... ......~......'.'...'...'....'..,."P'..I..'.N..~........,.D..N,.....,,'~'.S.'.,........I. 0,...,..,...,..."...,'.......,...........'.~PðN§tP.N ~ " ,.POteNtiAl" 11 I . very low . ........ . ... ........ .. . .... ....... ......... .. ........... ............... .. ........... ......... ........ .. ......... ....... .... ............ ....... .. .. .................. ...[...00. .....f(. .¡r... l. ON... ..".......... . ... .... ',"'....',..'."..',"..,'.'..}"','"" '" I B-1, composite I .................... .... .. .... ............... .. .... ...... ...... .... .. ..... ........... ........... .............. "... ... .... ......... ....... . ..... .. .... ....... ...... ."..".s.....o......t..."T'{..... P. ..E... ... ... . "'......'..'} ',,;" Shear Testing Shear testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented below: .... ......... ....... .. .. ...... .. .. .. . .... .... .... .. ........... .. .... . . .... ..... ..... .. .. ..... ......... ..... ... ..... ........ ..... .... ............... ... 'JNT§RfiÎ~P~ .. fa~øjJØ.N ... 'ANGLE'..".' 29 260 Sulfate Exposure The sulfate exposure to concrete was determined in accordance with table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code. Test results indicate a negligible sulfate exposure. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 8 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: . Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. Expansion potential of site soils. Subsurface water and potential for perched water. Slope stability. Regional seismic activity. . . . . The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. Earth Materials Fill and Topsoil/Colluvium Existing fills, topsoil/colluvium and portions of near surface weathered terrace deposits, encountered across the site, generally do not meet the current industry minimum standard of 90 percent (or greater) relative compaction. As such, these materials are not considered suitable for the support of fills and/or structures in their present condition. Recommendations for the treatment of existing fill and topsoil/colluvium (removal and recompaction) in the areas of proposed construction are presented in the earthwork section of this report. Terrace Deposits Terrace deposits will be encountered at depth during site earthwork. These materials are considered competent for support of settlement-sensitive structures in their existing state. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Expansion Potential Our laboratory test results indicate that soils with a very low expansion potential underlie the site. This should be considered during project design. Foundation design and construction recommendations are provided herein for very low expansion potential classifications. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface waters, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Seismic Hazards The following seismic related hazards have been considered during our evaluation of the site. Based on our evaluation, these hazards are considered low and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development procedures: . Surface Fault Rupture Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture Ridge top shattering Liquefaction Tsunami . . . . It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, intense ground shaking would occur in this general area. Potential damage to any structures would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other structures and improvements developed in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 10 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I I I Slope Stability Based on our review of the grading plans, it appears that significant slopes will not be constructed. Based on our review of SEC (1995, 1996b) slope stability analyses were performed for the existing coastal bluff for both natural and repaired conditions (SEC, 1996b). As presented in SEC (1996b) a factor of safety of 1.69 (static) and 1.3 (pseudo- static) were calculated for a bluff augmented with a seawall and a caission/tieback system. For a discussion of this analysis, please refer to SEC (1995, 1996b). RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General Grading The following recommendations presented below consider the conclusions discussed above, as well as other aspects of the site (Le., soil expansion, distribution of soil types, soil strength, etc.). The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein, have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and Appendix C of this report, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. When code references are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GeoSoils, Inc. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Structures may be supported entirely on properly compacted fills or suitable native earth material. Building sites placed directly on terrace deposits should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to verify competent and consistent bearing materials are exposed. Based on the soil conditions observed, conventional foundation systems or post tensioned slab foundations may be used to support any proposed structure. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 11 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of construction. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly benched in accordance with our recommendations and guidelines specified in the Uniform Building Code. Removals Removals in areas to receive fill shall consist of all existing fills, topsoil/colluvium and loose near-surface terrace deposits. Based on our subsurface exploration, removals are anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 3 feet below existing grades over a majority of the study area. However, deeper removals may occur locally. Once removals are complete, the area to receive fill should be scarified and moisture conditioned to a minimum depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Removals should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of five (5) feet outside the extreme exterior foundation elements for any structure Q[ below a 1: 1 projection down and away from the exterior foundation elements to the elevation of suitable material, whichever is greater. Removals beneath perimeter fills should be in accordance with recommendations presented in Appendix C. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6::t inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is planned, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils should be relatively sandy and low expansive (Le., expansion index less than 50). Overexcavation Based on a review of the grading plan, cut/fill transitions, are not anticipated at this time. However, should transition conditions occur, the cut portion of pad should be overexcavated so that the minimum fill thickness is not less than 4 feet, or not less than 1/3 the maximum fill thickness within a given lot, whichever is greater. Overexcavations should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet outside the extreme exterior foundation elements for the structure, or below a 1:1 projection from the bottom outside edge of any settlement sensitive improvements, whichever is deeper. Areas where proposed fills are less than the recommended overexcavation depth should be overexcavated in order to provide the recommended minimum fill blanket thickness. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Once overexcavations are completed, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of eight (8) inches, moisture conditioned, compacted and then brought to grade with compacted fill. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary cuts for wall construction or removals/overexcavations should be constructed at a gradient of 1:1 or flatter in compacted fill and 1/2:1 in sedimentary bedrock. Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within five feet of the top of any temporary slope. Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary slopes. Utility trenches constructed deeper than 4 feet, should be constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation, trenches and Earthwork with respect to Type "B" soil material. RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS Preliminary Foundation Design 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches. This value may be increased by 200 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. In addition, this value may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide, and isolated pad footings should have a dimension of at least 24 inches square. 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 275 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6. Soil generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I percent minimum relative compaction, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter, or in the parking areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and toward the street. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building code (1997) and Petersen et. al. (1996), the following seismic parameters are provided. Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2) 4 Soil Profile type (per Table 16-J) Sc Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U) B Distance to Seismic Source 5km Upper Bound Earthquake Mw6.9 Figure and table references are from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). Foundation Settlement - Structural Loads Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) ofthe anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately %-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed %-inch between similar elements, in a 20 foot span. Conventional Foundation Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint. Our recommendations are presented assuming that the upper 3 feet of finish grade materials have a very low to low expansion potential. Recommendations by the project structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum recommendations. Final foundation design recommendations will be provided based on the expansion potential of the as-graded foundation soils. 1. Foundation recommendations presented herein under "Treatment of Existing Ground" should be followed. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Continuous exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches, for low expansive soil conditions and one-story loads. Footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches for two-story loads. All footings should be reinforced with two No.4 reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom. Footing depths and widths should be as indicated in the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). 3. Isolated exterior column, or spread footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches. Reinforcement should be provided per the project structural engineer. 4. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g., garage) entrances. The base ofthe grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Exterior spread footing should be tied to the main foundation with grade beams. 5. Concrete slabs, a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches total of washed sand. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 6 mil, polyvinyl-chloride or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane could be placed over a 2-inch thickness of sand and a minimum 2- inch thickness of sand should be placed over the visqueen to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. If proven by testing (Le., sand equivalent greater than 30 and less than % inch in any size dimension), some of the native sands could be utilized for the four inch sand layer. 6. Concrete slabs, should be reinforced with No.3 reinforcement bars placed on 18- inch centers in two perpendicular directions (or equivalent reinforcement). All slab reinforcement should be supported and positioned near the vertical midpoint of the slab. IIHookingll of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 7. Garage slabs should be constructed as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 8. Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. However, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below grade in the slab areas. Prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement, soil presaturation should be verified by this office within 72 hours of pouring slabs. - Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 15 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Post Tension Slab Foundations The following recommendations are presented as minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint with respect to very low expansive soil conditions. 1. Post-tensioned (PT) slabs may be utilized for construction of typical one (1) and two (2) story residential structures onsite. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. 2. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a IIdishing" or lIarching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil presaturation (if necessary, qr after the project has been dormant for a period of time) and construction of a perimeter "cut offl wall grade beam may be employed. 3. For very low to low (E.I.= 0 through 50) expansive soils, perimeter and mid span beams should be a minimum 12 inches deep below lowest adjacent pad grade. The perimeter foundations may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab. The perimeter beams should be a minimum of 12 inches in width. 4. A vapor barrier should be utilized and be of sufficient thickness to provide a adequate separation of foundation from soils (10-mil thick). The vapor barrier should be lapped and adequately sealed to provide a continuous water-resistant barrier under the entire slab. The vapor barrier should be sandwiched between two 2-inch thick layers of sand (SE>30) for a total of 4 inches of sand. 5. Isolated piers should be incorporated into the post tension slab system. 6. Specific soil presaturation for slabs is not required for very low expansive soils; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at or above the soils' optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches below grade depending on the footing embedment. 7. Post-tensioned slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with the Post-Tension Institute (PTI) , local and/or national code criteria and the recommendations of a structural or civil engineer qualified in post- tension slab design. Alternatives to PTI methodology may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion parameters, and settlements noted for this project. If alternatives to PTI are suggested by the structural consultant, consideration should be given for additional Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 16 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I !I I I I I I 9. 11. review by a qualified structural PT-designer. Soil related parameters for post- tensioned slab design, are presented in the table below. Perimeter Footing Embedment* Allowable bearing value Modules of subgrade reaction Coefficient of friction Passive pressure Soil Suction (Pf) Depth to Constant Soil Suction Thornthwaite moisture em edge em center my edge my center Minimum Slab Thickness 12" 1000psf** 125 psi/inch 0.35 275 pcf 3.6 5 feet -20.0 2.5 5.0 0.25 1.00 5 inches * Lab data indicates EI. 0-20 for this site. **Bearing for slab on grade only, bearing value for interior or perimeter beams should be in accordance with parameters provided for conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. 8. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately V2-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed %-inch between similar elements, in a 20 foot span. Designers of PT slabs should review the parameters provided for post-tensioned slabs, and compare using a span distance of 5 feet, using a modules of subgrade reaction of 125 psi in their evaluation. 10. In accordance with guidelines presented in the Uniform Building Code, improvements and/or footings should maintain a horizontal distance, X, between any adjacent descending slope face and the bottom outer edge of the improvement and/or footing. The horizontal distance, X, may be calculated by using X = h/3, where h is the height of the slope. X should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. X may be maintained by deepening the footings. Improvements constructed within a distance of h/3 from the top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion. Foundations for any adjacent structures, including retaining walls, should be deepened (as necessary) to below a 1:1 projection upward and away from any Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC April 26, 1999 Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I proposed lower foundation system. This recommendation may not be considered valid, if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation on the lower foundation has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation. 12. Additional setbacks, not discussed or superseded herein, and presented in the UBC are considered valid. FOOTING SETBACKS All footings should maintain a minimum setback of 40 feet to the top of bluff. Setbacks to lesser slopes should be a 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measures from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet nor need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances; and retaining wall recommendations can be provided, upon request. EXTERIOR FLATWORK Exterior walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab on grade construction (excluding traffic pavements), should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria. 1. Slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness. A thickened edge should be considered (12 inches in depth and 4 to 6 inches in thickness) for all flatwork adjacent to landscape areas. 2. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content. 3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement is; 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5 to 8 foot centers or equivalent to the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC April 26, 1999 Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. 5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, parking area, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. 6 In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (Le. irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Concrete used to construct flatwork should be at least ASTM 520-C-2500. RETAINING WALLS General Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the 'Design" section of Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the County of San Diego guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning and stability. The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls within this wedge, increased active.and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used above a 1: 1 projection up and away from the bottom of any wall. The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel, earthstone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be greater than those provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce wall cracking due to settlement, walls should be internally grouted and/or reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures of 63 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade, should be water-proofed Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. Refer to the following section for preliminary recommendations from surcharge loads. Cantilevered Walls These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to fifteen (15) feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. . ..... ....... ... .. .... . .... . . .. . . ...... .. ....... ...... . .. .. ... ............ ........................... .... ..... ...... ......... ..... .... ..... ... . .. ..... ... .. ....... ... . ..... . . .... . .........U..R. ..F;.A......C.....S.. .[".p..e..".. .. .. . .. ... ... . .. . .. ..... .. . ... . .... .. ... ..... ..... ......... ........'§f~~N~Q..~~~~I......... .... .... ftêØ,gq~I#Þ}tØ V$ A-rJØAC.... Level 2 to 1 .. ... .... . . ... .. . ....... . ............ . ... ......... .. .. .. ............. . .. .... ...... .... .... ... ..... .. ........~g~If~'Ni1t........ ~~~;ç~~r.................. .. ........i'lifll~~....... 40 50 The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 63 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner. Traffic loads within a 1:1 projection up from the wall heel, due to light trucks and cars should be considered as a load of 100 psf per foot in the upper 5 feet of wall in uniform pressure. For preliminary design purposes, footing loads within a 1:1 backfill zone behind wall will be added to the walls as 1f3 of the bearing pressure for one footing width, along the wall alignment. Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe backdrain and outlet system (a minimum 2 outlets per wall), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. Pipe should consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3fa to 1 %-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforations in pipe should face down. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-SC April 26, 1999 Page 20 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I As an alternative to gravel backdrains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturers guidelines. Regardless of the backdrain used, walls should be water proofed where they would impact living areas or where staining would be objectionable. Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be supported on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from bedrock to fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2-foot, overexcavation and recompaction of bedrock materials, as measured for a distance of two times the height of the wall from the transition in the direction of the wall. Overexcavations should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the footing, measured perpendicular to the wall. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (Le., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material. If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. Retaining wall design parameters are not part of our scope of services; however, they can be provided, after further soil testing, upon .request. RECOMMENDATIONS-POST EARTHWORK Planting and Landscape Maintenance Graded slopes constructed within and/or exhibiting or exposing weathered bedrock are considered erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected by the project landscape architect should be light weight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Graded cut slopes exposing less weathered bedrock are expected to be relatively non- erosive and will present difficulty for establishment of vegetation on the dense bedrock. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Water can weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of water necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided as overwatering the landscape area could adversely affect the proposed site improvements. Additional Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flat work design and construction can be provided upon request, after site earthwork is complete. If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site in general or individual areas, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements may be provided upon request. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been compacted. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Due to the nature of on-site soils, combined with the hardness and permeability of the bedrock, local areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, remedial recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 22 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRENCH BACKFILL 1. All utility trench backfill in structural areas, slopes, and beneath hard scape features should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative, S.E. 30 or greater sand, may be flooded/jetted in shallow under-slab interior trenches. 2. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1: 1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, for our scope-of-work was expressly limited to the evaluation of the sediments/soils underlying the proposed residence. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. During the field exploration phase of our study, odors or stained or discolored soils were not observed onsite or in our excavation spoils. However, these observations were made during our preliminary geotechnical study and should in no way be used in lieu of an environmental assessment. If requested, a proposal for a phase I preliminary environmental assessment could be provided. Mr. Bud Fischer 528-532 Neptune Avenue File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge W.O. 2655-A-Sc April 26, 1999 Page 23 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ~ REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPEN DIX A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EOFAULT computer program and users manual for the deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical prediction of near-source ground motion from large earthquakes, in Johnson, J.A, Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Geotechnical and geologic investigation, Neptune /I project, 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, no job no., dated October 26. Eisenberg, LI., 1985, Depositional processes in the landward part of an Eocene tidal lagoon, northern San Diego County in On the Manner of Deposition Of Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, Abbott, P.L ed.: San Diego Association of Geologists Guidebook, 98 pp. Frankel, AD., Perkins, D.M., and Mueller, C.S., 1996, Preliminary and working versions draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United states showing peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0.3 and 1.0 sec. site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NERHRP), internet address. http://gldage.cr.usge.gov. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, EW., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in Earthquake Engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed., Prentice-Hall. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No.6, scale 1 :750,000. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A, Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) , 1982, Soil mechanics design manual 7.1. GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), 1982, Foundation design manual 7.2. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, California fault parameters, San Diego area faults, Table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazards maps of California: e-mail address, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezp/fitindex.htmi. , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Soil Engineering Construction, 1998, Approximate depth of tiebacks, 528-532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, no job no., dated November 9. Soil Engineering Construction, 1996a, Responses to third party review (dated May 19, 1996), Gozzo/Sawtelle, 528 & 532 Neptune Avenue, Case Number: 95-137 MUP/EIAEncinitas, California, no job no., dated September 24. Soil Engineering Construction, 1996b, Updated review report/request for emergency processing, proposed upper bluff retention system, Gozzo/Sawtelle, 528-532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, no job no., dated August 20. Soil Engineering Construction, 1995, Updated review report/request for emergency processing, proposed upper bluff retention system, Gozzo/Sawtelle, 528-532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, no job no., dated December 1. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Tan, Saing S., 1987, Landslide hazards in the Rancho Santa Fe quadrangle, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 86- 15. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix A Page 2 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B BORING LOGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CUNNINGHAM Sample ,... ~ " '"' + ~ :J: '"' C + 0 'to + + ,... II '"' 'to ï:> L + 1"0 , :3 III .I:. UI II UI 0 :)~ + L + :>t. .-.Q 3 (I.Q ( :3 II. - "OL 0 ue JI'"' + CD :3 C:3 (lJI L 0 III C !C :)+ !C :)(I C 1: (I SM SM 5 10 15 20 25 CUNNINGHAM BORING LOG w.O. 2655-A-SC-SC BORING B-1 SHEET---2-0F DA TE EXCA V A TED 4-8-99 SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger m ~ Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample f\¡ Water Seepage into hole Description of Material .:::.. TOPSOIL/COllUVIUM .'Ó'" @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose; fine to medium '-":'< grained. .:;:. QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS x.' @ 1', SILTY SAND, light brown to reddish brown, moist, ~. loose; medium grained, well sorted. @ 3', as per 1', medium dense. Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Backfilled 4-8-99 GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CUNNINGHAM Sample '"' + ... '"' .s::: + D. CD 0 1"0 fþ GI :.I. .-.Q - "0 t. ::I C::I ID ::J+ - - ~ 5- 10 15 20 - - - 25 - - - - CUNNINGHAM + ... " fþ 3 0 0 III.Q U E 111:]1 ::Jill - ID SM SM + ::I - + ,... 'ë ... ::J ~ :]I'"' t. 0 '"' )( '"' CD t. ::I + fþ ,- 0 I: BORING LOG w.O. 2655-A-SC-SC BORING B-2 SHEET ~OF ~ DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-8-99 '"' )( '"' SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger C 0 m ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample i\¡ Water Seepage into hole Standard Penetration Test ,- + III t. ::I + III III Description of Material .:;: TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM ':-,":'. @ 0', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; fine to medium "';-'. grained, roots. ::::::' QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS ':-,":', @ 2', SILTY SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense; "';-'. medium grained. Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Backfilled 4-8-99 GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2655-A-SC-SC PROJECT: BORING B-3 SHEET ~OF 1 - CUNNINGHAM DATE EXCAVATED 4-8-99 Sample '"' SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger x '"' '" ..... +- X W :I '" c Standard Penetration Test +- 0 ... +- +- GI .- I\¡ Water Seepage into hole '" ... '"' L +- I'U " - 'ë> ::I 111 ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample .s: 1/1 GI 1/1 0 ::J~ +- L +- "," .-.c 3 1II.c 1/1 ::1 Q. - 'UL 0 U E :II'" .- +- GI ::I C::I - 111:11 L 0 111 Description of Material c ID ::J+- ID ::Jill C I: III SM 0/>' FILL . cr-,. - ""'-:'. @ 0', SILTY SAND, brown, wet, loose; fine to medium ../-.'. ~ained. - ,'-Ô",. 1', as per 0', fine gravels. .'-"".. - .oJ"" @ 2', SAND, light brown, dry, loose; friable sand. "';""'. ,'-",' Total Depth = 4' 5- No groundwater encountered Backfilled 4-8-99 - - 10 15 20 25 CUNNINGHAM GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2655-A-SC-SC PROJECT: BORING 8-4 SHEET..J....OF 1 - CUNNINGHAM DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-8-99 Sample '"' SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger ): '"' '-J '"' + ): æ ::¡: '-J C Standard Penetration Test + 0 ... + ~'"' GI .- f\¡ Water Seepage into hole '-J '" L + ~ I'U " - c'" ::! nI Undisturbed, Ring Sample J: ( III ( 0 :J~ + L + ~ .-.!] :3 III,!] ( ::! Q. - 'UL 0 ue :»'-J .- + GI ::! c::! - III:» L 0 nI Description of Material c ID :J+ ID :Jill C 1: III SM . "".' TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM .;¿. @ 0', SILTY SAND, brown, wet, loose; abundant roots. ...,-., .";-". ~ </'" .~.' .oJ'" SM </". QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS .;¿.. I \¡@ 3', SILTY SAND, reddish brown, wet, medium dense; r 5 medium grained. Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Backfilled 4-8-99 10 - - - 15- - - - - 20- - - - 25 CUNNINGHAM GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE 8-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !I I I I I GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GBADlliG GUlOf.LlNES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. . EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557 - 78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor1s Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non- earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over-excavated down to Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 2 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over- excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to % the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 3 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, 0-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 4 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. . If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shan ked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction. tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 5 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCA VA TIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 6 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the ~ responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I ;1 I I I I I I Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor1s representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 8 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. Mr. Bud Fischer File: e:\wp7\2600\2655a.pge Appendix C Page 9 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL TYPE 8 ------------------------------ PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NOTE: ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBORAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 8 MINIM UM FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT J ".' '.. ILiNEAR FT. 68 ø ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVE~ :::: "~:: SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/1." fI) PERFS. ::.' ..'" LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIP~. '.':' '..: \\ ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527. SCHDþ 1.0 68 MINIMUM ASTM 03031.. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01785 SCHD 1.0 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 5ÓO FT. . 8-1 USE8"SPIPE 0:1_- -f. A-1 . FILTER MATERIAL- . ~~ 1 INCH ,100 -311. INCH 90~100 3/8 INCH 1.0-100 NO. I. 25-1.0. NO.8 18-33 NO. 30 :5-15- -NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE. GRAVEL AND. FILTER FA8RIC ~NIMUM OVERLAP 6" MINIMUM OVER~~( A-2 . :. :.: ~~, ~ :..::. :; I. 8 MINIMUM BEDDING=: :"0:. ~ . 1 v' ~'ft . GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 Ff21 LINEAR FT. 8 - 2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: ClEAN 311. IN~ ROO< OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 11.0 OR APPROVED SUBSTlWTE PLATE EG-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIA TED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN 1 COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL - ~:GI":L~:~URFA~ BACKCU~ VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. /...~~ r BACKCUT :t'tKSHOULD BE MADE NO {-#-"f STEEPER'THA~:1 OR AS NECESSAR~<~ ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY ~~,CONSIDERATlONS~ 1 ~,. DEPTH PER SOIL ENG8NEER. ~/~ / / \\l~~ "\ ~\~ IJ~~ P'RåViDO :;; ;;IMUM -;;;o-;ec~N7R;; TŒ ;;- SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS ANDIOR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL ------------ ---- PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED Fill COMPACTED Fill LIMITS LINE \ , TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL ~ --- ),FOR DRAINAGE ONLY ---- -"" ~ Qaf ~(Ò' Qaf / Qal (TO BE REMOVED) (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) ~'\. ~/ -~~~~\ I -. L' 'I'/~~Y//\'11 ~1Íf.I?- WIfI1¡,' -. . LEGEN 0 ~Y/v-1flll\ ~ \ TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Qaf ARTIFICIAL FilL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Qal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 ~ - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS, AND SHALL EXTEND 12" BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF .ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 14 ÞI 15' MINIMUM DESIGN FINISH SLOPE '\\~;mm- - - - -- I.. DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE AND BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNA TlVESI 15' TYPICAL tI.I\\~ 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH lJ r » --i m m Q I ~ HEEL 7Ii1 ~'V/\\\~~ W::15'MINIMUM OR HI2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TYPICAL STABILIZATION I BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL l.. MINIMUM PIPE 2. MINIMUM :x ::) ~ ~ ~ N -u r » --t m m G) I U1 2. MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPF OR FOUR FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH. AJ..IERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 1'0 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 1 r ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM It. DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM 0-2751, SDR 35 OR ASTM 0-1527 SCHEDULE 1.0 PVC-ASTM 0-3031., SPR 35 OR ASTM 0-1785 SCHEDULE 'o WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE, OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. tl>TE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 311. INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 1.0-100 NO.1. 25-/'0 NO. A 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICA TlON OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 INCH NO.1. 100 50 FIRST DRAIN LOCATED ATE LEVA TlON JUST ABOVE I NO.2 00 8 LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE . SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER ANDIOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NATURAL S.LOPE TO BE RESTORED WITH FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT ~ "MINIMUM BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY -u r » -I m m G) I m 1S' MINIMUM KEY WIDT 2'X J' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH ~'. MINIM~M NOTE: 1, WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE DESIGN SLOPE RATIO. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS. 2' MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FILL OVER CUT DETAIL CUT/FILL CONTACT 1. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' FILL SECTION FROM BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE COMPACTED FILL H ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY ,,'t' ?;;::.... 1/\" BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL LOWEST BENCH WIDTH 15' MINIMUM OR HI2 -u r » --t m m Q I '1 NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION. ------ \J r » -; m m G> I (X) - - - - - - -- - - - - - STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT .SLOPE NATURAL SLOPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATEijlAL ~ ~ POSED FINISHED GRADE í"Ç , UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL REMOVE: UNSTABLE MA TERIAL . ~^\\;¡¡~Z - - 7~lj'MINIMUM TILTED BACK ............... A- \, '/\""1/\'" ," -. . "¡""lIF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING -W~ :=:37 GEOLOGIST, THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY W1- Þf REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. NOTE: 1. SUBDRAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.. 2. .W. SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH 11511 FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER" THAN 25 FEET .W. SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND lOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL .W. BE LESS THAN H/2. - -0 ç;: ~ m m (;) I to - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND ORIGINAL SLOPE 15' MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT ~ NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIE LD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL ~ RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER (MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREAL ~ ~ / OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT FILL ,/ AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE lJ ç -I m m G) I NOTE: 1. SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. -'" a - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TR AN SITION LOT 0 ET AI L CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) - ---- - -- ~ ------ - ~ -- -- ~ ~ PAD GRADE CUT-FILL LOT (OA YUGHT TRANSITION) .-;::. P AD GRAD E NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED ANISH GRADE 10. MINIMUM (E) CO aJ ctJ cO H 1ßNIMUM fA) (B) c::::c ÞðO ~ 108 CP 0= 00 ~ CO IF] CO CO VIEW PARALLEL TO 5 LOPE FACE PROPOSED RNISH GRADE la. M~NI= t=::~~ ..<,,~- ~~~OO 0 a~ 0 ~ 10. MINIMUM 10. MINIMUM 'cTxx::P (F) NOTE: IA) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (8) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL 8E NO GREATER THAN 100. MAXIMUM. IC) IF APPROVED 8Y THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST to WINDROWS MAY. BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. ID) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL 8E AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. IE] CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES.. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. 1FJ VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIACATION SYSTEM (UBC 29-11 DESIGNATION OF SM, SP, SW, GP, OR GW. ALL ALL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL 8~ COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE 'COMPACTION. (GI AFTER ALL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE UFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. (HI OVERSIZ~D ROCK IS DEANED AS LARGER THAN 12~ AND LESS THAN I. FEET IN SIZE. PLATE EG-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL PITS FILL !-IFTS COMPAC'ÆD OVER r - :O.:.K ~~~ ~~~:E:T~- I I COMPACTED FILL GRANULAR MATERIAL ---------, SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE. NOTE: 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEANED AS ROCK LARGER THAN I. FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. 2. PIT IS EXCAVA TED INTO COMPACTED FILL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/2 OF ROCK SIZE. 3. GRANULAR SOIL SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFIED BY FLOODING. USE A SHEEPSFOOT AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. 4. A MINIMUM OF I. FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED FILL SHOULD OVERLIE EACH PIT. 5. PITS SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 1S FEET HORIZONTALLY. 6. PITS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN DEEP FILL AREAS. PLATE EG-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 111." STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/1." PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/1." X 50 GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDEO IN 50 INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 1.0 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADD IN SO INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE I I I ~ -r'\- I : MAINTAIN 50 CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT" .-I..A,,- MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 20 VERTICAL 'Ÿ- LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. L I I I I I / / / / /' 50 50 I I ~I. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' '\. VERTICAL WITHIN AS'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. '\. " '\. '\. " 2' ~.:0...0.0'.....0" 00'.....". BOTTOMOFCLEANOUT . . "...'. .... .0..0'0....0 PROVIDE A MINIMUM ,0 BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND 10 NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY 'MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. ALL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER SO (VERTICALI OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5' RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. I.. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT ANISH GRADE -------- 3/8. DIAMETER X 6. LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT . DIAMETER X 3 112. LENGTH HOLE . 3"-6- CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW .::::;:;::{ TEST._r:'.IT :{::::::::::::.:...,.. ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP V'E'N ~ I 00 FEET ~ 50 FEET to- UI UI U. 0 It) SO FEET SPOIL PILE ;~:~§~."p;ry~~' ~r ~~~~~~~Nt~:~~~~:§:~:~~~~~:~: vetCLE I :~~::tt~??}::tNrf~~~:.~: ~K .SH?:&(.:"~Ú~:: I FLAG APf'ROXJMA TE ŒHTER / CF TEST PIT I I j , to- UI UI U. 0 It) . FLAG ( NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE EG-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) ~ Ct:J 00 00 ~ 15. MINIMUM (A) (BI 00 0"" 0"" CJO D (GJ QC:) 0::;) <:;C;) co c::O o:XF1 ViEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE ¡J°O-MAXIMUM (B~ ~~...o 150 MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM c>- .:- -:-,c:::,ç;.:::".:::c ~ ~ 15- MINIMUM 10' MINIMUM IE) C) (GI c:::x::x::o c=:J ~ ~ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 1S FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (0) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. IE) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES- FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RD-1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILlED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT ,...--------- I I I ï--- I ~ COMPACTED FILL I I I I I ------, SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I I I I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO ALL YOIDS. ~ FCOMPACTED FILL DENSIAED BY FLOODING'" - - - -- ---.... "., LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH O~D\ ~ -- . -- -------- PROPOSED FINISH GRADE IQo MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIU ---------------~ 20' ~~, FA ~ '..... COMPACTED FILL "", ."", £' M~ 'Ú' . ~,...:.=C~, PROFILE ALONG LAYER FILL SLOPE ICLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I q< //7 1 FINAL COMPACTION REPORT OF GRADING 532 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. BUD FISCHER C/O WALLACE E. CUNNINGHAM, INC. P.Oo BOX 371483 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92137-1483 WoOo 2655-B-SC AUGUST 25, 2000 .",. , i \ ' , ¡U'i¡" 28'.' '" : ' :.".' . LuUû , > i , : 'U¡ -' ~-' ¡ I, L.__- .- Ji E,,':: - - :""5 1/, .,,- . L~iE:.:.~~.~, ._.i:;.___- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Geotechnical. Geologic. Environmental 5741 Palmer Way . Carlsbad, California 92008 . (760) 438-3155 . FAX (760) 931-0915 August 25, 2000 W.O. 2655-B-SC Mr. Bud Fischer c/o Wallace E. Cunningham, Inc. P.O. Box 371483 San Diego, California 92137-1483 Subject: Final Compaction Report of Grading, 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, 528-532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," W.O. 2655-A-Sc, dated April 26, 1999, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Grading Plan for Fischer Residence, 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca.," DWG. # 6245-6, undated, by San Dieguito Engineering. 3. "Uniform Building Code," Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3, dated 1997, by International Conference of Building Officials. Gentlemen: This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during grading at the subject site. Earthwork commenced July 8, 2000, and was completed on July 12, 2000. Survey of line and grade and locating of the building footprint was performed by others and not performed by GSI. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the building pad area appears suitable for the intended use. PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading was to prepare relatively level pads for the construction of a residential structure and associated driveway access to Neptune Avenue. Remedial earthwork consisted of removal of the uppermost 1 to 2 feet of soil material within structural areas of the site and placement of these materials as compacted fill or export from the site. Maximum fill depths on the order of 4 feet were placed within the central portion of the site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I 2. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were regularly observed by a representative from our firm. The geologic conditions encountered generally were as anticipated and presented in our referenced report (GSI, 1999). GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Preparation of Existing Ground 1. Prior to grading, the major surficial vegetation was stripped and hauled offsite. 2. Removals consisted of the uppermost 1 to 2 feet of existing soil within areas planned for settlement sensitive improvements. A septic tank and vertical seepage pit were encountered within the driveway areas of the site, removed and backfilled with either compacted soil or a lean concrete slurry. Exposed removal bottoms were brought to at least optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Fill Placement 1. Fill consisting of native onsite soils were placed in 6- to 8-inch lifts, watered, and mixed to achieve at least optimum moisture conditions, and compacted using earth moving equipment to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2. Fills were not placed on surfaces steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). 3. Oversize materials (12 inches and greater) were not encountered. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear densometer ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-3017 and sand-cone ASTM test method ASTM D-1556. The test results taken during grading are presented in the attached Table 1, and the locations of the tests taken during grading are presented on Plate 1 . Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered representative of the compacted fill. Mr. Bud Fischer 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas File: e:\wp 7\2600\2655b. fer W.O. 2655-B-Sc August25,2000 Page 2 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I I I 3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was the basis for determining which maximum density value to use for a given density test. LABORATORY TESTI NG Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. The following table presents the results: Soli A - Sil SAND, Yellow brown 118.0 13.0 Expansion Index Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for the site. A representative sample of the soils near pad grade were recovered for expansion index testing. Expansion index testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). The test results indicate an expansion index of 21, and the corresponding expansion classification of low. Corrosivity A typical sample of the site materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate content. Based upon the soluble sulfate results of 0.02 percent, the site soils have a negligible corrosion potential to concrete (UBC range for negligible sulfate exposure is 0.00-0.10 water soluble sulfate [SO4J in soil percentage by weight). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Unless superseded by recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the referenced report (GSI, 1999) remain pertinent and applicable. Mr. Bud Fischer 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas File: e:\wp 7\2600\2655b.fcr W.O. 2655-B-Sc August25,2000 Page 3 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Processing of original/existing ground and placement of compacted fills under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of and with selective testing provided by representatives of GSI and are found to be in general compliance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas, California. Our findings were made in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices, and no further warranty is implied or made. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 438-3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. RGC/ ARKlmo Enclosures: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Plate 1 - Field Density Test Location Map Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Bud Fischer 532 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas File:e:\wp 7\2600\2655b .fer W.O. 2655-B-SC August25,2000 Page 4 GeoSoils, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~? 1 7/10/00 CENTER PAD 2 7/10/00 NORTHERN PAD 3 7/10/00 SOUTHERN PAD 4 7/11/00 NORTHERN PAD 5 7/11/00 CENTER PAD FG-6 7/12/00 SOUTH CENTER PAD FG-7 7/12/00 NORTHERN PAD LEGEND ND - NUCLEAR DENSOMETER SC - SAND CONE FG - FINISH GRADE Mr. Bud Fischer Ale: e: \excel\tabl es\2600\2655b Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS r;~I?Y4T'!9"'r.tPI~TtJRE~~.Df=I~ < .~>fi~LA riVE.. . ..1J:ST':SOIL . b ~ ~ ~J9 A ~ ~ ~ R~ ~~I"t")j ff g ~P.~ ç~'g ~ M ~H e Pl'fflE 93.0 13.7 91.6 ND A 94.5 13.2 90.8 ND A 94.0 13.5 92.4 ND A 96.0 13.6 92.8 ND A 96.0 13.9 90.7 ND A FG 13.3 92.3 SC A FG 14.1 90.8 ND A W.O. 2655-B-Sc Page 1 GeoSoils, Ine. '1 - -'- -~ . 8 95-137MUP SEAWALL FILE Leaf # 1 Permits & Attachments, Inspection Notes, General Correspondence Chronologically ordered, latest on top, e. g. final action from Coastal Commission last paper filed, needed to officially close project. Leaf #2 Official Documents Chronologically ordered, latest on top, includes all typically required covenants, one of which includes the Major Use permit, required of all seawall projects Leaf # 3 Finance & Transmittals Separate sections on project transmittals and financial transactions. Transmittals offer a brief summary of the status of the plans at any given time. Keeping track of project finances allows costs to be fully recovered and applicant securities to be properly tracked until eventual release. Leaf #4 En 9 i nee r / Co n stru cto r /Ma n ufactu rer Oversize Chronological assortment of engineering documents and certificates fe.g., structural calculations, geotechnical reports, independent tests], constructor attachments fe.g., work schedule, liability letter, access plan, barrier plan, equipment IistJ, manufacturer submittals; also, any third party review Pia n s/Repo rts/Exh ib its In this case, a blueline copy of the as-built original mylars, includes both the lower wall, subject to our inspection, and the upper wall built under emergency auspices and self-certified. Mylars are stored separately in cabinets. comment: overall, a very clean project with start and definite finish. Full compliance with typical seawall conditions of approval. Concept and design is typical of fix currently employed since fortress walls and voluminous rip-rap have fallen out of grace with approving agencies. Named construction contractor, who is also Engineer of Work in this case, but not every case, has virtual monopoly MM/jsg/95-137f.docl IT n 01' ~IA -1M. RIIOURCU AGINCY .C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMM. SA DlEGOt~EA 31 i CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUm! 200 SA DIEGO. CA 12108.1721 (81 I 121-8031 ION May 12, 1999 Paul Gozzo P. O. Box 'TV; Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92067 Re: Coastal Development Permit Application #6-98-133 Dear Mr. Gozzo: Enclosed are two copies of your coastal development permit for the seawall fronting your property. Please sign both copies and return one of the copies to our office. I have also sent copies to Mr. Fischer for his signature. Thank you for your assistance during this process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~~~-~- Gary D. Cannon Coastal Planner aMY DAVlI, Go- Q STA OP CAUI'ORNIA - 1141 UIOURCII NJIJIICf C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SA DlIGO Niu. 311 !:AMINO oeL RIO NORTH. Sum! 200 SA DIeGO, CA 12108-1721 (811 121.-038 OM y CIA VII, Ocwwnw fi Bob Trettin 9606 Laurentian San Diego, Ca 92129 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE Date: May 12, 1999 Applicant: Paul F. Gozzo, Jerry Sawtelle and Arnold G. Fischer Document or Plans: 1. Future response to erosion deed restriction 2. Assumption of risk deed restriction Submitted in compliance with Special Condition(s) No(s).: of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-98-133 .3 and 4 Remaining Special Condition(s): None Material submitted in compliance with said Special Condition(s) of your development permit has been reviewed by.the District Director and found to fulfill the requirements of said condition( s). Your submitted material and a copy of this letter have been made a part of the permanent file. . Sincerely, Deborah Lee Deputy Director BY:~~~~ \ (DocumC11t2 ) STA Oil CALlIIORNIA - THI QIOURCQ AGIHCY GRAY DAVlI, 00- CA IFORNIA COASTAL C,?MMISSION8 SAN DIEGO AReA 3111 CAMINO ~EL RIO NORTH. SUIT!! 200 SAN DIEGO. CA 12108.1721 (811 '521.-038 8 ~ Bob Trettin 9606 Laurentian Drive San Diego, Ca 92129 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE Date: March 25, 1999 Applicant: Paul Gozzo, Jerry Sawtelle and Arnold G. Fischer Document or Plans: 1. Sand Mitigation Fee for Impacts to Sand Supply 2. Storm Design Certification Submitted in compliance with Special Condition(s) No(s).: 1 and 5 of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-98-133 Remaining Special Condition(s): 3 and 4 Material submitted in compliance with said Special Condition(s) of your development permit has been reviewed by the District Director ¡;md found to fulfill the requirements of said condition(s). Your submitted material and a copy öfthis letter have been made a part of the permanent file. Sincerely, Deborah Lee Deputy Director By: ~~c---- cc: Paul Gozzo Arnold G. Fischer (G:\San DiegoIGARYlLeaersI6-98-133noa1.doc) ~ - 8 C STA 01" CALIFORNIA - THe RI!SOURCU AGÐICY , IFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DieGO AReA ~11 CAMINO DilL RIO NORTH. SUIn 200 SA DIIIGO. CA 12108-1725 (119 521~0:S1 John Niven Soil Engineering Construction 560 N. Highway 101, Suite 5 Encinitas, Ca 92024 8 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE Date: March 11,1999 Applicant: Paul Cozza, Jerry Sawtelle and Arnold G. Fischer Document or Plans: 1. Seawall monitoring program 2 Submitted in compliance with Special Condition(s) No(s).: of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-98-133 Rem~ining Special Condition(s): 1, 3, 4, 5, Material submitted in compliance with said Special Condition(s) of your development permit bas been reviewed by the District Director and found to ful:fi1l the requirements of said condition( s). Your submitted material and a copy of this letter have been made a part of the permanent file. (6-98-1331108) Sincerely, Deborah Lee Deputy Director Br. G;~ ORA Y OA VIS, GO-- @ STA '1,F CALIFORNIA - nil! RESOURCES AGENCY . C LlFORNIA COASTAL. COMMI"N SAN I 'REAf . RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 82108.1725 GRAY DAVIS, 00_' 8 @ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-98-133 Page 1 of 2- On January 13, 1999 ,the California Coastal Commission granted to Paul F. Gozzo, Jerry Sawtelle & Arnold G. Fischer this pennit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, 2 ft. wide, approximately 120 foot-long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, containing residential units. This application is a follow-up to an emergenq{ pennit granted for the construction of the seawall. Site: On public beach fronting 528-554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN(s) 256-084-08 and 09 Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and ~~~ \ IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COpy OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Wldersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of - this permit and agrees to abide by all tenns and conditions thereof. it1~ ~ COASTAL DEVELOP~T PERMIT NO. 6-98-133 Page 2 of.l. ' . 8 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed-and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, and within 60 days of Commission action, the applicants shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a total fee of $9,967.82 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in-lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structure. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject site(s) is that described in the staff report dated 11/18/98 prepared for coastal development permit #6-98-133. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. COASTAL DEVELOPME~ PERMIT NO. 6-98-133 Page 3 of.2 . . 8 The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall solely be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth tenDS and conditions to assure that the in-lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. In the event the MOA is tenninated, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. 2. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, and within 60 days of Commission action, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a plan prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer for a seawall monitoring program which includes the following: a. An evaluation of the current condition and perfonnance of the seawall, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future perfonnance of the plugs. b. Current measurements of the distance between the residences and the bluff edge (as derIDed by PRC Section 13577) at 3 or more locations taken within 60 days of Commission action. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. so that annual measurements can be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years can provide information on bluff retreat. .c. Current measurements of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall taken at 20-foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall/bluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. d. Current measurements of the retreat of the lower bluff within 10 feet of the northern end of the seawall, and comparison of this retreat with the historic retreat rate (referred to as "nonnal rate" in November 30, 1998 letter from John Niven to Gary Cannon). e. Provisions for taking the measurements called for in Subsections b., c. and d. above and for conducting the evaluation described in Subsection a. above annually in April of each year for three years beginning with April 1999. f. Provisions for annual preparation of a written summary of the wall evaluation and all measurements. This summary shall include a projection based on both the measured and historic retreat rates, of the year in which the return wall will likely be flanked by erosion. Wnen 75% of the return walls have been exposed, COASTAL DEVELOPMIT PERMIT NO. 6-98-133 , Page 4 of -1 e the report shall provide recommendations on alternatives, changes or modifications to the project to address possible future flanking. g. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission on May I of each year for three years beginning May I, 1999. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in Subsections a., b., c., and e. above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and provide an analysis of trends, annual retreat or rate of retreat. The report shall include the written summary required in Subsection e. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary changes or modifications to the project. h. Provisions for submission of a report containing the information identified in Subsection e. above at 3 year intervals following the last annual report (i.e., the fITst of these triennial reports to be submitted on May 1, 2004); however, reports shall be submitted in the Spring of any year in which the following event occurs: 1. 2. 3. A 20-year storm event An "EI Niño" storm event A major tectonic event magnitude 5.5 or greater affecting San Diego County Thus reports may be submitted more frequently depending on the occurrence of the above events in any given year. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plan shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 3. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, and within 60 days of Commission action, the applicants shall execute and record a deed restriction against the two blufftop parcels in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no additional bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face or beach unless the alternatives required below are demonstrated to be infeasible. In the event any bluff or additional shoreline protective work is considered on public IJlUi-"~'l ty ill the future, the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of filing an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Commission and the City of Encinitas with sufficient evidence enabling it to consider all alternatives to bluff or shoreline protective works that will eliminate additional impacts to public resources, including, but not limited to, removal of accessory structures (patios. decks, etc.), installation of a below-grade retention system seaward of the residential structures on U1L applicant's property, underpinning of the residential structures, or other remedial measures capable of stabilizing the principle structure and providing reasonable use of the property, without construction of bluff or shoreline stabilization devices on the adjacent COASTAL DEVELOPMElIj¡ PERMIT NO. 6-98-133 ,Page 5 of2, . . 8 public resource, i.e coastal bluffs and beaches. The document shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances and shall run with the land and bind all successors and assIgns. 4. Assumption of Risk. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, and within 60 days of Commission action, each applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide: (a) that the applicant understands that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from erosion and bluff failure, and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazards; and (b) the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executivë Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal Commission-approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 5. Storm Design. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, and within 60 days of Commission action, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline. protective device is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. . 6. Future Maintenance. The permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements set forth below. Maintenance of the seawall shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future additions/reinforcement of 111('. seawall beyond minor regrouting or other exempt maintenance, as defined by Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases after inspection, if it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, the permittee shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. (6-98-1 33p) 8 8 From: To: Date: Subject: Jeff Garami DLANGAG . 1/9/989:02am Gozzo Seawall and upper bluff system -Reply Gozzo/Sawtelle seems fine. You have the copies. When compliance with the MOP resolution is obtained, please do not forget to sign our mylars of the as-builts. Then we can close the project. On seawall projects post this one, not only do I have not much of anything in terms of compliance with our normal regulations, but I have no idea how many emergency walls are really out there! It seems the City gave up a very successful and thorough permitting process in favor of a wild west environment. I have no paper trails. On Johnson/Downing I was pressured into giving them the Beach Encroachment permits without the proper supporting documents to be executed and recorded. The property owners were supposed to execute the documents and return them shortly after permit issuance, but they did not. I have made repeated requests to John Niven to pursue this to no avail. Please make execution and recordation of the Covenants re: Beach Access and Hold Harmless a condition of any future approvals. Thanks so much. »> Diane Langager 01/07/98 03:57pm »> Jeff: Gozzo has not complied with all conditions of the MOP yet. Please do not release deposits until my sign off. A major outstanding requirement is Coastal Approval. Also, can you let me know if Gozzo has signed a hold harmless covenant for the work. Mr. Gozzo is aware of the outstanding conditions also. Thanks Diane . 8 From: To: Date: Subject: Diane Langager jgarami 1/7/983:57pm Gozzo S~awall and upper bluff system Jeff: Gozzo has not complied with all conditions of the MUP yet. Please do not release deposits until my sign off. A major outstanding requirement is Coastal Approval. Also, can you let me know if Gozzo has signed a hold harmless covenant for the work. Mr. Gozzo is aware of the outstanding conditions also. Thanks Diane cc: hjensen, bweedman C I T Y 0 FEN C I NIT A S ENG4ïÞŒ~~;N~.S~~i:SA~:ARTME~ ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT == ============================================================================ PERMIT NO.: 4615GI ARCEL NO. : 256-084-0800,09 PLAN NO.: 4615-G OB SITE ADDRESS: 528-554 NEPTUNE AVE. PPLICANT NAME : GOZZO (PAUL F.)/SAWTELLE (JERRY E.) ILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1705 PHONE NO.: 619-756-2255 ITY: RANCHO SANTA FE STATE: CA ZIP: 92067- ONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. ICENSE NO.: 268082 GlNEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. ERMIT ISSUE DATE: 2/27/96 ERMIT EXP. DATE: 2/27/97 NSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH PERMIT ISSUED BY: PHONE NO.: 714-751-9561 LICENSE TYPE: A P N .: 714-830-3310 -- ---------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 2. INSPECTION FEE: 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 .00 .00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 2,000.00 .00 -- ---------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------~ ONSTRUCTION OF "SHOTCRETE" SEAWALL @ BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF PER {FUTURE} 95-137. GRADING NOTES ATTACHED. COVENANT RE: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR LUFF FAIUJRE INCLUDED. LETTER DATED 02-12-96 RE: MUP 95-137 ATTACHED. a-BUILT PLANS REQUIRED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS REQUIRED. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- .3-1-9' / /' ./ '9-/7- 97 NITIAL INSPECTION OMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED GINEER CERT. RECEIVED OUGH GRADING INSPECTION INAL INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE T ø~~d- -~ -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STl\TE THAT THE NFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE AWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. /)f . IRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER @ AGENT 3 . OTHER Â.-Á7-'!(, DATE SIGNED ( &17) VPý-o.2.l¿ TELEPHONE NUMBER f '.7ì"fC I T'V 0 FEN C I NIT A' S ':;~/1 ~'~~~;N~. S:i:~~S A ~:: AR~ è ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERM¡T ". ~. . == =:: = ====== === = ==,==== = 1'1=.1==:: = ==~ =\= = ==== ===:::: =,= == === == === ====== ==.== :::::::::::: == === = = ARCEL NO. ~; : 25'6-Ò'84-0800 ,oll t ( IV? PLAN[~ 4615-G O~L~~~~BS~ ~~~~5¡PA~~A~ÊÉ/'h:r~ E.)/~'Y)'} ~ ILING'ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1705 PHONE NO.: 619-756-2255 ITV: RANCHO SANTA FE STATE: CA ZIP: 92067- ONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CON5~TION INC. PHONE NO.: 714-751-9561 rCENSE NO.: 268082 ~/""I< LICENSE TYPE: A NSURANCE COMPANY NAME: HOMESTEAD INSURANCE CO. tICY NO. : 138HCL6139 L 7. POLICY EXP. GINEER , : BOIL ENGINE~ING CONSTRUCTION. INC. PH ERMIT ISSUE DATE: 2/27/96 . ERMIT EXP. DATE: 2/27/97 PERMIT ISSUED BY: NSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH -- ---------------------- PERMIT FEES &: DEPOSITS ---------------------------- PERMIT NO.: 4615TE 10/31/98 7 -830-3310 1. PERMIT FEE: .00 Inspector shall charge time tQ 3764T] 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT:(balance @ 434.50 Damage Deposit assigned tp 3764TE n~ ',3. SECURITY DEPOSIT: issuance = .00 assigned, in part, to 4615TE $700.00) -- ----------~----------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- CCESS TO JOBSITE ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED: COVENANT RE: RANT OF BEACH ACCESS/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY LETTERIWORK SCHEDULE/BEACH CCESS, EQUIPMENT, BARRIER PLANS/STANDARD &: SPECIAL CONDITIONS. LETTER ATED 02~12-96 RE: MUP 95-137 ATTACHED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS EQUIRED. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- NITIAL INSPECTION .3 - 4- 9(P INAL INSPECTION 9- 17- 97 INSPFEi6Íf' S SIGNATURE T ð~" d- 713~d- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE CO~LETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER ENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. ;{ - ~ 7- '1 r: DATE SIGNED ( 6/ 't) y' Jv-o~ «- TELEPHONE NUMBER IRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 1i5 AGENT 3. OTHER CITY OF ENCI!ltAS - ENGINE~RING SERVICES~EPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: '1'ELEPHONE: .3-//-9(P JpB Sl::.!fQ:>UL éiZJ 7ð Ft< I. , 3 - ß -9id A-AI./J ¿,v1{f9J m;e. GoZUJ T?-f l: P /Zc; J E:CT . _hflA/ CA-i...LEZJ (;':S9A¥1r - oS o,...enA/q WEZ>.I' $-13- 9~ .s ;ry:¡ Rr 7ð 0 '!r . J ó 1/ A.I C;:¡ l...L..EZ) leéSèHEZJULE?) 7J 7Z.Ies. ~¡e CI-IobSlf;.s A. SoILS éN~~AJ~ ¡a:þR. 3-/4-9(p S"EC 8ECuCl# 1:J/661'Nb rø'n~6 IÞr 9'O¿J ~. WORJt:/Nb ::, ð u T7--I TlJ /II ð ¡.2 T}-I , l31'tC K. II c> (;" IA.I ¡If S ¿) 1(;. 6 I' AI 6 2. t.¡ t¥ t.v ILl l: /hV¿J ..30" t'~ ßEZJÆOCj(:. ~17NÚ LOCPno~ ~V£ 7l) HJcE. or ßL&~ t-oolC-ë2J 6ooLJ. 60 L.F. ð~ FbO17~b ðlJl.7, 711Bf 6<Jr ()~ /")-IE ßÆA-o-I A-T 2~2ðf"'^. 3-15-9h L ,If-IZ-b€: BLU¡::P r74JL.Uæ.t; Ocul2Jl./Eb AT 60zzo wALL ~J A-Cevr- 7b R I è-I-I .os ~¡t- L.L . (~E: Spar wt/ è:J2ë ~77H::>. W,+5 IJú6 t;.sæR() .$'êc. 7Ð 1'9L1..1 Arc Q7; 's17112:f7p&, /rb/t-tl./. 3-/8-9b .5.£~. J-IA-b BftCK-f/o(¿ "AJ BGÀ<..,l-( 7b 8 ~/c.. up &"MVA~ A-I./O F'-k~IIJb ðuT 8l.Lt~ m-1Lt..it<.E. 3-/9-1b .5 A-n--.E: 45 .3-18 -q(p. 3-zo-t¡(,;, Er¿¡4:J~ A;or¡/IIc:' PIZEVI611SLf{ but:; M ßUJI'F- l?t1,wi<E:. Ltx.A71t:W. fi>()71Nt:1 I!S TlJt) fi9-~ Ik.v~ Fi2om 8lJ.1~ /tJ()tAJ .56 'T þJllL LJE oS ¿ilRæt¡ 17L.Lf!il) lþUi? A ¡J&J rn77~ {,.cJ/l.L ßE )::)U& C-Lð.S672. 7a P14cÉ o~ 13¿.u~. g-ZI-9b J¡>fI/J C-t4u..-~. 77()é.S AI2t; poaR. WÇ)/o./7 l3ç: VVO/<'¡¿,¡V& 46AiJo./ (..{Ñ17l.- t../-I-9~. t./-I- 9b l./z I Pr ¿;r P~/OU,)'Ly L>t.;û roo77Nb @--,RJSÐ::J AT ::S"ðúl7-¡ Ð-lt'J 7b St=. nLLa:J oj ¡,..JIm COAJc.eeT£:. USo.J(;;, ~p~lJEV ff/J It'- 055/6Af. COAlc~ 6¡ZIÚI'NA'-'-y $C(..fËl)ULE;¿J A'í ¡:3°;Phi} DIL) þf;; /t-þ<-íVE Uþ-rlL 2:25,orr.. L Hrro Tb U9+-if~ AT ? : () 0 f1 In. . "n t-£} J () H ¡.J I N EEÞ B ElTl:7< ~ C Co A..l772-0 (... . A-LW4<¡':; L-Ð+J.i£' A-- plm-/VJ~ ñJ.12- ¡JéPt3S'l1¿rA-f.f5 Ô.N .éJ&qCI.f. N t::l9J hit &m M (/ AI ;:J At.¡ :;;. W H Ð:!-t:£: /Þ E CH /tIJ ¡ <--4 L Gb.. (,( 'P n? Ð-ff CboE5 ß~cL Ay-¡Q nrzn-l Ac,eg:» PÐ:Je:;r'~o1.tJ .¡vtOVðYI.&Jr- .4. L-96 /A}Of2-K- G~¡'¡/E2)ULEj) Fi.P- 7lJ1J~ CA¡\J(;fJ..LEZJ, . t.¡ - ~ -9(P /:°'- ¡:'n? - .h,H"A.I G4LLEXJ. 8AC/C.HO{; B~Ic.E /:Jo{#1/. CA--NCEL Tl>DAy' /:C>7 pn'I- TOú"M èA-u...a::>. ./cI!J ôN !-Iot..ð. ðA-cKJ.Io¡;- hlA-y at!: O.K. ;:20 &1/1'1 - .:7"(> I-OJ CAlLE:!). I3Ac~tloE O.K.. r!o/JcAE1E S"C/-It!f:1:)UU;;lJ rolll. .s:oofWl. z:..?o?';' - A-¡I2.Á!IW!50 @ ß~CI-(. .Iòlt,.J HI(;,J.( o¡; 6El:>~k(C5 flAc Aul~ 1/I.lf¡JEU'l!!Þ ßltnrs /'i:It'>T7~6 ;' ~~ ¡f¡uo Lo:r: ¡Vo~EJt/ t1toSf @VO tv ~ S n LL ðE ~ ¡(/ C. Ii; ~ Q) . G EÞ ¡t.b €' o/V.s rtr'" ""11 ~ /C.E" C 0 A.t ~ .s . sn:ær- 'lìtNElS (,I.)e:;rt.E vA<-e '<{=I'-" f7e0AA. ¡;o teM. {.,A:-~ CA-U5 J'þ,e. lß>t' So .r H.4cJ 1ñð? (;,g- ¡t:>~p~ (!'LEJI1~CE. )?¡ 1~/r/)¡2A(~. I'C/C ¡)/l.4tP>, ,L~" {ÁÞ'f11!31êSfbI!1 AU- PE7Z- PL4-N. ¡4.)ô/l.n-/~ mosr ~~ H.éh? A- Co¿1V1d!- cur ,!J4a:; IYII ß(,.Lrt:"r /?4GE. ~77¡Jc:? ~A-5 !iJi.LD¡:: w~ A-).(k} C~^,cflé:--rE: wA-S A-U-oLut!:1::) T""Ð t>(5~ ,T. bêb~E I-1I4t7 7ñE'h't HoL-o ()~ /,AJr7?--( VI"/l4rvIL (. f/V17 L rr "" A-.) c.. Etl T74 I/IJ (,U ~ tv ~ ð IS P CÆ c.EV . ---? m14429 CITY OF ENC~TAS - ENGINEERING SERVICEtlÞDEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: J PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: i./-3-Q(P L/-L/-qrc. 4-/3- Cj(p 4 - 9 - 9rø t./-/()-Cjb m14429 '1'ELEPHONE : (CDNT.) 50 ( L ¡:: o¡C JlTx>n^'(.:, 'p6LI.c.e:z:J P$2D",., ^,o¡:Z1?-lE7fl.¡() n1()5T ¡O~""~~ '-/Þ/E .5ð",r?{tvlfl2D. If)' t..o~6 /<-,Q,q-It.. pÞ It..m 5 (..{ S ÉzJ . ~ rJ /J Go 2 - :3 ( /!:J /!l..ð Cù ..s t:>q. L l:lI t:L 1.NT'b H;tftU? P A ~ <II L ,f;/;;7J 1fÞc..c. ,pOU~ TP 'T~-3 ELEV. L>IlPIIÓ PC-;fC€D 16' 0.<:. hi:11JlEÐJ S)qcl-( k-It!"1I'- FÞ~. I./i/ l¡~KJ.s v-r ú>AlCltIf1'E ~eEl'). 772uc.KÇ i>i:::-z..ltI~ CoAlC. /7lo" 3'20/)¡H Tõ ¿¡:ISPM. ///z. 77'l u c.K.5 ¿., IEJ2.€ S e..rr elf-ex. Ax> .,., # b tv I' /:? 17-1' 1/ A-tL , 8:J ~ hr q -, ff: 2/0[/) /'?lOS, DIZ':J,AJ ~~ THE /vOI211-f j;q, LElJ Dúllt/J' COA./C. pL""C~@.ff. IT lw4> /Vetr lau~iSÞ h./d ~~{.fÆ- oF' Cø~t:.~ f}l.JSI-(~ ff '{ OÞ os,n,MJ. JQf¡~ SI'h-d #€r> 1>121'-'- 7}.ItS Q./J(£" IA.!. ¡4- CÆmEN1"" 7'PUcK CÞðr S'rtrcL: 'Ñ mE ð~.P A1VO ~ 7b € Pút..~ 0""'- 4J ITH fr' ¿o~'="""X- (!AvS,A./G .s~",t: LJEZ..Ay. A-t.(. Co~ÞÆS~¡L. Hd;Ç;~. "Bu/lST it wl-ffC# CAuSElJ ðB-4<.¡ A-.$ w I5iU- ' ( ~ .45 (ð"S P B4' ...,. IV eeoE1'J ¡ez; ~ V, ð ~~ , /YI A-ZJ ¡;- 5 u ~ € C /!9TI8Jf Tf2 u c. ICJ (A/ Æ- JÞ fI ta::) ou r " #!7J ð ~ ~ t: húct:i;T. ,tJrL5ð mA-tJE J"uRE A-u.. ß¿øG. m~(4-f..S t,v91ë p'cJ::ß) v¡J Ato"" /b84-CJ..(. ¡::ù+-bAlA¡.) l..ë1=-r ,.0 I-I()(..,~ Jrafht'r:.' :!b£¿) JC)Wt-J .z; Nel2Je::J h4{,,"'~ ,...,.- A-J.,.L 77n'lEES 7» f35Co~-r 'Pl!FÞfXE 77/Jt.u. Zl>,D ~dT sa:;: ;4- -l)Eb~e;a4SrÑ6 A(;,ëNr bSERJ h¡t.mf;..so rr IS l..(1c rl7'Ær Tn (A.,t..C.. ßþ" Srtu:./é:. FD/Qns SflZIP!JØ. ÑEü) /ix:J71AJ6 DU6 r.,.;We¡z.é Ol..--ð ~6 w..qs /~EV(c.If)St.'I Ml.U::.7J I~ Û/iT"H Ct'^.J~' .l)/24fAJS é~po~Et:>. A-tL- I~ (.I..Jo¡¿~(P¡' D/l~. Þò CD,uC-/l..is:1"l:;: feudS s£l...4'€()yt.f!ZJ c.I~nL 'i-B-9fo. J"f/N CJA-LL£Z) AN/) (JANCEU-EZ> íbL>A'f5 f>ðl.IR:. L. oA-DER. BecKE. !»WN. 80 L..¡:: ()¡::: RE/hAIIJ ,10)6 !-tJlJlJ()It17ON ~u¡tõ1J rz;ð1t.. ,4p¡;/l!oi. ~ yds. ðF CoA./CJt.6-(E. JolIlJ /.I'6H Dr o. ~(../r 50lL IhJLJ rc:S77A1t? c:;.A-vé:; 7H£ CJ -/t:... fZ-€b~ðtJ../C- roo77ßG bl;PTW 1/J1ð Roc¡:.f?;ÞnA'!70p. GéÐR6E 0,' Sd. 64bF. $o(¿ ¡4- ¡./ ð n:5 71 AI (:;. Æ-l.50 It'r .s iT!; 774 £-" A.I G C c.¡ (,.( /J ¡() Ð<S . Co^,clZG.'TE wA5 LJl-ACEV S'~A?1 7l) lo:aO~. I/ÐZ-lh5lJ .5 . e. (' , ð () ()J 8..£;0 . "/J 7'b fb () Tl }.I 6 -n HI £ .s Ai' GJ,<l T7-I J'h/ ð R I C/-f ¡the 0 5 v.;A u. 7b m¡;;: -SOl! ¿I4N5 ~EZ:J ,4ll.- ol]-(l;t:Z A/l94S. ..S'O/rlE CölJ~ 5plLl-4&E 0,0 ~ "19.oAy ßur /T t-VÆ{..s l'illfc,JttL-y aL.-ÐM'g) l!.fJ' ALSO Ca) Sh7A-¿L. üp¡:JE:J:2. .t3Lu~ FP{LU~t=ò LJfil:b.str~ ..JA-N,,(J I~ /'1XJpÞ& CJ¡t! hEsf-l Co~Bt:' EACH 7]"'" C 17 W AJ o."L.G)'húS::7 (..II' As l3er fr-coU¿'o. rtE'~ /3BMb D¡<ILLEb It1fO bRoulliD 77J~A<1 /f"#ð "7I/"OM-ow. í7-1¡;Y WfU ð¡;-11f51EiÐ "pmo#.(¡W I'1t-/t7 Ht.'~ . Ve:R/l~i5i€V q, ta:< A7l£ bR,L(...Q:> 25' A-#¿J !-QcA.lG72 A-r 0 ~(Ata:J 10 FT O.C, .JoliN ~"6'¡¡ ð/ s... C!A¿..,¡:' "1l3ntVt:,. 7b 13(; A-r Sin:: TDO,!,! ï1J IA.lcp,v-. A-t.So s"œ""B:J Pv/l.m5 R21;M. r..¡B1Ð2ðA4S: fJQt.J~ 4-#1.7 e:,o()~ 3(' lJ/A' PIIC. ptfJe /lr 10 Çr. ,A./!tRvl1-¿S. flue.. A-LSø 77<o"Mt5Þ Pz..¡.øH íÞ W~LL. £, 77€-~KS C,Rc.1('¡:/l5l:J t',v AU- CITY OF ENCI~AS - ENGINEERING SERVICES~EPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJ,ECT NUMBER: " STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: '.L'ELEPHONE : 4-11-96 .5A/YI¿;: ,A5 tjE5Telð4y. 7lt=-ß,4¿Jt5 i!eJl.J¿ i)/i!/l(.Ø ANi? 6~r'l:?V. p¡.Æ" (P(Ll. é€ Pl//..L-Tli57EP 1t;t:? . ~ t/¡/l, "TlJht<JM(J~ ott .s'A-T. ,4 .r G Cll"EéJULB:J. (;, 4v~ J ()IIIJ,... ~ Gl-17 6101 ¡(/(l1'7l§ 7Þ '¿A-{ ¡;; ,4- ¡¿ - /24/'- If7 81. 77 l: - /3ACJ:. L-OCA77ðN. '1-12- 9(0 /Z/!!£)'h~/^,IN& 4 7l£-~ é7/<O(JrëO 'JZ;IO~. A- ¡¿i:ywAj WI1 s sntt.LEZJ ð,AJ Tké s,oe t>F= "e1(;H,4/2ð.!.s WALL. A- I/o' hlll)- pou1'2. ,$ Su-Ft::Z:J/:/l-ð) Fò~ Lo~ 77"'/£ '/71 (Jþ h70A/I:)I9y '-/5-9f.p. 4-/5-'j~ .5òuTJ.I&2-,J LIt) Pr. 6¡::: /J7II)SPA¡J ¡?ðU12e:>. .5 p2UCiCS 6R. Lfs t.¡ets .:r f/¿A,CEZ) /hIAJLt5 (p 'Ifl¡.2D~ !(;evr B4-cI<. p¿,q...uS A-AJ/J ~£(JhG.4r1ð)JS nLLOW~ Bur /J1¡t:}-þ c¡ ~s QCCU ~ t:8EC.F1lJ.5€ n-IÐ-, ~70T A- L"'t'7E Sn::I-Rr Pt;u..e/#6. S¿;mE /1E)n,Ç.' o./3.SE7.?V€iV wé;;eE; ,j ¿.v¡Cf-sl//,N¿ CoMC. ~rn Lo~2 Æ!3ucke- oU7l) ..S"l./I2,c Z)r60L5/ bEJ:3R15 n..ol"ffl.IIJ6 7D Sf:. .2 ~ AlC. MIC/~ (!CJNi'èrn 'Ur17IU¿ ¿Ð4-Vr~ DUc-ïö 77.0£ ú)¡nI,Vb I 4-,A/o CON77M - &j fJLA-#.5.. 2':U2 CoNtÆ:f(olL El- /ßROJ(;£ £>o{,AJp. /7"" mt:€S '-I 77mE$ LOAf' 7ò ¡)Ð-if/Ø!- C6NC/lt::;/Ei USrN6 c.uNV~oR ~VI2¡;- CO/Ï'7I1U(..;. I~ 'TÞò CiL.ljt(.£ ¡2~vE "P (;/t-I¡q..:,- w¡clS Cóm . b wolZlceq ¡¿¿¡SI-fQ:J wHitj..(/~£I:=:--':¡S;IES C 'A?JCl? OF I-tlJU . (.,v()fZLBL PE"Z-f-. / () h of'- 7lJ¡:? !);..- Fin./"¡, O;4J H/~ Burr. Co^'~ IAI T1i!Ua.5 PASt 2.0 R. TJI71t=- l-II"rII(; .5jJ¡y K-e wl'17-1 /2oL-rÐZ. liE: ~BEZJ mAr ¡,t:: ß'<?ST fi~ 15 NóT SeT Ar L-¡;;;+5r I j-/D(/,¿ ßI=ñ;~ (vAJc./l&:Æ ~/C/14-L/ 11-1 £).J n-t 4T" .<J ~ s fA..) (NZ k (..v I u... 13 E . CA-N '--Eli.£];) . . Kt::?ell<¡ óìJ-.5ræ S~L.-(Ñ6 UAiC. ntZ So. C¿¡t..-. T"l5ruv(;r. 1-lb-qÆ:J 5'n?t ¡(}f1'A/& /7;IWY'I5, f//43pP¡,u~ /t?Ip L't.tmv¿ ke¡t-U.+y. ~/Itt/A.l6 ~U 7J¡M.()~ Ar .3 :.ao~ - 1-17-.9(, 50 Fr oP /J1IlJ,- S/JAA./ WFl-Lt- â^-lST1Z-UCTEZ). 45 (¡O5, + CDA/ult:;TE:. COl'-lC'€EE7C:. 172uc..Ks ,q.R-Rtvél) 3' 30¿¡". . A-A/KJ ¿,4-5ï T72UcIL ¿ t:. -¡::,- ,4 T 5: 30 Ftrn. Ñ 0 ¡::; I<ð t8 Len S ; 0 7H i::;l.<. 7Ñ r¡- ).} N (/ 1:271-1 ezN /hoSt ñ4rl mr27W 7ð /¿ICk lJUT ,(3ur- /T w4-,S &urC/C Co;ZÆçCTElJ .()U~IIUG ..:5~.ð 1# /720#( OF ~. . 'pU+,A.iS A-NI!) ...s El-II1CAn6AL5 h~¿JGV /f?JP JD-B £<JV/f f32.T/Z8118ý :S/TIorJTJ-I. J?10STLy 13BAU56 .3 /f.;/Z/115 Wé72£ SE:/ Idy 7H{Ç:' 7ln.F R.5r -elL Æ¡2,/¿tC/Ð::J. CtJ/-IC--¡¿ w,tfS NOT 7E;51CJj . No ONË SHó¿UGlJ u/ 111 50 CALIF. .sOIL.. ANð Të.57JNb. C!4Ue:; .Joflltj ~f=:-Sn:;D C(;)(lE. SI'fm¡)uÑ&. ~t:::1Z-- ¡;)ou/2 SU-/(:iZ)t.JUQJ /7;L- lj: (,f) I'I¥n romO/l./2.tJW. . 5ŒUE (J/'trYlIJI3t::li-ð¡:~' C4lJç SOIL'¡ 7l:.S71}/!; , ¿¿o - L/3Zi .I t:A-U-e:I 4N/J ..:5 AIO IT wA-5 7ft¡/I;¡Il!! If- IWSm-~ I?,v 1H£,¿ ¡J~ Af,/tJ '¡'"her tJ¿£L c..oll.E. m14429 , , " . CITY OF ENCIttTAS - ENGINEERING SERVICE!ltEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'rELEPHONE : £/-¡f:J - 9'0 f(&rJA-IAlINb 11]/1)- SPAN ¡?ðL/R60. (Á/ ð~íl-Ic:;rzN 40 P7) ~cKS þJóUR.ElJ :32.. t.¡ds. -t ß£7l,t/é-aJ '-/:3C>Aflt- &':ø ~. HGfUt.¡ ¡Z4¡J) iJuÆ/Nb- 50- U¡O /3uT. Nu"vE oul2./¡V6 /l-CTl-I;f-L- Poul2. htll< wSJT B-TJ!-ÐnS-'j (/V£l..L, No I::JEVI/fr7(;JIJs.. F}2D¡ýt ¥¡.JI2D\(B' P L.4 ¡.J. 6~6é ~Ih So. CAL iF. "SOIl- ~,¡:; 7è:ST7#& ~-5(n:;. V,92d'1Ð::) Co,.€/JÐ<. cur ß4¿¡¿ //.Jrz; 13 l-Ll¡::'¡= CE.. Ar ¡V()Rm£7<~ 'Tl3J:2nlll/t/5. Ur'pe:<- póu~ S CI-I GlJ U t...ð1:J 7ô hi 0 I2é?o w ~ .5: .:b ~ , t.¡-/9-Qb UPtJÐ2 5pANS tßE6¡er"J 7lJéJ4y. SÓÛ!"HÐZJo.l rhOS, too Pr PðvRe:J Fi>1Z. AP./J/26><., 72.- yFf,€ðs. O,e/b/).Ili-l..l<¡ ~o Pr w A-5 S CJ-I ËlJU LÐ::) 4-lo ¡'oJ 6> w ( TH 8C> c.¡ /f7l.L) S B ú T tv (ìH 2- /YI JJ;-JJ S H 0 ¡¿ T . M(,;,£lZ.. D t=ct/J Ð? 7b I3U ¿/¿:-HÐ4ð 4, C::o r:r A7JL>C-AU- ~ ¿4ST 7l2-l./CK. Art?IHI#b our C)¡;: TH'I;; C>~OI#¡'J-Þ¡ 7lJ ¡VOlE:. R>t2/7J5.,~TEE1-¡ 77E-(3A-Cú. tUGJ't/LIÞ6 StJi¥l'k£, t::a¡wJCi(.¡S -t!AU£ ¿'£CO¡?1€ ~ !<ol.Jnt<€" Al-'éJ "7Yru.s CONPr;iemlEP 7b ¡:Jtr~tJ.5. K!oc:'~ ,{)7£) /.lIS i!JF5r1'D '~ov,()p to ~(Pl;;S I'm .[)/~b L. oJ ,LJ¿~A.lI~. Ge~ ~-.$;. C~u? 5ð'L ri?J.ð 7l:571AJ6 ~ .5il"E". A/ð /fé)LJlT70#AL f/ðl./£S U/o-It7l.... w€l!:)L o~ '-1-29- 9t;;,. . 4 -22-Cb 4ð Fr- o¡: UPPEP-.. lPlTLL 'j::>()(JlléZJ A-, -n-fiS /hO«.N/J.Jb> LoW 710£ <! 7: 20Arn.. PLÅN5 A1-.Jð 5{JELd7<-A!nOÞJS fV~. {.+ppæoy-. 36 l(dS:t fLAc...GO. G~Ë: o¡:.. £. CAuP. SOILS f\ð.lC TESí1~ 'M" S lTE 0 1>LAJ.J IS ìb ?ðu.p. THE LAST g~At..JIAJG:. upPER 4D FEt:r T?>rY\oR1<ovJ -Þff 8:&>1'tM.... 11-\lS Lulu, CbNLLuDE ~ (..o}.j~ f'LA-C-ÐnBll AtJl) ¡.ùoRt.. w lLL 6ECóSmET1L ~G.Z::!5. £/-21../-&1" STRfPPO./(;. rvtUr1$ ItÞ-tLJ /2EYnov/¡..J(. lì-IEYYt ~"^ l!:.l9+CI-t 7DO~ /¡./c,¿,i..IDI,ub ¡¿-~A/L5. ¡J~/,vb /-ioC-e5. .Bt;b"vIV,,¡4J¿ Co.> I""1é77 c. t.-V t> t:2 L . t../-30:'Qh /hEr Ro/V~/é. ~ )o/-l~ N. A¥ Joß5¡rt; At 2 ~oor~12- A P¡l£- CoLDI2 /N~Et.,:noj..J. GAve=íH9VI 714£ D::.. 7b (!o/-DI2,Zl:: ¿.vALL. 8- 12-41 As- huJL-T5 ,f2FC'.f) AIkJ ¥flrúv<ec(. ..9-/5- 9 7 \/15 {n=t:J SI"f"'E úJ I7'J-( - ~HJO ¡,.{{v!3N, , PI AlA- ua::; . (iC.>U;/2. ¿).~. - P~íÍ m14429 :. ...--, , , ~>-/-Y1---" "I-. 1 TATE OF CALIFORNIA ALiFORNIA STNE LANDS COMM1SSJO.f'J 00 Howe Avenue, ::i.u.ne I au ~outh acramento, CA 95825::a2Õ~-"~,-"" , .' '/ j; (..,\ ~~.. ---~~ .' 'i !" -- '-';""!, if;; i( . 3'~ /("1(".. 7 ..!!i~i j¡i ,.J ',,:::1 , I .' .. . ì ',-, . .. ::"'::'7":;.-"::: ':,t¡-::-)¡ ,', ! ; I '- I . ,) I ~~x . ...¡.--- , -\ WILSON. Governor ROBERT C. HIGHT, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 California Relay Service From TOO Phone 1-800-735-2922 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929 Contact Phone: (916) 574-1892 Contact FAX: (916) 574-1925 Internet Address: smithj@slc,ca,gov May 2, 1997 File Ref: PRC 7748.9 Diane Langager Planning Division Community Development Department City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-4308 Dear Ms. Langager: SUBJECT: MUP/MOD/CDP/EIA 95-137 (Gozzo/Sawtelle) for Extension of Existing Lower Seawall and Blufftop Retention System; 528, 532 & 554 Neptune Avenue MUP/EIA 97-074 (Johnson/Downing) for Request to Authorize Existing Lower Seawall Constructed Under Emergency Permit; 788 & 790 Neptune Avenue Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has received information concerning the subject projects. As you may be aware, by its action on March 8, 1994, the CSLC authorized the issuance of a Public Agency Lease (PRC 7748) to the City of Encinitas to provide for construction and maintenance of vertical seawalls to protect existing residences along the City's shoreline. Projects authorized at that time were identified as Denver/Canter; Auerbach, et al.; Favero; and Richards, et al. The lease states that future projects proposed within the lease area require subsequent CSLC review and approval, upon completion of the appropriate environmental document. Therefore, at such time as the City approves the projects and certifies and adopts whatever environmental documents are necessary, CSLC staff will need to prepare an amendment to the lease to include the subject projects. Such amendment will then be scheduled for consideration by the CSLC at its next available meeting. .-' ) Diane Langager . May 2, 1997 8 -2- Please provide this information as soon as the City has taken the appropriate action(s). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely jL/U. 'ç - 01~ Jane E. Smith Public Land Management Specialist Southern California Region cc: Lee McEachern, CCC/San Diego Bob Trettin 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION SEC 10201 CAMINO SANTA FE SAN DIEGO, CA 621-6216/FAX 621-6218 PRECONSTRUCT/ON CONFERENCE CONSTRUCTION OF SEA WALLS AT BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF AT 528-554 NEPTUNE A VENUE OWNERS: GOZZO AND SAWTELLE PERMIT 4615GI INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH ATTENDANCE T. L2 hNL. ~1);9 rL. 'Ü---.) r¡ ofM./ 'u.c- {:~ \-o~ I\J I.JÇ"A.. ~ ~ L f~ú'v(JÞL ~ u.. ~ ¡..( 4 £It ,ltA.-J H. C, J.eL-t<~~ COMPANY t!.. ,,~ ê"NCIAllmS ~ ,,-..,. c.:.4 Ll.¡::£";'ØIU.(/(' SEe', 3,E; (I. S I%..C {!~ / PHONE (,33 - 2 79b b3~ -2.778 IÓ"'3J ~ ~'l c.{r p~ 77e¡ -«.f1 '"'7 7 I 4-1"5 1- q S Co I C33-277(; 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION SEC 10201 CAMINO SANTA FE SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 621-6216/FAX 621-6218 PRECONSTRucnONCONFERENCE CONSTRUCTION OF SEA WALLS AT BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF AT 528-554 NEPTUNE AVENUE OWNERS: GOZZO AND SAWTELLE PERMIT 4615GI INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH DATE: 04 MARCH 1996 CITY ENGINEER: ALAN ARCHIBALD FIELD OPS: GREG SHIELDS 633-2778 INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH 633-2796 INSPECTOR: RON BRADY 633-2797 TRAFFIC: RAYMOND GUARNES 633-2704 ALL DIRECTION SHALL BE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR CONTRACTOR'S PERSONNEL CONTRACTOR: SUPERINTENDENT: CHA-~LIE EMERGENCY PHONE: PROJECT ENGINEER: PHONE: SUBCONTRACTORS - TYPE OF WORK - PHONE 1. 2. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED: 1. SCHEDULE OF WORK IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO START AND IS TO BE UPDATED WITH EACH INVOICE 2. INSURANCE MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO START. 3) "AS BUILT" DWGS AND MATERIAL RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT CURRENT AT THE SITE 4. NO ORAL CONTRACT CHANGES ALLOWED 5. SHOP DRAWINGS, SUBMITTALS AND SAMPLES ARE REQUIRED. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING. EPOXY COATING STEEL CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE V"MIX DESIGN - CONCRETE .,/"ROCK ANCHOR GROUT ROCK ANCHOR RODS AND BOLTS "" J DRAIN OR EQUAL CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION OF ANCHOR LOADING DEVICE ,'" REBAR FLANGE COUPLER 6. CONTRACTOR'S DAILY REPORT 7. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO CALL FOR HIS OWN INSPECTION, 48 HRS IN ADVANCE. 8 JOB SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS WILL CAUSE WORK TO BE STOPPED. FROM: TBAUM S10.13 Todd Baumbach - Engineerintltnspector DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Preconstruct ion Meeting for Seawall REFERENCE: Gozzo, Sawtelle, @ 528-554 Neptune Ave. There will be a preconstruction meeting for the above referenced seawalls on Monday, March 4, at 2:00pm in the Begonia Room. If you are unable to attend but have concerns you would like to address, please let me know so I can address them for you. The contractor will be SEC. Here we go again! TO: GSHIELDS TBAUM DLANGAG HJENSEN JTENCH TBUCKNER S1043113 S1043113 S1043113 S1043113 S1043113 S1043113 Greg Shields - Sr. Civil Eng. Todd Baumbach - Engineering Inspector Diane Langager - Associate Planner Hans Jensen - Sr. Civil Engineer Jesse Tench - Parks & Beach Superintendent Tom Buckner - Lifeguard Supervisor - - - . -. . '- ~ .., - - ~:\;,--:~::::.:::::::;,~ ,:'::::,',':':'::::' :'::::::~.:'.::'~:-=:~: 8 =,(,::: .:' ,~~.,. '-'A'" ;.\ii;;' . ...;,(:, ~..:, ';.;" ~, - ~ ,=. ~ -' .:. "-,,:, :;,~ ~"'.,~_.~_.1.~. .;1. --.,-1: . f3F:!-\.I,!~jG PEP.M'!? PEPJvlIT. N':'.: 4615GI ~,============================================================================ ::~7<:E::' NO. : 256-084-0800,09 F'LÞ.!'i N-:'.: 4::5-(; - '::: :::ITE Al:,r'FŒ$::.: 528-554 NEPT""JNE AVE. . ='::': I '.:ANT !'L:';ME : GOZZC (PAUI., F. )/SAWTELLE (JEF~~Y E.; ='.'~::'ING AI"'Ül~ESS: P.O. BOX 170~, PHONE N~:'.: 'õl~!-756-2255 '::'-:[': EANCH':' SA~JTli FE STATE: CA ZIP: 92(:67- ':':,!'JTEA';TOF: : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 714-751-9561 :':':::SBE Nt).: 2t:8082 :"I(~ENBE TYPE: A ":i']!NEEF~ : SOIL ENGINEE_RING CONSTRUCTION INC. "Er~ìYfIT I:3:3l:E DATE: 2/27/96 EE~IT EXP. DATE: 2/27/97 PERMIT ISSUED BY: ::J:::PE~;TOR: TODD BAUMBACH 714-830-3310 -- ---------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 2. INSPECTION FEE .j. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 .00 .00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 2,000.00 .00 -- ---------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- "(INSTRUCTION OF "SHOTCRETE" SEAWALL @ BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF PER (FUTURE) .JP 95-137. GRADING NOTES ATTACHED. COVENANT RE:'HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR ;Lt~F FAILURE INCLUDED. LETTER DATED 02-12-96 RE: MUP 95-13ï ATTACHED. S-B~JILT PLANS REQUIRED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS REQUIRED. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE 'NITIAL INSPECTION ;OMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED NGIN"EER CERT. RECEIVED ~OüGH GRADING INSPECTION ":NAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : ~ERE3Y AC~~OWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION ~jD STATE THAT THE ::tJ~')R.~ATION IS COF:.:.t:ŒCT AND AGREE TO COMPI.Y WITH ALL CIT--::- ':'F:DINANCES ANI> STl\TE ~~~S REGÙLATING EXCAVATING AÑu GRADING, ~~u THE PROVISIOKS AND 'CONüITIÜ~S OF ÀNY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. ~~fiú Â-À.7-f' DATE S I G~Jt.:: ~oiJ /",.. ~ r -rIM PF~INT NI-l~ ( ",) c,IJ>~-O.%.1 '- TELEPHONE NUMBER (,IF~';LE ")NE: 1. OWNER (j) AGENT .3. OTHER , '. . - - . ::'.'!'-_.',_':'-~:: E::;'~;: \'?:E:::: ':,:,~' :~: EE',~,';: ':'E:~' :'E:' :\~',:-:v:~~:';: It 5(:,'5 ::. VTJ:":~'l\N l\VE. . E~C~N~TA~I CA 92~~4 TE:V:~')E"~!;:?(f £N(,:r:') A'~'h""M£~J:- ~'E?~'V!.::::- PE~~~:- NO.: 4615TE -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- . - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .':~:<E=- :1('. 256-094-080') ,09 - ':.'~' :'='::E AI'DF:E:::S: 528-554 NEF'TUNE ¡.VE. 1 ~~'~:';.L~NT :-TAl'<!E : G(;ZZ(J CPAFL F. ) /SAWTELLE ': \.ïEE.RY E. ., PLAN =-Y'.: 4 i:::-I} :' .'"-::::L:::NG ADI'F:E:3S: :P. O. BOX 1705 PHONE ~K'.: 61';'-756-2255 , : ::::Y: .RlÙ',jC~':J SANT A FE STATE: CA ZIP: 92067- :~'!,jT.RAC'IOE : SOIL ENGINEE.RIN(~ CONSTIH.TCTION TNC. , :::CEN3E NO.: 268082 :'T;?U.RANCE COMPAN"f NAME: HOMESTEAD INSURA..."JCE CO. ":)LICY NO. : 138H(~L6139 POLICY NG:NEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. "EF:.rvIIT ISSUE DATE: 2/27/96 "ERIvII'P EXP. DATE: 2/27/97 NSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH PHONE NO.: 714-751-9561 LICENSE TYPE: I-~ PERMIT ISSUED BY: 10/31/98 . -830-3310 -- ---------------------- ,PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: (balance @ 3. SEt~ITY DEPOSIT :issuance = $700.00) -- ---------------------- DESCRIPTION .00 Inspector shall charge time to 3764~ 4'!4.50 Damage Deposit assigned to 3764TE nc .00 assigned, in part, to 4615TE OF WORK ------------------------------- ~CESS TO JOBSITE ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED: COVENANT RE: ('RA~IT OF BEACH ACCESS/CONTRACTOR LIABILITY LETTERIWORK SCHEDULEiBEACH GCESS, EQUIPMEÑ~, BARRIER PLANS/STAÑuARD & SPECIAL CONDITIONS. LETTER lATEr) 02-12-96 RE: MUP 95-137 ATTACHED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS "EO1] 1 RED. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE NITIAL INSPECTION 'INAL INSPECTION -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- , ~A;jE CAR~F"uLLY EXA."'in~""EI) THE COMPLETEI) PEP.:.7v!IT A~JL' L'C HEREBY CE~~TIFY UNT.'ER 'E~ALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFOR~ATION IS T~jE. ~-~7-f' DATE S:::G~'J=:I' ""RIN'"T NA.~ (611) Ý¡>Y-O~(l.... TELEPHON=: ~u~ER :':::F:..;LE ON~: 1. OWNER reD AGENT 3. OTHEF:. 8 8 City of G~i~ GENERAL NOTES FOR PERMIT NO. 95-137 MUP A. GENERAL - po14119 1. 2. WORK '1'0 DB DOn All work shall be done in accordance with these plans, the standard specifications for public works construction, the design construction standards of the City of Encinitas and the San Diego area regional standard drawings. Any changes or revisions therefrom shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any request for inspection. The soils report titled "Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune II project, 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, dated October 26, 1992, with supplements entitled "Review of Previous Geotechnical Materials, Lower Bluff Seawall: Gozzo/Sawtelle, 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by Soil Engineering Construction dated May 9, 1995 and "Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 528 to 534 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" ,prepared by Ernest R. Artim, Geotechnical' Environmental Consulting, dated June 24, 1995, shall be considered as a part of this grading plan. All grading shall be done in accordance with the recommendations and specifications contained in said report. 3. Approval of this plan does not constitute approval of sizes, location and type of drainage facilities, nor of improvements wi thin street right-of-ways. Separate approvals and permits for these shall be required in conjunction with improvement plans. written permission shall be obtained for any off- site grading. 4. 5. Contractor shall take any necessary precautions required to protect adjacent properties during grading operations. Anything damaged or destroyed shall be replaced or repaired to condition existing prior to grading. 1 TEL ()1')-()5.~-2600 / F.~'I( 619-6:'>.'-~I)~- "-li"-" \ uk.ln A\,>nuc'. Fnllr1ll;¡s. Cdl"rnl'¡ <)~lj2'1-.'(".' TljIJI)I')-():\',Z-()() recycled paper pol4119 6. 7. 8. 8 8 The developer shall be responsible that any monument or bench màrk which is disturbed or destroyed shall be re-established and replaced by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor. The contractor shall design, construct and maintain all safety devices, including shoring, and shall be responsible for conforming to all local, state and federal safety and health standards, laws and regulations. Grading and equipment operating within one-half (1/2) mile of a structure for human occupancy shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. nor on Saturdays, Sundays and City recognized holidays unless in conformance with a work schedule approved by the Director of Enëjineering Services and Superintendent of Parks and Beaches. 9. No grading operations shall commence until a pregrading meeting has been held onsite with the following people present: City Inspector, Civil Engineer, Soils Engineer, Grading Contractor and permi ttee. The pregrade meetinq shall be scheduled with the City at least 48 hours in advance by callinq (619) 633~2770. 10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the city Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with reqards to the haulinq operation. Upon final completion of the work under the qradinq permit but prior to final qradinq approval and/or final release of security, an as-qraded certification shall be provided statinq: "The qradinq under Permit No. 93-162 MUP has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached as-qraded plan". This statement shall be followed by the date and siqnature of the civil Enqineer who certifies such grading operation. 11. 2 B. po14119 8 NOTIFICATIONS 1. C. 8 The existence and location of underground utility pipes and structures shown on these plans were obtained by a search of available records. To the best of our knowledge there are no existing utilities except as shown on these plans, however: The contractor is required to take due precautionary measures to protect any existing utilities or structures located at the work site. It is the contractor's responsibility to contact the following owners of said utilities or structures prior to any -excavation, for verification and location of utilities and notification of commencement of work: a. b. c. d. e. Sewers - Encinitas sanitary District Gas & Electric - San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Water - San Dieguito Water District Telephone - Pacific Bell Cable TV - Dimension Cable Services, Daniels Cablevision. These companies may be notified by calling 1- 800-422-4133. Contractor shall notify the City Engineer's office 48 hours prior to beginning any work on this project. Phone: (619) 633-2770. 2. The contractor shall give 24 hours notice on calls for inspection. Phone: (619) 633-2770. All work performed without benefit of inspection will be subject to rejection and removal. 3. GRADING All grading shall be observed and tested by a qualified soils engineer or under his/her direction. He/She shall observe and test the excavation placement and compaction of fills and backfills and compaction of trenches. He/She shall submit soils reports as required and will determine 1. 3 po14119 2. 8 8 the suitability of any fill material. Upon completion of grading operations he/she shall state that observations and tests were made by him/her or under his/her supervision and that in his/her opinion, all embankments and excavations were constructed in accordance with the approved grading plans and that all embankments and excavations are acceptable for their intended use. The contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. He/she shall control surface water and avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site and shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. 3. All areas to be filled shall be prepared to be filled and fill shall be placed in accordance with standard specifications. All vegetable matter and obj ectionable material shall be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the. fill is to be placed. Loose fill and alluvial soils shall be removed to suitable firm natural ground. The exposed soils shall be scarified to a depth of 6" and then compacted toa minimum of 90 percent. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to place, spread, water and compact the fill in strict accordance with specifications. 4. cut and fill slopes shall be cut and trimmed to finish grade to produce smooth surfaces and uniform cross sections. The slopes of excavations and embankments shall be shaped, planted and trimmed as directed by the engineer of work and left in a neat and orderly condition. All stones, roots and other waste matter exposed or excavation or embankment slopes which are liable to become loosened shall be removed and disposed of. The toe and top of all slopes shall be rounded in accordance wi th the Grading Ordinance. 5. All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected, piled or otherwise disposed of off the site by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from unsightly debris. Approval of location of debris fill shall be secured from the soils engineer and City Engineer prior to the disposal of any such material. 4 4 pol4119 8 8 D. EROSION CONTROL 1. 2. 3. 4. . 9. In case emergency work is required, contact Bob Trettin at (619) 484-0212 or John Niven at (714) 751-9561. Equipment and. workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. All necessary materials shall be stockpiled on site at convenient locations to facilitate rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. Devices shown on plans shall not be moved or modi~ied without the approval of the Engineering Inspector. The contractor shall restore all erosion control devices to working order to the satisfaction of the ci ty Engineer after each run-off producing rainfall. 5. The contractor shall install additional erosion control measures as may be required by the City Engineer due to an incompleted grading operation or unforeseen circumstances which may arise. 6. The contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas when impounded waters create a hazardous condition. 7. All erosion control measures provided, per the approved grading plan shall be incorporated hereon. Graded areas around the project perimeter must drain away from the face of slope at the conclusion of each work day. 8. All removable protective devices shown shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5 day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. silt and other debris shall be removed after each rainfall. 10. Should germination of hydroseeded slopes fail to provide effective coverage of graded slopes (90% coverage) prior to November 15, the slopes shall be stabilized with punched straw installed in accordance with section 35.023 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook of the State of California Department of Conservation. 5 8 8 " City of Encinitas COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 4615TE 1. Permittee shall provide a Certificate of Public Liability Insurance with the City of Encinitas listed as an additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. 2. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a Financial Institution approved by the City, in the amount of (See -3764TE), prior to entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the Permit are fully met. 3. Permittee shall deposit to the City the sum of $700.00 for the use of City Property. This deposit will be used to pay for the cost of inspecting the City Property. 4. Permittee shall provide a detailed plan, which must be approved by the City prior to the Permittee entering upon City Property. The plan shall include times the City Property will be used, types of vehicles which will be used, the number of trips vehicles will make. Work Schedule received February 27, 1996. Equipment List received Februarv 27. 1996. Beach Access Plan received February 08. 1996. 5. A notarized letter shall be provided, indicating the Construction Contractor will be liable for any costs to correct damages to the Public Beach or adjacent areas resulting from the Contractor's work. Also included in the letter shall be a statement of understanding that debris washing onto the Beaches within one mile north or south of the job site is assumed to be construction debris and shall be removed by the Contractor at no expense to the City. Construction debris is defined as lumber, piling, poles, crates, boxes, containers, and other objects which could be used for construction similar to that being used on the site. Debris also includes any pre-existing items excavated at the site such as re-bar, concrete and bricks. Document received February 27. 1996. 6. Permittee shall present a Beach Barrier Plan to protect the public from equipment movement, construction activity and construction site. Document received February 08. 1996. The Engineering Inspector may request changes to the Plan on as-needed basis. bp4117 TEL ()1<)-h:\,,-21)IIO F.\X ()I')-lJ:U-2()2~ =,o=, S \ ll!c'In ,\\'l'nlle, Encinilas, California <)2021-5().',1 TDD 61 <)-633-2700 recycled paper 8 8 4615TE Conditions - Page 2/4 7. An approved copy of the Coastal Commission Permit, other appropriate City permits and letter authorizing the Contractor to proceed on the project shall be provided. 8. The storage status of Contractor equipment within the City limits shall be determined and the location mutually agreed upon prior to access to the Public Beach. Use of Corporation Yards for storage shall be negotiated directly with the Director of Public Works separately from any Permit processing; compensation will be due the City. 9. A solid waste container of sufficient size shall be made available and conveniently accessible to Lifeguard Services so that debris removed from the Public Beach may be immediately and safely stored. This container shall be lockable with a duplicate key given to the Lifeguard Supervisor. Permittee shall be responsible -for regular monitoring, maintenance and cleaning of this facility. 10. Permittee shall obtain special permission from the Director of Engineering Services for access and use of the Public Beach on City-recognized Holidays, Sundays, and, between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Mondays through Saturdays, per Chapter 9.32 of the Municipal Code. 11. Advanced notifications shall be provided to the Office of the Lifeguard Supervisor (619) 633-2748, a minimum of 48 hours prior to each access period through Moonlight Beach State Park. Notification shall include date(s), time(s), equipment types and duration of work. A single notification shall not include more than one week of work at any given time. 12. The access and use of any Contractor vehicle on the Public Beach shall be approved by the Engineering Inspector and Lifeguard Supervisor immediately prior to such access. Only vehicles with II approved II stickers will enter the Public Beach. 13. Permittee shall delineate the accessway through Moonlight Beach State Park to the satisfaction of the Engineering Inspector and Lifeguard Supervisor. When children are present, flagmen will be required to route Contractor traffic. Special consideration will be given when crowds are present, including prohibition of access. 14. Permittee shall not block at any time access to the Public Beach for emergency personnel or vehicles. 15. The operation of Contractor vehicles while on the Public Beach shall be conducted in a reasonable, safe and prudent manner. bp4117 8 8 4615TE Conditions - Page 3/4 16. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site to which access is authorized by this Permit, the Permittee shall submit to and receive approval from the Traffic Engineering Division for the proposed haul route. The Permittee shall comply with all conditions and requirements the Traffic Engineering Division may impose with regards to the hauling oper~tion. 17. Prior to placement of any concrete product at the base of the coastal bluff, the permittee shall indicate to the Engineering Inspector what methods are to be used to dewater the job site. 18. Staging or repairs of equipment or supplies is prohibited on City Property or right-of-ways. Parking of personal vehicles on the Public Beach will not be allowed. Offending vehicles will be cited and towed. 19. Any entrance gates used to gain access through the PubIc Beach area shall be immediately locked after access. Any ruts or berm damage to sand areas shall be immediately and repeatedly repaired to remove any public safety hazards. 20. Permittee shall restore or replace on a daily basis any signage regulating handicap person's access, or any other signage, disrupted, damaged or destroyed by permittee's operations. Permittee shall repaint and restripe pavement markings as needed. 21". The proposed winter season berm and drainage system of Moonlight Beach State Park, when constructed, shall be maintained in good working order on a continuous basis, and any breach to the berm due to the operations of the" Permittee shall be properly filled or sandbagged before the end of the current low tide period. Any sand loss or damage resulting from the failure to maintain the winter berm will be at the expense of the Contractor to restore or repair, respectively. 22. Permittee shall remove debris from the Public Beach on a daily basis or within the maximum period of twenty-four hours from when requested to do so by the Lifeguard Supervisor or Engineering Inspector, whichever occurs first. 23. On Fridays preceding weekends when Special Activities are scheduled at Moonlight Beach State Park, Permittee shall cease operations and remove all equipment and personnel from the Public Beach by 5:00 A.M. All roadways, ramps and walkways shall be swept clean. bp4117 8 8 4615TE Conditions - Page 4/4 24. Prior to final inspection approval of this permit by the Superintendent of Parks and Beaches, Permittee shall regrade the Public Beach to the contours existing prior to issuance of this permit with the exception of the seawall itself. Permittee shall also repair damage to and thoroughly clean the asphalt pavement along the access route. 25. Prior to final inspection approval of this permit by the Superintendent of Parks and Beaches, Permittee shall either replenish all Public Beach sand lost due to permittee's operations or compensate the Parks and Beaches Division by contributing to future sand replenishment projects. 26. Permittee shall direct all communications regarding this Permit through the Engineering Inspector, except as otherwise stated in these Conditions. City shall assume no responsibility for - instructions reèëived or given outside this "chain of command". 27. Violations of any Standard or Special Condition will result in notification of the Sheriff's Department for appropriate action. A Stop Work Order on the Permit will be immediately issued by the Engineering Inspector or Lifeguard Supervisor. 28. These conditions do not exempt the Contractor or Agency of any future fees or charges for access through the Beach area. 29. Permittee has read, understands and agrees to comply with all Beach Encroachment Permit Standard and Special Conditions: 7f'.~ Permittee} ~ ,J vJ Nr e,.J (Name of Permittee Printed) bp4117 8 8 February 26, 1996 TO: City of Encinitas Department of Engineering FROM: Jerry Sawtelle &. Paul Gozzo 528.554 Neptune Avenue, Encìnìtas We, Jerry Sawtelle and Paul Gozzo, authorize City of Encinitas representatives to access our property located at 528..554 Neptune Avenue, for the purpose of observation and/or inspection during the emergency construction of the lower bluff seawall. Signed, ~~~ f:t~~ - ~ \1 \\ ~ \'s\§J W. \1 -e9lò ~ ft9 2.1 s~~\J\C~s ß\ÑE~~\Ñ~C\~\"t ~s f,Ñ C\1'f of ~ 8 . February 26, 1996 TO: City of Encinitas Department of Engineering FROM: Jerry Sawtelle" Paul Gozzo 528-554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas We, 1erry Sawtelle and Paul Gozzo, authorize Bob Trettin to sign any and &Ii permits associated with the emergency eonstruc'tÌon of the lower bluff seawall at our property located at 528-554 Neptune Avenue in 1he city of Encinìtas, California. Signed, ~~ ~~~ ,~~i~ ~~ % ~ ~oJ~ & \) ~ ~1 N\V~ ~ fc~~ ~ß S~~i ~ ~t{;.f:(\~ f(;.~v~ f(;.~<:f,~ 0«: , ¡ i' , . 8 . City of Encinitas February 12, 1996 Bob Trettin, Principal The Trettin Co. 12785 Amaranth St. San Diego, CA 92129 Re: Major Use Application 95-137 Beach Encroachment Application, Grading Application {528, 532, 554 Neptune Avenue} A.P.N. 256-084-08,09 Engineering permit issuance requirements Mr. Trettin: The Engineering Services Department has been processing your clients' engineering applications to construct, on an emergency basis, a "shotcrete" seawall at the base of the coastal bluff. The following items remain to be completed, all in accordance with the conditions of a typical major use permit for this type of work: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Complete and return the accompanying "Engineering Development Application" . Properly execute and return the following covenants for recording and pay applicable recording fees: a. Covenant Re: Grant of Beach Access Encroachment Permit. . . b. Covenant Re: Hold City Harmless for Bluff Failure Read, sign and date the Standard and Special Conditions for the Beach Encroachment Application. This item may be completed at permit issuance. Complete the accompanying appropiate and return. "Grading Plan Certification" as Provide (3) copies of the submitted per Case 95-137. Seawall" plan, "Shotcrete as Pay an additional inspection deposit of $434.50 for the Beach Encroachment Application. The same account will be used for this project as was used for the Beach Encroachments for Major Use Permits 93-070 and 93-111. Consequently, the new balance at permit issuance will be $700.00, as required by Policy CS- PO08. Pay an inspection Application. for Grading the deposit of $2,000.00 TEL Öl<)-6.~5-2600 FA.'\: 619-653-2ör ':;0<; S. \'ulcln Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-5633 TDD 619-633-TOO recycled paper ~ .¡ .. 8 . Case 95-137 Engineering permit issuance requirements - P3/3 This project is considered an emergency and will be allowed to start construction without the required Major Use Permit. However, the ultimate outcome and approval of the project will be dependent on the adoption of the Major Use Permit and satisfactory adherence to its conditions. Construction at this time shall be done at your clients' risk. All documents to which reference has been made in this letter are available for review and pick-up at the Engineering Counter. This letter is written for your information only and in no way will change the property owners' obligation under the proposed maj or use permit. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 633-2776. Sincerely, 16~ Senior Civil Engineer Subdivision Engineering cc Diane Langager, Assistant Planner Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspector John Niven, Soil Engineering Construction Property Owners enc HCJ/jsg/95-137.doc to ~ORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor CA IFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN IEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 1619) 521-8036 @ EMERGENCY PERMIT Rancho Santa Fe. CA 92067 (city, state, zip) 6-96-6-G . Emergency Permit # íõ) \1 ~ \1 ~ ~ \1~ W fEe 08 '996 ER\I\CES EN~l~~~~¿\N\1 AS January 17. 1996 (date) Mr. Paul F. Gozzo/Jerry E. Sawtelle (name) P.O. Box 1705 (street name & no.) - , At the base of an approximately 90 ft. hiQh coastal bluff frontinQ 528.532 & 554 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. San DieQo County, APN 256-084-08. 09. Location of Emergency Hork Construction of a 13 ft. h1gh. approximately 2 ft. wide. 120 ft. long cast-in-place concrete seawall. with tiebacks. The seawall will also be sculpted and colored to match the adjacent natural bluff. work requested Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the form of failure of the mid- and uDper-bluff and undercuttina of the bluff toe requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: ~ (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of the permit; . (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . ,)TAT OF CÞ-UFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Go..mor CA I ORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA JIll CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 !619) 521.8036 ~ EMERGENCY PERMIT Mr. Paul F. Gozzo/Jerry E. Sawtelle (name) January 17. 1996 (date) P.O. Box 1705 (street name & no.) íÐ)~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~\ID \jù fEe 08 '996 ER\I\CES ENG\NEERf\NEGN~\N\T AS erN 0 Rancho Santa Fe. CA 92067 (city, state, zip) 6-96-6-G - Emergency Permit # - At the base of an aDproximate1v 90 ft. hiah coastal bluff frontinQ 528.532 & 554 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. San Diego Countv. APN 256-084-08.09. Location of Emergency Hork Construction of a 13 ft. hiQh. approximately 2 ft. wide. 120 ft. 10nQ cast-in-Dlace concrete seawall. with tiebacks. The seawall will also be sculpted and colored to match the adjacent natural bluff. work requested Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I - understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the form of failure of the mid- and uDDer-bluff and undercuttinQ of the bluff toe requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: ~ (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of the permit; . Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (b) (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. 'The work is hereby appro~, subject to the following co~tions: - 5. 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the Dermittee and returned to our office within 15 days. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Construction of the emergency structures shall be completed within 60 days of commencement of construction unless extended by the Executive Director. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. 3. Prior to the commencement of construction, the permittee shall submit an application for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 180 days of the date of this emergency permit unless waived by the Director. 4. 5. In exercising this permit the permittee agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage.to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 6. Prior to commencement of. construction, the permittee shall submit to the Executive Director, for review and written approval, final plans for the proposed seawall, which are in substantial conformance with the plans submitted with this emergency permit request. Said plans shall be stamped approved by a registered civil engineer and be accompanied by the necessary engineering calculations for the seawall and its tieback system. Upon~ommencement of construction, the app1icant(s) shall provide bi-weekly monitoring reports on the status of processing all City-required discretionary approvals and on the status of construction activities. ~ 7. 8. As a condition of approval of this emergency permit, each applicant shall sign the attached acknowledgement (Exhibit A) which identifies the special conditions that are likely to be imposed upon issuance of a regular coastal development permit for permanent retention of the seawa 11 . If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. - EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: .~~~ Charles Damm, District Director 8 8 'The work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: - 5. 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the permittee and returned to our office within 15 days. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Construction of the emergency structures shall be completed within 60 days of commencement of construction unless extended by the Executive Director. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. 3. Prior to the commencement of construction, the permittee shall submit an application for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. 4. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 180 days of the date of this emergency permit unless waived by the Director. In exercising this permit the permittee agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage .to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. Prior to commencement of. construction, the permittee shall submit to the Executive Director. for review and written approval. final plans for the proposed seawall. which are in substantial conformance with the plans submitted with this emergency permit request. .Said plans 'shall be stamped approved by a registered civil engineer and be accompanied by the necessary engineering calculations for the seawall and its tieback system. 6. 7. Upon~ommencement of construction. the applicant(s) shall provide bi-weekly monitoring reports on the status of processing all City-required discretionary approvals and on the status of construction activi ti es. } 8. As a condition of approval of this emergency permit. each applicant shall sign the attached acknowledgement (Exhibit A) which identifies the special conditions that are likely to be imposed upon issuance of a regular coastal development permit for permanent retention of the seawall. If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization. please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. - EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: .~~~ Charles Damm, District Director . Emergency Permit No. 8 8 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM 6-96-6-G Instructions: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and the acknowledgement form (Exhibit A) and return within 15 working days. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued tôme and agree to abiôe by them. I understand that the emergency work is temporary and a regular Coastal Development Permit is necessary to make it a pet"llanent InstallatIon. j ~ {. ~ ~ -. Name ~DX' ddres s ' 8 8 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM Emergency Permit No. 6-96-6-G Instructions: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and the acknowledgement form (Exhibit A) and return within 15 working days. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued tôme and agree to ab1âe by them. I understand that the emergency work is temporary and a regular Coastal Development Permit is necessary to make it a permanent installation. . . Name ~j)~ ddress ' -... 8 8 EXHIBIT A PERMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I understand that by accepting this emergency permit, I acknowledge that the structures authorized by this emergency permit are permitted on a temporary basis only, and that the structures must be removed if not approved as permanent under a regular coastal development permit, which would be subject to all the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. Such conditions would likely include, but not be limited to: 1. Payment of an in-lieu fee for mitigation for impacts of the seawall on sand supply. 2. Recordation of deed restrictions pertaining to future bluff/shoreline protection devices. participation in any colIIRunity wide/regional solution to shoreline erosion, assumption of risk by the applicants. open space on the bluff face. future development. 3. Recordation of an offer to dedicate public lateral access on the beach. I also understand that the construction or replacement of any accessory structures. including stairways or other access structures. walls fences. etc.. are not authorized by this emergency permit and may not 'be authorized under a future regular coastal development permit. Further I agree that if my property subject to this emergency permit is placed in escrow prior to approval of the regular coastal development permit. that I wi 11 record a deed restriction. in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. prior to the initiation of such escrow proceedings. The deed restriction shall state that. by accepting this emergency permit. I and any successors in interest hereby agree to all the conditions specified in this emergency permit. The deed restriction shall not be rescinded without prior written approval of the Executive Director. and rescission shall not occur prior m the issuance of the regular coastal de~l~~emlt fur pe~nent retention of the deYelo~nt. ~ ~r" C'!J'~ nature f applicant(s) V ,607--1- Name r.ð, ßÐi )101 Address ~tß t (O818A) f- ~JeJ I .J '7 . . 8 t> EXHIBIT A PERMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I understand that by accepting this emergency permit, I acknowledge that the structures authorized by this emergency permit are permitted on a temporary' basis only, and that the structures must be removed if not approved as permanent under a regular coastal development permit, which would be subject to all the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. Such conditions would likely include, but not be limited to: 1. Payment of an in-lieu fee for mitigation for impacts of the seawall on sand supply. Recordation of deed restrictions pertaining to future bluff/shorelin~ protection devices, participation in any community wide/regional solution to shoreline erosion, assumption of risk by the applicants, open space on the bluff face. future development. 2. 3. Recordation of an offer to dedicate public lateral access on the beach. 1 also understand that the construction or replacement of any accessory structures. including stairways or other access structures, walls fences, etc., are not authorized by this emergency permit and may not 'be authorized under a future regular coastal development permit. Further -I agree that if my property subject to this emergency permit is placed in escrow prior to approval of the regular coastal development permit. that 1 will record a deed res tri cti on. i n a form and content acceptab 1 e to the Executive Director. prior to the initiation of such escrow proceedings. The deed restriction shall state that, by accepting this emergency permit, I and any successors in interest hereby agree to all the conditions specified in this emergency permit. The deed restriction shall not be rescinded without prior written approval of the Executive Director. and rescission shall not occur prior to the issuance of the regular coastal de;41~~e~ermit for pe~nent retention of the d"elo~nt. ~ ~rl\ . . c '!1'~ nature f applicant(s) V ,602.ì- Name r. 6~ (3fJ)' )1 D 5' Address ~t~ t f- ~JeI 1 .) (O818A) . 8 e ;..¡ tJ¡ I S (;::iL I T ç ENGINEERING SERVICfS DfPARTMfNT fNGINfEKtNG OEWlOf'M£NT APPLICATION ""'UCAnON No. 108 RTf ADDRnS ?28 -554 NEPTUNE AVE STRŒT ADelŒSS PROPUTY OWNER INfqR~~TlON PATH. (;07,7,0 I' ,TF.RRY NAM~ . P 0 "ROY 170¡:; MARiNe AOCRß5 ~ANCHO 5~NTA FE.C~ CITY. STATE. ZIP CODE nlq 7¡:;n ??¡:;¡:; 1tlEPHONE NO. CML ,rw'NRR IN~MATION 25lP - Ð ~ 2.{ - f)~' SA W'J'Fl:.T. F. CONTIAÇ(OI 'NfOR~Qti .SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. NN1\£ . 1220 SOUTH STANDARD AVE. ADO" !5S SANTA ANA.~A 92705 (714) 7519561 cny, ST^T£.lIP CODE TiW'HON~ NO. ~ ?~ROR? ~F.NF.RAL ENGINEERING STAT! UCfN5E NO. .. TVI'! q-ZOcPT ~~ SOft5 fNCIl'llft!8 INI'OIIMATJON ROGER M. ZIMMERMAN ROBERT MAHONY N~f NhM~ 2-5381 CLASSIC D~I"E 9.21 AR(;UF¡p.O STREET A¡;)~$ ADDRESS. MI55ION "IEJO.CA 92691(714)830-3310 ~EDWOQD CITv.~à Q~On1 (41~)1n7-9595 CITY, STATE. liP TEle~ON£ NO. ClTV, STATe, liP m.£PHONE NO. ~ 1~An4 n/,O/oo ~F. ~~4 n/10/g7 REGISTRATION NO. KEGISTRATION NO. ÐßClYmaH Of WOIIX m .. DONI CONSTRUCTIQN Q~ CAST IN PLACE ~4- SltNATURE ROR TRF.TTTN' PRINT ~AMe SEAWALL WITH ROCK ANCHORS CA5~ NO.: ().t? '"3 ::¡- ;;; -<-'7- 9t.. DAn SlGNEO HJP (n19) 4A4 0102 l!UPHONf NO. ----------------------------------------- 1S T'lP( OF APPliCATION ( ) ~KEEMENT. COY., DOC. . (..pEACH ENCROACHMENT ( ) CON5TRVCTlO~ I J FINAL MAP ( l}INAL PARC:R MAP (Lf GRAOINC:; [ IIMPROVEM~ [ J OP~1l0NS PERMIT: NEWSAACK . f J PERMANENT ENCROACHMtNT ( I seWER CONSTRUCTION [ I STREET NAME CHANGE ( J STREET VACAlJON ( J ~RARY £NCROACHMEt'IIT I I LmUTY CONSTRUCTION COMMENTS: . 'f0.8 DFFICI! USf 0Nl Y'I DATE CO~PLmo DEPO!IT! AND fIlS --1--'- PfItMIT/APPUCATION FEE: --1--1- PlAN CHE<;I( FU/OP'OSIT: . --1--1- ~CITIONAlPlANCHEC( - -1-1- A.OOO c~~ ~ .---)~-: ~~o~~ ~ --1--1- (ClRa!ONlOFEAOf) --1--'- ASSlGNjBOND ASSICN/BONO --'--'- CASH/CO/tOC CASH/CD/lOC --'----'- MONUMENTAT10N DEPOSIT: -- -1..../- ~. ~--I- 111 OWNER.~ -1---1- --'--1- I ) CONTAAÇT()ft AMOUNT: $ --1--1- S. J EN(jINfiR I ] OTH£R . - ~TE ~6 bJ: .- , -8 When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: MAJO USE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 256-084-08 & 09 Project No.: 95-137 MUP/MOD/CDP/EIA A. Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle ("OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is commonly known as 528, 532 and 554 Neptune Avenue ( "PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment "A" B. In consideration of the approval of Major Use Permit Modification and Coastal Development Permit No. 95-137 MUP/MOD/CDP/EIA by the City of Encinitas (" CITY" hereinafter) , OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit as follows: See Attachment "B", Resolution No. PC-97-18 dated approved March 6, 1997, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrances, cd/DL/95137.CV1 (1/8/98) -1- 8 8 successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. G. Upon OWNER's satisfaction of OWNER's duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a Satisfaction of Covenant. cd/DL/95137.CV1 (1/8/98) -2- 8 8 H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER l'1qQ ~ð: ~ ¡. /'198 ~ ~ ~ of OWNERsigø1ture s attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS (Notarization not required) b~ l k LþJfM.~ Bill Weedman City Planner Dated '5 ~~\\ \'i~~ cd/DL/95137.CV1 (1/8/98) -3- "" 8 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) On January 14, 1998, before me, Leona V. Kauflin, Notary Public, appeared Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signatures on the instrument, the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~=-~ ) v. ~~ eona V. Kauflin, Notary P lic G:\PL-9S\ACK-GOZZ 8 8 ATTACHMENT II A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Assessor Parcel Nos. 256-084-08 and 09) Assessor Parcel Number 256 -084-08 (554 Neptune Avenue) Parcell: Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, as per Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcel 2: All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3 in the County San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of County land to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3 Block "E", thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 3, Block ""E" to the point of beginning. Assessor Parcel No. 256-084-09 (528 & 532 Neptune Avenue) Lots 1 and 2 in Block "E"; and all that portion of Block "F", in South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 17, 1926, described as follows: cd/DL/9S137.CV1 (1/8/98) -4- 8 8 Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "E", South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to its intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning. Also all that portion of Block "F" described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 2, Block "E", South Coast Park no. 3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 2 to a point on the Easterly line of that portion of Block "F" as conveyed by South Coast Land Company to County of San Diego by Deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of land so conveyed to the County to a point on the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 2, Block "E"; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 2, Block "E"; thence Northerly along the Southwesterly line of Lot 2, Block "E" to the point of beginning. Excepting from all of the above described property that certain portion thereof, if any, heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the pacific Ocean. cd/DL/95137.CV1 (1/8/98) -5- 8 8 ATTACHMENT "B" RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18 RESOLUTION OF THE ENCINIT AS PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM ALLOWING FOR THE EXTENSION OF A LOWER SEAWALL AND UPPER BLUFF RETENTION SYSTEM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 528, 532 AND 554 NEPTUNE AVENUE (CASE NUMBER 95-137 MUPIMOD/CDPIEIA) (PREVIOUS CASE NOS. 93-111 MUPIEIAAND 95-047 MUPIMOD) WHEREAS. a request for consideration of a Major Use Penn it Modification and Coastal Development Pennit was filed by Bob Trettin on behalf of Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle to allow for the extension of a lower seawall and upper bluff retention system within the R-8 Zone and Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, as per Chapters 30.34, 30.74, and 30.80 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. for the property located at 528,532 and 554 Avenue. legally described as: (SEE A TT ACHMENT "A") WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 6. 1997, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard: and WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered without limitation: a. Project Plans for the coastal bluff protective devices including Site Plan. Plan View. Details. Sections and Profile for the Lower SeawalL dated revised January 1, 1996 and received by the City of Encinitas on February 8. 1996. consisting of two sheets total: and Site Plan. Plan View. Profile. Details and Section for the Upper Bluff Retention System. dated August 12. 1996 on Sheet I of 2 and August 13. 1996 on Sheet 2 of 2 and received by the City of Encinitas on September 25. 1996. consisting of two sheets total. b. Written information submitted with the application; cdlDL/RPC95137.718 (Fina13/11/97) 8 8 c. Oral testimony from staff. applicant, and public made a part of the record at said public hearing; d. Planning Commission staff report (95-137 MUP/MOD/CDPIEIA) for the meeting of March 6, 1997 which is on file in the Community Development Department; e. Project Geotechnical information which includes 1) the October 26, 1992 Geotechnical and Geological Investigation prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, 2) the May 9, 1995 Geotechnical Letter Report prepared by SEC, 3) the December 11, 1995 Update Geotechnical Review Report prepared by SEC, 4) the August 20, 1996 Updated Geotechnical Review/Report prepared by SEC, and 5) the September 24, 1996 Responses to Third Party Geotechnical Review prepared by SEC; and f. Third Party Geotechnical Reviews of the above listed project geotechnical information, dated June 24, 1995, May 19, 1996, and October 18, 1996 prepared by Ernie Artim. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapters 30.34,30.74 and 30.80 of the Encinitas Municipal Code: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in its independent judgement finds that with incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the original Environmental Initial Study prepared by Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates for the original project (Case No. 93-111 MUPIEIA) the project is not likely to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration Addendum is hereby adopted in conformance with CEQA. cdlDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3111/97) 2 8 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas that Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit application No. 95-137 MUP/MOD/CDPIEIA is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "C") PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Jacobson, Wells, and Patton NAYS: Commissioner Bagg ABSENT: Commissioner Lanham ABSTAIN: None /)í . ~~ " '~Å.\ J.J1Y\ Alice Jacobson, Çh~irperson of the Planning ~mission L~ I Sandra Holder Secretary cdJDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/11/97) 3 8 8 ATTACHMENT "A" RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Assessor Parcel Nos. 256-084-08 and 09) Assessor Parcel Number 256 -084-08 (554 Neptune Avenue) Parcell: Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, as per Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcel 2: All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3 in the County San Diego, State of California. according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly comer of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", to a point on the Easterly line of that tract ofland conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of County land to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwest comer of said Lot 3 Block "E", thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 3, Block ""E" to the point of beginning. Assessor Parcel No. 256-084-09 (528 & 532 Neptune Avenue) Lots 1 and 2 in Block "E"; and all that portion of Block "F", in South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, Stat~ of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 17, 1926, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of Lot 1, Block "E", South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to its intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly comer of said Lot 1; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot I to the point of beginning. Also all that portion of Block "F" described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of Lot 2, Block "E", South Coast Park no. 3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 2 to a point on the cdiDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 4 8 8 Easterly line of that portion of Block "F" as conveyed by South Coast Land Company to County of San Diego by Deed dated January lO, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of land so conveyed to the County to a point on the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No.3: thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 2, Block "E"; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwesterly comer of said Lot 2, Block "E"; thence Northerly along the Southwesterly line of Lot 2, Block "E" to the point of beginning. Excepting from all of the above described property that certain portion thereof. if any, heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the pacific Ocean. cdJDL/RPC95 13 7.718 (Final 3/11/97) 5 8 8 ATTACHMENT "B" RESOLUTION NO. PC 97-18 FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT CHAPTER 30.74, FINDINGS FOR PREEMPTIVE MEASURES IN THE COASTAL BL UFF OVERLAY ZONE CHAPTER 30.34, AND FINDINGS FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CHAPTER 30.80 OF THE ENCINIT AS MUNICIP AL CODE (CASE NO. 95-137 MUPIMOD/CDPÆIA) I. Section 30.74.040 - Use Permit An application for Use Permit shall be approved unless findings of fact are made based upon the information presented in the application or during the hearings which support one or more of the following conclusions. 1. The location, size, design or operating characteristics of the proposed project will be incompatible with or will adversely affect or will be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural resources, with consideration given to, but not limited to: a. The inadequacy of public facilities, sen'ices and utilities to sen'e the proposed project; b. The unsuitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; and c. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources of the City; 2. The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the provisions of this Code; 3. The project fails to comply with any other regulations, conditions or policies imposed by this code. No substantial evidence has been submitted to support any of the above conclusions, cd/DL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 6 8 8 II. Section 30.34.020C2 - Preemptive measure findings Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. c.(l) The proposed measure must be demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report to be . substantially effective for the intended purpose of bluff erosion/failure protection, within the specific setting of the development site's coastal bluffs. Facts: The subject application is a Major Use Permit Modification and Coastal Development Permit request to allow the extension of the lower seawall and the upper bluff retention system to remain on a permanent basis. The lower seawall is of the same design previously constructed with the original Major Use Permit No. 93-111. The seawall ties in with the northerly terminus of the previous walls and extends approximately 120 feet north to the northerly property line of the subject properties. The wall is approximately 13' above mean sea level and extends approximately 24 inches from the bluff face. The project plans denote that the toe of the wall is to be embedded at least two feet into bedrock. Additionally, the plans depict two rows of anchor bolts to be used at the top and bottom of the wall, approximately every 10 feet, in order to secure the wall into the bluff. The upper bluff retention system ties in with the previously developed upper bluff retention system at the southerly boundary of the subject properties and extends 75 linear feet to the north. Approximately 40 feet at the northern end of the subject property does not maintain upper bluff protection. The system features the same design characteristics as those previously developed and consists of caissons. tie-back, grouting and a grade beam all placed below ground level at the .bluff-top. A surface counter-weight slab has been anchored to the grade beam. Discussion: The extension of the lower sea wall and the upper bluff retention system have been analyzed by engineering geologists who have found. based on site-specific conditions. that the bluff stabilization measures are designed to protect the bluff at the subject site from erosion and/or failure. Related to the lower seawalL within their December 11. 1995 correspondence. SEC (the project engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer) stated that "based on the findings presented in the earlier (October 26. 1992) geotechnical report. it was recommended that construction of a lower bluff seawall would restore a qualified factor of safety a degree sufficient to impact the residential structures on the site'" Within said report. SEC also certified that ..the proposed development will not haw an adverse effect on the stability of the bluŒ and is intended to prevent further degradation and extend the usable life span of the bluff portions ofthe property." Additionally. \vithin said report. SEC stated that "based on the design of the proposed structure. ...scouring at the base of the wall will be minimal. The existing undermined portions of the bluff will be protected from continued wave action. and the concrete seawall will be more resistant to erosion than the existing sandstone materials. After construction. the rate of bluff erosion is assumed to be significantly reduced." cd/DL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 7 8 8 Related to the upper bluff retention system. within their August 20. 1996 Updated Geotechnical Review Report. SEC states that their "engineering analyses. supported by recent survey data. indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff retaining system proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structures on the site." Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that in the soils and geotechnical reports the proposed measures are demonstrated to be substantially effective for the intended purpose of bluff erosion/failure protection, within the specific setting of the development site's coastal bluffs. c.(2) The proposed measure must be necessary for the protection of a principal structure on the blufftop to' which there is a demonstrated threat as substantiated by the geotechnical report. Facts: Based on review of the application material and site inspections. the subject properties experienced some mid and upper bluff failures and undercutting of the bluff toe. Two Emergency Penn its were issued by the California Coastal Commission (6-96-6-G and 6-96-122-G) which authorized construction of the subject improvements. Discussion: Within their October 26, 1992 Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, SEC states that based on their investigation "... the failures which occurred in the lower and upper portions of the sea bluff, present a pennanent hazard to the up-slope existing structures and improvements ...." Within their report of December 11, 1995 SEC states that "... it is recommended that the lower bluff seawall be constructeq to increase the overall stability of the site'" Additionally within said report. SEC states that "the existing condition of these bluffs are presently a pennanent hazard to the existing up-slope structures and their appurtenant improvements...:' Related to the upper bluff retention system, within their August 20. 1996 report. SEC states that "... the sudden and unexpected failures occurring during the past 120 days have promoted a level of bluff instability which places the residences located on these properties under potential imminent threat of failure:' Finally, the Emergency Permits issued by the California Coastal Commission note that an unexpected occurrence in the fonn of failure of the mid- and upper-bluff and undercutting of the blufftop requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life. health. property or essential public services." Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed measure is necessary for the protection of the principal structure on the blufftop to which there is a demonstrated threat as substantiated by the geotechnical report. c.(3) The proposed measure will not directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on site or for an adjacent property, within the site-specific setting as demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report. Protection devices at the bluff base shall be designed so that additional erosion will not occur at the ends because of the device. cdJDL/RPC95137.718 (Final3/I 1/97) 8 8 8 Facts: The application includes a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit request to authorize the as-built extension to a lower seawall and upper bluff retention system to remain on a permanent basis. Discussion: Within their December 11, 1995 report. SEC states that ".... the proposed structure will, at no time. have a negative impact on the general geologic stability of the site. In fact, the proposed seawall will enhance the gross stability of this site. This work will not impact the structural integrity of the surrounding properties, sea bluffs, or public lands as it has been successfully been constructed at adjacent sites." Within said report, they further state that ""the proposed project ... is designed. and will be constructed per submitted engineering plans, to mitigate the potential for additional erosion at the project's northern terminus. The project's southern terminus will be integrated into the northern terminus of the lower bluff seawall already approved at 524 Neptune Avenue as a part of Major Use Permit 93-111." Within their August 20, 1996 report related to the upper bluff retention system, SEC notes that their "engineering analyses, supported by recent survey data, indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff retaining system proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure ...." The conditions set forth in this resolution require that the applicant file periodic reports on any such impacts as well as the condition of the walls and that these assessments shall determine need and make recommendations for remedial measures. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that there is not evidence to indicate that the proposed measures will directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on site or for an adjacent property, within the site-specific setting as demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report. c.(4) The proposed measure in design and appearance must be found to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area; where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded area; and not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the bluff face. Facts: The application includes a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit request to authorize the as-built extension to a lower seawall and upper bluff retention system to remain on a permanent basis. Discussion: In order to provide texture and undulation resembling the surrounding bluffs. the forms utilized on the previous project \vere utilized in construction of the subject seawall. As stated by the applicant the wall has received at least one color treatment. As observed on site during an inspection by staff. natural discoloration of the concrete has also occurred due to moss and the natural weathering process. Additional color treatments will be applied in order to more closely match the adjacent walls to the south and the surrounding blutT. The project is conditioned accordingly. The characteristics of the lower seawall and the fact that there are many seawalls of different types on the Encinitas coastline works to make the project visually compatible \\"ith the character of the cdlDLlRPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 9 8 8 surrounding area. The upper bluff retention measure is not readily visible from the public beach below. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds the lower seawall and the upper bluff retention system are visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area and do not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the bluff face. c.(5) The proposed device/activity will not serve to unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for use or access. Facts: The lower seawall is approximately two feet in depth and is placed at or near the toe of the bluff in front of the subject properties. Discussion: The design of the seawall places it as close as is practical to the toe of the bluff in order to maximize the effectiveness of the seawall. The wall generally follows the bluff configuration. The actual depth of the seawall is a maximum of two feet. Thus, the wall will result in an insignificant amount of encroachmentto the public areas of the beach. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the seawall does not serve to unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for use or access. d. No preemptive measure at the base of the bluff or along the beach shall be approved until a comprehensive plan is adopted as Council policy for such preemptive treatment, for at least the corresponding contiguous portion of the coastal bluff. Preemptive measures approved thereafter shall be consistent with adopted plan. Discussion: The structures are existing and were constructed pursuant to Emergency Permits issued by the California Coastal Commission. The emergency nature of the improvements proposed on the site precludes a comprehensive plan from being adopted as policy by City Council for this specific site. Pursuant to Section 30.34.0208.9 of the Municipal Code, the City is able to authorize the preemptive measures prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan since an Emergency Permit has been issued. Preparation of the comprehensive plan is currently in process. If feasible from a geotechnical point of view and not resulting in an economic hardship based upon evidence submitted to the City Council. the applicant may be required to participate in the future comprehensive plans which include their properties. Conclusion: I f feasible from a geotechnical point of view and not resulting in an economic hardship based upon evidence submitted to the City Council, the applicant shall be required to participate in the future comprehensive plans which include the subject property. cd/DL/RPC95 137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 10 8 Criteria for Preemptive Measures: 8 The criteria required to be considered in order to authorize preemptive measures on the top or face of the bluff have been addressed by the 1) May 5, 1995 Geotechnical Letter Report prepared by SEC; 2) October 26, 1992 Geotechnical and Geological Investigation prepared by Earth Systems Design Group; 3) December 11, 1995 Update Geotechnical Review Report prepared by SEC~ 4) August 20, 1996 Updated Geotechnical Review/Report prepared by SEC~ and 5) September 24, 1996 Responses to Third Party Review prepared by SEe. The geotechnical reports/letters were reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant Ernie Artim, who found that said reports provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Section 30.34.020 C and D. cdiDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) II 8 8 Findings Pursuant to Chapter 30.80 (Coastal Development Permit) of the Encinitas Municipal Code: 1. The project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas; and 2. The proposed development conforms with Public Resources Code 21000 and following in that there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the activity may have on the environment. Facts: The site is designated as Residential 5.01 - 8.0 du/ac on the Land Use Designation map of the General Plan and is zoned R-8 on the Zoning Map. Additionally, as the site sits atop the coastal bluff it lies within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. The lower seawall which is included as part of the Major Use Permit application lies within the boundaries of the original jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and requires a Coastal Development Permit under the authority of the Coastal Commission. The portion of the Coastal Development Permit subject to review by the City relates to the upper bluff retention system. Discussion: With approval of the Major Use Permit, the subject project is in conformance with the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and the General Plan. Additionally, with approval of the Coastal Development Permit for the upper bluff retention system. the project is consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. The project is conditioned to receive a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission for the lower seawall. With implementation of the mitigation measures established through the environmental initial study for the original Major Use Permit No. 93-111, which are addressed within the Negative Declaration Addendum and required as a condition of approval. there will not be a significant effect on the environment. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that I) the project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas, and 2) that the potential adverse impacts associated with the project will be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of the required mitigation measures. 3. For projects involving development between the sea or other body of water and the nearest public road, approval shall include a specific finding that such development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et seq. ofthe Coastal Act. Facts: The subject site, located within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. is comprised of two lots which are currently developed with residential dwellings on the bluff top, an upper bluff retention system on the bluff top. a stairway on the bluff face (which does not cd/DLiRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/11/97) 12 8 8 maintain direct access to the beach below) and a lower seawall at the base of the bluff. The project site does not currently provide public access to the shore. and the project does not propose any public access or public recreational facilities. Discussion: Public access or public recreational facilities are not feasible given the project site condition as a bluff-top residential property. Therefore, no condition requiring public access is imposed with this approval. Public access to the shore is available in the near vicinity with Moonlight Beach and the Stone Steps stairway and with Beacon's Beach public accessway further to the north. Since there was not public access through the property prior to this application, the ability of the public to access the shore is not adversely impacted with this application. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et seq. of the Coastal Act. cdlDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 13 Applicant: Case No.: Subject: Location: A. 8 8 ATTACHMENT "C" RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18 Bob Trettin on behalf of Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle 95-137 MUP/MOD/CDP/EIA (Previous Case Nos. 93-111 MOP/EIA and 95-047 MOP/MOD) Conditions of approval for a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to authorize (on a permanent basis) an extension to an existing lower seawall and a blufftop retention system. 528,532 and 554 Neptune Avenue SPECIFI C CO ND ITI 0 NS 1. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as contained within the original Negative Declaration for the previously approved Case No. 93-111 MOP/EIA and referenced within the Negative Declaration Addendum for the subject project as adopted by the Planning Commission on this date shall be adhered to for the project and funded by the developer and/or property owner. The amount necessary will be determined by the Directors of the Engineering Services and Community Development Departments in coordination with the project proponent. The mitigation measures required are as follows: a. The property owner(s) shall submit on or before September 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the seawall receives final approval. and on or before September I every three years thereafter, a written report by a professional engineer assessing the condition of the upper bluff retention system and the lower seawall. The report shall indicate the condition of the upper bluff retention system and the lower seawall and any maintenance/repair actions needed on the protective measures. The assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion rate on the north side of the sea wall. If erosion is occurring that may eventually expose the cliff wall. remedial measures shall be made to prevent the erosion. Said monitoring program shall be submitted to. and. corrective measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the Engineering Department prior to implementation of any corrective measures. Any maintenance/repair work needed shall be completed prior to the next winter storm period. A report by a professional engineer indicating completion of the maintenance/repair work must be submitted on or before November I of the year in which the work is completed. or such other time period as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. b. The property owner(s) shall agree in writing not to oppose participating in the Comprehensive Coastal Bluff and Shoreline Plan as determined by the cdJDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3111197) 14 8 8 City Council and not to oppose participating in any proposed future federal study addressing bluff stability and/or beach sand transport along the entire City coastline. 2.. An as-built geotechnical report reviewed and signed by both the soil/geotechnical engineer and the project engineering geologist shall be completed and submitted to the City within 15 working days after completion of the project. The project shall not be considered complete until the as-built report is received and the content of the report accepted by the Engineering Department. 3. The property owner( s) shall execute and record a covenant to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department setting forth the terms and conditions of this approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said covenant shall also provide that the property owner( s) agree not to oppose formation of an assessment district by the City for purposes of maintaining the wall and upper bluff retention devices. Said covenant shall also provide that until and unless such a district is formed, the individual property owner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining the portions of the wall and upper bluff retention system fronting their properties in good structural and visual condition consistent with the Planning Commission approval as determined by the Directors of Engineering Services and Community Development. Said maintenance shall include restaining the wall as necessary to match the color of the surrounding bluff areas. 4. Prior to final approval of the project. additional color treatments shall be applied to the lower seawall to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to more closely match the adjacent walls to the south and the surrounding bluff. 5. The owner(s) shall enter into and record a covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney waiving any claims of liability against the City and agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the City and City's employees relative to the approved project. This covenant is applicable to any bluff failure and erosion resulting from the development project. This resolution.setting forth the terms and conditions of this approval shall also be recorded as part of the required covenant. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval 'vvill expire in tvv.o years. on March 6. 1999. at 5:00 p.m.. unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency. Î This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval. This approval by the Planning Commission is also appealable to the Coastal Commission. Appeals to the Coastal Commission must be filed within 10 working days after the Coastal Commission has received mailed notice of cdJDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/11/97) 15 8 8 final local action. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date when the Commission's appeal period concludes. '" -' At all times during the effective period of this permit, the applicant shall obtain and maintain in valid force and effect. each and every license and permit required by a governmental agency for the operation of the authorized activi ty. 4. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit are not satisfied, the Community Development Department shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before the authorized agency to determine why the City of Encinitas should not revoke this permit. 5. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas, acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or delete conditions and regulations contained in this permit. 6. Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from complying with the conditions and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to the activity authorized by this permit. 7. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to intensify the authorized activity beyond that specifically described in this permit. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of construction unless specifically waived herein. 9. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission (unless jurisdiction is waived by that agency), and any other governmental agencies with appropriate jurisdictional claims and permitting requirements. 10. Project is conditionally approved as submitted as evidenced by the project plans for the coastal bluff protective devices including Site Plan. Plan Vie\v. Details. Sections and Protile for the Lower Seawall. dated revised January 1, 1996 and received by the City of Encinitas on February 8. 1996. consisting of two sheets total: and Site Plan. Plan View. Profile. Details and Section for the Upper Bluff Retention System. dated August 12 and 13. 1996 and received by the City of Encinitas on September 25. 1996. consisting of two sheets total and signed by a City Official as approved by the Planning Commission on March 6. 1997 and shall not be altered without Community Development Department review and approval. 11. The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the environmental review process regarding the Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to the Community Development Department. cdJDL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 I/97) 16 8 . 12. All construction and improvements under the authority of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the Coastal Commission must be in conformance with and approved by the Coastal Commission prior to final inspection approval by the Community Development Department. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . C. ENGINEERING All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall apply. An encroachment permit from the Community Services Department and Engineering Services Department is required for all work on the beach. All debris resulting from bluff failure and construction shall be removed from the beach as soon as feasible after the property owner or authorized representative is made aware of the debris. cd/DL/RPC95137.718 (Final 3/1 1/97) 17 Recording Requested By: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE . ~ When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas. CA 92024 COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: BOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-084-08,09 Project No.: 95-137 MUP A. Paul F. Gozzo and Jerry E. Sawtelle, ( "OWNER" hereinafter), is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 528, 532, and 554 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In consideration of Major Use Permit 95-137 by the city B. of Encini tas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of cov4911 lOelOa 1 JAN 90 the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of violation of 'Covenant. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 1 ~ r /' I nû ¡' Dated --1 {t' /'¡ 'I 'Þ- .) .J OWN~R ~ßII)- -d. r' , j~1rÝ'~'/ Vjl ~n~ , '-1Æ <- ~ é&¿{/l.-~ Dated ::h~{- 11 IßC} (Notarization of OWNER Dated ¡.! z-' /~ (, aJ:: ~ ö:fJJJ Alan D. Archibald by (Notarization not required) Director of Engineering Services cov4911 lOelOa 1 IAN 90 . . CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT . ~ - ~ =2?::--:;~;-;;:::':' ~ - .;;:c:::...::.;;;.:::;:Z2~::"'2::--.zz.::?~..;;::- - ::;-~=2~==~C::2.;;~2.222~==':;:::';.z:...:-z::-. State of (! tZL~dY ¿uO..- ::U~ ~ ~) before me, 'ij/iNOil i!z ~l ¡,(ÇZ)Up, Jlie'-??:l!? '/ fl¿fJLIC Da~ . . Name and TItle of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared mu,- ¡:: (jO~~O GL- J£If?¡f H (Ç. ...5ffW/¿~ Name(s) of Signer(s) 0 personally known to me - OR -WOved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) i@:Vbscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shØiiië'Y')xecuted the same :aP,i~~thorized capa~, and that by ~""'~~~~~'~~'~'i~,j~~;"i his/he th~ir ~i~(S) on the i,nstrument the person(s), ~:', . Comm. #1038151 ci or the entity ~pon behalf of which the person(s) acted, 5 . -. NOTARY PUBLIC.CALIFORNIA G: executed the Instrument. ~.~.....~~~::~~.~::::;=.J WITNESS my hand and official seal. ; \ ¡ ., , , ) ,,) .11 \ \ \ ~~ç¡..ml<4~ gnature of Notary PubtJ OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Number of Pages: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: Top of thumb here RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER . Top of thumb here ! ¡ ) ) ) 1 'j ,~ :J .:, '~ J oJ . ¡' J ~1 .\) -J 1 ( 'J \ "il ':{ ) ) '.) \\ , ., .' J ) ,\ ."~ , ;.ij. . ~l ) ,) J ~ -~~~~~2B~ Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: C 1994 National Notary Association. 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184. Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod, No, 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARKLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PROJECT NO. 95-137 KUP PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Parcell: Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcel 2: All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17,1926, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of County land to its intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No. 3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Northerly along the Westerly lines of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. cov4911 " lOelOa 1 IAN 90 . . .. ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARKLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PROJECT NO. 95-137 KUP OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any bluff failure or erosion associated with the PROPERTY or the plans, design, construction or maintenance of OWNER's improvements, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. This waiver does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 2. It is further understood and agreed that all of OWNER'S rights under § 1542 of the civil Code of the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the united States are hereby expressly waived. § 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected by aeneral release. A general release does not extend to claims which the credi tor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employe~s and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, employees, cov4911 lOelOa 1 IAN 90 subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers ,officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the improvements; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the OWNER's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by OWNER, and the writing is filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of work. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the construction of the improvements; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the improvements; alleged injury to persons or property; and any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, or maintenance of the improvements. By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the improvements, CITY shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of OWNER who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, cov4911 lOelOa 1 JAN 90 . . . employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 4. OWNER hereby agrees not to develop in any manner the PROPERTY except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibi t the al teration of land forms, removal of vegetation and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorization by CITY. 5. This Covenant does not preclude OWNER taking emergency, protective measures as approved by CITY. cov4911 lOelOa 1 IAN 90 NoText . j When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE GOZZO/SAWTELLE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-084-08,09 project No.: 95-137 MUP WHEREAS, Paul F. Gozzo and Jerry E. Sawtelle ("PERMITTEES" hereinafter) are the owners of bluff top, ocean front real property which is commonly known as 528, 532 and 554 Neptune Avenue ("DOMINANT ESTATE" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, the city of Encinitas, ("CITY" hereinafter), a municipal corporation, holds an interest in beach property ("PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA" hereinafter) located in the vicinity of the DOMINANT ESTATE and more fully described as follows: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereo f . WHEREAS, PERMITTEE desires to construct a seawall at a location immediately seaward of the DOMINANT ESTATE ("PROJECT SITE" hereinafter) and must cross and otherwise use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall on the PROJECT SITE. WHEREAS, PERMITTEE desires an entitlement to use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall; NOW THE~FORE, it is agreed as follows: A. CITY hereby grants to PERMITTEE an encroachment pernd t in respect to the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA in accordance with the following: See Attachment C which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. cov4913 Version: March 9,1994 11:40 Page 1 B. PERMITTEE covenants and agrees to exercise the entitlements herein conveyed in accordance with the following: See Attachment C which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. PERMITTEE agrees that PERMITTEE's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the DOMINANT ESTATE. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the DOMINANT ESTATE any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. By accepting the benefits of this Covenant, PERMITTEE acknowledges that PERMITTEE has no title to the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA and waives all right to that title. F. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. G. Failure of PERMITTEE to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. H. PERMITTEE recognizes and understands that this Covenant may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the PERMITTEE may be subj ect to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. I. As conditions precedent to PERMITTEE's right to go upon the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA: 1. This Covenant must first be signed by the PERMITTEE and notarized: and then executed by the CITY and recorded wi th the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. Any recording fee shall be paid by PERMITTEE: PERMITTEE must fully satisfy each and every condition precedent to the exercise of PERMITTEE's entitlement to go upon the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA: and 2. 3. PERMITTEE must first comply with the State Coastal Act by either obtaining the approval of the State Coastal Commission, obtaining a waiver thereof, or qualifying for an exemption therefrom, as needed to construct the seawall on public property and traverse the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA to construct the seawall. J. This Covenant does not preclude PERMITTEE emergency, protective measures as approved by CITY. from taking cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 2 K. P~I~EE a~es to pr~ide written diS!!SU~S. aM re~ire written consent from, any and all future owners, partners, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of PERMITTEE's interest in the PROPERTY to the effect that this Covenant is acceptable. Provided, however, if such consent is not rendered, it shall in no way affect the enforceability of this Covenant against such party. The consent shall expressly state that the party has received a copy of this Covenant and shall abide by the terms hereof. L. Upon PERMITTEE's transfer of the PROPERTY to a successor in interest, PERMITTEE may apply to the CITY for a release of PERMITTEE's personal obligations set forth in this Covenant. The CITY shall execute the requested release if it is demonstrated that the successor in interest has fully assumed the obligations herein. M. As delegated by the state Lands Commission, the City hereby conveys state Lands Commission permission to the PERMITTEE to traverse the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA to construct the seawall and to construct the seawall on public property. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: v{ 0 r. Dated ~ . Dated '1Þt~~Î Jqq&, / (Notarization of PERMITTEE~ I certify on behalf of the City Council of the city of Encinitas, pursuant to the authority conferred by said City Council, that the ::::d is ~U~:í~=d to execut:y Ji::JniJtÖÆJ.Ø I Alan D. Archibald, Director of (Notarization not required) Engineering Services City of Encinitas cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ':::':::.;c~~ - -"~..:; ,-~-:--.-:=~ ---~-=~ --z-:-::-:-::--::- - - -.;:; _.'~.- -, -~ ';-;;:-=-::-C:::'::-==~~~-;;:~;-:;=::7 ,) J ï 'i :~ :.~ . i ~j ;~ .í Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing:,\ J ~ J ~ ,~~~ C 1994 National Notary Association. 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184. Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 State of é'~tIY ~ County of ,~ ()¡ ~gv On kiJ . dP), /CJC) h Date before me, R~OJl ¡;; ;Z!/ÆItJlJtJ¡¿ç ¡(Jóï11t:~'l POI3L.J,C Name and TItle of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared PAt} '- ¡::: ryt.Y2 Z Ó c:¡. :T['£Je II ç ðft¿..r.J T ¿ ~ ê Name(s) of Signer(s) 0 personally known to me - OR ~ed to me on the basis of s~tory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) J6Laœ::8úbscribed to t~n instrument and acknowledg~ me that he/sh xecuted the same læn hi . ~uthorized capacity(ies), and that by his/he' eir" nature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the en Ity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~"""""""""~'~"""I i ~. Randa G. MllIJour ;¡, : . Comm. #1038151 9 :: ",.,;. NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA \:! U' .' SANOfEOOCOUNTY I . . ,> My Comm. Exp JaM 6, 1999 I .............. "u..... "....... WITNESS my hand and official seal. i?~~ 71J.;ú#~ s¡g ture 0 Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: .\ 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: Top of thumb here RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here .j 'j ( j j . ) ) 'J ì .; oJ 'j :{ :'."~..,; '.' " ';1 ¡ >j . . ATTACHKEN'l' A TO COVENANT REGARDING GRANT 01' BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHKEN'l' PERKIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE GOZZO/SAWTELLE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: DOMINANT ESTATE Parcell: Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcel 2: All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.- 3 ; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of County land to its intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No. 3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No. 3to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Northerly along the Westerly lines of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 4 ;(J c:: ù : - - '.' I ' I " ~ I " ,¡TRAFfIC' WESTERLY PROLONGATION DELINEATORS 7 OF THE NORTHERLYUNE. TYP. / OF LOT' it ~ ," I \Â ...\ . I < ~ '" ~ . ~ 8 ¡SiTE BARRIER PLANI",~ ," , \ -y~ ~j' Á -<~ OF THE SOUTHERLy UNE A. OF LOT 1 , - TRAFFIC DELINEATORS .sEE I"LA.n TYP. ,VIEW ACCESS THROUGH MOONLIGHT STATE BEACH (MUNICIPALLY OPERATED) ) ----~~ LOT 1 MAP lBOO~_1 ATTACBHENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACBHENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE GOZZO/SAWTELLB . ' LOCATION: ¡»UBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL- AREA SITE PLAN " SCALE ,-= 20' . , \ \ \ . . ATTACHMENT C TO COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE GOZZO/SAWTELLB DESCRIPTION OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND PERMITTEE's DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1.0 LOCATION OF ENCROACHMENT AREA The location of the beach access encroachment area is depicted on the map which is contained in Attachment B to this Covenant. 2.0 PURPOSE OF ENCROACHMENT: The purpose of the beach access encroachment permi t is to entitle PERMITTEE to use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA as required for the construction of the seawall at the PROJECT SITE. 3.0 USE OF PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA 3.1 PERMITTEE shall submit to the City Engineer a written proposal setting forth the day[s], hour[s] and safety conditions in accordance with which PERMITTEE proposes to use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall. 3.2 The CITY's Engineer shall expeditiously issue written direction setting forth the day[s], hour[s] and safety conditions reasonably necessary to protect the public from PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall. 3. 3 PERMITTEE agrees not to go upon or use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA for any purpose involving the construction of the seawall at the PROJECT SITE on any day or at any hour, except in complete conformance with the terms and conditions of this Covenant which includes the written directions signed by the CITY's Engineer. 4.0 TERM OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT This COVENANT shall be effective upon its execution by the CITY and shall remain in effect until canceled by the CITY. 5.0 OTHER PROVISIONS In consideration of CITY's execution of this Covenant: 5.1 PERMITTEE waives the right to object to the formation of any geologic hazard abatement district, assessment district or maintenance district which includes within its boundaries the cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 6 DOMINANT ESTATE and which concerns sand replenishment or the stabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE property. 5. 2 PE:RMITTEE agrees that if and when the CITY or a special district determines that it is necessary for the DOMINANT ESTATE to participate in a project which addresses the stabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE property, the PERMITTEE shall either construct the project or pay PERMITTEE's fair share of the cost to construct such project. 5.3 PERMITTEE agrees not to develop in any manner the DOMINANT ESTATE except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorized by CITY. 6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISKS AND POSSIBLE CONSEOUENCES: WAIVERS 6.1 ASSUMPTION ON RISKS BY PERMITTEE. PERMITTEE acknowledges and assumes the risk that: a. the design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall may not result in the stabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may result in the destabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may otherwise cause damage to the DOMINANT ESTATE, the public beach, persons, adjacent public or private property, or other property: b. The use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA as set forth in Part 3.0 herein above, may result in the destabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may otherwise cause damage to the DOMINANT ESTATE, the public beach, persons, adjacent public or private property, or property in the vicinity: and c. Aspects of the seawall challenged by third parties. 6.2 WAIVER OF CLAIMS AGAINST CITY. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from the plans, design, construction, maintenance, functioning or failure of the seawall or from the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA as set forth in Part 3.0 herein above, PERMITTEE unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. project may be judicially 6.3 PERMITTEE's waiver herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA: alleged defects in the plan, design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall: alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the seawall: alleged injury to persons or property allegedly caused by, or in any way related to, the seawall or PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC RECREATION AREA: or any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, maintenance or functioning of the seawall. This section is expressly not intended to act as cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 7 J a limitation to t~broad waiver set forth i~ection 6.2. 6.4 PERMITTEE agrees that for claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from the CITY's efforts to assist PERMITTEE in constructing a seawall or using the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA, PERMITTEE unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. 6.5 PERMITTEE's waiver set forth in sections 6.2,6.3 and 6.4 does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 6.6 It is further understood and agreed that all of PERMITTEE's rights under § 1542 of the civil Code of the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the. united States are hereby expressly waived with respect to claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents relating to the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA. section 1542 reads as follows: 1542. certain claims not affected bv aeneral release. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISKS AND POSSIBLE CONSEOUENCES: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 7 . 1 PERMITTEE TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD CITY HARMLESS. PERMITTEE agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof including attorneys' fees, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of PERMITTEE or PERMITTEE's agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives in respect to the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA. Upon demand, PERMITTEE shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. 7.0 7.2 PERMITTEE agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof including attorneys' fees, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly wi th, the CITY's efforts or actions to assist PERMITTEE in the seawall construction. 7.3 PERMITTEE's indemnification and hold harmless obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the seawall; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, cov4913 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 8 losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the PERMITTEE's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by PERMITTEE, and the writing is filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of work. 7.4 PERMITTEE's indemnification and hold harmless obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA; alleged defects in the plan, design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the seawall; alleged injury to persons or property allegedly caused by, or in any way related to the seawall or PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC RECREATION AREA; or any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, maintenance or functioning of the seawall. This section is expressly not intended to act as a limitation to the broad indemnification and hold harmless provisions set forth in sections 7.1,7.2 and 7.3. 7.5 By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA, CITY shall not have waived the protection afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of PERMITTEE who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, harmless as specifically provided above. 7.6 PERMITTEE's obligation herèin does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 7.7 The CITY herein expressly does not waive any defenses, immunities or other protections from liability afforded to the CITY by the laws of the united states or the state of California, to include without limitation, the California Government Code. cov4913 Version: March 9,1994 11:40 Page 9 8 8 Parcell: Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcel 2: All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "Ell, to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of County land to its intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No. 3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "Ell, said South Coast Park No.3; thence Northerly along the Westerly lines of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. February 12, 1996 Bob Trettin, Principal The Trettin Co. 12785 Amaranth St. San Diego, CA 92129 Re: Major Use Application 95-137 Beach Encroachment Application, Grading Application {528, 532, 554 Neptune Avenue} A.P.N. 256-084-08,09 Engineering permit issuance requirements Mr. Trettin: The Engineering Services Department has been processing your clients' engineering applications to construct, on an emergency basis, a "shotcrete" seawall at the base of the coastal bluff. The following items remain to be completed, all in accordance with the conditions of a typical major use permit for this type of work: 1. Complete and return the accompanying "Engineering Development Application" . 8 8 8~6r,G FILE/f'AGE "°. -------------- RECORDED REQUEST OF SECURITY T1TlE INSURANCE COMPAN'f MAY 1 8 9:00 AM '65 "';, ,'/ ¡'ì:(' "',/,";r,; ,c...: RECORDING REQUESTED BY . ¡ , ~ 0 , " III !!untincton P~rl(, C~lir. SERIES 6 BOOK 1965 OFFICIAL RECORDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF. />.5. t;RAY,COUNTYRECORDER $2.00 554 N"'ftvk An WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO P~ul F. Gt)zzo -----r7l2 Olive st. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE unit ø{ ..Americu NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION mE ORDER NO, 404614 ~ CROW NO. 9R6-5855 INDIVIDUAL FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of wruch is hereby acknowledged, ALBERT I-I. FROLANDER ANn CORA'.. M. FROLANDER, husbRnd ;100 wife 'm.._"'" -... ,- -.. .... ......-..,-. ...--,... --, : ,.. ... .......-.--.- ..----.. --.... - ,m--.' --.- -- ,....... -,.. - --., m' . ,---." .... ..".... m.._""" - .,. m -..".... ..... .....m.. -....... m' .. m.. ....'. --..-- d ~:: :f','T'" h~;~b; -'G RÃ Ñ'T-'~~- ..'......... ......-- ...~.. _n...'" ...,. m..." .... ... .. -.... ..-- --~.. ....... ---.... ---"'" m-- ~-- .......- - ---. ----......--..-...-. - ,.. --.. .... .... -."..-- .... .. ~A .~ F. GOZZO, ;I ~ingle m~n ;lnd JERRY E. SA~ITELLE, ~ single'm~n ;IS joint t~n~nts ..- ....- --. ... --..". .- -- -" ..-- . ........ ,..... . --.. ..,. ..... .--..... -"""""""""" -- --... ....." , -... ..._......... --"""'n ,- .--......". ....... ......-- m...-.--""" on m" ,_... .,.... m""" . ..... ,/ ~ iï ' ~h ~~ ' ~'~~i ' ; ;~~~;~;' ~i ~~ ~ ~~d i~' '~h~ ~~ ~~~~=~~= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~=~:::: : ~ ~: : ~~::: ~~~'.~ ~ ~-,~~ ~'-~ ~~': ~~~ ;..~¡= ~~~ ~ ~ ~} ~ ~~~~~~! ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~::~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~: ~~:~ ~ ~~: = ~~ ~:: :~~: State of California, described as follows: PAF.CF.:L 1: ' , ,- Lot 3 in Block "E" of South COQst Park .No. 3, in the County of S:m Diego, St,:¡te of CdiforoÜI, ;15 per M;¡p' thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of th~ County Recot'd'!".J:" of San Diego County, þ11gUSt 17, 1926. ? ARCEL 2: All th;t portion of Block "F" of South Co.;st Plilrk No.3 in tne County of S:m Dí.l".go, st~te of C~lifornia, ~ccording to M~p thereof No. 1935, filed in the offic~ of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Ang1Js t 17, 1926, described as follows: B~,}INNING ;I t the Northwesterly corner of Lot 3, Block liE", sdd South Coast P.rhk No.3; thence ':lesterly ~ long the y.¡~sterly prolong:;¡tion of the North~rly line of s~id Lot 3, Block "E", to :¡ point on the E~sterly line of th:;¡t tract of hnd comveyed by toh". South Co~st L:md Comp:my to the Collnty of San Diego by deed d;lted J;muary 10, 1930 :md recorriêd in Book 1731, p;lr:e 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly dong said Elilsterly lin~ of Countv bnd to its intt'..J:"section with the West~rly pr01nng;¡tion of the Southerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", thence E;lsterly alo~ s;¡id Westt'.'rly prolong;¡t.ion to the Southwest corner of s:aid Lot 3 ~l ')ck "1<;", thence Nort.h~rly along the l"esterly line of s;lid Lot 3, Block "E" to the point of beginnin~. DATED: m___~P.!.~,~.._?1.....ou....mm.'......_., 19.§2.. :~ 2~~1Jf~::::~:::::::::=: ::::: , ¡o ~.;::.. t... .> RECORDING REQUESTED 8 - t ~ . ~._""- , .,.' (.' '.. J I (. , . .8 -- 1 N.... Mr. Paul F. Gozzo et al i~:;: 532 Neptune ~& Encinitas, California 92024 51.'. L -, 24612 f~ 1ffO"""'-'-"""-"'~~ 'lŒcmunm ~ì .000T tijf S1EW,'\Rl ,,'\'tiE 'CÒ. FED 1 S 1968 AT ,~ ~M.'6S. < SERIES 9 BOOr< \ ~ OFFICIAL Ri~ttÐS . S¡\t, DIEGO c:out4n. ~~u~ p.. 50 eRA "t,COUHT'I Ri¡.òQI\O;" 0 S2.80 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE J .t.'j t 7 5J. ? 5, ~'-'lf ep,VN Þ AND WHEN RECORDED NAIL To ~ MAlt TAl STAT!MENTS TO 1< N.... as above I Grant Deed $55.00 ~ ~:krZZ1 ;fDIEGð ?"~~ ",?,t,oUN~ '-- ;J ~ ') '-'.è...'.-.~~.. . .[' ""':--. ,.', '0' ~ý:x~Y AFFIX I.R.S. S 55. O{ 5',.., d'.11 ".. ily & SI.t. L -' jJÆJNC.qRPORATED ARÈI FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, HARRY B. CHRISTENSEN and DANA CHRISTENSEN, husband and wife h('reby GRANr(S} to PAUL F. GOZZO, a single man, and JERRY E. SAWTELLE, a single man as joint tenants the following described real property in the County of San Diego , State of California: DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND MADE A PART HEREOF Dated January 22. 1968 ~~ . u.t--,.' ' - ~...-,~--,-,-~-:-\.. o~r~y' . Christensen STATE OF CALIFORNIA " y 8 8 CHRISTENSEN to GOZZQ et a1 EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 1 . . 1185 . . - Lota 1 and 2 ill Block "E"; and all that portion of Block "F", in South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State 'of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, , filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 17,1926, described as follows: Beginning at the Nqrthwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "E", South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to its' intersection with the Southerly line of said South Coast, Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1; thence No~therly along the Westerly line of ' said Lot 1 to the point of beginning. . 4 -, - -' . ¡ ,-. -' Also all that portion of Block "F" described as follows: '" ~':" Be§inning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 2, Block : ,~.:.' "E J- South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 2 to a point on the Easterly line of that portion of Block "P-" as conveyed by South Coast Land Company to County of San Diego by Deed d~teå January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along 'said Easterly line of'land so conveyed to the County to a point on the Southerly line of said South ,Coast Par~ - No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast Park No.3 to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation .of the Southerly line of said Lot, 2, Block "E";' , thence Easterly along sai~ Westerly prolon§ation to the Southwesterly corner of sàid Lot 2, Block Ell; thence -, Northerly along the Southwesterly line of Lot 2, Block liE" .. j, to the point of beginning. " , '-:,' .. .. , - Excepting from all of the above described property that " certain portion thereof, if any, heretofore or now lying, , - ,"- ,':' 'below the mean high tide line of the Paci"fio Ocean. ' ,::;,.,::,:., '" /' '.., ::-",' , Initial . '. ,._~ x-t:-- " --. September 10, 1998 Mr. Paul Gozzo & Mr. Jeny Sawtelle P.O. Box 1705 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 Assessment of the Existing Condition of the Upper BlufTRetention System 528 & 532 Neptune Avenue Encinitas. California Dear Mr. Gozzo and Mr. Sawtelle: Soil Engineering Construction Inc., (SEC), has completed a visual assessment of the upper bluff retention system at the subject properties. Our site visit was perfo~ed?n September 10, 1998. Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the subject upper bluff retention system is in good condition and that no maintenance/repair actions are needed at this time. If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 'lf~ ~ ,~ SOIL ¡nGln¡¡=tlnG COnSr:1UCtlon.. I J ç I " -- 8 September 4, 1998 ! f '" ------,- 11\ r~ (rì} R n' -.-"'\ i I r I ¡c, l:" !~ I D,!! rc,~ rñì,! ILJ~r~'i', n' ! ---- . . I , ....., ". / " ! I ,-. ,,1";,'" " II II". ." !;~!: ("~D,r:::1998 I,' i ' " , . ¡, i L . ' I , -,,--- i: Ie! TY n~: r::-;:-;--:::-:-~ ' '-__d""',---"",'," '" ') Mr. Paul Gozzo & Mr. JetTY Sawtelle P.O. Box 1705 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 pú ent of the Existing Condition of the Lower BlutT Seawall " 528 trough 554 Neptune Avenue C 'fo ia Dear Mr. Gozzo and Mr. Sawtelle: Soil Engineering Construction Inc., (SEC), has completed a visual assessment of the lower bluff seawaD. below the subject properties. Our site visit was perfonned on August 28, 1998. At the time of our site visit, the seawall was exposed (above the beach) approximately 8 feet. Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the subject seawall is in good condition and that no maintenance/repair actions are needed at this time. In addition, We ohlerved the condition of the bluff at the north end of the seawall and it is our opinion that the bluff erosion is negligible and no remedial measures are required. If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. v cry truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. ({.L ,r SOIL EnGln¡E~lnG COnSAUCtlOn.. I ;J ç I " . , " November 14, 1997 Ms. Diane I JmgJ'ger City ofEncinitas- Planning Department SOS S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Letter Report - A.Baiit Geoteclmieal Co.dido- Upper BId Retelltio. System ~2 Neplue A ve...e C . ~ 95-13 . tMOD/CDPIEIA Dear Ms. LanW-ger: Soil Engineering Construction has prepared the following letter report to address the 'As-Built Geotechnical Conditions for the construction of the upper bluff retention system at the subject properties. The uodersigned performed inspection of the drilled caissons for the subject project. Specifically, Caissons No.s 1 through 11 were drilled to the minimum depths shown on the approved permitted plans. The drilling depths for Caissons No.s 1 & 11 were drilled to depths of approximately 47 feet. The rensUni~ caissons were drilled to avemge depths of about 49 feet. The caissons were drilled in the upper Terrace deposits. All caissons were installed in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications. All construction activities were observed by an engineer from this office. In addition to the caissons, tiebacks installation and testing were observed by the undersigned. Tieback No.s 1 & 20 were drilled to a minimum depth of about 40 feet. The remaining tiebacks No.s 2 through 19 were drilled to a minimum depth of about 44 feet. Each tieback was tested in accordance with the appoved plans and specifications. Specifically, Tieback No.s 1 & 20 were tested to 102 kips, held for fifteen minutes and then locked off at their design load of 77 kips. The remaining tiebacks, No.s 2 through 19 were tested to 130 kips held for fifteen minutes and locked off at their design load of98 kips. All tiebacks were drilled in the upper Terrace deposits. All of the tiebacks were installed and tested in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications. JAN 11998 SOIL ¡nCUn¡¡=llnc5 cOnSt=lUCtlOnlft( ~ . .. . . - . Ms. Diane !Ansagel' Planning Department November 14, 1997 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Sincerely, SO~ ENGINEERING CONSTRUCI'ION W. Niven RC.E.51511 ClJM~ Robert Mahony, President G.E. 554, C.E.G. 841 ~. . . ( , November 14, 1997 Ms. Diane Lanpger City of Encinitas- Planning Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Letter Report - Al-ø.ut GeofMuaIHl. Coaditio8s Lower BhdI' Seawall GozzoISawtelle, 528,532 " 554 Nept88e A vea- Cue No. 95-137MUPIMOD/CDPIEIA """""-a CaMaraa Dear Ms. T .&ngAgec: Soil F.ngineNing Construction has prepared the folloWing letter report to address the 'As-Built Geotechnical Conditions for the construction of the lower bluff seawall at the subject properties. Observation aod testing of 26 tiebadcIrock aorhors were perfoI med by Southern California Soil & Testing (see sdtJIclJed œport). All ûeb8cks were drilled to the mininnm depths shown on the approved plans. The tiebacksIrock IB1Chors were drilled into the Torrey formation (sandstone). Each tiebacklrock anchor was tested in aœordanœ with the approved plans and specifications. It is om opiniœ that the tiebacks/rock anchors were iDstalled in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications. Observation of the fOUDdatiœ excavations were performed by Southern California Soil & Testing (see attached report). The said footing excavations were excavated to the minimum. depths shown œ the IpIX'Oved pIaos. The exœvations were founded in the Torrey formatiœal materials. It is om opinion that the foundatiœ excavations were installed in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications. Sincerely, ~~ ~~: CONSTRUcn:ON John W. Niven RC.E.57517 ~>2lJ- r~ Robert Mahony, President G.E. 554, C.E.G. 847 If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. SOIL EnGlnEE=tlnc: conSt=tUCtlOnlfl( ~ '~ . ~ . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street. P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTIO;\í REPORT PROJECT TITLE; LR. :\0: 10 (Pg 1 of 1) 4615-G PROJECT LOCATIO:'/: ARCHITECT: GE:'/. CO:\TRACTOR: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall 9611056 4615-GI PLA:\ FILE so: SCS&T FILE so: 528 Neptune Ave.. Encinitas COASTAL PER.'"T NO Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction ENGINEER: Roger Miles Zimmerman Soil Engineering Construction SVBCOSTRACTOR: FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS 4/3. 8. 9 & 10 1996 J. High CEG 1237 C. Burdett CEG 1090 DISTRlBI;TIOS: Observed the footing excavations for the proposed sea wall. The excavations are founded in dense. formational soils; complies with the structural plans and are considered suitable to receive the proposed improvements. (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction. Inc. (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BV: -w~~~ Michael B. Wheeler. R.C.E. #45358 ._._um. _.. - ~ .m.__....... .._...~....._... ..---..-.-... ....-.-----.--.-. ..---.-. .-.. . -...-..-.....-..-........-..-------.-....- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-U21 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: I.R.NO: 3 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: ARCIßTECT: GENER.-U. CONTRACTOR: Sea Wall at Guzzo/Sawtelle Residences 9611056 4615TE PI.AI.. FILE NO: SCS&T FILE NO: 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas PERMIT NO: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering ConstructionlZimmerman Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 4/1 5/96 K. Embrey 534 4/15,16,18/96 J. High 752 4/18/96 G. Ledbetter 625 4/19/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: epoxy coated Concrete: Mix Design #4033103, 3000 psi Provided inspection for placement of first lift of cast-in-place wall for the seawall reinforcement. The epoxy bars were threaded into nut and horizontal bars with the grade beam attached. Observed the placement of concrete which was placed by conveyor and mechanically consolidated. One set of concrete cylinders was cast for compression testing. Unless otherwise noted, the above mentioned work, to the best of my knowledge, complies with the approved plans and specifications. TIE BACKS Observed stress tests for 26 tie backs for the construction of the sea wall. The tie backs were stressed to at least at the minimum of 133% of the design loads as required by the structural plans. No creep or elongation occurred during the test. The stress tests were performed with calibrated equipment. Calibration charts were presented by the contractor at the project site. All of the stress tests were ¡.n compliance with the requirements of the structural plans. All tie backs are considered suitable. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0400 Time Departed: 0700 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the sea wall second level, northerly 40'. Observed the placement of concrete. One set of four test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3 ~ ". All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0430 Time Departed: 0730 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the top level of southerly 60' and provided continuous observation of placement of concrete. One set of four test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3-3/4". All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Paul Guzzo and Jerry Sawtelle (1 ) City of Encinitas R£V1EWED BY: ~~~#/.:/ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ~ 8 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Soa AND TESTING, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SANDŒGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G '- Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Patio concrete slab - Details B-2 and F-2 Sheet 2 of 2 Pre-Mixed 4011500 90 415 GW Slump, Inches: 6 TkketNumbe~ 92955 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: Air Temp: Air Content: 0 0 % Laboratory Number: 9358 9359 9360 9361 Mark: Date Made: 12-12-96 Date Received 12-13-96 Date Tested 12-19-96 1-09-97 1-09-97 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 113,250 144,500 143,750 Compressive Strength, psi 4,010 5,110 5,080 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: i ! I , , U/~.?VL/ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 12-12.DOC 1/10/97 ~ . 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SANDIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Grade Beam Pre-Mixed 4011500 73 424 GL Slump, Inches: 5 Ticket Number: 90471. Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 9036 9037 9038 9039 Mark: Date Made: 11-26-96 Date Received 12-02-96 Date Tested 12-03-96 12-24-96 12-24-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 116,000 149,750 154,250 Compressive Strength, psi 4,100 5,300 5,460 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: MiC~~~ 11-26.DOC 12/31/96 ~ SOUTHERN <!LIFORNIA SOIL AND TES~G, INc. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmixture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: In tieback Pre-Mixed 4011500 140 381 GL Slump, Inches: 8-1/2 TkketNumbe~ 89793 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8806 8807 8808 8809 Mark: Date Made: 11-20-96 Date Received 11-21-96 Date Tested 11-27-96 12-18-96 12-18-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 86,250 115,000 117,000 Compressive Strength, psi 3,050 4,070 4,140 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 3,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: M~~¿-/ 11-2a.DOC 12/19/96 ~ SO UTHERN ~LIFO RNIA SOIL AND TESIN G, IN C. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report. File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Tie backs on each side of caissons 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 Pre-Mixed 4011500 108 424 GL Slump, Inches: 7-3/4 Ticket Number: Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8791 8792 8793 8794 Mark: Date Made: 11-19-96 Date Received 11-21-96 Date Tested 11-26-96 12-17-96 12-17-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 97,250 129,750 130,000 Compressive Strength, psi 3,440 4,590 4,600 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 3,000 I Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: J#-£/ð~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 11-19.DOC 12/17/96 ~ SOUTHERN ~LIFORNIA SOIL AND TESING, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons # 1 and 3 Pre-Mixed 4011500 150 385 GL Slump, Inches: 5-1/4 Ticket Number: 88634 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8732 8733 8734 8735 Mark: Date Made: 11-1 8-96 Date Received 11-20-96 Date Tested 11-25-96 12-16-96 12-16-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 109,500 140,000 144,750 Compressive Strength, psi 3,870 4,950 5,120 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: ~~4~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 11-18.DOC 12/16/96 ~ SOUTHERN ~LIFORNIA SOIL AND TESfPNG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons #5 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 50 406 GL Slump, Inches: 4-3/4 TkketNumbe~ 87905 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8645 8646 8647 8648 Mark: Date Made: 11-1 5-96 Date Received 11 -1 8-96 Date Tested 11-22-96 12-13-96 1 2-1 3-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 92,000 134,000 136,250 Compressive Strength, psi 3,250 4,740 4,820 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: ~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 "-'5.DOC 12/16/96 ~. SOUTHERN <!LIFORNIA SOIL AND TESING, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #4 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 100 397 GL Slump, Inches: 4-3/4 Ticket Number: 87398 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 780 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8600 8601 8602 8603 Mark: Date Made: 11-14-96 Date Received 11-16-96 Date Tested 11-21-96 12-12-96 12-12-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 89,000 126,000 126,750 Compressive Strength, psi 3,150 4,460 4,480 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: ~¿/~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 "-'4.DOC 12/13/96 ~ SOUTHERN <!LIFORNIA SOIL AND TES~G, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Golla & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Roger Miles Zimmerman/A. D. Mahoney Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmixture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #11 Pre-Mixed 4032500 374 JB Slump, Inches: 4 TkketNumbe~ 86959 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8591 8592 8593 Mark: Date Made: 11-13-96 Date Received 11-1 5-96 Date Tested 11-20-96 12-11-96 1 2-11-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 96,750 141,000 141,250 Compressive Strength, psi 3,420 4,990 5,000 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Galla & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: ~~4p/ Michael B: Wheeler, RCE #45358 11-13A.DOC 12/13/96 , ~ ~ SOUTHERN ~LIFORNIA SOIL AND TES4ANG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gallo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Roger Miles Zimmerman/R. D. Mahoney Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #6 Pre-Mixed 4032500 374 JB Slump, Inches: 4-1/2 Ticket Number: 86949 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 800 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8613 8614 8615 Mark: Date Made: 11-13-96 Date Received 11-16-96 Date Tested 11-20-96 12-11-96 12-11-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 93,000 119,000 126,250 Compressive Strength, psi 3,290 4,210 4,470 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gallo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: 7ø;? ~ AV'V Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 11-138.DOC 12/13/96 ~ 8 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: I.R.NO: 9 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: ARClßTECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall 528 Neptune Ave., Encinitas 9611056 6-96-122-G SCSATFILENO: COASTAL PERMIT NO PLAN FILENO: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction ENGINEER: Roger Miles Zimmerman Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: Time Departed: 1600 12/12/96 G. Wolfram 259 ICBO 28299 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1430 Concrete: Pre-Mixed, Design #4011500. Fc = 4000 psi Arrived on site when the concrete placement was almost complete for the patio slab and curb, per Details B/2 and F/2. The last load of concrete was approximately half unloaded. One set of four concrete test cylinders was fabricated. Slump = 6-, taken from this load. A total of 29.25 cubic yards of concrete was placed. I was unable to inspect the reinforcing steel prior to concrete placement. DISTJUBUTlON: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (1) City of Encinitas ~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ~ so UTIIERI C ALIFO RNIA SOIL #rnsTIN G, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627 SAN DIEGO, Ca. 92160, Phone (619) 280-4321 # c¡ FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: REINFORCED CONCRETE 0 REINFORCED MASONRY 0 WELDING 0 FIREPROOFING 0 P. T. CONCRETE 0 EPOXY ANCHORS 0 H. S. BOLTING n ARCHITECT r- I hereby certify that I have in.pectad the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, the work in.pected i. to the beat of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plan., .pecification. and applicable 8OCtÍon8 of the goveming building laws. ~&¿ ;¡::¿ßO ill- 02 'r» 7 ~~~N No. I ø2..., / fJC- I' TE ~ SOUTHERN C~IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Grade Beam Pre-Mixed 4011500 73 424 GL Slump, Inches: 5 Ticket Number: 90471 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 9036 9037 9038 9039 Mark: Date Made: 11-26-96 Date Received 1 2-02-96 Date Tested 1 2-03-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 116,000 Compressive Strength, psi 4,100 Age Tested, Days 7 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: -z¿/~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 "-26.DOC 12/10/96 ~ SOUTHERN <!LIFORNIA SOIL AND TESfPNG, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Permit No: Plan File No: G9-122-G Soil Engineering Construction Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s}: Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons 8 and 10 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 74 375 GL Slump, Inches: 4-1/2 TkketNumbe~ 85978 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8369 8370 8371 8372 Mark: Date Made: 11-08-96 Date Received 11-11-96 Date Tested 11-1 5-96 12-06-96 12-06-96 Discard Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 67,000 107,750 103,000 Compressive Strength, psi 2,370 3,810 3,640 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: Mic!1£.41s~ 11-0B.DOC 12/10/96 ~ SOUTHERN C!IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALESTREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(sJ: Time In Mixer (MinutesJ: Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: In tieback Pre-Mixed 4011500 140 381 GL Slump, Inches: 8-1/2 TkketNumbe~ 89793 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: % 0 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 8806 8807 8808 8809 11-20-96 11-21-96 11-27-96 6.00 28.27 86,250 3,050 7 3,000 Specimen sampling, tfBnsportation and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. This agency makes no other warfBnties express or implied. Distribution: . (2) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas 11-20.DOC 12/5/96 Reviewed By: u/~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ SOUTHERN C!IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: . Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons #5 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 50 406 GL Slump, Inches: 4-3/4 TkketNumbe~ 87905 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8645 8646 8647 8648 Mark: Date Made: 11-15-96 Date Received 11-1 8-96 Date Tested 11-22-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 92,000 Compressive Strength, psi 3,250 Age Tested, Days 7 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 4,000 Specimen sampling. transportation 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) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: u/¿/~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 "-'S.DOC 12/4/96 . ~ SOUTHERN C!IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIG, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #4 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 100 397 GL 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 Slump, Inches: 4-3/4 TkketNumbe~ 87398 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 780 Air Temp: Air Content: % 0 8600 8601 8602 8603 11-14-96 11-1 6-96 11-21-96 6.00 28.27 89,000 3,150 7 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. This agency makes no other wa"Bnties express or implied. Distribution: . (2) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas "-'4.DOC 12/4/96 Reviewed By: ¥~.4~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ SOUTHERN CIIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIG, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Tie backs on each side of caissons 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 Pre-Mixed 4011500 108 424 GL Slump, Inches: 7-3/4 Ticket Number: Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % Laboratory Number: 8791 8792 8793 8794 Mark: Date Made: 11-19-96 Date Received 11-21-96 Date Tested 11-26-96 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, psi 97,250 Compressive Strength, psi 3,440 Age Tested, Days 7 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 3,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas Reviewed By: ~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 11-19.DOC 12/3/96 ~ SO UTHERN CtIFO RNIA SOIL AND TES Tt G, INC. 6280 RIvERDALE STREET, P. O. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321' Concrete Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Soil Engineering Construction Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons # 1 and 3 Pre-Mixed 4011500 150 385 GL 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 Slump, Inches: 5-1/4 TkketNumbe~ 88634 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 740 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % 8732 8733 8734 8735 11-1 8-96 11-20-96 11-25-96 6.00 28.27 109,500 3,870 7 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas 11-18.DOC 12/3/96 Reviewed By: ~-La~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 8 8 ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FffiLD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall SCS4oTnLENo: 9611056 6-96-122-G I.R. NO: 8 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: 528 Neptune Ave.. Encinitas COASTAL PERMIT NO PLAN nLENO: ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction. Inc GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 11/26/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615 Concrete: Pre-Mixed Time Arrived: 1330 Time Departed: 1730 Inspected the reinforcing steel and placement of concrete for the grade beam. as per 1 of 2. Detail 2 of 2/C2. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 5". All work inspected and observed was, to the best of my knowledge. per plan and the workmanship provisions of the U.B.C. DISTRIBUTION: (1) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction. Inc. ( 1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BV: W -L/ /4~ Michael B. Wheeler. R.C.E. #45358 ~ 8 8 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: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Roger Miles Zimmerman/R. D. Mahoney Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmixture{s}: Time In Mixer {Minutes}: Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #11 Pre-Mixed 4032500 374 JB 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 Slump, Inches: 4 Ticket Number: 86959 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: % 0 8591 8592 8593 11-1 3-96 11-1 5-96 11-20-96 6.00 28.27 96,750 3,420 7 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas "-'3A.DOC 11/21/96 Reviewed By: -w~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ 8 8 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: 9611056 Project Title: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Roger Miles Zimmerman/A. D. Mahoney Soil Engineering Construction Permit No: Plan File No: 6-96-122-G Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caisson #6 Pre-Mixed 4032500 374 JB 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 Slump, Inches: 4-1/2 TkketNumbe~ 86949 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 800 Air Temp: Air Content: 0 % 8613 8614 8615 11-1 3-96 11-16-96 11-20-96 6.00 28.27 93,000 3,290 7 4,000 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas "-'38.DOC 11/21/96 Reviewed By: ~~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ e 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: I.R.NO: 7 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: AROIITECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall 9611056 6-96-122-G PLAN FILENO: SCS4TFILENO: 528 Neptune Ave., Encinitas COASTAL PERMIT NO ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: Time Departed: 1730 11/1 8/96 G. Ledbetter 625 11/19/96 G. Ledbetter 625 11/20/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615 Concrete: Pre-Mixed, Design #4011500 Time Arrived: 1330 Observed the placement of reinforcing steel for Caissons 1 and 3, as per 1 of 2, and the placement of concrete for Caissons 1 and 3. Observed and inspected the bore holes and placement of three steel strand cables in two locations: one on the south side of Caisson 10 and one on the south side of Caisson 9, as per Detail 2 of 2 and the Engineer's direction. Observed the placement of grout around the steel strand cables. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 5 %'. All work inspected and observed on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615 Time Arrived: 1430 Time Departed: 1700 Inspected and observed the placement of three steel strand cables and bore holes for the tie backs at the following locations: both sides of Caissons 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; on the north side of Caisson 10; and on the south side of Caisson 4, as per Detail 2 of 2 and the Engineer's direction. Also, observed the placement of grout at these locations. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 7 "'. All work inspected and observed on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1330 Time Departed: 1600 Inspected and observed the placement of three steel strand cables and bore holes for the tie backs, as per Detail 2 of 2 and the Engineer's direction, at the following locations: both sides of Caissons 2 and 3; the north sides of Caissons 4 and 11; and the south side of Caisson 1. Observed the placement of concrete grout at the same locations. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 8 %-. All work inspected and observed on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: ~,.L/ /5~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ~ 8 8 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: 9611056 Project Title: GOllO & Sawtelle Seawall Project Location: 528 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Architect: Engineer: Contractor: Permit No: Plan File No: G9-122-G Soil Engineering Construction Location In Structure: Material Supplier: Mix Designation: A dmix ture (s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): Truck Number: Samples Fabricated By: Caissons 8 and 10 Pre-Mixed 4032500 Poly 74 375 GL 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 8369 11-08-96 11-11-96 11-1 5-96 6.00 28.27 67,000 2,370 7 4,000 Slump, Inches: 4-1/2 TkketNumbe~ 85978 Samples Tested By: KN CC Temp: 760 Air Temp: Air Content: % 0 8370 8371 8372 Specimen sampling, transportation 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) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Pre-Mixed (1) City of Encinitas "-08.DOC 11/18/96 Reviewed By: ~~4~ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 ~ 8 -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: LR.NO: PROJECT LOCATION: ARaUTECT: CDiERAL CONTRACTOR: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall 528 Neptune Ave., Encinitas 6 IPg 1 of 1) 9611056 6-96-122-6 SCSATFILENO: COASTAL PERMIT NO PLAN FILENO: DlCINEER: Roger Miles Zimmerman/R.D. Mahoney/Soil Engineering Const.. Inc Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: Time Departed: 1700 11/13/96 J. Blakely ICBO 26916 11/14/96 G. Ledbetter 625 11/15/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1300 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: 4000 psi Inspected the reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete at Caissons 6 and 11, as per the approved plans and details. Obtained concrete cylinders for testing. NOTE: The concrete of the second load was 2 hours and 20 minutes old when placed, due to a truck flat tire. The temperature was 80° and the concrete still looked good. The contractor chose to use it and the cylinders were fabricated for testing. To the best of my knowledge, all work was in accordance with the approved plans. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1400 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Pre-Mixed, Design #4032500 Time Departed: 1700 Observed the placement of caisson reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete by boom pump at Caissons 2, 4 and 9, as per 1 of 2. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 4 %'. All work inspected and observed was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1430 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Pre-Mixed, Design #4032500 Time Departed: 1700 Observed the placement of caisson reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete by boom pump at Caissons 5 and 7, as per 1 of 2. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 4 %' All work inspected and observed on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. 11) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BV: ~~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 {oÞD ~. ( ~ J'J" - SdW~. 1(1 . Se;7t:ð,) I r S-3 Z /t/é ¡? fa/! e Ave l?e 11111/ c~ I'lf ;¡ lee I vi (?ðncrck ( þ.e.-<-I ~ L..-- t~::Âi~CALIFORNIA ~i,' . .- " DRIVER lICENSE CLASS: C "- ; N7117093 I PXPIRES' ftO. .01 00 Th,.".nl.I."IU"d".'C8nlllod~'"I"OI.....hI<'.' ....... - . -. do.1 nOl ",,".h"h .",.,IIIy'", .m,".y""" '01" ..-"':ïòSÉPH iLfiKa Y 1135 SUTTER L" SAM HARCO8 OR 928C9 SEX:" ffUR: I)RN EVh: ... HT: 5-09 NT: .:,;e DOl: 11-"-'" -¡"';/' ~ /. 4;1;>;1-. /. ,~ 't1; (' \7 d 07/16/96 23~ 1 ~D'ØØ R4621 International . Conference of Building Officials . . MARK JOSI:PH BLAKELY . ~ ~ CERTIFIED SPECIAL INSPECTOR REINFORCED CONCRETE 1991 UBC & ASTM STANDARDS The individual named hereon is CERTIFIED in the category shown, having been so certified pursuant to successful completion of the prescribed written examination. Expiration date: A~II- 39. 1997 No. 26916 . '(p {J_C ~ 8 8 . " . -- ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street. P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FŒLD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT IDLE: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall SCS& T FILE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: 528 Neptune Ave., Encinitas PERMIT NO: 9611056 6-96-122-6 LR. NO: 5 (Pg 1 of 1) PLAN FILENO: ARCIßTECT: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. SUBCONTRACTOR: 11/7/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1200 Time Departed: 1300 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 40 (ties) and Grade 60 (all other bars) Inspected the reinforcement for the caissons which provide upper bluff protection, as per 2 of 2, Details C/2 and 0/2. Inspected the reinforcement for the interior piles (9 total) and for the end piles (2 total), per Details C/2 and E/2. All work inspected on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the applicable sections of the UBC. 11/8/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615 Concrete: Pre-Mixed, Design #4032500 Time Arrived: 1230 Time Departed: 1530 Observed the placement of reinforcing steel for the caissons and the placement of concrete by boom pump at caissons 8 and 10, as per 1 of 2. Fabricated one set of four test cylinders. Slump = 4 %" All work inspected and observed on this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per plans and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: V.L4~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 i 4-þ--.c.: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 8 W' SOIL & TESTING, INc. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627 619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717 8 June 20, 1996 Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle Post Office Box 1705 Rancho Sante Fe, California 92067 SCS&T 9611056 Report No. l-R Reference: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall, 554 & 532 Neptune A venue, Encinitas, California. Building Permit #4615TE Subject: Compression Testing of Drilled Concrete Cores. Ladies! Gen tlemen: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. has tested three concrete cores which we drilled from the referenced seawall on April 18, 1992. These cores are representative of concrete placed on April 17, 1996, from which no compressive strength samples were fabricated during the time of placement. The cores were drilled approximately twenty four hours after placement. Otherwise the drilling and testing of these cores was conducted in accordance with the requirements of ASTM C42, "Standard Method of Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete". The cores were tested wet after conditioning for a minimum of forty hours in lime saturated water at a temperature of 73.5+3° Fahrenheit. If required, the compressive strengths for each core have been corrected for a height-to-diameter ratio less than 1.94 but greater than 1.00 as provided for in ASTM C42. Test results are provided in Table A. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our materials testing services. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. ~~Æ£/ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 MBW:GAG:gag cc: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas I Job Number 9611056 8 June 20, 1996 8 Page 2 TABLE A: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF DRILLED CONCRETE CORES Gozzo Sawtelle Seawall, 554 & 532 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas California,Permit #4615TE CORE NO: 1 2 3 Date Tested 15-May-96 15-May-96 15-May-96 Tested Height, inches 7.22 7.66 6.85 Diameter, inches 3.75 3.75 3.75 Area, sq.in. 11.04 11.04 11.04 LID Ratio 1.93 2.04 1.83 Correction Factor 0.9989 1 . 0000 0.9884 Total Load, Ibs 67,750 69,500 72,500 Corrected Compressive Strength, psi 6,130 6,300 6,490 Average Compressive Strength, psi 6,307 Note 1) The dcaign compressive strength oCthe cooçrertc was 4000 psi at tcwnty eight days ofage. 2) The UniConn Building Code, Section 19.22.10, requires the average oCthrcc cores 10 be equal or exceed 0.85 fc (3400 psi) with DO single core below 0.75 fc (3000 psi). ~~ SOUTIlERN CALIFORNIA. ",;,V SOIL & TESTING, INc. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627 619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717 8 May 21, 1996 Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle Post Office Box 1705 Rancho Sante Fe, California 92067 SCS&T 9611056 Report No. I Reference: Gozzo & Sawtelle Seawall, 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. Building Permit #4615TE Subject: Compression Testing of Drilled Concrete Cores. Ladies/Gentlemen: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. has tested three concrete cores which we drilled from the referenced seawall on April 18, 1992. These cores are representative of concrete placed on April 17, 1996, from which no compressive strength samples were fabricated during the time of placement. The cores were drilled approximately twenty four hours after placement. Otherwise the drilling and testing of these cores was conducted in accordance with the requirements of ASTM C42, "Standard Method of Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete". The cores were tested wet after conditioning for a minimum of forty hours in lime saturated water at a temperature of 73.5 + 3 0 Fahrenheit. If required, the compressive strengths for each core have been corrected for a height-to-diameter ratio less than 1.94 but greater than 1.00 as provided for in ASTM C42. Test results are provided in Table A. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our materials testing services. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. ~U; ~../~Jh"/ / /" /" / ,/ / . M' . .."~>,. " . '. /:' ~;~~/ Michael B. Wheeler, RC.E. #45358 MBW:GAG:gag cc: (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas Job Number 9611056 . May 21, 1996 8 Page 2 TABLE A: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF DRILLED CONCRETE CORES Gozzo Sawtelle Seawall, 554 Neptune A venue,Encinitas California,Permit #4615TE CORE NO: 2 3 Date Tested 15-May-96 15-May-96 15-May-96 Tested Height, inches 7.22 7.66 6.85 Diameter, inches 3.75 3.75 3.75 Area, sq.in. 11.04 11.04 11.04 LID Ratio 1.93 2.04 1.83 Correction Factor 0.9989 1. 0000 0.9884 Total Load, Ibs 67,750 69,500 72,500 Corrected Compressive Strength, psi 6,130 6,300 6,490 Average Compressive Strength, psi 6,307 Note I) The design compressive strength of the concrerte was 4000 psi at tewnty eight days of age. 2) The Uniform Building Code, Section 19.22.10, requires the average of three cores to be equal or exceed 0.85 fc (3400 psi) with no single core below 0.75 fc (3000 psi). ~ .'" ~ so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA SOIL t TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE SfREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE SfREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Gollo/Sawte 11 e Sea Wall PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue DATE: Apr. 30, 1996 iKJ CONCRETE (ASTM C391 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E4471 0 ARCHITECT ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION iN STRUCTURE Top level - northerly 40 feet MATERIAL SUPPLIER Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(SI MIX DESIGNATION 4033103 Concrete Temperature: 69° TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES 87 SLUMP. INCHES 3-1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY KN TRUCK No. 387 TICKET No. 31803 LABORATORY No. 0640 0641 0642 0643 MARK DATE MADE 04-23-96 DISCARD DATE RECEIVED. 04-24-96 DATE TESTED 04-30-96 05-21-96 05-21-96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 \ AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ¡ MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 120,500 150,500 152,250 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,260 5,320 5,390 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) .".- DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawtell e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. -' w.. ... 1L .' 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544 s ~ 8 8! SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Gozzo/Sawte 11 e Sea Wall PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue DATE: Apr. 30, 1996 [ZJ CONCRETE (ASTM C391 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 0191 0 PRISMS (ASTM E4471 0 ARCHITECT ENGINEER PERMIT No. 4615TE CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Top level - northerly 40 feet MATERIAL SUPPLIER Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(SI MIX DESIGNATION 4033103 Concrete Temperature: 69° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 87 SLUMP, INCHES 3-1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY KN TRUCK No. 387 TICKET No. 31803 LABORATORY No. 0640 0641 0642 0643 MARK DATE MADE 04-23-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-24-96 DATE TESTED 04-30-96 I DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 I MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 120,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,260 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. -, ---' . ' ,.. > so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FilE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE GollojSawte 11 e Sea Wall PROJECT lOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 30, 1996 PERMIT No. 4615TE ŒJ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FilE No. lOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 106 4 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 690 TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES TRUCK No. 389 TICKET No. 31445 LABORATORY No. 0604 0605 0606 0607 MARK DATE MADE 04-22-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-23-96 DATE TESTED 04-29-96 05-20-96 05-20-96 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ~ MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 114,500 150,000 148,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,050 5,310 5,240 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 4,000 UNIT INT./cu. FT. (PLASTIC) ,,~ DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVU?'~4~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 I -, __I ..' ,.. #' so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA SOIL! TESTING, INC. " ~ 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDa, CA. 9202 ,.~~ 74R¡4~~ ;' , :, ¡, i.. '" ENGINEER CONTRACTOR MAY 0 3 1996 DATE: Afl!NGtffi=E~~~ s~\Re~ETE (ASTM C39) CITY OF ENCINJTr:JI8RTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 4615TE COl\1PRESSIVE STRENGTII TEST REPORT FilE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE GozzojSawte 11 e Sea Wa 11 PROJECT lOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT PERMIT No. Soil Engineering Construction PLAN~:i=I1':ENf), lOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Pre-Mixed Concrete Temperature: 69° ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 106 4 GL KN TRUCK No. 389 TICKET No. 31445 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES LABORATORY No. 0604 0605 0606 0607 MARK DATE MADE 04-22-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-23-96 DATE TESTED 04-29-96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 I MAXIMUM lOAD. las 114,500 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,050 j AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. im.O...,...~rn 00 rn ~ w moo ¡ n ¡ . ..., 38 U ! : :".~ ¡ .... CITY OF ENCINITAS REVUY~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ! -' , ~ so UTIIE~ C ALIFO RNIA SOIL' TESTIN G, IN C. .J. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Gozzô/Sawte 11 e Sea Wall PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Ave., Encinitas ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 26, 1996 QD CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 01 9) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 PERMIT No. ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Top level southerly 601 Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 87 3-3/4 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 710 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES TRUCK No. 394 TICKET No. 30965 LABORATORY No. 0597 0598 0599 0600 MARK DATE MADE 04-19-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-22-96 DATE TESTED 04-26-96 I 05-17-96 05-17-96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 117,000 154,250 156,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,140 5,460 5,540 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) 41 ~ DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45~, ___I I" .. . ~¡ so UTIIE& C ALIFO RNIA 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 COI\1PRESSIVE STRE1'lGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Gozzô/Sawte 11 e Sea Wa 11 PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Ave., Enci nitas ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 26, 1996 Qg CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 PERMIT No. ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Top level southerly 60' Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 87 3-3/4 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 710 TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES TRUCK No. 394 TICKET No. 30965 LABORATORY No. 0597 0598 0599 0600 MARK DATE MADE 04-19-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-22-96 DATE TESTED 04-26-96 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 ~ MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 117,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI , 4,140 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtell e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV~~~ I Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45~, I __I ~ so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LOCATION Gallo/Sawtelle Sea Wall 554 Neptune Avenue DATE: Apr. 25, 1996 ŒJ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) 0 GROUT (ASTM Cl019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 4615TE ARCHITECT ENGINEER PERMIT No. CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Second level - northerly 40' Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S} MIX DESIGNATION 4033103 89 3-1/2 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 68° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY TRUCK No. 399 TICKET No. 30805 LABORATORY No. 0502 0503 0504 0505 MARK DATE MADE 04-18-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-19-96 DATE TESTED 04-25-96 05-16-96 05-16-96 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 ¡ MAXIMUM LOAD, Las 119,000 153,000 155,000 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,210 5,410 5,480 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) I- ~ DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Golla & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV I E7;Y ~ ~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ! ~, : , t ' ~ . . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280~321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDa, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Gollo/Sawte 11 e Sea Wa 11 PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue DATE: Apr. 25, 1996 ŒJ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 01 9) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 4615TE ARCHITECT ENGINEER PERMIT No. CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Second level - northerly 401 I Pre-Mixed MATERIAL SUPPLIER ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION 4033103 Concrete Temperature: 680 TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 89 SLUMP, INCHES 3-1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY KN TRUCK No. 399 TICKET No. 30805 LABORATORY No. 0502 0503 0504 0505 MARK DATE MADE 04-18-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-19-96 DATE TESTED 04-25-96 I DIAMETER, INCHES I 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 119,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,210 J AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT.lCU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul GOllO & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIE~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, .. ~ SOUfHEJe CALIFORNIA SOIL 'TESTING, me. 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 STRE1~GTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Gozzo/Sawte 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 23, 1996 ~ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) 0 GROUT (ASTMC1019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER 1st lift from southern Pre-Mixed MBAE 90/Type A 4033103 140 1-3/4 KE KN point to 40' north ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY TRUCK No. 366 TICKET No. 30157 LABORATORY No. 0442 0443 0444 0445 MARK DATE MADE 04-15-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-16-96 DATE TESTED 04-22-96 05-13-96 05-13-96 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 I I MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 117,750 161,000 157,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,170 5,700 5,550 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT 'NT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) tI' "" DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas l I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, . so UTHE~ CALIFORNIA SOIL t 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 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTIi TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Gozzo/Sawte 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT ENGINEER CONTRACTOR DATE: Apr. 23, 1996 ~ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 0191 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 1st lift from southern Pre-Mixed MBAE gO/Type A 4033103 140 1-3/4 KE KN point to 40' north TRUCK No. 366 TICKET No. 30157 LABORATORY No. MARK DATE MADE DATE RECEIVED DATE TESTED DIAMETER. INCHES AREA. SQUARE INCHES MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI AGE TESTED, DAYS REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) 0442 0443 0444 0445 04-15-96 04-16-96 04-22-96 6.00 28.27 117,750 4,170 7 3,000 DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV~~ ~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, --' Y' þ ~ sa UTIIE!- C ALIFa RNIA SOIL! TESTIN G, INC. . 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600621, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321 141 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTII TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at GOllO & Sawtell e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 12, 1996 ŒJ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) 0 GROUT(ASTMC1019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Footing in front of 554 Neptune - first 50' going south Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 80 3-1/2 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 740 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES TRUCK No. 382 TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0118 0119 0120 0121 MARK DATE MADE 04-03-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-06-96 DATE TESTED 04-10-96 05-01-96 05-10-96 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ¡ MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 113.000 149,000 152,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,000 5,270 5,390 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 UNIT WT.lCU. FT. (PLASTIC) V ~ DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul. GOllO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REV~~~ ~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, .-- ~ so UTHEltt C ALIFO RNIA 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Gozzo & Sante 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 12, 1996 00 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Footing in front of 554 Neptune - first 50i going south Pre-Mixed ADMIXTUREIS) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 80 3-1/2 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 740 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES TRUCK No. 382 TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0118 0119 0120 0121 MARK DATE MADE 04-03-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-06-96 DATE TESTED 04-10- 96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 I MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 113,000 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul. Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVïU~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 _I . - . ~ so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA 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 STRENGTII TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE GozzojSawte 11 e Sea ~~a 11 PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 19,1996 0 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) 0 GROUT (ASTM Cl 01 9) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) ŒJ Cubes ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER In holes for tie back anchors Pacific Coast Corp. Type II Low Alkan Intraplast - N ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY GL KN TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0319 0320 0321 MARK DATE MADE 04-11-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-12-96 DATE TESTED 04-18-96 I 05-09-96 05-09-96 DIAMETER, INCHES I AREA, SQUARE INCHES 4.0 I MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 14,500 17,000 18,750 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,630 4,250 4,690 J AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) ¡ ~ DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul GOZlO & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIW~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, . .' ~ . 8 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE GozzojSawte 11 e Sea Hall PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 19, 1996 0 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 01 9) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) ŒJ Cubes ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. I LOCATiON IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION In holes for tie back anchors Pacific Coast Corp. Type II Low Alkan Intraplast - N TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY GL KN TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0319 0320 0321 MARK DATE MADE 04-11-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-12-96 DATE TESTED 04-18-96 DIAMETER, INCHES I AREA,SQUAREINCHES 4.0 I MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 14,500 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 3,630 j AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIW~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -' , ---' ~ so UTHE~ C ALIFO RNIA 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611 056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at GozzojSawte 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 16,1996 [Z] CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM Cl 01 9) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Anchors ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION Sika Intraplast-N TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY RB KN TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0285 0286 0287 MARK DATE MADE 04-10-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-11-96 DATE TESTED 04-15-96 I 05-08-96 05-08-96 DIAMETER. INCHES AREA. SQUARE INCHES 4.00 ~ MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 9,750 12,000 14,250 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 2,440 3,000 3,560 AGE TESTED, DAYS 5 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT.tCU. FT. (PLASTIC) \ø '" DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIE~~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -' - ~ SOUTHE& 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at GozzojSawte 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 16,1996 ŒJ CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Anchors ADMIXTURE(S} MIX DESIGNATION Sika Intrap1ast-N TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY RB KN TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0285 0286 0287 MARK DATE MADE 04-10-96 DATE RECEIVED. 04-11-96 DATE TESTED 04-15-96 DIAMETER, INCHES AREA,SQUAREINCHES 4.00 I MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 9,750 COMPRESSIVE SïRENGTH, PSI 2,440 AGE TESTED, DAYS 5 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT ./CU. FT. (PLASTI C) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry 5awte 11 e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVI~~4~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -, 1< ~ 8 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL ' ~L TESTING, INC. ',I 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544 COl\1PRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea \~a 11 at Gozzo/Sawte 11 e PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 16, 1996 []J CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. I LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Footing for northern 80 feet of this project Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION 4033103 71 3-1/2 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 670 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY TRUCK No. 386 TICKET No. 28518 LABORATORY No. 0169 0170 0171 0172 MARK DATE MADE 04-09-96 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04-10-96 DATE TESTED 04-16-96 05-07-96 05-07-96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 ¡ MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 115,250 145,250 152,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,080 5,140 5,380 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) II "'"' DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtell e (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEUY~~ I Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 I -, __I a 8 8 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 STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9611056 PROJECT TITLE Sea Hall at Gozzo/Sawtelle PROJECT LOCATION 554 Neptune Avenue ARCHITECT DATE: Apr. 16,1996 []j CONCRETE (ASTM C39) 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-22) 0 GROUT (ASTM C1 019) 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) 0 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR PERMIT No. 4615TE Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER Footing for northern 80 feet of this project Pre-Mixed ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY 4033103 71 3-1/2 GL KN Concrete Temperature: 670 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES TRUCK No. 386 TICKET No. 28518 LABORATORY No. 0169 0170 0171 0172 MARK DATE MADE 04-09-96 DATE RECEIVED 04-10- 96 DATE TESTED 04-16-96 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 115,250 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,080 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (1) Paul Gozzo & Jerry Sawtelle (1) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVlžØ~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 -' I _I ~ 8 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: SCS&TFILENO: I.R.NO: PROJECT LOCATION: ARCIllTECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Sea Wall at Guzzo/Sawtelle Residences 9611056 4615TE 4 (Pg 1 of 1) 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas PERMIT NO: PLAN FILE NO: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0700 Time Departed: 0930 4/22/96 G. Ledbetter 625 4/23/96 G. Ledbetter 625 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of concrete reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the top level going from south to north from approximately 50 feet mark to approximately the 90' mark. Observed the placement of approximately 28 cubic yards concrete. One set of three test cylinders was taken. Slump = 4 w. All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0730 Time Departed: 1000 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of concrete reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the top level of the wall, northerly 40 feet. Observed the placement of concrete. One set of three test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3!-4 w. All of the work inspected and observed was, to the best of my knowledge, as per the plans and specifications. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Paul Guzzo and Jerry Sawtelle (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: w~~~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ~ 8 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD JNSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: SCS&TFILENO: I.R.NO: PROJECT LOCATION: ARClßTECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Sea Wall at Guzzo/Sawtelle Residences 9611056 4615TE 3 (Pg 1 of 1) 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas PERMIT NO: PLAN FILE NO: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction/Zimmerman Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 411 5/96 K. Embrey 534 4115,16,18/96 J. High 752 411 8/96 G. Ledbetter 625 4119/96 G. Ledbetter 625 REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforcing Steel: epoxy coated Concrete: Mix Design #4033103, 3000 psi Provided inspection for placement of first lift of cast-in-place wall for the seawall reinforcement. The epoxy bars were threaded into nut and horizontal bars with the grade beam attached. Observed the placement of concrete which was placed by conveyor and mechanically consolidated. One set of concrete cylinders was cast for compression testing. Unless otherwise noted, the above mentioned work, to the best of my knowledge, complies with the approved plans and specifications. TIE BACKS Observed stress tests for 26 tie backs for the construction of the sea wall. The tie backs were stressed to at least at the minimum of 133% of the design loads as required by the structural plans. No creep or elongation occurred during the test. The stress tests were performed with calibrated equipment. Calibration charts were presented by the contractor at the project site. All of the stress tests were ï"n compliance with the requirements of the structural plans. All tie backs are considered suitable. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0400 Time Departed: 0700 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the sea wall second level, northerly 40'. Observed the placement of concrete. One set of four test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3 ~ w. All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0430 Time Departed: 0730 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the top level of southerly 60' and provided continuous observation of placement of concrete. One set of four test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3-3/4w. All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Paul Guzzo and Jerry Sawtelle (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: ~~~#~ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 . SOIL ¡nGln¡¡=tlnG COnSt=lucr.lonlllC. -I ;J ç I " 8 April 16, 1996 Mr. Todd Baumbach - Engineering Inspection City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California Ph. (619) 633-2796 Fax (619) 633-2818 Criteria for Canceling Concrete Pours & Misc. Construction Issues Gozzo-Sawtelle Seawall 528-554 Neptune A venue Encinitas. California Dear Todd: In response to your request, we have prepared this letter addressing issues you raised as a result of our work at the subject site April 15, 1996. We recommend that the following be implemented in the field during the remaining portion of the construction of the seawall. 1. The contractor should consider stopping a concrete pour if no concrete forms have been placed within 45 minutes of the time for which concrete is scheduled to arrive on site. The contractor will discuss the situation with you and a decision to cancel the pour will be made at that time. 2. Procedures for cleaning out the concrete delivery trucks will be changed immediately. We recommend that the delivery trucks clean out into a wood box lined with filter fabric. The box will be constructed on a pallet so that the forklift (on site) can remove it from the site on a daily basis. The approximate volume of this box is 37 cubic feet. VI e have made the necessary changes in our construction procedures so that in the future, pours will go smoother and according to plan. Members of the construction crew have all been briefed on these new procedures necessary to make the job go smoothly. If you should have any questions, please call the undersigned at (619) 621-6216. S~.ce~ ~ ]; /~(j, ~ ~ßohn Niven ..contractor's License Number: 268082 c: Mr. Greg Shields, Department of Engineering 3220 South Standard Avenue. Santa Ana, cA 92705 . (714) 751-9561 . FAX (714) 751-9565 General Engineering Contractor License A-268082 ~ . 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &. ~ESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: I.RNO: PROJECT LOCATION: ARClUTECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Sea Wall at Gozzo/Sawtelle Residences 2 (Pg 1 of 1) 9611056 4615TE SCS&TFILENO: 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas PLAN FILE NO: PERMIT NO: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0600 Time Departed: 0700 4/8/96 G. Ledbetter 625 4/9/96 G. Ledbetter 625 4111/96 G. Ledbetter 625 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of reinforcement and continuous observation of concrete placement. No one was on site and there was no inspection. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Departed: 1130 Time Arrived: 0800 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of concrete reinforcement and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement at the northern 80 feet of this project for the footing and the first level of the wall. Observed the placement of approximately 63 cubic yards concrete. One set of four test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3 Y:z w. All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1100 Time Departed: 1230 Arrived on site as requested to perform testing of grout for the tie back anchors for the sea wall. One set of three 2w test cubes was taken. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: w-L/~d/ Michael B. Wheeler, RC.E. #45358 ~. . 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: SCS&TFILENO: I.R-NO: 1 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: ARClßTECT: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Sea Wall at Gollo/Sawtelle Residences 9611056 4615TE PLAN FILE NO: 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas PERMIT NO: ENGINEER: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1400 Time Departed: 1700 4/3/96 G. Ledbetter 625 Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection and continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcement for the northerly 50' of the footings for the wall. Observed the placement of approximately 60 cubic yards of concrete for the footing. One set of three test cylinders was taken. Slump = 3 % N. All of the work inspected this date was, to the best of my knowledge, as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Paul GOllO and Jerry Sawtelle (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: U;/ .-L:L' 4. d/ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 8 8 TRANSMfITAL SHEET Soil Eneineerine Constmctionlt Inc. 1O201C Camino Santa Fe, San Diego, California 92121 (619) 621-3216, Fax (619) 621-6218 To: Todd Baumbach City of Encinitas Date: April 1, 1996 Attention: Subject: Gozzo/Sawtelle Seawall- Steel Certification & Rebar Coupler Specifications We are sending you via:Hand Delivery This is for Your Review and Approval No. of copes suboüUed: 1 Soil Engineering Constmction By John Niven \ .fun :':i' ~ , , ,~ ',";""", " . ~;~~[ OOCEO~ ~[&!~~~f~ ~fi "', Telephone: (303) 2~6-3914 . Fax: (303) 268-4286 Plant: 545 West 700 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (601) 536-0001 . 'Fax: (601) 536-0006 GRADE REFERENCE 1,!'5tl,l F/)O ' RELEASE NUMBER PAGE ElF 1 JOB NA~ . CC GO Z GCZ BY ENGINEERING RLD "t"K':':' 0' ~BC 2 3 4 ~ '.... ..,.. 5 6 7 8 9 10 .,' if 11 12 13 14 ** 17 18 19 24 6 20,.00 20 12 6 10-00 21 2~ 6 .S"OS 22 12 6 4-00 23 72. 0 0 : nt 100 240 "7"! I ~. 0 0 0 0 12U 24 ø HE 26 23 27 125 EPS: 600 2/)08 HAS ND F {EPS: L ** 1'170 574 HAS D PEPS: L ** 808 l83 ** 0 0 0 29 30 ,n ,0 0 0 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SO 608. 0 0 0 6551. 460 460 4 4 4-03 A2 3-074Al T 1 r t 130£. 0-04" 0-07 1-02 0-'07 ]--0;' 'tOl Q-04, O-OJ 0-10 0-07 0-10 0"'04~ 0'-04. 10(; 106 24 12 24 12 4 0-00 ., to-OO 4 ~-OO 4 3-00 321 00 80 24 2912. 0 0 0 0 41 42 43 44 92. I' 45 46 47 / LO ,EST I£NCìm ON THI RElEASE r POrE HALL 25-0 --- ---- --- ----- --- ---..-- --..--, ---- ---- 48 49 \16.1.44 50 51 SHOP BENDER " ~~ - ':1" . . Rebar Coating & Fabric., Inc, Plånt: 8100 E. 96th Ave., Commerce City, CO 80022 Telephone: (303) 288-3914 . Fax: (303) 288-4286 Plant: 545 West 700 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 538-0001 . Fax: (801) 538-0008 8~T GcADE REFERENCE 6-' AI~-9b .1~Hll l:-:ì)O JOB NUMBER. 96C- RELEASE NUMBEFt- ElF PAGE 2 JOB NAME GOZZO / SAWTELLE cc GCZ CUSTOMER SOIL ENGINEERING BY RI.D """"t' ,'-"'""",',-(, ", itvps "WIltrGa1:; , I,"' Ii, '," '" DEC::CRIPTION l1RAfJr. Or-:M1S , ." :S9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -,-- ---------- 10 11 12 13 14 3 PC'S -- 1 X 5" 5" PLATES 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 *** TrMS 6. 292. fJ. 65.1. 4. 12 3. L. .S. 1. - --- -- 17, 113: o. ~ 17 18 19 BENft NG WE GIlT HEAVY BEND! G IECES WEI HT c ~ '( c 25 26 27 920. () O. C) 2 07. I). O. (). 28 29 30 31 76. . . 9:>.:~. no 2 0/. o. O. O. O. o. O. (). O. ----. -- (). O. ---- - ------- --- --- 11330 l.BS lO m::s r I ':NG m ON filL REI (AS!: I. POrE TI ALL' 25-0 32 33 34 -- ----- ----- ------ --- ------------ ----- ----- vb 1. 44 OF SPE IAllY PRE ARED ENDS 35 36 37 38 39 Ai>~, lEG .J -l ---.--- - ---.-. ----- -,---- ----- ----- L MTON HREAD (OLD) OTH[R PRE ç .10 1 SA CU 0 SIt GlE B VEL 0 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 SHOP BENDER. ~ 8 8 . '/';,",,- Rebar Coating & Fabrication, r nc. ~- .A Subsidiary of Commercial Resins Co. ,~,. Plant: 8100 E. 98Ih /Nfl.. Commtra! CIty, CaIcndo 80022 Mailing: P.O. Box 7. Dupont. CaIorado 80024-0007 Telephone: (303) 288-301. . Fax: (303) ~ This letter ìs to certify that Jhe Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Bar accompanying this letter has been processed in accordance with AASHTO M284 and ASTM D3963-86 regarding: surface preparation, preheat temperatures, powder application, and handling procedures. Date: <3 -8 -q to Steel Heat Numbers: t S"7 ~$"lo ~ Powder Batch Numbers: Powder Manufacturer: Average Coating Thickness: Number of Reading: Per Mils Preheat Temperature: 1 ß - 2.0 Y. ~é) d '4 S- 8 -- 2."3 .z,~ 2..5 ~ :£ g !1 ~ 7 Per Sample Bar Degrees F Surface ProfIle: Per Mils Holiday Inspection (in Line) Bend Test per ASTM D3963-82/8.3.1 Job Description: Average per Holiday ,cQK 9~1/ nucor steel SOLD TO: REBAR COATING' FAB..INC.SUBS. OF CO"MERCIAl RESINS CO. P.O. BOX 7 DUPONT~ CO BO024-0007 MILL TEST REPORT A Division of Nucor Corporation PLYMOUTH, UTAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Itel Descriotion Grade ~ NO.4 REBAR A615-94,GR.60,S Heatl NolWt Yield Tensile ElnQ Bend P.S.I. P.S.I. X B" 157556 96.0 66.950 104.000 13.0 PASS SHIP TO: REBAR COATING' FAB. 8100 E. 96TH AVE. WIll CAll CO"MERCE CITY. CO 80022 C "n P S Si CUSTOMER POI: RCF-2467 BIll OF lADING: 52767 DATE: 3/06/96 .40 1.07 .002 .047 .18 8 : ,~\,r: . ,.,' '. "~:. 8 '. REINFORCING STEEL CONFORMS TO ASTM A-615. THE IDENTIFIED STEEL IS IN FACT COMPOSED OF THE HEATS INDICATED AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLES TESTED. THE TEST RESULTS INDICATED ARE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS OBTAINED ON SAMPLES OF STEEL HEATS TAKEN AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AST" A-615 SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAMPLING, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, PHYSICAL TESTING AND MEASURING. THE AVERAGE SPACING AND HEIGHT OF_DEFORMAT~ON HAVE BEEN MEASURED AND FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-615. . ALL MELTING AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES PERFORMED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PLANT METALLURGI UALITY AS NCE MANAGER NSU-39 R 9/95 .h /' 8 8 3NI--- . . - -. 3M ELECTRICAL SPECIALTIES DIVISION 1700 North Minnestota Street PO Box 95 New UIm, MN 56073..()095 507-354-8271 . , " ~ This is to certify that the lot(s) of SCOTCHKOTE Brand 413 Fusion Bonded Epoxy COating manufactured by 3M at New UIm. Minnesota, identified below complies with the following test requirements and is (are) chemically the same material that was tested and certified by the Valley Forge Laboratories of Devon, P.A. SCOTCHKOTE Brand 413 also meets ASTM A 775/A 775M- 94<1. ASTM D 3963-86, ASTM A 884-91b, AASHTO M284-91 and AASHTO M254-77. Lot Number SL02 Date of Manufacture Nov-o2-1995 Batch Size 25,000 Ibs. Minn_. MiDllIg ~ Mannf~aoy Signed ~T-Jt Title Date Shipped From Inspector 02-Nov-95 New UIm., MN 56073 8 8 - Rebar Coating & Fabrication, Inc. A Subsidiary of Commercial Resins Co. Plant: 8100 E. 98/h Ave.. Comm~ City, Colorado 80022 Mailing: P.O. Box 7, Dupont, Colorado 800~ Telephone: (303) 288-3914 . Fax: (303) 288-4288 ~.- This letter is to certify that _the Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Bar accompanying this letter has been processed in accordance with AASHTO M284 and ASTM D3963-86 regarding: surface preparation, preheat temperatures, powder application, and handling procedures. Date: 3~7-t.j<o Steel Heat Numbers: 0/ ,. 7/ / 8/ " I feoSGf"7 32.}oo 2(PDO-\.~ (PI ' I & I 07¿' Powder Batch Numbers: S- Lo 2... Powder Manufacturer: 3M Average Coating Per Mils Thickness: 8-\L Number of Reading: Per Sample Bar 2-D Preheat Temperature: <-f3ùc Degrees F Surface Prof1le: ..5>- 7 g Per Mils Z.3 z...4 2.1./ Holiday Inspection :S 7 8 Average per Holiday (in Line) ~ '-l ~ Bend Test per D~ ASTM D3963-82/8.3.1 Job Description: .+ l.&f / " a/J4 / Plant Manager ", :; .. nucor steel MIlL TEST REI 'ORT NO. SOLI) TOr REBn~ COAlING & FnB.,INC,SUBS. OF C"MMfRCInl RESINS CO. P.O. BOX 7 DUPO11, co 80024-0007 Co Î IP '0: REBAR conll~G & FnB. Blon E. ~61" nVE, (R/R SPOI AI ROLln, CO) COMMERCE CIIY, CO 80022 . Hefti De!lcrlptlon '. Grade Reatll NomWt Bend Yield lensile Elng P.S,I. P.S.!. t B' C Mn P S si I - . . 160~P7 64,484 101,290 15.0 .21 91.4 PASS 1. It .39 .010 .050 -_... -_.. A Division of No.. Cotpomlon PLYMOUIH. UTAH I.Nr1:D 8'TATEB OF AIoØ1ICA INVOICE NUMBER: CtlSJOMER POIII BIn OF lnDING: SHIP DnlEl REINFORCING STEEL CONFORMS TO ASTM A-615. THE IOENIIFIED ~IEr' IS IN FnCT COMPOSED OF IHE HEnIS INDICAIED AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLES TESIED. THE TEST RESUltS INDICATED nRE ACI"Al rESI RESULTS OBIAINED ON SnMPlts OF SIEE!. HEnlS InHN AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WIn ASIM A-61j, SPECIFICAIIONS FOR SAMPLING, CRr'lICAL ANALYSIS, PHYS.ICAL IESJING nND MEnSUR. ING. THE AVERnGE SPACUlG AWit HE~~or ouoRi"lnoNs Hnn BEEN MEASURED nND FOt'/." , 10 liE If,) nC(ORanNfF WITH TAr REQ'JIRfHUHS OF nSIM n--~t5. PNIfMGER nIL MELTING AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES PERFORMED IN IHE UNITED SIAIES OF AMERICA. 94223 RCF -2467 52206 2128/96 8 8 PORT Ivision of Nucor Corporation PLYMOUTH, UTAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stee I SOLD TO: REBAR COATING' FAB..INC.SUBS. OF COMMERCIAL RESINS CO. P.O. BOX 7 DUPONT. CO 80024-0007 SHIP TO: REBAR COATING & FAB. 8100 E. 96TH AVE. ¡¡¡ILL CALL COMMERCE CITY~ CO 80022 CUSTOMER POI: RCF-2210 BILL OF LADING: 52352 DATE: 2/29/96 Itel Descriotion Grade ~ NO. ó REBAR A615-94,GR.60,S Heat. No.Wt Yield Tensile Elng Bend P.S.I. P.S.I. X 8" 161076 97.1 ó5.000 104,318 14.0 PASS C I'In P S Si .38 1.10 .008 .032 .24 8 8 REINFORCING STEEL CONFORMS TO ASTM A-615. THE IDENTIFIED STEEL IS IN FACT COMPOSED OF THE HEATS INDICATED AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLES TESTED. THE TEST RESULTS INDICATED ARE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS OBTAINED ON SAMPLES OF STEEL HEATS TAKEN AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A-ó15 SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAMPLING, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, PHYSICAL TESTING AND MEASURING. THE AVERASE SPAr I NG AND HE I GH T OF DEFORi'lA T ILl OtiS HAVE BEEN KEASURED AND FOilND TO BE I N ACCORDA~~CE ,.:1 ~~ \ :H:. DRE:~: ~:~:NT ~:I~: ::u~~ ,SAS-:S1 5. ~ ~ L~ 1I~~I..'iJ n.. IIn"U,t1L Uf\ 01C oil Lt ~ PERFORMED iN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PLANT METALLURGI UALITY AS NCE MANAGER NSU.39 R 9/95 --- ~=-==-=-~.- C' BOIUlmt v S\'I~ln.. 8 CERTIFIED TEST REPORT PLANT AND OFFICE SITE: INTERSTATE HWY. 10 WEST. VINTON, EL PASO COUNTY. TEXAS MAILING ADDRESS: P.D- B:JX 12543 EL PASO, TEXAS 79912 PHONE: AREA CODE 915 886-2000 sl 0 REBAR COATING 8t FABRICATION ~ P. O. BOX 7 I T 0 L DUPONT, CO 80024 '~ HEAT NO: 32100 ITEM NO - 002 GRADE: 60 (ASTM M1S) ITEM: . 7 REBAR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS - ! CR p S Cu C Mn I I ! - ..410 .9S() .026 .039 r B TI SN CA AL VI LD (PSI) TENSILE (PSI) % ELONGATION 8" STA NGTH STRENGTH 7,200. 104,900 11.00t( (" DATE GUST. NO. INV.NC 2/12/96 305 ?01~ sl H REBAR COATING &- FABRICATION ~ 81:00 EAST 96TH AVENUE T 0 L COHHERCE "CITY , CO Me NI SI v Cb .200 J ... ELONGATION 2' PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS % REDUCTION IN AREA BEND THEORE'IICAL WEIGHT /1'00'1" N; WEIGl- OK 2.0<44 1.~ HARDENABILITY RESULTS - Rc Hardness at "J" distance sixteenths of an inch from the quenched end. r' 12114151617161'01'21'1'1~12126c [ "",m~ I ~"'~ l NORMALIZED AT END QUENCHED FROM AVERAGE ASTM GRAJ SIZE of 'F GRINDING MEDIA [ '" 00 I ASH AVH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE CORRECT AS CONTJJNED IN THE RECORDS OF THE COMPANV 1 [ ] SURFACE HARDNESS I ~ I RB BHN CUSTOMER ORDER .ReF 2499 :£.~- ,,' ~ß~ :~. PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES OF A!ERICA .-. .. --.-.- --.,---.----...--.-.-......._.._n_. " -... , .... ....oo ...............-...---.----..--..". --'---"'---'---'.'-."-'-""'_"'0.'.'" ---".... .. ,-,...' nucor stee I SOLD TO: REBAR COATING & FAB.,INC,SUBS. OF CO""ERCIAL RESINS CO. P.O. BOX 7 DUPONT. CO 80024-0007 MILL TEST REpORT A Division of Nucor Corporation. PLYMOUTH, UTAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHIP TO: REBAR COATING & FAB. 8100 E. 96TH AVE. MIll CAll COM~ERCE CI¡Y. CO 80022 CUSTOMER POI: RCF-2437 BILL OF LADING: 52353 DATE: 3/01/96 Jtell Descriotion Grade NO.8 REBAR A615-94,GR.60,S Keatt NomWt Yield ~ensi;e Elng Bend P.S.J. P.S.J. I 8" 260053 95.3 62.785 101.392 18.0 PASS c Mn p s Si .41 1.25 .006 .044 .22 8 8 REINFORCING STEEL CONFORMS TO AST" A-615. THE IDENTIFIED STEEL IS IN FACT COMPOSED OF THE HEATS INDICATED AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLES TESTED. THE TEST RESULTS INDICATED ARE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS OBTAINED ON SAMPLES OF STEEL HEATS TAKEN AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A-615 SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAMPLING. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, PHYSICAL TESTING AND MEASURING. THE AVERAGE SPACING AND HEIGHT OF DEFORMATI~N HAVE BEEN MEASURED AND FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-615. . ALL "ELTING AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES . " PERFORMED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PLANT METALLURGI UALITY AS NeE MANAGER NSU-39 R 9/95 MAR-29-1996 14:04 , .~ ~ I. ~ I. 8 8 , /;/J¡;. . .' @ !'oT' ~ . ~. J.ÆNTO N$ TÅPER TIIRE1ili ED SPLICING SYSTEMS '1;' ~¿:" , :,'-~Ir:'~:;~::':::.u.c,. .',... ~"_~';_"":~0.2~:._.. ".u_,. ~_.. ~. LENTON~ , .', . " ,. :,~~ " :' ~¥~ REBAR COAT & FAB INC LENTON8 i~ th~ mo~t widely used mecnanical splicing system in the world today. And why not? LENTON is uniQue btcause it uns a ~aptr thread fQr a~o sura nee of str~n9th. consistency and reliability while simplifying insta/l~tiOn, Designed for use on standard grades of rebar, LENTON drvelops the ACI full ten¡ion splic;e str~"gth requirement of ~ 12S\!I!í of ~pecified yield. No .special- high 7\ Strength, enlarged thread section, or increased rebar sile art ne(essary allowing supply of bar from multiple sources for maximum economy. . Fastest system to install speeding construction schedules. " . . ",' , " . , ,. ' '.. , . , ' P.02 8. . Fabrication shop threading etimi- nates installation equipment "problems" at the job site. . EJ¡cellen' for future extension applicatIons. . Contr~dor ~" saVt vafu.bl~ aane time while gaining flexibility on mechanical splicing schedules. . Electrostatically epoxy CGated couplers are available to miUimize œrro$ion protmion. . "Taper thread design eliminates cross threidlng problems. I ICBO recognized {#3967> MAR-29-1996 14:05 REBAR COAT & FAB INC P.03 . .I§IIJIØI 34600 S%t¡ FIoad. Soion, OhIo 44139.2695 (218) 2'*<>100. F;oc (216) 248-0723 The following ebart is a summarizB6on oflhc attached LENTO~ ReinforçÎJ11 Stccl Splice Tcsb. lit aU, 30 tests were c:oodudQt in œdal &cœœ or J D bar sizes nmging front #4 through 1# J 8. All rcinroren,g steel USQd tonforms to ASTM A-61 S. Grade 60. 8 -~----~-~- -.- UlTtM.\tl";l.ONJ IN POUNDS m.~Tti STRESS. IN "I TEST 8M ACTUAl. TEST JŒQUJR.m> AcTUAL 11~ RJ!QUtR'fn) ISY NUM8IUl SIZll RImJL TS BY' CODE RESULU CODE T-4049 ... 18~60 1',000 92.800 75,000 T-40SO ... 17.840 1',000 89.lOO 7.5.000 1.4051 t4 18,660 U,OOO Y3,300 '5,000 140S3 "S 29,250 :lJ,2SO 94,355 75,000 14054 I/S 3O.soo 23.250 ~8J87 75.000 T~S I:. 29,100 23.250 93,871 7S,OOO , T~057 116 )3,900 33,000 88,409 75,000 1-40$8 *6 44,%00 33.000 100.455 75,000 T -4OS9 116 42,400 3M(() 96,364 ".000 T .4101 17 62.soo 45.000 104,167 75,000 T.410l n 63.150 45.000 lOS,411 75,000 14103 fI7 62,250 .5.000 103,7$0 75,rJQO T4104 118 81.000 59)50 J02,s32 75,000 1.4105 1PS 81,SOO S92~ I03J6S 75.000 1-4106 18 80,500 59,250 101,1199 75JXXJ 14116 M9 109,SOO 75.000 109.500 75,000 ¡.AI 17 19 112,000 75.000 111.000 75,000 r"118 '9 1H J)OQ 7S.ooo 111,000 75,0QIJ T4153 '10 135,250 95,250 1Q6,496 75,000 14154 '10 JJIJOO SI',2SO 103.543 15.000 T"'ISS -.0 t3..'~ 9S.2S0 103.740 75.000 T-41S6 In 150,750 1 '7.000 96,635 75.000 T4157 '11 155.500 ) 1,000 9<J ,67'J 1S,OW T-4¡S8 III 152.750 117,000 97'17 75.000 T~S3S U4 _220.~O -. ~ -1-- .-l6.s.7~~_. --- 98,141 - .. .. 75,000 .. -T-'539- øj'- 21U60 168,750 94,160 75.000 T -6540 114 2i3,83V J611,750 99,480 7Sf)OO T~'4~ OJ! ~8'.soo 300,000 97,125 75.000 r~~ fl8 38S,iOO 300,000 96,450 75.000 1-6541 illS 38"3.100 3OO.DOc ?5775 7S.000 Baed on the .b~ tests. aIOÞg with addition¡] em-going testit1& the LENTON splices will meet or ~œed the ACI 318-89 Scaion 12.14.3.4 BuildiDg Code Rr:quinmeoI or a minimum of 125 pertent of specified yield, when assembled in aceotdæJc:e \vith the manuf'acturer's pr00edure8 . Uttimate stress was caleulatcd based on the nominal aoss seçÜonal ~ listed in ASTM A-6IS. CONCItETE CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ~'qI'dOl Mey 10, 199.5 CtjDo¡ ERICO" CADWELO- EXOlON. CADDv- lENTO~ are registered trademarks of ERIGO~ Inc. MRR-29-1996 14:05 REBRR caRT & FRB INC P.04 -' 8 § ~ m~'ir1fiI ~~~ ~~jj NIlE ( 21 (, 1l4II-O I 00 , Ai . ( D, L ~ ~ fIì'ãIãy .. .. YlW LlINIØœIINIrIi!m LmDJI STHiOARO '"IIZ" CUtIPLERS DATE. OSAlJGC3S ~S1 rMT 1fO. 'þ,' HEX .a" RO. '. 'CO VT. Iii. 110. FOR. nn .. £U2AZ ,~'" ~_..-- 'S18 LIZ .1'" FIG. It CD.. ---- . '0'0_" .¡ £lI5A2 718 2 III{, '71'1{, .2Þ ~(G.. JOB. Un .. n.zw.2 . J/1~ 2 WI' V" .538 FIr;. A RS11. n n -1 f.LZZA2 13116 ----- a SI'32 2113Z .~ Fnj.A l'Ao1 r- ... LÞGTM I .. t:L2$Az I &lI~ '311 311132 1"32 .91- nG. A ., El.2IIAZ 1 ,n I 1IZ 3 1'1:2 "1'3Z L~ FIG." ~ -"".- .. -10 El32A2 1 1111~ I 3/4 3 ZSI3Z 21m 1.&.4e ru;.. .U t~ 1 '1'/8 17/1 331/3Z 1'13Z 2.1" fiG." .1+ EU3TAZ lI/+ 5 1/+ ,. 3.3i9 FIG." -18 ns7T AZ 3' . ¡¡, I" 1.~ Fl.." 1 '-Ðn'1nf " PO$lnQM CDUPtDS ." ELZOI" ---- ,' 131" .. 29I3Z 2 21/32 3.1~ FIG. 8 fllõIl~ 1& -7 El2Zn ..---- 1 131" S 113Z 2 Z3I3Z 3.. FIG. 8 I- ".. . , .ø EL25f"J ------ l' 1311& Ii 17132 2 1!;ßl 3.f.3e fiG. B ., R29P' ...---- Z III &~22313Z 7.17- rIG. B I -10 (UV, ------ Z 112 5 311!Z 2 'l.7n2. 6.659 FIG. I .,,- -11 Ð..J&P'f 2 1/2 & III3Z l 3113Z 8.0" FIG_' L -14 El't3TP9 3'0 "S/8 $3/8 tI.36e nG. C -18 ElSTTP9 ! 31+ 11 SlI' 5 13/1' 2O.n. FIG. C LEtlTUIi TlWtSITIOI'I . ~ COU1\.ER e5i~ Ellfrl2A2 7/8 23/8 15/16 .348 FIG. A . SHOWN 1M INSTALLED POSITION ~e5 ~l~ 1 I/t& ------ 23113Z 311:2 .GQ. F1~. Ii .7/." B.222OA2 '3It, 3 7rl' 1 1/'" .~ '11:. A ~l~' 861.7 iL2mA2 I Sll' I 318 3 11/16 1 1/16 1.08. nG. ^ I In: 1.4ge '8. . .'1'" E1..2R5A2 1 In 3l'13Z '11Jl FIG. ~ .'O/te ~A2 1 lilt£. I 3/4 4 Iru, lilt I.~ fIG. ~ -, 1 .10/., am&Aê 1 11/1. 1314 + 5I3Z I 3/32 I.~ Fl.. 4 ----~ ""r----- I I r .1\'" EL3628A2 17/8 1 718 + '3I3Z 13/32 l.$'Je' Hi." ---"--- 'A' I I .11/-10 ~ '711 :1118 +UI'3Z I 3I3Z 2.4" FIG." -----I!-J.~ 1 ' -- ----..-, - ---- -..",., l4!T32AZ -..---- n/~ .s II~ I~ FIG_- A .14/-11 El +3T3&AZ ------ llt4 S 118 I 114 n.... fiG. II 'c- BAR CAP -"'.11 El~ ..u.. 3. 67/8 I 7/lft ------ rIG." - -181-1+ ElS7H3TAZ ._--~ 3' 6318 1 I/~ ___'On FIG. A . SM~ I~ INSTAllED POSITION \.tJltOH ~ COUPW fIGURE..!; M E1.l2C3J 11/16 314 I :VI' 1116 .1" FIG. 0 eEi fLl6QJ 111 J. I JII VI' .c:o. FT~. D ¥- ." EL2OC3J I 311. 1 1'4 . 3'4 Iln" ...~ m., 0 .., E12X3J 131'6 I 1/+ 2. 11/1' ..... FIG. D e8 WSC3J I 1/2 I 91" 2 17/32 I" '.10. fiG. ) ., nac3J 1 V2 I 9J'J6 2 It,.... I51' U. 1.068 F1G. 0 O"" elO El3lt3J 1 11116> Z- l11Ø ISIU. 1.0 FIG. 0 --Ì- e11 n.3KJ. '1'" z- l 31/32 1 1/8 t.. J'lG. 0 el+ n. 431t3J ------ '2318 3314 1 13/æ ------ FIG. D .f 1Ii\JIŒ. D .'8 Ð..S7Tt1J .-..n 3 III + In I 31+ ------ FIG. D DV6. e REV. 389 B DWH. 9rl ac I APP. BY; ~ E,.: 01110 ,¡ MAR-29-1996 14:06 , REBAR CQAT ß FRS INC 8 ~"., C",'" :.--.-- ' < Product Data Scotchkote@ 213 Spray Grade <-- Scotchkote@ 214 Spray Grade Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating Dated: Febr\,ary. 1991 3. General Application Steps P.Ø5 3NI 4. Cure Specifications $çotchkOte 2'\3 Sprøy Grade and 214 Spray Gl'2de coatings must be cured as fQllows to achiev$ maximum performance properties: 1. Product Description Scolcf'1kDtw Grand 213 Srny GrodfJ and 214 $prGy Grade FvsÍQr1 Bonded Epoxy Coatings are one-part. hut c"urable. tt'lermosening powder~ 'POx}' t;oaUngs designed to prov¡OG maxim\lm çorro$iol1 prvvenUon Tgr ",i19 f;stlri" end reinforeit'lg 5teel. Features -- Superior tlexibility. exceeds FHWA bel"lding requirement$ for rebatS. - Excvlltnt flcvy ilnd leveling è'aracteristics. - S~c:i&lI)' su~eC for application at low pr~hUt temperatures. - Self-priming. - Economical. - Protects over a wide temperature fange. - Long-term storag~ in all çlimatÍl:; conditions. - Can tie Shipped with minimum damage. - Is not damaged by ccf'lcrete embedment. - ResÎSlð"t to Cëllhodic disbol'ldmenl - lightweight for lower shipping cost$. W. Abr.:.ÏQn Rnj$I~r'lce ~STM 0 \OU - . III not ¡ag. cold-flow, Of become JOt( CS.17,'000 weig"" 10 stor¡lge. 5000 CyCles 9 - Eii5Y visual inspec1ÏQn. Pe~tration ASTM G 17 M. 40" IQ 240'F - eets FHWA r\!qVlrements. (-40.10 \1S°C¡ , - Meets ASTM A 775/A 715 M ~nQ ~rdn.n Kl'letOP ~ardne~s '--- -----AS-¡:~9G3.- ----------_$~_CtlXk__. ----- .!O.~~~!.vOIi. 5.,. N,CI - Meets AS5H'tO M2s.4.86 ønø -- -- --- M254.77, - Meets .t.STM A 884.88 i '.. 2. Properties proøerty CQlgt 213 Spray Gl"óe 2'4 Spray Gra~o Vaillc Green (Fed- SId. SgS. No. 14533) Browl'\ (Fed. SId. $95. No. 10080) 1.22 1 sa lIiJIb1 mil t"';ckness 0.82 ~r-.g mrn 1h~kn!L\':i$ 40.$0 feç;¡nd$ 0.03 CWI~ 30.6 9'",~ ~~ l ! 1 ! ;~ Spte:roc; Gr~v¡1y CovÐtage ;1 '.. {{ oj " . .' '~ o' J Gel Time 114QQ'~ t204.C) Minõml,ln'l ~øo$ive Con<:e/'\ltlliOI'l -; 1 '. A. Remove oil. grease and loosely adMtit1g depositS. B. Abra$iave blast clean the surface to SSPC-SP10 or NACE No.2 near- white. C. Preheat to approximately 27510 463°F (t 35.10 ë!39"C) depending on metal mass of the part and cure $peed required. D. Oqposit Scotctlkote 21301' 214 Spray Grade powder electrostatically to the thickness required. E. Allow to cure according to Section 4. F. Elec;triçllly inspect for holid¡ys after coating has çOQled 10 250°F (12' 'C) or lollVer. 5. Test Data - Coating Application ,emperature 350°F (H7'C) 37S"F (191.C) 400°F (204°C) 42S"F (2tS.C) 4SO'F (23Z"Q Minimum Cure 'Time 20 minutes 12 minutes 8 minvtu 6 minutes 5 rT'inutes Above cure recommendations re1er to melal t8n"1peratures. jut Oesçrip1l0n ASTM G 14 '18iC! a~inx;, in 10.32 tt!' [ 7.6 ~ 117.6 crn tUlei ~r'lfI5:S In (1.6 ~I'TI) '~Cliu"UD ,\$T~ A 7i5 PrOl'cny Impact Cl'>emical ~8$iSlanl;~ 90 ClaY. 1.5 \0011 3% ASTM G 6 salt solU1ioo ASTM A 775 2 vàt. 7". iliaCI 30 ~ ~ 70°F (21"C) No in,.ntional t>oliday$ unlil last 24 t\Qvr:> AS~ A 115 45 ClaY' at 70'F (21"(;) 3 mol. (25"..J CiCI . 3 molar (10.N) NaOH Sllturcle~ CatOH): ~ndabì¡ity Weld $tam bønd O.~5 i., (8.25 TIm) .....11 pipe, iii SOOil'\ (12,7 rT1rr1) \I'1~k . weld Ie"'" J!I,bar ~L'1d 3.75 '1' 195 mm) Cliarn'Iet ""a..e.-:!. \ minutt ~1'Id1~ lime RI:~"It$ 150 in,lbS , ,8 klil-m 80 il'l.lbs 0.9 k9.m 0.013 ~ 10$$ 0 ~16 O;~bondtMnt diatnttet - -- 37 mm aver¡çt »-40 mm t;nc¡¡e Dlsbondme('lt Øi3m&18r 33 mm average 27-44 rnm range Anode: IIo d1s;bondment Cattlode: Slight gisbondmen( around int~n1ional holiday NO blistering. C7ac:king Qr Sl8e&r.v NO blistering. c:rac:1Ung or peeling Sligt11 reduction in adhe5;o" N¡;¡ slign 01 blistering. plennt':l or (rackii'lQ " 9.2 pipe diamtler$ 6.Zo'diarnetør length 180' al2O'F (-T"C¡ .' ,MAR- 29-1996 14:07 6. Handling Precautions , . ~1õíe 213:Spr~y Grade and 214 Spray Grade do not contiin ~lvenl3. They may becQme unusable if stored .bQV$ 80.F (27.CJ. Safety PrecautIons WARNING! Initating 10 eyES. May irritate -sl<io On Øtolongecf. direct ~n¡act. May C4U3e S8nsit¡u!ÎOn ~ susceptible individuals. Breathing of dust and vapors may be irritatif1g to nose, tJ-¡rQ..t and re$pira:ory system. Contains epo:ty resin. methylene dianiline, titanium QlOxide and chrome Q)¡id.,. If Inges1ed. ~l11ylfnf diarliline is a SusPeçted C~nç" Hat4td blStd on animal feeding slUl:,1i8S. REBAR COOT 8. FAB INC 8Yith any finely divid~ or9'~r¡~ teri..t. du$t ç/Ql,ld$ of pcwc1wr can by ignited tJy o~ IIðfT1V$ Qr weak eleclric21 spark$. Resin dust ~1I8~ion equipment should be províQtd with adequate . explo$ion reI88$w. Possible $our(e$ of k.;¡nitÎQt1 $hovld be errmlnated- To avoid Þuildup of starie eleetticity, equipment should be grounded- U$e o'll1 in ~J,ventilaled are is with $vf!icI8f1t air I1'IOvem.rll to rnainl¡¡., aJtbOrne eoncentralion 01 material at ~cognizeCl health and safety levels. Avoid breathing dust and vapors: Iocë!I exha~t is reçQmrpended'. w"en du$1 and/Of VilpQr is presen!. ~8 use Qf re~þir2tory protection is rvçornmended. Refer to ltIe material safety Qata Sheet 'or additional Ioformatlon. Avoid ski" and eye contact. P.Ø6 Y'w't'!'. ê.fI<1Ior vapor is prese"l. wwari wy' protectiOf1. protectìve gloves and tlOthlttg is recpmmef1(ed. laund~r cor¡1aminaled clothing belore wearing again. Suggested First Aid: Eyt: Contaçt: Immediately flush eyes with ptvn1y of w~t9r. C.,II a ph~ician. Ski" Con~ct~ W$sh with ~p and water. Inhalation: Provide fresh ad; if covghing. wheezing or sho~\f1i:'sS of breath occvrs, ~n a physÏCi!t'\. " "-...-----...-- ----.-'------'----.--.-. -.-.. --_.-.. ----------.--.--.---.-- '---'.--.---. Important Notlcl: Alt statements. techniçal Ï/'\(or~iOt'l and recolJ'lrnel'lðalion$ related to (/'It seller'=- ptO<1UCI$ art b~ on inror. fT1atio" believed 10 be (elijlble. bllt the accvracy or completeness \heretIC is not guaranteelj. Before tJtilìtino tPle rxOdIJd. the user Sho\l~ determine ¡he suitGbility of the prod- ~t h¡lf its intended use. The ",set aSSU~$ all risks and liability whatso- ever in connectiOI'\ with suc;h use. :1 ~t'04-$<",' c,,~'ç '. PIpeline and Coostruçlion Markets 3M Electrical Specialties Dívislon PO 8QX ~963 AU5\il1. TeXå$ 76769-4!9G3 ., .': , ;~ 'd ." ." ¡; )¡ ;--! . .. Ar1y st¡t,tn~nl$ or tecom"'e~tions of the Seller which are not contained in the Seller's current public;alions S1\aJl have no roree 0( effeçt unless contained in an agreement signt!d by an authori¿ed gHil;er tlf the $.l1tr. Tht statements contained herein are mólde in lieu of aU warranlies. eJCpre$S'~ or implied. including but not limited 10 the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness 'Of' a p~.l'ticu~r purp~ whièh warranties at. hereby expressly disclaimed. :1>04 "" SELLeR SHALL NOT BE LlA6LE TO THE USER o~ Al\Y OT11ER PERSON UNDERANYlEGALTHEOA~ INCLUDING Bur Nor ~IMlTeO To NEGLIGENCe OR STRICí liABILITY. FOR ANY INJURY OR FOA ANY DIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAM-'Ges SUSTAINEO OR INCUFi~ RED BY REASON OF THE use OF ANY OF THE SELLER'S PRODUCTS THA'J' WERE OI;F¡CTIVE, ~inll.S.A. 3M TOTRl P.06 8 SOIL ¡nGln¡¡:tlnG COnSAUCtiOnlK ( J ~ I " 8 March 4, 1996 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Rock Anchor Grout Specifications Attention: Mr. Greg Shields The following rock anchor grout specification is provided for your approval. The minimum compressive strength of the proposed rock anchor grout is 2000 pounds per square inch, and the water/cement ratio is 0.45. MATERIAL .. .... UNITS WEIGHT . (lbs.) ..... .. Sp.Gr. Am. VoL. Cement 1 Sack 94 3.15 1 Water 5 Gal. 41.7 1 .68 Total - 136.7 - 1.68 Please indicate your approval in writing to Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., or by faxing it to (714) 751-9565. . Niven, E.I.T. No, 56982 erman, P.E. 3'::18b4 c: Mr. Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspection 3220 South Standard Avenue. Santa Ana, CA 92705 . (714) 751-9561 . FAX (714) 751-9565 General Engineering Contractor Ucense A-268082 8 SOIL ¡nGln¡¡=tlnG COnSt=lUCtlon.. I J ~ I " 8 March 4, 1996 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, Cahfomia RE: Concrete Mix Design Submittal Attention: Mr. Greg Shields Attached, please find two concrete mix designs submitted for your approval. The concrete mix design identification numbers are 375 PAE (Superior Ready Mix Concrete) and 4033103 (Pre- Mixed Concrete Company). Both mix designs meet and/or exceed the minimum concretè design specifications for this project. Please indicate your approval in writing to Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., via facsimile to (714) 75]-9565. , c: Mr. Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspection Sf( 1(J:- . r ~_I'1-cr& 3220 South Standard Avenue. Santa Ana, CA 92705 . (714) 751-9561 . FAX (714) 751-9565 General Engineering Contractor Ucense A-268082 8 ~ PRE-MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY AN N.U. FEN "rOM C!JM....J'I" MIX 10 : 4033103 [ CONCRETE MIX OESIGN 4000 PSI ] CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUC7ION PROJECT: GOlZo-SAWTELLE SEAWALL; LEUCADIA SOURCE OF CONCRETE: ALL BATCH PLANTS CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 3000 PSI i 28 DAYS PLACEMENT: PUMP OR PLACE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD 8 03/01/96 ASTM C 150 / TYPE II CEMENT, LB WASHED CONCRETE SAND - 53~, LB CARROLL CANYON 1" x #4 - 57". LB WATER, LB (GAL-US) TOTAL AIR, % (SATURATED, SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.59 7.53 9.99 5.08 0.81 MASTER BUILDERS POZZOL1TH 322-N, OZ MASTER BUILDERS MBAË-90, OZ-US WATER/CEMENT RATIO, LBS/LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF 705 1260 1633 317 ( 38.0) 3.0 +/- 1.0 TOTAL 28.20 3.5 0.45 4.00 145.0 ------- ------- 27.00 7220 TRADE STREIT, SUITE 300, POST OFF1CE eox 64, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112, (619) 566-2000, FAX (619) 549-3589 8 8 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, CA 92019 619-745-0556 75PAE [ 4500 PSI CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: SOURCE OF CONCRETE: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: PLACEMENT: CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION LOWER BLUFF SEA WALLS SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P. VARIOUS 4" PUMP/PLACE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, VAL.), LB 705 1307 1273 318 306 ( 36.7) 3.0 +/- 1.0 SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.59 7.96 7. 79 1. 95 4.90 0.81 MITSUBISHI TYPE II CEMENT (LUCERNE SUPERIOR BLEND CONC. SAND, LB MIRAMAR 1" ROCK, LB MIRAMAR 3/8" ROCK, LB WATER, LB (GAL-US) AIR ENTRAINMENT, % MASTER BUILDERS POll 322N, OZ-US MASTER BUILDERS MICRO AIR, OZ-US TOTAL 28.2 3.5 WATER/CEMENT RATIO, LBS/LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF ATER - CITY EMENT - LUCERNE VALLEY OCK MIRAMAR AND - SUPERIOR BLEND SAND 0.43 4.00 144.8 1" ROCK SP.GR. @ 2.62, 44 PERCENT 3/8" ROCK SP.GR. @ 2.62, 11 PERCENT W.C.S. SP.GR. @ 2.63, 45 PERCENT ARK E. KUSKI, SUPERIOR READY MIX (Q.C.) ------- ------- 27.00 8 SOIL ¡nGln¡¡=tlnG COnSAUCtlOnlllC. I~ 8 . February 25, 1996 TO: Director of Community Services Department, City of Encinitas - SUBJECT: Contractor Responsibility \Õ1 ~ \!9 Ii .~ \~ \;.Œ) U\1 fEe 21 1996 ER'J\CES ENGINEERfINE~,g\N\\ AS CITY 0"" FROM: John W. Niven Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. This correspondence is provided to acknowledge that Soil Engineering Ç9~ction, Inc., (SEC), will be liable fo~ any costs to correct damages to. the beach o~ adlr fU'eas resulting from emergency penmt work undertaken by SEC for Major Use Apphca~ 95-137, Gozzo-Sawtelle seawall 528 - 554 Neptune Avenue. In addition, SEC recognizes that construction debris washing onto the beaches (during the period of time that SEC is constructing this project) within one mile north or south of the work site shall be the responsibility of SEC and shall be removed at no expense to the City of Encinitas. Construction debris is defined as any lumber, piling, crates, boxes, containers and other objects which could be used for construction identical to that being used on the project site. Debris also includes any pre-existing items excavated at the site such as reinforcing steel, concrete and bricks. -L '2-['UtJ {C1& Date J W. Niven oil Engineering Construction, Inc. 3220 South Standard Avenue. Santa Ana, CA 92705 . (714) 751-9581 . FAX (714) 751-9585 General Englneertng Contractor Ucense A-268082 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPO&CKNOWLEDGMENT 8 No. 5907 State of (}Y.i./,R1MJ / ~ County of Los A.Nit'"Jkj ;;;2 -~, -'Ie. On DATE before me,~~~11 Co 2..tWJN\.~~A.J. Nor/JRy ~~ . NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G.. 'JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC' personally appeared -JõHN W. N, II€/'J NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) g personally known to me - OR - 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ::= ~f .. DE8OIWI C. ZM8MAN ¡ COMM. . 81671 & I Notay NIle - CaIfana ! J LOS ANCmI COUNIY I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~3~~"y WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~. . ~ . SIG OF NO Y OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITlE(S) (!Jl ~ c:n I(.. Ý<û ~ ~ (Id I J.I ry TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 0 PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED 0 GENERAL 0 ATTORNEY-iN-FACT 0 TRUSTEE(S) 0 GUARDIANlCONbRVATOR ß OTHER: sAN E'~ AIlE"" ,c.u;.e.. / NUMBER OF PAGES ;;J-¡;J$;- 9 , DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTTTY(IES) . Sð/L €A2;WE'~~ ~cWl ;M- .AJ o,o~ SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE C1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION. 8236 Remmel Ave., P.O. Box 7184. Canoga Park. CA 91309-7184 8 :~ÄX Date 2-23-96 Number of pages \nc\ud\ng cover .heet 2 to: City of Encinltas Enei.....¡'¡ñe services So" Engineering Construction Re: phone Fax Phone 619-633-2627 cc: 0 urgent 0 For your revIeW 8 BC Environmental 'nsurance Broke... 4996 Golden Footh'" Parkway, Su\te 5 EI Dorado HUts, CA 95712 From: BC Environmental Insurance Brokers Phone Fax Phone 916-939-1080 - 916..939-1085 0 Reply ASAP 0 P'ease comment To whom it may GOncem, p\e8Se see attached certificate of Insurance for the above mentioned. The original has been mäUed to your office and the endorsement will foUow in the mail shortly. Þ'ease ca\l if you need any additional information. Thank you. Charlene M. Squires-Bastian BC' Environmental Insurance Brokers ----- ....,. r-o., cr:::I.J 1: çy 98'3 ~~lnN3 Je £8016£6916 ,. C ENVIRONMENTAL INS. BROKERS 995 GOLDEN FOOTHILL PARKWAY UITE 5 L DORADO HILLS r CA 95762 IN VAED .. , 1M U (lll1IIDDm') . . 02-22-96 THI8 ClfITIF CATE IS ISSUED AS A rM 0.. INIIORMA1IOM ONLY AND CoNfERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CeR11FlëA'tt HOLDER. THIS CERT1F1CATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTeND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES BBLOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE SOIL ENGINEERfNG CONSTRUCTION,IN 927 ARGUELLO STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063-1310 COMPNl'i A HOMESTEAD INSURANCE COMPANY caøNlY B . ..':' . , .. , . , . . , . .. ,~. THIS IS TO CERTIfY THAT THE POLICIES Of INSURANce U8T!!D BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO TH& INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POUCY PEfilIOD INDICATED, NO1WlTHeTANDINCi ANY REQUIREMENT, T!IW OR CONDITION OF ANY C()N'TMCT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH FlESPECT TO wHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDI!D IV THE POUCIES DEØCRlBED HEREIN 19 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TeRMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONomoNS OF SUCH POUCIES. UMIT8 81iOWN MAY HAve BEeN ReDUCED BY PAID ~M8. ,.", OIIINSURÀ11C8 I"OUC\' lIU...g JIOUC'f Eft'ICftYE POLICY 1DIPIRA 110M DATI ~ DA'Æ tII""'ØIYY) UMITS IllllIRAL LWIIUTY X COIIIMERCIAI. GENSW.. \JA8IU1Y CLAW MADE 00 OCCUR C7NNER'9 . c:cN11W:TCR'6 PAOT X POLLtrrION/ CLAIMS-MADE AUTOiloÎI&£ LIABILITY Nl'f AUTO All. OWNED AUTOS àc:HEOULm ALJTdS HIAED AUtos IIION.owNED AUTOS 138HCL6139 10-31-95 10-31-98 ,2 000,000 52, 000 000 ,1 000 000 Ii 000 000 . 50 000 ,EXCLUDED COMBINED StNCiLE LIMIT . IiIOÒIL Y INJURY . (Pw þtlllOll) 8OD~URY S (1'.,. dMQ PROPERlY DAMAGE 5 __UAIIIIJ1Y UMIIRia.I.J' FOPIM ~1HAN'1r -!rIL...'FOIU WOftKIM CClllllliiu'I'iaM MD DlÍ'LOftR8" UMtUTY AUTO ONLY - EA ACX:\DENT I O'THER~AIJ1O0NLY: >*'~.~~~:' '~:fT EACH ACCICENT I AðQ~TE . EACH OCCURReNCe I AaGFØõATE 1HE MOPRo.. ,UtV p~ ~ ARE: o-ntER 1HCl. 8ICL EL ~ ACCIDENT . a DIIEME . POlICY UMrr . EL DI!IeA9E . EA EMÞt.OYEE I of' ~1KI1I'.~.IEI!Ia~ ì~ IAL....- TIŒ CERTIFICATE HOLDER SHALL' BE NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECTS TO GENERAL LIABILITY ONLY. ~>:.~~~'~,V ;::;'7::-;:,:";:';"Y~~~'-.--:":.c.:-:~:::::~':"-:'~-';:'":.'~'-'~~'";::~=:;:..:: ;':;';;:'~~::,,-~::.:.:::-~-'" . ,"".. ~ ;-::';-": :~::::~'.~;.:,':':.~~<J;~','::..~"'~.:ê:~=-~.~;~?2;'::~~.~i::..':::.::.:-:'~~~--":'~.Y.' CITY OF ENCINITAS 5 0 5 SOUTH VULCAN . AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ATTENTION: ENGINEERING SERVICES ...... Nff all. we A8OVI JI8Ii:: I8ID I'OUCII8 .. ~. - IIPOM tHE IDIJIWIA11C8 DAft ...-:If. ,.. ..... COIII'IUIY WILL ~ 10 11M. .J.O.. DUll -'* IIØIICS 10 .... C8I'I-..cA'II! NOlØEIt --- 10 1111 ....-r, ~ PPIwI ~ NwI rP(tAI¡ j,,/r P. '-If ~ ¡q ~ ýqA ~ ~ £c:0t 96. £c 83J c0d 989 ~lN3WNO~I~3 J8 580t6£69t6 8 8 Ernest R. Artim Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting Project Number 95-53 June 24, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, Califor~ia 92024-3633 Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information 528 to 534 (?) Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 95-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 017962 REQ. NO: 0000020763 FINANCE NUMBER: 8100EN APPLICANT: Bob Trettin PROJECT LOCATION: 528, 532, and 534 Neptune Avenue References: 1. City of Encinitasl Municipal Codel Sections 30.34.020 C and DI as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32. 2. Geotechnical and Geological Investigationl Neptune II Project, 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California: by Earth Systems Design Groupl job number EO082, dated October 261 1992. 3. Plans - Lower Bluff Seawall, 528-554 Neptune Avenue: by Soil Engineering Construction, file number 96-1013, dated April 151 1995. . 4. Review of Previous Geotechnical Materials: by Soil Engineering Construction 1 dated May 9/1995. 5. City of Encinitas Documents including the following: Project Review Request, Discretionary Permit Application, Application Addendum with attachment, and Application for Environmental Initial 'Study. P.o. Box99725. San DI. . California 92169. (619) 421-9883 8 8 Page 2 Project Number 95-53 June 24, 1995 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to submit the following review of the geotechnical data for the subject properties. Our review has been performed to see if the reference reports 2, 3, and 4 provide information that adequately meets the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32 (reference 1). -SUMMARY OF REVIEW In general, the report information appears to adequately address the site soil and geological conditions, except for key items requested within reference 1. The site soil and geologic conditions described in the reference reports appear to be complete except for the exclusion of the key items listed below and in the next section. We should also note the apparent discrepency between the addresses listed for the property. The subject site consists of three adjoining properties. The addresses listed by the City on the City documents are 528, 532, and 534 Neptune Avenue. The addresses shown on maps within reference 2 are shown as 528, 532, and 554 Neptune Avenue. Reference 3 lists the addresses as 528-554 Neptune Avenue, and reference 4 lists 554 Neptune Avenue. The applicant has listed 528, 532, and 554 in reference 5 documents. We also note that reference 4 indicates on page 2, "We recognize that the City of Encinitas has already certified to the adequacy of the existing Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation prepared for this site and submitted in October 1992." The reference is to Case Number 93-111 MUP/EIA with address listing from 470 through 522 Neptune Avenue. This case and review are separate from the previous case and review. Also please note that the report (reference 2) was signed by an engineering geologist, Mr. Andrew Farkas. However, the stamp for Mr. Farcas had expired on June 30, 1992 and the report was dated October 26, 1992. A letter was received from Mr. Chris Post of Earth Systems Design Group stating that Mr. Farcas had renewed his certification. However/ the verbally promised letter of verification from the State was never received for the file. Unfortunately, Mr. Farcas has passed away. 8 8 Page 3 Project Number 95-53 June 24, 1995 REVIEW DETAIL COMMENTS In accordance with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19, and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32, certain key criteria are requested to be contained and/or addressed in project site geotechnical reports. Certain items that do not appear to have been addressed, or that may have a-negative impact for the site and adjacent sites, are listed below. We also suggest the consultant obtain a copy of Section 30.34.020 C and D as amended by ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32. A. We suggest an updated geotechnical letter report reviewed and signed by both a soil/geotechnical engineer and an engineering geologist be prepared. The updated letter report should provide current, additional, and complete information as required for the project. Reference 4 should be reviewed and signed by both the engineering geologist and the soil/geotechnical engineer. B. Also "each geotechnical report for a project including a proposed preemptive measure shall address those points in paragraph C above as well as" those listed in paragraph D as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 9.5-32. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS While sections of the consultant information (reference 2, 3, and 4) appear to be complete, other aspects of the plans and the reports, as outlined above, require response/clarification in the form of professional opinions, conclusions, recommendations, and certification statements. ' As with other projects along the coastal sea-bluffs within the City of Encinitas, an as-built geotechnical report reviewed and signed by both the soil/geotechnical engineer and the project engineering geologist shall be completed and submitted to the City within 15 working days after completion of the project. 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. 8 8 Page 4 Project Number 95-53 June 24, 1995 Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, - \\~() ~ .. E~\. Artim CEG 1084: expo 3-31-97 Distribution: (2) addressee 8 SOIL i!nGlni!i!=tlnG cOnst=tUCtlOnllK, ~ May 9, 1995 Department of Planning City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 ATTN: Mr. Bill Weedman Mr. Jim Kennedy SUBJECT: Review of Previous Geotechnical Materials RE: Lower Bluff Seawall: Gozzo/sawtelle: 554 Neptune Avenue Modification to Richards et ale (MOP 93-111) with regard to the above-referenced proposed Major Use Permit Modification, we have reviewed the "Geotechnical and Geoloqic Investigation, Neptune II Project 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue" prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, dated October 26, 1992. We have also reviewed "Proposed Change to Top of Seawall Elevation", a memorandum submitted by civil Engineering Consultants on March 2, 1995 with regard to Richards et ale (MOP 93-111), the permit for which a modification is being sought. Although several properties encompassed within the existing MUP, located immediately to the south of this project site (524,518, 510 and 504 Neptune), have experienced additional midbluff failure and some shearing of lower bluff fracture areas, the subject property remains relatively unchanged from its condition at the time of past geotechnical review. A project site review and review of the Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation previously conducted on the property demonstrates that the determinations contained in that report remain accurate as of this date. The proposed 'Modification .to MOP 93-111 calls for adding an addition length of seawall, totalling 120 lineal feet, to the northern terminus of the existing project approved in MOP-111. The height of the proposed lower bluff seawall addition is approximately 13' above 0 Mean Sea Level (MSL). The proposed elevation is required based on a review and determination of accuracy of the wave and sea level data obtained from the following reports which are on file with city: ** "Geotechnical/Coastal Engineering Supplement, Major Use 927 Arguello Street, Redwood Ciry, California 94063-1310 (415) 367-9595 . FAX (415) 367-8139 8 SOIL ënGlnëë~lnG COnSL~UCLIOnlll( [4J Permit Application 93-162", prepared Engineering, dated July 30, 1995; and by Skelly ** "San Diego Region Historic Wave and Sea Level Data Report, Reference No. CCSTWS 88-6", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated December, 1988. Construction methods and materials for the proposed seawall will be identical to those utilized for the adjoining seawall (as modified) for which this Modification of MUP 93-111 is requested. Please reference plans for all specific construction notes. In order to satisfy requirements of the "City of Encinitas Major Use Permit Chapter 30.34.020C, Developments Processing and Approval" and the "City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program", ãdopted by the city in March, 1995, the following geotechnical findings and recommendations related to the proposed Modification of Major Use Permit 93-111 are provided in response to applicable sections of these adopted regulations: 2. 4. 1. We recognize that the City of Encinitas has already certified to the adequacy of the existing Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation prepared for this site and submitted in October, 1992 (attached). We observe no site condition changes that would necessitate a change in the city's certification as of this date. We certify that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the stability of the bluff, and is intended to prevent further degradation and extend the usable life span of the bluff portions of the property. We also certify that the proposed development will not create an unsafe condition that might endanger life or property, and the work is intended to lessen the existing impacts toward life and property. We expect the proposed development to be reasonably free from failure over its lifetime. . 3. It is our professional opinion that the proposed structure will, at no time, have a" negative impact on the general geologic stability of the site. In fact, the pz:oposed seawall~ will enhance the gross stability of this site. Furthermore, this work will not impact the structural integrity of the surrounding properties, sea bluffs, or public lands. The proposed project, to be developed exactly alike in design characteristics and construction methods to all other properties in Major Use Permit 93-111 (as modified) and 93-070 (as modified), is designed, and will be constructed per submitted engineering plans, to mitigate the potential for additional erosion at the project's northern terminus. The 927 Arguello Srreer, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (415) 367-9595 . FAX (415) 367-8139 .. r ' 8 SOIL a1Gln¡:¡:=lInG cOnSt=lUCtlOn"", ~ 5. project's southern terminus will be integrated into the northern terminus of the lower bluff seawall already approved at 524 Neptune Avenue as a part of Major Use Permit 93-111. The existing Geotechnical Report provides the seismic analysis for the site as a result of a maximum Drobable earthquake. In the event of a maximum credible earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone, the effect at the site as elsewhere in Encinitas would be dramatic. In our professional opinion, substantiated by other certified engineering geologists in past submittal to the City of Encinitas, the likelihood of a maximum credible event along the Rose Canyon fault zone during the life span of the proposed development is small. If such an event were to occur within 10 miles of the site, the ground acceleration at the site could exceed o. 5g . Impact to the vicinity as well as all of Encinitas would be dramatic and damages to property would be considerable. 6. The estimated life span of the project, without substantial maintenance, is estimated at 22.5 years. This estimate has been accepted by the Coastal Commission as an average of the estimates of certified engineering geologists who have similar projects on the Encinitas bluffs. With maintenance, the project will protect the lower coastal bluff from erosion and wave impacts, thereby stabilizing mid bluff and upper bluff erosion at or near historic rates. 7. The proposed seawall will be constructed in such a manner that its' appearance will closely match the surrounding bluff areas to the extent possible. Previously submitted color samples for MUP 93-111 apply to this project. And, sculpted concrete forms utilized for properties participating in MUP 93-111 to obtain a texture similar to the bluffs will again be employed in the construction of the proj ect requested in this MUP Modification. City staff has previously inspected and given posi ti ve comments on the appearance of the ongoing construction work associated with MUP 93-111. Thank you, in advance, for providing your professional in-house and third-party review and comments to this memorandum, previously submitted materials for MUP 93-111, and technical documents referenced in these materials and on file with the City of Encinitas. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 944-4124. Sincerely, C2vl..--t- ß? '" ~ Robert D. Mahony, President G.E. 554 /~~,- - .¿ ;")",Ur~..'~.r:- f~'7': /~,-:.l:, i.."'/_,,, ". " ',/ , l~ ,-'~'~~; v ~,. "'1.(", ~ ':~.'.. ',- ' ::~'). \~ë ':':;4 - "i : ':, '"".. .::,P'5/:: ~~ >: ;.---.' "":,, ;-:',',',-- ""'./ -. , , ", ~>':':'.:/ '. . .- 927 Arguello StreeT, P.edwood Ciry, California 94063-1310 -Cfu'-367-9595 . FAX (415) 367-8139 8 EARTH SYSTEMS 8 DESIGN GROUP "Specialists 11/ Earl" Retention Sollllions" October 26, 1992 400 & 500 Block Neptune Avenue c/o Mr. George Sbordone 518 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Job No. EO082 SUBJECT: Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune II Project, 470 Through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA. Dear Homeowners: At your request Earth Systems Design Group has prepared a topographic map of your properties extending from Neptune Avenue to the beach and has performed a geotechnical investigation of the coastal bluff with respect to stability. Our findings and recommendations are presented herein. The field observations indicate that the coastal bluff along the subject properties exposes two geologic units. Each of these units has and likely will experience in the future stability problems that may effect safety and property val ue. This phase of our analysis only addresses the design of a rip rap seawall as directed by the homeowners. The upper zone (terrace deposi ts) has been evaluated within the geotechnical report; however, specific recommendations relative to the stabilization of the upper slope is not addressed herein. If there are any questions or issues that need clarification, please feel free to contact this firm at any time. DESIGN GROUP ~OO/f8P.Lrl 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A . SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 . (619) 471-6351 N.C.E.E. 14170. CA. R.C.E.IC-22096. AIZ. R.c.E. 111971 . NEV. R.C.E. 13037. WA. C.E. 110776 IVlto STRUC1\JRAl. AND SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOlOGY. SURVEY. CERTIFIED INSPECTION. SOil N>lD ~TERIAI. 'TESTING. FEASIBIlITY S'TUDIES . CONTRACT ~NAGEMENT 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 8 8 INDEX INTRODUCTION SCOPE 1 1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 <") '" Site Description 2 Beach and Bluff Conditions 2 Subsurface and Surface Exploration 3 Laboratory Testing 3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4 Fill 4 Soil Deposits (topsoil) 4 Marine Terrace Deposit s (Qt) 4 Torrey Sands tone Forma tion (Tt) 4 Beach Deposits (Bd) 5 Groundwater 6 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 Regional Geologic Set ting 6 Regional and Local Faulting 7 Seismicity 7 Liquefaction 7 Ground Failure 8 Sea Cliff Retreat 8 5.6.1 Stabilizing characteristics 8 5.6.2 Destabilizing Characteristics 9 Landsliding and Slope Stability 9 Cliff Stability and Erosion 10 Slope Stability Analysis 10 8 8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA nONS 10 6.1 Conclusions 6.2 Recommendations 6.3 Limitations 10 11 12 7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS 12 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B- APPENDIX C 1.0 2.0 8 8 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION NEPTUNE II PROJECT, 410 THROUGH 554 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request we have performed a geotechnical and geological investigation of the project named Neptune II, comprising lot numbers 452, 470, 418, 492, 498, 502, 504, 510, 518, 522, 526, 528, 532 and 554 of Neptune A ven lie in the City of Endnìtas, California (see Site Location Mup, Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the hazard(s) to existing structures on top of the bluff and provide conclusion::; and recommendations relative to constructing a rip-rap sea wall at the toe of the slope. Please be advi.sed this report has been prepared in accordance to the homeowners request to consider only a wave energy dissipator (rip-rap) to provide an element of protection against wave and tide erosion to the base of the bluff. SCOPE The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: * Review of the readily available published and unpublished reports and documents relative to the subject site (see References, Appendix A); * Geological reconnaissance and mapp~ng of the site and sea bluff conditions; * Excavation, logging and sampling of one exploratory boring to 66.5 feet in depth; * Logging and sampling of the sea bluff face; * Laboratory samples; analysis and testing of representative * Engineering and laboratory data; Geologic analysis of field and . 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No.2 * Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding site conditions and the utilization of selectively placed rip- rap as an alternative to reduce the potential fol' sea wave erosion at the base of the bluff. 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Description The Neptune II project, consists of eleven residential single family and duplex condominium structures and improvements designated as lot numbers 452, 470, 478, 492, 498, 502, 504, 510, 518, 522, 526, 528, 532 and 554 of Neptune A venue in the City of Encinitas, California (see General Site Plan, Figure 2) One and two-story wood frame and stucco buildings with concrete, brick and asphalt driveways, block, brick and concrete planters and concrete, tile and brick patios are generally the improvements noted on the subject lots. The project is bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, north and south by single family residential structures and by an approximately 90 to 95 feel high moderately to steeply westerly sloping sea bluff to the west. The bluff descents onto a sand and gravel beach. The Neptune II project is situated on the western edge of the Coastal Plain, and on the western side of the Peninsular Range Physiographic province. Site elevations range from sea level at the westerly pl'oject limit, to a high of approximately 90 to 96 feet at pad elevation. Neptune A venue on the east lies roughly 3 to 5 feet below pad grade. Currently, the top edge of the bluff (slope) is situated approximately 10 to 30 feet from the principal residential structures of the subject site. 3.2 Beach and Bluff Conditions Characteristic features that suggest an on-going erosion and bluff retreat have been observed along the western side of the properties. Features such as the undermining of the lower portion of the bluff face that is exposed to direct wave action, jointed sandstone and sandstone blocks at the base of the bluff are common. Additionally, erosion gullies and slope failures were observed on the upper portion of the bluff possibly caused in part by exposure to precipitation, wind, landscape maintenance and loss of support from the lower portion of bluff. At zero tide, the water line of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 50 feet measured laterally from the base of the sea bluff. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-O082 Page No.3 During periods of high tides ocean swells often impact the base of the bluff. The near-shore beach environment west of the site generalJy consists of gently westward sloping wave- cut shelf of moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation. These cemented sandstones were noted to be massive, fine to medium grained, cross-bedded and competent. This unit is visible as an outcrop exposed from beneath unconsolidated sand and gravel beach deposits anti extend to form a 24 to 25.0 foot high near- vertical sea cliff at the base of the bluff. The lower portion of this unit present water staining and seepage that extend from the base to the contact with the overlying terrace deposits. Unconformably overlying the Torr'e.}' Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of approximately 21 feet to the bluff top are Quaternary-aged marine terrace deposits consisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandstones. These materials are weakly cemented massive, fine to medium-grained silty sand and sandstones which are naturally weathered and eroded into slopes ranging from 1t to 1 (horizontal to vertical), to near vertical. Some vegetation is present in some portions of the bluff consisting of ice-plant, shrubs and scattered trees. 3.3 Subsurface and Surface Exploration As part of our investigation we have logged and sampled one explorator.}' test boring to 66.5 feet below pad elevation (see General Site Plan, Figure 2 and Boring Log, Figures B-1, B-1a and B-1b). We have also performed geologic mapping site reconnaissance and surface sampling on the face of the sea bluff (see General Site Plan, Figure 2, Sea Bluff Face Log, Plates B-2, B-2a, B-3, B-3a, B-4 and B-4a anti Figures 3, 4 and 5). 3.4 Laboratory Testing- The following laboratory tests were performed: * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) * Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No.4 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Soils encountered on-site during our investigation consisted of fill, soil deposits, Quaternary-aged terrace deposits the Eocene-aged Torrc.)' Sandstone and beach sand deposits. A brief description of each of the soils and geologic units encountered is provided below. 4.1 Fill- Fill soils were encountered during the excavation of test boring ESD-1 (see Boring Log, Figure B-1), to depths of 2.5 feet. The fill soils consisted of dark brown fine to medium gl'ained silty sands The thickness and type of fill soils may var,y on each lot. 4.2 Soil Deposits (topsoil) Soil deposits (topsoil) were encountered exposed on the top edge of the bluff in the top .5 to 1.0 feet in T-3 (see Sea Bluff Face Log, Plate B-4) and consisted of light brown to reddish brown fine to medium grained silty sand and loose to medium dense. These deposits are believed to have a discontinuous development along the top of the bluff. 4.3 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt) Quaternary-aged Terrace deposits are exposed in the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 27 to 28.5 feet and extend to near the top of the slope. These deposits consist of poorly to moderatel.)' well consolidated and locally slightly to moderately well cemented light yellow to orange-brown, dark brown and gray brown silty fine to medium sands and sandstones. These sands are generall.y massive and as indicated by bedding attitudes from within the lower portions of this unit, appears to have a slight dip ranging from roughly 3 to 10 degrees to the south-southwest. No evidence that suggest, faulting, fracturing or jointing was found within these deposits. 4.4 Torrey Sandstone (T1) The Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone is exposed on-site underlying the terrace deposits in the lower portion of the sea bluff from beneath the beach deposits to an elevation of approximately 27.0 to 28.5 feet in a near-vertical to vertical cliff. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No.5 This fol'mation consists generally of well consolidated, moderately to well cemented, massive and cross-bedded gray to light brown, yellow brown and red brown clayey fine to medium grained sandstone with occasional thin layers of claystone and siltstone and localized concretions. The attitude of the contact between this unit and the overlying terrace deposits on the subject site, suggest an apparent dip of approximately 1 to 3 degrees north-northwest. Several fractures and joints were observed within this unit. In the areas investigated, these features dip 72 to 85 degrees to the east and west and strike in a northerly direction (see Site Plan, Figure 2 and 2a). These fractures and joints combined with the undermining of the base of the sea bluff b,y wave action, causes to a large extent the instability of the bluff. The rate of retreat of the terrace deposits is controlled largely by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. Our review of Reference 3, indicates the existence of a fault trace within this formation in the adjacent property to the north. This fault is described as a northeast trending fault with a dip of approximately 85 degrees towards the west and with an apparent offset of several inches (north side up). No displacement of the overlying terrace deposits was reported. In addition, several faults were reported by others (Reference 4 and 5) further to the north. These faults were described as occurring within a fault zone presenting an overall strike in a north-northeasterly direction, al).d dipping at angles of approximately 50 to 90 degrees to the east and west. No evidence that would suggest the existence of faulting within the subject site was found during our site reconnaissance. 4.5 Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were encountered overlying Torrey Sandstone materials at the base of the sea bluff. These materials consist of loosely consolidated sand and gravel-cobble deposits. These deposits are subject to cyclic seasonal changes in type of material and degree of slope inclination as a response to changes in wave energy during the summer calm and winter storm conditions. In addition, these deposits are subject to an on-going transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits were estimated to range from 3 to 5 feet in thickness at the time of our most recent visit. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No.6 5.0 4.6 Groundwater A relatively high moistu('e content was observed within the lower section of the Terrace deposits, accumulated as perched water on the less permeable Torrey Sandstone, The origin of this water is most likely from landscape irrigation. Other more distant sources may also contribute to the water build- up.- In addition, ground water seepage that extends to approximatelj' 6 to 10 above the base of the sea bluff' (the approximate elevation of the base of the bluff is 3.0 to 3.5 feet) and water staining to 15 feet (see Figures 3, 4 and 5) were also observed during our field investigation. Ground water was encountered during the excavation of the test boring ESD-1 at a depth of 65 feet (elevation of 22 feet) below pad grade (see Boring Log, Plate B-1 b). GEOLOGIC SETTING 5.1 Reg-ional Geolol!ic Settin!! The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province of Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is characterized by northwest 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 range.s. The upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary rocks flanking the western margin of the mountains are generally comprised of detrital marine, lagoonal and non-marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones and conglomerates. These sedimentary formations are generally flat-lying or dip gently 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 appears to be a result of right-lateral movements on faults within the San Andreas Fault system. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-OO82 Page No.8 5.5 Ground Failure Failure within the upper portion of the bluff (terrace depostis) is a distinct possibility should a significant earthquake oecur along the Rose Canyon Fault or other active faults in the Southern California Region. 5.6 Sea Cliff ReL¡'eaL A variety of factors may affect the rate of retreat of coastal sea cliffs composed of materials similar to those existing along [he westerl.)' project boundary. These factors include but are not limited to, the degree of induration of the sedimentar.)' 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 j'ear. 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 poorly 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 strongl;}' related to meteorological conditions, geologic conditions and erosional agcn ts. Field reconnaissance of the sea bluff in the subject site suggest the following stabilizing and destabilizing characteristics in the current condition: 5.6.1 Stabilizin~ characteristics * The lower 22 to 25 feet of the sea cliff is composed of moderately cemented and competent Torrey Sandstone materials; * The Torre.)' Sandstone Formation appears jointed and fractured onl.)' in localized areas on the subject site; * Landscape and slope vegetation irrigation is localized and minimal. Existing runoff f¡'om the building pads is directed away from slope areas. 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No.9 5.6.2 .. 5.7 8 Destabilizing- Characteristics * The num her and degree of jointing and fracturing that occur in the areas presenting this condition; * The direction and steep dip angle of the joints and fractures of the Torrey Sandstone; * Erosion and undermining of the lower portion of the Torrey 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. * The Torrey Sandstone t~'pically fails in the form of large blocks that separate from the near- vertical cliff 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 the 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 activit;}, such as up-slope landscape watering, non-planned conslrÙction etcetera, thus eroding and/or weakening the natural condition of the materials on the face of the sea bluff. Landsliding- and Slope Stability Based on our review of pertiricnt documents and our reconnaissance there are no indication of deep seated landsliding on or adjacent to the subject site. However, several shallow slope failures are known to have occurred prcviously within the upper portion of the bluff. Studies performed by others (Reference 2), suggest that similar conditions were present in the adjacent property to the north of the subject site at the time of. their investigation. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No. 10 Our site observation, reconnaissance and presen t evidence of failures within the up¡>cr portion of the sea bluff in the subject al'ca, sllg'gef'..t that these failures arc rc1ated largcl~' to loss. of support caused by failures within the Torrc~! Sandstone. 5.8 Cliff Stability and Erosion Future sea b1uf'f retreat at the subject site with the present conditions will largel~" depend on the rate of retreat of the Torre~' Sandstone. It is our opinion that the erosion of the base of the sea cliff caused boY wave action, weathering and human activit~" creates a constantI,y growing potential for slope instabilit~,. The potential for erosion and slope instability is considered high. It should be emphasized, however, that failure within the upper portion (terrace deposits) may occur independent from failures in the Torrey Sandstone due to already overly steepened conditions. 5.9 Slope Stability AnalYsis A slope stability analysis was performed on a typical section (see Slope Stabilit~, Analysis, Appendix C). The analysis was based on a cohesion of 210 psf. a friction angle of 32 degrees and a density of 102 pcf. The analysis was performed using the STBL4 pl'ogram, based on the simplified Janbu Method of Slices assuming a rotational t~.'pe failure. The program calculates 100 potential failure surfaces using 10 origination and 10 termination points at the base and top of the section calculated respectively. The anal~"sis shows a critical value of the factor of safety of 1.089 (see Slope Stabilit;r Analysis, Appendi;~ C), which indicates that the slope is marginally stable and unless some method of stabilization is provided, continued erosion, weathering, fracturing and/or jointing may result in slope fail)lre. As indicated by the analysis, the most likely location of the failure is within the terrace deposits, above the contact with the more competent Torre~' Sandstone. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Based on thercsuIts of our investigation, it is our professional opinion that the failures occurred in the lower and upper portions of the sea bluff, present a permanent hazard to the up-slope existing- structures and improvements as well as to the beach-going public below. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-OO82 Page No. 11 We therefore conclude that protection of the base of the sea bluff and repair ¡protection of the upper portion will be required to reduce the sea bluff retreat and associated hazards. 6.2 Recommendations As requested by the homeowners, we evaluated the possibilty c:>f constructing wave energy dissipator (rip-rap) to provide an limited protection to the base of the bluff. We consider, based on the previous experience that the utilization of rip-rap is a temporary solution to the erosion and undermining of the base of the sea bluff. Furthermore, the present condition of the sea bluff in some localized areas of the subject site is too severe for the utilization of a rip-rap as a temporary solution. The degree of fracturing, jointing and base undermining is too critical for the rip-rap to provide any kind of protection due to the on going slope failures. More specifically these areas. Are the upper and lower bluffs located at; The Milis residence located at 470 Neptune A venue, the adjacent southerly extension on North EI Portal Street and the property located at 522/526 Neptune A venue and extending approximately 10 to 15 feet into the adjacent properties to the north and south. It is our experience that methods of rip-rap construction may differ greatly due to access difficulties, site condition at the time of construction and season. It is our professional opinion that a well planned construction wor k is not likely to affect the stability of the adjacent properties. If construction is to be performed we recommend that the contractor pròvide this office with a work plan prior to the construction initiation for our review and approval. As requested by the homeowners we are providing with a rip- rap design for the subject site (for details refer to Figure 6, Rip-Rap Details). We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held at the subject site with all the parties involved present, including homeowner(s), design engineer, soils engineer, and contractor(s) to answer and clarify all the questions that may arise from the report prior to construction. We also recommend that we are contacted to answer any questions concerning the subject project. 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-0082 Page No. 12 6.3 Limitations The findings and recommendations of this report pertain only to the project investigated and arc based upon assumption that the soil and geolog-ic conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the in vestigation. This report is issued with the understandings that it is the responsibility of the ownel's or their representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein al'e brought to the attention ~f the Civil Engineer and contractor. This report, as requested by the homeowners, addresses only the construction of a rip-rap along the base of the slope. The upper portion .of the bluff (terrace deposits) exhibits a marginal stability and in some areas may collapse at any time even if protection to the toe of the bluff is provided. It is the owners responsibility to have this condition evaluated and it is strongly recommended by this office that stabilizing methods be provided to the upper section of the bluff as soon as practical. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our observations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction b,y a representative of Earth Systems Design Group. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this repol't. Final project drawing's should also be reviewed by this office prior to construction. The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field study, laboratory tests, and our understanding of the proposed construction. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those assumed in the preparation of this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may review the situation and make supplementary recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed structure changes from that described in this report, our firm should also be notified. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices within the City of Encinitas area. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly understanding of the proposed construction, and partly general experience in the geotechnical field. on our on our on our 8 8 Neptune II Project Project No. E-OO82 Page No. 13 Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. 1. <) ... 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 8 8 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Artim, E.R., 1985, "Erosion and Retreat of Sea Cliffs, San Diego County", published research excerpt from California's Battered Coas t, Proceedings from a Conference on Coas t al Erosion, San Diego, California", edited by Jim Mcgrath, dated September, 1985. "Preliminary Geotechnical Excavation, Bradley Residence, Lot Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California", prepared by Buc!tanan-Rahilly, Inc., dated October 27,1986 "G',.'.otechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California", prepared by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. Eisenberg, LoL, 1983, "Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California", Master of Science Thesis, SDSU, dated Sept ember 20, 1983. 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. Abbot, P.L., (Editor) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego County, California,"; San Diego As socia tion of Geologists Publication, dated April 13, 1985. Tan, S.S., 1986, "Landslide Hazards in the Encini tas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. 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 0 f 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", Unlv. Calif. Press. Kern, K.R., 1983, "Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego:, PicJde Press, San Diego California. Ziony, J.I., Wentworth, C.V., Buchanan-Banks, J.Y. and H.C. Wagner, 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting In Coas tal Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-585, Scale: 13. 14. 15. 8 8 "County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326-1671, scale: 1 inch equals 200 feet, dated September 17, 1915". "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". ---,--, --'-'-- -- ------..-- ,- ,----- ,- -' 8 iÞ ~ Q~\",,~t SITE ~ EZE ST UNION g oD 700 I I \ ,- ~ -n ~ -< QUAIL BQTA, , ..GAflOE.NS. . . - . ." ';:;i"'"J" !~~/ ;.:'f~t~~~:i~{ Q - 0'- - - 0 7 c FIG. 1 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP 1529 A Crand Avenue. San Marcos. Col ¡(ornio 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo. (619) 471-7572 DATE: 10-07-92 DWG. NO.: PROJECT: REVISION: VICINITY MAP I --.....- r--- ;-..- ¡- r-- .._-- I ¡-~ 1- I. r- r--- , t I LEGEND ~ TEST BOR I NG LOCATION . I" AI L--J CROSS SECT I ON ~ SECT 1 ON LOGGED 85-8. A TT I TUDE OF FRACTURES AND/ OR JOINTING I72ZJ mJPOSED RIP. RAP , CJ \Q II ~ ~ Cj .......¡ ¿j C/) FIG. 2 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 II Grand IInnu., San Marcos, CQIIf'ornlO. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572 DATE: 10-27-92 DWG. NO.: 9300822.DWG PROJECT: EOO82 REVISION: GENERAL SITE PLAN NEPTUNE II PROJECT ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 8 8 A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 21.00 FT. AND X = 30.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN AND x = 83.00 FT. X = 117.00 FT. UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 28.00 FT. 16.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE~ RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG 8 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 TYPE(S) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED VI"! TRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. = CE NO. ( PCF ) ( PCF ) N . 1 102.0 102.0 1 8 COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU ( PSF ) ( DEG) PARAMETER ( PSF) 270.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I ';ñ~ I I I ¡/~I I I ~I~ 10> I Iii ~.gl I I~~~ I~ I III I 11111111 III I I f I -+ I$UI)ðI~1 I )II I I I I I J I I(){r I I I /Í I IUI~.~\..I I I I I I I~ 1 ~ I I õ I II I ¿ I I r, I I I". I~ I I 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 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 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 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" CD po. '" If> . EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue, Son Yorcos. California 92069 Phone (619) 471-6J51 Fox (619) 471-7572 DATE: 10-8-92 owe. NO.:STABNEP2.DWG PROJECT: EO082 REVISION: 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 ¡x¡ ~ I I z,o 10-1 I -LoJ I ~51 I I t;(' I I I I I I I I I ... I I I ~ I I I I I ~I '--L I I ~I I r]1 '-' I I I ;1\ I 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 I I ::: ~ ~ 0 CI1 +' cv .- e cI1 0 0 +'0.. 0 cI1 cv ...., \JO I... e CV 0 cv U {f)u e 0 +'::J >. I... U (f) cv I... 0 cv '"' +'I...CV +'I...+' '-I...t--ecv- (f) 0 - °.s::.""""" 0 t- >..- U ~ 0.. I... L..... e cv>,o'-.u\Jo 0 I... e - ,- cv .- 0 1....- 0'.- +' .s::..- cv 0 0 I... 0 U+'+'cI1-CV> 01... oo..o::J cv .<1> cv ::J 0 cvo- CDt-Ot-C>--...w '"' e 2 I W ('0. C> I W \J +' +' (f) ('0. ..J CDt-O+, I I 0 0 ..- I SEA BLUFF TYPICAL STABILITY CIRCLE NEPTUNE II PROJECT FIGURE 01 ^- L..... C/) 11. ~ I I- \.::J ~3.0 æ l- v> æ <I: W I (/) EARTII'SYSTEMS DESI~ GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Celif'ornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 rex <619) 471-7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 ./ ./" V V ./ ./ /' . V "'" /" '/ ~~ ./ ~~ ./ ,/"" ./ 7 / -;;7 /' / ./ /' Y /" /' / I ,. "" V / /' -/ c / /'" / ... /' /' / V / V -¡ /' / / " / " / / / / / / / 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0 a 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 NORMAL PRESURE (PSF) 5.0 6.0 SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION Cpsf) FRICTION REMARK:; ANGLE CO) )IE . T3-$4 @ 70.0 F T 1850 45.5 Tt )IE x T3-S5 @ 78.0 FT 4680 23.5 Tt "IE A T3-$7 @ 8':,.0 F T 3180 35.S Tt . FROM TOP OF BLUFF PROJECT NO. EO082 NEPTUNE I I ...... u.. (/I a.. ...... I ..... L) ;3 3.0 ~ ..... (/I ~ <I: W I (/I EARTH ~YSTEMS DESIC' CROUP 1529 A Gt-o.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.l¡f'ornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x <619) 471-7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 . .. þ k:;: ~ 7' ./ kP /' V ~ ¿ ~ V ~ V '" / ~ ./ ~ /'" ¿ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~~ V 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 00 1.0 20 3.0 4.0 NORMAL PRE SURE (PSF) 5.0 6,0 SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION <pst> FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (") '" . T3-S1 @ 10.0 FT 390 28.5 Qt * x T3-S2 @ 35.0 FT 270 32.0 Qt * Å T3-S3 @ 60.0 FT 190 33.5 Qt . FROM TOP OF BLUFF PROJECT NO. EOO82 NEPTUNE II ^ L..... V> a.. '-' I t- O ~3.0 0:: t- V> 0:: « w I VI EARTI1' Sl.STEJ1;!S DESl!v GROUP 1529 A Gr-cnd Avenue. San Mar-cos, CaliFor-nia 92069 Phone (619> 471-6351 Fax (619> 471- 7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 .-/ ..........---- IÞ V """" k ~ /' V ? /"" /' ...... V""" ./ /- V V V ......... """"'" VV - /'" /' ./ V /' V . - ,/" ,/" v ./ ./ V /" /" ./ /' /'" .-/ / /' / ./ V V /" /, V /" /' / ./ V /" 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 NORMAL PRE SURE (PSF> 5.0 6.0 SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (.) . * T 2-$1 @ 7.0 FT 4500 21.0 Tt x * T2-$2 @ 19.0 FT 2750 28.5 Tt Â * T2-$4 @ 35.0 F T 0 33.5 Qt . FROM MEANS SEA LEVEL PROJECT No. EO082 NEPTUNE I I - 4.0 ^ L..... ,,1 a.. "" I I- 1..:1 t5 3.0 a:: l- V> a:: <!: W I V> . 8 E'AR7'fI S}/~STEj\;fS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Ma.rcos, Ca.lifornia. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 / / / II ~IÞ / / I / V 1/ .. 17 'I - 1./ I V / / I . - / It I / / / / I V / I / I / / V / / / j / 1/ / / .~ I 1/ / / / V V I V 1/ / / / V /.. / V / J// ~ 5.0 2.0 1.0 00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 NORMAL PRE SURE (PSF) 5.0 6.0 SYt~BoL :AMPL E LoCA T IDr-J COHESION Cpsf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE C') T1-S3 @ 27.5 xx 180 56.0 at . (60 FT):.I: x ESD-l @ 65.0 FT 200 41.5 Qt Å T1-S2 @ 19.5 xx 2000 47.5 Tt <68 Fn * . FROM TOP OF BLUFF xx FROM MEAN SEA LEVEL PROJECT NO EO082 NEPTUNE II ,... I...... (/) a.. '"" :I: ~ l:J ð 3.0 œ: ~ (/) œ: <I W :I: V) 8 8 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 I I I - I . . - /' ~ V,... v /' V /" "" / ~ V /' ~ /' /. v--; V ~ Ý' /' ~ V /.. ~ I ~ ~ I ~" ~ # V ~ 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 NORMAL PRESURE <PSF) 5.0 6.0 SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION <psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (.) * 0 ESD-l @ 10.0 FT 0 33.0 Qi; *- x ESD-1 @ 25.0 FT 150 35.0 Qi; * Â E::[I-1 @ 45.0 FT 0 34.5 Qi; . FROM TOP OF BLUFF PROJECT NO. EO082 NEPTUNE II 8 . NATURAL DENSITY AND MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT I SAMPLE NO. (pef) (9,S) I I ESD-1, 5-6.5 119.4 8.4 I EgO-1, 10-11.5- 108.1 7.1 I EgO-1, 15-16.5 111.1 4.6 EgO-1, 20-21.5 101. 3 4.0 EgO-1, 25-26.5 92.3 4.6 EgO-1, 35-36 100.2 4.0 ESD-1, 45-46 87.9 5.0 ESO-1, 57-58 99.4 9.1 ESO-1, 65-66.5 99.6 20.0 T1-S2, 19.5 107.6 3.3 T1-S3, 27.5 106.4 2.0 T2-S1, 7.0 108.3 13.9 T2-S2, 19.0 111.1 3.0 T2-S4, 35.0 93.9 2.4 T3-S1, 10.0 106.3 5.5 T3-S2, 35.0 96.9 3.2 T3-S3, 60.0 95.9 5.1 T3-S4, 70.0 109.1 4.2 T3-S5, 78.5 110.4 11.7 T3-S7, 85.0 108.1 14.5 EARTH~r~STEMS DES/. GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVED SEA LOGGED BY HGE I- L... :r I- Q. L..J CI L..J ...J Q. ::!: <[ VI '-60 >< " c= -=- -,,", ><: f v - - f"'\" '-IV f-85 ~~ ./v f"'\C: ""-" - - - - -- >< , - >< >< >< ..,.; L... "- VI ::- 0 ...J CQ SM SM BLUFF NO , T-3 NEPTUNE II N/A FACE LOG 9-18-92 METHOD OF DRILLING GROUND ELEVA nON 96 ft \./oRK ORDER NO. ex; ~ VI Q. ::> c::J æ l::! 1-..... ::-..,.; L... ~ . æ::> ""~ ";'(,11 -CQ z...J ::>~ x w æ ::> l- V) 0 ::!: DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS - . - @ 68.5 ft Torrey So.ndstone (Tt): Red brown silty so.nd, fine to MediuM gro.ined, do.MP, very dense, ceMented with iron oxide, very well induro. ted, @ 69.5 ft BecoMes gro.y brown to reddish brown silty so.nd, fine to MediuM gro.ined, MOist, dense Modero. tely well to well induro. ted, Mo.ssive, presents cross bedding. . @ 81.0 ft BecoMes wet to very wet @ 87.0 ft \./o.ter seeps. @ 93.0 ft Beo.ch So.nd Deposits: Light gro.y, gro.y brown so.nd, fine to MediuM gro.ined, Moist, loose to Modero. tely dense, unconsolido. ted. PLATE B-40. EARTdlSYSTEMS DESI~ GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D SEA LOGGED BY HGE 1-0- - - Ie:::- .~ ")() L..V -25- ""^ o.JV >- L... J: >- c.. w ¡:¡ U -I c.. :r <t VI c:: - 1n >< .....e:::- ~~ >< I-- - A^ 'v ...... 1-50-- ........ ..... L... " V) :J 0 -I ~ SM SM BLUFF 9-18-92 FACE NO.T-3 NEPTUNE II N/A METHOD OF DRILLING LOG 96 ft GROUND ELEV A nON ø:i >- V) c.. :> 0 0:: I.:J >-^ :J,....: >-L... 0:::;:) ¡:¡~ >-VI -~ Z-I :;:)v u Ct :;:) ..... VI 0 :r ;-.: - . - I~ \./ORK ORDER NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS TOpSOil: Light brown to reddish brown silty so.nd fine to MediuM gro.ined, dry to do.Mp loose to MediuM dense. @ 0.5 ft Quo. terno.ry T erro.ce Deposits (Qt): red brown silty so.nd, fine, to MediuM gro.ined do.MP, dense to very dense, Ma.SSive. @ 30 ft BecoMes ta.n to reddish brown silty sa.nd fine to MediuM gro.ined, da.Mp to Moist, MediuM dnese to dense, Modera. tely consolido. ted, Modera. tety ceMented. @ 37 ft BecoMes tight gra.y to to.n silty sa.nd, fine to MediuM gro.ined da.MP, slighty dense, fria.bte, poorly indu- rOo ted, low cohesion, Ma.ssive. PLATE B-4 EARTa SYSTEMS DESlfN GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D SEA LOGGED BY ....: .... J: I- el. W Q W ...J el. ::£ <t V) -2 S >< ~30- - 1-35- >< ~40- --45- . >< HGE I- .... ...... V) ~ CJ ...J Q:I SP SM BLUFF 9-3-92 FACE LOG NO , T -2 NEPTUNE II N/A METHOD OF DRILLING MSL GROUND ELEV A nON ø:i >- V) 1-" ~....: >-L..., 0:::::> I:I~ I-V'Ï - <II Z...J :::>'-' W 0:: :::> l- V) CJ ::!: ~ el. :::> CJ 0:: l:J - .-. . ~ 'WORK ORDER NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS @ 27.0 ft BeCOMes red brown sil ty so.nd MediuM gro.ined, dry to do.MP, very dense, ceMented with iron oxide, very well induro. ted. @ 27.5 ft Terro.ce Deposits (Ot): To.n to gro.y white so.nd coo.rse to fine gro.ined, Möist to very Moist, Modero. tely dense, frio.ble, poorly induro. ted. @ 32.0 ft BecoMes Moist, Modero. tely induro.- ted, o.nd inter-bedded with thin lo.yers (o.pproxiMo. tely 114' to 112' thiCk) of light brown to red brown silty so.nd, ceMented with iron oxide. Note: FroM the conto.ct to o.bout 4.5 feet the slope fo.ce lies in o.n o.pproxiMo. te 1.5:1 (H, V) o.ngle o.nd is o.lMOSt vertico.l frOM there up to o.bout 15 ft frOM conto.ct. @ 39.0 ft End of log. PLATE B-3o. 8 8 *********************************************** * ******************************************* * * * * * * * Design Professionals Management Systems * * * * Kirkland, Washington * * * * * * * * ----------------------- * * * * STABL4 Slope Stability * * * * ----------------------- * * * * * * * * IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS-DOS Version * * * * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 * * * * * * * ******************************************* * *********************************************** --SLOPE STABILITY.ANALYSIS-- SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 510NEP2 SBORDONE BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X-LEFT Y-LEFT X-RIGHT Y-RIGHT SOIL TYPE NO. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) BELOW BND 1 17.00 28.00 60.00 92.00 1 2 60.00 92.00 83.00 92.00 1 3 83.00 92.00 130.00 92.00 1 ~AK 18 ~ J ~ 1 ~jV1 ~ 1J~ ~&jV lr.KUUr 15~ A GrO-nd Avenue, San MO-reos, ~ifornia 92069 Phone <619) 471-6351 Fax <619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D SEA LOGGED BY f-O- -5 -10- -15- l- I... W ...J eL. ::f: <I: (,/1 J: I- eL. W ¡::¡ HGE l- I... ..... V1 :;J CJ ...J CQ 9-2-92 BLUFF FACE LOG NO. T -1 NEPTUNE II N/A METHOD OF DRILLING I-~ :;J,....: >-t.., 0::;:) ¡::¡~ I- VI -CD Z...J :J~ W 0:: :J I- (.I) 6 ::f: x - + ---- ------ -SF~-- -------- -------- >< f- 2G 1>< / SM MSL GROUND ELEVATION a:i >- (.I) eL. :J CJ 0:: l.:) - . .~ 'WORK ORDER NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Beach Sand Deposits <BcD: Gray brown to dark gray brown sand, find to MediuM grained, MOist to wet, Moderately dense, unconsolida ted. @ 3.5 ft Torrey Sandstone <Tt): Light gray brown to reddish brown and yello- wish brown sit ty sand, so, tura ted dense to very dense, well to Mode ra tely well indurated, MaSSive. Presents water seeps in the lower 6.5 to 7.0 feet, localized Mudstone layers, cross-bedding and jOint and fractures striking in a north- southerly direction and dips of 72 to 85 degrees towards the east and west. @ 9.5 ft BecoMes Moist, and Moderately well indura ted. PLA TE B-2 EARTl!8SYSTEMS DES/. GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D LOGGED BY I- l.. J: l- e.. w Q -50- -55- 1-60- r-6 5- ,-70- - W ...J e.. ::L <I: V! I- l.. ..... VI > c:J ...J p:: 15 90 6 51 107 LOG OF 9-16-92 BORING NO. ESD-l NEPTUNE II HoLLo~ STEM AUGER METHOD OF DRILLING HGE 87,5 GROUND ELEVATION ".¡ >- VI e.. ::) c:J 0:: ~ I-~ >~ >-L..: 0::::) Q~ I-vi -p:: z...J ::)-.; w a: ::J l- V! Õ ::L :-.: - - -- - - v ~oRI< ORDER NO, DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS @ 57.0 ft Torrey So.ndstone crt): light gro.y brown so.nd, fine to MediuM gro.ined, do.MP, dense to very dense. @ 65.0 ft BecoMes so.turo.ted o.nd dense. Toto.l depth 67.5 ft ~o. ter @ 65.0 ft No co. ving Bo.ckfilled 9-16-92 PLA TE B-lb EART~SYSTEMS DES/. GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue. San Marcos. California 92069 Phone <619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE 0 LOGGED BY ~ L.. J: ~ 0- W ¡:¡ '-2 5- -30- '-35- -40- -45- - W ...J 0- ::L <I: V1 ~ L.. "- V1 ::J t:J ...J ~ 30 20 12 . 18 26 30 LOG BORING NO. ESD-1 NEPTUNE II HoLLo~ STEM AUGER OF 9-16-92 METHOD OF DRILLING HGE 87.5 GROUND ELEVATION ~oRK ORDER NO. øi >- V1 a.. :J t:J CII: t.:) ~~ ::J~ L.. >-- CII::J ¡:¡~ r-V1 -~ z...J :J~ ~ w CII: :J r- V1 6 :::L DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS - - - @ 33.0 ft BeCOMes, gray brown fine grained. . No blow count. @ 40.0 ft BecoMes light gray to yellowish brown and fine to MediuM grained. PLATE B-la EART¡jSYSTEMS DES/I#.¡ GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone <619) 471-6351 Fax <619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D LOGGED BY ..... 1.0.. J: ..... a.. w ¡::¡ -0- 1-5 I- 10- -15- - 2::7 - W ...J a.. ~ <t VI ..... 1.0.. "- VI ::. a ...J CQ 8 12 20 9 12 25 IE !If HGE SM SP LOG OF METHOD OF DRILLING 9-16-92 BORING NO. ESD-1 NEPTUNE II HoLLo~ STEM AUGER 87.5 GROUND ELEV A nON IÐ >- VI a.. ::> 0 D:: l:J .....~ ::',...: >-1.0.. 0::::> Q~ .....VI - Q:j z...J ::>~ - - -- . \,./oRK ORDER NO. W D:: ::> ..... V) a ~ ~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS F ILL: Dark brown silty sand, fine to MediuM grained, daMp, loose to MediuM dense. @ 2.5 ft Terrace Deposits (Qt): Red brown Sightly silty sand, fine to MediuM grained, Moist, MediuM dense. BecoMes Moist to very MOist, MediuM dense to dense. @ 4.0 ft @ 10.0 ft BecoMes dense @ 11.0 ft BecoMes yellowish brown with iron oxide staining and MediuM dense. @ 13.0 ft BecoMes dense. IE No blow count. @ 16.0 ft Light gray brown to yellowish brown with iron oxide staining slightly silty sand MOist, MediuM dense. ft Light gray to tan sand, fine to MediuM grained, MOist, loose to slightly dense, friable, very poorly consolida ted, cohesionless. @ 18.0 PLA TE ~-1 I- t s ~ I ....... - - - - - 100 ---- - - - - - - - - - ïiõ.o, - J- - - - ------ ~--- I, /-?-?-?- - - - 90 T -3 - - - - - - - - - - - --1- - - - - - - -- - - - T3-51 -/ - - - - 80 . / -------- --------,-- ----- .- / 0 -,/ -----------ro - - - - - - - T3-S~-)- - ~t- I - - 60 --------~~ -----------~-- I ---50 ---------r-------------- / ------w --------~------------ 3 ' ----~ T3-$ - --, - - - - - - - - - - - ~?-==-? - ~.=:.- -- - - T 3-54 -"";.,-; 0 0 - - - - - - 20 T3-55 - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - -~~ - SECTION C-C T3-56--,.,-; Tt _SCAle ,".30' - - - - - - 10 T3-57~ --------- 10 + - - - T3-5S- ;:J.,-; Bd ....... 7'0.0) - - - - - - - - - 0 T-3 - -....... - - - - - - - - - - -- 0 -------. 'tiC - :0> Ulto- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. J>~ ~o~ç:j Q..... 'T0Iõ;'~ g I - >CIJ OIU)~;~ I\) IV ::0 CI) ~ ¡ ~ I" ~ ;~~ - CIJ 5= ~ ~ .., ri ~ sO~St'2] !G°~. CIJ 0 Z ØI n ..... ZO;¡;~~ .. :. '" ~ <: ~ . ~ I ~::o ~ b: .!,¡ ÕO ~ 1"1 UI ~ () ..... CD "-' 1'o.)1'o.)c::: ;-i ~ ..... 0 CD V ~ 100 go 80 70 60 50 40 3D 20 (j) f'T1 > OJ r Z c " m " ~ " > n f'T1 Z r m 0 - C) - . -0 n e ;U 0 (j) (j) m (j) ~ f'T1 n -I "T1 - - 0 C) Z C ;:0 n 'T I n (J1 LEGEND Bd Tt Qt ts -?-?- T-3,T-3' ~~~ T3-S8 -100- Beoch Depos its Tertiary Torrey Sandstone Quaternary Terrace Deposits Topso i I IF i II Geologic Contact (Queried where uncertoin) Section Logged Water Seepoge Section Location E I evat i on (f t ) r ---,------ .- ~ ~ ¡;. - ------------------------------- <.,;t ~ \'J --- -~. ~------ :'J ~~ l . ;; _.-._-- - - -- ~.ilV:>q~ '.0"" P10""~"" 0 ..... Þ A I..") I ¡¡¡ »!' ~ CD CO .... .. ..... N \,') ~,;t ~ C "'1 - .. ~ AofÞi ~ ~ ~ 11 U 1; ".. ~ ;;' ~ b ~ p ... a ÞJ õ?Øì:'~ ~ 9 ;;¡ 0 ~ ~;::~ (JI " ø N -: ; 0 (I) ... - - .... ::t/.-ðoV ~ ;:: ~ c ~) S S ~ 00\.1 <;) 1.- : ~ = ~ r. J = 1 = T = [ ='= -I = 1 ;sf.<;r!--= ] ~ 1 ~ ~ . ;) ==- : 83 - _. _L- _1- J __1..- L _J- J~¥/- L_I_- J'~-~- L -- - - - - œ ]0 -- -- L -\- j - L - L -1- J~~'l}-~ -l-L --L-,..L 1- L -- - .- - - M / Ot / 60 -. - -- ~ -1- _.t - ~- -t- -1- -i~(-t - -~ __I '~-I- -1- J - ~- - - - - - .u / ,~ - - 32 !O -- - ~- -1- ~ - t - t- -!7~-~ - -L/+~'I- -\-&-1 -~~~ ~ - -- -- - ~ 40 -- - -'r --1- -1-t - t:'.:~-f4'~~tLlÆt~Œ--I- i--- -I' - -- - - -- .0 (34.30) '" .~.- - --I -1-1-1rr~r-¡.-r=--r--I='~-4-~-r-=-¡L-~ - -- - . jO 10 - - - r -'-1- J. - r --I~\l-- '1,{ f"' ~~f-I- F-~<JfC] ~'Ä--A- <0 / 1 ð 128pcf 1 -3D : _~=:1d ~211) C=CJ=l=L=CI J=l=L:===~: : 0 10 20 XI 40 50 61> Ï'O 80 '90 100 1\0 120 IJO (?j) (ij) ~ If' C)1 ~ @ ~=t ~ zPü rod ~IF ~ -I F _A ciVi} ., Z,,- !'IÌ) fT\ ~ Pi) ~@ F" T ~ ==' ~ ~ cj! LEGENO ~: ; ~l SIA 1 C ¿OE~ ..-- 0- --:15 - - 25 =:¡ o;-u- --;, 0 l e~'n or y 1 err a c'o De po ;¡~S '\1 ~~ ~ lFACT~ Œ- 1.2.36, 935 ,_7941 It lcr~iory ;orrey SGnds~one ...... r,;;.'" SAI ETY .. ',' - ' '. I (") ~ u - ---____._d______---- -?-?- (.e~Jlog Il... Con,_{.c" ;Þ m ~l, ' ' " (Quer led W(,)ere, llncer tOln) ~l~ ~ ~ ffi. - - ----- --...--.--- _____n '--.... -- - ----- - - --,------' ---- - ----- _u - _.'- - 8 I I I ì I 1.1 I . .. .. j ~ r, -'..' . 0:.. V ' 8 -- ---------------------------------------- I 73.60 + x clition complete. time = s 92.00 + 14.88 seconds - ---------------------------------------- 110.40 + F 128.80 + T 147.20 + . . . . . 'J . . . .... . . . . .8.7 52 ""'8 .9 ...61.3 . . .. 0... ." 4 ........... .87 5 2 . . . . . . . . .. ""'1 : . . . . . . 60 . .~' ; 3 . . i . .87 2 i .::..'::::...60~~':~ . . . . . . . . 9 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . , . ¡ . . . . . . * ì I I I , f : * 8 8 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-S,I,JRF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 23.00 36.93 2 35.42 47.01 3 47.73 57.23 4 59.93 67.59 5 72.01 78.09 6 83.96 88.72 7 87.58 92.00 *** 1.196 *** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 24.00 38.42 2 39.75 41.22 3 54.46 47.51 4 67.37 56.97 5 77.80 69 .11 6 85.21 83.29 7 87.47 92.00 *** 1.218 *** y A x I S F T 0.00 18.40 36.80 55.20 73.60 92.00 x 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 18.40 + A 36.80 + . 8 FAILURE 5'-'F'F(~(E $PECIFIED BY 6 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 29.00 45.86 2 43.92 51.65 3 57.56 60.01 4 69.49 70.67 5 79.33 83.29 6 83.89 92.00 *** 1 .195 *** - FAILURE SURFACE-SPECIFIED BY 6 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF V-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 28.00 44.37 2 43.03 49.86 3 56.86 57.91 4 69.05 68.27 5 79.22 80.62 6 85.60 .92.00 *** 1.196 *** 8 8 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.00 33.95 2 33.68 43.71 3 46.19 53.69 4 58.51 63.89 5 70.66 74.30 6 82.62 84.93 7 90.31 92.00 *** 1.168 *** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 23.00 36.93 2 38.36 41.41 3 52.79 48.32 4 65.91 57.47 5 77.37 68.64 6 86.88 81.51 7 92.24 92.00 *** 1.194 *** 8 8 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 6 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. ( FT) (FT ) 1 26.00 41.40 2 40.29 48.60 3 53.61 57.46 4 65.78 67.85 5 76.60 79.63 6 85.50 92.00 *** 1.14A *** - FAILURE SURFACE-SPECIFIED BY 6 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 27.00 42.88 2 41.91 48.68 3 55.60 56.97 4 67.65 67.50 5 77.69 79.95 6 84.36 92.00 *** 1.158 *** 8 8 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 gPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT ) 1 23.00 36.93 2 37.57 43.55 3 51.07 52.13 4 63.25 62.51 5 73.86 74.48 6 82.71 87.81 7 84.71 92.00 *** 1.089 *** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 22.00 35.44 2 34.42 45.53 3 46.54 55.98 4 58.33 66.79 5 69.79 77.96 6 80.91 89.46 7 83.23 92.00 *** 1.135 *** EARTHft;lTSTEMS DESIC. CROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (519) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D SEA LOGGED BY HGE -0- 1-5- I- 10- f- 15- I- L.. ::t I- a.. L..J Q L..J ..J a.. ::E <t VJ >< >< r-2o- I- L.. "- VJ ~ CJ ..J ¡:Q SP SM BLUFF 9-3-92 FACE LOG NO. T -2 NEPTUNE II ME THoD OF DRILLING N/A MSL GROUND ELEV A T ION ø:i >- V! a.. ::> CJ 0:: \.J 1-" ~....: >-1...; 0::::> Q~ .....vi ~ a) z..J ::>~ L..J 0:: ::> l- V! CJ ::E ;-.: - .- I~ 'w'oRK ORDER NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Beo.ch So.nd Deposits <Ed): Gro.y brown to do.rk gro.y brown so.nd fine to MediuM gro.ined, Moist to wet, Modero. tely dense, unconsolido. ted. @ 3.0 ft . T orrev So.ndstone (It); Light gro.y brown to yellow brown o.ndred brown sil ty so.nd, so. turo. ted, dense to very dense, well induro. ted Mo.S- siveJ presents wo. ter seeps to o.bout 6 feet, cross bedding, jOint o.nd fro.ctures, striking in 0. north- southerly direction o.nd dipping 76 to 85 degrees towo.rd the eo.st o.nd west. @ 8.5 ft BecoMes Modero. tely well induro. ted. @ 12.0 ft BecoMes Moist. I I PLATE B-3 EARTHtÞs}7STEMS DESI~ GROUP 1529 A Gro.nd Avenue, So.n Mo.rcos, Co.lifornio. 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fo.x (619) 471-7572 DA TE OBSERVE D SEA LOGGED BY HGE r-25- I- L... J: I- Q. W Q W ...J Q. :::t <t VI ->< -3" >< - -35- r-40- HS- I- L... ..... V! ~ CJ ...J OX> SM BLUFF FACE LOG NO. T -1 NEPTUNE II N/A 9-2-92 METHOD OF DRILLING GROUND ELEVA nON :Q >- V! Q. :J CJ a:: LJ I-~ ~...: >-L.., a::=> c~ I-V! -OX> Z...J :Jv ¡..: w a:: :J l- V! CJ :::t - - _u ~ '\ MSL 'w'oRK ORDER NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS @ 27.5 ft BecoMes red brown sit ty so.nd fine to MediuM gro.ined, dry to do.MP, very dense, ceMented in iron oxide, very well induro. ted. @ 28.5 ft T erro.ce DeDosits (Qt): light gro.y to to.n silty so.nd, fine to coo.rse, very Moist Modero. tely dense, frio.ble, poorly to Mode- ro. tely induro. ted. @ 34.0 ft BecoMes Moist. Note: FrOM conto.ct up to 5.5 ft, the slope fo.ce lies in o.n o.pproXiMo. te 1.5:1 (H:V) o.nd is o.lMOSt vertico.l froM there up to o.bout 10 ft frOM conto.ct. @ 36.0 ft End of log. PLATE B-20. I ~J : I J- 8- ~I I II I III I ~t'. I \ \ I t'. I /J:\ I ~ r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 ô III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 tro 0 '" 0 ~ co "" " If' 0 M 0 .. 0 N ~ 0 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 1 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 1.- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <X I I I I I I I I I J:J I I I J I I \1 I z~1 I -' (00. CJ - - _I I 0 I I 1 I .......,1 I ô /' ~~ !r' 1'1 I I . Itj..1 I II~I ì--k I ~ IV> I I I I I I"l. Ii. I I I I I I I I '- 1\ I ¡:: I I I I I I I It 1- -J. I I I I I I I~ I 11""""~ll I I I I I I{I I I I . I I I I I I;: I ~ I '/' . I I I I I I ~ IÐj .If J I . I I I I I I .!.Vil ;111 ~I I I I I I I I;: I II I I I I I.. I I I II I I I I I ,I I I ,I I I I I I ~ I I ïl I I I I I I I I 0 rr. .. '" .. ~ 0 "" .. "., .. ... 0 M 0 N ~ 0 HARTH S)'STHMS DESICN CROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue. Son Yorcas. California 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fa. (619) 471-7572 DATE: 10-8-92 PROJECT: EO082 VJ -+-' Q).- e VJ 0 0 -+-' a. 0 VJ (l) -' -00 I... e Q) 0 (l) U VI u e 0 -'::J >'1... U e VJ Q) L 0 Q) -0 0"-'" -+-' I... (l) -+-' L (l) Q).- -+-' '- I... I- - e Q) 0' 0' -+-' ..... VJ 0 - O.,e 0'00- 01- >"-U:t 0 a.u a. Lu... -.JQ)Oe (l»'O-""""u-o Q)-.JO 0 L e - .- Q) e VI 0 I... ,- 0".- 0 (l) ..... .,e.- Q) 0 0 1...'- I... - 0 U -+-' ..... VJ - Q) -+-' Q) a. > OI...Oa.°::JU-+-'E(l) (l)Q)::JOQ)Q(l)OO- rnI-QI-~_(/)3:(/)W ,,-... e ~ 1 W c-. ~ I W -0 -+-' -+-' VJ c-. -.J rn I- Q -+-' 1 I I-'VI . .í.f) 0 '-'.10 1,.-.- I- . f- I SEA BLUFF FACE LOG, CROSS SECTION A-A owe. NO.: T-1SECT.Dwe REVISION: NEPTUNE H PROJECT FIGURE 3 . 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 III I _I I I I II" I I I I :, (~~~ i i i --~~\, I I --... I 'õ I I I I Ì', 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 J 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 I I I I I I I I I I I , I , I , 0 CO CO ø' CO <II CO .... CO ." CO .. EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A (;rand Avenue. Son IoIorcos. Californio 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 ra. (619) 471-7572 DATE: 10-8-92 DWG NO: T-2SECT.DWG PROJECT: EO082 REVISION: , 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 10-1 I II I S~ I I I". I bI"' I I II I I I I ". I I I 'I I ~ I I I". I I- I I I I I I 1.0 I ft j~ I Ilf ~ I I 1~~I:fi~1 _I ;\1 I I~~I ~I/\I I I 1-1 I- I I ,. I I I~ II I I I I ~ I 1- I I I I I~ I I I ~I II- I . I I I- I " I I I II CO .. CO M CO '" ~ (/) -+-' Q) .- C (/) 0 0 ....... Q. 0 (/)Q) ....... "DO L C Q) 0 Q) u Uì u C 0 -';:¡ >'L U C (/)Q)L OQ)"D 0----- -+-' L Q) -+-' L (1) (1).- -+-' .- L I- - C Q) 0'1 0'1 -' -- (/)0 -°.cO'lOO"""" 0 I- >..- U ~ 0 Q. u Q. L u... --.J (1) 0 C Q»'O-""""Ul:) (1)--.J0 0 L C - .- Q) C (/) 0 L 0- 0'1.- 0 Q) ....... .c.- Q) 0 0 L .- L - 0 U-+-'-+-'(/)-Q)-+-,(1)Q.> OL Oa.O;:¡u-+-'E (1) Q)(1);:¡OQ)Q(1)OO- CDI-OI-O........Uì3=(/)W ----- C - N ~ I ~ '.LO I t5. ~. Ñ '. <1 :5 W "D.......-+-,(/)C" I""\N..- --.J CD I- Q -+-' I 1-" I- I SEA BLUFF FACE LOG. CROSS SECTION B-B NEPTUNE II PROJECT FIGURE 4 NoText NoText