The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-6201 G/TE --------- Street Address ?51(P~1 / 3 ~q 3 G Serial # _____n____------- Category q:2 -( 31- Name / MlJP Description Year Plan cK. # r~~~"<,r>, , I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I November 2, 1998 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: (Ons¡:~uc¡:lon,"( ~ TO: Ms. Diane LAngqger Community Development City ofEncinitas Mr. Hans Jensen Engineering Department City of Encinitas ~ 1-- . .' l _oj \ - - :"----...._o-J --_.\:..~-_._-_. FROM: Mr. Bob Mahony &. John Niven Soil Rn,pneerîng Construction, Inc. RE: Lbaited GeoteduIieaI ÅIIeII8leBt 656, 658, A 660 NepåuIe A VeIi- E...."- C.Hlol"llia Soil Engineering Coostrucûon, Inc. (SEe) bas prepøred the following limited geotechnical assessment report regarding the repair of the existing upper and lower bluff walls at the subject properties. This report includes the results of our upper bluff stability analyses, conclusions, and recommendations for the repair of the upper bluff retaining wall. In addition, we have prepøred recommendatious for maintenance repairs to the existing lower bluff seawall. In preparation for our work, we have performed a detailed site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration and laboratory testing of select soil samples. In addition, we have reviewed doc~ reports and maps contained in the permitting files at the City of Encinitas, as well as project files provided to us by Mr. Charles Randle, P.E.. The references reviewed for this report are included in Appendix A It is our opinion that, within the past 90 days, the distressed condition of the upper retaining wall has accelerated sigJÙfú..AntIy, placing the residential structures on the subject lots in imminent threat of fiùlure. Our opinion is based 011 the recent observations of the distressed walers, visible crushing and twisting (See Figures 1 through 4, Appendix B), and the recent separations of the neighboring property's (678 Neptune Avenue) existing upper retaining wall, brick decking, and fencing (See Figure 5, Appendix B). In addition, we have attached a letter provided by SEC, Inc. to the property owner at 658 Neptune documenting our observation of changing conditions at the site within the past 90 days (See Figure 6, Appendix B). Altbougb the emergency improvements at this site had existed for some time in a distJessed and unfiniMed condition, sudden and unexpected acceleration of the concerns affecting the site provide visible indication that the primary residential structures are imminently threatened. Presented herein are our findings, conclusions and recommendations 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I Ms. Diane Langager & Mr. Hans Jensen City of Encinitas November 2, 1998 Page 2 for the subject properties. ~ The subject properties consist of residential lots adjacent to and west of Neptune Avenue in the City ofEncini1as. The lots ue bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the north and south by other residential lots. Elevations range fÌ'Om sea level on the western site boundaries to approximately 98 feet (M.S.L.) along the building pad level. A concrete seawall approximately 37 feet high is located at the bottom of the bluff along the western boundary. The wall has an approximately 1.6: 1 (horizontal to vertical) backfill extending upward to an estimated height of about 37 feet above the top of seawall. An upper retJùning wall exists eastward of the referenced slope and is approximately 19 feet in height The upper retaining wall consists of vertical poles, horizontal1"!W~ boards and tiebøcks with horizontal wood waters. Vegetation on the slope below the upper retaining wall consists of a moderate growth of landscaping flora. Construction of both the upper and lower walls was initiated under Coastal Emergency Permit No. 6-91-312-0. During our site reconnaissance, we observed the overall conditions of the lower and upper walls. It appears that the lower seawall has experienced some wear along its base ftom the tidal wave action and is in need of some minor maintenance repairs. Some minor erosion of the mid bluff area was noted. We observed that the upper retaining wall tieback and waler system was never completed properly and is structurally distressed. The horizontal waler members are twisted downward from their originally designed a1inentent and some ue crushed as well. In addition, the area above and behind the upper wall bas experienced settlement of the backfill. Our recommendations for the repair of these conditions are discussed herein. SUBSWlF ACE JXPLORA TION Boring B-1 was drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 31 feet on September 1, 1998. The location of the boring is shown on Figure 7 (Appendix B). An engineer from this office logged the boring, collected relatively "undisturbed" soil samples, performed Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's), and oversaw the drilling operation. The boring was advanced using a limited access 66Oåty.øeo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Diane {.a-np,ger &, Mr. Hans Jensen City of Encinitas November 2, 1998 Page 3 Watson 1 SOO drilling rig, equipped with 6 inch solid-stem augers and a 140 pound hammer for soil sampling. The drill rig, operator and crew were supplied by Tri-county Drilling, Inc., of San Diego, California. Subsurface soils were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the procedmes of ASTM D2488-84 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The boring was bacldilled, but not compøcted, upon the completion of logging and sampling. Logs of the boring are presented on Plate 1 (Appendix C). Geaenl GeoIoJy aad S.b8arfaœ Coaditio.. The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Tertiary and Quaternary-age sediments and associated topsoils. The oldest materials at the site are the sedimentaJy deposits of the Eocene Torrey Sandstone. These deposits consist of generally of gray to light brown !UUWWones. Overlying the Eocene-age sediments are Quatemary-age tenace deposits which form the major portion of the bluff. It is estimated that the contact between the Torrey Sandstone and the tenace deposits is at an approximate elevation of 25 feet (M.S.L.), mAking the thickness of the terrace deposits approximately 70 feet. These deposits consist of tan to reddish brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained, uncemented to poorly cemented sands. Fill exists behind the upper retaining wall and was encountered to a depth of approximately 15 feet in our exploratory boring B-1. The said fill consists of sandy silts/silty sands and clayey sands. A more detailed description of these materials are provided on the boring log Plate 1 (Appendix C). No groundwater was observed during our subsurface exploration. However, groundwater was observed seeping through the existing J~ng boards along portions of the lower seawall. It should be noted that groundwater levels can fluctuate due to such factors as season, temperature, precipitation, influence of any adjacent wells and other associated factors. Groundwater conditions at some future date may be different from those observed during this geotechnical assessment 66Ocity.po I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Diane Langager & Mr. Hans Jensen City ofEncinitas November 2, 1998 Page 4 Laboratory T....tinr Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative soil samples to assist in classifying the soils and to evaluate their physical properties. The laboratory test program included visual classification, evaluations of moisture / density, and the potential for hydro-collapse under wetting. Laboratory test results are presented on the boring log, Plate 1, as well as Plates 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b in Appendix C of this report. SWPE STABILITY ANALYSES Presented herein are the results of our upper bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the existing site conditions. The analyses was performed for both static and pseudo static conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (ST ABLSM computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The assumed most critical bluff cross section A-A', shown on Figure 8 (AppendixB), represent the bluff slope used in our analyses. Due to the distressed condition of the upper retaining wall, we assumed for the 'Before Repair" analysis, that the load on the exisitng tiebacks was reduced to twenty five percent of their origiœlly designed capacity. This condition was assumed based on our observations of the distressed tieback / waler system for the wall and our opinion that the overall stability of the wall is greatly reduced. In addition we analyzed the stability of the upper bluff for 'After Repeir' conditioos. The computer printouts are included in this review and are presented in Appendix D. Assumed design soil parameters used for our analysis are as follows: T:,~:~--,,' ...... ç~~~~~ Terrace and Fill Deposits 120 250 37 Torrey Sandstone 125 1600 42 66Oœy.po I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Diane Langager &: Mr. Hans Jensen City of Encinitas November 2, 1998 Page 5 Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis uses a pseudo-static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each load case are presented below. """,.. """ ""'" """"'" """"""""""'" .,...... ,.,...........,. ......,."........"."....... ., .. . . "....'......:":..::.O:.::::':~~ç~~:.: ",," ""moo :..::::;:::::X~.:~Át. ~&iIIi..ç~~.- ..,.:..,~-~~:.,:., Upper Bluff Analysis - Befbre Repain Static Analysis- Pseudo-Static 1.39 113 Upper Bluff Analysis - After Repairs Static Analysis- .... -" '"h, 1.50 122 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findinBS presented above, it is our opinion that the factor of safety for slope stability of the upper bluff is less than 1.5, assuming that the upper wall has a very limited structural value for protecting the subject properties. This opinion is based on our observations of the horizontal walers which have rotated downward ftom their original alignment. It is estimated that the load transfer from the tieback bearing plate to the vertical structural poles is reduced by as much as 75 percent It is our opinion that if no work is performed to repair the existing upper retaining wall, the residential structures will be in imminent danger of failure. Based 011 the results of the hydro-œUapse tests (Appendix C), it is our opinion that the potential for further settlement of the upper retaining wall backfill will be on the order of about 2 inches. It is recommew1ded that DO settlement sensitive improvements be constructed in the area of the retaining wall backfill. We recommend that a limited amount of imported fill material be placed at the rear (west) of the properties to improve surface drainage. We recommend that surface drainage be collected and drained to Neptune Avenue. 66Ocåty.po I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Diane IJlngager & Mr. Hans Jensen City ofEncinitas November 2, 1998 Page 6 In order to restore the upper retaining wall and lower seawall to its originally designed condition, it is recommended that the following repairs be peñonned immediately. Lower Seawall - Removal of all exposed reinforcing steel. Doweling (#5's epoxy painted) new steel reinforcement into the face of the existing wall and placement of approximately six (6) to nine (9) inches of shotcrete onto the face. Reinforcement shall either be #4 bars at 12 inches center to center or wire mesh is also acceptable. Shotcrete should have a minimmn compressive strength of 4000 psi at 28 days (See Figure 9 & 10, Appendix B). Upper Retaining Wall- Install an additional row of tiebacks near the top of the wall and construct a reinforced concrete waler. The additional row of tiebacks should be designed to support a portion of the wall during the replacement of the wood walers for the existing two rows of tiebacks one at a time. We recommend that the tiebacks be a minimum of 40 feet in length. The tie backs should be designed for a maximum bond stress of 12 pounds per square inch. The existing wood walers should be replaced with new continuous concrete walers. We recommend that a limited amount of imported fill material be placed at the rear (west) of the properties to improve surface drainage. We recommend that surface drainage be collected and drained to Neptune Avenue. Mid Bluff Slope- Surface areas of the mid bluff slope affected by erosion should be filled in with imported fill materials. The said fill may consist of gravel or sand type materials. 66Ocåty.po Ms. Diane Langager &. Mr. Hans Jensen City of Encinitas November 2, 1998 Page 7 If you should have any questions or require additional information, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Sincerely, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUcnON, INC. ~D.~.E. 554, C.RG. 847 Principal Engineer -"'-'~ --:~\NEERIÃ;r\\,\ -~\' ..".. 'VQ "~ ;'Ç) ..¿~\ D. .1i4..p~ "'<.J ":Q'" 'Ý. . 0 :1!!;':Ç;) ~..dl ~~: \It.. :G)~ ~ :. IC. ~o. 847 :ë;;} j. .. EXP. 08/31/00. ;'~ HúI. . i' ,. ~... ."" U '1/,: .. . ú' - ~~ f' ....'.'<:()"- \\\ Or C~l\"'--- \.\.",-,-,- c: Mr. Lee McEachern, California Coastal Commission Mr. Paul Ash, 656 Neptune Avenue Mr. Richard Bourgault, 658 Neptune Avenue Mr. Deryck Clay, 660 Neptune Avenue Mr. Bob Trettin 66Ocity.po ~!~ Project Engineer " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCES Applied Engineering Group, 1995, Case No. 92-137 MUPÆIA, 656, 658 and 660 Neptune Ave, dated March 71995. Artim & Associates, 1992, Third Party Review ofGeotechnica1 Documents Related to 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case Number 92-137 MUPÆIA, dated August 28, 1992. Artim, Ernest R, 1993, Review of Response to Third Party Review, Geotechnical Report 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated August 20, 1993. Artim & Associates, 1993, Field and Office Review of Conditions at 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated November 16 1993. Artim, Ernest R., 1995, Supplemental Third Party Review of Geotecbnical Report, 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Our previous reviews dated August 28, 1992, August 20, 1993, and November 16, 1993, dated April 1, 1995. , Artim, Ernest R, 1995, Supplemental Review Comments Relative to Geotecbnicà.I Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California (Our previous reviews dated 8-28-92, 8-20-93, 11-16-93, and 4-1-95), dated April 25, 1995. California Coastal Commission, 1992, Emergency Permit, Emergency Permit No. 6-91-312-0, for construction of the 35-foot high, 80-foot long seawall, dated April 2, 1992. City ofEncinitas, Municipal code, Sections 30.34.02OC & D. City ofEncinitas by Mr. Hans Jensen, 1992, Mallen Seawall and Upper Slope Security Wall, 656 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, C~ 2978-GR, dated July 9, 1992. City ofEncinitas City Council Memorandum, 1995, Public Hearing.Progress Report Case No. 92- 137 MUPÆIA, dated March 30, 1995. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1993,656,658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, C~ Artim & Associates letter dtd. 8/28/92, Calif. Coastal Commission letter dtd. 9/2/92, dated June 29, 1993. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Civil Engineering Consultants, 1993, Third Party Review of Geotechnical Report Prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, 'Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Neptune n Project, 470- 554 Blocks of Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California', Dated October 26, 1992, dated July 28, 1993. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1993, BRIEF Description of Findings; Soil Tests Within Subsidence and Geotechnical Analysis, (re: Cause of Settlement), dated November 22, 1993. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1993, Clarification of Previous Correspondence Dated 11/30/93, (Cause of Settlement and Cause of Subsidence in Rear Yards Particularly within White Property) dated December 22, 1993. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1995, Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case #92-137 MUPIEIA, dated May 18, 1995. Converse Consultants, Inc., 1985, Proposed Sea Wall 678 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, dated April 19, 1985. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Test Results for 660 Neptune Avenue, EtÌcinitas, California, dated May 11, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Leighton Soils Report-February 1986, Subsequent Letters of June 1987 & November 1989, Report #4841180-02, dated June 2, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Response to City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Section 30.34.020.c.b, dated July 21, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Emergency Permit Request fo Upper Bluff Stabilization at 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, dated July 30, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Laboratorty test results (various), dated August, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Neptune n Project, 470 Through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated October 26, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Tieback Load Testing - Ocean Bluff Retaining Wall, 656-660 Neptune Ave., Encinitas, CA., dated November 18, 1992. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Earth Systems Design Group, 1993, Cross Sections, Lower Upper Wall, Schnoebelens Residence, 678 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA, 24"x36" PIan. Sheet 2, dated As-Built January 4, 1993. First Phase Engineering, 1992, Seawall-Emergency Permit 6-91-312-0 (letter), dated April 8, 1992. First Phase Engineering ll, 1992, Design Report, For Seawall & Bluff Stabilization, 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated May 9, 1992. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Upper walls & Slope Configuration, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, dated July 9, 1992. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Seawall & Slope Protection, 656 Neptune Et. AI., Encinitas Ca., 24"x36" plans, Sheet No.s 1 through 7, by, dated January 14, 1991, revised September 4, 1992. Hart, Micheal W., 1995, Residential Property, 678 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA, Geologic Reconnaissance, dated February 6, 1995. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1986, Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, San Diego County, California, Proj~ct No. 4861180-01, dated February 10, 1986. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987, Estimated Bluff Retreast and Foundation Setback, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California, dated June 17, 1987. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1989, Geotechnical Update, Exisitng Duplex at 656 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California, dated June 21, 1989. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1971, Opinion re Soil Conditions, Proposed Residence, Between 660 and 680 Neptune Avenue, Lot 19, Pm BLKS E and F, South Coast Park No.3, Leucadia, California, dated February 4, 1971. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986, NA VFAC DM-7.0l Soil Mechanics, dated September, 1986. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986, NA VFAC DM-7.02 Foundations and Earth Structures, dated September, 1986. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Naval Facilities Engineering Comman~ 1988, MIL-HDBK-I025/4 Seawalls, Bulkheads, and Quaywalls, dated September 30, 1988. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Limited Geotechnical Evaluation for Feasibility of Purchase, 678 Neptune, Encinitas, California, dated April 12, 1989. San Diego County Assessor's Map, BK 256, PO OS, Scale 1" = 100' Skelly Engineering, 1995, Slope Stabilization Walls, Schnoebelen Residence, 678 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Califiornia, 24"x36" Plan, Drawing Sheet No.s SI, S2, S3, dated April 6, 1995. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 1996, Geotechnical Report / Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall, Johnson & Downing Properties, 788, 790 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California, dated July 29, 1996. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 1996, ADDENDUM, Geotechnical Report / Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall, Johnson & Downing Properties, 788, 790 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California, dated August 19, 1~96. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 1997, Addendum to Geotechnical Report, Jòhnson & Downing Lower Seawall, 788 &' 790 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" dated May 20, 1997. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 1997, Updated Geotechnical Review Report / Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Upper Bluff Retention System, Harlow Residence, 492 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California, dated July 14, 1997. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 1998, Repair of Exisiting Upper Bluff Retaining Wall, 656, 658, & 660 Neptune Avenue, Drawing Sheet No.s 1 & 2, dated December 15, 1997, revised September 21, 1998. Southern California Soil and Testing, Incorporated, 1995, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Ocean Bluff Stabil;ization, 724 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated July 3, 1995. Stevens Tmner Construction, Inc., 1994, Upper Seawall, 656-658 Neptune Avenue, dated January 18, 1994. Studio Katz, 1992, Third party review of Landscape Plans for Mallen (et. al.) Sea Wall, MUP 137" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dated October 5, 1992. u.s. Army coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984, Shore Protection Manual, Volumes I, II, and ill. u.s. Army Corps ofRngjneers, Oceanside, Ocean Beach, Imperial Beach, and Coronado, San Diego County, Calif., Beach Erosion Control Study. Woodward-C1yde Consultants, 1989, Geologic Investigation, 652 Neptune, Leucadis, California, dated August 21, 1989. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 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 I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I August 3, 1998 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: (Ons¡:~uc¡:lonlO( ~ Ms. Kathy Green, Esq. Perkins &. Miltner 750 B Street, Suite 2800 San Diego, California 92101 VIA F ACSTMll ,E ONLY Recent Observations - Upper Bluff Retaining Wall 656, 658 & 660 Neptune Avenue EncinitaL California Dear Ms. Green: This letter has been prepared to inform you of our recent observations made at the subject site. As you know, the existing tieback waler system for the upper bluff retaining wall is failing. During our site visit on Friday July 31, 1998, we observed that one of the walers below the 660 Neptune poperty, was significantly more distressed when compared to our previous observations at the site. It is our opinion that work: to repair the wall should be undertaken immediately. Please inform your client of these observations and of our concern for the potential failure nf the wall. . If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. .~ r ."", John W. Niven, P.E. Contractor's License No. A-268082 FIGURE 6 927 Arguello SHeet f<,edwood City. California 9406.3-1.310 (650) .367-9595. FAX (650) .367-81.39 ,_un - QI.S"\Lt.\ e -, t ¡ NE.?ívr-Jfé... A.JEw. ' ,,' [ I:m , I ~ 1 ~. " , 1,1 I; I ir' I I ~' I ; I . -I .' , I Ii: I I !~ / ! 1 ! ~: I~I I Iii ! I I .,'" ' ~ ! ' ! 'i l' J Ii I . I ., I "¡ I I I I . I ! '. rfil ¡ I I~! " '~ ¡ / , I I , I - Ii ¡ r 9 <9 -~ IJ /, , 0,) " ~ DECK ( I i , <c..._- I I W E.XIST, TOw, 92~ CEXrST,) ,.J i vT J - ,^d S T BO\J 75 . ! , . í ! i i \ -1 \! V \ I "m' \! " EX. Ow ALL \ I \"" 0 13. E-. 1<..E r'A Ie E V EXIST wALL ¡ ! I I I ¡ PLAN SCALE 1"=8'-0'" ! ¡ F[ -..." : "" , ¡ , ¡ ~~. " i I ; . ¡ i :'1 i*GS-~I;1 I ," :J ! " lCjCj~~ i /AI i ,/ '/' I i ~ f ¡ rw.¡ ill I~ i II! í t I I :¡G¥ADE A~E4~i ,:::AI~ f , ~ o¡ " U NE.-W Sùt::..-ç::-A.C~ D~*".v ~ Eo?! ~ 13 - \ ;/, 6' I~ ¡ 1- -II ' I v , . I I 'It \ ' \ I \ ! 'vi ALLER I ¡ \ I I ¡ t I I \ ! / 'If / i . \ ,/ \ ;: \ // V . IE "rHEDULç:- ~E ~~. v NORTH . I í ! ì ! I ! d)! ¡ l..~ ,:...R i I ,.." I , J i . '-1 ; I : : ¡ d : ~ tMP ~..r J F[ I ~~ [ I FIGURE 7 '" . .'" ,.'. .' ." . ." . ." -- '.0.' '., , . ~ ! I I I 1100 - I 180 - I <00 - I I 1./0 - I 120 - 1 I . I I I ,a.order from California ReprographiCS 126066 EX\ST,t.J~ LOvJf~ SEAWA&.t,.. )... ./Ä.' ,-0, " fÇXI'S 1iN~ tJ>p£ W A \.L. R. -1 ,/ //ít-- :;y:. r ToJZ,zE~ x - S ec..T\ O,..J , 4-,4 <ocoo R~s. [ Te:2J2,o,c.E. "DEi'o"'>lrs :) 7ft' Po e. ¡Vf A TJf) ¡oJ J )OIL ï:nGlnï:ï:~lnG COn)¡:~UC¡:IOnllK. ~ . PROJECT NAME: CHECKED BY: F/6Vi?.E 8 I L-.~'7\ I , II f.. ~-=>~ ~q. Hc.~ t'"1~~ I E. So E A. \)U Þ.. \..AJ (e..) T'E~Ck-~ , ~ ¿. ) Z..<::> Uo:.J ~ .~. I I I ~. I I l,... - r-' -::. I S,EA ~ Ll., I ~I 1/ ¡' II (A:>... L.Æ:.... .;:. I c- ~ - ~ I (I;. ) SVc=aP\:... ~ ve..... ~L\., . ,/ I' I' "'. . ~ I ~ . . 'I I II '-# °b I-A. ~!Z-A I N-~ e b-O cc. ~ l-o~ ~'b. ~-.¡.!;. ; ""'~ NE--~TUN ~ A-VE-f'JvE-) E-to-Ic.INI Ì'A-.l . C-A t..,...1 ~I~ I A )OIL ¡:nGln¡:¡:~lnG COn)¡:~uc¡:lonlrK. ~ PROJECT NAME: C..c=1-\ C12-E..A'"'1:- ~,v , ,./ e::.. FJ'\ ~ ~ p..- / e.. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: Þ-H ~Tï DATE: ,G) - "t 3. -~ ð JOB NO: I 1b-°~6 ~1Yt. Cf' 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 367-9595 FIGURE 9 125 22 , ~("q c;;;:h ~('hIN.J , I 1" A-,- ....,. <=P r 2.of'et ~ ~ ~ tf<=t T ~ 1"'C- ~ ~E.., " . . I .' Å4 . ~ , Â I A. . < \ r-. ' , , l~~C-~ , '~I ,~c" À~.s--e.-t:::.4 1'4 #4 lC-E.lN1=' \ T 1l~.s:~ ~ Iz,'C~ E-lXJ. , " *~ ~(....-~ ~-'O CC E.Uv -:t ~ fi=-l..\V b (t-11M -) t N l- (I:-) c.c:.N C-. t=.- N ~ '7 '7 ~- ~ LJ~. L ~~'7- ot N<::tt-.\ - So ~ I N Ic::.. C, e...o u r I ~ '1 +f=oc:1 t:::.. A;>f ~ ) PA-u,,¡, ~/ ~-P-=-'VI . f-)c.T~~ (E-) ¿,." '1:::.,./A . ~e..A I f...l ~ II" -f~ f-Ac..Æ- , , Á. fit .. ç.L. -.S' :!;: V .. t-\ ~ -¡-e.. ~ ~ I.) V" e- J..r, ~ ~~ I C'O N c...~ -ro ~ s;: #=:» ï ~ ¿ -) /+-IN ~ V '2:.. ~ C£- ~ ï -= Bat::.., ~ N e..h "P C. I <:::8 e... T-- P~Coë..Ìì~ of So fie==. T ~~ ::I.) ~IN+=-O~~ So ~ \J ~ Eo, -f1-. 'C ~I ~s. . . I ~. , , . , \ ,À. . " _I..:::>b ~ ~ So : G~ N~"T"UN~ ~VE.-NU~) &N~¡N' ""Htr~ I C-A..L.-l t=c:>~~.H. 'A. I C--A Vf:..... ' I v" -=- I - 'C:> I I )OIL ï:nGlnï:ï:=llnG COn)t=lUCtIOnllC. I~ PROJECT NAME: Co M~ \..Jl..A-1A, $v ~ ~ c:. 17' A I 1i:::.. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: e+f rz..:b77 DATE: {-.o - z,.~ - ~6 qBê~ 05;6 s.~. ¿or 927 Arguello Street. Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 367-9595 FIGURE 10 09/29/1998 13:55 5581235 I L .JY.9° oft 41\00 re NINYO AND MOORE PAGE 04 .CÇ)NSQLIDA riot.! TE$T DA T ~ ~ I " 3) r ~7 Nt {i"l'{ , IIFAOJECT NAME j', .ltiil)'/II.u-'cl./lo/ (;-)o,d.' , I ROJECT NO.' 4 1. 0 C 11 ? .. 0 ( / II ~ AMPLE LOCATION' ¡J - I DEPTH ç I lATE TESTED 1 ~ II ~ 7 3' TECHNICIAN /./-f /j ¡ ;:: '\ Y'-ð L: ~'. ¡ ÔIJ ð --. i:Q~" ".1 ./QQ~ 1<>.' 5"'¡f . I 0 2. 0 ,0 () ;;. Q /D:§1) .z, ./~2{: 12.:60 , Lë, f l.-'J ~ ~ : II , ~', z. "3 , / c .~ Z. .Fei? .00 ,"l.- .1 , Ob ~ 1 .10 ¡ ~ ./0,33 .IO,-=r .. .IOt.f~ ,n '¡,.,ci.'!, ...t.f' .¡ot,,' .Ie(" '5" , ,/O€~, ./0 ¡ 0 , ..--...~ --d ~/b-:r) . (,",. I 0 i '1 '0 .lIb; .//Ø 1- .IICc/-' .I/Z Z, .1/7.. 1- ..'l. l~Ïf'- t ;~-7.. : q,; I) ~ I~::' if I l,ro ,- z.: 10 l. " j, 'I ,OOlfS .., ' " " , .. 0 O:}- I -0 10 + '"- C¡:ðf " i'o,,/ ,../1.,0 7r; l' z.", '(:4-0 .0 r l. 1.- ~ r~ ... " " , . . ' '00 ".. '. ' . z. ,0 '3'\,. , " .l,') . If-'$' ,').1 r.o If, , - .. - '," I,~v - .. '" "" , . '.. .., ' -", d' ' , , MOISTURE 'AND DENSITY DAYA r WEIGHY OF WET SOIL + RING WEIGHT 'OF DRY SOIL + RING WEIGHT OF W A TEA WEIGHT OF RING WEIGHT OF DRV SOil PERCENT MOISTURE DrWDEN81TY Dat. TIme Siren '(kif) , Dial Conaol. ConGO, Reading (Inches) (Þ.rcent) ',' " .. -' '. ',"' ., .- -. --' .. -- 0 , " I '" - , BEFORE . "-F'rER . CONSO~" 'CÕ"'OL. - / ? i", ø; 0 0, ;;. ; 7- f. 7 J 11-, ;¡.- If,~ :;.J,f; +3,-;;' tf3'T- (;tf.cþ Hr~l (~'-1-, ø ooI l. q", /I/,?'"". o', ,'.. ')- .." " .', "0"" '" , . - '--~ '" ,-"....., .".. ,.. , , ' ,-- """""'."'-".'_0" "'" ,'.., "",,"',-""','0,,"'--,',-..' ..' " , ' .. ' .... .. "0 ... I OIL DESCRIPTION OAD'INýREMENTS CKSF) 1'(', ¿;~r;,,~, ~' }//o - .II-II If MACHINE NO. (!J I ¡of E~OUND INCREMENTS (KSF) - ,\!lATER ADDED ÀT (KSF) ø 6. If 5;:: , I "IME-RA TE CQNSOL. AT fNCREMENTCS) (KSf) Stren DIal Consolo Conaol. Oat. . Time '(kif) Réadlng ("~hl.)" Cp.rc'.nt) 11.- if It " It I ~ - ~', ,~ ~, ~ Ir I : It-' l~:11' Iq II It t R MARKS t I , " , . '" ,. " -' , , , .. "- " ,u - "','" q u - .. ,.. q " , : ' , " " .. -. , - '.. . , - -, ,- , ." .." ~ '" c" . .., " ' , u , ' -" 0,' -" .. 00 , , ;.. " -- -- - ..--u,--'",o, ,'"u' ,: ,.. , , ".. , " '," , ' ,- , ,0' , '.., , ,,- '00 ,,- , " - '- 'oo , .. .. ..' , .. " u- ", ,,".. ,',-", .. ,. " ,.. ~ .. .' n " m, ,,0, -, ,c " .. .. PLATE2a 09/29/1998 I I I -3.0 ~ I ~ -2.0 '" (l. ~ -1.0 I 0.0 I 1.0 I 2.0 en I ~ 3.0 P I uJ 4.0 ..J 0.. ::E <! en u.. 5.0 I 0 I- Z UJ Cj 0:: 6.0 uJ I ~ 7.0 '" 9 ..J I! 8.0 I 9.0 I 10.0 I I I I I 13:55 5581235 NINYO AND MOORE PAGE 02 0.1 -4.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 100.0 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 I I I , I I I , ! , , I I , I , I i I ' , i I I I I I , I I I I I " , -... -Seating Cycle . Loading Prior to Inundation . Loading After Inundation Boring No. Depth (ft.) Soil Type B-1 5.0-5.5 SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0 2435-90 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ¡yJnao & JV\oo\"e - Soil Engineering Construction leucadia, California PROJECT NO. 200766-01 ( FIGURE] 8-1 PLATE2b DATE 9/98 e9/29/1998 13:55 5581235 I -4"nyo &JV\oore I I I I I Date I I I I ! c - "! Z. I I <¡. ~ 3 I " I I t1-1 ~, I i9- Z ~ i " R MARKS, t I NINYO AND MOORE PAGE e5 C()NSOLIDA TION TEST DA T #JÍ~ Y /1.1- P -7..J. I Vi f.. ,I .' ~RO"ECT NAME' x51' -,j Pi 1..1i~; U(" ~~ I'~'I ('1')1 ,I, ' I'ROJECT NO.. J/ 2 C' t'il (.' { . 0/ ,d-/ /~/ DEPTH TECHNICIAN /'-"'1/3 SAMPLE LOCATION OA TE TESTED 1- Z / - '7 Õ ~OIL DESCRIPTION ( J C ) ,-OAD INCREMENTS (KSF) ..2{:,V:. Y:/,:r" kÍ. fI,.A) - Jf "'/ d MACHINE NO. @ - . ~eBOUND INCREMENTS (KSF) '~ÀTER ADDED AT (KSF) I. l K5F " " , ' IME-RATE CQNSOL. AT INCREMENT(S} (KIf) TIme , , Sue.. (k.f) Dial Con. of. Con.ol. ' Ré_dlng (Inch..)" (Percent) ,"" """ ",,'.. . .. , '0-.. - ,/QO 0 ,10 I ~ . '° 3' :031 - If) It'''1 '"ô' ~ .lð65 ,106 If ./ðl. q' -/(;13 ;¡ ö ' ., l/-' , .11It.- .,13 I .1I?>.ç .i,3Q . '.j; IJi' . ~i 1 r¡ , II" r., ..i/{,'1 ./1 ~ 1) dl~f) ." 11 , // 1tf .111" . /I " 1- .11,,'1( ,1!'1(. :./ Z z..' ,OI<1Q- I,"} Z- . 00> 8 .3~ -~ - ' . ò 0 ~ ~ . (,<] , .'Z.- , 00 ¡, tf , r.: t.f' .cI- " ~. [ ..¡ f,' 'fr' f ; .¡. z-, q;:o~ ,~',:;.;~ .. .oo..,-f, '" -'7'/- ,15' , I' : !v " "2.:'?1 -.",'-Ò\, ::,..;:;'¡ t:d tiJ ' " .. ' , , .01 ~ ~ /, 5 ¡, ~;I 0 I 0' ~ 4- (I.: '10 1i n: 1./-1 3; () 1- -;"', 2(.' 01: r.f.O 'i: I.f I /; ;,,-Lj, '!: 0 i ,i.,"'[,;. " 1-1. 0 '0 _oV~ .2.1fo ~ " -.....~ ---- ---- , , " " -- '.. ",.... " -', ' ~ MOl8TUREAND DENSITY DATA WEIGHT OF WET SOIL + RING WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL+RING WEIOWTOF WATER WEIGHT ÒF RING WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL PERCENT MOISTURE DflY'DENSITY " , Date Str.n '(kef)' Dlel Consol. Consolo Readfng(lnches) (Percel1t> , '" Time ..' h' "'" .- """ ..- '..' '." d,.. '-i/ <{,Õï,;: ~: 0 1- 1.: //;/0 I~;()O , Z : 0 , Z ': i ø Z. : II 3-; Z :? ~:~l/- .' .. , , ""'", " -- .. ..'. .. ,h, , , , 0",',,' " .. ........, '.. """ 0 " , ,. , '0 '" , " '.. , ' , " 0,', ...... . " "., "-.. ,.. '" "'""" . " - , , .. . - '.. BEFORE CONSOlo /1 'ð. If i ". /. I , 11,3 t¡. If. t.f- 13(;,r ", ll, :t-' 11-3,5'- ,,-' 0 '.. '" . , .., , , i .. , .. " .. , , " ,,' , " ," " , ,0 " " , , . 'AF~'" 'CÕHSOl. . :;, é I, f 1'3/./ )D,~ tflf.~ (3(" :}., I .,. ~. 1,,- - -.., ., .. .. .. , , o.' , , -, ,-, "'- .. "..' h h' , ' , . .' 0, " ,-' - ," , " , ' " , . '" 0" . 'j. '" .. " .. .. ".. '.' .."',, .... , 0 , ,. .., , ...- 0, , ." , ..' ... -'" ... .. .. ".. '" , , '.. PLATE3a .. " 09/29/1998 I I ~ -3.0 ~ I ~ -2.0 Q. )( UJ -1.0 I 0,0 I 1.0 I 2.0 <f) I ~ 3.0 :r f- I UJ 4.0 ...J CL ::E c( en u. 5.0 0 I I-- Z w U a:: 6,0 UJ I a, :z Q I-- 7,0 <{ 9 ...J I 0 en Z 8.0 0 u I 90 10.0 I I I I I I 13:55 5581235 NINYO AND MOORE PAGE 03 0.1 -4.0 STRESS IN KIPS peR SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 100.0 I I T , 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 , - -. - . Seating Cycle . loading Prior to Inundation . Loading After Inundation Boring No Depth (ft.) Soil Type B-1 10.0-10.5 SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH A$ïM D 2435-90 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS If/nao & JV\OO1"e - Soil Engineering Construction leucadia. California PROJECT NO. 200766-01 (FiG'üRËì L.!:U PLATE 3b DATE 9/98 - - - 289 249 299 V-Axis (£t) 1.69 1.29 49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 669 Neptune Avenue-Blu££ Stability Be£ore Repairs-Static Condition Ten Most Critical. C:669N39.PLT By: JWN 1.1.-1.2-98 9:54aM D FS 1. 1..39 2 1..43 3 1..44 4 1..46 5 1..47 6 1..49 7 1..52 8 1..53 9 1..63 1.0 1..67 89 9 9 Soi I No. 1. 2 49 To"tU"t Sa"tU"t C PIÜ Ru Pore Pi ez . (pc£') (pc£') (ps£') (deg) ParaM Press Sur£'D 1.25 1.25 1.600 42 0 0 1.20 1.20 250 37 0 0 1. 1. 89 1.29 1.69 299 249 289 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1..39 X-Axis (£t) 2 T2 T1. 329 369 - 499 - - I I Ir ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability Analysis-- I Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted output Filename: PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary No. X-Left (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 100.00 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 200.50 11-12-98 9:54am JWN C:660N39.DAT C:660N39.0UT C:660N39.PLT 660 Neptune Avenue-Bluff Stability Before Repairs-Static Condition Y-Left (ft) 100.00 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 125.00 X-Right (ft) 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 364.00 364.00 Y-Right (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 199.00 125.00 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 1600.0 42.0 .00 .0 0 I 2 120.0 120.0 250.0 37.0 .00 .0 0 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1 I I I I I I 1- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback No. X-Pos (ft) Y-Pos (ft) Load (lbs) Spacing (ft) Inclination (deg) Length (ft) 1 2 251.32 251.63 180.00 186.00 23750.0 23750.0 12.0 12.0 20.00 20.00 50.0 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Searching Routine will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary No. X-Left (ft) Y-Left (ft) X-Right (ft) Y-Right (ft) 1 250.00 162.00 251.00 174.00 A critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 125 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 201.00 ft. and X = 240.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 263.00 ft. X = 364.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I Is ice o. I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 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 Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 201.00 137.00 2 215.74 139.77 3 229.70 145.27 4 242.36 153.31 5 253.29 163.59 6 262.08 175.74 7 268.42 189.34 8 270.85 199.00 Circle Center At X = and Radius, 194.1 ; Y = 215.1 78.4 *** 1. 388 *** Individual data on the 10 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 14.7 7198.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.0 17667.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.7 20720.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.6 13922.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 2591.4 .0 .0 39.9 -37.3 .0 .0 .0 1.3 4688.2 .0 .0 66.2 -54.8 .0 .0 .0 8.8 27608.8 .0 .0 1609.2 -812.3 .0 .0 .0 1.9 4780.3 .0 .0 800.9 37.1 .0 .0 .0 4.4 7630.2 .0 .0 1262.3 700.6 .0 .0 .0 2.4 1410.2 .0 .0 512.1 486.3 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) Y-Surf (ft) 1 201.00 137.00 I I Ir ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I *** 1. 457 Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.99 230.60 244.34 256.72 267.33 275.80 281.83 283.41 Circle Center At X = *** 1.470 *** Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 137.63 141.01 147.04 155.50 166.10 178.48 192.22 199.00 205.1 ; Y = and Radius, 80.8 217.7 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.32 229.23 242.64 255.45 267.59 278.97 289.52 296.36 Circle Center At X = *** 1.490 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 141.46 147.08 153.80 161.60 170.41 180.18 190.85 199.00 153.4 ; Y = and Radius, 184.1 314.9 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points I I I I I I - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 215.96 230.39 243.71 255.37 264.91 271.93 276.15 276.25 circle Center At X = *** 1.429 138.11 142.20 149.11 158.54 170.12 183.37 197.77 199.00 203.0 ; Y = and Radius, 74.4 211.4 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 210.75 225.03 238.72 251.64 263.63 274.55 284.26 288.10 circle Center At X = *** 1.444 8 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 148.80 154.94 162.56 171. 57 181.86 193.29 199.00 177.4 ; Y = 273.3 and Radius, 133.3 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 220.50 235.28 249.19 261.65 272.10 280.10 282.90 Circle Center At X = 7 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 151.43 154.02 159.61 167.97 178.73 191.42 199.00 215.5 ; Y = and Radius, 72.0 223.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 201.00 215.79 230.21 244.07 257.19 269.42 280.59 290.56 299.21 299.32 Circle Center At X = *** 1.523 Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 139.50 143.64 149.38 156.64 165.33 175.34 186.54 198.80 199.00 186.3 ; Y = and Radius, 269.3 133.1 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 220.50 235.50 249.81 262.33 272.08 278.31 279.72 Circle Center At X = *** 1. 534 7 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 151. 43 151.78 156.26 164.52 175.92 189.57 199.00 226.7 ; Y = and Radius, 204.8 53.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 220.50 235.50 250.01 263.27 274.56 283.28 288.95 8 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 151.43 151.76 155.54 162.55 172.42 184.63 198.52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 289.03 199.00 circle Center At X = 226.6 ; Y = 215.8 and Radius, 64.6 *** 1.626 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 210.75 144.22 2 225.75 144.07 3 240.53 146.65 4 254.59 151.87 5 267.47 159.56 6 278.73 169.47 7 288.01 181.25 8 294.99 194.53 9 296.39 199.00 I Circle Center At X = 219.1 . Y = 226.0 and Radius, 82.2 , *** 1.666 *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 289 669 Neptune Avenue-Blurr Stability Bero~e Repai~s-Pseudo Static Condition Ten Most C~itical. C:669N49.PLT By: JWN 11-12-98 9:57aM 249 299 Y-Axis <rt) 169 129 49 ä FS 1 1.13 2 1.13 3 1.15 4 1.16 5 1.17 6 1.18 7 1.18 8 1.27 9 1.31 10 1.32 89 9 9 Soi I No. 1 2 49 To1:U1: Sa1:U1: C Phi Ru Pore Pi ez . < pcf') < pcf') < psl') < deg) ParaM Press Surl'ä 125 125 1600 42 0 0 120 120 250 37 0 0 1 1 89 129 169 299 249 289 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1.13 X-Axis <rt) 2 T2 T1 329 369 499 - - I I -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I ; i 3 2 I : ; 6 2 7 2 1- -----------~-------------------------------------------------------=--------- I I I I I ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 11-12-98 9:57am JWN C:660N40.DAT C:660N40.0UT C:660N40.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 660 Neptune Avenue-Bluff Stability Before Repairs-Pseudo Static Condition BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary No. X-Left (ft) Y-Left (ft) X-Right (ft) 100.00 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 125.00 100.00 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 200.50 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 364.00 364.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil . Y-Right (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 199.00 125.00 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 1600.0 42.0 .00 .0 0 I I I I 11----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I 1- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I 2 120.0 120.0 250.0 37.0 .00 .0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback No. X-Pos (ft) Y-Pos (ft) Load (lbs) Spacing (ft) Inclination (deg) Length (ft) 1 2 251.32 251.63 180.00 186.00 23750.0 23750.0 12.0 12.0 20.00 20.00 50.0 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Rach Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Searching Routine will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary No. X-Left (ft) Y-Left (ft) X-Right (ft) Y-Right (ft) 1 250.00 162.00 251.00 174.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 125 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 201.00 ft. and X = 240.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 263.00 ft. X = 364.00 ft. I I I 1- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I rice o. 1 I ; 4 5 I ~ 8 I Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 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 Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X-Surf (ft) 201.00 215.74 229.70 242.36 253.29 262.08 268.42 270.85 Circle Center At X = width Ft(m) 14.7 14.0 12.7 8.6 1.0 1.3 8.8 1.9 *** 1.125 8 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 139.77 145.27 153.31 163.59 175.74 189.34 199.00 194.1 i Y = *** Individual data on the Weight Lbs(kg) 7198.1 17667.2 20720.8 13922.0 2591.4 4688.2 27608.8 4780.3 Water Force Top Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 Water Force Bot Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Tie Force Norm Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 39.9 66.2 1609.2 800.9 . 215.1 and Radius, 78.4 slices Tie Force Tan Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 -37.3 -54.8 -812.3 37.1 Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1079.7 .0 .0 2650.1 .0 .0 3108.1 .0 .0 2088.3 .0 .0 388.7 .0 .0 703.2 .0 .0 4141.3 .0 .0 717.0 .0 .0 I 9 110 I I I I I I 1- ------------------------------------------------~--ï------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I 4.4 2.4 7630.2 1410.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 1262.3 512.1 700.6 486.3 1144.5 211. 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 210.75 144.22 2 225.03 148.80 3 238.72 154.94 4 251.64 162.56 5 263.63 171. 57 6 274.55 181.86 7 284.26 193.29 8 288.10 199.00 Circle Center At X = 177.4 ; Y = 273.3 and Radius, 133.3 *** 1.131 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points. Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 201.00 137.00 2 215.32 141.46 3 229.23 147.08 4 242.64 153.80 5 255.45 161.60 6 267.59 170.41 7 278.97 180.18 8 289.52 190.85 9 296.36 199.00 Circle Center At X = 153.4 ; Y = 314.9 and Radius, 184.1 *** 1.147 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) Y-Surf (ft) 1 201.00 137.00 I I I I I I -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 215.96 230.39 243.71 255.37 264.91 271.93 276.15 276.25 circle Center At X = *** 1.157 138.11 142.20 149.11 158.54 170.12 183.37 197.77 199.00 203.0 ; Y = and Radius, 74.4 211.4 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 220.50 235.28 249.19 261.65 272.10 280.10 282.90 circle Center At X = *** 1.172 7 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 151.43 154.02 159.61 167.97 178.73 191.42 199.00 . 215.5 ; Y = and Radius, 72.0 223.2 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 201.00 215.79 230.21 244.07 257.19 269.42 280.59 290.56 299.21 299.32 Circle Center At X = Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 139.50 143.64 149.38 156.64 165.33 175.34 186.54 198.80 199.00 186.3 ; Y = and Radius, 133.1 269.3 I I I -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I *** 1.180 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.99 230.60 244.34 256.72 267.33 275.80 281.83 283.41 circle Center At X = *** 1.182 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 137.63 141.01 147.04 155.50 166.10 178.48 192.22 199.00 205.1 i Y = and Radius, 80.8 217.7 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 220.50 235.50 249.81 262.33 272.08 278.31 279.72 Circle Center At X = *** 1.265 7 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 151.43 151.78 156.26 164.52 175.92 189.57 199.00 226.7 i Y = and Radius, 53.8 204.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 220.50 151.43 2 235.50 151.76 3 250.01 155.54 4 263.27 162.55 5 274.56 172.42 6 283.28 184.63 7 288.95 198.52 8 289.03 199.00 Circle Center At X = 226.6 ; Y = *** 1.307 *** Failure Surface Specified By 215.8 and Radius, 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 210.75 144.22 2 225.75 144.07 3 240.53 146.65 4 254.59 151.87 5 267.47 159.56 6 278.73 169.47 7 288.01 181.25 8 294.99 194.53 9 296.39 199.00 Circle Center At X = 219.1 ; Y = *** 1.316 *** 226.0 and Radius, 64.6 82.2 - - - 280 240 200 'I-Axis (£t) 1.60 1.20 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 660 Neptune Avenue-Blu££ Stability A£te~ Repai~s-Static Condition Ten Most C~itical. C:660N28.PLT By: JWN 1.1.-1.2-98 8:38aM ä FS 1. 1..50 2 1..55 3 1..66 4 1..67 5 1..74 6 1..78 7 1..83 8 1..92 9 2.05 10 2.05 80 0 0 Soi I No. 1 2 40 To"tU"t Sa"tU"t C Phi Ru Pore Pi ez . (pc£') (pc£') (ps£') (deg) ParaM Press Sur£'ä 1.25 125 1600 42 0 0 120 1.20 250 37 0 0 7 8 40 56 2 ~ .f .i'I"'~':"'/ ;a.:, " "., ,," !/:J:.:",."""".:...."'" "'1:1 T1. " """", ".,....,"',.. "'0.,..."",."..,...,......." 1. 1. 80 1.20 1.60 209 249 280 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1..59 X-Axis (£t) 329 369 - 409 - - I I 11----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 11-12-98 8:38am JWN C:660N28.DAT C:660N28.0UT C:660N28.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 660 Neptune Avenue-Bluff Stability After Repairs-Static Condition BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary No. X-Left (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 100.00 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 200.50 Y-Left (ft) 100.00 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 125.00 X-Right (ft) 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 364.00 364.00 . Y-Right (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 199.00 125.00 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 1600.0 42.0 .00 .0 0 I 2 120.0 120.0 250.0 37.0 .00 .0 0 Ir------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I I I 1 1 1- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1 1- ----------_:_-------~~~~~~----_:~~~~~-----~~:~~~----_:~~~~~------------------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback No. X-Pos (ft) Y-Pos (ft) Load (lbs) Spacing (ft) Inclination (deg) Length (ft) 1 2 3 251.32 251.63 251.84 180.00 186.00 190.00 70000.0 70000.0 70000.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.00 20.00 20.00 50.0 50.0 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. searching Routine will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries will Deflec~ Surfaces Upward . Boundary No. X-Left (ft) Y-Left (ft) X-Right (ft) Y-Right (ft) A critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 125 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 201.00 ft. and X = 240.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 263.00 ft. X = 364.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. I r--------::::=::-::-::::::~::-:::-:::-::::-::::::::-::-:::-:::::------------ Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most critical I First. I I I I I I I I I I S ice I ~. 3 I ~ 6 I ~ 9 I ~ I I * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X-Surf (ft) 201.00 215.96 230.39 243.71 255.37 264.91 271.93 276.15 276.25 Circle Center At X = Width Ft(m) 15.0 14.4 13.3 7.3 1.0 3.4 8.6 .9 7.0 4.2 .1 *** 1.502 Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 138.11 142.20 149.11 158.54 170.12 183.37 197.77 199.00 9 Coordinate Points 203.0 ; Y = *** Individual data on the Weight Lbs(kg) 8935.5 22946.3 28801.7 16841.6 3371.3 14839.7 34234.9 3207.2 18748.2 4268.5 7.6 Water Force Top Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Water Force Bot Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By Point X-Surf Y-Surf 11 Tie Force Norm Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 128.0 593.1 3888.4 664.7 8276.6 5288.0 289.3 211. 4 slices Tie Force Tan Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 -103.8 -405.9 -2093.1 -100.9 335.7 2696.3 169.5 and Radìus, 74.4 Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 Coordinate Points I I I I I I IL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.99 230.60 244.34 256.72 267.33 275.80 281.83 283.41 circle Center At X = *** 1.547 (ft) 137.00 137.63 141.01 147.04 155.50 166.10 178.48 192.22 199.00 205.1 ; Y = and Radius, 217.7 80.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 201.00 215.79 230.21 244.07 257.19 269.42 280.59 290.56 299.21 299.32 Circle Center At X = *** 1.655 Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 139.50 143.64 149.38 156.64 165.33 175.34 186.54 198.80 199.00 186.3 ; Y = and Radius, 269.3 133.1 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 201.00 215.32 229.23 242.64 255.45 267.59 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 141.46 147.08 153.80 161.60 170.41 I I I I It ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 8 9 278.97 289.52 296.36 circle Center At X = *** 1. 672 180.18 190.85 199.00 153.4 ; Y = 314.9 and Radius, 184.1 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 210.75 225.64 240.49 254.32 266.17 275.25 280.94 282.70 Circle Center At X = *** 1.736 8 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 142.36 144.41 150.23 159.42 171.36 185.24 199.00 . 225.3 ; Y = and Radius, 57.4 199.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 210.75 225.75 240.53 254.59 267.47 278.73 288.01 294.99 296.39 circle Center At X = *** 1.784 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 144.07 146.65 151.87 159.56 169.47 181.25 194.53 199.00 219.1 ; Y = and Radius, 82.2 226.0 *** I It ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 210.75 225.59 240.52 254.67 267.21 277.40 284.64 288.50 288.56 Circle Center At X = *** 1.830 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 142.00 143.41 148.39 156.62 167.63 180.76 195.26 199.00 227.2 ; Y = and Radius, 61.8 203.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 210.75 225.03 238.98 252.53 265.63 278.21 290.22 301.61 305.71 Circle Center At X = *** 1.916 9 Coordinate Points' Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 148.80 154.32 160.75 168.06 176.23 185.22 194.98 199.00 148.9 ; Y = and Radius, 226.1 361.6 *** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) Y-Surf (ft) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 201. 00 215.79 230.78 245.66 260.07 273.72 286.27 297.47 307.05 314.81 318.94 137.00 134.47 134.17 136.11 140.25 146.49 154.69 164.67 176.21 189.05 199.00 circle Center At X = 225.3 ; Y = 234.4 and Radius, *** 2.051 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 201.00 137.00 2 215.07 142.21 . 3 228.97 147.84 4 242.70 153.88 5 256.24 160.33 6 269.59 167.18 7 282.72 174.43 8 295.63 182.06 9 308.31 190.08 10 320.74 198.47 11 321.47 199.00 Circle Center At X = 610.8 and Radius, 33.4 ; Y = *** 2.052 *** 100.3 502.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 289 669 Neptune Avenue-BluCC Stability ACter Repairs-Pseudo Static Condition Ten Most Critical. C:669N39.PLT By: JWN 11-12-98 8:41aM 249 299 Y-Axis (Ct) 169 129 49 ä FS 1 1.22 2 1.25 3 1.28 4 1.28 5 1.40 6 1.42 7 1.43 8 1.48 9 1.48 10 1.49 89 9 9 Soi I No. 1 2 49 To1:U1: Sa1:U1: C P}1Ï Ru Pore Pi ez . (pcf') (pcf') (psf') (deg) ParaM Press Surf'ä 125 125 1600 42 0 0 120 120 250 37 0 0 10 7 2 ~ 6 jj¿!:'::". '.¡l T1 9 1 1 89 129 169 299 249 289 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1.22 X-Axis (Ct) 329 8 369 499 - - I I ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University Ir------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices I I I I I I I I I I I -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary No. X-Left (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 100.00 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 200.50 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil 11-12-98 8:41am JWN C:660N30.DAT C:660N30.0UT C:660N30.PLT 660 Neptune Avenue-Bluff Stability After Repairs-Pseudo static Condition Y-Left (ft) 100.00 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 125.00 X-Right (ft) 200.00 200.50 201.00 251.00 252.00 264.00 364.00 364.00 .. Y-Right (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 103.00 125.00 137.00 174.00 193.00 199.00 199.00 125.00 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 1600.0 42.0 .00 .0 0 I I I I 2 120.0 120.0 250.0 37.0 .00 .0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I I I I I Ir ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I 1 250.00 160.00 251.00 174.00 1- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback No. X-Pos (ft) Y-Pos (ft) Load (lbs) Spacing (ft) Inclination (deg) Length (ft) 1 2 3 251.32 251.63 251.84 180.00 186.00 190.00 70000.0 70000.0 70000.0 12.0 12.0 12.,0 , 20.00 20.00 20.00 50.0 50.0 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Searching Routine will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary No. X-Left (ft) Y-Left (ft) X-Right (ft) Y-Right (ft) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 125 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 201.00 ft. and X = 240.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 263.00 ft. I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I Is ice I o. I I and x = 364.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 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 Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.96 230.39 243.71 255.37 264.91 271.93 276.15 276.25 Circle Center At X = *** 1.220 203.0 ; Y = Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 138.11 142.20 149.11 158.54 170.12 183.37 197.77 199.00 *** Individual data on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 width Ft(m) 15.0 14.4 13.3 7.3 1.0 3.4 Water Force Top Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Weight Lbs(kg) 8935.5 22946.3 28801.7 16841.6 3371.3 14839.7 Water Force Bot Lbs(kg) .0 .0 9 Coordinate Points . 211. 4 and Radius, 74.4 11 slices .0 .0 .0 .0 Tie Force Norm Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 128.0 593.1 Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1340.3 .0 .0 3441.9 .0 .0 4320.2 .0 .0 2526.2 .0 .0 505.7 .0 .0 2226.0 .0 .0 Tie Force Tan Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 -103.8 -405.9 I I I I I I I I I ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I 7 8 9 10 1 8.6 .9 7.0 4.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 34234.9 3207.2 18748.2 4268.5 7.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3888.4 664.7 8276.6 5288.0 289.3 -2093.1 -100.9 335.7 2696.3 169.5 5135.2 481.1 2812.2 640.3 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.99 230.60 244.34 256.72 267.33 275.80 281.83 283.41 circle Center At X = *** 1.245 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 137.63 141.01 147.04 155.50 166.10 178.48 192.22 199.00 205.1 ; Y = and Radius, 80.8 217.7 *** . Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 201.00 215.79 230.21 244.07 257.19 269.42 280.59 290.56 299.21 299.32 Circle Center At X = *** 1.275 Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 139.50 143.64 149.38 156.64 165.33 175.34 186.54 198.80 199.00 186.3 ; Y = and Radius, 133.1 269.3 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points I I I I I I I Ir ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points I I I I I I I I I I I Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 201.00 215.32 229.23 242.64 255.45 267.59 278.97 289.52 296.36 Circle Center At X = *** 1.280 Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 210.75 225.75 240.53 254.59 267.47 278.73 288.01 294.99 296.39 Circle Center At X = *** 1.404 Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 141.46 147.08 153.80 161. 60 170.41 180.18 190.85 199.00 153.4 ; Y = and Radius, 184.1 314.9 *** Y-Surf (ft) . 144.22 144.07 146.65 151.87 159.56 169.47 181.25 194.53 199.00 219.1 ; Y = and Radius, 82.2 226.0 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 210.75 225.03 238.98 252.53 265.63 9 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 148.80 154.32 160.75 168.06 I I I I ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 7 8 9 278.21 290.22 301.61 305.71 Circle Center At X = *** 1. 424 176.23 185.22 194.98 199.00 148.9 ; Y = 361.6 and Radius, 226.1 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 210.75 225.64 240.49 254.32 266.17 275.25 280.94 282.70 Circle Center At X = *** 1.430 Y-Surf (ft) 144.22 142.36 144.41 150.23 159.42 171. 36 185.24 199.00 . 225.3 ; Y = and Radius, 57.4 199.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 201.00 215.90 230.65 245.18 259.43 273.34 286.85 299.89 312.41 324.35 335.66 338.06 Circle Center At X = Y-Surf (ft) 137.00 138.75 141.49 145.20 149.87 155.49 162.01 169.42 177.68 186.76 196.61 199.00 182.4 ; Y = 360.7 and Radius, 224.4 I I ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *** 1.476 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 201.00 215.07 228.97 242.70 256.24 269.59 282.72 295.63 308.31 320.74 321.47 Circle Center At X = *** 1.478 V-Surf (ft) 137.00 142.21 147.84 153.88 160.33 167.18 174.43 182.06 190.08 198.47 199.00 33.4 ¡V = anq Radius, 502.5 610.8 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 210.75 225.59 240.52 254.67 267.21 277.40 284.64 288.50 288.56 Circle Center At X = *** 1.488 v-Surf (ft) 144.22 142.00 143.41 148.39 156.62 167.63 180.76 195.26 199.00 227.2 i Y = and Radius, 61.8 203.8 *** C I T Y 0 FEN C I NIT A S EN8EERING SERVICES DEPARTME~ 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 6202GI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARCEL NO. : 256-051-2002 PLAN NO.: 92-137 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME: BOURGAULT (RICHARD T. & KATHRYN M.) MAILING ADDRESS: 736 RADWICK DR. PHONE NO.: CITY: LAS VEGAS STATE: NV ZIP: 89110- CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. LICENSE NO.: 268082 ENGINEER: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 11/04/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 11/04/00 PERMIT ISSUED BY' - ::::~::~:~-~~~~~~I~~ & DEPOSITS nn_Un-n_n_nn__u_--- 760-633-3470 A : 760-633-3470 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 2. INSPECTION FEE 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 .00 .00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 500.00 .00 - ----------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- REPAIRS TO UPPER BLUFF RETAINING WALL, CONSTRUCTED PER EARLIER EMERGENCY COASTAL PERMIT, AS-BUILT APPROVED, TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF 9EA 40FT TIEBACK/lEA CONCRETE WALER, REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT OF EXIST TIMBER WALERS, RESTRESSING OF EXIST TIEBACKS, PLANTING OF BACKFILL SLOPE BETWEEN UPPER & LOWER WALLS, ALL PER MAJOR USE PERMIT 92-137. AS-BUILT MYLARS REQ'D. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. NO BEACH ACCESS ALLOWED PER THIS PERMIT. AMEND THIS PERMIT TO INCLUDE REPAIR TO LOWER BLUFF RETAINING WA FTER PT OF PERMIT ISSUED BY CALIFORNIA COAST CO ISSION. l CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER C. Y 0 FEN C I NIT A_~ EN EERING SERVICES DEPARTMEN8I 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 6201GI == ============================================================================ ARCEL NO. : 256-051-2001 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 656 NEPTUNE AVE. PPLICANT NAME: ASH (PAUL) AILING ADDRESS: 2026 PRINCE RD. EAST ITY: TUCSON STATE: AZ PLAN NO.: 92-137 PHONE NO.: 760-633-3470 ZIP: 85719- CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760-633-3470 LICENSE TYPE: A N .: 760-633-3470 ONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING ICENSE NO.: 268082 NGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING ERMIT ISSUE DATE: 11/04/99 ERMIT EXP. DATE: 11/04/00 INSPECTOR: MIKE VALLES CONSTRUCTION INC. PERMIT ISSUED BY: ------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 2. INSPECTION FEE 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 .00 .00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 500.00 .00 ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- REPAIRS TO UPPER BLUFF RETAINING WALL, CONSTRUCTED PER EARLIER EMERGENCY COASTAL PERMIT, AS-BUILT APPROVED, TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF 9EA 40FT TIEBACK/lEA CONCRETE WALER, REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT OF EXIST TIMBER WALERS, ESTRESSING OF EXIST TIEBACKS, PLANTING OF BACKFILL SLOPE BETWEEN UPPER & LOWER WALLS, ALL PER MAJOR USE PERMIT 92-137. AS-BUILT MYLARS REQ'D. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. NO BEACH ACCESS ALLOWED PER THIS PERMIT. AMENDTHIS PERMIT TO INCLUDE REPAIR TO LOWER BLUFF RETAINING ALL FTER RECEIPT OF PERMIT ISSUED BY CALIFORNIA COAS OMMISSION. q ,. ~ 7(po-~35' s470 TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER Cwy OF ENCINITA~ EN EERING SERVICES DEPARTME. 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 6203GI -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. ICENSE NO.: 268082 NGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. ERMIT ISSUE DATE: 11/02/99 ERMIT EXP. DATE: 11/02/00 PERMIT ISSUED BY: --I::::::::~-~~~~~~~ES & DEPOSITS ____hh__------------------ ARCEL NO. : 256-051-1900 PLAN NO.: 92-137 OB SITE ADDRESS: 660 NEPTUNE AVE. future 2628-G/620l-G PPLICANT NAME: FISHER (ANTHONY/ROSWITHA KOVIDA) AILING ADDRESS: 660 NEPTUNE AVE. PHONE NO.: 760-633-3470 ITY: LEUCADIA STATE: CA ZIP: 92024- 760-633-3470 A 760-633-3470 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 2. INSPECTION FEE 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 .00 .00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 1,000.00 .00 -- ---------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- EPAIRS TO UPPER BLUFF RETAINING WALL, CONSTRUCTED PER EARLIER EMERGENCY OASTAL PERMIT, AS-BUILT APPROVED, TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF 9EA 40FT IEBACK/IEA CONCRETE WALER, REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT OF EXIST TIMBER WALERS, ESTRESSING OF EXIST TIEBACKS, PLANTING OF BACKFILL SLOPE BETWEEN UPPER & LOWER WALLS, ALL PER MAJOR USE PERMIT 92-137. AS-BUILT MYLARS REQ'D. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE INITIAL INSPECTION OMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED NGINEER CERT. RECEIVED OUGH GRADING INSPECTION INAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF NY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. NO BEACH ACCESS ALLOWED PER HIS PERMIT. AMEND THIS PERMIT TO INCLUDE REPAIR TO LOWER BLUFF RETAINING llL ~, OF PE~IT ISSUED BY CllIFO~IA C~S OOMISSION. ~bo - Co 33 - sl{7v TELEPHONE NUMBER Contr/EOW CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER , I I .' r - 8 8 I ! / Municipal Code for preemptive measures approved prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan have been addressed. 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: 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 shall be required to participate in the future comprehensive plans which include the subject property. Preemptive Measure and Bluff Setback Determination: The criteria required to be considered in order to approve construction on the coastal bluff maintaining the standard 40 foot setback and the criteria required to authorize preemptive measures on the face of the bluff have been addressed by the geotechnical reports submitted for the project which include the following: June 17, 1987 Estimated Bluff Retreat and Foundation Setback by Leighton and Associates May 9, 1992 Design Report for Seawall & Bluff Stabilization by First Phase Engineering II May 11, 1992 and June 2, 1992 Letter Reports by Earth Systems Design Group July 9, 1992 Letter Report by First Phase Engineering II July 21, 1992 Letter Report by Earth Systems Design Group - June 29, 1993 Letter Report by Civil Engineering Consultants M ~ -Mtry7, 1995 Letter Report by Applied Engineering Group May 30, 1995 and September 11, 1995 Letter Reports by Civil Engineering Consultants November 2, 1998 Limited Geotechnical Assessment by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) December 15, 1997 Calculations for Repair of the Upper Bluff Wall by SEC October 23, 1998 Calculations for Repair of the Lower Seawall by SEC December 12, 28, 1998 Foundation Recommendations by SEC January 6, 1999 Review of Foundation Plans by SEC December 30, 1998 and May 20, 1999 Letter Reports by SEC The geotechnical reports/letters were reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant Ernie Artim, which 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. Cd/dI/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 11 Lie se Detail http://www2.eslb.ea.gov/iXpress/CS...Lieense+ Detail.DML ?LieNum=++ 268082 8 8 ~ bI~ W~:2! CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS STATE !..JlCENS£ BOARD License Detail Contractor License # 268082 ~ DISCLAIMER The license status information shown below represents information taken from the CSLB licensing data base at the time of your inquiry, It will not reflect pending updates which are being reviewed for subsequent data base updating. The available information may not reflect any civil or criminal judgments or actions that have not been reported to the CSLB, Ifthere are disclosable complaints (legal actions) on the contractor's license, that information will be provided. If you intend to pursue any kind oflegal action, insure you get a "Verified Certificate" which is a certified license history covering a specific time period prior to taking any action, Extract Date: November 01, 1999 * * * BUSINESS INFORMATION * * * SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC 927 ARGUELLO ST REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 Entity: Corporation Issue Date: 03/11/1971 Expire Date: 02/29/2000 * * * LICENSE STATUS * * * This license is current and active. * * * CLASSIFICATIONS * * * A GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR HIC HOME IMPROVEMENT CERTIFICATION * * * CONTRACTOR BONDING INFORMATION * * * This license has bond number 995948C in the amount of $7,500 with the bonding company INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. Effective Date: 03/01/1994 * * * WORKERS COMPENSATION INFORMATION * * * This license has workers compensation insurance with the STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND Policy Number: 1502189 Effective Date: 10/01/1997 Expire Date: 10/01/1999 mPl"rcnnnl"1 Lid I I License Number ReQuest I Icontractor Name ReQuest I IPersonnel Name ReQuest I 1 of .11/1/19996:19 PM Per nnel List http://www2.eslb.ea.gov/iXpress/CS...Personnel+List.D ML ?L ieN urn =++ 268082 8 . ~ hlJI'!I W~:¡~ CALIfORNIA. CONTRACTORS STATE LIÇENSE BOARD Personnel Líst Contractor License # 268082 ~ Click on the person's name to see a more detailed page of information on that person. PEDRO, MICHAEL SIT 05/23/1977 JOHN DREW, GEORGE SECRETARY 01/31/1984 EUGENE " VICE 01/31/1984 MAfHESON, BRUCE PRESIDENT DESFOSSES, SECRETARY 01/19/1996 EDWARD MAURICE ABBOTT, JOHN TREASURER 02/05/1990 BILLINGTON MAHONY, ROBERT RMO/P 07/07/1971 DONALD AHLICH. KURT VICE 10/28/1991 DAVID PRESIDENT 08/24/1979 04/01/1997 02/09/1994 03/21/1997 A More 02/01 I 1997 HAZ I License Number ReQuest I I Contractor Name ReQuest I IPersonnel Name ReQuest I 1 of 11/1/19996:20 PM ST E OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. GOV9fT1O1 C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMM DIEGO COAST AREA 311 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH. SUITE 200 SA DIEGO. CA 92100-1725 (61 521-8036 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: ON . NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL PERIOD October 5, 1999 Diane Langager, Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 Gary Cannon, Coastal Program Analyst Application No. 6-ENC-99-148 -' ---,.-- "-----~. \ f ","-r,'~ !r,\ "-;-,",~" ¡ '\0 ':~ ',' í {) \ \ ,: ; \l', "I; Ie: '._o,'~' Ii " I ¡I'"¡ : r-:.;c-- ..---. 0 , : :\ : , 'l !,Ij I,',: 'I i: i! .! '" ¡ I \ n: I OCT "1 t999 ¡ ¡~)'í IU\.:L--.,-J \ CIT't' OF ENCìN!~ Please be advised that on October 4, 1999 our office received notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: Local Permit #: 92-137 MUP/CDP/EIA Applicant(s): Description: Paul Ash; Richard Bourgault; Robert Mahoney Construction of an upper bluff retaining wall (previously constructed under an emergency permit), repairs and improvements to the walls, existing and proposed landscaping of bluff face and construction of an approximately 221 sq. f1. addition to an existing residence at 660 Neptune Avenue. 656, 658 And 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas (San Diego County) (APN(s) 256-051-14, 256-051-20) Location: Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on October 19, 1999. Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the address and telephone number shown above. cc: Paul Ash Richard Bourgault Robert Mahoney Bob Trettin a CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ST )"<: OF CALI"OR~IA ..THE RESOURCES AGENCY C UÞORNIA COASTAL COMM PETE WILSON, Governor ION Q SA DIEGO AREA 31 1 CAMINO DEL RIO NOR~'Ii. SUITE 200 SA DIEGO, CA-92108.1725 (61 52HOJ5 fiLE COpy Date July 15, 1999 Application No. fn~2:~ ~ Page 1 of~ I fõì~-Œ.- @ Œ ~ WI Œ ill II ~1 II NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT I ~~ La'.! =~I!Ø}. u , Ei;~," ...,,; ::. ~'/';:ES On July 13, 1999 , the California Coastal Commission approved the-ãpplíCãtìõ'iî'óf Paul Ash, Richard Bourgault and Robert Mahoney, subject to the attached standard and special conditions, for the development described below: . , ' t "',:; ---'_..,--" Description: Follow-up to an emergency pennit to construct an approximately 37 foot~ high, 83 foot-long tie-back seawall on the beach at the base of a coastal bluff fronting three properties consisting of an approximately 9 footchigh, 8 foot-wide concrete base with 10, approximately 28 foot-high concrete columns on top of the base with horizontal timber laggings between the columns and the bluff. Also proposed is repair to the existing seawall to include removal of exposed steel rebar, insertion of approximately 95 new steel rebar into face of wall and coating of concrete base [ace with 6~9 inches of shotcrete. Site:On public beach fronting 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN(s) 256-051-19, 20-01 and 20-02 The permit will be held in the San Diego District Office of the Commission, pending fulfillment of Special Conditions 1-3 & 5-7 . When these conditions have been satisfied, the pennit will be issued. DEBORAH N. LEE DEPUTY DIRECTOR BY , . " Gy Co~...~ , ,. NOTICE OF INTENT T8>SUE PERMIT NO. 6-99-9 Page 2 of ~ 8 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and deve,lopment 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, the applicants shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a total fee of $10,461.04 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 6/24/99 NOTICE OF INTENT .SUE PERMIT NO. 6-99-9 Page 3 of ~ 8 prepared for Coastal Development Permit #6-99-9. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. 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 terms 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 terminated, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. 2. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a plan prepared by a licensed engineer for a seawall monitoring program which includes the following: . a. An evaluation of the condition and performance of the seawall and drain(!f',r system, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the seawall or drains. b. Within 30 days of completion of the repairs authorized by the subject permit, the applicant shall submit a report to the Executive Director of the Commission of the evaluation described in Subsection a. above. . c. Provisions for conducting the evaluation described in Subsection a. above annually in April of each year for three years beginning with April 2000. d. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission on May 1 of each year for three years beginning May 1, 2000. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. The report shall contain evaluation required in Subsections a. above. Each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary changes or modifications to the project. I .' e. Provisions for submission of a report containing the information identified in Subsection c. above at 3 year intervals following the last annual report (Le., the first of these triennial reports to be submitted on May 1, 2005); however, reports shall be submitted in the ,Spring immediately following either: 1. An "El Niño" storm event - comparable to or greater than a 20-year storm NOTICE OF INTENT T8sUE PERMIT NO. 6-99-9 Pag~ 4 of ~ 8 2. A 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. Assumption of Risk. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, 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 storm waves, erosion and bluff collapse, 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 Executive 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 pemlit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. Future MaintenanceIDebris Removal. Within 10 days of completion of construction of or repairs to the protective device the permittees shall remove all debris deposited on the beach or in the water as a result of the subject construction activities. The permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements set forth below. Any change in the design of the project or future additions/reinforcement of the seawall beyond ~nor 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. I ." 5. Staging Areas/Access Conidorsffiming of Construction. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final plans indicating the NOTICE OF INTENT T<8SUE PERMIT NO. 6-99-9 Page~ 5 of ~ 8 location of access corridors to the construction site and staging areas. The final plans shall indicate that: a. No staging of equipment or materials shall occur on sandy beach or public parking areas. The permittee shall not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time. b. Access corridors shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on public access to and along the shoreline. c. No work shall occur on the beach between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day of any year. d. The applicant shall submit evidence that the approved plans/notes have been incorporated into construction bid documents. The staging site shall be removed and/or restored immediately following completion of the development. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 6. Other Permits. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit copies of all other required local, state or federal discretionary permits for the development herein approved. Any mitigation measures or other changes to the project required through said permits shall be reported to the Execùtive Director and shall become part of the project. Such modifications, if any, may require an amendment to this permit or a separate coastal development permit. 7. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final site and building plans, that have been stamPed and approved by the City ofEncinitas. Said plans shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted building plans dated 5/6/92 and received by the Commission on 1/22/99. , . The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. - -NOTICE OF INTENT '4ÞSSUE PERMIT NO. 6-99-9 Page 6 of --É.. 8 8. Condition Compliance. WITIDN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF COMMISSION ACTION OF THIS COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, or within such additional time as the Executive Director may grant for good cause, the applicants shall satisfy all requirements specified in the conditions hereto that the applicants are required to satisfy prior to issuance of this pennit. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the institution of enforcement action under the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Coastal Act. (6-99-9n) , .' ~~ ;~ ~~;;= ~~;~;;:s~;~ I, 0 N SAN If!";(j COAST AREA 3111 ¡NO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN ..IE...O. CA 92108-1725 (619) 21-8038 8 GRAY DAVIS. Governor June 25, 1999 ~ IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT NUMBER: 6-99-009 APPLICANT(S): Paul Ash Richard Bourgault Robert Mahoney PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Follow-up to an emergency permit to construd an approximately 37 foot-high, 83 foot-long tie-back seawall on the beach at the base of a coastal bluff fronting three properties consisting of an approximately 9 foot-high, 8 foot-wide concr~te base with 10, approximately 28 foo~-high concrete columns on top of the base with horizontal timber laggings between the columns and the bluff. Also . proposed is repair to the existing seawall to include removal of exposed steel rebar, insertion of approximately 95 new steel rebar into face of wall and coating of concrete base face with 6-9 inches of shotcrete. PROJECT LOCATION: 656, 658 & 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas (San Diego County) (APN(s) 256-051-19, 256-Q51-20} HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: DATE: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 TIME: Meeting begins at 10:00 AM PLACE: Marin County Board of Supervisors Chambers Admin. Bldg., Rm 322 r-t:/~ 11. '- Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, CA.. ... \ c- \ J \ C \" 4-6 \119 ìJ 1 J '1;/;" HEARING PROCEDURES: This item has been schedued for a public hearing and vote. People wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission if received a -:-:-,.- ,..ç .h"øe "'or"I'ng ,.f3YS "'n'".. +0 the "'ubliC he!:lrin9 '^Jritt~n /"omm~nts may be of ~ny !~nnth. Ii """"..."1 ~, .. . --.. ,.~,... ,. -.. . - ,. . . _.... . . ... -.. . .-.. - - ... ~.., oral testimony may be limited to 5 minutes or less for each speaker, depending on the number wishing to be heard. The above item may be moved to the Consent Calendar for this Area by the Executive Diredor when, prior to Commission consideration of the Consent Calendar, staff and the applicant are in agreement on the staff recommendation. If this item is moved to the Consent Calendar, the Commission will either approve it with the recommended conditions in the staff report or remove the item from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or more Commissioners If the item is removed, the public hearing described above will still be held at the point in the meeting originally indicated on the agenda. No one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be postponed to a later date. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers each item in order, except in extraordinary circumstances. Staff at the appropriate Commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date. Questions regarding the report or the hearing should be directed to Gary Cannon, Coastal Program Analyst, at the San Diego Coast Area office. C CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSlml .. - I . , .. 8 8 THE TRETTIN COMPANY 9606 Laurentian Drive San Diego, CA 92129 November 17, 1998 TO: Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission FROM: Bob Trettin, Principal The Trettin Company RE: Emergency Permit Request I am requesting that the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission provide emergency authorization for repair / construction of existing upper bluff retention walls at 656, 658 and 660 Neptune Avenue. Engineering plans and a Limited Geotechnical Assessment are attached. HISTORY The above-referenced properties were subjected to massive bluff failure in 1992. Lower and upper bluff solutions were initiated under coastal emergency permit. Subsequent to this action, the upper bluff retention system partially failed during construction, resulting in loss of compacted fill material -- a failure which extended under the residential structure at 660 Neptune Avenue. The failure of the upper bluff retention system to appropriately correct the massive bluff failure threatening the three primary residential units at 656, 658 and 660 Neptune resulted in two foreclosures and litigation between the owners of two of these three properties (656 and 658) as well as the previous contractor. Applications for a regular city / coastal permit could not be completed because there were differences of opinion on the recommended final solution. These differences, and the costs involved in a final solution, continued to be a cause of litigation between the property owner at 658 Neptune (Bourgault) and one of the two new property owners at 656 (Ash). . .. .. " 8 8 -2- During the past approximately 90 days, a resumption of bluff movement has once again created an imminent threat of failure to the existing structures, as well as to the adjacent property to the north. Facing this new urgency, all pending litigation has been settled, thus allowing for the owners to proceed cooperatively toward an immediate solution that will protect their residential structures. NATURE OF CURRENT REOUEST Based on the most recent observations and geotechnical update provided by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., the firm has opined that the residential structures are in imminent threat of failure. SEC is proposing emergency work on the upper retaining wall, the provision of mid-bluff fill material, and lower seawall repairs to remove exposed reinforcing steel. The work is described, in detail, on page 6 of the Limited Geotechnical Assessment and the accompanying engineering plans. ASSOCIATED PERMIT ACTIVITY The applicants, concurrent to seeking emergency bluff protection, are re- initiating the regular coastal permit process with the City of Encinitas to assure that all appropriate permits are obtained for these properties. Because this project began prior to adoption of the city's LCP, the applicants will be providing California Coastal Commission staff with early copies of all application materials in anticipation of securing all appropriate regular coastal permit authorization subsequent to city action. The SEC geotechnical update also noted that the residential structure at 678 Neptune Avenue was threatened by recent separations of that property's upper retaining wall, brick decking and fencing (indicating the severe earth movement shared with the applicants' properties to the south.) SEC cannot address an emergency solution for 678 Neptune until corrective action has been initiated at 656, 658 and 660 Neptune. Similarly, any delay in taking corrective action at 656, 658 and 660 Neptune poses a strong likelihood that damaging earth movement events will continue at 678 Neptune. An emergency permit request for corrective action at 678 Neptune will be submitted in the near future. '". .. .. ... 8 8 -3- SUMMAR Y The two foreclosed properties (656 and 660 Neptune Avenue) now have new property owners who are anxious to protect their residential structures. On learning of the severe threat to the properties from recent bluff activity, all litigation between the property owners has recently been settled, thus allowing them to proceed in a collaborative manner to address an emergency solution and the appropriate regular permitting for this project. The applicants' representatives have conducted a pre-application site visit with the city and coastal staff, and will be meeting with city representatives to re-initiate the city application on Thursday, November 19, 1999. It is anticipated that the California Coastal Commission staff will require city engineering review prior to making an emergency permit effective. Therefore, the city engineer's office has been provided with a copy of all materials being submitted to coastal staff. Please contact me if you require any additional information and/or materials. The applicants' engineering / construction firm is prepared to start work on receipt of signed emergency permit. Respectfully submitted, ¡?M V 1JJ.-~ ROBERT W. TRETTIN Principal, The Trettin Company Representing: Ash, Bourgault & Mahoney 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: File - Beach Encroachment Permit No. 2978 TE - Temporary Encroachment Permit No. 3045 TE - Coastal Bluff Protection Permit Application No. 2978 GR FROM: Jeffrey S. Garami, Engineering Technician VIA: Hans C. Jensen, Subdivision Engineer DATE: November 17, 1993 SUBJECT: status of projects On August 26, 1993, the Project Inspector, Sam Ivey, signed off final inspection for Permit Numbers 2978 TE & 3045 TE. However, items are still pending on Project No. 2978 GR including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Issuance of a Major Use Permit fJCtA~/t}o, 2. construction repairs to the seaW-q(I-!tself ~~~~ 3. Submittal & approval of as-built plans ~~~~~ Until these issues are resolved, the damage deposit of $5,000.00 in cash shall not be released. im3807 / '"' .1 .1 1 V 1: ,ij"~'" - .. - - -- - 8 Engineering Department 527 Encinitas Blvd. 8 Encinitas, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT I :1 ;;:¿q 7 ~ T E 92-00000328 660 NEPTUNE AV 256-051-19-00 WHITE JERALD D 660 NEPTUNE AVE ENCINITAS Contractor. . . . . . GILHOLM/STEVENS INC. License Type. . . . . B-1 Engineer. . . . . . . FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING Phone Number. . . .. (619) 226-8076 Permit Issue Date 3/12/92 ~~ Permit Exp Date. .. '--<. '/-.,IZ_'J-31-Qz.-o- Permit Issued By . .. /. ~~1 ---------------------- P ITOFEES AND DEPOSITS -------------------------- Application Fee. . : / Inspection Deposit.: ICe; .....c- "R~~ 2.1\ Addl Insp Deposit. : z.,.{\~I'H T~~ Security Deposit. .: 5000 1<.1'1 \1",~ç') ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---------------------------- TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT ON PUBLIC BEACH TO ACCESS CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR LOWER SEAWALL PER GRADING PLAN NO. 2978G ATTACHMENTS: COVENANT RE: BEACH ENCROACHMENT /AGREEMENT RE: SECURITY / LETTER RE: CONTRACTOR LIABILITY/COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT/BEACH ACCESS PLAN/ BEACH BARRIER PLAN/WORK SCHEDULE/ APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELE~ fi COMMUNITY SERVI CES APPROVAL: ~~-v(f\l "3 f I'~ 7 '2--- (SIGNATURE) (DATE) OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS: A.P.N. 256-051-20-01 MALLEN --- A.P.N. 256-051-20-02 BOURGAUüT' Permi t Number. . . . Application Number. . Job Site Address. . . Parcel Number. . . . Property OWner. . . . Property Address. . . Date 3/12/92 j, II , ~ 1 t CA 92024 \'ëP.;o.6 ~\V ~ ~~'.- ~~~ ~Iíìõ ~\II ~ \.etT'e:e ~ ~,.. ~it:i~ s~,,\~¡o~ 6&.~ ~¥r.~'- \~S\1WC(í~S ~: ~ ~..-\u- . ~ 1/b ~..-~\'71 f2çJr\~ Y¡::C'1\¡í . '~.J{7\~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspection Date Inspector's Signature Ini tial Inspection . . ~... ... c--... ~,~ Final Inspectiontlf~".l.~ ~ "'- L --~-~~;~~~d-~~-~~-~i~-~f-~~i~i~~~-~iïi;~~-;-~~~~-;~~~~~-;;;~-- for plan check and inspection, and that if project costs exceed deposits, the applicant shall pay the outstanding balance prior to release of security. I have carefully examined the completed permit and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that all the information is true. .~-~ Signature "S7èV~S- A. -rz¡ v~ c..P-éJ. Print Name G-,1J1D/~S~~{"-.JS ¿fflL Circle One: OWner ~~ Other- 3 j¡ '-') ç 2.--- Date Signed (G/9) Gflj/ -C). 71.f I Tè1ephone Number . ~. , """".' ...'" , " . / ~ 1 ~ I U ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ~ £ £ H ~ 8 Engineering Department . 52:7 Encinitas Blvd. 8 Encinitas, CA 92024 Permi t Number. . . . Application Number. . Job Site Address. . . Parcel Number. . . . Property Owner. . . . Property Address. . . TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 3~?\~ 92-00000518 660 NEPTUNE AV 256-051-19-00 WHITE JERALD D 660 NEPTUNE AVE ENCINITAS GILHOLM/STEVENS INC. B-1 Date 4/21/92 CA 92024 Contractor. . . . . . License Type. . . . . Engineer. . . . . . . Phone Number. . . . . ~:~~~ ~U~a~:te. : : ~./2.; /9~if\~<D IZ-3¡-''Z- OIA-.. Permi t I ssued By . . . C I '... ;.t---i~ V'--J ---------------------- PERMIT ~ AND DEPOSITS -------------------------- Application Fee. . : Inspection Deposit. : Addl Insp Deposit. : Security Deposit. . : ~:~. ~ g \g, '1'1 P1-1,p ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK TEMPORARY STORAGE OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK @ 10% VOLUME QUANTITY & FILL SAND @ 90% VOLUME QUANTITY IN PUBLIC R.O.W. TRAFFI C CONTROL PLAN & HAUL ROUTE AS ACCEPTED BY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TO BE ATTACHED RELATED PERMIT: 2978TE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS: A.P.N. 256-051-20-01 MALLEN A.P.N. 256-051-20-02 BOURGAULT ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspection Date Inspector's Signature u~;;~:~~~~;~~~:_----_u----~l~--_--~~~---+---- I understand that the City of Encinitas utilizes a cost recovery system for plan check and inspection, and that if project costs exceed deposits, the applicant shall pay the outstanding balance prior to release of security. I have carefully examined the completed permit and do hereby certify under penalty of B rjury that all the information is true. S gnature .&h:1' f r¡;, I A IJ 1M Print Name Circle One: Owner Agent Other- Lf-Z¡- c¡ "2- Date Signed .!iff 1- ~ tlf I Telephone Number Ú;J 'v Iv Þ1 c. kv- 8 8 City of Encinitas NovellÞer 30, 1992 Homeowners: 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue c/o Gilholm stevens, Inc. 143 S. Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 Subject: Project Expenses for Processing Permit # 2978 TE for Beach Encroachment Inspection, A.P.N. 256-051-19, 20-01, 20-02 The following costs have been incurred by the City of Encinitas for processing the above referenced project. Project processing costs have exceeded the dollars deposited at the time of application. Deposit Expenses as of 11-24-92 $ $ $ 4697.29 3117.14 Costs not covered by the deposit: 1580.15 Additional deposit for continuation of work: $ 300.00 Total owed at this time $ 1880.15 A surplus of $1874.78 exists in your grading permit application account but will be held to cover as-built processing, document processing and other closing costs. The City of Encinitas operates on a cost recovery basis, therefore, in order to continue processing any permits, this account must be cleared at this time. Payment is due thirty days from 11-24-92, or prior to final inspection, whichever occurs first. Inquiries regarding financial matters should be directed to the Finance Department (619) 944-3391. Inquiries as to the status of the proj ect or services performed should be directed to the Engineering Department (619) 944-3370. All checks must be made out to the City of Encinitas and submitted to the Engineering Department. Please identify Permit # 2978 TE on your check. Thank you for your cooperation. sincerely, /2-J-~ //17 c~ Rich Parzonko, '¿Ðinance Manager cc: Toni Richard, Sr. Accounting Specialist 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue gc3170 ';27 Encinitas Bouln'arcl. Fncinitas. C;lIiforni:¡ ')2024 TEL ()]()-()4+';0'j0 / FA'\ ()I')-("l-<)~,(, ro. IT.. 3) ,~cvcled f)af)~' 8 8 City of Encinitas November 30, 1992 Homeowners: 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue c/o Gilholm stevens, Inc. 143 S. Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 Subject: Project Expenses for Processing Permit # 3045 TE for Right-of-way Encroachment Inspection A.P.N. 256-051-19, 20-1, 20-02 The following costs have been incurred by the City of Encinitas for processing the above referenced project. Project processing costs have exceeded the dollars deposited at the time of application. Deposit Expenses as of 11-24-92 $ $ 1276.58 507.59 Costs not covered by the deposit: $ 768.99 Additional deposit for continuation of work: $ 150.00 Total owed at this time $ 918.99 A surplus of $1874.78 exists in your grading permit application account but will be held to cover as-built processing, document processing and other closing costs. The City of Encinitas operates on a cost recovery basis, therefore, in order to continue processing any permits, this account must be cleared at this time. Payment is due thirty days from 11-24-92, or prior to final inspection, whichever occurs first. Inquiries regarding financial matters should be directed to the Finance Department (619) 944-3391. Inquiries as to the status of the proj ect or services performed should be directed to the Engineering Department (619) 944-3370. All checks must be made out to the City of Encinitas and submitted to the Engineering Department. Please identify Permit # 3045 TE on your check. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~ ~U' /P! ~ Rich parzonk~Finance Manager cc: Toni Richard, Sr. Accounting Specialist 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue gc3170 527 Encinitas Boulevard, Encinitls. C;¡Jiforn;:¡ ()lPl.¡ TEl hl().().H,;n';I)! FAX hl().h-\l(»-(-\11 ~ r(!cvc/ed Daner 8 8 City of Encinitas Oftober 12, 1992 A ttn: stevens A. Turner Gilholm stevens, Inc. 143 South Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 Re: status of Active Engineering Permits Dear Sirs: Effective October 12,1992, all active Engineering Permits of which Gilholm Stevens, Inc. is the named contractor are hereby declared invalid until such time as named contractor submits acceptable proof of insurance to the City of Encinitas Engineering Services Department. Permits directly affected by this change in status include the following: 9391 T 2701 TE 2978 TE 3045 TE Expired 12-31-91 Expired 12-31-91 Expired 9-12-92 Expired 10-1-92 No final inspection No final inspection No final inspection No final inspection Please respond promptly. If you have any questions please call Jeff Garami at (619) 944-5075. Sincerely, ..../ ~(j: ~ ~~dS Field Operations Engineer gc3095 ';2' EncinIl:Is Boulevard, Encmìlas, Cililorni'l 9202'1 TFJ. h1')-<)+-:;():;ii ¡:,\:\ 1J1<)-IJ:\2-()S~h (JQ Œ:D ",cveled Dan,,' 8 Mr. Rich Parzonko, Finance Manager City of Encinitas 527 Encintas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Permits 3045TE, 2978GR, 2978TE Dear Mr. Parzonko: 8 2Cf16 6) September 4, 1992 Please let this letter be your authority to transfer amounts from Permit 2978GR to cover shortages in Permits 3045TE and 2978TE. Very truly yours, () 17 .~cC? fr~ J es Mallen 6 Neptune Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 JM:ip 8 8 Ci~V of Encinitas ÃU9úst 24, 1992 Homeowners: 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue c/o Gilholm/Stevens, Inc. 143 S. Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 Re: Project Expenses for Processing Permit # 3045 TE for Temporary Encroachment A.P.N. 256-051-19. 20-01. 20-02 The following costs have been incurred by the City of Encinitas for processing the above referenced project. project processing costs have exceeded the dollars deposited at the time of application. Deposit $ 250.00 $ 257.59 $ 7.59 $ 250.00 $ 257.59 Expenses as of 8-12-92 Costs not covered by the deposit: Additional deposit for continuation of work: Total owed at this time Applicants may elect to have the City transfer surplus funds from the grading permit application aècount 2978 GR. Should such a decision be made, the City Engineer should be notified in writing. The City of Encinitas operates on a cost recovery basis, therefore, in order to continue processing any permits, this account must be cleared at this time. Payment is due thirty days from August 19, 1992 or prior to final inspection, whichever occurs first. Inquiries regarding financial matters should be directed to the Finance Department (619) 944-3391. Inquiries as to the status of the project or services performed should be directed to the Engineering Department (619) 944-3370. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. All checks must be made out to the City of Encinitas and submitted to the Engineering Department. Please identify the Permit # 3045 TE on your check. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /ÍJ~4 Rich Parzon 0 'Finance Manager cc: Toni Richard, Sr. Accounting Specialist gc2994 ')2"" Encini¡as j\ouk\'"rrl FI1'1111i.l' (:,¡Jii"'llli" I)}(I} , 1'1'1',1"1)1;.')"=,1' 1\\'"1'",.',.'">,,,, OJ.. ní\ u'r<'rl~r' 'LO"I" 8 8 City of Encinitas 24, 1992 Homeowners: 6~6, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue c/o Gilholm/Stevens, Inc. 143 S. Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 Re: Project Expenses for Processing Permit # 2978 TE for Temporarv Encroachment A.P.N. 256-051-19. 20-01. 20-02 The following costs have been incurred by the City of Encinitas for processing the above referenced project. Project processing costs have exceeded the dollars deposited at the time of application. Deposit $ $ 2,417.14 $ 1,717.14 $ 700.00 $ 2,417.14 700.00 Expenses as of 8-12-92 Costs not covered by the deposit: Additional deposit for continuation of work: Total owed at this time Applicants may elect to have the City transfer surplus funds from the grading permit application account 2978 GR. Should such a decision be made, the City Engineer should be notified in writing. The City of Encinitas operates on a cost recovery basis, therefore, in order to continue processing any permits, this account must be cleared at this time. Payment is due thirty days from August 24, 1992 or prior to final inspection, whichever occurs first. Inquiries regarding financial matters should be directed to the Finance Department (619) 944-3391. Inquiries as to the status of the proj ect or services performed should be directed to the Engineering Department (619) 944-3370. All checks must be made out to the City of Encinitas and submitted to the Engineering Department. Please identify the Permit # 2978 TE on your check. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /LI~ ß ~ Rich parzo~, Finance Manager cc: Toni Richard, Sr. Accounting Specialist gc2994 'iT' Encinitas ]\ouk,,:ml. Fncinil:lS. c::tliforni:l <J20.! , '1'1'1(,1<).<),,')11')1> I'\\',j<).(,-;.!<)~-;" (JQ n .\) ff'rvr!N! nanN v&. ~~ 4 . S A;E':F CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY 8 8 PETE WILSON, Go..,rnor AliFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION S N DIEGO COAST AREA 3 11 CAMINO DEl RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 S N DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 ( 19) 521-8036 ~.-:. , .. .. . July 24, 1992 Bob Trettin 12785 Amaranth Street San Diego, CA 92129 RE: Emergency Permit request for upper bluff stabilization at 656, 658 and 660 Neptune Avenue,' Encinitas Dear Mr. Trettin: After review of your emergency permit request, submitted July 14,1992, for upper bluff stabilization at the above referenced site, it has been determined that additional information is necessary before an emergency permit can be issued by the Executive Director. As you are aware, the Commission regulations define an emergency as lIa sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services II. In addition, Section 13142 (a) of the Commission's Administrative Regulations states that approval of an emergency permit can only be granted if the Executive Director finds that: a) An emergency exists and requires action more quickly than that permitted by the procedures for administrative permits, or for ordinary permits,.. . Thus, at a minimum, to approve an emergency permit, it must be determined that an emergency exists and that the regular permit process cannot be followed because of the inevitable risk. As we.have indicated to you, in connection with your inital request for an emergency permit for the lower wall, you are asking for the Executive Director to approve, through the emergency permit process, substantial development beyond the scope of work our emergency regulations are designed to address. In attempting to address such emergency situations, staff has agreed in past cases to review plans for non-temporary or non-remedial structures, if properly engineered and acceptable to the City of Encinitas. In several cases, even though emergency permits have been issued for such structures, different projects have ultimately been authorized by the Commission as consistent with the Coastal Act. Enforcement of the Commission's ultimate action has resulted in lengthy and time-consuming enforcement proceedings. It is for the above reasons that staff has encouraged, and will continue to encourage, you to pursue other, more temporary options, to shore up the property, until a coastal use permit can be obtained from the City and a coastal development permit can be obtained from the Commission. In the subject case, an emergency permit was issued on April 30, 1992 for the ,À I lot ... ,~~ . . v 8 8 Mr. Bob Trettin July 24, 1992 Page 2 lower wall with the understanding by all parties (in reliance on notarized signatures from all property owners) that a permit application for lower and upper bluff stabilization would be submitted to the City within 30 days, and to the Commission office within 60 days. The mid- and upper bluff work was to be part of the regular coastal development permit application and be subject to a thorough alternatives analysis. We have indicated a willingness to process the coastal development permit concurrently with the City's review to the degree possible, and to date, after three months, have not received a coastal development permit application for the entire project. You are now indicating that the upper bluff stabilization must be constructed, prior to its review and approval through the regular permit process, because sloughing has continued to occur in the upper bluff to the point that the foundation of the northern home is exposed. In response to your most recent emergency permit request, staff gave you a verbal response on July 12, 1992, after review of your submittal by our technical services unit, asking for updated plans indicating current site conditions with a stability analysis showing how the residences are affected. We asked that you document what conditions have changed since issuance of the previous emergency permit that preclude you from obtaining a regular coastal development permit, and address what has been the cause of the additional upper bluff failures. We asked that separate documentation of the nature and extent of the emergency at both 656-658 Neptune Avenue and 660 Neptune Avenue be provided. Your verbal response has been that the applicant does not intend to revise the plans or submit any additional geotechnical information and that work is intended to proceed next week. To this we must restate again that your plans do not accurately reflect the current site conditions and do not contain engineering details, particularly regarding the fill slope. We have the following concerns which must be addressed in revised plans, prior to issuance of an emergency permit from this office. The plans must be correctly scaled (the submitted plans indicate a scale that is not consistent with the noted wall and bluff elevations) and include a properly engineered mid-slope as support for the upper wall. The angl~ of backfill from the lower wall and height of the mid-slope must be indicated to determine benching requirements consistent with the Uniform Building Code. In other words, the plans should include details on appropriate terracing and/or drainage provisions for the mid-slope to provide a stable support for the upper wall, based on current site conditions. Additionally, the height of the upper wall must be indicated and the angle of backfill to the top of slope designed to provide maximum stability, not create additional yard area. Cross-sections must be taken at the north, center and south property lines and submitted, to reflect the finished wall design. The failure circles you have submitted based on 2/8/92 topography indicate that the upper bluff is unstable even with the lower wall in place. It is on this basis that we will agree to issue an emergency permit for the upper wall " I \ ....," ~ ~ ~ 8 8 Mr. Bob Trettin July 24, 1992 Page 3 prior to completion of the regular permit process, but not until we receive engineered plans. Again, the plans you are asking us to approve do not reflect current site conditions and given the height of the fill slope, appear to require more detailed engineering to meet code requirements. Such plans are not acceptable for an emergency permit, and will not be accepted with a regular permit application. We are taking this opportunity to inform you again that no work which is authorized under an emergency permit is considered permanent, or authorized as consistent with the Coastal Act, until a regular coastal development permit is received from the Commission. This is also to inform you that your emergency permit issued 4/30/92 is null and void pursuant to Special Condition #8(a) and any work notdoneuin accordance with the conditions of that permit are in violation of the Coastal Act. Because of the app1icant1s reluctance to satisfy these conditions, Commission staff is reluctant to reiterate these same conditions in a new emergency permit. Enforcement of the conditions of the emergency permit will be referred to our legal counsel for action. You should be aware that the Coastal Act, Section 30820, stipulates that any person who violates the Coastal Act may be subject to civil fines, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Additionally, Section 30821, states that "In addition to any other penalties, any person who intentionally and knowingly performs any development in violation of this division shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per day for each day in which such violation occurs." Please be assured Commission staff will expedite review of the proposed emergency work, after the above requested information is submitted. Therefore, we strongly urge you to submit the requested information as quickly as possible, as well as work diligently toward submittal of an application for a coastal development permit for the entire project to this office. If you have any questions, please don1t hesditate to call me or Lee McEachern at the above number. Sincerely. _Æ..,æ, Þ ~e~~;;l;; Supervisor, Permits and Enforcement cc: Nancy Cave Jerald D. White James Ma 11 en Greg Shields ~ Bob Milmoe Richard Bourgault (7704A) ,I' 8 . City of Encinitas Mr. Robert S. Milmoe, R.C. E. First Phase Engineering 3255 Wing street, suite 112 San Diego, CA 92110 July 9, 1992 Re: Mallen Seawall and 656 Neptune Avenue C::!~)' CA Dear Mr. Milmoe: Upper Slope Security Wall The submittal of preliminary plans for a seawall to be constructed as an emergency measure on the properties at 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, has been reviewed by the City Engineer's office, and the follawing comments are noted: The plans and calculations as submitted contain enough information to verify that if constructed as shown the design would be safe, according to accepted engineering standards. The plans show several different methods of securing the upper slopes. This review only concerns itself with the upper wall. Your assumptions of geotechnical conditions must be verified by proper studies before the plans can be approved as a set of as-buil t plans. The tieback reactive forces should be verified by testing. Any construction occurring to remedy the existing emergency condi tion should be performed only with continual special inspection, such that the work can be certified at the time of as-built plan acceptance. The calculations submitted for this proj ect will need a glossary to clarify the contractions used in the computer printout, and some sketches defining the variables would also help in the interpretation of the design. The plans need to be completed, with the inclusion of specifications for the materials to be used, dimensions and steel sizes on the column sectiòn. As work progresses on the correction of this emergency condition, 527 Encinitas Boulevard, Encinitas. California 92024 TEL 619-944-5050 / FA-\: 619-632-9836 DQ <6ó> recycled papcr J ~J t 8 . .' ... ... 2978-GR WHITE please keep us informed ahead af any changes, and remember that an application far permanent use permit is necessary for the completion of these repairs. Please contact me at 944-7050 if you have any questions. Sincerely Yours /)(é/) Ha~carl Jensen Subdivision Engineer cc.: Greg Shields, Sr. Engineer, Field Bill Weedman, City Planner Jesse Tench, Corom. Services . TArf "QF CA\:FORNIA-THE RESOUItC~S AC~N. - 8, , PETE WILSON, Go...mor '- Al..1=ORNJA COASTAL COMMISSION AN DIEGO COAST "flEA '11 CAMINO Del RIO NORTH. SUITE 200 AN Dtf;GO, CA 91108.172' ( 19) 521-8036 fILE COpy @ EMERGENCY PERMIT Mr. Jerald O. White (name) 660 Neptune Ave. (street name & no.) A~rti...L..Jgg2 0 (date) Encinitas. CA 92024 (city, state, zip) 6-91-312-G Emergency Permit # 655-660 NeDtun~ Avenije. Ençinitas. San DieQo County. location of Emergency Work Construction of a 35-foQt high. SO-foot lon~ seawall consisting of reinforced concrete piers. drilled tiebacks and backfill. will follow at a later date. Mid- and uPDer-bluff structures 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 coastal bluff and bluff retreat 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. Coast 37-: 9/81 (7354A) . , "r' ~-,-- e- 8 The work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the propertv owner 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. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. Within 60 days of the above date, the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal penmit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed 1n its entirety within 150 days of t~e above date unless waived.by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 3. 4. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the Ca1ifornia Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. This penmit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 5. 6. OTHER: See attached Exhibit A. Condition #3 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development, a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of theprovis1ons of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. ' If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commissionls San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: ~ c!!b.~ 1 æ /!::;:t 0 r ,....... "I"" V..., J'" ., - VV ,,~. VV~ , . V~ -8- 8 " EXHIBIT A Additional Conditions of Approval 6. a) Construction of the proposed seawall/retaining wall structure shall occur consistent with plans entitled "Seawall and Slope Protection, 656 Neptune at al. dated 1/14/91 and revised 3/3/92, subject to the revisionso required under 6(b) below, and shall generally consist of construction of a concrete pier and drilled tie-back seawall/retaining wall with timber lagging face. b) Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicant Shall submit detailed revised plans and supporting documents indicating the following: 1) The method of connection with the existing abutting walls on either site of the proposed wall. ~ 2) Revisions to the foundation of the proposed wall to indicate that the face of the foundation is flush with the proposed concrete piers. 3) The height of all portions of the proposed structure and the abutting walls relative to a single, identified reference datum. 4) A clear representation on the plan view of the most seaward extent of encroachment of the proposed cutoff wall foundation. 5) Design parameters for the proposed wall, including anticipated tidal orange. the wave height used in the wall design and the anticipated frequency of overtopping. . c) Construction of mid-bluff and upper bluff improvements shall be approved only under the action on a regular coastal development permit application, and shall be the subject of a thorough alternatives analysis. 7. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit. the applicant shall submit evidence that a complete application(s) for all necessary permits required under the Coastal Bluff Ordinance of the City of Encinitas has been submitted to the City. Said evidence shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. 8. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall state that by accepting this emergency permit, the applicant and any successors in interest hereby agree to the complete the regular coastal development permit process for the proposed work. as required under Special Condition #3 of this emergency permit, and the local discretionary review process, including, but not limited to, review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Coastal Bluff Ordinance of '. . '" '" , . > 8. 8 .' the City of Encinitas. following: a) That the applicants acknowledge that failure to apply for the regular coastal development permit within 60 days of issuance of this emergency permit shall cause this emergency permit to be null and void. The restriction shall further acknowledge the b) That the applicants agree to provide bi-week1y monitoring reports on the status of processing all City-required discretionary approvals and on the status of construction activities. c) That the construction or replacement of any accessory structure. including stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc.. are not authorized by this penmit and may not be authorized under future regular coastal development penmits. d) That the applicants recognize and acknowledge that any structures built under the emergency penmit are considered temporary and that their removal may be required if all local and State approvals are not received. 9. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be be used for backfill or construction materials. 10. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval in writing a detailed construction schedule for the proposed development. Construction is authorized to continue for a total of 60 days from date of issuance of this permit. Any additional construction shall be the subject of a future emergency permit request. of' \ . 8 8 City of Encinitas Mr. Robert S. Milmoe, R.C. E. First Phase Engineering 3255 Wing Street, Suite 112 San Diego, CA 92110 March 12, 1992 Re: Mallen Seawall 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 2978-GR Dear,Mr. Milmoe: The submittal of preliminary plans for a seawall to be constructed as an emergency measure on the properties at 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, has been reviewed by the City Engineer's office, and the following comments are noted: The plans and calculations as submitted contain enough information to verify that if constructed as shown the design would be safe, according to accepted engineering standards. The plans show several different methods of securing the upper slopes. This review only concerns itself with the.lower wall. Any construction above the seawall must be reviewed under an application for a use permit, before work can proceed on the upper slopes. Your assumptions of geotechnical conditions must be verified by proper studies before the plans can be approved as a set of as-built plans. The tieback reactive forces should be verified by testing. Any construction occurring to remedy the existing emergency condition should be performed only with continual special inspection, such that the work can be certified at the time of as-built plan acceptance. The calculations submitted for this proj ect will need a glossary to clarify the contractions used in the computer printout, and some sketches defining the variables would also help in the interpretation of the design. The plans need to be completed, with the inclusion of specifications for the materials to be used, dimensions and steel sizes on the column section. ~2- EncinnCi' BoUÌl'\-~lrd, Fnc:"¡,,,,- C¡};!-",-",,! (J2(,2,¡ TFI. ()}l).(J.¡+';I";" F\\: ¡,]U.I"2-'J,,'h OJ. ('1- S> f,.rvc:~rf n;MN . .- 1- ~"/ I' ../ .. ,. í I /, 8 8 2978-GR WHITE March 12, 1992 It is suggested, that in view of the hostile environment at the toe of the wall, additional cover over the reinforcing steel be designed, such that some sacrificial concrete is available in the area of the wall at the surf zone. To gain access to the work area over the beach, you must obtain an encroachment permit from the Community services Department. As work progresses on the correction of this emergency condition, please keep us informed ahead of any changes, and remember that an application for permanent use permit is necessary for the completion of these repairs. Please contact me at 944-7050 if you have any questions. Sincerely Yours ,~~,(Cto U~~ Hans Carl ensen subdivisil n Engineer cc.: Greg Shields, Sr. Engineer, Field Bill Weedman, City Planner Jesse Tench, Comm. Services ..w' " \ 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGEN< C. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA I 3111 CAMINO Del RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.1725 521-8036 8 PETE WILSON, Governor ~""':~'" B .~,~.. March 11. 1992 lAAR II '8 - --; Mr. Robert Trettin 12785 Amaranth San Diego. CA 92129 Subject: Emergency Permit Request. 656. 658 & 660 Neptune Ave. Dear Mr. Trettin: This office has received and reviewed plans submitted for emergency bluff stabilization at 656. 658 and 660 Neptune Avenue (Dated March 3. 1992) and correspondence from Robert Milmoe dated February 13. March 9 and March 10. 1992. At this time we do not feel that the information normally required to be submitted in conjunction with requests for emergency permits has yet been submitted. We cannot issue any permits for emergency work until additional information has been submitted. This letter is written both to document our previous oral requests for additional information and to provide a detailed listing of the elements the study should provide. Section 13139 of the Commission's regulations outlines the information necessary to be reported in conjunction with the issuance of an emergency permit. The following items of information are required: 1) 2) The na.ture of the emergency; The cause of the emergency; 3) 4) The location of the emergency; The remedial work required to deal with the emergency; 5) The circumstances that justify the the course of action proposed. including the probable consequences of failing to take action. First. we will require a geotechnical study prepared by a certified engineering geologist which indicates the cause of the failure and which provides an estimate of the risk faced by the existing structures located on these properties. Geotechnical investigations conducted in 1987 for 656 & 658 Neptune Avenue ... '. 8 8 Mr. RobertlTrettin March 12. 1992 Page 2 have indicated that the site was anticipated to be stable for a period of 75 years. A geotechnical investigation conducted for 652 Neptune Avenue in 1989 did not indicate that any additional increase in the rate of erosion in the area similar to that' experienced in recent months was anticipated. We are concerned that there are additional geotechnical factors at work since' the drafting of those studies that may not have been anticipated in the proposed wall design and which have precipitated your request for a seawall. The report should further indicate the factor of safety of the existing bluff. We have also received additional information from Mr. Robert Milmoe indicating that a broken water main in the street adjacent to the failure site may have contributed to the failure at the toe of the bluff. The geotechnical investigation should indicate the extent of this contribution. the ability of the proposed structure to remediate erosion resulting from this additional water source. the potential for restoration of the damaged area and the long term effect of the break and potential restoration on the stability of the bluff. Second. we will require the submittal of a topographic map of the failure site. The map should address the topography of the face of the bluff and the relationship of the bluff at this site to the existing walls on either side of the site. Third. the geotechnical study should present cross-sections of the site with both the positions of the existing structures and the failure plane superimposed over the profile of the bluff. These sections should be taken at intervals across the properties and should be based on the recent topographic survey since the faiiure has occurred. Fourth. the report should address the age. condition and foundation type of the existing structure at 660 Neptune Avenue. Similar information regarding 656 and 658 Neptune Avenue is currently on file in our offices. Finally. the report should address the ability of the proposed structure to correct the problem occurring at the site. As part of this analysis. please include an alternatives analysis. identifying both structural and non-structural alternatives including but not limited to the relocation of the existing structures to locations behind the anticipated failure plane. abandonment and/or removal of portions of the structures. and underpinning of the existing structures with caissons or similar structural elements. The report should also identify the \ . ~ 8 8 Mr. RobertrTrettin March 12, 1992 Page 3 feasibility of interim, temporary methods of protection that may be placed on the site. In addition to this information, please indicate the status òf the processing of the emergency permit application with the City of Encinitas. It is our understanding, based upon telephone' conversations with Mr. Greg Shields and Ms. Diane Lanager of the City of Encinitas Engineering and Planning Departments,- respectively, that the City has not yet completed processing the emergency request. We acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, and we will act as quickly as possible on your request. However, it is not possible for us to approve such a permanent structural solution on an emergency basis without the additional information requested above. If there are temporary, interim structural measures that can be undertaken at the project site, it may be possible for emergency approval for those measures while this additional information is being submitted. These measures could include the placement of riprap, protection of the upper bluff with plastic sheeting, etc. As you know, the Commission emergency permit process is designed to address temporary solutions required on an emergency basis. The Commission's Regulations define an emergency as lIa sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services.1I Section 13142(a) of the regulations provides the criteria for granting emerg~ncy permits. Such permits can only be granted if the Executive Director finds that: a) An emergency exists and requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative permits, or for ordinary permits, and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of the permit. Nothing authorized by the Executive Director under an emergency permit is considered permanent until it is permitted through a regular coastal development permit approved-by the Commission. The regulations clearly envision authorization of temporary emergency measures only, capable of being removed in the event alternatives to such measures are considered more appropriate under the Coastal Act. .. .. f ' ~ 8 8 , . Mr. Robert,Trettin March 12. 1992 Page 4 As you also know. the Executive Director has been in the position of having to authorize structures. such as you are proposing. under an emergency permit for other properties in the Encinitas area. This has not been done without a great deal:of consideration and. at a minimum. the information required above. At this time. we encourage you to commence permit processing at the City of Encinitas for the Coastal Use permit required. which will also trigger the need for environmental review. It is not appropriate for any regulatory agency to approve measures such as you are proposing without first considering the nature and cause of the potential emergency and alternative measures which are feasible to address it. Finally we must emphasize again that. should you submit the required information and the Executive Director concurs that an emergency permit is warranted. the applicant must acknowledge that the seawall would not be considered permanent until authorized by the Commission. The regular permit process through both the City and the Commission is the preferred means to achieve approval for shoreline protection. If you have any questions regarding this letter. please contact me at the Commission's San Diego area office. Sincerely. CYJð. tJ~ Paul B. Webb Coastal Planner cc: ~~ert Milmoe ~t Murphy Greg Shields Charles Damm (4037L) CITY OF ENCINITAS ENtirEERING PERMIT APPLICATIO. "¡\RÑ. Z7"J.¡;:"'~\-W-OI "\~~ Z SITE ADDRESS I¡,~ '" ZO.;W-o':\-2C-qz ~"..-r 5(0 ¡ lee€) ,ldco Ñff'ív~-A/ç.. -+\,p t-J 'IF.& cP 1- \ý- ro ~m: STREET ADDRESS . PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION f- SCot.; B.:~..w T~"",~ <; ~AL..t.2" NAME c:"Sb Ne!Plu...'1.<! ~U<? MAILING ADDRESS C"'1rl-of,7"It-.r . ('-4- CITY, STATE, ZIP (c"",,) -;"$"1-7000 TELEPHONE NO. q::t CIVIL ENGINEER INFORMATION hr<.fT PH"')" ¡;"\E."1~....c.I"\" NAME ~ ::t s s- lA.? , '\ t.. f'«~....,.. ADDRESS 50'\-'\ Ì)IC".. (4- &(2./. 0 ~~'-807" CITY,STATE,ilP T~HONENO. . 'X 'l' t/- (., REGISTRATION NO. ..., :..Jrï ( ':..0 i..- l, C).:,' '\ GIL..HOL."'\- ST~vt!'\s . x",c:: NAME 1'1'3 S. (eì>,(oç ADDRESS Ç'nL04-.,"" í1l'.-+<::t-I J ("4- 9Ã.o7> CITY, STATE, ZIP TELE. NO. S Cf f?' ¿:., (") 9 - J~ STATE UCENSE NO. & TYPE if'?,. ~ 7 ¥ 1 SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP TELEPHONE NO. . REGISTRATION NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE Lo'Ut!'-( ,~~.......~u..- 8'3 I,"\.e....\ ~.. u.....r«~ Ao r" -h" {;:uo..v - ð. Wt+""Co ;' " C ~J'7.... e ""~ 60..«E.ALLL.T,' "'t::ff Ne.~. T....."'1~ "'U~ ;1.. /. ~ I f' 2- DATE SláN£D vc..(+L.{) .. Z ~~ .--: ' ~~:r~ ... SIGNATURE ~be.-<.+ LV. IÃ..ffr'..... PRINT NAME (6 ( cr) 'IRe¡ -0;1..1 ~, TELEPHONE NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCE NO: ~1ßbR APPLICATION NO: ~v-3Dq TYPE OF APPLICATION O.CONSTRUCTION . 0 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT 0 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT g¡ SEWER CONSTRUCTION 19' GRADING ~wYf .,..ri\~>l'-~~\~ W1\~ 0 IMPROVEMENT 0 FINAL MAP 0 PARCEL MAP 0 STREET VACATION PROCESSED BY: :::r~ &~ I DEPOSITS AND FEES APPLICATION FEE:, . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT:~oo~OD INSPECTION DEPOSIT: SECURITY DEPOSIT: ~.¡.).C\:;I(i3 RETURN EXCESS DEPOSITS TO: 0 OWNER 0 CONTRACTOR 0 ßNGINEEj,R rY OTHER -f\1.t--:paQ.~ ¡}\'ù~~h C/o -::i~ ~~ -,- Iiv<;í ¡::::.;"" 0 ..p.¡.:c.o.ù..:.í ü rÖ.-uii~J COMMENTS ~'-'~ 7~ií "4 \?€A~ ~~r\.:.rrt'\~í PW-MI ~~.;\~ ~ ... 8 8 City of Encinitas -DeêØlber31,H -1991 Dr. White 660 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Dr. White: This letter is to formally notify you that you are in a potentially dangerous situation due to the constant erosion of the bluffs at the westerly boundary of your property. Subsequent to your call of December 26, 1991, daily trips to your property have been made to monitor the erosion taking place at the bluff and water's edge. We consider the above extremely serious. You are advised to immediately seek a licensed professional to advise you in the best solution to the current bluff failure. If you have any questions, please contact this office at (619) 944- 5070. ~in~ ~ loy Holt City Engineer cc: Bill Weedman Permits Counter File white.ltr JJQ.. 110~) DOC # 1999-0770724 ~ecording Requested By: Ci ty Engineer NOV 22, 1999 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:32 AM OFFICIAL K£CORDS SAN DIEGO C(UTY K£CORDER'S OFFICE GREGORY J. SMITH, COONTY RECORDER FEES: 26.00 SPACE ABQV¡ 111111111 II II 1111 III When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE 1 999.0770724 Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-20-01 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6201GI W.O. No. 6201GI A. Paul Ash ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real - property which is commonly known as 656 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Maj or Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereb~ covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment Bwhich 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, and personal representatives, transferees 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 ADA/jsg/gi6201h.docl lOelOa 1 J- 1127 DOC # 1999-0770726 Recording Requested By: City Engineer ) NOV 22,1999 8:32 ; £fFICII1 REC£RDS ) SNf DIEtillmfrV RECtRŒR'S OFfIŒ ) GREOORY J. SMITH, mmv REcœJIR 1111111111111111 U 111111 ms~ECOR::' S USE 1 999-0770726 AM When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-20-02 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6202GI W.O. No. 6202GI A. Richard T. Bourgault and Kathryn M. Bourgault ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is corrnnonly known as 658 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Maj or Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("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, and personal representatives, transferees assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant a l::e a lien upon the PROPERTY. '. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of ADA/jsg/gi6202h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 / Recording Requested By: City Engineer DOC # 1999-0770728 1999 8:32 AM NOV 22, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1145 ffFICUl f\{C£RI)S ~ DIEOO I1Uffi' f\{C£RDER'S OFFIŒ GREIiRV J. BlUTH, m.tm' f\{C!IŒR . ÆES: 26.00 D /111/11 II II 1111/1 1999.0770728 When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-19-00 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6203GI W.O. No. 6203GI A. Anthony Fisher and Roswi tha Kovida Fisher, as Trustees of the" Fisher Family Trust dated November 19, 1998" , ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is cormnonly known as 660 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Maj or Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("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, and personal representatives, transferees 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 ADA/jsg/gi6203h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 , J. 8 -, THE~INAL OF THIS DOCUMENT ÞWì REGOROCD ON NOV 22, 199'j JXDj[NT NUMBER 1 m-O77Cfl24 GREGOO J. SMITH, COlt4TV RECORDER ~ DIEGO GIltffY REœRIfR'S OFFICE TItE: 8:32 AM Recording Requested By: Ci ty Engineer When Recorded Mail To: Ci ty Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-20-01 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6201GI W.O. No. 6201GI A. Paul Ash ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is cormnonly known as 656 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Major Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment Bwhich 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 ADA/jsg/gi6201h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 the PROPERTY any þast due financial obligation owing to CITY by .;! I; way of this Co9hnan~. 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: Dated ~ Dated (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS (Notarization not required) Services Dated ~ ADA/jsg/gi6201h.doc2 10elOa 1 JAN 90 ,. ~ "'. CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPO ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CAL I FORN I A County of SAN DIEGO On NOVEMBER 3, 1999 before me, L.GABRIEL, NOTARY PUBLIC Name and Trtle 01 Officer (e,g" 'Jane Doe, Notary Public") Dale personally appeared PAUL ASH Name(s) 01 Signer(s) Up:et~R - 5i: proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person<-) whose name(K) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helxbeümv executed the same in his~r authorized capacity:t:i~, and that by hist1UØtÞrGrr signature~) on the instrument the person(a), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(K) acted, exec d the instrument. J .~ . . ..- '3-~~I; . ¡ ~ Notary P\JJIc - CaIfcmtI ~ I ~ DIego Ccu1Iy - i - - - - ~C::~_~4~ 1 WI 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: Top of thumb here 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: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: e 1995 National Nolary Association' 8236 Remmel 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 HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6201GI PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Encinitas, county of San Diego, state of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: An undivided one-half interest in and to Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15679, in the City of Encinitas, county of san Diego, State of california, filed in the Office of the county Recorder of San Diego county, May 25,1989. EXCEPTING therefrom all units as shown on the Condominium Plan of Neptune Villas, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego county, May 25, 1989, as File Page No. 1989-277659. Also EXCEPTING therefrom the exclusive right to use and possession of all those portion of the above described property lying within the "Exclusive Use Areas" as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan referred to above. PARCEL 2: Unit A as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan of Neptune Villas. PARCEL 3: The exclusive right of use and possession of all those portion of said Parcel Map referred to above which lies within the "Exclusive Use Areas" as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan referred to above which bear the same number as the Unit in parcel Two. With respect to all said parcels, EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ADA/jsg/gi6201h.doc3 10elOa 1 JAN 90 . , .,A 8 8 ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6201GI 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 general 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. 3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and demands, causes of all costs of defense against any and all liabilities, claims, action, losses, damages and costs, including thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, ADA/jsg/gi6201h.doc4 10elOa 1 JAN 90 employees, 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, ADA/jsg/gi6201h.doc5 10elOa 1 JAN 90 - . .8 8 8 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 prohibit the alteration 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. ADA/jsg/gi6201h.doc6 10elOa 1 JAN 90 ,~ 8 T~rGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT ~ RECORDED ON NfJIJ 22 ~ 19'19 OOCtJENT tUfI(R 1999-077C!728 œ:GORV J. 9fITH, CIlM'V RECORDER ~ DIEOO CWffi' REcœŒR'S OFFICE TII(: 8:32 AM Recording Requested By: Ci ty Engineer When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-19-00 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6203GI W.O. No. 6203GI A. Anthony Fisher and Roswi tha Kovida Fisher, as Trustees of the "Fisher Family Trust dated November 19, 1998" , ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is commonly known as 660 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Maj or Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("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 lan,d 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 ADA/jsg/gi6203h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 opportunity to_re~po~d, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPE;R'l'Y, arty 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: Dated ~ ~~{ --z- ~ ~" '\2 c ~L.J ~ h ~( . ~ --<l:--- Dated 142./ q~ (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS (Notarization not required) Services Dated ~ ADA/jsg/gi6203h.doc2 lOelOa 1 JAN 90 .cALLFORNIA ALL-PURP. ACKNOWLEDGMENT 8 - ~---- --------- -------1 . OFFICIAL SEAL f-. RANDA G, MILLJOUR :XJ ~.' NOTARY PU8L1C.CALIFORNIA~ a: COMM. NO. 1204250 ~ l . .. SAN DIEGO COUNTY J -~------~~:~~~~~~:~~~~~ ~ff~ County of Qau..; ~ On ÏUJU. 2, /919 beforeme;i?~11 gll/LQ7}U~ ~ðmæ'1 PO.8UL, Date Name and Title 01 Officer (e.g., . Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared 1J#7}kJ¡(/'t ~ ROS'Yl/f7}f/l K. F/511£1f: Name(s) 01 Signer(s) 0 personally known to me - OR ;rt::1Pfoved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/Qubscribed to the within instrument and acknowle~ me that he/she~ executed the same in ~e e' uthorized capacity(ies) , and that by his/he~ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. State of WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~~~~ Signature 01 No 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: Top of thumb here 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Trtle(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: @ 1995 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 HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6203GI PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of california, and is described as follows: Lot 18 of Block "E" in South Coast Park Unit 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. Also that portion of Block "F", South Coast Park No.3, 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 18, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence westerly along the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Lot 18, Block "E", to a point on the easterly line of that tract of land as conveyed by the South Coast,Land company to the county of San Diego, by deed dated Janurary 19,1930, and recorded in Book 1731, Page 256, Records of Deeds; thence southerly along the said easterly line of county land to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of said Lot 18, Block "E"; thence easterly along said westerly prolongation to the southwest corner of said Lot 18, Block "E", to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING from all of the above described property, that portion, if any, heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ADA/jsg/gi6203h.doc3 10elOa 1 JAN 90 8 8 ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6203GI 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 general 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. 3. OWNER 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, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. ADA/jsg/gi6203h.doc4 10elOa 1 JAN 90 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, employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER's ADA/jsg/gi6203h.docS obligation herein does not extend to 10elOa 1 JAN 90 . .. . 8 8 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 prohibit the alteration 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. ADA/jsg/gi6203h.doc6 10elOa 1 JAN 90 , ~, 8 T~rGrNAL OF THIS DOCUMENT MAS RECORDED ON NOU 22, 1999 DOClKNT tUlŒR 1 m-O'rlO726 GlifGœY J. SMITH, ro.mv RECœOCR ~ DIEOO mMY REcæDER'S OFFICE HI(: 8:32 AM Recording Requested By: Ci ty Engineer When Recorded Mail To: Ci ty Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-051-20-02 Case No. 92-137 MUP Permit No. 6202GI W.O. No. 6202GI A. Richard T. Bourgault and Kathryn M. Bourgault ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is commonly known as 658 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Maj or Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("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 ADA/jsg/gi6202h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 the PROPERTY any p¡;¡.st due financial obligation owing to CITY by '" I,,' way of thiJs; toV:~,ha¥lt. " ,.. 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: Dated //-J¡- 9t¡ . Dated 11~4,qq (Notarization of attached. ) CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated 1/-/9-'11 by Services (Notarization not required) ADA/jsg/gi6202h.doc2 10elOa 1 JAN 90 . CAtlFORNIA ALL.PURPA ACKNOWLEDGMENT 8 State of ¿LJ J ~_/ County of rk /J / On VoL/1M IJ/L ¥¡qq1 before me, 6/hvt r ore .S personally appeared It', fìi --Ulí, a II (t n ;;ota~;if , Name(s) of Signer s) W'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 acknowledged 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 Notary PUblic. -State Of. Nevada I. I COUNTY OF CLARK I I. . OLGA S. FLORES: I . . . My Appointment ExpIres I : No. 98-5274-1 NoYtMOOr 11,1000 I ---------------.-.. OPTIO 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: . Top of thumb here 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: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: «:11995 National Notary Association' 8236 Remmel 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 HAma.ESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6202GI PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: An undivided one-half interest in and to parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15679, in the City of Encinitas, county of San Diego, state of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego county, May 25,1989. EXCEPTING therefrom all units as shown on the Condominium Plan of Neptune Villas, recorded in the Office of the county Recorder of San Diego County, May 25, 1989, as File Page No. 1989-277659. Also EXCEPTING therefrom the exclusive right to use and possession of all those portion of the above described property lying within the "Exclusive Use Areas" as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan referred to above. PARCEL 2: Unit B as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan of Neptune Villas. PARCEL 3: The exclusive right of use and possession of all those portion of said Parcel Map referred to above which lies within the "Exclusive Use Areas" as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan referred to above which bear the same number as the Unit in Parcel Two. With respect to all said parcels, EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ADA/jsg/gi6202h.doc3 10elOa 1 JAN 90 .. 8 8 ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 6202GI 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 general 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. 3. OWNER 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, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. ADA/jsg/gi6202h.doc4 10elOa 1 JAN 90 Upon demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agentse, 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, employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER's ADA/jsg/gi6202h.doc5 obligation herein does not extend to 10elOa 1 JAN 90 .. 8 8 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 prohibit the al teration of land forms, removal of vegetation and the erection of ~tructures 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. ADA/jsg/gi6202h.doc6 10elOa 1 JAN 90 , '\ ~'t/ ~~. tV(\?¿y1~l. " /~ . ~ J d ATTAC~NT "B~I . \ r-. CJ éf¿..- Resolution No. PC 99-44 ~ Q;V^ Case No. 92-137 MUP/CDPIEIA Applicant: Location: SCI Paul Ash, Richard Bourgalt and Robert Mahoney 656, 658 and 660 Neptune A venue SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: SC2 SC5 jSC8 ~ ,JJ~ ~ ~r(JQ J' \ [0 This approval will expire on September 16, 2002 at 5 :00 pm, two years after the approval of this project, unless the conditions have been met or an extension of time has been approved pursuant to the Municipal Code. This project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application and project plans for the coastal bluff walls consisting of nine sheets total including Lower Seawall As-built Plans, consisting of 7 sheets, dated Received by the City of Encinitas on January 6, 1999, and plans for the proposed Upper Bluff Wall Repairs and Improvements, consisting of two sheets, dated revised September 21, 1998 and dated Received by the City of Encinitas on November 19, 1998; As-Built Landscape Plan, consisting of two sheets, and landscape letter report dated May 5, 1999, dated received by the City of Encinitas on May 7, 1999; and project plans for the residential remodel/addition consisting of six sheets total, including Site Plan, Floor Plan, Building Elevations, Sections, Foundation Plan and Roof Framing Plan, dated received by the City of Encinitas on July 14, 1999; all designated as approved by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1999 and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Community Development Department. Project participants shall agree in writing not to oppose participating in any proposed future governmental study addressing bluff stability and/or beach sand transport along the entire City coastline. Additionally, the applicants shall agree in writing to participate in any future comprehensive plan adopted by the City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the City. Before initiating work on the bluff walls, a Coastal Development Pennit shall be received from the California Coastal Commission for the lower seawall and the associated repairs and improvements. SC 1 0 All construction and improvements under the authority of a Coastal Development Pennit issued by the Coastal Commission must be in confonnance with and approved by the Coastal Commission prior to final inspection by the Community Development Department. Cdld1/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 15 p ..... 8 8 SC 11 The additional repairs and improvements proposed for the existing lower seawall and the upper bluff retaining wall shall be completed prior to final approval of the remodel/addition of the existing single family residence. SC 12 All drainage shall be directed away from within five feet of the edge and face of the e bluff. SC 13 A more drought resistant plant material shall be utilized in place of the rosea iceplant proposed for the area between the upper bluff wall and the residences. Prior to . planting the groundcover, documentation shall be provided to the Community Development Department to show that the replacement planting material is drought tolerant and provides good erosion control. SC 14 Upon completion of the plant material installation, a letter certifying that the landscape plant material has been installed according to the City approved plans and Condition SC 13 above shall be prepared by the landscape contractor and submitted to the Community Development Department. Said letter is required prior to final r )inspection approval by the Community Development Department. ~ ~ Temporary Beach Encroachment Pennit shall be received from the Engineering Services Department prior to initiating any work on the beach. GI STANDARD CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): G2 This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code. G3 This project is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603 and Chapter 30.04 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision must be filed with the Coastal Commission within 10 days following the Coastal Commission's receipt of the Notice of Final Action. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date the Commission's appeal period will conclude. Appeals must be in writing to the Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District office. ¿ Q Prior to building penn it issuance, the applicant shall cause a coven. ant regarding real V property to be recorded. Said covenant shall set forth the tenDS and conditions of ~ this grant of approval and shall be of a fonn and content satisfactory to the p,~ . 4~ Community Development Director. J~~~\U ~if' Cd/dllRPC92 137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 16 f' 8 8 G5 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein. G 13 The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Pennit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park Mitigation Fees, and Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant is advised to contact the Community Development Department regarding Park Mitigation Fees, the Engineering Services Department regarding Flood Control and Traffic Fees, applicable School District(s) regarding School Fees, the Fire Department regarding Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees, and the applicable G Utility Departments or Districts regarding Water and/or Sewer Fees. G 14 A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Department, the Engineering Services Department, and the Fire Department regarding the security treatment of the site during the construction phase, the on- and off-site circulation and parking of construction workers' vehicles, and any heavy equipment needed for the construction of the project. U2 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 detennine whether the City of Encinitas should revoke this pennit. U3 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. U7 Any future modifications to the approved project will be reviewed relative to the findings for substantial confonnance with a use pennit contained in Section 30.74.1 05 of the Municipal Code. Modifications beyond the scope described therein will require submittal and approval of an amendment to the use permit by the e authorized agency. Ll 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 hannless 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. L2 The applicant shall execute and record a covenant to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department setting forth the tenns and conditions of this approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Said covenant shall also provide Cd/dVRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 17 BL4 BL5 8 8 that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the approved structure(s) in good visual and structural condition in a manner satisfactory to the Directors of Engineering Services and Community Development. BL3 An "as-built geotechnical report" shall be submitted to the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments, for review and acceptance, prior to approval of the foundation inspection. The report shall outline all field test locations and results, and observations performed by the consultant during construction of the proposed structure(s), and especially relative to the depths and actual location of the foundations. The report shall also verify that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared and submitted in conjunction with the application, have been properly implemented and completed. An "as-built geotechnical report", reviewed and signed by both the soils/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 (and thereby approved for use or occupancy) until the as-built report is received and the content of the report is found acceptable by the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant shall submit on or before September 1 of each year a written report by a qualified professional engineer assessing the condition of the approved structure(s). The report shall indicate the condition of the approved structures as well as any maintenance/repair actions needed to maintain the efficacy of the structure(s). The assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion rate on both sides of sea walles). 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 Engineering Services Department, prior to implementation of any corrective measures. Any maintenance/repair work needed shall be completed prior to the next winter storm period. CdldVRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 18 Bl 8 e BUILDING CONDITION(S): CONT ACT THE ENCINIT AS BUILDING DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): REGARDING B2 The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for plancheck processing. The submittal shall include a Soils/Geotechnical Report, structural calculations, and State Energy compliance documentation (Title 24). Construction plans shall include a site plan, a foundation plan, floor and roof framing plans, floor plane s), section details, exterior elevations, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must show compliance with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The Unifonn Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Codes). Commercial and Multi-residential construction must also contain details and notes to show compliance with State disabled accessibility mandates. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive plancheck will be completed prior to pennit issuance and additional technical code requirements may be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans may be required. FI FIRE CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): F13 EI ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the address numbers shall confonn to Fire Department Standards. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): E2 All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building/grading pennit issuance shall apply. Cd/dllRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 19 8 8 .. RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZING AN EXISTING LOWER SEAWALL, AND AN UPPER BLUFF RET AININ G WALL, AND PROPOSED REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING WALLS, AND AN ADDITION/REMODEL TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE (CASE NO.: 92-137 MUP/CDPIEIA; APN: 256-051-14 AND 256-051-20-01 & 02) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit was filed by Paul Ash, Richard Bourgalt and Robert Mahoney to allow an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the existing walls, and an addition/remodel to the existing single family residence in accordance with Chapters 30.34, 30.74 and 30.80 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in the R-ll Zone and Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, legally described as: Lot 18 in Block "E" in South Coast Park Unit No.3, in the City ofEncinitas, County of San Diego, State of Califomia, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 15679, in the City ofEncinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego county, May 25, 1989. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the application on September 16, 1999, at which time all those desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation: 1. The September 16, 1999 agenda report to the Planning Commission with attachments; 2. The General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Municipal Code, and associated Land Use Maps; 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 1 4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; 5. Project Plans for the coastal bluff walls consisting of nine sheets total including Lower Seawall As-built Plans, consisting of 7 sheets, dated Received by the City of Encinitas on January 6, 1999, and plans for the proposed Upper Bluff Wall Repairs and Improvements, consisting of two sheets, dated revised September 21, 1998 and dated Received by the City of Encinitas on November 19, 1998; As-Built Landscape Plan, consisting of two sheets, and landscape letter report dated May 5, 1999, dated received by the City of Encinitas on May 7, 1999; and project plans for the residential remodel/addition consisting of six sheets total, including Site Plan, Floor Plan, Building Elevations, Sections, Foundation Plan and Roof Framing Plan, dated received by the City of Encinitas on July 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapters 30.34, 30.74 and 30.80 of the EncinitasMunicipal Code: (SEEAITACHMENT"A") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 92-137 MUP/CDPIEIA subject to the following conditions: (SEE A IT ACHMENT "B ") Cd/dVRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 2 8 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOL VEDthat the Planning Commission, in its independent judgment, has reviewed the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project and has determined that with incorporation of the mitigation measures contained therein and made conditions of approval for the application herein, all project impacts will be reduced to levels of insignificance and the Negative Declaration is hereby adopted in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code, and, therefore, a Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be made with De Minimus Impact Findings. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1999.by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Jacobson, Patton, Bagg and Crosthwaite NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Birnbaum ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ~ lV~~ t- Sandra Holder Secretary NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits for legal challenges. CdldVRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 3 ATTACHMENT "A" Resolution No. PC 99-44 Case No. 92-137 MUP/CDPIEIA FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT STANDARD: In accordance with Section 30.74.070 of the Municipal Code, a use permit application shall be approved unless findings of fact are made, based upon the information presented in the application or during the hearing, 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, services and utilities to serve the proposed proj ect; 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; Facts: The Major Use Pennit application includes the request to approve an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the walls. The existing landscaping and proposed plantings in association with bluff face improvements is also included as part of the Use Pennit. As authorized by Emergency Permits Nos. 6-92-86-G and 6-92-167 -G issued by the California Coastal Commission, the existing bluff face improvements were constructed in 1992 due to bluff failures on the site. The lower seawall maintains an overall height of approximately 37 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is comprised of a concrete base, concrete columns with tiebacks and horizontal timber lagging. Repair work is proposed in order to improve the stability of the existing lower seawall. The proposed work includes the removal of all existing exposed reinforcing steel along the base of the seawall and installation of new reinforcing dowels and reinforcing steel. Six to eight inches of shotcrete is also proposed to be applied to the face of the lower portion (concrete base) of the wall. The upper wall consists of vertical timber poles, horizontal lagging boards and tiebacks with horizontal wood walers. The top of the upper bluff wall is located at an elevation of approximately 93 AMSL and maintains a height of approximately 18 feet - 19 feet. The wall is approximately 100 feet in length and extends along the CdJd1/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99)4 8 8 entire width of the subject properties. Repair work is proposed in order to improve the stability of the existing upper bluff retaining wall. The proposed work includes the installation of new tiebacks, approximately 40 feet in length, and a new concrete waler, located approximately 3 feet below the top of the wall to run across the width of the wall. Additionally, replacement of the existing wood walers is included. In association with the 1992 bluff face improvements, the backfill slope between the lower seawall and upper bluff retaining wall was improved with plantings. The plantings were completed to protect the newly created slope. Existing plantings will remain and barren areas will be hydroseeded. Additionally, shrubs will be planted consistent with the project landscape plan and the area between the upper wall and existing residences will be planted. In addition to the hyrdroseed, plantings consist of ground cover and medium shrubs. Discussion: The project does not create the need for any public facilities, services and utilities other than those already servicing the existing residences. Based on past bluff failures, the pre-construction condition of the bluff represented an imminent danger to the existing residences. Site conditions created the need for the bluff face improvements. Although the structures are out of place in an unaltered natural coastal bluff environment, seawalls and mid and upper bluff walls have been in place along this section of the bluff for an extended period of time. Existing bluff walls in this section of the bluff are of similar construction, size and scale. The construction of the walls and proposed improvements are not a new element in the visual landscape of the beach. Some natural discoloration of the concrete has occurred due to rust, moss, and natural weathering and erosional processes, which at least blends with the natural colors of the coastal bluffs. With additional hydroseeding and additional shrubs, the plantings will adequately cover the bluff face to provide erosion control as well as soften the appearance of the newly created slope bank and walls when viewed from a distance. As noted in the June 29, 1993 letter report from Civil Engineering Consultants which was accepted and agreed with by SEC in their December 30, 1998 letter report, "The project has been designed and located to substantially increase the geologic stability of the bluff.. .." Additionally, Civil Engineering Consultants note that "the construction will not impact the stability of the site and the adjacent areas. Walls exist on each side of the construction area. These walls would be more vulnerable to erosion without the addition of the new wall." Based on an environmental initial study conducted by Craig R. Lorenz & Associates, dated June 24, 1999, it was detennined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that the location, size, design and characteristics of the existing lower seawall and the existing upper bluff wall with associated landscaping and proposed repairs and improvements are compatible with Cd/dllRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 5 and do not adversely affect and are not materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural resources. 2. The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code; and 3. The project fails to comply with any other regulations, conditions, or policies imposed by the Municipal Code. Facts: The Major Use Permit application includes the request to approve an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the walls. The existing and proposed landscaping in association with bluff face improvements is also included as part of the Use Permit. Pursuant to Section 30.34.020B2.b of the Municipal Code, preemptive measures are allowed on the face of the coastal bluff in accordance with the development processing and approval regulations specified in Section 30.34.020C of the Municipal Code. Additionally, Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code stipulates that until the comprehensive plan is adopted, the City shall not permit the construction of seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, cribbing, or similar structures for coastal erosion except under circumstances where an existing principal structure is imminently threatened and, based on a thorough alternatives analysis, an emergency coastal development permit is issued and all emergency measures authorized by the emergency coastal permit are designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. An emergency permit, No. 6-92-86-G, was issued by the California Coastal Commission for the construction of the existing lower seawall, and emergency permit No. 6-92-167-G was issued for the construction of the upper bluff wall. Discussion: The criteria stipulated in Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code has been addressed in the geotechnical reports prepared for the project by the project engineer, SEC, and other previous geotechnical and engineering professionals. Related to the emergency nature of the project, it is noted in a letter report prepared by Earth Systems Design Group dated July 21, 1992, that "The residence at 660 Neptune Ave. has been undermined by recent, on-going upper bluff failures, and is in imminent threat of failure. Projections of continued upper bluff failure, based on the existing geological conditions, would extend such failure under the property at 656-658 Neptune Ave., as well." Furthermore, in the November 2, 1998 Limited Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC), it is noted that"... the distressed condition of the upper retaining wall has accelerated significantly, placing the residential structures on the subject lots in imminent threat of failure." Related to an alternatives analysis, alternatives were discussed in the First Phase engineering II reports dated May 9 and July 9, 1992. Analysis included alternatives Cdldl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 6 8 8 such as sand or cement bags, rip rap and different wall designs. The alternatives analyzed by First Phase Engineering are referenced in the September 11, 1995 letter report by Civil Engineering Consultants which notes that"... the mitigation measures selected remain valid." Related to mitigating adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, the project engineer notes in the September 11, 1995 letter report, that "the proposed improvements will not have an impact on local shoreline sand supply. Additionally, as conditioned by the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission for the lower seawall, the project is conditioned whereby the applicant shall pay a sand replenishment fee. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the policies of the General Plan related to coastal bluffs and the provisions of the Municipal Code for the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and Use Permits including the criteria stipulated in Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code. The project complies or has been conditioned to comply with said regulations and policies. Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that approval of the Use Permit allowing the as-built seawall and upper bluff wall with proposed repairs and improvements, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 7 FINDINGS FOR PREEMPTIVE MEASURES STANDARD: In accordance with Section 30.34.020C.2 of the Municipal Code, when a preemptive measure is proposed, the following findings shall be made if the authorized agency determines to grant approval: c.(1) 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 application includes the request to approve an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the walls. The existing and proposed landscaping in association with bluff face improvements is also included as part of the application. The existing and proposed bluff stabilization measures are further described above in the fIDdings related to the Major Use Permit. Discussion: It is noted in the June 29, 1993 letter report by Civil Engineering Consultants that "The project has been designed and located to substantially increase the geologic stability of the bluff by anchoring the surface well back into the embankment." Additionally, in the December 30, 1998 letter report by SEC it is noted that "SEC accepts and agrees with all of the previously reviewed geotechnical data relative to this project" SEC further notes that "... if [their] recommended repairs are implemented, no further distress of the upper retaining wall will occur." Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that information contained within the soils and geotechnical reports demonstrates that the proposed measures are 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 bluff top to which there is a demonstrated threat as substantiated by the geotechnical report. , Facts: Background information provided by the applicant, including photographs, and statements from engineers and geologists document the fact that bluff failures occurred on the site in early 1992 which resulted in the construction of the bluff improvements and the upper wall subsequently failed after construction in 1992/1993. Discussion: It is noted in a letter report prepared by Earth Systems Design Group dated July 21, 1992, that "The residence at 660 Neptune Ave. has been undermined by recent, on-going upper bluff failures, and is in imminent threat of failure. Projections of continued upper bluff failure, based on the existing geological conditions, would extend such failure under the property at 656-658 Neptune Ave., as well." Furthennore, in the November 2, 1998 Limited Geotechnical Assessment CdJdl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 8 8 8 prepared by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC), it is noted that"... the distressed condition of the upper retaining wall has accelerated significantly, placing the residential structures on the subject lots in imminent threat of failure." Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds 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 reports. 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. Facts: The application includes the request to approve an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the walls. The existing and proposed landscaping planted in association with bluff face improvements is also included as part of the application. . Discussion: It is noted in the June 29, 1993 letter report by Civil Engineering Consultants, that "The construction will not impact the stability of the site and the adjacent areas. Walls exist on each side of the construction area. These walls would be more vulnerable to erosion without the addition of the new wall." Furthermore, in the September II, 1995 Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, Civil Engineering Consultants state that they"... certify that the proposed improvements will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that [the] proposed structure or facility is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its lifetime." Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that there is no 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 the request to approve an existing lower seawall, existing upper bluff retaining wall, and proposed repairs and improvements to the walls. The existing and proposed landscaping planted in association with bluff face improvements is also included as part of the application. The existing and proposed bluff stabilization measures are further described above in the findings related to the Major Use Permit. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 9 Discussion: Although the structures are out of place in an unaltered natural coastal bluff environment, seawalls and mid and upper bluff walls have been in place along this section of the bluff for an extended period of time. Existing bluff walls in this section of the bluff are of similar construction, size and scale. The construction of the walls and proposed improvements are not a new element in the visual landscape of the beach. Some natural discoloration of the concrete has occurred due to rust, moss, and natural weathering and erosional processes, which at least blends with the natural colors of the coastal bluffs. With the proposed hydroseeding and additional shrubs, the plantings appear to adequately cover the bluff face to provide erosion control as well as soften the appearance of the newly created slope bank and walls when viewed from a distance. Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that the seawall and upper bluff wall are visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area since the surrounding area includes bluff stabilization measures of similar construction, size and scale. Due to natural coloring of the walls and the existing plantings the walls 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: In the July 21, 1992 Geotechnical Review, Earth Systems Design Group states that "The lower seawall at the subject properties was designed and built under emergency permit, with the absence of a lower bluff, which had completely failed. Therefore, the wall was built at the original toe-of-slope, and does not extend any further to the west than the neighboring seawall to the immediate north and south." Discussion: The seawall is horizontally aligned with the other existing seawalls directly adjacent to the property. 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 preemptive measures were constructed in response to emergency conditions which resulted due to bluff failures; the applicants are requesting approval of the existing structures and additional repairs and improvements which are necessary to meet the required factor of safety and which are necessary due to the current site conditions. The fact that the structures are existing and 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. The criteria required to be addressed pursuant to Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Cd/dVRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 10 8 8 Municipal Code for preemptive measures approved prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan have been addressed. 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: 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 shall be required to participate in the future comprehensive plans which include the subj ect property . Preemptive Measure and Bluff Setback Determination: The criteria required to be considered in order to approve construction on the coastal bluff maintaimng the standard 40 foot setback and the criteria required to authorize preemptive measures on the face of the bluff have been addressed by the geotechnical reports submitted for the project which include the following: June 17, 1987 Estimated Bluff Retreat and Foundation Setback by Leighton and Associates May 9, 1992 Design Report for Seawall & Bluff Stabilization by First Phase Engineering II May 11, 1992 and June 2, 1992 Letter Reports by Earth Systems Design Group July 9, 1992 Letter Report by First Phase Engineering II July 21,1992 Letter Report by Earth Systems Design Group June 29, 1993 Letter Report by Civil Engineering Consultants May 7, 1995 Letter Report by Applied Engineering Group May 30, 1995 and September 11, 1995 Letter Reports by Civil Engineering Consultants November 2, 1998 Limited Geotechnical Assessment by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) December 15,1997 Calculations for Repair of the Upper Bluff Wall by SEC October23, 1998 Calculations for Repair of the Lower Seawall by SEC December 12,28,1998 Foundation Recommendations by SEC January 6, 1999 Review of Foundation Plans by SEC December 30, 1998 and May 20, 1999 Letter Reports by SEC The geotechnical reports/letters were reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant Ernie Artim, which 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. Cd/dllRPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 11 FINDINGS FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STANDARD: Section 30.80.090 of the Municipal Code provides that the authorized agency must make the following fIDdings of fact, based upon the information presented in the application and during the Public Hearing, in order to approve a coastal development permit: 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 Section 21000 and following (CEQA) 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; and Facts: The site is designated as Residential 8.01 - 11.0 du/ac on the Land Use Designation map of the General Plan and is zoned R-ll 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 existing upper bluff wall with proposed repairs and improvements to the walls, existing and proposed bluff face landscaping and a proposed residential remodel/addition. A 221 square foot addition and other remodel improvements are proposed for the existing one story, single family residence located at 660 Neptune Avenue. The addition is proposed on the north side of the structure and creates a new entry to the structure and provides additional floor space. To create the entry the existing detached garàge will be attached to the primary residence and portions of the garage will be converted to a covered portico. The addition maintains a setback of approximately 32 feet and does not affect or intensify the existing legal nonconforming front yard setback (10') currently maintained by the garage. The single story addition will maintain a maximum height of approximately 11.5 feet. Slate roof shingles and stucco siding are proposed to match the existing residence. Other improvements include a 28 square foot covered porch, wall changes, replacement and addition of windows and doors, and replacing the existing wood and composition shingles with new slate shingles. Additions to existing structures on blufftop properties are subject to the provisions of Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code which stipulates that if a comprehensive plan (addressing coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the City) is not adopted by November 17, 1996, then no additions or expansions to existing structures shall be permitted on coastal blufftop lots except for minor additions or expansions that comprise no greater than a 10 percent Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 12 8 8 increase above the existing gross floor area or 250 square feet, whichever is greater, provided such additions/expansions are located at least 40 feet or more from the bluff edge. Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code also stipulates that any allowed addition shall be constructed in a manner so that it could be removed in its entirety, and the applicants shall agree to participate in any future comprehensive plan adopted by the City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the City. Discussion: The subject project conforms with the limitations of Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code given the fact that the 221 square foot addition with the porch addition totals 249 square feet which is less than the 250 square feet allowed. Additionally, the addition maintains a setback of approximately 41 feet from the coastal bluff edge. The subject addition is small in scale and located in one portion of the structure, whereby it could potentially be removed in its entirety. The application is conditioned to have the applicant provide a letter stating that they agree to participate in any future comprehensive plan adopted by the City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the City. With approval of the Major Use Permit and the bluff setback and preemptive measure determination, the proposed project is in conformance with the development standards of the R-11 zone, the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and the General Plan. Additionally, with approval of the Coastal Development Permit for the remodel/addition, the upper bluff retaining wall, proposed repairs and improvements and landscaping, the project is consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. Based on an environmental initial study conducted by Craig R. Lorenz & Associates, dated June 24, 1999, it was determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that I) the project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas, and 2) that no adverse impacts associated with the project were identified as part of the environmental initial study. 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. of the Coastal Act. Facts: The subject site is currently developed with a two unit condominium, a single family residence, upper bluff retaining wall, and a lower seawall on a coastal bluff lot in the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. The project site does not currently provide private or public access to the shore, and the project does not propose any public access or public recreational facilities. Cd/d1/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 13 Discussion: Public access or public recreational facilities are not feasible given the project site's 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 Beacon's and Grandview access and further to the south with Moonlight Beach and the Stone Steps stairway. 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 providing of public access or recreational facilities is not feasible or appropriate for a project of this scale. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 14 Applicant: Location: 8 8 ATTACHMENT "B" Resolution No. PC 99-44 Case No. 92-137 MUP/CDPIEIA Paul Ash, Richard Bourgalt and Robert Mahoney 656,658 and 660 Neptune Avenue SC1 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: SC2 SC5 SC8 SC9 This approval will expire on September 16, 2002 at 5 :00 pm, two years after the approval of this project, unless the conditions have been met or an extension of time has been approved pursuant to the Municipal Code. This project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application and project plans for the coastal bluff walls consisting of nine sheets total including Lower Seawall As-built Plans, consisting of 7 sheets, dated Received by the City of Encinitas on January 6, 1999, and plans for the proposed Upper Bluff Wall Repairs and Improvements, consisting of two sheets, dated revised September 21, 1998 and dated Received by the City of Encinitas on November 19, 1998; As-Built Landscape Plan, consisting of two sheets, and landscape letter report dated May 5, 1999, dated received by the City of Encinitas on May 7, 1999; and project plans for the residential remodel/addition consisting of six sheets total, including Site Plan, Floor Plan, Building Elevations, Sections, Foundation Plan and Roof Framing Plan, dated received by the City of Encinitas on July 14, 1999; all designated as approved by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1999 and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Community Development Department. Project participants shall agree in writing not to oppose participating in any proposed future governmental study addressing bluff stability and/or beach sand transport along the entire City coastline. Additionally, the applicants shall agree in writing to participate in any future comprehensive plan adopted by the City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the City. Before initiating work on the bluff walls, a Coastal Development Pennit shall be received from the California Coastal Commission for the lower seawall and the associated repairs and improvements. SC 1 0 All construction and improvements under the authority of a Coastal Development Pennit issued by the Coastal Commission must be in confonnance with and approved by the Coastal Commission prior to final inspection by the Community Development Department. Cdldl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 15 SC 11 The additional repairs and improvements proposed for the existing lower seawall and the upper bluff retaining wall shall be completed prior to final approval of the remodel/addition of the existing single family residence. SC12 All drainage shall be directed away from within five feet of the edge and face of the bluff. SC 13 A more drought resistant plant material shall be utilized in place of the rosea iceplant proposed for the area between the upper bluff wall and the residences. Prior to planting the groundcover, documentation shall be provided to the Community Development Department to show that the replacement planting material is drought tolerant and provides good erosion control. SC14 Upon completion of the plant material installation, a letter certifying that the landscape plant material has been installed according to the City approved plans and Condition SC 13 above shall be prepared by the landscape contractor and submitted to the Community Development Department. Said letter is required prior to final inspection approval by the Community Development Department. SC12 A Temporary Beach Encroachment Pennit shall be received from the Engineering Services Department prior to initiating any work on the beach. 01 STANDARD CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): 02 03 This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code. This project is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603 and Chapter 30.04 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision must be filed with the Coastal Commission within 10 days following the Coastal Commission's receipt of the Notice of Final Action. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date the Commission's appeal period will conclude. Appeals must be in writing to the Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District office. 04 Prior to building pennit issuance, the applicant shall cause a covenant regarding real property to be recorded. Said covenant shall set forth the tenns and conditions of this grant of approval and shall be of a form and content satisfactory to the Community Development Director. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 16 05 013 014 U2 U3 U7 BLI BL2 8 8 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein. The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park Mitigation Fees, and Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant is advised to contact the Community Development Department regarding Park Mitigation Fees, the Engineering Services Department regarding Flood Control and Traffic Fees, applicable School District(s) regarding School Fees, the Fire Department regarding Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees, and the applicable Utility Departments or Districts regarding Water and! or Sewer Fees. A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Department, the Engineering Services Department, and the Fire Department regarding the security treatment of the site during the construction phase, the on- and off-site circulation and parking of construction workers' vehicles, and any heavy equipment needed for the construction of the project. 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 whether the City of Encinitas should revoke this permit. 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. Any future modifications to the approved project will be reviewed relative to the findings for substantial conformance with a use permit contained in Section 30.74.105 of the Municipal Code. Modifications beyond the scope described therein will require submittal and approval of an amendment to the use permit by the authorized agency. 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 proj ect. The applicant 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 the issuance of building permits. Said covenant shall also provide Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 17 BL3 BL4 BL5 that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the approved structure(s) in good visual and structural condition in a manner satisfactory to the Directors of Engineering Services and Community Development. An "as-built geotechnical report" shall be submitted to the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments, for review and acceptance, prior to approval of the foundation inspection. The report shall outline all field test locations and results, and observations performed by the consultant during construction of the proposed structure(s), and especially relative to the depths and actual location of the foundations. The report shall also verify that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared and submitted in conjunction with the application, have been properly implemented and completed. An "as-built geotechnical report", reviewed and signed by both the soils/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 (and thereby approved for use or occupancy) until the as-built report is received and the content of the report is found acceptable by the Community Development and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant shall submit on or before September 1 of each year a written report by a qualified professional engineer assessing the condition of the approved structure(s). The report shall indicate the condition of the approved structures as well as any maintenance/repair actions needed to maintain the efficacy of the structure(s). The assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion rate on both sides of sea wall(s). 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 Engineering Services Department, prior to implementation of any corrective measures. Any maintenance/repair work needed shall be completed prior to the next winter storm period. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 18 8 8 BI BUILDING CONDITION(S): CONTACT THE ENCINIT AS BUILDING DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): B2 REGARDING The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for plancheck processing. The submittal shall include a Soils/Geotechnical Report, structural calculations, and State Energy compliance documentation (Title 24). Construction plans shall include a site plan, a foundation plan, floor and roof framing plans, floor planes), section details, exterior elevations, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must show compliance with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The Unifonn Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Codes). Commercial and Multi-residential construction must also contain details and notes to show compliance with State disabled accessibility mandates. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive plancheck will be completed prior to pennit issuance and additional technical code requirements may be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans may be required. F I FIRE CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENCINIT AS FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): F13 EI ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the address numbers shall confonn to Fire Department Standards. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): E2 All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building/grading pennit issuance shall apply. Cd/dl/RPC92137.944 (FINAL 9/17/99) 19 , CITY OF EN CINIT AS MEMORANDUM ,--- - DATE: August 6, 1997 C /?t.ß.1:/?lJ2k~ / ...' ~v - ~~~~ '-./ ~\ 7 '¿u?-k~O TO: Hans Jensen Diana Langager FROM: Deborah Cervone. \ . C. I..' SUBJECT: ATTACHED SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS Please see the attached subpoena for records for 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue. In checking with Jace, we are not named in this lawsuit -- yet. Therefore, we need only have the records available for inspection by SEPTEMBER 1ST. Please deliver these records to my office by August 29th and a copy service will copy them and they will be returned to you on September 2nd. If you know of any other records located within Ci~ Hall that is pertinent to this request, please let me know ASAP and I will contact the appropriate Staff person. Thanks , , - TORNEY ~R "ARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY fNe,.,e - ~I f-NES'S & ROBINSON, ì 501 W. BROADWAY SAN DIEGO ATTORNEY FOR l~m.1 TELEPHONE NO,: E HUMBER CA 92101 619/595-1483 -SUITE 1330 NAME OF COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~5T OFfiCE 8nd 220 WEST BROADWAY STREET AOOI'IES5 SAN D I PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EBERLE, 710012,/ ',:: '::'!'~, ¡'I,I--At'" "'/ ¡ ¡ '," l ,i,_,t.. I ;:: CJïY =~E:(;:\ DE!ò~seøp~ For Production of Busi þE FE NDA NT/RE 5 PDNDENT: STEVENS TURNER CONSTRUCTION REF#309789 _I rrtE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TO (nllme): 'THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CITY OF ENCINITAS - BLDG. & INSPECTION DEPT. 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3 as follows: DepositionOfficerfname): KOPY-KAT, INC. (800) 660-1946 Date: 09/01/97 Time: 10:00 AM** Address: 570 W. Lambert, Suite C Brea, Ca 92621 a . D by delivering a true, legible. and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the tItle and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. b - D by delivering a true. legible. and durable copy of the business records described in item 3tothedepositionofficer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563/b). c, ~ by making the, original business.records d..cribed in item 3 available for inspection at your business add,...s by the attorney's representative and permitting copyinG at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2: The records are to be produced by the dllte IInd time shown in item 7 but not sooner than 20 days after tht!! issuance of the deposition subpena, or 15 days IJfter service. whicht!lllt!fr dllte is later. Reasonable costs of locating records. milking them avllilable or copying them, and postllge, if /lny. /Ire recoverable liS set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(bJ. The records shall be accompllnied by Iln IJffidavit ;', of rhe custodian or other quillified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. I *' Óh~~~I~e'~B~~~a~~q~g~~~afo~~~rds to the deposition officer 'prior to the date and time stated above. T E WORD "WRITING" SHALL HAVE THE MEANING AS SET FORTH IN EVIDENCE CODE S CTION 250: "WRITING MEANS HANDWRITING, TYPEWRITING, PRINTING, PHOTOSTATING, P OTOGRAPHING, AND EVERY OTHER MEANS OF RECORDING UPON ANY TANGIBLE THING IN Y FORM OF COMMUNICATION OR REPRESENTATION, INCLUDING LETTERS, WORDS, P CTURES, SOUNDS OR SYMBOLS, OR COMBINATION THEREOF." (PROVIDE COPIES OF) 1. ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS, AS-BUILT PLANS, SOIL REPORTS, PROJECT MEETING N TES, INSPECTION NOTES, INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUMS, BUILDING PERMITS, TOPO- G PHIC SURVEY INFORMATION AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECT DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO T E CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL/SEAWALL AND SLOPE PROTECTION OF 656, 658, 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. ' EBERLE, 00/00/00 D Continued on attachment 3. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAIWRE TO OBEY. ate issued: 08/01/97 ¡'i ..".....,....ROSE.MADRUGA...,."........ ~t !TYPE Oil ""'NT HAMEl it ~ /SIGNA TUllE OF PEIISON ISSUING SUSPEHAI ,,' (See reverse for proof of service) !TITLEI Fo,m AòOll18d by Rule 9B2 JudiCIal Council 01 CalIfornia 982C8H15.21 (N8w July 1. 19871 DEPOSITION SUBPENA-BUSINESS RECORDS cœ. 01 Civil "'oc.du'8. tt'2020.202! EYid8nc:e C0d8. ., ,StOlel. ,1583 'bill 8 ESS & ROBINSON 01 W. BROADWAY UITE 1330 AN DIEGO CA 92101 8 DEFENDANT / CROSS DEFENDANT COURT NOT ON FILE LEASE TAKE NOTICE stodian of records s bpoena. PLAINTIFF CASE# NOTICE OF DEPOSITION RECORDS ONLY; NOTICE TO CONSUMER THAT PERSONAL RECORDS ARE BEING SOUGHT. VS. TEVENS TURNER CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT USTODIAN OF RECORDS OF CITY OF ENCINITAS-BLDG. EPOSITION AT KOPY-KAT, INC. (800) 660-1946 09/01/97 10:00 AM** Lambert, Suite C Brea, Ca 92621 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS; that KOPY KAT, INC. will take the Deposition of the on the date, place and time set forth on the attached S id depositions will be taken in the form described and before the d position officer designated on the Deposition Subpoena. If, for any r ason, the taking of said deposition is not completed on said date, the t king thereof will be continued from day to day, excluding Sundays and h lidays, until completed. S id Custodian of Records will produce all records as described in the a tached subpoena, in their possession or under their control, to be p oduced, inspected, examined, photocopied and/or photographed. S id . deposition will be taken on the ground that said C stodian are material witnesses herein, and will be further based u on allowed records and files in the above-entitled action. P EASE TAKE NOTICE THAT PERSONAL RECORDS ABOUT THE CONSUMER ARE BEING S UGHT FROM THE WITNESS NAMED IN THE SUBPOENA. THOSE PERSONAL RECORDS MAY B PROTECED BY A RIGHT OF PRIVACY. I THE CONSUMER OBJECTS TO THE WITNESS FURNISHING THE RECORDS TO THE PARTY S EKING THE RECORDS, THE CONSUMER MUST FILE PAPERS WITH THE COURT PRIOR TO T E DATE SPECIFIED FOR PRODUCTION ON THE SUBPOENA. IF THE PARTY WHO IS S EKING THE RECORDS WILL NOT AGREE IN WRITING TO CANCEL OR LIMIT THE S BPOENA, AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED ABOUT THE CONSUMER'S INTEREST IN P OTECTING HIS OR HER RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. GIVEN PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1985.3. 08/01/97 /S/ ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 8 PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) (C.C.P. Section 1013a(3)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I "am over the age of 18 and I am not a party to the within action. I am employed by KOPY KAT, INC., in the County of Orange, at 570 W. Lambert Road, Suite C, Brea, CA. 92621. I serve the attached documents, titled; SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, NOTICE TO CONSUMER, AND PROOF OF SERVICE on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelope(s) , addressed as follows: SEE THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I placed said envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following ordinary business practices, at the business office of KOPY KAT, INC, , at the address set forth above, for deposit in the United States Postal Services. I am readily familiar with the practice of KOPY KAT, INC., for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and said envelope(s) will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on said date in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Law of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed at Brea, California on 08/01/97 I ~-" / /- ) /" -- c"'" 0'" ::, /'~/! ¿ ¡()¡( 0,0 IJ;¿ / I . J ;/i I ,/ '/' ,- 8 & G 0 ¡Vep <TUL!Í-¡ ,( k City of Encinitas July 27, 1994 Mr. William E. Batchley 520 West Ash street, Suit~200 San Diego, CA 921 ~" SUBJECT: Case 0.92-137 /EIA; Major Use Permit and Enviro al 'tial Assessment for the construction of an upper and lower coastal bluff seawall. Dear Mr. Batchley: This is a notification of the status of your application for a Major Use Permit. At this time, the application is still deemed incomplete and requires additional information. The additional information was previously outlined in the correspondence to Bob Trettin dated December 9, 1993, and is attached herein for review. since the project is already constructed, the City can not further prolong the review process. This is to inform you that the above- referenced project is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on. September 15, 1994. As part of the public hearing the Commission will evaluate the project design and the technical documents to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the required findings of approval as set forth in Municipal Code section 30.34.020C2.b. If you have any questions in this matter please feel free to call me at 633-2714. Sincerely, c::)/~;5 ~A-~~ Diane S. Langager ~ Assistant Planner cc: Murray Warden, Interim City Manager Sandra Holder, Community Development Director Bill Weedman, City Planner Hans Jensen, Subdivision Engineer Lee McEachern, California Coastal Commission James Mullen Richard Bourgault Jerald White Bob Trettin DL9: 94-054 (7/27/94) EL 619-633-2600 fA..X 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 9202cJ.-3633 TDD 619-633-2700 @ recycled paper 8 8 City of Encinitas January 14, 1994 Mr. James Mallen 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 920 Mallen, Bourgault, and White Neptune Avenue SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Mallen: This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1994 in which you requested an extension to the January 10, 1994 deadline for submittal of the required information, requested in my letter of December 9, 1993, for the above-referenced project. Based on the fact that you and the other property owners are actively pursuing preparation of the required information, a one month extension to the submittal deadline is granted. If additional time is required to complete the work, please contact me one week prior to the February 10,1994 deadline to apprise me of the project status. It is understood that since three property owners are involved additional time may be required to allow for contract negotiations and cost sharing arrangements. Additional time may be allowed if it can be shown that a design solution is actively being pursued. If you have any further questions in this matter please feel free to contact me at 633-2714. Sincerely, ~/~d'. vlc~~ . ( Dlane S. Langager Assistant Planner cc: Richard Bourgault Jerry White Bob Trettin Bill Weedman, City Planner Hans Jensen, Subdivision Engineer Cindy Adams, Code Enforcement Officer DL6: 94-005 (1/14/94) ')()') S Vulcl!1 Avenue. Encinit3s. Cllit()J'nia 9202-t-3633 TEL ()19-i)33-2600 FAX 619-()33-2627 TDD 619-633-2700 @ recycled paper , ,., 8 8 dll1' or Encinitas December 9, 1993 Mr. Bob Trettin 12785 Amaranth street San Diego, CA 92129 SUBJECT: Dear Bob: Mallen, Bourgalt, and White seawall; Case N9';/ 92~~7 MUP/EIA; 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue ~. ' In early 1992 the Engineering Department reviewed and accepted plans for the construction of an upper and lower seawall at 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue. The Engineering Department authorized construction of the seawall on an emergency basis, with the requirement that application be made for a Major Use Permit to give the seawall "permanent" status. The Use Permit application was submitted on July 22, 1992. At this time the application is still deemed incomplete. The following information is required at this time to allow for further processing of the subject application: 3. 1. Geotechnical Information in response to the August 20, 1993 Third Party Geotechnical Review prepared by Ernest R. Artim. The information needs to be prepared in conformance with Sections 30.34.020C and D of the Encinitas Municipal Code and the information needs to be accepted by and signed by a certified engineering geologist. 2. Revised plans, calculations, and geotechnical information to reflect as-built conditions and madifications required to correct the soil displacement which has occurred to the back-fill portion of the upper seawall. Revised Landscape Plans to reflect existing landscaping and proposed landscaping in response to the October 5, 1992 Third Party Review, of the original project Landscape Plans, prepared by Brian Katz. Due to the unusual applicant-elected time delays associated with the project application, the above referenced information is required to be submitted within thirty days. If the information is not submitted by January 10, 1994, staff will be obligated to refer the case to the Code Enforcement Division for review. DL6: 93-055 (12/9/93) ;, ,; ~ \ ukan ,\\'L'nlle. EnciniIas. Ctlii'orI1la 92\;21-:\(15.3 ;TL 619-6.35-2()I)O F\X Ö19-65.3-2Ö2- TDD 619-6.35-2700 @ recycled paper . . 8 8 ,. Mr. Bob Trettin December 9, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions or need further assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 633-2714. Sincerely, r~1 ~ ~. - dv/y~ Diane S. Langager (J-.-/ Assistant Planner cc: William Mallen Richard Bourgault Jerald White Bill Weedman, City Planner Hans Jensen, Subdivision Engineer Cindy Adams, Code Enforcement Officer Lee McEachren, California Coastal Commission DL6: 93-055 (12/9/93) ".. 1 TI Trettin Company 8 GO\'ERl'OIEl'\T RELATIOl'\S PRO,JECT DE\'ELOP~IEXT February 27, 1992 œŒ@Œ~\YlŒ[ID MAR 0 5 1992 . CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. FROM: Mr. Bill Weedman ~ City Planner~ ~~-- ci ty of Encl: t 1.t I ~ Bob Trettin, resenting: TO: James Mallen ........... 656 Neptune Avenue Richard Bourgault ...... 658 Neptune Avenue Jerald D. White ........ 660 Neptune Avenue RE: Request For Emergency Permit As the authorized representative for the above-referenced property owners, I am requesting that the City of Encinitas act immediately to issue an emergency permit for the initiation of structural work on a shoreline protective device at 656-660 Neptune Avenue. A similar permit has been applied for with the San Diego office of the California Coastal Commission. Tidal activity will restrict the opportunities for the applicants' contractors to initiate and complete the emergency structural work. The next available "window" for beach access is during the week of March 15th. It is anticipated that the city can assist the applicants in obtaining the necessary permit'cing prior to this date. This area for which this permit is being requested has recently experienced a major bluff failure. Existing conditions place the above-referenced residential properties in imminent danger. Preliminary engineering plans submitted with this application illustrate structural improvements similar to those already approved by the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission for other seawalls designed and constructed to protect properties on Neptune Avenue. This consistency of design will further establish a continuity in appearance of coastal protective devices being established along the Leucadia coastline -- thus limiting the visual impact associated with such devices. 12785 Amaranth Street (619)484-0212 San Diego, California 92129 f\',( (619) 484-m)43 \ . . 8 DOC ~999-0075651 'II .~e-:örded at the request of: RECORDING ~EQUESTED BY NEW CENTURY TITLE COMPANY and when recorded mail this deed and unless otherwise shown below mail tax statements to: OFFICIAl RECORDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE CÆGORV J. SMITH, COUHTV REaJIDER FEES: 686.00 DC: DC 111111111 II I I III In II œobow;, fu, "œ.d,,',"," only 1999-0075651 Tax Parcel # ~f)~3 ~....v Feb 08, 1999 2:28 PM MR. AND MRS. ANTHONY FISHER 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 [;25'(,-05 U 9-00 Escrow No. 98-41989-V Title Order No. 01984638 GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) Documentary transfer tax is $ bbO.DO [X ] computed on full value of property conveyed, or [] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. [X ] Unincorporated area [ .] City of , BY THfs INSTRUMENT DATED December 21,1998 FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERA TION, ROBERT MAHONY, an unmarried man HEREBY GRANTS TO: ANTHONY FISHER and ROSWITHA KOVIDA FISHER, AS TRUSTEES' OF THE "FISHER FAMILY TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1998" the following described real property in the City of ENCINIT AS, County of San Diego, State of California, LEGAL DESCRIPTION A IT ACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND MADE A PART HEREOF a kt rvt wl. ROBERT MAHONY""'" ~ O. """,~ . . 8 .5255 8 EXHIBIT "A" ,0 LOT 18, IN BLOCK "E", IN SOUTH COAST PARK UNIT 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. ALSO THAT PORTION OF BLOCK "F". SOUTH COAST PARK NO.3, 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 18, BLOCK "E", SAID SOUTH COAST PARK NO.3; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 18, BLOCK "E", TO A POINT ON THE EASTERL Y LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS CONVEYED BY THE SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, BY DEED DATED JANUARY 19, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 256, RECORDS OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY LAND TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 18, BLOCK "E"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 18, BLOCK "E" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, THAT PORTION, IF ANY, HERETOFORE OR ANY NOW LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. .~ Applicants' Agent: Applicants / Owners: 8 ~ MùP f\Pp,--, ~ c>Ñ ATTACHMENT "A" Robert W. Trettin, Principal The Trettin Company 9606 Laurentian Drive San Diego, CA 92129 Ph: (619) 484-0212 or (619) 696-1945 Fax: (619) 484-6943 or (619) 232-4504 Paul Ash (656 Neptune Avenue; #256-051-19-01) c/o 2026 E. Prince Road Tucson, AZ 85719 Richard Bourgault (658 Neptune Avenue; #256-051-19-02) c/o 736 Radwick Drive Las Vegas, NV 89110 Robert Mahoney (660 Neptune Avenue; #256-051-20) c/o 5400 Coast Highway Pacifica, CA 94044 P ease Print or Type Signator-s Na'8 ~ 8 II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 (760) 633-2722 EVIDENCE OF LEGAL PARCEL Applicant's Name p~ ASti Telephone Mailing Address ;t 0 2."- S. PA.'Ilc.~ AD tilt D City T v..r.. 5 0 r'\ State A 2- Zip <657 (9 You are required to supply documentation that this property constitutes a legal parcel before the City can accept for filing any discretionary permits. This form and associated evidence will be reviewed by the Community Development Department upon submittal of your application. A request for a Certificate of Compliance must be filed concurrently with or in advance of this application if the evidence presented is insufficient to determine this parcel as being a legal lot or determination will require substantial time to research. . If determined that the property is not a legal lot, no permit or other approval may be granted until corrective action has been completed. Fees and deposits submitted with this application will be refunded only as provided for by the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the request. Book "J.. ~C:; h Page OS{ J~~ 4b61. ( Signature of Applicant Parcel ~o- 0 1 /1- / tj- 9 ¡- Date /ddcJl: \BAPnLE GP ARC. DOC( 4/28/97) 8 8 DOC ~ 1996-0270607 30-MAY-1996 08~OO An RECO~DING REQUESTED BY ^ R,gÇ()RP'~t_:; ::~~:~T~Q ß'L STEWARI rULE ~ND WHEN RECORDED MAil TO: , Paul Ash c/o Paul Ash Investment Company. Inc. 2026 East Prince Rd Tucson, AR 85719 ~~r!::~~ :~--~~~ '~.:..; ;::r;'::n :'lI;~I:1( ::- ;;'\~~"L ::::-.~¡.-; 5 "_:~:~:~I ':::~., .., <,,-:',:..j,:"'"rLI~',:'-- 20 4 ~_'~r:¡.:t;~:. ~,::'~, ::. --- ~~; ~OQ :~ES: 3~~~~ ~~ : 3. ~'~' . , "" '" ' 1 'Ì'~ ". \0 :,';,': ~::: '."~ . .,.". -. A.P.N.: 256-051-20-01 Space Above Thi~ Lint for Rt,order'$ L'~ Only Order No,: 06-157117 Escrow No.: 15969-L CORPORATION GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(sf DECLARE(sl THAT DOCUMENTARY T~AN5FER TAX IS: COUNTY $385.00 r X J computed on full value of property c:onveyed, Of [ } computed on full value less value of liens 01 encurnbrance$ remilining at time of sale. [ J unincorporated "18; ( X] City of Encinitas. and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, COAST FEDERAL BANK. FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK hereby GRANTlS) to Paul Ash, an unmarried man the fOllowing described property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego State of California: PARCEL ONE AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HAI.F INTEREST IN AND TO PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. , 5679. IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE Of CALIFORNIA. FILED IN THI: OFfiCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MAY 25. '989. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL UNITS AS SHOWN ON THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN OF NEPTUNE VilLAS. RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MAY 25. 1989. AS FilE PAGE NO. 89-277659. AL.SO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE AND POSSESSION OF ALL THOSE PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY lYING WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS" AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN REFERRED TO ABOVE. PARCEL TWO UNIT A AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN OF NEPTUNE VILLAS. PARCEL THREE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF USE AND POSSESSION OF ALL THOSE PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAP REFERRED TO ABOVE WHICH LIES WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS~ AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN REFERRED TO ABOVE WHICH BEAR THE SAME NUMBER AS THE UNIT IN PARCEL TWO. CORPORA TrON GRANT DEED CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Mail Tax Statements to, SAME AS ABOVE or Addrl~SS Noted Below m'd óÞ8óS6¿ è0'3 .0) '~NI HS~ ln~d [;:tt ó66t-t0-~d~ 8 ,8 . . A.P.N,: 256-051,20-01 COR~ORA TION GRANT DEED. CONTINUED "\ , , 2055 COAST FEDERAL BANK, FED BANK Jay Memmoc:c: By: Autho Lawrence Document Date: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ¡Ss COUNTYO~ /-', ""'j/...",,,- /_'" ¡ On /'j-,..'-.:;/ ',- ".":,'":" ____before me. ~', 0' ",/ -" personallvappeared .:r.,,'j /",/,.",,-,,',', ,";',,-¡',,:'//-. ,."-,",";,; ('" personally known to me (or proved to me on the basIs of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare ~ubscr;bcd to Ihll within instrun,ent and OIckr'lowlcdgcd to me :hat he/she/they -::x;:culE:d the same< in his/her/their alJtnoriud capacity!ies) and that b¡ hiS her/their signaturlll') on the inStrument the person(s) or the IIntity upon behalf of which the ¡::J~rsonls) acted. uecuted 'the instrumlmt, WITNESS my hand IInd ol/icial Hal. Signature '7>/~\' , , . ';>:", ,<~¡., < / ," ;'" , ThiS Brea for official notarial se81, ~--.---¡-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - t r@' O~E E, AIMN ,-.. ' COMM. , 1057'218 ¡ ."~ Hatøy P\bIc - CoIIfaIriQ I Z LOS ANQÐ.EI CCt.tN!Y I h\' COtntft. ~ AN 27. 1999 J-+'~-~-~~~~~~~~J Þ0'd 61786S6¿ cOO '0) '~N[ HS~ ln~d ç-S: t t 6ô6t-t0-èjdt; PI ase Prin~ or Type Signator's Na"8 8 II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 (760) 633-2722 EVIDENCE OF LEGAL PARCEL Applicant's Name (¿ \ L"-I Â- tit.. ù T. K.'h4 ¡(~ ~ Telephone (1ð?J 3-¡c¡.-~ MailingAddress 7,"?fo ~Æ-Ùl.ùICK 1>J<... City~ ve 645 State ~ Zip 4-1'((' Ù You are required to supply documentation that this property constitutes a legal parcel before the City can accept for filing any discretionary permits. ' . This form and associated evidence will be reviewed by the Community Development Department upon submittal of your application. A request for a Certificate of Compliance must be filed concurrently with or in advance of this a~plication if the evidence presented is insufficient to determine this parcel as being a legal lot or determination will require substantial time to research. . If determined that the property is not a legal lot, no permit or other approval may be granted until corrective action has been completed. Fees and deposits submitted with this application will be refunded only as provided for by the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the request. Book ~5b Page VS- J Parcel ;;¿o- 0 Z ¡(~~ Signature of Applicany k~-( ¡f-Ifj-~ý , Date cd/ dcll:\BAPnLEGPARC.DOC(4/28/97) Cí....-., No "1'¿.fr:1t~'- EK't".J lio.6991-A - Loan No. 8 1003 AR MG UF OC .. TXPD 1~' ,S 90 O~O138 ~RECORDED IN-¡ OFFICIAL RECORD$ I Of SAN DIEGO COU;HY. CA. I WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Mr. and Mrs. Richard T. Bourgault 210-E Charleston Blvd Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 1990JAN 8 AM 8;00 .' , VERA L L YLE- I ~OUNTY RECORDER---1 SPACE A80vl THIS \.INI FO'" "'ECO"'OIlA'S US& MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: same as above 742.5f) ~AAY TRANSfER TAX $..---.--..-....---................. ...... Compuled on Ih. comider.Uon 0' ..Iu' of _erlv convo.ed; OR ...... Compuled on Ih. consider.tlon Ot .oIuel_li- Ot oncumb,oncn ,.."inl", It lime of lolL ~ OD.J/£ NORTH COUNTY ESCROW Sle"'lu,~ of 0_1..,", .. A_t "-.nlnl... ... .. """ Nam. GRANT DEED Z~-óSJ-20 FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. WILLIAM L. TRENT AND SHARON A. TRENT, husband and wife hereby GRANTISJ to RICHARD T. BOURGAULT AND KATHRYN M. BOURGAULT, husband and wife as joint tenants Ihe real property in the City of Ene ini tas County of San Diego . State of California. described as Unit B as shown and defined on said Condominium Plan of NEPTUNE VILLAS together with An undivided one half interest in and to Parcell of Parcel Map No. 15679, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office o£ the County Recorder of San Diego County, Kay 25, 1989...... AS MORE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBI'r "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS THOUGH FULLY INCORPORATED HEREIN. Dated November~89 Ø!~ ~e~:¿ ~/.~ haron A. Trent .e.JlV~ ~J~~FOF Ii. t!JAI!.k:.. On ~~AlI&ll!. dI~ ,1'19 belor. me. the uncI8fsiQned. . Notary PuIIIIc In end lor said SIal.. I*" oon.lly _..-I W i 11 i &III L. T r e I1L..4D d Sharon A. Trent I loa I P8"Qft81Iy known to me lor proved 10m. on 1M bull 01 ..lI8f8cIory -..eel (0 tie the øenon(lI - nemec.. !aI.'. ",Þ8CI1bed 10 the Wllhin in8lnl......1 end acknowledged to 1M ttllt h8l1he1ttley u8CUtad NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Of NEVADA Cvunly of Clark CM!lLLE ATHERLEY loIy Apxrintrnont bpi,os Jill. J:l. 1092 the ..me. WITNESS my !land and oIIIdalMai. ~lur.ßn~ ~~?,. IThil Of" 10' Offici" "°1..181 _II 1002 (6;821 M¿ TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE? . t../" e m .!J 8 8 Order No. 926166 lOÙ4 Page J Exhibit "A" A CONDOMINIUM COMPRISED OF: PARCEL ONE: : . AN UNDIVIDED ONE HALF INTEREST IN AND TO PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15679, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 25, 1989. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL UNITS AS SHOWN ON THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN OF NEPTUNE VILLAS, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 25, 1989, AS FILE PAGE NO. 89-277659. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF USE AND POSSESSION OF ALL THOSE PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS" AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN REFERRED TO ABOVE. PARCEL TWO: UNIT "B" AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN OF NEPTUNE VILLAS. PARCEL THREE: THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF USE AND POSSESSION OF ALL THOSE PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAP REFERRED TO ABOVE WHICH LIES WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS" AS SHOWN AND DEFINED ON SAID CONDOMINIUM PLAN REFERRED TO ABOVE WHICH BEAR THE SAME NUMBER AS THE UNIT IN PARCEL TWO. ~Ie se Printor Type Signator's Name 8 II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ENCINIT AS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 (760) 633-2722 EVIDENCE OF LEGAL PARCEL Applicant's Name 1'<0 Gp~T Vtt 4 riD;'! P ~ Telephone ( h.rn) 36 7-P,s-ýS- - Mailing Address S- <faD City (JtI\C-t Pi c.~ Co "t-d" 7 tt £ 6 t"f (.() I't 50- State ~ Zip 9' 0/'0 ÝÝ' You are required to supply documentation that this property constitutes a legal parcel before the City can accept for filing any discretionary permits. 1 . This form and associated evidence will be reviewed by the Community Development Department upon submittal of your application. A request for a Certificate of Compliance must be filed concurrently with or in advance of this application if the evidence presented is insufficient to determine this parcel as being a legal lot or determination will require substantial time to research. . If determined that the property is not a legal lot, no permit or other approval may be granted until corrective action has been completed. Fees and deposits submitted with this application will be refunded only as provided for by the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the request. Book ~S-b Page ([)5( Parcel fr I#~ Signature of Applicant / A-6~,- 1~-r7~ 9;::: Date cd/ dcJl:\BAPì\LEGPARC.DOC(4/28/97) .' , I,' ,8 .~ RECORDING REQUESTED BY ( 490 DOC # '998-0549022 AN WHEN "CORDED MAIL TO: R BF~T MAHONY 54 0 COAST HIGHWAY P CIFICA, CA 94044 Aug 28, 1998 8:52 AM 111111111111111111 1 H8-0S48022 OFFICIrl RECORDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER FEES: 20.00 DC: NA .P.N.: 280/bÇf~ \ q Space Above This Line for Recorder's lIse Only Order No.: 1005508-5 Escrow No.: 98-9225 GRANT DEED HE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY tV 1Z.~~""A~ f .....(fl.ilJIi!J J computed on full value of property conveyed, or .J a computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, unincorporated area; [ ] City of ENCINIT AS , and OR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ERYCK CLAY, A Married Man ereby GRANT(s) to ROBERT MAHONY, An Unmarried Man e following described property in the City of ENCINIT AS, County of San Diego State of California; ot 18, in Block "E" in SOUTH COAST PARK UNIT NO.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of alifornia, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, ugust 17, 1926, TO BE MORE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND DE A PART HEREOF. i/;yf> é~~ ERYC" LAY August 18, 1998 TATE OF CALIFORNIA )SS OUNTY OF J ,;I1,¡1f/ #.II.7Z'?""D ) n t!(/~'IJ9 1'" before me, ~~ L/' ~rzl'.s/) - ersonally appeared L") ~ ~L¥ CL./I~ ' ersonally known to me (or pro to me on the SIS of sausfactory evidence) to be the person~whose name(jJ{ls/.ale"subscnbed to the wIthin msttument nd acknowledged to me that he/~ executed the same in hislhet¥thetr authorized capaci~) and that by his~'-signatUretsr on the insttument e person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the insttument. . ITNESS my hand and official s . ~ðÒ " This area f.of -official notarial sea:' ................. - ..................... O~@) SHEILA Y. AMOROSO: . COMM. #1162091 'U " NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA" ! cou~ry OF SAN MATEO 0 - My CommISSIon expires Dee 15 2001 ~ ..............................i.i..... Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below \ . ,..' 8 8 DOC # 1999-0075651 \ "':"'-'~\e-:ùrded at the request of: RECORDING ~EQUESTED BY tŒW CENTURY TITLE COMPANY and when recorded mail this deed and unless otherwise shown below mail tax statements to: 5~53 Feb 08, 1999 2:28 PM MR. AND MRS. ANTHONY FISHER 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ;;) 5"(,-05 LI 9 -06 1111111111 n 1111111111 II 1999-0075651 OFFICIAL RECORDS . SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GJlIGORV J. SMITH, COtMTY RECORDER FEES: 686.00 DC: DC Escrow No. 98-41989-V Title Order No. 01984638 ce above is for recorder's use only Tax Parcel # GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) Documentary transfer tax is $ [fo.co [X ] computed on full value of property conveyed, or [] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. .[X ] Unincorporated area [] City of , BY THIS INSTRUMENT DATED December21, 1998 FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERA TION, ROBERT MAHONY, an unmarried man HEREBY GRANTS TO: ANTHONY FISHER and ROSWITHA KOVIDA FISHER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE "FISHER FANny TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1998" the following described real property in the City of ENCINITAS, County of San Diego, State of California, LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND MADE A PART HEREOF --~ ... / r:. I .1 t. . /î / I~. I ~- ~..-., ,r-...J y) leC.. '-('r't...<-( ROBERT MAHONY I'1I<R f4::,i:JÉ.jf O. 'hI4HoIV'f JRNIA AL~PURPOSE 8KNOWLEDGMEHT 8 No. 3907 .> -;;: .---;- State of ~/~ if~/.n' / ~?- I f 5254 ¡~, acon unty of. ~~ Wó ~"..7 .. //.;2-0./9 Z before me, ~~- t/ :72UJz../~<ú ~J .1 o;.TE NAME. l1T1J!bFOFFlCEfi. E.G.. 'JANE DO~Y PUBUC- / .t personally appe~red ~~¿j¿J .D /".-M-"~ ~ ~, _J E(S) OF SIGNER(S) ,\ ~ personally known to me - OR - 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(S1 whose name(.sJ is/are- : subscribed to the within instrument and ac- :\ knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hisl-her/their authorized capacity(j.es} , and that by his/nor/their signature{sJ on the instrument the person(s)~ or the entity upon behalf of which the personksf acted, executed the instrument. \ ~ ) ì ì \< :f ~ ì WITNESS my hand and otficiai seaL . / --,," ..' -~. /../° . .'.' -/', --~~~-L¿ .::..../ /:,'-;"':."---=- - -'_'0-'-:_- --'.--.-.. """/""""'"""""""""..r - .~ ,\) .1) '¡) .~< \i ,¡ 1) " 'J 'oj oì} :¡ 1i t\' , ,~ ~j ,\\ ,( .'~ -- OPTIONAL ough the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fr udulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF AITACHED DOCUMENT INO1VIOUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TT1"l=: (S ) TInE OR TiP: OF DOCUMENT " l'~ "'I ,ì) ,,! ',1 ,~{ LJ PARTNE?(S) 0 LIMITED 0 GENE::;AL n ATTORNEY-IN-FACT 01 TAl 'S-;=={~) ,J I -_o'~1 n GUARO!AN/CONSERVATCR 'I ¡'JL,\¡SE:= ':F ,=,:'13=3 ':j 0, ~ OTHE:=: c.~-:::: :.= =CC~,\of=;'i- SiG. IE? IS RE?RESamNG; ';"".!E -1' .=:;::sC,';!S: c," :NT;TY¡:ES) S;C¡'~=o=i(Sì C7':-.:ë:.=i ThAN NA,\IED ABOVE './ \ " - - -:- -:- -: -:. ==.:.: :::-:;:::: '2 .: 2:::::::::=::: =:: =:::==: ::::::::::;: ~ :::. '2'2- --z::: ~~ Z?=-:- -:- ==2:;: == ::.::.z= ~:: ..=: ~ . == - ~ =:; ;; ::1 S93 ,\¡A T¡ONAl NOTARY ASSOCi). TiON . 32:ò ;:¡emmel Ave.. P.O. Box 7184. Canoga ?3n<. CA :11:;09.71301 CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCI N IT AS, CA 92024 8 TRANSMITT AL F.. ~'. ~(r ~1 fi5TE FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHONE: (619) 944-5050 TO: 13cX3 b~ b'-~ ~~ \~c.. OF: y.;;; DATE: ....(-ø""" z. ADDRESS: \-4~ c.~ø~ -A.'IE. Sa.o1i1 ~.rA ~\ d\ C1ZOï~ VIA: Fax # Œ Mail # of Pages Including Cover 0 Messenger 0 Other Comments: ~ ~~ tWe. ~~..:\'5 ~c. ~,.,."( \J~ T~ ~at\ß:> '~\\I\?~L ~~QV.\~~þS\, T\t¥t\~ !>.)¡C'<' . . '. '"oM ¡hL~-!~I'ì,)¡'.~ "'.'~ 2 . """0'-, o. -L!LÞ ,^,I)f<, 0 4 ¡WI. 'I' . .,J':;J c lKL 0 Call ASAP 0 Review & Call 0 F.Y.I. FROM: ~ b-f\. ~ri I ~~. 0 Please Reply by Phone #: (Ú1f\) Ct'\1-~ 0 Please Handle 0 Per Our Conversation ~-;=:~. CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 ~ t~~-,,;;¿~ I) 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ~~:1!.; ENCINITAS, CA 92024 8 TRANSMITTAL FORM '=" ~'. ~" -z'ì1 6T~ FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHON E: (619) 944-5050 TO: ~ b~ b,-~ ~~ \~c.. OF: V";;: DATE: ~ -"ZZ -c:¡ Z. ADDRESS: \-4~ Cfl)Çø!i. ",,'IE. ~ ~~ ~ eI1 '1zo,S- VIA: Fax # . Q{ Mail # of Pages Including Cover 0 --Messenger .-, D Other Comments: 7 ~~ +We. ~~L=t'"'\s ~c. ~~"( \J~ TT\f=: ~~~ I~""?~L A.~~\.W~asr t \tW\,\..s 0 Call ASAP D Review & Call ¡{'~~ D F.Y.I. 0 Please Handle D Per Our Conversation FROM: ~~~~ ~~ D Please Reply by Phone #: Cúttq) ~ -~ 8 8 COVENANT REGARDING BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 2978 TE ENTITLEMENT TO USE BEACH AS AN ACCES'SWAY A.P.N. 256-051-20-02 An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A, "as the owner of the Benefitted Property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A, " to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A, " as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrances, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purposes described in paragraph four, Attachment "A. " 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property' to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of this encroachment permit commences on March 13. 1992 and terminates on May 15. 1992 but may be revoked by the City for cause at any time or may be abandoned by Permittee at any time. The City shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefitted Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease and the date upon which the Permittee may present information as to why the permit should not be revoked. m12706 (PPM2-111WP5) 8 8 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permittee;s agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment or revocation, Permittee shal~ at no cost to the City, return City property to its pre-permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City property,Jhe City shall have the right to enter upon the City property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefitted Property, and restore the City property to its pre-permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the City for the costs incu"ed. 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee agrees that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefitted Property. Upon 3D-day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefitted Property any past-due financial obligation owing to City by way of this covenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non-negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of this permit. 12. Failure to Permittee to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CI1Y of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. 13. The CI1Y may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against Permittee. 14. Upon Permittee's satisfaction of Permittee's duties and obligations contained herein, Permittee may request and CI1Y shall execute a Satisfaction of Covenant. 15. Permittee recognizes and understands that this permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. JT/03/PPM2-111wp59(7-18-91/4) 9 .I.';; , '),;; U V.l.<' .. .'<, .1.0.1... '_'L.'o'l. '_,n."""-' ~'J." ;;(: . . . '~ 16. As a condi1ioh. precedent to Permittee~ right to go upOn the Cir¡ properly, this permit must first be signed by the Permi11ee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the Cowzly &corder of tlIe Cowiiy of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permi1tee.. " JI!!' . b tl r;..., o-r E .. Cali';; . ~J..:.. l?' ",_..ç 7(J(h ',", -.--. - -- 0, - y. zec~)'.. ,'J',' rza:rr:a,' ~ " -Jorrua,,~ ~, , q....", , OJ Ma,r,cb.-"""'--""'i;:--' ,. - ' í NOTARY PUBLIC ~ ~ 1YLc ' ~,:~, STA~nO FofNcEVAD~ ~" 't-£;. T +- Jf&-~,' 'c-1Yì, A' ~ G~, A C, CEPTE, ' 'V: ~' . MARIAtyE. PE'rNA "-~b þ~ /:{f-. ,~" I¡;~~- t My Appointment ExpIres April 26. 1996 t.¡ tit (JlJ Î'YltUL~ hI I q q J- ~ ( ;¡~ t2LLd- ~, _~/n~ PE '~O' I I , Dated Dated (Notarization of PERM/TTEE signature is attflched.) CITY OF ENCINITAS ' Dated by (Notarization not required) City Manager '~';~;J _ii""'"¡;-, ,>iI<c,,-,...;,.ð"6i!ir~' 4) NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEVADA County of ClØ 0 " . MARIA E. PENNA My AppOintment Expires April 26, 1995 j,.Gi1.~~ COUNTY OF th . , ' personally known to me (or pro d t w~~~~~:~~~~~f:~~~:~oidwelneCde) tdotbe the person(i) whose name(s) is/are SUbs~~ibe~ ~et~~ ge 0 me that he/she/they executed th . h' . ~~orize:itycapacity(ieS). and t~at by his/her/their signature(s) on the ins~~~~~tl~el~~:~~:;r e en upon behalf of whIch the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. . WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~. $, Oß-fL&L- Signature I (Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT -All Purpose-Wolcolls Form 237CA-Rev 1-91 'Þ1991 WOLCOTTS INC, rice class 8-2 ' J IT/O3jPPM2-111wp5 10(7-18-91/4) lO J ATTACHMENT -A - TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 2978 TE PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee: Richard T. Bourgault and Katherine Bourgault Community Property 658 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PARAGRAPH 1WO: Benejitted Property (Legal Description) An undivided one half interest in and to parcel 2 unit B of parcel map no. 15679 in the City of Encinitas, county of San Diego, State of california, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Kay 25,1989. PARAGRAPH THREE: Moonlight Beach to 658 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 PARAGRAPH FOUR: Purpose and Manner of Use 1. Permittee shall use the City Property only for the purpose of access to construction of sea wall. 2. Permittee shall not commence using the City Property until March 13, 1992. 3. Permittee shall tkposit to the City the sum of $700.00 for the use of the City Property. This tkposit will be used to pay for the cost of inspecting the City Property. 4. Permittee shall provitk a Certification of Public Liability Insurance with the City of Encinitas listed as an additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. 5. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a company approved by the City, in the amount of $ 5,000.00 prior to entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the permit are fully met. 6. Permittee shall provitk 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, and number of trips vehicles will make. m12706 (PPM2-11IWP5) . .. 8 8 COVENANT REGARDING BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 2978 TE ENTITLEMENT TO USE BEACH .AS AN ACC&'SWAY A.P.N. 256-051-20-01 An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A, " as the owner of the Benefitted Property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A, " to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A, " as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthefuture owners, encumbrances, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purposes described in paragraph four, Attachment" A. " 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of this encroachment permit commences on March 13. 1992 and terminates on May 15. 1992 but may be revoked by the City for cause at any time or may be abandoned by Permittee at any time. The City shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefitted Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease and the date upon which the Permittee may present information as to why the permit should not be revoked. m12706 (PPM2-111WP5) 8 8 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permittee;s agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment or revocation, Permittee shall, at no cost to the City, return City property to its pre-permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation dr prior to the date of abandonment. . 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City property, the City shall have the right to.enter upon the City property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefitted Property, and restore the City property to its pre-permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the City for the costs incu"ed. 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee agrees that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefitted Property. Upon 30-day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefitted Property any past-due financial obligation owing to City by way of this covenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non-negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of this permit. 12. Failure to Permittee to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. 13. The CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against Permittee. 14. Upon Permittee's satisfaction of Permittee's duties and obligations contained herein, Permittee may request and CITY shall execute a Satisfaction of Covenant. 15. Permittee recognizes and understands that this permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. JT/03/PPM2-111wp59(7-18-91/4) 9 , 8 8 ) 16. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City property, this permit must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this ~ day of MARCH ,1993 AGREED AND ACCEPTED: '3>;--{'-C¡v Dated ~-) '9v (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached.) Dated Dated L./, 'l.-I--q'L- CITY OF ENCINITAS by ()~-A ~ fNntnrizatinn not reauired) I DIYIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT City Manager NO. 201 }ss -H, m On this the~ day of ~~ 19£'4, before me, ~ e. ~ .' State of , countyof~ ~ ! 8 the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared tU~ 9- ~~o gpersonally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal. Jib~G), ~ Nbtary's Signature subscribed to the executed it. ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent frauduient attachment of this certificate to another document. THIS CERTlRO\TE Title or Type of Document MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Date of Document 7 00-010 @ NATIONAl NOTARY ASSOCIATION'8236 Remme! Ave.' P.O. Box 7184 . Canoga Park, CA 913J4-7184 J JT/03/PPM2-111wp510(7-18-91/4) 10 8 8 ATrACHMENJ' . A. TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENJ' PERMIT NO. 2978 TE PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee: William James Mallen and Allyn M. Mallen Husband and Wife as joint tenants 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PARAGRAPH 1WO: Benejitted Property (Legal Description) An undivided one half interest in and to parcell unit B of parcel map no. 15679 in the City of Encinitas, county of San Diego, State of california, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Kay 25, 19a9. PARAGRAPH THREE: Moonlight Beach to 656 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 PARAGRAPH FOUR: Purpose and Manner of Use 1. Permittee shall use the City Property only for the purpose of access to construction of sea wall. 2. Permittee shall not commence using the City Property until March 13, 1992. 3. Permittee shall deposit to the City the sum of $700.00 for the use of the City Property. This deposit will be used to pay for the cost of inspecting the City Property. 4. Permittee shall provide a Certification of Public Liability Insurance with the City of Encinitas listed as an additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. 5. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a company approved by the City, in the amount of $ 5,000.00 prior to entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the permit are fully met. 6. Permittee shall provide a detailed plan, which must be approved by the Ciry 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, and number of trips vehicles will make. m12706 (PPM2-111WP5) . . DC/h.. SA.f!ej'j f//4f\. ~ 'r" 8 Se-A- oJM I ex> tl-S. 3v "- cA1 D ý\. r;;) 6 Sb - 6 b D fIk¡o~ ¥IlL Âv'e... ~ ATTACHMENT "B" -:De -l \ (\ e..~-k>/-5,Q- - MfJ I 0 K.. 8 I c..~ ,.\..v oS ~~¡ ,,~ . .:t, ( -d . . '1<iD¡M¡Q ~. fv'\QOA lCSM 'ßvi'\ 1:è.lly\~J> V;' A1?tOI°À., 8 I L~' ' , t." I -' f~ r . ~. /;! , , BA-.r ~ . '" "- " ., ) 7;\ ... .. , ,,- .. 8 8 COVENANT REGARDING BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING .ENCROACHMENT PERMU NO. 2978 TE - . ENI11LEMENT TO USE BEACH AS AN ACCESSWAY A.P.N. 256-051-19-()() An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A, " as the owner of the Benefitted Property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A, " to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A," as detailed in tM diagram, Aitachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with tM land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthefuture owners, encumbrances, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of tM respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purposes described in paragraph four, Attachment "A." 3. By accepting tM benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of this encroachment permit commences on March 13. 1992 and terminates on May 15. 1992 but may be revoked by the City for cause at any time or may be abandoned by Permittee at any time. The City shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefitted Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease and the date upon which the Permittee may present information as to why the permit should not be revoked. m12706 (PPM2-111WP5) «. ~ 8 8 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Pennittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Pennittee's improvements. 6. Pennittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Pennittee or Pennittee;s agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment or revocation, Pennittee shal~ at no cost to the City, return City property to its pre-pennit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. 0 . 8. If PennitteeJails to restore the. City property, the City shall have the right to enter. upon the City property, after notice to the Pennittee, delivered at the Benefitted Property, and restore the City property to its pre-pennit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Pennittee agrees to reimburse the City for the costs incurred. 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Pennittee agrees that Pennittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefitted Property. Upon 3D-day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefitted Property any past-due financial obligation owing to City by way of this covenant. 11. Pennittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this pennit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non-negligent manner, in accordance with the tenns of this pennit. 12. Failure to Pennittee to comply with the tenns of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. 13. The CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the peifonnance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against Pennittee. 14. Upon Pennittee's satisfaction of Pennittee's duties and obligations contained herein, Pennittee may request and CITY shall execute a Satisfaction of Covenant. 15. Pennittee recognizes and understands that this pennit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the pennittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. JT/03/PPM2-111wp5 9(7-18-91/4) 9 , . ... 8 8 ) 16. As a condition precedent to Permittee's n'ght to go upon the City property, this permit must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee. , 199} AGREED AND ACCEPTED: Approved and issued by the City of Encžnitczs, CalIfornia, this 12 day of MA&CH Dated ¡-; "' ! ~' ' Cyl ç) ¿iv '~, ~ j' ¡ PERMITTEE /'-~ 3. ) ,/-/ >-- Dated (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached.) Dated LI.- r¿l- q'Z..-- CI1Y OF ENCINITAS by Ù~~~ (Notarization not required) City Manager -, _,un'.' NO,201 }ss On this th/~ay of Ø?~ 19~ before me, ~GJ- ~ / the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ~ fJ. U~/~6 , 8 ~ ORJA R. 8IÆTfiÆìi ' 0..:. 'J:; =:.= CIIIrnIe c:c...m. In ~~ ~ 0 personally known to me »fproved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s), ~ subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that( A II - executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. /J~~ Notary,¥Signature ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to another document THIS CERTIRCATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Title or Type of Document Number of Pages Date of Document Signer(s) Other Than Named Above ?lOO-OIO @ NATlONAl NOTARY ASSOCIATlON. 8236 Remmel /we,' P,O, Box 7184. Canoga Park. CA 91:»\.7184 , .". JT/03/PPM2-111wp510(7-18-91/4) 10 ... 8 8 A1TACHMENT -A- TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 2978 TE PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee: Jerald D. White 660 Neptune A venue Encinitas, CA 92024 PARAGRAPH 7WO: Benefitted Property (Legal Description) Portion of Block "P" South Coast park No.3 according to Map thereof No. 1935 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. PARA GRAPH THREE: Moonlight Beach to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA92024 PARAGRAPH FOUR: Purpose and Manner of Use 1. Permittee shall use the City Property only for the purpose of access to construction of sea wall. 2. Permittee shall not commence using the City Property until March 13, 1992. 3. Permittee shall deposit to the City the sum of $700.00 for the use of the City Property. This deposit will be used to pay for the cost of inspecting the City Property. 4. Permittee shall provide a Certification of Public Liability Insurance with the City of Encinitas listed as an additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. 5. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a company approved by the City, in the amount of $ 5,000.00 prior to entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the permit are fully met. 6. 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, and number of trips vehicles will make. m12706 (PPM2-111WP5) , ,þcÂ-\. 's,t1+~ P/4f\ .(b y- . ' ~.vAll I &;>'l~dvu ck Ò ý\. ~ b S1, - 6 b D f\k¡o /-4 1'1 íL Ave... . "~I ~ ,¡;\ ' 8 ~ ATTACHMENT "B" q*ii\lèp ~ fV¡ÖO/\ l(3M: 'BuY\. -cehy\~J$ W. , ~/O^-. 8 c~ -' f~ \ . . ~!~ , BA-.r ~ . . ' . . i ! ) ])e.l \ f\~A~/ 5 ,Q (W)f>10'l..... 8' c..~..w.s ~~f¡ ,,~ . ..'t, ( .~. '-- " ... . ... . 1... " '* 8 . Engineering Geology Consultants P.o. Box 161079 San Diego, California 92176-1079 (619)230-9492 Project No. 98-83c May, 25, 1999 Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Subject: Review of Response to Supplemental Third Party Review, Ash/Bourgalt/Mahoney Properties, 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Case No: 92-137 MUP/EIA/CDP INTRODUCTION We have received and reviewed the response prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. dated May 20, 1999. The response addresses our review letter dated April 25, 1999. SUMMARY OF REVIEW/CONCLUSION The response letter adequately clarifies and addresses the concerns issued in our review dated April 25, 1999. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, ,~>~'~~~~~'.~~ I""'./:~-"\ ro., ""'CJ ~"". .,': ){.:, ",!," .,~:,:~:.\ """',0,' ~." ,~\ L . ", ". ",",,~ :' i "" 1"-~,. \ ',;;", , ., ,',£, ..-¡'.' .. ¿ ", <. ." ' ::... "-'~',,~'.""'~I-O\.::K , I,"~ _lV~- ,"~~ \~~;~< ,'..Ji;J~i; ~~rtim CEG 1084; expo 3-31-01 y ~' 8 . Engineering Geology Consultants P.O. Box 161079 San Diego, California 92176-1079 (619)230-9492 Project No. 98-83b Åþril 25. 1999 Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Subject: Supplement Third Party Review Ash/Bourgalt/Mahoney Properties 656,658,660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Case No: 92-137 MUPÆINCDP INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we are pleased to submit the following supplemental third party review of the Landscape Plan relative to the subject project. Our recent previous reviews for the project are dated December 20, 1998 and February 5, 1999. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The letter by New Horizons Landscape dated April 13, 1999 suggests species for "non-irrigated coastal bluff revegetation". The letter also indicates "For non-irrigated sites, the hydroseed should be applied in the fall." However, the plan submitted depict significant coverage and criss-cross pattern of what appear to be irrigation lines on the slope and bluff area. It is unclear if these lines are temporary or permanent. The main lines appear to be within 40 feet of the top of the bluff edge. Shut off valve locations appear to be at the top of the bluff but is unclear. There does not appear to be any control valve 40 feet back from the edge of the bluff. The consultant should insure that "No permanent irrigation system shall be permitted within 40 feet of the coastal bluff edge." T t' 8 8 Page 2 Project No. 98-83b April 25, 1999 CONCLUSIONS Clarification is required relative to the comments contained on page 1 of this review. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, E~~ CEG 1084; expo 3-31-01 Distribution: three copies to addressee . -, ¡ .. 8 8 Ernest'R. Artim Engineering Geology Consultants P.O~' Box 161079 San Diego, California 92176-1079 (619)230-9492 fõ)r=~. Œ~! !nJ ~i~ I CITY OF ENC'N/T/'~S Project No. 98-83a February 5, 1999 Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Subject: Supplemental Third Party Review of Geotechnical Data, 656-658-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No: 92-137 MUP/EIA/CDP Review Data: 1. Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Room Addition 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by SEC, Inc. dated 12-28-98. 2. Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Data Ash/656, Bourgault/658, Mahony/660 Neptune Avenue Residences, Encinitas, California; by SEC, Inc. dated 12-30-98. 3. plans "Proposed Remodel for: Robert Mahony, 927 Arguello st., Redwood City, California"; by Caitlin Kelley Architect, 6 sheets, dated 1-5-99. 4. Review of Foundation Plans Proposed Room Addition 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by SEC, Inc., dated 1-6-99. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we are pleased to submit the following supplement to our third party review of geotechnical data for the subject project. Current reviewed data is listed above. Our initial review dated 12-20-98 lists previous reviewed data. The purpose of our review is to see if submitted data provides information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended. . ~J.. , ,þo 8 8 Page 2 Project No. 98-83a Feb~uary 5, 1999 SUMMARY OF REVIEW The current reviewed data provides data to meet the requested res~onse statements and/or information that was outlined ln our review dated 12-20-98. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS The current review data in conjunction with that data listed in our review dated 12-20-98, provide the information to adequately meet 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. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please call. ~~ Ernest R. Artim CEG 1084; exp. 3-31-99 Respectfully, ~ " . 8 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY CONSULTANTS P.O. BOX 161079 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92176-1079 (619)230-9492 " "------, Project No. 98-83 .' )_L~U;J<_5lIT . i~~() ).' i, .,-------j -' . r"'""/r-=":\'~'\'!-'"" ',"'J..' -J'~;'/II,"""'.:J December 20, 1998 ..--..------... .._-,- Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Subject: Third Party Review of Geotechnical Data 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Case No: 92-137 MUP/EIA Review Data: 1. Seawall & Slope Protection, 656 Neptune et aI, Encinitas, Ca; As-Built Plans Engineer of Record Charles J. Randle, 8 sheets, dated January 14, 91, revisions 3/10/92, 4/8/92, 5/6/92, 7-02-92, 8-04-92, received by City of Encinitas May 1, 1995. 2. Repair of Existing Upper Bluff Retaining Wall; Plans by Soil Engineering Construction Inc., 2 sheets, dated 12-15-97, revised 9-21-98, job no. 97-812. 3. Limited Geotechnical Assessment, 656, 658, & 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; report by Soil Engineering Construction Inc., dated November 2, 1998 with appendix A through 0, and calculations dated 12-15-97 (11 pages) and 10-23-98 (2 pages). 4. City of Encinitas Documents including; discretionary permit application, application supplement, project description, and emergency permit request letter. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we are pleased to submit the following review of the geotechnical data for the subject property. Our review has been performed to see if the submitted data provides information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D. 8 8 Page 2 Project No. 98-83 December 20, 1998 We understand the property is in an emergency condition and requires repair as soon as possible. For background we have also considered the previous review data for this property conducted under Case No. 92-137 MUP/EIA. We note that the consultant has made reference to those previous documents, and assume the consultant has reviewed, accepts, and agrees with that previous geotechnical data submitted to the City of Encinitas, reviewed and found to be in general conformance with the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D. SUMMARY OF REVIEW Although not specifically stated, the consultants data suggests the review of, acceptance and agreement of the previous reviewed geotechnical data relative to this project. Those previous data are listed in the review letters dated August 28, 1992; August 20, 1993; November 16, 1993; April 1, 1995; April 25, 1995; as well as a document prepared by Civil Engineering Consultants dated May 30, 1995 received by the City of Encinitas June 1, 1995. Those previous data provide information to adequately meet 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. If the consultant provides a statement that they have reviewed, accept and agree with the previous submitted geotechnical information for the project site, then the submitted information will be adequate to address and meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. Otherwise, the geotechnical data submitted by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. is not adequate and does not meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. In addition, the consultant should note, review, and comment on the following: 1. The previous consultant has stated "We certify that the proposed development will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that the proposed structure is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its expected lifetime. It is also our professional opinion that the project has been designed so that . ' 8 .8 Page 3 Project No. 98-83 December 20, 1998 it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project." The consultant (SEC Inc.) shall be required to provide the same statement in conformance with the Municipal Code. The present consultant should note the required add-on to the above statement, ... over its lifetime without having to propose any shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future. 2. A clear defin~tion shall be provided to explain the actual cause for the existing failed preemptive measure, and explanation so that such future failure shall not occur again. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS The reviewed consultants documents require additional clarification, statements, and documentation in order to meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amendeq by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please call. ~~ Ernest R. Artim CEG 1084; expo 3-31-99 ".~è~;::~~Ë ~~f:;"'~ .i-..~.:. "--".~':~."':~;-'." "';"/.~~"'" '-"'~:X""" ,;~::: l(q'r '~ ,:~.;\ ¡:;o( . H!¡. 1'* , é~~ t"" f.1qI.$-3t - ~'\ :,; '¡ \,\\'" ..~i~¡ "('.. ",'~;<;'. . v>~' .-'y ,,<~((~~~<~~.~~.~,(~:.> Respectfully, ~ 8 8 rnesf R. Artim Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting Project Number 92-83f September 25, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Supplement to Ttird Party Review of Geotechnical Information 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: REQ. NO: FINANCE NUMBER: APPLICANT: Mallen PROJECT LOCATION: 656-660 Neptune Avenue References: 1. 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. 2. Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case #92-137 MUP/EIA; by civil Engineering Consultants, dated September lL 1995. 3. Review Letter from City of Encinitas to Civil Engineering Consultants Relative to Case No. 92-137 MUP/EIA; 656, 658 & 660 Neptune Avenue, dated August 9, 1995. 4. Previous Third Party Reviews for the property dated August 28, 1992, August 20, 1993, November 16, 1993, April I, 1995 April 25, 1995, and June 28, 1995; by Ernest R. Artim for the City of Encinitas. All previous reviewed documents are listed in the above dated reviews. P.o. Box 9972S. San Diego. California 92169 8 8 Page 2 Project Number 92-83f September 25, 1995 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to submit the following review of the geotechnical response of previous reviews for the subject property. Our review has been performed to see if the reference document number 2 (above) provide, in conjunction with previous submitted documents by the consultant, 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 The response information does adequately note and address the comments contained in the June 28, 1995 (see reference 4) review by Ernest R. Artim. The response (reference 2) information notes and does address paragraph a and b of item 2 of reference 3, however, the response to paragraph c of item 2 is discussed below. 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 in soils and geotechnical reports. Reference 3 requests "Whether the seawall and erosion control structures are designed to 'eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on the local shoreline sand supply." The consultants response states "In our opinion, the proposed improvements will not have an impact on local shoreline sand supply." It appears as if the control of erosion of the sea bluff will most likely reduce the natural erosion supply of sand from the sea bluff to the beach. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS While sections of the consultants response are complete, the statement as noted above appears may be less than adequate, but the consultant has addressed all previous concerns as outlined in the review letters. 8 8 . ~ . . Page 3 Project Number 92-83f September 25, 1995 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. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, t"- E~~tim CEG 1084; expo 3-31-97 Distribution: (2) addressee 8 8 rÍ1~st R. Artim Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting . , i Project Number 92-83e i \ 3 0 ~rF June 28, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: REQ. NO: FINANCE NUMBER: APPLICANT: Mallen PROJECT LOCATION: 656-660 Neptune Avenue References: 1. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and 0, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32. 2. Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case# 92-137 MUP/EIA; by Civil Engineering Consultants, dated May 30, 1995. 3. Previous Reviews dated August 28, 1992, August 20, 1993, November 16, 1993, April 1, 1995, and April 25, 1995; by Ernest R. Artim for the City of Encinitas. All previous reviewed documents are listed in the above reviews. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to submit the following review of the geotechnical response of previous reviews for the subject property. Our review has been performed to see if the reference document number 2 (above) provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and 0 as amended by Ordin~nce 91-19 and Resoluutions 95-31 and 95-32 (reference 1). P.O.Box9972S. San Diego. California 92169. (619) 421-9883 8 8 ; . Page 2 Project Number 92-83e June 28, 1995 SUMMARY OF REVIEW In general, the review (reference 2) information and the consultants previous geotechnical/geological reports appear to adequately address the site soil and geological conditions. The soil and geological conditions described in the review and the consultants previous reports appear to meet 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. Note the comments under Review Detail Comments. REVIEW DETAIL COMMENTS The following amendments to the Municipal Code should be noted: * Note B, paragraph 6 bottom now reads, "No permanent irriga- tion system shall be permitted within 40 feet of the coast-. al bluff edge." * Note D, l~nes 9 to 13 have been amended as follows: "The review/report shall certify that the development proposed will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff will not endanger life or property, and that any proposed structure or facility is expected to be resonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime without having to propose any shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future. * Paragraph D, item 10 under "Each review/report shall consider, describe and analyze the following:" 10. Certification that the structure is designed to with- stand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS The review and previous reports by the consultant for the project meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, sections 30.34.020 C and D. The review and previous reports by the consultant adequately address the soil and geological conditions for the site. 8 8 ,.# , Page 3 Project Number 92-83e June 28, 1995 The consultant states on page 1 of the respose (reference 2) "The undersigned registered engineer and certified engineering geologist will be performing inspections of the repair work as needed and will prepare and submit an as-built geotechnical report and map." The consultants should make note of the changes to the Municipal Code and address field changes and response as well as required certification in the as-built report. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. ,./ Respectfully, ~~, Ernest R. Artlm CEG 1084; expo 3-31-97 Distribution: (3) addressee 8 8 Ernest R. Artim Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting Project Number 92-83d April 25, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 MAY 2 Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Supplemental Review Comments Relative to Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California (Our previous reviews dated 8-28-92, 8-20-93, 11-16-93, and 4-1-95). CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 001635 REQ. NO: 0000001535 FINANCE NUMBER: 1522EN INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to submit the following supplemental comments relative to the subject project and geotechnical information. Our review has been performed to see if the geotechnical information submitted for the subject site is in conformance with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and 0, and as amended by Ordinance 91-19. SUMMARY OF REVIEW Our initial review dated August 28, 1992 outlined items and criteria required for submittal of reports. A report package was re-submitted for review and the package was dated June 25, 1993. Our review dated August 20, 1993 indicated in the section "Summary of Review"(page 2), The soil and geotechnical information regarding the subject project are poorly organized as an assemblage of separate, loose letters and reports, and were therefore difficult to review. The review was performed and a list of key items and criteria lacking in the documents and/or required by reference 1 were prepared and submitted for the consultants response (see reference 3). The consultants response was submitted as a bound document, but consists of an assemblage of separate letters and other documents." P.O.Box9972S. SanDiego. California 92169. (619)421-9883 8 8 Page 2 Project Number 92-83d April 25, 1995 The August 20, 1993 review (on page 2) also indicates that, "In general, the reference documents 2 and 4 appear to address the site soil and geological conditions, except for the following. All letters have been signed by an engineer, but the appropriate letters and documents have not been reviewed by or signed by a certified engineering geologist." There has been sufficient time (more than 1 1/2 years) since Mr. Andrew Farcas, the original certified engineering geologist, has been gone. A replacement should be available by the present time. The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the August 20, 1993 review states, "The reviewed documents (reference 2 and 4) have not been prepared in conformance with reference 1. The documents are not complete until the entire package of documents (reference 2 and 4) have been reviewed by, and the information contained within accepted by, and signed by a certified engineering geologist." Our November 16, 1993 review letter basically addresses a changed field condition issue and the need to provide additional information for that changed field condition. Our April I, 1995 review letter is of the provisions proposed to correct the changed field conditions. The required information requested in our August 20, 1993, review has not, to the best of our knowledge, been submitted for review. The requested format is still required, as well as the requirement to have the report reviewed, and signed by, a certified engineering geologist. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As previously outlined in our review dated August 20, 1993, the reviewed documents have not been prepared in conformance with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19. The documents are not complete until the entire report has been reviewed by, accepted by, and signed by a certifed engineering geologist. As you noted, copies of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 are available at City Offices, 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California. In addition, other consultants have been required to, and have submitted their reports in the report format in conformance with Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19. 8 8 .' . Page 3 Project Number 92-83d April 25, 1995 This request is in addition to the as-built report requested and required within our review dated April 1, 1995. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, ~~Artim CEG 1084; expo 3-31-97 Distribution: (3) addressee 8 8 ~n~st R. Artim Geotechnical & Environmental Consulting Project Number 92-83c April I, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Supplemental Third Party Review of Geotechnical Report 656, 658, an¿ 66:J Neptune Avenue, Encinitati, Cdlifocnid Our previous reviews dated August 28, 1992, August 20, 1993, and November 16, 1993. CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 001635 REQ. NO: 0000001535 FINANCE NUMBER: 1522EN APPLICANT: Mallen PROJECT LOCATION: 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization dated March 24, 1995, we are pleased to submit the following review of the subject supplemental information. We note that our November 16, 1993 review is of a changed field condition that required repair prior to completion of the project as well as preparation of the as-built report. The information sent to us consists of a cover letter, copies of previous correspondence including the plans for original work, and the plans (dated February 17, 1995) for the repairs necessary~ complete the project. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In general, the supplemental information appears to outline the repairs necessary to complete the project for an actual as- built conditions. Refer to our review of field conditions dated November 16, 1993. Also refer to our review dated August 20, 1993 indicating the information submitted required "accepted by, and signed by a certified engineering geologist." Refer to our review dated November 16, 1993 indicating the certified engineering geologist for the project, Mr. Andrew Farkas had recently passed away, but also "an as-built report and map are still required for this site, but might be submitted upon completion of the investi- gation and repair work by the project engineer." P.o. Box 99725. San Diego. California 92169. (619) 421-9883 , 8 8 , ~ ,;., ""{ . Page 2 Project Number 92-83c April 1, 1995 We understand Mr. Ron Hallum, CEG 1484, has been retained by the project engineer to be the certified engineering geologist for the project and as part of his work will perform inspections of the repair work needed to complete the project and prepare and submit the as-built geotechnical report and map. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS The plans submitted are the repairs described to be necessary in our review dated November 16, 1993. The repair work outlined is necessary in order for the project to be completed so that an as-built report and map can be prepared and submitted. Upon completion of the repair work outlined by the project engineer, the actual as-built report should be submitted to the City of Encinitas with the report signed by both the engineering geologist as well as the soils engineer. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, ~~R~rtim ~~~4; expo 3-31-97 Distribution: (2) addressee I t , . ARTIM & ASSOCIATEs-" 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants PROJECT NUMBER 92-83b NOVEMBER 16, 1993 ",-,..--,. . CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024-3633 ATTENTION: MS. DIANE LANGAGER ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: FIELD AND OFFICE REVIEW OF CONDITIONS AT 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 001635 REQ. NO: 0000001535 FINANCE NUMBER: 1522EN APPLICANT: MALLEN PROJECT LOCATION: 656, 658, 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE REFERENCES: 1. GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO 656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED BY EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND OUTLINED IN REFERENCE 2. 2. THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO 656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA BY ARTIM AND ASSOCIATES, DATED AUGUST 28, 1992, PROJECT NUMBER 92-83. 3. GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTS "656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA" SUBMITTED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, DATED JUNE 25, 1993. 4. REVIEW OF RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR 656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA BY ARTIM AND ASSOCIATES, DATED AUGUST 20, 1993, PROJECT NUMBER 92-83a. 5. PLANS FOR SEAWALL AND SLOPE PROTECTION, 656 NEPTUNE ET AL, ENCINITAS, CA, BY FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING, DATED JANUARY 14, 1991, REVISIONS 3/10/92, 4/8/92, 5/6/92, 7/2/92, 8/4/92. 6. LETTER FROM EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP DESCRIPTION RE: CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST ANDREW FARKAS, DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1993. 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 8 8 PAGE 2 PROJECT NUMBER 92-83b NOVEMBER 16, 1993 THIS LETTER PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF OUR FIELD AND REVIEW OF CONDITIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE 656, 658, AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. OUR FIELD VISIT WAS PERFORMED ON NOVEMBER 8, 1993. WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER (REFERENCE 6~ THAT INDICATES THAT GEOTECHNICAL FIELD WORK PERFORMED FOR REFERENCE 4 HAD BEEN PERFORMED WHILE MR. ANDREW FARKAS, CEG #1185, WAS EMPLOYED FOR THE PROJECT. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND, BASED ON VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS, THAT MR. FARKAS HAD PERFORMED FIELD INSPECTIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE. AT THE TIMES OF THE WORK MR. FARKAS WAS CURRENT AS A LICENSED AND CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE UNDERSTAND THAT MR. FARKAS BECAME VERY ILL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND RECENTLY PASSED AWAY. THIS UNFORTUNATE SITUATION EXPLAINS THE LACK OF SIGNATURE ON THE SUBJECT REFERENCE REPORT 4 AND MAY CREATE A PROBLEM FOR THE CONSULTANTS IN THE PREPARATION OF AN AS-BUILT REPORT. AS REQUIRED IN REFERENCE 2, AN AS-BUILT REPORT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS. BASED ON OUR FIELD OBSERVATIONS, WE NOTED THAT TWO WALLS HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE SEA BLUFF. A LOWER WALL AT THE BASE OF THE SEA BLUFF EXTENDS TO AN ELEVATION OF ABOUT 37 FEET (MSL). A FILL SLOPE AT INCLINATION OF ABOUT 2:1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) EXTENDS UP TO AN ELEVATION ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 70-75! FEET. AN UPPER WALL IS CONSTRUCTED ABOVE THE FILL SLOPE WITH THE UPPER WALL EXTENDING UP TO AN ELEVATION OF ABOUT 93! FEET. A FILL SLOPE AT INCLINATION OF ABOUT 2:1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) EXTENDS ABOVE THE UPPER WALL UP TO THE PAD LEVELS OF THE PROPERTIES (ELEVATIONS OF ABOUT 98! FEET) . WE NOTED DISTESS WITHIN THE UPPER SOILS IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE TOP OF THE UPPER 2:1 FILL SLOPE. THE DISTRESS APPEARS AS VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT OF THE UPPER PAD SURFACE SOIL. VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT OF SOILS APPEAR TO VARY FROM A FEW INCHES TO AN ESTIMATED 2 FEET. SUBSURFACE FIELD EXPLORATION WAS BEING PERFORMED AT THE TIME OF OUR FIELD VISIT. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OUR OBSERVATIONS: * SOIL DISPLACEMENT AND DISTRESS APPEARS TO BE LIMITED TO THE SUBJECT SITE. SUCH DISTRESS FEATURES WERE NOT NOTED ON PROPERTIES EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. * WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY APPARENT DISTRESS TO THE LOWER WALL OR TO THE FILL SLOPE IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE LOWER WALL. . , 8 8 PAGE 3 PROJECT NUMBER 92-83b NOVEMBER 16, 1993 * WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY APPARENT AND/OR SIGNIFICANT DISTRESS OR DISRUPTION OF THE FACE OF OR TOP OF THE UPPER WALL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROJECT ENGINEER WAS NOT CALLED OUT DURING FINAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE UPPER WALL AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR FULL TIME OBSERVATION AND/OR INSPECTION SERVICE. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENGINNER IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE ACTUAL AS-BUILT CONDITIONS. * WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY APPARENT SOIL BLOW-OUTS, PIPING, OR EROSION OF THE FILL SOILS IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE BASE OF THE UPPER WALL. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DRAINS FROM BEHIND THE UPPER WALL APPEAR TO BE BLOCKED WITH FILL SOIL. * BASED ON THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND CONVERSATION, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SOIL ENGINEER WAS NOT CALLED OUT TO PERFORM FULL TIME OBSERVATION SERVICE FOR THE UPPER 15 TO 201 FEET OF THE FILL SOIL BELOW THE PAD ELEVATION. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENGINEER IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE ACTUAL AS-BUILT CONDITIONS. * WE UNDERSTAND THAT TWO IRRIGATION WATER LINES APPEAR TO HAVE RUPTURED. ONE LINE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE AND THE SECOND LINE IS LOCATED AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BETWEEN 656/658 AND 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE. * BASED ON THE SUBSURFACE FINDINGS AT THE SITE AT THE TIME OF OUR VISIT, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FILL SOILS TO DEPTHS OF ABOUT 101 FEET APPEAR TO BE VERY WET TO SATURATED WITH MOISTURE CONTENT OF ABOUT 20-25%1. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE SOIL SHOULD BE ABOUT 9-10%1. SOILS BELOW DEPTHS OF ABOUT 10 FEET WERE NOTED TO HAVE LOWER DENSITIES AND ALSO LOW MOISTURE CONTENT. WE DID NOT VIEW THE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS, BUT WERE INFORMED THAT THE DENSITIES OF THE SOILS WERE IN THE LOW TO MID 80% RANGE, ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE VARIATIONS TO THE RANGE. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE MOISTURES BELOW DEPTHS OF ABOUT 10 FEET WERE ON THE ORDER OF ABOUT 4-5%. THE SOILS USED AS BACKFILL APPEAR TO BE PRIMARILY GRANULAR FINE SILTY SANDS. SUCH SOIL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUSIVE TO SOIL MOVEMENT IN THE FORM OF VERTICAL SETTLEMENT AND MOVEMENT CAN BE ACCELERATED WHEN THE SOILS BECOME SATURATED. * INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING LABORATORY TESTING BY THE ENGINEER ARE STILL IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THIS LETTER REPORT. .' " . 8 8 PAGE 4 PROJECT NUMBER 92-83b NOVEMBER 16, 1993 * WE WERE INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THE PIPE BREAKS WERE DUE TO QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP AND/OR OF MATERIALS. BASED ON OUR SITE VISIT OBSEVATIONS AND INFORMATION REVIEWED THE DISTRESS CONDITIONS AT THE UPPER PART OF THE PADS APPEAR TO BE THE RESULT OF SOIL MOVEMENT. THE SOIL MOVEMENT APPEARS TO BE IN THE FORM OF VERTICAL DOWNWARD SOIL SETTLEMENT WITH MOVEMENT ACCELERATED AFTER THE RUPTURE OF TWO WATER LINES. ADDITIONAL SOIL MOVEMENT IS STILL POSSIBLE. INVESTIGATIONS BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER ARE IN PROGRESS. AN AS-BUILT REPORT AND MAP ARE STILL REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE, BUT MIGHT BE SUBMITTED UPON COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND REPAIR WORK BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US. VERY TRULY YOURS, ~ ~RTIM CEG 1084; EXP. 6-30-94 DISTRIBUTION: (3) addressee 8 8 Ernest R. Artim ~ Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Project Number 92-83a August 20, 1993 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 Attention: Mr. Tom Curriden Associate Planner Subject: Review of Response to Third Party Review Geotechnical Report for 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 001635 REQ. NO: 0000001535 FINANCE NUMBER: l522EN APPLICANT: Mallen PROJECT LOCATION: 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue References: 1. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19. 2. Geotechnical Documents Related to 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California submitted to the City of Encinitas and outlined in reference report 3. 3. Third Party Review of Geotechnical Documents Related to 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California by Artim and Associates, dated August 28, 1992, project number 92-83. 4. Geotechnical Documents "656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" by Civil Engineering Consultants, dated June 25, 1993. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we are pleased to submit the following review of the subject documents. Our review has been performed to see if reference documents 2 and 4 provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 (reference 1). The initial project documents have been reviewed previously and that review is noted as reference 3. 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 ~ e 8 , . Page 2 Project Number 92-83a August 20, 1993 SUMMARY OF REVIEW The soil and geotechnical information regarding the subject project (reference 2) are poorly organized as an assemblage of separate, loose letters and reports, and were therefore difficult to review. The review was performed and a list of key items and criteria lacking in the documents and/or required by reference 1 were prepared and submitted for the consultants response (see reference 3). The consultants response was submitted as a bound document, but consists of an assemblage of separate letters and other documents (see reference 4). We also understand that the consultant, Civil Engineering Consultants, is the geotechnical consultant for the project, has reviewed all previous reports and documents for the project, and is in agreement with those findings and recommendations. In general, the reference documents 2 and 4 appear to address the site soil and geological conditions, except for the the following. All letters have been signed by an engineer, but the appropriate letters and documents have not been reviewed by or signed by a certified engineering geologist. A statement in reference 4 indicates that a certified engineering geologist, Mr. James Evans, CEG 974 is "currently completing his review of this project." CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The reviewed documents (reference 2 and 4) have not been prepared in conformance with reference 1. The documents are not complete until the entire packages of documents (reference 2 and 4) have been reviewed by, and the information contained within accepted by, and signed by a certified engineering geologist. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, E~~~im CEG 1084; expo 6-30-94 Distribution: (3) addressee . 8 ARTIM & ASSOCIATES 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 The City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Suite 100 Encinitas, California 92024 ;-õ' rn @ Œ 0 W Œ " .. l~~~, i Clh OF ~ Attention: Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Subject: Third Party Review of Geotechnical Documents Related to 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 92-137 MUP/EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 001635 REQ. NO.: 0000001535 FINANCE NUMBER: 1522EN APPLICANT: Mallen, Bourgault, and White PROJECT LOCATION: 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue DESCRIPTION: a. Lower Bluff Seawall - 35' high; concrete base and columns, wood lagging and tie backs. b. Upper Bluff Wall - 16' high; wood w/waler cross bar and tie backs. c. Fill material to design and test specifications References: 1. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19. 2. Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, San Diego County, California; prepared by Leighton and Associates, Project No. 4841180-01, dated February 10, 1986. 3. Estimated Bluff Retreat and Foundation Setback, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California; prepared by Leighton and Associates, Project No. 4841180-02, dated June 17, 1987. 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 8 ARTIM & ASSOCIATES 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Page 2 Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 4. Design Report for Seawall and Bluff Stabilization, 656, 658, 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; prepared by First Phase Engineering II, no project number, dated May 9, 1992. 5. Test results for 660 Neptune, Encinitas, California; prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, no project number provided, dated May 11, 1992. 6. Leighton Soils Report - of June 1987 & November by Earth Systems Design dated June 2, 1992. Note: The November 1989 either package of February 1986, Subsequent Letters 1989, Report #4841180-02; prepared Group, no project number provided, document was not included in reviewed documents. 7. Upper Walls and Slope Configuration, 656-660 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, no project number provided, dated July 9, 1992. 8. Response to City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Section 30.34.020.c.b.(sic); prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, no project number provided, dated July 21, 1992. 9. Plans for Seawall & Slope Protection, 656 Neptune et ale Encinitas, CA; prepared by First Phase Engineering II, no project number, dated Jan.14, 91, revised 7-02-92, revised 8-04-92. 10. City of Encinitas Documents Relative to the Subject Project including the following: Project Review Sheet, Design Review Permit Application Form, Evidence of Legal Parcel, Disclosure Statement, and Application Supplement. 11. Application 92-084 ZOA proposing various minor changes to Municipal Code Chapter 30.34, "Special Purpose Overlay Zones". INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization dated August 10, 1992, we are pleased to submit the following review of the subject documents (reference 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Our review has been performed to see if the reference documents provide adequate information to meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 (reference 1). 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 8 ARTIM & ASSOCIATES 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Page 3 Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 SUMMARY OF REVIEW The soil and geotechnical information regarding the subject project are poorly organized as an assemblage of separate, loose letters and short reports, and therefore were difficult to assess. As with most projects submitted to the City of Encinitas for review, there was no single specific report to review as the subject document describing the site soil and geologic conditions. In general, the reviewed documents contain information to address certain soil and geologic conditions in a thorough and complete manner; however, other aspects appear to be lacking and include the omission of key items and/or requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 (reference 1). 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, certain key items and criteria are requested to be contained in soil and geotechnical reports. Certain items that do not appear to have been addressed, or that may have a negative impact for the site, and adjacent areas, are listed below: A. Each "report shall certify that the development proposed will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that any proposed structure or facility is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its projected lifetime." B. "The report shall also express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed or located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project." C. Each report shall consider, describe and analyze the following: 1. "Potential effects of seismic forces resulting from a maximum credible earthquake." 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 ." 8 ARTIM & ASSOCIATES 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Page 4 Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 This section should deal with the impact to the site from earthquakes on nearby active faults, to include the Rose Canyon Fault. 2. "Geologic conditions, including soil, sediment and rock types and characteristics in addition to structural features, such as bedding, joints, and faults." This section should discuss the discrepency of the Leighton report (reference 2) describing the base of the sea bluff to be underlain by "Torrey Sandstone", while the plans (reference 4) depict the base of the sea bluff to be underlain by the Del Mar Formation. 3. "Impact of construction activity on the stability of the site and adjacent area." 4. "Ground and surface water conditions and variations, including hydrologic changes caused by the development (e.g., introduction of irrigation water to the ground water system~ alterations in surface drainage)." 5. "Any other factors that might affect slope stability." 6. "Mitigation measures and alternate solutions for any potential impacts." D. The soils "report shall use a current acceptable engineering stability analysis method and shall also describe the degree of uncertainty of analytical results due to assumptions and unknowns. The degree of analysis required shall be appropriate to the degree of potential risk presented by the site and the proposed project." E. "In addition to the above, each geotechnical report shall include identification of the daylight line behind the top of the bluff established by a bluff slope failure plane analysis." F. "This slope failure analysis shall be performed according to geotechnical engineering standards, and shall: 1. "cover all types of slope failure." 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 " 4IÞ ARTIM & ASSOCIATES 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Page 5 Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 2. "demonstrate a safety factor against slope failure of 1.5." 3. "address a time period of analysis of 50 years." G. The response by the consultant shall also include discussion of a maximum probable earthquake and ground shaking at the site for an event on the active Rose Canyon Fault. The maximum probable earthquake for the Rose Canyon Fault shall also be considered when performing stability analysis. H. All reports have been signed by an engineer, but the appropriate reports have not been signed by a "certified engineering geologist." CONCLUSIONS The reviewed documents have not been prepared in conformance with, and do not adequately provide information to meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 (reference 1). The consultant should obtain a copy of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19, so that their response report can be prepared in conformance with the Municipal Code and meet the standards of the Code. After the geotechnical report has been prepared, submitted, and accepted by the City to be in conformance with the Code, and the project approved, as with all projects along coastal bluffs in Encinitas, we recommend an "as-built geotechnical report" be submitted to the City of Encinitas. The report should outline all field test locations and results, and observations performed by the consultant during construction of the proposed project, and especially relative to the depths and actual locations of foundations. The report should also verify that the recommendations of the consultant have been properly implemented and completed and that soil and geologic conditions are as outlined in the accepted geotechnical report, or document any changed field conditions and recommendations. 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 .. 4IÞ ARTIM & ASSOCIATES e Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Page 6 Project Number 92-83 August 28, 1992 Should you have any questions, or require additional services, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, ~ ., ~~tim CEG 1084; expo 6-30-92 Distribution: (3) addressee 355 Greenwood Place. Bonita. California 91902. (619) 421-3464 . SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: cons¡:~uc¡:lon,"( ~ -- . '. . . MaY'~'.1999 Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Re: Response to Third Party Review Ash/Bourgault/Mahony Properties 656,658 and 660 Neptune Avenue Case No. 92-137 MUPIEIAlCDP Dear Ms. Langager: This letter has been prepared to re,spond to issues raised in the third party review letter prepared by Mr. Ernest Artim, dated April 25, 1999. The irrigation lines noted by Mr. Artim, have been abandoned. During construction, SEC will remove all existing abandoned irrigation lines below the subject properties and will confIrm that the main lines have been capped off properly. As the geotechnical consultant for the project, we will insure that no permanent irrigation systems shall be permitted within 40 feet of the coastal bluff edge. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. (fL John W. Niven, P .E. 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 8 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: cons¡:~U(¡:lon,"( COJ 8 (' f,- January 6, 1999 - r¡:J Or""" - ! - ' . , ~ ~o, Mr, Robert Mahony 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 i' . Subject: L-- Review of Foundation Plans Proposed Room Addition - 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Reference: "Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Room Addition - 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California", by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated December 28, 1998. "Proposed Remodel for: Robert Mahony, 927 Arguello St., Redwood City, California", drawing sheets A-I, A-SA, A-3, A-4, S-1 & S-2, prepared by Caitlin Kelley Architect, dated January 5, 1999. Dear Mr. Mahony: As per your request, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEe) has reviewed the referenced foundation plans for the proposed remodel. Based on our review, it appears that the .foundation plans for the proposed remodel are in substantial conformance with the recommendations presented in our foundation recommendations letter dated December 28, 1998. It is recommended that foundation excavations performed at the site be observed by personnel from this office prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. @J(~k Project Engineer 927 Argue:íc SHeet, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 650) 367-9595. FAX (650) 367-8139 ,/ I ! 8 8 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: COnSr=lUC¡:IOn,n( ~ r ,--- 0 '7J . , ,.-.., I " December 30, 1998 Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner City ofEncinitas 50S S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 ': \; , ~ fJ:YJ !'- , \ \. Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Data Ash/656, Bourgault/6S8, Mahony/660 Neptune Avenue Residences Encinitas. Calüornia Dear Ms. Langager: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following respones to address issues raised by Mr. Artim in his December 20. 1998 review letter. In order to satisfy requirements of the City ofEncinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32 and to respond to issues raised by Mr. Artim, we offer the following responses. 1. SEe accepts and agrees with all of the previously reviewed geotechnical data relative to this project. 2. We, SEe, certify that the proposed development will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that the proposed structure is expected to be reasonbly safe from failure over its expected lifetime. It is also our professional opinion that the project bas been designed so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project or over its lifetime without having to propose any shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future. 3. After reviewing a vast amount of infonnation, including reports, plans, letters, etc., it is our opinion that the ongoing structural distress of the upper wall was mainly caused by three events. Based on our review of readily available documents, it appears that a pennanent irrigation system had been installed at the 660 property after the construction of the bluff 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595. FAX (650) 367-8139 .. .' - Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner December 30, 1998 Page 2 8 8 retention walls. This irrigation system failed causing significant quantities of water to be discharged into the backfill materials of the upper bluff retaining wall. In addition, our review suggests that the backfill materials had not been adequately compacted. Saturation of the backfill increased the loading on the upper wall and on the tieback/waler system. In addition, the walers were detailed and constructed so that the outward face (where in contact with the tieback bearing plate) was not designed or constructed using the same angle, as measured from horizontal, as the drilling angle of the tiebacks. Based on our hydro-collapse tests, it is our opinion that future settlement of the retaining wall backfill will be on the order of about 2 inches. We have recommended that no permanent irrigation systems be installed at the subject properties. The SEC design of the new tieback waler system will utilize the proper angle, on the outward face, as the drilling angle of the exisitng and new tiebacks. It is our opinion, that if our recommended repairs are implemented, no further distress of the upper retaining wall will occur. Thank you, in advance, for providing your professional in-house and third-party review and if you have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INc. £.~~.c.EG ---'- '-'.'- "- ---G"\'..~EER/,'v \'\ -.:.~ .""'. Q 0' ;'<::; ~'>:i\ D. M.1".~~~t "'!::!:~\; 'Ýo"~" ;,-,-~. ~'.ofJ ~¡:::-.. ....c.:Ç!~ ~OC' -~ ~u.J. LC.N. .:U¡f1 ~i~ ". EXP 08/31/00: ;: (¡ u"I . . :--. ;; I /". .'~,:' tto",¡!",-:""",,"'a~- l\\ OF CP,\..\~-- \\.",-"""" 7J~L r' , "" '.. ". . ',) 8 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: cons¡:~uc¡:lon,"( ~ 8 December 28, '1998 , - '-,-. - . - . "' Mr. Robert Mahony 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: . . , Foundation Recommendations 1.- . Proposed Room Addition - 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Dear Mr. . Mahony: As per your request, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter providing foundation recommendations for the proposed room addition at the subject property. Our recommendations are based on our review of the report "Limited Geotechnical Assessment, 656, 658, & 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California", prepared by SEC, dated November 2, 1998. In addition, we have provided relevant information to satisfy the minimum 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. Based on the information you have provided to us, it appears that an approximately 220 square foot, single-story room addition is planned to be constructed at the existing front entry area (north side) . and a portion of the eastern sides of the residence. The proposed room addition will utilize existing foundations and will require new foundations. In addition, the proposed room additions will be constructed beyond (eastward) of the 40 foot set back. Presented herein are our minimum recommendations for the proposed foundations and new slabs-on-grade for the room addition. Conventional isolated spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed room addition. It is recommended that new foundations supporting one floor and a roofbe a minimum of 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep with a minimum of one No.4 reinforcing bar placed near the top and bottom of the footing. For preliminary design, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for the proposed foundation systems. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind and seismic loading. All foundations should be founded on finn existing subsurface materials. Footing depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface. The following criteria is presented as minimum design parameters for slabs-on-grade. New slabs- on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with six inch by six inch - WI.4 by Wl.4 welded wire mesh or No.4 reinforcing bar on 18 inch centers in two directions. Reinforcing 927 Arguello Sneer f',edwood City. California 94063-1310 :650; 367-9595. FAX (650:: 367-8139 ~. . -I .> . . 8 8 Mr. Robert Mahony December 28, 1998 Page 2 should be properly supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking of the reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning. Slabs should rest on a capillary break at least four inches thick consisting of clean sand Onsite materials may be utilized for the capillary break. A moisture barrier, such as polyethylene sheeting, 6 mil or weater, sbouJd be placed in the middle of the capillary break where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned. Specific foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment as they become available. In addition, foundation excavations performed on the site should be observed by this office. In regards to the standards of the City of Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and resolutions 95-31 and 95-32, the following information is provided: 1. It is our opinion that the proposed room addition will not create an unnecessary surcharge load upon the bluff area. This opinion is based on the information that the room addition will be constructed a minimum of 40 feet from the top of bluff. In additio~ it is our understanding that the room addition will be a single story structure supported on conventional continuous and spread foundations and slab-on-grade floors. 2. It is our opinion that the proposed room addition will not directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on site or for an adjacent property. 3. It is our opinion, that the proposed room addition in conjunction with the proposed repairs to the upper bluff retaining structure, is expected to be reasonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime without having to propose any additional shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future. If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. John W. Niven, RC.E. 57517 Project Engineer SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUeN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB ~~ "\~~VNL '8 CALCULATED BY t::A-I CHECKED BY ~ SCALE foJ;.. ~ C16- '0 ~ & f+:v L-1--"--"L r- ,,--, C!..I 1'-' / ÎA-':" j ~!./f Fc>P-N (A . j SHEET NO. f>.-V:.:...-1--iV1:- OF 2, DATE I<=='-¿ -s,- CJß DATE 10 - z :;,- ~ß:, '# c;,~~ N E;-ÞT u N L '- E )<1s..\)H~ Vol'-ic...~ Uu ~I ~ '-.Ä.J S. #Of c..-t::--f:--~TC- \)C~ L/v So. V~ ~ C-L Uc~.>r.- ~ ~ v t::- Ç' L ~A-(~ '~';. \ c.-y N 1> ~ ~. i i1::...- ~:.. ~ t-..N .k1. s s;, .~. C--L b2 kl L.- ~Hs.Tg.v c..;:r/-<::::>~\ tHe.', (~Ëc...)FI~ (C1-=l,.. ut.C- ~ t.--e. VH rJf:- ~ A- s.. E E. v..c. \J..J '. . ~F, : I) <s."EC- ~~cAPE-~I~~,s. ,=? ,.C:;1=-?) '?' )~ì::,.b~\::.. . r::..~ .c-rYI(..- ....ê-t1. C)( "-1 ~.\:. ,I ::. ,) kl C C- - q -iL, ~¡ TI-=:::o1-.jfðf'\.) h) N AVj Ì/A-'Nu A(.., - Nf>...Y Fð-Ç..,...:!:. 'F¡ -~ 1 L- (~Vt-.l1::. A-¡-l~t-+s;., ~.....~~I}t.. ~..~ v c.:::r.v~ '::-) , t-.h' <) I N t--E ..{;:.../I'i C) ~ ~A-~ I--=-Z~- '9~/. ¡,.L z, - ~ I -<::::>i-f . =tt1 Ç., I So. f-=> 'hE "':\c;i-..J 17 \ -r I 7A?C ,~ b~ ~ v ~ "k::::. ?~ ,~ e.::r ~'ì< I So. \' \ H ~ ~ c... t?:..k..~ EN ~&s:.-=~~ C>;= .~ ~I ~ -r t ,'--+ C; ~ E- A I..X...A- vv A-="r A-D..=. J t:..- . .. . . f' ~ 1=>,.. .. .. ., . . ') I rr {-f-1'\ -So 1::, u;;..f....\ DE C--1 ~ ~ (~ 1 1'-1 ~ ~ 'v \...... N. E U(., S *=., ve.Æ.::rc....., IJLÆ... ~ Co\..; ~ ~ ~ ~N r*~ OF [:, . ¡ i :: ¡-I ,f'-' ~ v--¡a.-L.v /I " / N E. \..X....¡ ~ ~ i'::"-C-L-rT-- -r = 1; t.... ~ T= c:, =- T ~ , I . \.J So 'C.. f c... -= 4 / <:::>~ þ.s:! , ,~, ,,--f-¡, -= c;..~/ '-=> ~ f"ç, ¡ . If 1/E- t-.. \ F-<:::> ~ ~ s:.. i"1:..>~:' V ~ &...; 1-+ \.C) F f1=' L¡."¡ ê I ? c c:... E V . S!t-fr~ ;t...,... IN ~ ~ l._í~,~ çvr>P--.:=>~ 73) "'#= \" ,.~ v-t"- t ~ ~ ,;;. - <=> C c:.. ~!,x", :!::. N E íX..J :: ~ -¡ (-:....-t:.":;T~-r-.:.- Lx..--L ~ ~\.,¡ e J t.- C--Q17 ? i:Æ. - S I <=rl..J. C-= 1-1 c ~1E- £-f: ...:::+> v I ~...:t::.. . I~ PRODUCT ().I I ,SmQl.SheelSl2051IP""di .- SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRU8»N, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB b~.ç, SHEET NO. N EA'-;-\...J N \::... -À-V E...-f...' v L :8 OF z.. L++ DATE 1..0 -;? -:; - c¡ e:, ~r-¡ DATE '<:)-l~- e:r8 CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ,~~~~ ~ A- C-o\ '"ì of r : .-=:0 ;:-....... : ..--f- ..~-,<..L ~- -:;;. : I r 'I if ç -" ~ ~ -'<::) c.C- E'-X... . ~ . ~, 7 I-J.-?r <.C:) r Co 1'1 C- C--f. - ~ C::::> v £:c.. ':.. L. : frV~e.. 'I fIb II ( II' J(l~ ref) -= 1;:::::>2-1 Lhf.. I t -f- . v <:. E \.)u = I. Lt ( )¡ <:;;)2. '"ì l.-("~) ~ II u:: ~ :.J., I:.. :: ~ '" <: c- I.\- b-I cf I \ ? ~ ~ l'>u 'b t.. s t= ~ <::0\..-1: \XI -=1 ~ Ie.. (~l =- if. ~ L ~ ~ \..A:=) ~ p ~ '~l-L-E.-l,- ; 4- ~ ~/~ ~ I. \"- k:-. I E-,-A- , 1'~ ~Lk- (e:>¡- L 4t ç- Fo'R-i Ie- ~ 4/ ~--= Ì"~ ì :;:: ::::::. 'F L-¡ <= 3./C)~ U~>I\I;:)'C>U~.',,:::). ~ 'ìtIN È-Æ.. ( ,....., +=--oi2,. CÆ.-:-Tr r:....++--T þ ~'.', \ "'" . r--<- '9' ~ . V~E.- ?~IN. ~ IC,:). a<=>~~ A~ (2-- \C).~ i",,¿' ~ =- ( ~YJ) = (I þ- / ') ( \>\' t I -(c.. = 4¡ ~ þs; rLo '"" -a, 02- ß C- P ~ A- c...:L c=> . ':-¡" :; e " 4==:> G:.6 - ~. c:> (=:>C- ./ r ---...,'.,.., r.' ì" ::: --=Ç» -----~ r'.::.. I . I La = .:::::> ...:=::> z.- U...¡ ;:;:> .;:::::>..;;::> -=> b::::' ~ . Ç)..;;::) -::: ,', .::>, PRODUCT 041 iSloa" Shee1s1205.1 ¡Paddeo 12 822 . eL . 1. "? \ , " (I:;.. ~ -.c>': S~. C<:> N c:. ~ ~ t E-iæ:. ~ E. So E A. \)(...I ~ lA.., (£-) Sv..aPt.- . V1:- ~L\.., (E.) TIE~Ck-~ '~ ¿. ) IZ--o~ ~ .~. ~. "- '-.... / "- /-----... ~ GoH C. ~ t:.-N ~ /~ S-t=..Q ~ / '4 / II . L..t 'b14. ~~ I t'+-~ e b-O cC :t "-. \ ~L-, ~ f>e.-f'o~~ S Tk:> T ~ 'Tt..,... ~ c.ov t::.. S. f... ~.\O . I ~L- . -Co. ~ l.c~ ~ ~~.t. ; '""'~ N ~UN t.... AvE-I" v E- ) Ë:.N C. I 1'1 '"ì'-A-.t C-A l,-I ~ k:-f,..i I A. E-"1-' oS. T t N ~ E. A l.k.-A L L, ? " ~ ~C-A..L)é... ~ /1(..11 =- -~ )OIL ¡æncsln¡æï:=tlncs COn)i:=tUCi:IOnllC. I~ PROJECT NAME: ~t:\c.1Z-~ ~ S; ""'e.F-^~ ~ ~t e.. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: ~ TZ4T7 DATE: ~ - 1.-1. -ere:, 1'? Ot" e:, ~ If't .1 OF 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 367-9595 12 (Io2'J ~ , ç("q <;;;." ~('h,~) r I f A--¡ -,. <=p r ~ So E--b.. 'S>~T~1E- uLÆ.A:1: ~ \:..; '< , , .' ÁA . A . Â 'A.' of (t¡ WI I II c:;;;;. "'Tc. c::¡ 't I 't'+k.. ..,... I . - ,/' ' (1' ~ . , r-. ' . , (~c-H~~ I . '-~' , £.:e..C¡¡ A.~£-~~4 e, f ~ (1'4) #4 1C-E..IN~\T 1l~.s~ (';7~) æ,.' 12)' cc., E-lXJ. , , 6. Go" \ 't #~ ~(.....s... ~-'O cc, s.Uv ~ þ~(..l, b. (171""0) IN7- (t:..) ~HC-. t=-.N~'71 ~-~ us L ~)c7- coli:.. Nc:::.~ - ~~INIc::... c,~u-r I ~I( ~~ P'f ~ ) P .,«IrU-I ;- IJL,/ ~?~ Y.j . f-Y-TEA-4~ (t;) 1-.'" ~IA . ~ LA- , I'J ~ I '" 7' <:::I r- A CÆ..,.. , ~L.. c::> . , . . t4 ~ -r-E.. ~ ~ I.) \J" E- t.r ~ p~ I c.o N c..~ 'P'o 1::- ~ i+c:=o ..,. ~ ¿.) A-Vv ~ V "Ti:... ~ c..E- ~ ï - E.I;... ~ N- e...b l' Jê"- I "::t e- -¡-- PLA-~Ì(tAPr of S. ~ T ~ E..::rc...., ::t.) ~IN~~~ c;., ~{,.., \J t ~ ~ ': C:.-, ,,~ . . I ~l. -.S' :; V ~. \ , \ ð. . " -I-.:::>b ~ ~ So : G "=<::> N E..? "TV N (... *- \J E.. N U ~ ) E.-~ C-I N' ~~, c..A.. L..l Foofè:.. ",.U ^ , .s.CALÆ.- '/~"..:.. I - ~'I )OIL iCnGlniCiC~lnG COn)t~UCtIOnlK. IJSJ PROJECT NAME: Cot-\~ ~tA, $v ~ ~ ~ 1> A. \ 1C::... DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: e.ff rz.:b7i DATE: IQ - z..~- ~6 JOB NO: " q6- 05;8 .sift. "oF 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 367-9595 CHECKED BY ~'1ï SCALE 1:..:ft" 4 'ry - ~~S~~~==---==- ...' t" C- .......'7. C ~..~ ... N~T":-'.~ "E.. ._~~. J ~.<::Ä N J~ J-~..~~!E5?~..~..~..~.m.. . . . . . c" SOIL ENGINEERING8 CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Northern California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367-9595 FAX (415) 367-8139 . . ...m.............. . " <:::¡r ~';<.l~ TIt-+- v~~ JOB ~~ N-~T\JH-~ ~ :,. SHEET NO. AUE. I /I tz- -I ~- e¡r¡ DATE I z.. -, \" - '7? CALCULATED BY m .........m ........ ~L.-u r-F ~ttv . .........._m.._...... ......_...m.......'........ . ........hm.m....... . -A:-1E=.. ~Hrlc;.""'t $. Ot=mß~<-A.~(N Ç,[?--')d ..J2..<? ~tm.eëJ:(!7t. ..~\)C..I I ...~.l "I~ç.,<::)'I;Cl.. ~...'?t;-...m._~~~ ...~~~hJ ~..,....~. So s... ' N-'). (~) ..,- l ~ð:_~ .tJ~~(;\.,h.m(1 } ~þ iT I <::I.~ . \.X.¡ .oF .s.IIt'~ TI~~~~"hg:7'?~'f?f..~ J I ~ .~ ,~ ~ ~I-¡- ,...o..~h~(,...E.--e.. 1> ~ {4q 4- ~11c... d.~ J)~~l-re... . ~c..<::::d'+1+A-IS.1" A--ti ~)f "-J~.'fi'7 c...oN ~T~I....I~l~l'--l.:I .Iii c"'.{ .sE:-c.) '.1-) ~ ~ c.. 1:::..~ ~ . l ~ ¡pr¡ I (I z...~f.z... J~Þ- ~ t ¿ -f,\ - <:::J' . . . . . t .. ) 'b \.x.¡') s... I ~S - t:.v L.. T) c::::'r ~~ 1:,") éA4')INf-.ë.-..tIHC) ('b.~~ ../~v4 'bA-~ e,- 04- - l.ør.q¿,.. 'fl~~1 f4f-A.S~ t~/14"11 ~\¡. ~ C-1'v'~ ~') IN t...t:.--t ~ ~ - ~'II ~~ . . I 4.) N A'-.¡ 1 Ìì*1-.1 V A- 'v - N ~ \.IF-A c.... ~ 1-¡ - "ì. t.... . {r"-='v ~ A- T ( c:::>~ ~ ~.. F-~ J'T"f:-v ~'-'~~) . 1. . } ~ ~ <::> t:.. F<=> fè.. '0 It...- : ê.4::::- 1:=... Þ- A (,... +r þ s..c..r,::, t..l1 F-- . . SOIL ENGINEERIN<8 CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Northern California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 JOB bb ~ 'k ~Ï\.-J ~ E. -Þr- v t.. ' SHEET NO. ~ OF II CALCULATED BY ~ DATE I z.. -( \" - ""7 CHECKED BY ¡2..'bh DATE 12. - I\,,"- c,7 ," SCALE .. .."1-~J'~ M -1:.ut.L, T .~ lX,.<)..~ 0 (eÆ.F,.;f .~) .. (~~ r~. .~.....,m ............. ........ . .m,,",'m ~\TI.G)~ ~~ .C)F..,.t~Æ-~.~ ~IT.c:::::>f>.,:)~ '.~f \ {I ...... 'Z -IC) ::r~~r~..t'1-r'?eJ ùUlA.lJ?c-.~~,"",I~ ..... -r-D ~ (1o...J Î70r-l"'J ~ ~ .'t::. '1' ,-",.1 /...--I-g,F=;,I'-,J"'t7. ...... ..~ v.o~ . ~~ IQr (1.~Ac..t::.. \.Y/'. ..~ \.X-I.I~v ~ç:......~p¡"'.I~.. ,... I :: .... I 1'"2- :: -'-1. = £.- 17 e A ~ \ Ie... '4;- b:- ')<:::> k.. ...(-r=-.sy v.::.~)- ( ---r-~ ~ t ~~) { (E- ~ T ~~) < .. .... H tL 1'r~ ~ ~~~I ~~=;: "-l):+~ftj ~= :;~ f~-t . ~> 1- ~ ~ ß'>T-+H... - <.::<".. k.. I /3. ............~ .'/1a~- I í Tz.. ~ ~~ l. - .> I 11 -. ~ì k-. ~<=:>.~'==- ~~5 f '~::;'\J~L ( ""i""\=- ~ I ~-OFf ~Rb. b:=> 7-0 'oj Vo~ -orr l"l -= ooc..(ryo 1.:.) ; ~<==>.c= I<=- t.J Z-E- SllZt ~ S. T, E7 ì z.. ~ °0 G{ q \" l) ; ~~,c= k.. e>f T ( ~ p... Ck:- ~'ÞI TI =~ ~CI\,j(./ <='F- II ~.,LGk:: ~ \X., Ill,., bE.. ~~~ , \I ~f'1"....vK ,".;..~ ~~~ 1=-1'~-Qì¡ f-<=P ~F (I¿j ~. sì;A:VtH-<) 7- "f',A.-4C4 (--e.) I ~~i'~)c. 1"2'--011 Cc:.. Í . If U ~ é- I ~ I';"'. I C¡ C . I ~ I ~ I Uc.-1 ~ fr:C) f:. ~ 7 4t-~~ \..Il....ÞÏ"~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~' -=' '.,J 7 ~ I e: ~~ , A e... ~ c. e: \" i '" z.. (s E;E,... S LF1. /.+) '( , ~ Vb. s-. ~ k ~ Th = 'F¡ =- 1-7 A-c:... -= 1.04. '= Ie... \J s"L,.. iO .j '" -F¡ =- ~ß. r b-. ::> ~<::) ,-= ~ ."'~ . l. , " .. " "~\~.' ;J¡ì'~ ~(.l ~1:~...t;: ,~-: ,..::";;;§~, , :f,':'~~;: "':'~,Gb~:.T U-~~ " ,~': '. 0' ..,' -, ~ ,- :- S i\1. ~ ' -', -", , ¡'_:;'-;",~, ~ ~i.~.~\~!;:";' ~~~ '. .. '- '., " " ~, " , , ------------- ,.' , 0 ,1,:, )0 10 )0 '0 ---------------------------~---- 0 0 0 ,- ,.,' --------------------------------------------------- , , ' , ' . , ' 0 ------------ --------------------------~----------------------------------- 0 -----------1 --------:.::.::=; EXISllNG WALL, ----------~~~~------------------------------------------------ -: " ' :'. , '.~ . f, ,:<- _: ,- :', ',':' ' J ------~-------~~---------7~----------~~----------------------- .. 0 -i----,~----~---~1---~~-~--t-~~-1---~~--~-~~-~~1----~-~-------~---------- .. ' 20 30 40'50 '60,70,809,9 - , . - 00 o..c.., 0" , .. 11 Q too, '120 . - , ", , -' " ""', , ÂS-BUILT (GLOBAL) " . ¡, .. , " , ," . '.' , ','- , SCALE: 1"=20' NoText " . JOB ~ <:) 'N u-r v 1+ E... 4v 2:.- ' 8 OF " Ë::i( DATE /l-I \' - '17 ~ìï DATE~ .. SOIL ENGINEERIN- CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Northl'ri California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367-9595 FAX (415) 367-8139 SHEET NO, CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE .. """""""""""""""""""" . .............. ...................-........... ......... ............. ........... ........ ....-...... ~ n- 'Or -r/~~ """""".........,.. . .. ........ ......."............................... .....................,....... ...................-...... ... """""""""""""""""""""""""'-""'-""", .................................. .... '-"""""""""""'-"'-"""'.........,-...... ... ...:;~~.\-~ ~i;-~~~~ .~ ¡~=~~.:;;~~~~. .. .... . .. ...I~ç..~ Lv~~~ L..-L ...~~T~ . ~T.. <::::I~....T~ ....~ ~Ju ..J_~ '............... ..... ...........'1;.. ){.~f,.s ..9 E....../..j~ -.....6' ..... ('f:!I~,~) """"""""""............. -.............., . ........ Q ... ...... . .. .... ....þ..., ~ ...~ VJOr -rl..~ ~... ._.......'9. F .....f ~..~ \....J ........~r. ......I?...=.~....;.......~~t;-.... ..... , ç~~73~:~:~~:~~:?(:=::) , ~...~ ( y l"+~~ ~ ~i"'+\:...="~ t --= \.J~ E,...:. ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ . ....... . .... .. . '" . .......... ... 'f" "'. ...... f.+..:::.L...ë., 'b l~, ~ IJ == .QI.~.. ...~l ~ . .,.. Q ~ ~ ~ :. 'ï¡-<= '..:=0. '==-... "'" .. . ........... ......... . ....... ............. '; 'h..}<. ~ -oN):. . rn:..E ¡ ~~(;'~ ';",~{;..)~I¡C;06 ~f <~ I z. ~; ... = . \ r ~ .r ~. . 4- - ,q...::r c...o .¡.q- I2-A- c.. I ~ ~ -t C) F II ~ N If-t- '7 It s t.Æ-t<) fl.+. h~L-1ç: T~ .~CAI--='e.. U<.., !\O.b," ~I ~ . J 't)-.:::> . I:=..¡ i s~ c....ov~ '& 1::.... V II C-i ~. (4 ST~~. N- T ~ c... -r <:;) I::-. S' ~ 'it-A-Vt..... .A-1i \C) "p I ~ "'1 (' -0 C, (..C)v ~N.~~ -k;:)NL ~ 11't~~¡"t.. ~vT-S~ ~N-~ . p Ct..¡,¡' '-" ~ Æ c:.;r-v A-"- ......,. ., "'J ":n';' ",--"','- .co, . . -. ...-- " " SOIL ENGINEERIN- CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Northllf California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 JOB bbc:, N. ~ T'-' N Eo Ã- V"E- ' SHEET NO, . OF It f:3"'¡ I I z.. - ( ~ - q'" CALCULATED BY ~ DATE I CHECKED BY e.è1ï DATE I Z - ,~ - ." SCALE - ~ S I Cz~ c:>t= ,I ~ c..t.... \)L..A ~ " ....1) . (...oi-\ c... ~c... - ~ ~ ì - t 1--\ - r LA c...E... . ~'" ,....... ' .~~ ~ 'f'o e:...1f \..J,..~ -A1~c.. - c.-o H CÆ,...~~ ~ .'P~po 'fu :: ,or '\ ,.ob:.... ~ ~".,",.,.~, ~ ~ \ ¡ ., V 't, (~J .It ~r . $.~: h,~ I ç I ~ ~,u"><r/ef:?llki...S'f)t¡ '" d'7~' ~~SJßÆL I -f~ ~4/øoQ<:::Jj='.í r ( <-.:.:: ('6¡ d. = 1~(A-v.J ~~ :: .0. "-.ø i~~( '-!) :... Z r"~ i'1 '- ~ dd . rMl.:::i:eJ\(~ _Å t f¡" ,'-2., 4~ ;",1. (G.~ I:: ~ -,) - . II ~ ~- - - II-Z,3,Ç" '~. &'" (~c..) f- 0.6, (1..#- 0 ~ ~ I) Ie, , ., /7.....,,~: p~ ~¡,¡,/ )::. ~t- k..~'=:') (It) ~ II '7/<= i~- e-¿. ",..,T~ : I.;' 0 .=)t I<~ (17)('¡ - f)J 00'::'£ ¿I., ;""'/6- toSi)(/\"-'})] II ~ c:¡ 2..- lVI-!::... ~ I /(-= ì ~-L , , , O'~I \,..¿;:J ~ I Ç. ~ C1:... - ..0 F- F 0 H L -, { '/"1E- TE-nf=>-=- ~ ~ ~ e b-.o Y= (~= ';./. -= L '. "'-, ,--,-""'- PLA- ~ (b) ~ ")\ {: U , ~c..-t.,. + (I) T e, t:.- \.I ~ L.. iF- 4- ì I L¡ e.. ¥ c.c..:t , A 5 I S- (c¡ð 3 ~/~' (!. <:!. :t. ~~ A.íí4:l-/flJ RE..\l( , ----f-cl~?o°::: .¡ " '~ì"'Uì 2-0" , v",.. > '" ' SOIL ENGINEERINCia CONSTRUCTION, INC. of North"" California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367-8139 JOB (;.'-0 ~ ~Tv ~ ê.. A---v E- ' ... OF (( ~ DATE IZ-I~- q7 ~ 17 DATE I 2. - I '\"- - o,? SHEET NO, CAlCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE - .m..'......, m.......... m --_m --...h""""""" ~. U<::.. ~ ~ k1:... : m""""""""",'........"'h".m ...~w-p.'x. -: .F*...~::- ~~ ..,~ ,.. ......... m...h',,""""""""""""""" .... """"..nh",,,"" . ",,~'~i ~TC~i-~'i( c.-i.:..:t;c)(T~;")(ï~:)~""'i4,'1- L \JuE,L~..4-1' .,.M1:-~t4-.~.. ~ ~.\(d =.9,........" \¡ L.tc;;;. ~ YfA ,\I "1 EVe. ~Ys. . . . . .,........,...,..,.... .., ""m ,.....,...,............... ""', ~ :=~ ~;t'} ~~¿;< ¿,.~ ~ ;z A~rr£T(J¡ .)} gr.-.I::. w .. z.-¿:¡~J Ie- or.l".Í r 1(~~)............. ....:......m.................. .... ~-:~ i~~I:1=-'" (=¿,=;;;)I~~~J . . ~ \' ,-="¡ $ ~ '1 '= C. = :> t ~4,..c.. \" It II .r ~ +'h;:::)~V~) v'i. t:- r =- b ~.~.. . .~ .. ........."""hmm..... .. "'m....'""",, . . ..~.::::a ..'-' ~ ~~ -h,....X ' JfA CAH~ - ~ ~ c:l. =- ry ~ '1 ~::: ' l ('/.I~ ,~"I) . >4-~) ~ e;r~ 6~t-) ~ 'ì" ~ ~ - \c. ~ '2. Lt (~I~, II ~ ¡) :: ",,"-, ( 10 , II) . 12, 'I u13c. - /e:;c:::,4- - ,..-, Z-/- 4-.1 CAfs- C<:... . .) t ~ 12..- -rt ~ T ~ ¡ So - ~ :E-- ~-;:n -= N A-<.... ~) ..,.., f....N .í t <::::I ~ I 'I II L ~ = '" '> I ¡" : . c:::=.>. r:. ' . . to .) ~I~ ~F ~f+.==.e;;;r~~T ~£~ - rï:.~/<:)'N-A-(.. T~ ì'~ 'E;A-J~ Q...l.J ~ " .,. d./'- ~ I "¡/¡ßII = c:>.8~ :::::. <::::).'-r<:> :. ~,1:... U:::..- 1=-0 E- ~ A L.A---N ~ ~ ¡ N t=-o ~ M ( 11 '-L ~ I ~ r (T 10 F P ~ 'Jc) ~ E; . f- Ç:~..E(....) f 'c.. ~ 4-, c:J J:...s. i I - :;::::> C> z.. '6 t- \::> A- r - 2--4- / "" c::> 9 ~ -, , ~": "-J. - (15")(1')') ~ C>~ <::) .") \" f'\::;, == o. ~ z.,( ~ c:>. ~ '9 ':::. 1:::>. >C)C:> :::; 3. ~,l:. , '-.-- ~n", .. --h ., --", . . .. --. .-... " . . ' .0 SOIL ENGINEERINI CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Nort California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 JOB '-'"~ N~Tu H-\,::- A-'V f- . . OF It DATE 12.. -f~ - <::¡7 ~lì DATE--.J2 -I~ --rì SHEET NO. CALCUv. TED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ..................... - ~~ ~A-C1. OF. E Uc-+-~ I ¡ ~ 'ì7<::t \¡ ~ ~,or{~. '. oNL ~UV ~f2- . ...... .. I;' . ... ......... ........................... ... ...."" . ...........-..... .............. .... . .... . ........ ..... ..... . ........ "........ .. .......7\-~....1~ ^{~..~vlv'~... (~, ¿.) ........-. r~~¡ .. ~ II" ~I~ '.~f:/-'O" a~('f!'='!-) ...( A- c.:;r '"" k'\.J , t' p..- CA H ~ (ï l '7 /PT- ~. c....., " ........'-r\~~..~~~¡ J+==-~ 014 ~.. ...~~ y,a..-"T I <=> t::+-'¡ .:::> 'b. E ~ l '7 f..i~ 1:..~/~1 ci(. ...I~ .....~~. ç:.c1t~...~V¡L.T/-E.). ...................... ..Ç",?i\..I.~. 1::a~ ~ E.. .. ~.~ r -. I '-=:I r <=-1 Jt ~,~ . ..... .. J~~::. 0.4 (~, 1.+) . '" v~ l~r~ ::"b.L,('Z-rcf)(/~)~ 48~rs.+, ...~ k-)"'-.o c~ ("t)þ.~) rp~uH<): 466 1'50+ ('='j . "2.( ~ê-Q L~'/i+-' , (.,.~ ,~ ~:::.. ~' 'f.. :- 1 z,(/ø) I . lA I ~ l..J~L ',ib -:. 1.1 ï ~ ~ i (N'C). I. A-~ p~ -A- (ì<:'-) . ~ ~ 11'1 (II ~)l- ": "2 z. z, ì VI ~ ~ z.o ì ¡ <-1 '3. ,. <=:>.1::: . Sh..JÌl"L.'.' b . I . " ì1 """'" y ¿.. '"' "ì ì '" - t:.. :s. \ "(h~) ~~q(~:; ;/-to. .: 1- !..r-Þ~ì :. ~<=:::> ~ ;1;1 . II (i1IN-) ~ C1 ì7, c> F t:. ~ ( t T. p:::::I c...c...,i ( ~ ~ E..~ v ~ I -e... ~ ~~ ¡-~ ':i:.,--, ~(~"-1 ð'-..J 'E-it- ~ ~.,:...7'-+-,~~ Lx-+- ~ . \J~"L'f-c='e.>hV~ * {~~ - "h'C ~ I ~I ~ : iï~...\t - 7,/,~ (¿,l-- qz..(z..) - y.l)(I2-!tI) t-z w--.~ ~ 2- '7 '7 1'1 -L ",:P'j' 'G"""": ,,'a"Vnb' ," - ':e'-"'.'" --" JOB '-'-'-=' H~-rvt-+E- A--v€-. 8 OF If ~ DATE I z... -I~-.::n ~Ï7 DATE 1'2. -I~ - en ~. SOIL ENGINEERINe CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Northern California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 SHEET NO. .' CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE . ......,............................................................ . .. ........... ..._...... ..................................... """""""""""..............................,....... ........................................ - ................. ......................... ................................... .............. ............ ........................................ ... """"""""""""""""""""""" N \C)r -r I £..1!. A c..t:.. ~~; . ....................... ..................-..... ............ ............. .................._....... .................................................... .. ... .......... ....._....... ..... ...... ...............................,..... ............................... ....... ......._. .......... ....... """""""'" """""""""""""""""""""""""" ......... ..._..... ....... .... ...................................................... ... ..................... ...~~.L." . ....:9.~...~.;.. ..............! ~I",....."'T~........~.~.~~ .......':...................................... t ...._............................P....~ ....."...ç:f::?.':':!.T.~~T.~..~.....~......._...~!...7=.f.~.~....:.. ... .. ............. ....._.... .........+~...~,¡(l"5?t~....ç~v ....7~ .... .... ~.E..., ..... .-....... . . ~VI~ ~A-(...\¡~f(~ 'J """"'.'" .. ....................,.... ................... ....... ............... ...... """"".. . ...................... """...........-...... ..........rtHA~~""~h~ ~9....~ . ... ....... "'h"""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""-"""""""""""""""'- ._... !7..-,,:'f: = ...It '7J~.....I~=..L..................... ............. ...................... ......'fìl'-""\)c """""'r.~t- ¡",,-Ie.. ..............................................',..~........................................ .. ... .............;......~ .....;......~..~qt~. =... .....f-. .....~.......~.&Gi.tt7)""'wr:..'-~., =='. '~.........=.=....~')C............~...~~...-==..I'-1 ..........................'t'\~, Ic:-si............................... (i .. ...... ~..y..L ~ -h: ~~l:i-"'~f.. -(~J r: ..... .~~ H-è. t-~ IJ<J 1."E-~ ~ , ( 2-- J .Ç;'. I~ ~..~~ .4.-:.?....~ '¥, )(.,........~~,~.. ì~ .......... .V ~L (;, )J.,X.l .14y .~...~..r)ç~=.4Zr~ ..1.'-1~ 0 Ii=:- (1- c:: Ie::;; 'f '1$, ~ UL-A-~'. ~ ~ ~ q (Æ.. c..::::r «:) ~ .' . r Pi; ~ ;; 4'"?,\:J:;. (')z,IIJ1.. ~ c:>.olr t,-, ~.~. ~ ¿.~ ,--=0;1 C ~ ) A ~')c ¿,ð E...1:. /"fð (Z-c,¡ CQ'Q) ("!./'r ì"w ) ~ "3..\" ¡",4 / ~ . . ~ I .:. ~ 2" II . ~ / ~ '-=:s :. >c:::::', ~ 1/ ~ q):". <= ~ I;.. «t¡.'1., k:- ~ ! -#'1:... ~ : ... 14. '-1 Jt :.. /4. 4 (I~)( ~,tr) ;;~'=..4- k:.. ~ ~"'. ~ ~-¡~ ~It~. \" I::... ,', 'C). b . ,. " ... ." = ~¡, '. ':..:. :-, "." ""'.'We,,,"! .. ."" "c" ;--. :"-ro""'.f':._"" ':02,,':00 ~ , '.' . . SOIL ENGINEERINI CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Nort n California 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 JOB ~~ f'4. ~ Ì\J t+ ~ ~vE... SHEET NO. Ie OF II CALCULATED BY ~ DATE_(z.. -,~-q'7 CHECKED BY ~"'17 DATE Iz. -I~ - "7 SCALE "" "'.....,............. .. """"""""""""""""" -- ,.r <--A-++ L UU ~ -nt - /1h ek.-N I:-.r t ..Y$,,~ ,~..44 , ~"...z,.2-11 . ,"),'~"'~........u.,'" ........,.........,......, ...,....................~ Z' ,',' "..........-....."" '.'""""" """"..."",... "........ ,::::'..,) "F-; I¡::= .......,~:7.. .....~~ ,..g ~ ~~ ,.~~J "'(;f¡ ......,~ .4<::>" ,..", ""0"" """"""', " ..;:..~t = ",(~)"O.~\...'/.....~, Z." ¿ ,< ¿g.~ ,', ~c... ~f 1~ """."" "'~/~~-<:) ~'(~/~+)'"fì ' ...,~ J';"= 1a.~' ~¿ï: ,,' ",t, C-<=b~~J't 1<=~r~~L.J~.~~ ""Ut-C-L~~ -r-........ ,~,7li ~~",~/~N-:~, , .., ""'...., """...... """.. .., ............ ~/~'. ..,..,.......,..,........,.. .., ...."", ,................-........-.. , ,..............""""" ............"""""'" ........ ,.......... , ...."...,........,..,..,.."....,...... ,.....................,-, ..., .... .................,...", . ....... ........................... ~.L, ",. ".Jk-<:.. <: .. , ",J "'~ c:.. a~=C "'2= "it...., J".. " :¡,ç.r~~;~~.t ,," " ....t;\O ¡oo<:::ï'" - '8i~4t( ~'",e:' ",........,."""""'.',, ::: "'G;',~"'/~(.)" ............'", '........, """"........................, """""......".. .. ......, ..." ....... ..,.. .., ~ "T'(..~,~ F> ~ IJt..J ~ ". FL.. v (t;.........1::>¿,. -, ~)<I ~ y. ~Itt II ..,_.....T!.fj:=-~~,¡' ,~ N-T,~g,-"I~, I~~S-...'..I~ lJ~,~""", 'I¿}I,~ "T/rFE-NE.Aè:- E£....l ~~~~..~~'T1f ,e., ú 11'7 ~~" I'ê--A:, ~/L€- s:v-P?-c>~) E~T1.~ oF- ,,:r.I~ 7'\-c-t.... . <;'1:- !('-flr i=-/("~ UUE::-'-'!.~ ~VI\4~ I L.b.. ~I/F-r E.-t+~ p/, '(v" f l.A-1~.c: ,-p-v l\.,- l::..~/4. ,t\-¡ .¡ tf-:,.~ '. o~ C. ~~I.o"'4 1 ... ¡ , b/--O II C c:.. (1ï~)<: , 'C',: P'" ,".,' '~'.'" """-",,:,, , ." . .-", -..'" -'.'é' ':c2" "iè A.. T.' S.F. /(&: ~Þ:" A.A. Œ (~I SO 28) OLD .. t NOTE: eACH SL'B 10 INCLUDES AN UNO INT IN Î'.':,ii..1úN AREA HIGHWt.y 101 ~--.. -"PI"'. -18"7 - - -- - - ";' , I; to: fr.. -. " -- - ,--_.u.u--- I I I . CONON DOC 11- 27785~ NEPTUNE VILLA S PAR I PI\.II'079 2 . OPEN SPACE tsMT, ~ I 'e ') " ~, œ t, . t, GI~G\ '@J =' ..1 ¡;¡ Œ I IIUEY tIi - #- '-C-:. .J I~~ ID + b~'- 7 'It-~.~ N~TV~L. A-vt:- ,. ~ q - ;I.!o - '-:-""-"-" "øJt-.. ENCINITAS .. BEACH COUNTY ~ - -'--1'..q"1i'õt"':--":,,....~ P'-\cI FIe PAR~ "..'7 ~"""~'" "'.I...~ ., "'N;-;..- . -{þ-' .. t ,... -.' ~ ,~ . SIN D I EGO COUNTY USUSO.' S 14" .. ZSI PI 05 "'"~fO '011 ISSnSII/f.., "'.rosn ONLY t ..'0 - O~ðAN '.-'-"..- '-"';i'-'.'~.'~'..- '.-". po -' w. . , . ---.. 258-(:5. ~: J5t¿-c.5 ~ r-IJ : .. ~'\ð' ð~ c.'/~ CHANGES --- . 8LK OLD NEW YIi CUT e!:! -# 141Ij." JU' , It1SI ~; "i 7. aij On""'7 1I'7121n ~ I 2.!I U'Z4 (IS' I "". '1(J~tI õ.s., " " Id Ii ZZ44 os, ," ¡'IN 1"'11 os, 10 co- sri I --!-t-- - --4 ~ . ,~. COt: 8 f\ {"\ ~ 8:z ~S Ie .. :¡.. :::::-C" ,., :..- :~ ~: MAP 1935 - SOUTH COAST PARK NO.3 - BLKS A.G & ~ POR BUS E& \JY Res 11010 .~ C' (T1 ". --.,~", .. . M~-05-98 07:48P Robert Harvanc;k (408)720-0233 SOil ENGINEERING CONSTRIIONI 1He. :ET NO ~ ~. N, 1Þ' V N ~ ~ I . 927 Arsuello Street t,>ß. f- ~ = D REDWOOD CITY, CAUFORNIA 94063 ~LC\JI.ATEDBY v.\ DATE -" \ - -/ ~ (650) 367.9595 CHECKED BY ~"h DATI: 1"" \" .. c:¡ß FAX (650) 367.8139 S~lI, C>b -# g '.; - 61 Z- ~b<::> 'N L-?/V"H L.,.. -kV') E-..-H C r ~ I f-,A-k { C-A l.,1 F--=> t~ (~ .. A L...' '..= ..k'P T' lA C A-ß ~ F..::>t r r;.'O f' [. A...._. TIt. c: A;:::r. C7 ~ L of') b \' ß f..-\ LP' v N L..- A\J. J t.-t.~ c (H I 14 s: I CA . P.02 C.x:d-., lìL""""'T Pl..~ ~ '" [. L>.......J LÀ"'..~:r I~.,...E:..- ß') A-(:..d.'-...1 Î b~ t:.-M ~ t ~ ~ I H c...) I} Ç. I l-A1 {' , I H é... I 'h 1I.-:::rtA~, þ'P r~ , L. Zit t fc.,C::¡b I fA ~ L- ¿ 1"""""¿:t\ c7 t, -A--j>H ¿ (P~ v ß c... 1=1 "74- S' 'f:. <:"-1 I -...:::> '-J ( ~ t r . ~ . 4-. ~) : ,~ v N 1- ^ C. 7,= f~ . ,,~ \ (....( r'/~v-.", E '>' ß.t..-L~S:. 4 ~ It.. L(.v c:L ) {tt-L/t.:....L+--= t~ {'- ~ 'y. f P '" C-1 H c{ u F .f\..J+-ž I"rl:::- t:Ã., 1,...( r 'T -A ~ C ( v L,-.N IN peL"/! --- v~ ~ fr--t-+c-... ì,A p+--~' (' ¡.)~T1c.v(.Aè..{ ') I C, II .;) I~ .4- . I ,) 5.: t+lJ...i..A.. "LI.- ~-:.:. v (I ~ 'F:) ON t... .;A LF ==-;> ..../¿..' ~ J¿.. ~1 í ¿," / ¿. = ::3 3/4 PI . , J -r lA CÆ...-- :: --ttï '^ -e.... -, I~" <;. 14- 4- ~ '3 "ï 4 " c. <:.. ,j: , 1 . ""'.'."""_-""'1- . 8 8 CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C.J. Randle, P.E., President 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A San Marcos, California 92069 Phone: (619) 471-6000 Fax: (619) 736-0185 ----- - ,--'- - _::.." Sepunnber 11,1995 Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 : ! .. L-.----- - ,-. ---.' . l C\~f\' Of [ho:"..~I~~~L: L Subject: Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case #92-137 MUPIEIA Introduction This letter report has been prepared to respond to the review comments prepared by Ernest R. Artim, in a letter dated June 28, 1995 (Reference 1) and review comments prepared by Diane Langager, Associate Planner for the City of Encinitas, in a letter dated August 9, 1995 (Refer- ence 5). Review Comments and Response We have listed the comments from the above listed review letters, with each followed by our response and/or by our clarification. . (From the June 28, 1995 letter) "No permanent irrigation system shall be permitted within 40 feet of the coastal bluff edge." It is our understanding that permanent irrigation systems are not planned within 40 feet of the bluff edge. . (From the June 28, 1995 letter) "The review/report shall certify that the development proposed will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that any proposed structure or facility is expected to be reasonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime without having to propose any shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future." The undersigned certify that the proposed improvements will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that any proposed structure or facility is expected to be .I' 8 (2) 8 reasonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime without having to propose any shore or bluff stabilization to protect the structure in the future. (From the June 28, 1995 letter) "Certification that the structure is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83." The undersigned certify that structure is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83 . (From the August 9, 1995 letter) "Whether at the time of construction of the seawalJ and erosion control structure, the principal structure was imminently threatened, an emergency existed and still exists today whereby the bluff protection is required." It is our opinion that the structure at 656 Neptune Avenue is immediately threatened and that an emergen- cy condition still exists. . (From the August 9, 1995 letter) "Alternatives to the seawalJ and erosion control structure need to be thoroughly analyzed." References 3 and 4 (included in our letter report dated May 30, 1995, Reference 2) analyze alternative mitigation measures. In our opinion, the mitigation measures selected remain valid. . (From the August 9, 1995 letter) "Whether the seawall and erosion control structure are designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on the local shoreline sand supply." In our opinion, the proposed improvements wilJ not have an impact on local shoreline sand supply. . Summary We hope we have adequately addressed the concerns listed in the review by Mr. Ernest R Artim and Ms. Diane Langager. Should there be additional questions and/or concerns please contact us immediately. Attachments: References Distribution: (3) addressee ~D.~ -' , . 8 (3 ) REFERENCES Reports and Letters 1. Artim, E.R., 1995, Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. dated June 28. 2. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1995, Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. Case #92-137 MUPIEIA, dated May 30. 3. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Design Report for Seawall and Bluff Stabilization, 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. dated May 9. 4. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Upper Walls and Slope Configuration, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, dated July 9. 5. Langager, D.S., 1995, Case No. 92-137 MUPIEIA; 656,658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, dated August 9. 'V .~ 8 8 CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CJ. Randle, P.E., President 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A San Marcos, California 92069 Phone: (619) 471-6000 Fax: (619) 736-0185 May 30, 1995 Ms. Diane Langager Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024-3633 JJ, : I A¡':,-';:':-. < . I \ .: ì ~ I..." 0 .' L::_~.-~-~--" .. .~~ Subject: Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case #92-137 MUPIEIA Introduction This letter report is prepared to respond to the review comments prepared by Ernest R. Artim, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultant, in letters dated April 1, 1995 and April 25, 1995. Review Comments and Response Vve have listed the comments from the above listed review letters, with each followed by our response and/or by our clarification. . (From the April 1, 1995 letter) ". . . an as-built report and map are still'required for the site, but might be submitted upon completion of the investigation and repair work by the project engineer." The undersigned registered engineer and certified engineering geolo- gist will be performing inspections of the repair work as needed and will prepare and submit an as-built geotechnical report and map. . (From the April 25, 1995 letter) "The (reviewed) documents are not complete until the entire package of documents have been reviewed by, and the information contained within accepted by, and signed by a certified engineering geologist" This letter is signed by both a soil engineer and an engineering geologist. The signatures indicate that both individuals have reviewed and accepted the reports, letters, and plans prepared for the site included in the attached reference list. . (From the April 25, 1995 letter) "The reviewed documents. . . have not been prepared in conformance with reference I (City of Encinitas MunicipaJ Code, Sections 30.34.020 C ..¡, " 8 8 (2) and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19). The following comments correspond to the individual points of Section D. 1. The cliff geometry and site topography have been described in earlier reports for the site and for adjacent sites, in particular references 13 and 16 (included as Appendix A and B). The referenced descriptions remain valid for the site. 2. Historic, current, and foreseeable cliff erosion for the cliffs in the site vicinity were described in reference 16 (Appendix B). This work remains generally applicable to the site. 3. Geologic conditions are detailed in referenced reports 13 and 16 (Appendix A and B). In our opinion the description of the geologic conditions included in these reports remain valid and applicable. There is some disagreement as to whether the Eocene- age unit underlying the site is Torrey Sandstone or Delmar Formation. The most recent map issued by the California Division of Mines and Geology (reference 15) indicates the unit in the vicinity of the site has been mapped as the Torrey Sandstone. In either case, the lithologic description of the unit is consistent and in our opinion remains valid. 4. Evidence of past or potential landslide conditions was discussed in references 13 and 16 (Appendix A and B) and, in our opinion, remain valid. 5. In our opinion, the proposed construction activity will increase the stability of the site and adjacent areas. 6. Existing ground and surface water conditions were described in references 13, 16, and 6 (Appendix A, B, and C) and these descriptions remain valid: in our opinion. The proposed construction is designed to be free draining, thus precluding buildup of hydrostatic pressure. The sloping soils surfaces are to be seeded and protected. Ongoing maintenance of these slopes is a requirement of the drawings. 7. The potential erodability of the site was described in reference 13 and 16 (Appendix A and B). In our opinion, the proposed construction will help mitigate against future erosion upon completion. 8. The effects of marine erosion on the seacliffs was described in references 13, 16, and 6 (Appendix A, B, and C) and these descriptions remain valid, in our opinion. 9. In our opinion, the site as constructed should be grossly stable based on the effects of a maximum probable seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault zone (as described in reference] 3). A maximum credible earthquake (on the order of Richter magnitude '" ., 8 8 (3) 6.7 on the Rose Canyon fault) may result in local to massive slope failures in the site vicinity and elsewhere along the San Diego County coastline. 10. Other factors that might affect slope stability were discussed in references 13, 16, and 6 (Appendix A, B, and C) and these remain valid, in our opinion. 11. References 11 and 12 include mitigation measures and alternatives (Appendix D and E). In our opinion, the mitigation measures selected remain valid. . Currently acceptable engineering stability analyses (references 10 and 11, Appendix D and F) have been performed for the site, and in our opinion remain valid. Also, the soil parameters included in references 13 and 7 (Appendix A and E) are considered applicable to the anticipated conditions to be encountered during the proposed work. . In general, we certify that the proposed development will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that the proposed structure is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its expected lifetime. It is also our profes- sional opinion that the project has been designed so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. . The documents included on the attached reference list have been reviewed and are con- sidered valid for this project. " ., 8 8 (~) Summary w~ hope we have adequately addressed the çoncerns listed in the review by Ernest R. Artim, Geotechnical and Environmental Comulting. Should there be additional questions and/or concerns please contact us immediately. Charles J. Randle, ltCE 22096 President Attachments: References Distribut:ion: (3) addressee " ., 8 8 (5) REFERENCES Reports and Letters 1. Applied Engineering Group, 1995, Case No. 92-137 MUP/EIA, 656, 650, and 660 Neptune Avenue, dated March 7. 2. Artim, E.R., 1995, Supplemental Review Comments Relative to Geotechnical Information, 656 to 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California (our previous reviews dated 8-28-92, 8-20- 93,11-16-93, and 4-1-95), dated April 25. 3. Artim, E.R., 1995, Supplemental Third Party Review of Geotechnical Report, 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Our previous reviews dated August 28, 1992, August 20, 1993, and November 16, 1993, dated April 1. 4. Artim and Associates, 1992, Third Party Review of Geotechnical Documents Related to 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated August 28. 5. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020, C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91-19. 6. Civil Engineering Consultants, 1993, 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Califor- nia, Artim and Associates letter dtd. 8/28/92, Calif. Coastal Commission letter dtd. 9/2/92, dated June 29. 7. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Test Results for 660 Neptune, Encinitas, California, dated May 11. 8. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Leighton Soils Report-February 1986, ?ubsequent Letters of June 1987 and November 1989, Report #4841180-02, dated June 2. 9. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Response to the City of Encinitas, Municipal Code Section 30.34.020.c.b., Geotechnical Review of 656-658-660 Neptune Avenue, dated July 21. 10. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, California Coastal Commission, Letter to Bob Trettin, 312-452 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, dated November 8. 11. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Design Report for Seawall and Bluff Stabilization, 656, 658, and 660 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated .May 9. 12. First Phase Engineering II, 1992, Upper Walls and Slope Configuration, 656-660 Neptune Avenue, dated July 9. .' 8 8 (6) 13. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1989, Geotechnical Update, Existing Duplex at 656 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California, dated June 21. 14. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1971, Opinion reo Soil Conditions, Proposed Residence between 668 and 680 Neptune Avenue, Lot 19, PTN BLKS E and F, South Coast Park No.3, Leucadia, California, dated February 4. 15. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, Califor- nia, California Division of Mines and Geology, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No.4. 16. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989, Geologic Investigation, 652 Neptune, Leucadia, Cali- fornia, dated August. Plans A. Applied Engineering Group, 1995, Plan View and Elevations, Seawall Repair, Mallen Resi- dence, Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated February 17, one page. B. First Phase Engineering, Inc., 1992, Seawall and Slope Protection, 656 Neptune et aI, Encinitas, California, dated August 4, seven pages. C. First Phase Engineering, Inc., 1992, Cross Sections, Mallen Residence, 656 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated July 7, one page. 8 Appendix A 8 t ¡ , .' 8 Appendix B 8 Project No. 8951305.E01 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE PROmCf DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF STUDIES SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDmONS General Setting General Geologic Setting Geologic Structure Seismic Setting Groundwater Conditions COASTAL CONDmONS Minimum Tide and Still Water Level Beach Profiles and Offshore BaÙ1ymetry Foundation Scour Breaking Wave Height Tsunamis SEACLIFF EROSION General Erosional Characteristics Erosion Rates STABILITY OF THE COASTAL BLUFF Seacliff Rockfalls Bluff Stability CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Seacliff Erosion and Bluff Stability Need for Shoreline Protective Device Preliminary Seawall Design Criteria UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS a/dls4 4dward- Clyde Consliitants C 52 /vé¡?TVYð Fr L6 /,I/.;¿ {; I} Åvc;ú?/ I (98~ NOT"; 14 Jþ: Page No. 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 . 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 Project No. 895130.EOI 4dward. Clyde Consultants GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION 652 NEPTUNE LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This repon presents results of our geologic investigation of the coastal bluff propeny at 652 Neptune, Leucadia, California. The coastal bluffs in this stretch of coastline have experienced local bluff failures and varied rates of erosion. A ponion of the lower bluff below the existing residence has recently sloughed and we understand that it is planned to begin pennitting procedures to construct a seawall to reduce erosion and improve stability of the bluff. The purpose of this investigation was to provide preliminary infonnation regarding coastal, geologic and erosion conditions that affect the site. PROJECf DESCRIPTION Preliminary plans for a new seawall have been prepared by Robert K. Englekirk, Consulting Structural Engineers. The plans indicate a 1O0-foot long, vertical wall supported on a reinforced concrete foundation with H-beam type soldier piles and treated wooden lagging between the piles. The waIl is to be retained by anchors into the sandstone seac1iff. It is also planned to use a treated wood grillage atop the seawall; the grillage will lay back along the lower bluff; the area will be backfilled with sand to c¡;eate a flattened, unifonn slope. SCOPE OF STUDIES A reconnaissance of the area was made by the undersigned geologist in February, May and August 1989. The primary consideration during the reconnaissance was to evaluate geologic conditions as they relate to slope stability and erosion as well as to identify potentially critical areas of erosion. In August, a profile of the bluff was obtained using a level and leveling rod. We have also researched and reviewed historical topographic maps and aerial photos, as well as photographs and previous reports from our coastal bluff studies in the area. a/dls4 -1- Project No. 895130.EOI .dward.CIYde Consultants SITE AI\TD GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS General Setting The property at 652 Neptune is within a residential area and is just south of Daphne Street (Figure 1). The property is occupied by a stucco residence situated atop the bluff. There is a patio area between the west building line and the bluff edge (Figure 2). A wooden stairway leads down to the beach. The overall slope (bluff and seacliff) below the residence is approximately 90 feet high (Figure 3); the bluff slopes down to the top of a near vertical seacliff at an overall inclination of about 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The lower approximate 15 to 20 feet of the slope comprising the bluff (area of recent sloughing) is inclined at about 1/2: 1 to near vertical. The seacliff below 625 Neptune and adjacent properties is about 20 feet high and is relatively straight for several hundred feet along the beach. At the time of our reconnaissance in August, an apparently thin layer of beach sand was present at elevations of about +8 to +9 feet (MLL W) al.ong the base of the seacliff. Vegetation along the upper two-thirds of the bluff is relatively well established, whereas there is relatively sparse plant growth on the steeper portion of the lower bluff. Sprinklers are used intennittently to irrigate vegetated areas on the upper bluff. Drainage features in the patio area have been designed such that surface water from the , patio and house is diverted to the street. General Geologic Settin g The coastal bluffs in Leucadia, like most of the north county coastline expose a wave-cut p]aûorm (or marine terrace) that was eroded by wave action during a Pleistocene high stand of sea level. Although the terrace is believed to have been fomled during a time of relatively high sea level (i.e., interglacial period) about 80,000 to 120,000 years ago, this former sea level was significantly lower than present day sea level. The terrace has been subsequently uplifted to its present elevation by regional tectonic processes. a/dls4 -2- Project No. 89S130Sr8EOI W.ward- Clyde Consultants The marine terrace is important in that it forms the boundary and geologic contact between two geologic units with significantly different erosion characteristics; these geologic units are described below. Delmar Formation This unit forms the seacliff that is exposed along the base of the bluffs below the site and underlies the property at depth. The Delmar Formation in this area generally consists of indurated, locally cemented sandstone which extends, both north and south of the site for several thousand feet. The sandstone extends seaward (beneath the beach sand cover) as a relatively flat ledge. Although the sandstone is locally fractured, it is relatively resistant to wave erosion; hence the Delmar Formation typically forms a low, vertical cliff along the base of the bluff. Pleistocene TelTaCe Deposits These materials overlie the Delmar Formation and were deposited upon the wave-cut platform. The upper slopes of the bluff, generally above 20 feet in elevation, consist of medium dense to dense silty to clean fine sand. The terrace sands are relatively homogeneous materials and are typically friable. The terrace sands comprising the lower portion of the bluff are cross-bedded and somewhat more soft and friable than the upper , bluff. Geologic Stmcture The Delmar Formation along the seac1iff several hundred feet north and south of the stairway area is relatively massive. At areas further north and south, fractures and faults in the seac1iff are near vertical and are typically oriented roughly parallel to slightly oblique to the seacliff. The exposed sandstone seacliff immediately below the project area is not extensively fractured; Although there are localized overhanginglledge areas of the seacliff toe that do not appear to be influenced by fractures. Bedding in the Delmar Formation a/dls4 -3- Project No. 89513058JEOl vedward.Clyde Consultants appears to be inclined to the southwest at about 2 to 3 degrees from horizontal. The contact between the Delmar Formation and overlying Pleistocene sand is typically relatively flat- lying. Seismic Setting Within about a 50 mile radius of the site, there are several major fault zones that are capable of producing a moderate to large magnitude earthquake which in turn could produce significant levels of ground shaking within the design life of the structure. The offshore portion of the Rose Canyon fault zone is mapped about 2 miles west of Leucadia. More distant fault zones include the Coronado Bank and Elsinore fault zones which are mapped about 16 miles west and 28 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The potential for earthquake ground motions in the Leucadia area is not significantly different than virtually all of coastal San Diego County. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater appears to be perched upon the Delmar Formation; this condition is common along the north county coastline. At the time of our studies, groundwater seepage was observed along and at the terrace contact below and at areas north and south of the project area. The groundwater does not appear to be entirely confined to the Ple~stocene sand in that flowing groundwater was observed along fracture planes and groundwater seepage wet areas are present in the sandstone comprising the Delmar Formation. Within the setting of the site, groundwater conditions likely vary seasonally. Groundwater can have the effect of reducing the strength of the seacliff materials and can contribute to the coastal erosion process. It is probable that groundwater effects may have contributed to localized blockfalls at various areas along this stretch of coast. The source of the groundwater is thought to be primarily surface water from rainfall and irrigation that percolates through the pem1cable terrace sands. When the groundwater reaches the relatively impermeable Delmar Formation, it flows laterally along the seaward sloping contact until it reaches the bluff face. A line of vegetation typically grows at this a/dls4 -4- Project No. 895l305aEOl V4Þdward.Clyde Consultants point on the bluff. . In the Leucadia area, this vegetation line is apparent on 1929 aerial photographs suggesting that similar groundwater conditions may have existed prior to development of coastal areas. There have also been suggestions that groundwater levels have locally fluctuated. Anomalously high water levels are believed to have contributed to historic bluff failures and blockfalls. However, there are not sufficient data, in our opinion, upon which to quantify apparent trends in groundwater conditions on a regional or site specific basis. COASTALCONDD10NS Minimum Tide and Still Water Level Based on records from 1925-1953 and 1956-1970, the Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Protection Manual (SPM) gives a minimum observed water level at La Jolla of +7.6 feet above MLL W. Tidal predictions for this area are based on daily predi~tions for San Diego. The corrections to the high water predictions are 0.90 for La Jolla, and 0.91 for San Clemente, north of Leucadia, implying that conditions at La Jolla are fairly representative of those at Leucadia. Flick and Cayan (1984) have examined extreme high water levels at San Diego, including the 1982-83 winter, which included high astronomical tides, meteorological effects associated with the many storms, and the extreme effects of EI Nino. The highest recorded level at San Diego was +8.5 feet in late January, 1983. This was nearly a foot above the predicted level. Applying the correction for La Jolla - San Clemente gives a value of 0.91 x 8.5 = +7.74 feet for the site. Adding an allowance for 0.35 feet sea level rise in 50 year~, and 0.5 feet for local wave set-ups in the subject area, gives the following Design Still Water Level: Maximum Observed Tide 7.74 feet MLLW (Mean Low Low Water) Sea Level Rise Local Wave Set-Up .35 .50 a/dJs4 -5- Project No. 895130.E01 .dward.Clyde Consultants Design StillWater Level or approximately 8.59 8.6 feet MLLW (or 5.7 feet NGYD) (National Geodetic YeI1ical Datum) NOTE: In the calculations, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), the datum for both nautical charts and tide tables, is taken as the veI1ical datum. The National Geodetic YeI1ical Datum (NGYD), fonnerly known as Mean Sea Level datum of 1929, which is generally used for onshore topographic maps, is approximately 2.9 feet above MLLW. Beach Promes and Offshore Bathymetry Near-shore profiles made by the Anny Corps of Engineers in 1983 and 1984 in the general site area indicate that typical beach inclinations (from approximately 30 to 150 feet from the seacliff) range from about 10: 1 to 15: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The thickness of the beach sand in this zone generally varies about 4 feet from winter to summer conditions (low in the winter to high in the summer); larger variations may be expected after large winter stonns. Bedrock may be exposed at low tide from the toe of the seac1iff to 50 to 100 feet offshore during the winter. Based on the Anny Corps of Engineers work and published charts, the offshore bottom (beyond about 500 feet) has an average inclination of about 50: 1 with local variations. During the winter, sand is typically moved into a benn approximately 300 to 500 feet off shore from the seacliff; this sand is generally moved back onto the beach in the summer. Foundation Scour There is not good documentation on the rate of bedrock scour for foundations extended into the Delmar Formation along the subject beach area. In our previous studies near Grandview Avenue in Leucadia, we observed that scour adjacent to existing stairway foundations has been less than 1 foot during the past 10 to 15 years. Based on this information, it appears that a scour rate of about 1/2 to 1 inch per year might be a reasonable estimate. Therefore, it is estimated that the foundation scour for a 50- to 75- year life would be approximately 2 to 4 feet. a/dls4 -6- Project No. 895130aEO1 vedward.Clyde Consultants Breaking Wave Height The breaking wave height at the base of the seacliff will depend upon the beach inclination, design scour depth and the maximum still water level. Based on the above information, it is estimated that the maximum design depth of water at the base of the foundations will be approximately 8 feet and the maximum breaking wave height will be approximately 7 to 9 feet. It is further estimated that for the design conditions the crest of the breaking wave would be at an approximate elevation of + 14 to + 16 feet (MLL W). Tsunamis Although tsunamis, or seismic sea waves, have historically produced major water level fluctuations along the Pacific coast, they occur rarely, and are assumed not to coincide with both a severe stann and a high tide level. They are generally not considered a major threat to coastal structures in the San Diego area. In the remote event that such a coincidence occurs, some damage to the seawall can be expected. The OCCUITence of a tsunamis is typically not considered for design of seawalls in the San Diego area. SEACLIFF EROSION General Erosional Characteristics The profile of the lower, near vertical seac1iff and the more gently sloping upper bluff along this stretch of coast reflects the contrast in strength and resistance between the Eocene sandstone and Pleistocene sand. Owing to its age and depositional characteristics, the sediment comprising the Delmar Formation is indurated and comparatively quite strong such that erosion of this material tends to proceed at a relatively slow rate. However, the presence of fractures and small faults tend to greatly accelerate the marine erosion process. Historically, blockfalls effecting the seac1iff have tended to be the dominant marine erosion process at nearby areas. For example, slab-like blockfalls damaged the public beach access stairway at Grandview Street during the severe stom1S of 1983. A number of recent localized blockfalls were also observed after the January 1988 storm. Because the sandstonc along the seacliffs bclow the propcrty is not extensively fractured, blockfalls in a/dls4 -7- Project No. 895130aEOl v8dward- Clyde Consultants the area may generally tend to be thin relative to their length parallel to the seacliff. Past blockfalls in nearby areas have generally tended to consist of the spalling or collapsing of semi-rectangular blocks of sandstone that tend to range up to about 2 to 6 feet thick. The configuration of past blocks that have collapsed appears to be influenced by the orientation of the dominant fractures in the area which generally consists of near vertical fracture planes that trend roughly parallel to the seacliff. However, based or our observations made after the January 1988 storm, it also appears that blockfalls can occur in portions of the seacliff that were not previously affected by such fractures. Blockfalls also tend to occur where the toe of the seac1iff is partially undercut In the seacliff below 652 Neptune, some localized overhanging areas and ledges have developed. The undercut portions of the seacliff are largely created by wave erosion and abrasion by cobble along the toe of the seacliff which produces local arch-like overhanging areas. The development of undercut portions of the seacliff are significant in that they appear to weaken the sandstone in the upper ponion of the seac1iff. Close observation of the surface of the seac1iff, particularly in areas where an "overhang" is present, suggests that tension cracks or incipient fractures may develop in areas of previously unfractured sandstone. The tension cracks may develop at depths several feet back from the cliff face. On the surface of the subject cliff fall, tension cracks were observed that upper relatively discontinuous and locally contain seeping groundwater. It is apparent that the coastal processes that lead to blockfalls along the seacliffs in the area are continuing, therefore, future blockfalls are likely to occur. The upper bluffs in the area apparently have not been significantly affected by wave erosion. However, the Pleistocene sands are generally friable and lack cohesion such that exposures of the sand tend to be only marginally stable as relatively steep faces. A future blockfall in the Delmar Formation sandstone could further undem1ine and remove support from the terrace sands. Commonly, the terrace sands in this situation tend to slough back to a flatter slope inclination, and it appears that recently, several relatively shallow slope failures have occurred along the upper bluff below the property and in the general area. In late April of this year, there was a large bluff failure that undermined a residence located several lots north of 652 Neptune. a/dls4 -8- Project No. 89513058,E01 vedward- Clyde Consultants Erosion Rates Based on our observations, it is our opinion that seacliff erosion is continuing to occur in the subject area. Seacliff erosion rates are episodic and generally tend to reflect oceanographic and climatic conditions that can very dramatically from year to year. Using the data developed in previous nearby coastal studies in Leucadia, annual seacliff erosion rates at the teITace sandslDelmar Fonnation contact in the vicinity of the site are estimated to be about 2 to 6 inches per year. Based on this rate, it can be estimated that that two or three blockfalls may have occurred at this general area during the past several decades. Review of seacliff base erosion data in publications by Lee, et al. (1976) and Artim (1985) indicate that the average seacliff base erosion in this area from approximately 1970 to 1985 was approximately I/2-inch per year. STABILITY OF THE COASTAL BLUFF Seacliff BJockfalls The base of the seacliff (below approximate elevation +25 feet (MLLW)) is composed of sandstone which in our opinion is not subject to deep-seated slope failures. The material is subject to recession (as discussed above) and blockfalls due to base erosion, groundwater effects and wave action. Blockfalls may occur at any time of the year, and have locally been observed at nearby areas to include relatively large portions of the seacliff; such falls in nearby areas have been 2 to 6 feet thick, 10 to 15 feet high and 30 to over 100 feet long. The broken material deposited from blockfalls is generally removed by high tides and waves over a period of time. a/dls4 -9- . . Project No. 89Sl30sAEOl .dward. Clyde Consultants Bluff Stabilitv The upper portion of the bluff is composed of terrace sands. The terrace slope is approximately 70 feet high and has an average inclination of approximately 45". This slope is subject to erosion and sloughing due to water run-off, rain, wind and erosion at the base of the seacliff. The slope may also be subject to a deep failure. At present, we have not perfonned stability analyses of the terrace sand portion of the slope. Our previous analyses for nearby coastal sites suggest that the terrace sands are generally considered stable under present conditions, but may have safety factors against future instability that are less than 1.5. The most likely change in conditions that could contribute to instability is continued erosion at the seac1iff associated with some increase in the groundwater level. Seismic ground motions could also cause slope instability. It is estimated that the general area may have experienced ground motions on the order of 0.1 g during the 1986 earthquake about 30 miles off Oceanside (ML = 5.3) without any significant upper bluff slope failures. A large magnitude earthquake (0.2g or larger) near the coast would likely cause relatively widespread bluff failures along the coastline. As indicated by the recent slope sloughing and over steepened area along the lower portion of the bluff, it is apparent that the terrace sands at the subject site are continuing to erode and may have a tendency to eventually flatten back to a more stable slope inclination. The rate at which the terrace sand slope will tend to flatten is difficult tó predict and is influenced by the above mentioned conditions. The stability of those sands is also greatly influenced by rainfall, surface runoff and landscape irrigation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA DONS The conclusions and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based on infonnation provided to us, results of our field reconnaissance, analyses of photographs and topographic maps, review of literature, our experience in the area and professional judgement. a/dls4 -10- 0 ' Project No. 895130.JEOI .dward.Clyde Con! Seac1iff Erosion and muff Stabilitv Based on the results of our study, it is estimated that during an assumed 50- to 75-year Structure life, erosion of the lower seac1iff may result in a recession of the seacliff of approximately 10 to 25 feet. It is our opinion that this recession is most likely to occur as slow continuous erosion at the base and then blockfalls; the location and dimensions of future blockfalls cannot be evaluated with confidence. The blockfalls will in turn undermine the toe of the terrace sands at the bedrock/sand content. It is estimated that these sands will in turn slough back from the contact (at about elevation 20 feet) to an approximate inclination of 1: 1 or slightly flatter (horizontal to vertical). It is likely that the bluff above the recently sloughed area may continue to erode or slough back and may eventually undermine the blufftop residence. It should also be anticipated that some erosion of the upper bluff may also occur due to surface water runoff, human traffic and animal burrowing. Need for Shore1ine Protection Device The rate of continuing erosion is difficult to predict and coastal erosion is known to be episodic. It is possible that a strong storm, earthquake shaking and/or change in groundwater condition could accelerate the erosion process. Because there is evidence of continuing seacliff erosion and the lower portion of the bluff is continuing to slough, it is our opinion that there is an immediately need to protect the seacIiff from further erosion and to improve the stability of the teITaCe sands. The existing residence and patio are relatively near the top of the bluff (within 5 to 15 feet) and may be subject to possible undermining and damage within a few years or possibly sooner. It is our opinion that a properly designed and constructed seawall would significantly reduce the rate of wave erosion which would in turn reduce the potential for bluff failures which could eventually endanger the house. Other than a protective wood gridwork placed on the face of the lower bluff, no new foundations nor retaining structures are proposed on the upper bluff. Therefore, provided that construction activities are carefully planned and staged, the proposed seawall design is not likely to create nor a/dls4 -11- . , Project No. 895l305~EOl .ward- Clyde Consultants contribute to additional bluff instability. Although the proposed seawall will likely reduce continue sloughing and erosion at the lower portion of the bluff, the wall design may not significantly improve the gross, overall stability of the bluff. In other words, the overall bluff above the seawall and wood grid work/sand backfill may still have factors of safety against slope failure that are less than 1.5. The potential for various modes of slope failure will be evaluated in a forthcoming geotechnical investigation. Preliminary Seawall Design Criteria The following design criteria are presented for preliminary design of the seawall: a/dls4 . The foundation for the seawall at the base of the seac1iff should extend to a minimum elevation zero (MLL W) or a minimum depth of 4 feet into bedrock, whichever is deeper. . The seawall should be placed as close to the seac1iff as feasible. . To reduce sloughing and improve stability along the bluff, it is planned to use a wood grillage atop the seawall that will lay back against the lower bluff and be backfilled with sand in order to protect the area of recent slope sloughing. In order to provide an area for construction of ,this grillage and backfill, the top of the wall should extend to an approximate elevation of + 35 feet (MLL W) or above. . The seawall should be designed for an active earth pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf from the top of the wall down to an elevation of +20 feet (MLLW) and for a unifoffi1 pressure of 25 psf from elevation +20 feet down to the bottom of the wall. . The wall should be provided with a back drainage system and/or weep holes to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. -12- . . Project No. 89513050801 W08ward. Clyde Consultants Seawall anchors drilled and anchored into the Delmar sandstone should be designed for an allowable friction value of 750 psf. This friction should be used only on that portion of the anchor that extend beyond a line extending up from the bottom of the wall at an angle of 50 degrees with the horizontal. Anchors should extend down into the sandstone at an angle of approximately 10 to 15 degrees down from the horizontal. It should be emphasized that these recommendations are preliminary for conceptual design only. Final recommendations will be provided when better topographic and geotechnical data are available. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMlTATIONS It should be recognized that there are inherent risks in all coastal residential structures such as th.e subject site. Future climatic changes are possible and are difficult to predict. We have observed only a very small portion of the pertinent geologic and groundwater conditions. The recommendations made herein are based on the assumption that site conditions do not deviate appreciably from those assumed for this study. We recommend that Woodward-Clyde Consultants perform a supplemental geotechnical investigation and review the final seawall plans. We further recommend that Woodward-Clyde Consultants . observe the foundation excavations and the installation of tie backs to verify that site conditions are as anticipated or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. This report is intended for preliminary design purposes only and may not be sufficient for final plans or to prepare an accurate bid. California, including San Diego, is an area of high seismic risk. It is generally considered economically unfeasible to build a totally earthquake-resistant project; it is, therefore, possible that a large or nearby earthquake could cause damage at the site. Coastal and geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our aJdls4 -13- . , Project No. 895130&EOl .dward- Clyde Consultants understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet current professional standards; we do not guarantee the perfonnance of the project in any respect. This finn does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we can not be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; 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. a/dls4 . -14- .. DRAWN BY: RJP ~ ~ I t 1/2 0 1 MilE GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 652 NEPTUNE - lOCATION MAP CHECKED BY:¡t¡,¡.. PROJECT NO: 89513050-GEO1 DATE: 8-21-89 FIGURE NO: 1 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1-- A SANDY BEACH -1-- ~....~..-~ ,,~r' R. WOOD F~NC~ PICNIC AREA .. WOOD STAIR-WAY~ Æ o. -." . " -. BBa PIT ~ BUTTRESS A' Nil. -- .- 652 NEPTUNE - SITE PLAN . . 0 ,"'. BUTTRESS WOOD DECK HOUSE 1652 NEPTUNE) BRICK WALL ,...-- -." ENTRY GATE - . - 'i > . ..J CI . In C CI . :E - . . u. z . 0 ¡:: SO < > UJ ..J UJ UJ ~ '0 :E ð a: a.. a.. < 30 70 60 20 10 100 ~---_._.- I 90 80 APPROXIMATE J RECENT SLOUGHIN V SEACLIFF BEACH SAND :_~'..:"<:'~':~ ':",'~~::.:: . ""',;- '. , ' " '~", \/' ". ':'>' ,. '¡ , ,.", 7t)"t --... ---- ... --..-----,. -~ / / DELMAR FORMATION (sandstone) 652 NEP TUNE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A. ~ 1552 NEPTUNE TERRACE DEPOSITS .' " 8 . , Appendix C . 8 - . 8 Appendix D 8 -11 -, , 8 " Appendix E . , . " 8 ." Appendix F . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tlPPLIED ENGINEERING GROUP 8 r.n.M17 avrL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C. J. Rudie, P.E., Presldeat 619 So. Vulcan Aftllue, Suite 20'7 Eaduitaø, Califoruia 92024 Phone: <619) 944-4115 Fa: <619) 634-2401 MWCh7, 1995 City of Encinitas Planning Department Attn: Ms. Diane Langager Associate Planner 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 I~ rr? ,,- 0 ~ I c:. ! i; r¡ no r r; ;","" ì iJl l.V L.!; L I'i is.' í~ I ~ L ¡ " \ I U i MAR 08 1995 ~ ENGINE- C.t:RING SERVICES lry OF ENC/NIT AS '-,. Subject: , Case 0.92-137 MUP EIA /) 656, nd 660 ~Ave. Dear Ms. Langager: This information is being presented to clarify circumstances which have lead to what is now considered a delay in response to the January 12, 1995 Planning Commission extension of subject case. As the project design engineer, my task was understood to singularly address the condition of the upper wall system. At no time was I retained to provide the rather extensive reviews you outlined in your correspondence dated February 1, 1995. I did not imply any further involvement beyond a manner of repair; at no time did I consider addressing third party reviews of Geotechnical and Landscape reports and associated plans. It seems reasonable that the geotechnical certification of the completed works will address the geotechnical condition of the site. This final (as-built) certification will incorporate the numerous reports by others who have been involved with the development of this project. Additionally, the then responsible Registered Engineering Geologist, Andrew Farkas, addressed (in part) the August 20, 1993 third party review by Mr. Artim, CEG. Unfortunately, Mr. Farkas has passed away. In this light I herein request an extension to allow for the retention of a new Certified Engineering Geologist. The length of this extension should reasonably be on the order of at least 8 weeks to allow the geologist adequate time to become familiar with the project. The geologist will be involved in the completion of the project and participate in documenting the complete construction works. N.C.E.E. #4170 . CA RC.E. #0-22098 . AZ RC.E. #11971 . NV RC.E. #3037 . WA C.E. #10776 avll, STRJC'TURAl. AND 8OIlS ENGINEERING . GEOlOGY 88UR\/EY . CERTFIED NIPECT1ON 89OIl AND MATEAAl TESTING . FEASlBIUTY 81UDIE9 . OONTAACT MANAGEMENT I I I I I I I I I , I f I I I t I I I 8 8 Ms. Diane Langager March 7, 1995 Page 2 Landscape expertise is beyond my purview. Apparently, the original Landscape Architect was dismissed. The applicable third party review is, for all intents and purposes, moot. The new Landscape Architect should initiate plans for approval. However, this essentially is an exercise in municipal overkill. The slopes at this site currently have an apparent natural ground cover which is functioning to resist erosion due to rainfall and natural bluff erosion associated with prevailing wind forces. Essentially, common sense may best be served by a prompt extension of the emergency provisions which allow the project to go forward without the time consuming 92-137 MUP/EIA process. The recent rains have created devastating impacts throughout Southern California, and more specifically at the Encinitas bluffs (Oakley/Klinck block falQ and the two fatalities at nearby Torrey Pines Beach. The upper wall at 656, 650 and 660 Neptune is not safe; there has been excessive subsidence behind the wall and beneath the foundation of 660 Neptune. Fortunately, the site is protected by a visqueen cover. This has minimized extensive moisture intrusion. Based on the above outlined considerations (i.e. new geologist and new landscape architect) and a very real consideration of the recent emergency conditions relative to the unusually heavy rains, I herein request that the project be permitted. Geotechnical constraints are in effect past tense and the landscape considerations have been the result of the growth of natural plants in combination with adjacent plant "volunteers" across the bluff face and property lines. In summary, the wall design, calculations and construction plans have been previously approved. The proposed upper wall repair (which was submitted February 27, 1995) will be made a part of these original plans. A set of the plans with calculations are included, under separate cover. Encinitas Municipal Code Section 3O.34.020(C) and (0) will be satisfied by the participation of a Certified Engineering Geologist. This indMdual will be signature to the "As-Built" Certification. Modifications relate only to the completion of the project with current tests and reports which will update the upper wall stability. This will also include the method of repair (recompacted and stabilized) of the foundation system at 660 Neptune. Landscape considerations reasonably should address the current ground cover and various shrubs, bushes and trees which currently can be seen at the site. In closing, please consider the above in the spirit of cooperation. At no time will the City not have control ofthe Planning and Engineering process. The variances in procedure may again be justified in light of the emergency conditions. The upper portion of the site is not stable and the forecast of continued rains is significant and may create considerable damage to the properties, not withstanding a loss of lateral support to the adjacent properties (Englekirk and Schnoeblln) . Please contact me for any clarification of this brief message. I wish to thank you and the City in advance for your favorable review of the request Sincerely, b APPU 'h.N INEERING ..GRO . d,ß Chari s J. Randle, ~ £- RCE 22096 Vice President I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I 8 Ms. Diane Langager March 7, 1995 Page 3 ce. Mr. Alan Archbold, City Engineer Mr. Hans Jensen, Sr. Civil Engineer Mr. Bill Weedman, City Planner Mr. Bill Blatchley Mr. Richard Bourgault Mr. Jim Malen Mr. Jerald White 8 .II Clv.. ENGINEEIU~~ CO~SULTANT. C. J. Rundle, I.E., I'rc51dcnt 619 So. Vnlcnn Avelluc, Suite 107 EncinilaL'I, CulifClrlliu 92024 I'hollc: (619) 944-4124 Fllx: (619) 942-6043 June 29,1993 The Trettin Company 12785 Amaranth street San Diego, Ca 92129 Attention: Mr. Bob Trettin Reference: 656, 658 and 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA Artim & Associates letter dtd. 8/28/92 Calif. Coastal Commission letter dtd. 9/2/92 Gentlemen: We have been asked to comment on the referenced letters to facilitate issuing a Coastal permit for repairs on the referenced property. This report will comment on both letters to ensure all parties receive the same information. As you know, this work was ini tiated ,on an emergency basis. Accordingly, numerous drawings, soils reports, calculations and other documentation were previously provided as developed. This report will assemble certain data to respond to the questions in the referenced letters. The following responses are identified according to the paragraphs in the referenceå letters. Third Party Review Letter - Artim & Associates - 8/28/1992-P.3 A. The proposed development will enhance the stability af the bluff and will not endanger life or property. Prior to this restoration the bluff was constantly caving and, in reality, was a disaster zone. B. The project has been designed and located to substantially increase the geologic stabi I i ty of the bl uff by anchoring the surface well back into the embankment. C.1. The maximum credible earthquake, emanating from Rose Canyon, is not expected to exceed 6.5 on the Richter Scale. The design selected intends to make the structural improvements more of a composite of the natural bluff through the use of deep tiebacks. Earthquake stresses will however occur in the structure; a factor of safety of 1.5 has been added to the normal 1.33 earthquake stress value allowance. N,C,CE. #1\170 . CA [I,C,E. #C.220!!0 . AZ I1.C.[. IIll!!71 . NV n.c,[. #3037 . WA C.L #10770 CI IL. STnllCTUIIAL. AND SOILS £NGINrrnmO . "£OLOGY . SUIIV£Y . crnTlneD INSrCCTlON . SOIL AlIO MATCOIAL TeSTING' rEASlI1lLITY STUDIES' CONTnACT MANAC£M£I¡T 8 8 , The Trettin Company June 29, 1993 Page Two C.2. The underlying soil materials are Eocene Torrey sandstone. C.3. The construction will not impact the stability of the site and the adjacent areas. Walls exist on each side of the construction area. These walls would be more vulnerable to erosion without the addition of the new wall. C. 4. Ground and surface water condi tons at the si te have been considered. The seventy feet of marine sand overlying the Torrey Formation are qui te permeabl e. It is not unusual to see water running through these materials after rainfall or irrigation. The new walls are constructed to be free-draining, thus precl uding buildup of hydrostatic pressure. The sloping soils surfaces are to be seeded and protected. Ongoing maintenance of these slopes is a requirement of the drawings. C. 5. Other factors affecting slope stabi 1 i ty would be ongoing scour at the base of the wall'as well as scour on the concrete itself. Inspection and maintenance will be required as indicated on the drawings. C.6. A number of alternate solutions have been considered. enclosed previously submitted reports and drawings. See D. The soil stability analyses used include Rankine and Coulomb studies based on soil tests obtained from indigenous and imported backfill. Slip circles were also developed to find the vari'ous factors of safety for deeper and deeper failures. Previously submitted drawings and reports are included herein. E. See preceding. F. ~ee preceding. F.l. See preceding. F.2. See preceding. F.3. The construction materials have been selected to provide maximum life. A fifty year or seventy-five year life is reasanabl~ praviding inspection and maintenance procedures are performed as directed by the drawings. G. See preceding H. A certified Engineering Geologist (James Evans, CEG 974) is currently completing his review of this project. The Trettin Company June 29,1993 Page Three .. - California Coastal Commission letter of September 2. 1992 Item a). The final plans for landscaping/irrigation and drainage for the upper and intermediate slopes have not been developed by our office. Item b). A previously submitted design report (copy enclosed) indicates the design wave height to be as follows: 7 foot tide, 2 foot storm surge and 12 foot seas. A reasonable wall height for these shores is twenty-two feet (22'). The actual wall height for any project depends upon a number of factors beyond the scope of this letter as well as a cost/benefit consideration. The existing wall is thirty-five feet (35') high and in no danger of being overtopped. Maintenance should precl ude danger due to scour at the base. Interestingly, the base of this cliff had scoured laterally twenty-two feet (22') in the fifteen months prior to installation of the wall. . Item c). Al ternati ve designs have been previously presented in both reports and drawings (see enclosed). Item d). This seawall should well withstand storms comparable to the winter of 1982-83. I tern e). See above. Item f). Maintenance and inspection requirements are indicated on the drawings. I tern g). office. Appendix B of the application does not apply to this It has always been our intent to keep all parties fully informed of the design considerations as the work progressed. In addition to the previously transmitted material cited above, we suggest that the entire file be reviewed. Also, we have participated in the design of similar walls on eight other contiguous properties. Comments pertinent to these other properties also apply to this constructian. 8 ROFESSIONAL REGISTER INSPECTIONS. INC. 89SConv6y Court 115 an Diego. Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: /+962 OB: RETAINING WALL -/'-. DDRESS: 678 NEPTUNE AVENUE WNER: CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. LIENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. ENGINEER: RCHITECT: BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS NSPECTOR: DALE REGLI PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: IELD AMPLE OF: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: LAST 28"X 30'X 6' SECTION IX NO.: 675P MADE BY: DALE REGLI ROPORTIONS: 7 1/2 SACK SLUMP: 5" DMIXTURE: DATE MADE: 12/28/92 YPE OF CEMENT: DATE RECEIVED: 12/29/92 ONC. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: ICKET NO.: 6732366 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS PECIMEN MARKINGS: 93382 93383 933Bh ATE TESTED: 1/0h 1/25 1/25 REA-SQ.IN. : 28.28 28.28 28.28 LTIMATE LOAD-LBS: 87500 1325ûO 136000 NIT STRESS-LBS: : 3100 : 1+690 : /,880 PECIFIED STRENGTH T 28 DAYS-PSI: 3500 ISTRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS t'~~/41 ENGINEER 8 'ROFESSIONAL REGISTER INSPECTIONS. INC, 895 Convoy Court 115 ~~n Di~go, C~- 92111 8 .JOf. NO. :'; lt962 '-'I OB: RETAINING WALL ODRESS: 670 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. 'LIENT~ GILHOLM~STEVENS CON5TR. ENGIN€ER~ RCHITECT: 8l0G AUTH~ CITY OF ENCINITAS NSPECTOR: DALE REGLI PERHIT NO.: PLAN FILE: IELD AMPLE OF~ CONCRETE lOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN ,JOB OR STRIJCTtlRE~ L.6.ST 2811)( 301)( 61 SECTION 1 X NO - : 615P H..DE BY: DALE RHìLI 'ROPORTIONS: "7 1/"') "';Ar'v to 0 0' 1'. SLIJMP: 511 OA TE ".6.DE ~ 12/28/92 VF'E OF CEMENT ~ OATE RECEIVEO~ 12/29/92 ONC- 5UPPlIER~ ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOIJRCE OF ROCK~ ICKET NO. ~ 6132366 INSf:'ECTOR SlGN~ l.6BORATORV TEST DATA 1 DAVS 14 DAVS .6.TE TESTED: 1 /Ol~ 28 DAVS 28 D.6. VS 93393 9339/+ 1/25 1/25 28.20 28.20 PECIMEN MARKINGS: 93382 RE.6.-SQ. HL: 28.28 LTIMATE lOAD-l8S: 81500 NITSTRESS-l8S: ~ 3100 PECIFIED STRENGTH . T 28 DAYS-PSI: 3500 ISTRIBUTION~ GILHOLM-9TEVEN9 CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS dd -/4J. ENGINEER 8 8 ROFESSIONAL REGISTER INSPECTIONS. INC. 895 Convoy Court #15 an Diego. Ca. 92111 JOB NO.: /,962 RET.ð,INING WALL 678 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. ENGINEER: BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS D.ð,LE REGLI PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: 675P LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTIJRE: FIRST TO LAST 28"X 30'X 6' SECTION MADE BV: DALE REGLI C'JNCRETE ROPORTIONS: 7 1/2 SACK SLUMP: 5" DATE MADE: 12/18/92 VPE OF CEMENT: DATE RECEIVED: 12/21/92 ONC. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READV MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: ICKET NO.: 13l.¡926/~ INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORV TEST DATA 1 DAVS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS PECIMEN MARKINGS: 93379 93380 93381 ATE TESTED: 12/25 1/15 1/15 REA-SQ. IN. : 28.28 28.28 28.28 'LTIMATE LOAD-LBS: 70500 130000 123500 'NIT STRESS-LBS: : 2/190 : 4600 : 4370 PECIFIED STRENGTH T 28 DAYS-PSI: 3500 ISTRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS d~/ 4J. ENGINEER I',. I I I I I I I I I i I J I I II I I, I .. 8 EARTH sysrrEMS GROUP 8 DESIGN "SllI'l'illlisl.\ III Ellr,h Ul'fl'II,;ml Soll/liol/s" November 8, 1992 Bob Trettin 12785 Amaranth street San Diego, CA 92108 RE: California Coastal commission Letter to Bob Trettin 312-452 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Bob: We have been asked to comment on the subject letter to assist you in your reply to coastal. We have numbered each response to the varIOUS points in that letter to facilitate future reference. 1. We believe an emergency exists at these sites. The nature of the emergency is addressed in this letter, We cannot be sure that any corrective work can be completed within 30 days since the work will be done in the surf zone and schedules will be affected by tides and storms. 2. The rip rap is intended as a temporary expedient to preserve the properties until a permanent solution can be agreed upon. .3 . We intend to continue submittals through the normal construction permitting processes, but request emergency status to initiate the work. 4. The principal structures, all homes, are shown on the included drawings. These drawings are the result of a survey undertaken by this firm. 5. The purpose of the rip rap is to abate the erosion of the cliffs upon which the homes are located. See included drawings which depict sections through the bI uffs and show the position of the dwellings. See also sections indicating slip circles with factors of safety less than 1.0 passing through these dwellings. 6. 1\ number of slope stabi 1 i ty computer analyses were made, samples of which are included indicating existing factors of safety less than 1, and considerably less than the desired 1.5. These circles extend well into the dwellings. Old slides in the area have extended back 130 ft from the base of the bluff and have lengths of hundreds of feet. Calculations show that even these catastrophic slides are possible today. 1529 GHANI) ^ VENUE, SUITE ^ . SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 . (619) 1f71-6351 N.C.LE. ...170. C^. R.CL IC-22096. AAZ. R.C.E. 111971 . NEV. R.C.£. 13037. W^. C.E. 110176 -"., .....-..,.., ..", r,"",~ nlr:I",rrPlNr. . r:rntnr,v. ~IIRVfY. CERTIFIED NSI'(OION. SOil AND M^TERW TESlING. FE~8IUTY STUDIES' CONTR^O M^N^G[M[NI I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 7. 8 8 The temporary rip rap will not provide a 1.5 factor of safety to the upper bluffs. In fact, it will not affect the upper bluffs at all but will allow more time to devise a permanent solution. B. certain of the property owners are already experiencing failures in the upper bluffs. We are concurrently preparing alterria(e designs for these properties. 9. The rip rap should not affect the sand erosion/replenishment cycle. It will intrude into the beach but may serve to restrict access to the areas immediately adjacent to the crumbling bluffs. We estimate that over 7000 tons of rock and sand have dropped from these cliffs to date in 1992. Sooner or later someone will be under some of this material and perhaps the riprap will preclude bathers from settling next to the bluffs. 10. Our engineers have explored a number of plans to mitigate the erosion of these bluffs. The best schemes are those initiated sufficiently in advance to preclude emergency action. Certain of these schemes are not accessible to the home owner since they all involve work on the beach. Also the cost and benefits of some of these systems exceed the resources of the individual owner. Long term solutions include the following: a. Offshore reefs or breakwaters b. Sand ~eplcnishment c. Groins d. Engineered rip rap e. Regrade bluffs f. Concrete facings g. Tetrahedrons h. Structures Sheetpile Concrete walls Timber walls A number of alternates also exist for emergency protection. these include the following: a. Longard tubes and other temporary devices b. Sand or cement bags c. Random rip rap 1°. I I I I I I I I I I I I I IC I' I I, 'I 11. * 12. 13. 8 48 d. Rubble revetments Winter surf at this location has removed every concrete structure ever built before the recent sea walls. There is little chance that tubes or sand bags would last considering that there can be a 7 ft slack water depth in the winter. storm waves would build on top of this height. Besides the alternatives listed above, we have been asked to consider revising founda ti on designs, relocating homes and L-emoving portions of the homes. Our assignment from the homeowners does not include these options. It is our understanding that the Coastal Act does not require these options when significant financial impact would result from an under-uti 1 i zed lot. The Ci ty of Encini tas now requires a forty-foot setback from the bluff for new construction. The enclosed drawing includes the plot plan of all of the homes in question and show the location of the structures to scale. There is not sufficient room on the lots to relocate the dwellings. Even if there was we could not recommend this as a solution since the bluff will continue to retreat unless some protection is added. hll thought relative to this section of coastline seems to refuse to consider that the ocean will someday claim all of Encinitas and beyond. Any solution to todays problem will require ongoing maintenance and the beaches ul timatel y disappear wi thout sand replenishment. Even replenishment will need to be an ongoing operation,even supplementary structures such as groins or breakwaters. will sand with Ground water exists throughout this bluff. The terrace sands are beach sands deposi ted over the denser underlying material. Irrigation and rainfall ultimately drain through the bluff on lop of the more impermeabl e sandstones. Any wall sol utiOn lleeds to be free-draining to preclude hydrostatic pressures. In addition, drainage filters need to be provided to eliminate piping of fine soils from the bluff. The submitted plans indicate gaps in the proposed rip rap. These gaps occur where property owners are not wi 11 ing or unable to participate at this time. Rip rap walls, by their very nature, are usually in a constant state of repair or addition. It is believed that these neighbors will soon be willing to participate as erosion continues in these gaps. The city has indicated they '4i11 participate on the lower bluff to preclude wave erosion. I' I I I I I I 14. 15. 16. a I I I I I I il I , 8 8 There is comment that recent residential construction documents contain statements that the existing bl uff wi 11 remain stable for seventy-five years. We are not privy to these reports done by others but believe that they would stipul ate an expected 1 i fe of seventy-fi ve years "under existing conch lions". Existing condi tions on these bl uffs vary from day to day, and at an increasing rate in recent months ánd yeal."s. In any event, statements by others are beyond our purview. The plans are drawn to scale and the rip rap will be founded on bedrock for its entire length. The rip rap mayor may not be °keyed into the bedrock, depending upon the method of placement, the slope of the sea floor and the slope of the rip rap. The rationale for any rip rap design cannot be described in a letter. Rip rap is not considered to be a one time solution and in almost all cases it is reworked and supplemented on an ongoing basis. It is not unusual to anticipate expending 5- 10% (five to ten percent) of the initial cost each year to maintain the revetment in severe locations. A great deal has been written on this. We include some copies of comments by others as well as a bibliography to assist you in researching rip rap concepts. The parameters of erosion include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Nature and frequency of storm activity Nature of offshore topography Nature of shoreline soil materials Wave climate Wave reflection Direction of prevailing winds Shape of coastline Replenishment 6. 7. a. Each of above i terns in turn invol ve a series of separate considera ti ons . For exampl e, to determine repl enishment, studies need be made regarding the littoral cells, longshore drift, inland sediment flow, seabed grain size and specific weight and a host of other site specific variables. Ultimately, riprap is placed on a cost/benefit basis. At this site, a ten foot high rip rap revetment will be overtopped on occasion and will require maintenance. All that is happening here is that the homeowners are attempting to buy time pending some overall permanent solution by the city or other agency. I". I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~, 8 .8 STABILITY PROGRAM A series of slip circles were developed by the computer to determine the factors of safety at various fai I ure arcs. The following recap shows 4 circles selected at random. Note all have a factor of safety of I ess than 1 and all pass through the residences on the bluff top. BIBLIOGRAPHY A great deal of information is available on seashore sand replenishment and structures. Enclosed are bibliographies of interest. There is also a lot of information on erosion along this particular section of coast line. Charles J. Randle President RCE #22096 CR/am .,' c.mo-Io./.TR ~ . I', I I I I I I I I I _.n._n_-- :1 I I I I I I I I 8 ._'..,----- u ., ,--.-----.--- "'::~~~~~~~~~~.~m- " " ><. '-'" '-........., / " -- ~z ~ .' -" '----.. '..........., , , / / .. """.r '-"'- , / '--7", / --............., I // ,. . // /..;'/ //// ..'-;<?:/ ,"'N'III!: ~rp~rSrNIMII]N ur rACIO1/S IIr SAnTY ,<,.-.:./ ^I V^,!1IIUS sí.IP ARCS 10 SlaIV [XI[NI , :-;:/ III" I'II~SIRlr r^ILlJP.rs. S[( SLIP CI~CL( "::'.// I'Pllr"'^" rUR srrClriC CIRCLes ANn MINIHUO' "'i:::;'/' I ^lIlJR:; [II" S^H 1 Y au tACH LOCA IIUN. HIIIU""1 IIf.SW'h '^CIIII'. ur ~^r[1Y = I.~. / / "-. .. '" I '."m',..'.-, 1^IIILlI'I :,LCIIIIIJ 1III,~"urjll 111111-':-. ^1 Jli' NIPII!"'!. ^VI ---.,..-----.--- ...------- ---- ---------- .u --_n.n_un__- It ~ - -" ,---- TV E OF CEMENT: JOB NO.: 4871 , ,- PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPéWONS, INCt 78 5 Convoy Court 115 Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 '8 SEA WÞ.L L . 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE ,CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR 67 FIRST PHASE ,ENGINEER , , ::::;, '::, ~ BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITASji:_: I; ,>(:t' ",:~1~,~'~ '~t PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FI~oE: ,"'-:f,!{"j:; ~Ai""'" :": ;Jt LOCATION OF SPECIMEN ' '\;"'i '{'*¡f;f IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: UPPER, WALL.TIEBACKS~..LOWE , ,,' :L~t~l ,,2:1'~':~ MADE BV: ANTHONY;,-WOROBE~'J ENGINEER: ANTHONY WOROBEY CONCRETE PR PORTIONS: 7 SACK SLUMP: " ,! DATE RECEIVED: 8/1~/9 8/13/92, POZZ DATE MADE: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: T1 KET NO.: 166'+2 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA ,7 DAVS 14 DAYS 28 DAVS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 9211r6 9211+7 DA E TESTED: 8/19 9/09 AR A-SQ. IN. : 28.28 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 52000 80000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 1e/.~0 . . : 2830 : 3100' SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAVS-PSI: l~OOO DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEER SPE_IFIED STRENGTH AT 8 DAYS-PSI: if 000 JOB NO.: 4871 PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONS. INC. , 78 5 Convoy Court 115 .., Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 ~:;f\J 6; 8 SEl>. W.ð.LL AD RESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE OW ER: CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: .MHHON v WOROB E Y PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FILE: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: toil NO.: 67 MADE BY: ANTHONY WOROBEY "0' PR PORTIONS: 7 SACK SLUMP: AD IXTURE: POll DATE MADE: 8/12/92 TY E OF CEMENT: DATE RECEIVED: 8/13/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TICKET NO.: 1661+2 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS SPECIMEN MARKINGS: 9211¡6 28 DAYS 28 DAYS 921l¡7 921lf8 9/09 9/09 28.28 28.28 DATE TESTED: 8/19 AREA-SQ. IN.: 28.28 ULTIMATE LOAD-LBS: 52000 UNIT STRESS-LBS: : 1 81f 0 DIS RIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITV OF ENCINITAS PROFESS IONAL REG IS'ERED INS PE CTIONS, I N ~ -=tt:CJ ""'--"'.' , --- C I J (:::ï- "?f1 tB -æ 7895 Convoy Court San Diego, California 92111 Phone 292-0660 N.. 'l61 )~- ~~~I_;GEEO~__A ~-~-~~:.~:~~-,~9~'1_~ 0 STRUCT. STEEL ASSEMBLY 0 GLðE . LAM. FABRICATION 0 REINFORCED GYPSUM ~ OTHER 0 PILE DRIVING ""',,""" '" " - ~UILDIN.GPE:IT NLIME!ER---~r¡;iA-N-TH:-ËNÜMB-E-Á----~ AR~*~'-- - n__- -- --..----u------ J::>~ p..." INSPECTORS W[CI(~y REPORT 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE 0 PRE.STRESSED CONCRETE 0 REINFORCED MASONRY --- --- ~- ----- ..-.... - - . ~ . SOURCE OR MFGR. ENGINEER t;;ï P DESCRIBE MAT'l. (MIX DESIGN. RE.BAR GRADE & MFGR.. WELD.ROD. ETC.) -------- -- --------_u_-----..--- GENERAL CONTRACTOR Gil ~ c~ LAB. RECEIVING & TESTING CONSTR. MAT.'L SAMPLES ----- INSP'N. DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED. TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED. JOB PROBLEMS. PROGRESS. REMARKS, ETC INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT.. AMOUNTS OF MATERIAL PLACED OR WORK PERFORMED; NUMBER, TYPE, & IDENT. NO'S. OF TEST SAMPLES TAKEN; STRUCT, CONNECTIONS (WELDS MADE, H.T. BOLTS TORQUED) CHECKED; ETC. 8/, ---- -.. .- -... ..---- -------..------ ,-..---.------, 21.1 rl <: ,(" -<..t '\ -..L~~~r-~~~...G' Î ~ 'Z ? " Ir\,.\, C,.¡)( -:1d. :;).. I~ c: ¡(~ t -~~ q 3. ~-p ì " K t t=b -z? '5 ,., ~" f l..I. "^P-- M- \ ~ ;~~----::..__..~ I\J ~ 5" , -..--------- .----.. -.-....--..-..--------------... '-----"- CONC <---e...t-€.. S:-A ~ _tk~_-___----------- --- b~R~ ~TW. 1"'.. ~o-ro SIGNATURE OF REGISTER INSPECTOR 8 . l..< . q ~- "'SA~~~~.~:r~ PR FESSIONAL REGISTERED INS~TIONS, INC. 78 5 Convoy Court #15 ,., Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 8 ~cl-:;.r:. ~ c- 1,_) 11- =#J~ JOB NO.: /, 87 1 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..10 ADDRESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE ARCHITECT: NAME: ::: Et..WÞ.L l. ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING BL G AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS GEN CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CO STR. MAT'L: CONCRETE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR PL N FILE: DE CRIBE MATI L: e" DI.tI.METER X /,0 I, 1 1/1r" DI.ð..METER STEEL BARS INSPECTION REPORT Inspected gr'outin'J of seven tiebacks #3; h, 5, 6, 7, e and 9, upper ,.,1311, dr'awinoJ #5; 8" diameter x 110' with 11/1,11 diameter anchor bars. Made one set of three test cylinders. Work was performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Permit #6-91-312G : ~~ç SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR 0', % 3/Q? "' "1 , -"- DATE 280 REGISTER' .~""'-" PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE8-0NS, INC, 78 5 C~nvoy Court #15 Sa, Diego, Ca. 92111 . 6//~ ML NO.: AD IXTURE: ,.J OB NO.: II 87 1 ':E.D. \.^/.ð.,LL 6S8 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FILE: COt'-ICRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: UPPER WALL 682P MADE BV: DENNIS OLSON 8.2 S,ò,CK 311 SLUMP: DATE ~1ADE: slo 1/92 TV E OF CEMENT: 1-11 DATE RECEIVED: 6/03/92 ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: 1338021 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: DA E TESTED: 92011 9 92050 92051 8/0B 8/29 8/29 28.28 28.28 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 112500 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 3980 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: hOOO DI_TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITV OF ENCINITAS ~~L,/~ ENGINEER -~'~ , , .. 8 EARTH SYSTEMS 8 DESIGN 0 GROUP .~ ~ "Spe¡;iolislS ¡II Eartlt RfttentiQlt S(?luJiQlt$" C t t y.flo~ i p,t t as 5" Encinita~ Blvd. .deta"tas, C.l110r"l. 92024 Att: In"... L.."..... au yPI...... SubJe.t: 18."on8e to £'It, of Bftciaita. Mllftl0 i pa 1 0068 ,--o.t Ion 30. 34.020.0. b . fte: Geotecltateal .8.1..5'."'."-".0 Heptane Aventle. Dear Is. La.nllaler, 1"'. tollo.iDe Is s...t.tted to confirathat tRlor..tion eontai.ect lit tit. ,.., . ".te,.'.I..1 .n.G.olo.h~ A...rt. (It.: tlte tfl..,t ""J't¿'V1f"t'.~'¥""ëfn~'J;"ãa..ã'ê'I' "'~HT'.jjß"'pf ô"v'lsl'ôñ¡' I'rì"ift""ð"'fn the Coastal ShIff Overla, 2one Ordinance. ...t..tl.~...ftl ....""1.' f tlí<fl nil t ö t a.ifl.f. . t_. . "relll'I" Section 30.34.020.c.l>. rn 'It e. 1 'I'M previous leotecbnical repo..t on the subject site ad.Øressed "Erosion Due to Wave Attack". In this discussion, the po......ttal for co....te loss of beach sands and co.bined effects-I; ..ve at tack .it II t be presence of be.ol1 colJbles was not addresseil. Nor .as tbe potential iapact of substantial loss of lo.er bl~ff on .,per bluff failures add..essed tn detail. The uss i ve fa i 1 ures iapact tnl the a.bJeot pr oJect site we..e tnit iatedb, 10werbl.if fail...e oause" by $u&..t.nt 1al slottllUng, which Goo"rre' as a re..1 t otUse oORditi... ..,.....ed ab.... It is not probable tltat such condit ions cuhtld Ia...e '.era a.nticipated at tbe tia. tile previous geotechnical studies .ere undertaken. The lower seawall developed at tbe subJect site stroot....ally d...Jlned to handle the stress loads of aaterial to tll."levation noted on slte plans. The upper wall lIasbèe.. structørally design to handle the stress loads of tlte till.lerial placed at a 2:1 slope to tlte top of bluff <Top), as noted on the site plans. .. 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A . SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 . (619) 471-6351 has t Ite been fill N.C.E.E.14170. CA.ltC.E.1C-22096. ÞJfZ.. R.C.E. 111911 . NEV. R.C.E. 130;J1. WA. C.E. 110776 CML. STRIJC::WÞL. ANQ. SQlI.$ ENÇlNEERING . GEOlOGY . SURVEY . CERTIFIED INSIt<:TION . $OIl AND M.\'tÐtlAL teSTING. fEASlBlUTY STUDIES . CONTRACT MANAGEMENT . ' ,- 8 8 The presence of the lower seawall and opper blof' wall, will allow for the redevelopaent and stabilization of the bluff of tbe subject site. The properties to the iaaedlate North abel South of the subject site, bave lower seawalls ofsiailar, proven structural design and have witkstoeJd the scouring eftect tbat was the precursor of major bluff failure on the subject property. The soil test and structural calculat ions are attached to tbe IIUP application. Item 2. The residence at 680 Neptune Ave. has been undermine by recent, on-going upper bluff failures, and Is in i_inent tbreat of failure. Projections of continued upper bluff failure, bas.d on the existing geological conditions, would extend sucb failure under tbe property at 658-658 Neptune Ave., as w.l1. Item 3. The proposed aeasures, under developm.nt on an emergency basis, "HI IU'..õte re-stabllization of Ulebltìl'~AS previously noted, properties to the ia.ediate North and South have existing walls in such a manner tbat no additional erosion will occur at tbe ends beca.use of the deVices. Thè project's upper wall will tIe- back on the property's Northern side to assure compatibility with an existing upper bluff retention system on the property to tbe i.llediate ,North. It e. 4. The proposed .easures, in design and appearance, are consistent with the properties to the im.ediate North and South, and to six additional, continuous properties to the North. The proposed measures will provide for the restoration of the bluff, and a required landscape plan will provide added stabilization and improved appearance of the bluff face. Tbe natural character of the bluff face has been substantially altered by massive bluff failures. The ..asures will restore, to a great extend, the natural cbaracter of the bluff face that exited prior to these failures. It e. 5. The lower seawall at the subject properties was designed and built under e.ergency per.it, with tbe absence of a lower blutf, which had completely tailed. Therefore, tbe wall was built at the original toe-of-slope, and does not extend any further to the west than the neighboring seawall to the i.mediate NOrth and South. .. .' . .' - /' ' 8 8 It ell C. T"e pre-empt tve lleaStlre at tI~. subject prop.tI.ty was developed under e.errency permit, coru;lsteot witb stmilar .eastlres in the i--diat. vicintt,. hoagIe of us. l.eltll1'f faU.res duriol the past tlt,ee to 10." years, tJ,e Citrof RncinUas and the California Coastal, C._isslonh.ve pe..mitted ap¡woxiaately 500 feet olst.ilar pre""e.,tive-as"l'e. necessa..y to protect residential dwelling units at the top of the bluff. In effect, t"e Cl t y 01 løcinUas hs i oi t iatecl a pol I cy (or plan) for t ..is specific area 01 blutt""}tne as a result of dra.atic tailures and the i_diate pre......t... response s.~h tail....s created. Charles J. Randle RCE 22096, CAe President , ¡-'FIRST PHAst ENGINEERING II 8 July 9, 1992 Mr. James Mallen % Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centers 445 Marine View Drive, Ste. #300 Del Mar, CA, 92014-3950 Reference: Upper Walls & Slope Configuration 656-660 Neptune Avenue Dear Jim: We have been asked to explain the basis for the final selection of the upper wall configuration. Please refer to Drawing #4 showing five alternate arrangements. These are described as follows: Geogrid: A Geogrid arrangement was considered to preclude placing concrete or timber structures on the upper bluff. This alternate did not prove out technically since the grids could not be placed deep enough into the fill. Also, the shape of the surface slope would not conform to the adjacent properties. Soil Cement: This scheme proved to be impossible after continued bluff failures precluded any structure at the center of the slope. High Upper Wall: This arrangement proved to be too expensive with a high wall and a double row of tiebacks. Multiple Upper Walls: This scheme was abandoned for the same reason as the high upper wall. Law Upper Wall with Sloping Backfill: This arrangement was accepted to best conform with the adjacent properties, to provide lower costs, and a less imposing structure. As you know,continuing slides required of schemes. The recommended alternate at this point. verY~.~'l~W L.{~- C. J. Randle, CE almost constant re-evaluation is the only viable solution CJR:ns P.O. BOX 1026, SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-6465 FAX (619) 471-7572 , 1 PR FESSIONAL REGISTERED INS~TIONS. INC. ~ ' 78 S Convoy Court # 1 S" .w. G- ' 0 Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 ~ 0 JOB NO.: 4971 ~-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------~ JO ADDRESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE ARCHITECT: '\ NAME: SEAWALL ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING BL G AUTH: CITV OF ENCINITAS GEN CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CON CO STR. MAT'L: CONCRETE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR. DE CRIBE MAT'L: REBAR A615, MIX #1-38RAE INSPECTION REPORT I /30 Inspected reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete in ": eight pier's (elevation +291 to +3511); piel~ #1t 2,/+, 5, 6p 7t'.9 and 10. Prepared a se t of three sped me n s f rom cone rete be i ng used. 4~i~ Wor'k was per'for'med in accor'dance with the plans and specif;cat;onès~;' Permit #6-91-312G dd/4J, SUPERVIS : DALE REGLI INSPECTOR : 7/06/92 DATE "~"'~ I . " 'il . 8 çJ-r I Or= L !YAeL 6t-.) ET AI, 7/1/'lz,.,.,..'..". E. 00[;/ I J :: II n III II! - //' I¡II//~- . I j ,/ -g l //f¡t .~.-. i I i ;. ;~1jr~ 'l1~' ... , . ~'" t ,.~i'L;' ~.~ (T) Ho1\z lit e¡..C! I~A " 2000' :~}J "ibM. It';; ~'-,- m! i ' -~ I.>:" ~--' 2. M B - 0 , ; /765 +56.'.z, 71¡.1?,~ / I .il (V)lv/Ofl-1L1-J1 ¡"T A; (lò"J:)(~3?l S('I>(~~i!)7;-' G2 S02 IJ( (/-¡A, 11) ill " M f C> ~ [~~~_C¿~<l ~~PAc I/J¿\ =¿' ,~ I -rr! G' ^¡ "OJ fOZ' l,Ç (Cld'J'u,Ç. i'v)óMtn1 ilccorJih3'Y) , : A E) ,". 7 be... '-" ," -.-- -~ 2 2 ~,() 0 i 7 j (A F) f o~ f 'J /(,00 (J-.; i ~\~,I;.¡~ l I b"l IN '} ! (Al.~) POL~ \),)\/"" Ie Lr;;:: 16/ d;. /1(/' ':- S2 (p.C) c;t'AClfJC~ 0\ -II~S: c¡,c:>/ '---.. -~ TI-JE>l: FI G UíÜ:.S Cl:; p ec $Ct-JT L I tJf 22.. ZOCiO'Y' () F 1 H t úL) C--OM Pu rl(l C/\ le : 4"'°11/' 100 ~¡: t:- FP. 48 Pc.:t~ C ~) + ^ v~ ... 100 ~~<;\::: (1) Ly~ 5- H ~ c:tf:oü t- 2000.' (f) ~~ S{'AC ItJl.; -. J' (Q) To?,4 L. LO~) P r"'~(t. Cc" III bOO 7 ;,< 1\ bOO -' B I 'Lco L£.,s f-1ALLbrJ £.1 AL.. For -the w~ler-; I (AM) J . , . .; 1 . !! (A tJ) 'fAr) fìciJack: ::;(.40) I'! :i I,::; rA~) ., l!: I, I;' ;':GA> \ I' I ) ¡d ;:(Ao) !.;(}~) ~ .: LA i) " ' , ! , "I ; , ~ "I !i: ii ~ ¡ ! t, ! I i li 'I, ii' : I , I ' 1" , ¡,I !Ï¡ 8 {þ] ~ 4, If ï y ¡t. ----_.~ , ð'3 t=- ~ s 1JG.~f:;i VWAI..';;-<t. ., CJS)I -/'tI7/1... '~. ?)~::'~v :W 10 ' '> ç' 2. '> 0 -.. Ih'l.- ,~l IJ~i TOG LOM> ;. 101 A L- f¡ - 1 IC '~/,C k'- II bOO -( ?, <; 7 ... q ,S x 73 S 7/ 'J 74 $ S'1 Ii /Cos 2.0° Tl~S toC-H') @.. 12°/6 -=ðC¡'ll()A -t It -C..Ac.V- A I C'l' ') ~, '" ~ ' ... lLriÚì¡1 I ,~ 8 S -IT 2..- OF' 2, 7/1 /9 z.. E DOS I ~I' 1't11/;,.- -1f--- L (JIll) .4:::. 4 :~, .~\/ I f for p o/e.s oi< Toe LO/H'> \J ~ ¥- POLl: I' 'J (I! X 2. C; ;;. /0 hob 'ii' ~"'.1;J ,~ ¡ F/~ (;'<:;:'/ vC f> ~ t '}, ~)£.(;; -, '~O() ec l' ) l:' \>1 HOt C f>. \ t.>, ( ) r J (~ ,.\ '~ POL (: \" Ch) 1" I U \, 1\ Uti ,~ , '""I.... '2')01 (~) 'L PROFESSIONAL REGISTER IN~PEr.ON~ INr 7895 Convoy Court 115 - - - -I -I San Diego, Ca. 92111 8 ?=-p STE ' JOB NO.: I~ e 7 1 JOB: ~: E .A, 1-l.A L L 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS INSPECTOR: PERMIT NO.: G-91-312-G PLAN FILE: FIELD SAMPLE OF: CONCRETE MIX NO.: 1-38RAE PR_PORTIONS: 8 S .Á.C K AD IXTIJRE: POll RET. & ,ó,IF: LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: PIER TOP #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,9& 10 MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON SLUMP: I" 1/1~ II DATE MADE: 6/30/92 7/06/92 TYPE OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: CONC. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TICKET NO.: 1335398 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SPECIMEN MARKINGS: 91696 91697 91698 DA E TESTED: 7/07 7/28 7/28 AREA-SQ. IN. : 28.28 28.28 28.28 ULTIMATE LOAD-LBS: 1 1 70 D 0 11~ 80 0 0 1/19500 UNIT STRESS-LBS: : I, 1/, 0 : :.235 : 5285 SPECIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: hOOD DISTRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITV OF ENCINITAS t:~f4J PROFESSIONAL REGISTER INSPEC~ONS, INC, 78 5 Convoy Court 115 .. San Diego, Ca. 92111 SEA W,À.LL 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR AR HITECT: FI LD SA PLE OF: CONCRETE MI NO.: 1-38R.A.E PR PORTIONS: 8 SACK AD IXTURE: POll RET. & AIR TV E OF CEMENT: II CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX 1335398 TI KET NO.: ,~. JOB NO.: 4871 CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FILE: LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: PIER TOP #1, 2, 4, 5, 6~- 7, 9 & 10 MADE BV: DENNIS OLSON SLUMP: 4 1/4" DATE MADE: 6/30/92 7/06/92 DATE RECEIVED: SOURCE OF ROCK: INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORV TEST DATA 7 DAVS 14 DAVS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 91696 DA E TESTED: 7/07 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 117000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : I, 1 1+ 0 SP CIFlED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: 28 DAVS 28 DAVS 91697 91698 7/28 7/28 28.28 28.28 1+000 01 TRlBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ~h/ 4/ ENGINEER ',"\. , : "~,:~¡> \ ; ~" ':.:' . . F" ~, ~,', " --. ",,',. , 0 .:: :-p "'0:, ~¡.,""'.,.,.. PR FESSIONAL REGISTERED INSP.TIONSt INC. 78 5 Convoy Court 115 Sa Die~ot Ca. 92111 =11-1 b N &- ¡/'vI (fE/?/ tV lì - 8 .JOB NO.: /1 87 1 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- .J'J .to, DO RES S: t3 '.:- >3 N [ I TI.! ~,! E i.\! E N IJ E ARCHITECT: JO N.A.ME::Et\J..I.Ó: I.. ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING B L G .to, '-' T H: (IT V '" po': Ull T": GEN CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CO STR. MAT'L: .,,~H~I.[TL CONTRACTOR: ';ILHC'U1-STEVE~,1'3 CC'N'3TR PL N FILE: DE'CRIBE MAT'L: F..rr~..,\r.' 6.,,1'), ~11'i '!1 .3~. ,J,e INSPECTION REPORT : r /1"=¡ T"~¡.J,:,:tc-~,1 10":i,:f,:,!0:'!!'J ,;-!:-,,?ì3r,d th~ pl,3cement of c'onr:r'e+:e in ,::,~I.".,r,:.:~ ';oi ,~'y r.'1e,',: r:,ì"'I~~ ~1, 2, (:'1 ~!'1d 10 (elevai::ions +.191 to t2'~';' ~!'d ['¡""f'=' #, .~'ì'! ('?le'-3i:iulìs +:291 to +3511). ¡:Tepar'ed a set ,:ft.:,t.=-e =pec:irnens f"CliT! '::"--'11(;,'",,1..:, bein'J used. 1,0101"1< was per'tor'med in C~,c('r":!3!ICE' \'\Iith the pl.3"~:3 .:nd speci'tiç.3tions. ~'"I'!n;t. nl~"91-?12íJ d¿/¥- : DALE REGLI ~UFERVISOR INSPECTOR R l?~: / Q ? -f--f-- 23U DATE F:EGISTER it PR_FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONS, INC, 7895 Convoy Court #15 .., San D;egot Ca. 92111 8 .JOB NO.: /,871 OW ER: S E Þ. \,IU>. L L JO : AD RESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN_PECTOR: PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FILE: MI NO. : 1-38F:AE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: PIERS #1,2, 3, 8, 9 & 10 ELEVATIONS +19 TO +29 MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON FIELD SAMPLE OF: CONCRETE I AD IXTURE: PR PORTIONS: 8 S.A.CK SLUMP: ,+11 P'JZ Z DATE MADE: 6/19/92 TY E OF CEMENT: I DATE RECEIVED: 6/26/92 CO~C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: 1331.'./11.,.5 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SPECIMEN MARKINGS: 91627 91628 91629 DA E TESTED: 6/::'6 7/1 7 7/17 AR A-Sq.IN.: 28.2F 28.28 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 120000 UN T STRESS-lBS: : I, 2/, 5 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: hQOO DI_TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS é"~ ,/ 41 ENGINEER PROFESSIONAL REGISTER IN~PE~~ONS INr 789 Convoy Court 115 - -.., t -t San Diegoi Ca. 92111 . .JOB: SEA W,Å,Ll AD RESS: 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR 1 ~JOB NO.: 4811 CONTRACTOR: GIlHOlM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS JEFFREY G,A,YLER PERMIT NO.: 6-91-312-G PLAN FILE: U:)NCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: SEAWAll PIER #4 MI NO. : 1-38RAE PR PORTIONS: 8 $.6.CI< POZZOlAN & AIR AD IXTURE: TY E OF CEMENT: II CO C. SUPPLIER: SUPERIOR READY MIX 227820 MADE BY: JEFFREY GÞ.YLER SLUMP: 3 1/2" DATE MADE: 6/12/92 6/15/92 DATE RECEIVED: SOURCE OF ROCK: INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 915/+0 DA E TESTED: 6/19 AR A-SQ.IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 120000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : h2h5 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: Dr TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVEN$ CONSTRUCTION CITV OF ENCINITAS . 28 DAYS 28 DAYS 915/+1 91542 7/10 7/10 28.28 28.28 11f3000 137500 : 50£;0 : /,860 I," 0 00 ~.AÆ /41- ENGINEER "7i.'t<r.~.', , o'~""""'.', .:.,," , " . " ~~ EARTH.VSTEMS DESIG. GROUP "Specialists In Eart" Retention SO/Ill ions " June 2, 1992 Mr. James Mallen 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Reference: Leighton Soils Report-February 1986 Subsequent Letters of June 1987 & November 1989 Report #4841180-02 Dear Mr. Mallen: I have visited the site of reviewed the subject report. the site as far as the concerned. the seawall several times and have This report is still pertinent to soil and geological conditions are During the last several years serious erosion of the coastal bluff has occurred. This is, in part, due to the installation of seawalls on both north and south abutting properties and also to the intrusion of cobbles into the surf zone this last winter. These cobbles have produced serious undercutting of the lower bluffs resulting in numerous block falls in the soft sandstone formation. As you know, a considerable amount of backfill behind the seawall. This office has tested the to be used and we have previously reported the and weights of this material. will be required backfill material friction cohesion We are visiting the site regularly and will be performing the required tests on the backfill as the work progresses. Very truly yours, EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP C.9~~(,J) C. J. Randle RCE 22096 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A . SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 . (619) 471-6351 N.C.E.E. 14170. CA. R.C.E.IC-22096. ARl. R.C.E. 111971 . NEV. R.C.E. 13037. WA. C.E. 110776 CI l, STRUCTURAl.. AND SOILS ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY. SURVEY. CERTIFIED INSPECTION. SOil AND MATERIAl. TESTING. FEASlBlUTY STUDIES. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONS. INC. 18 5 Convoy Court 115 Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 8 -(D~ CL ENT: .JOB NO.: /+871 S E ,6. \011 Þ. L L 656 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGIN~ER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS TOM WOODS PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: FI LD SA P~E OF: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: 5TH COLUMN FROM NORTH END MI NO.: 1-69RAE MADE BV: TOM WOODS PR PORTIONS: 9 SÞ,CK SLUMP: 6" POZZ DATE MADE: SI~iol92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: 5/21/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 1331828 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORV TEST DATA 1 DAVS 14 DAVS I I SP CIMEN MARKINGS: DA E TESTED: 911 15 28 DAVS 28 DAVS 91116 91117 6/17 6/17 28.28 28.28 5/27 AR A-SQ.IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 120000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : /.f2/+5 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAVS-PSI: hOOO 01 TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS dL,/~J( ENGINEER - -..........rt'~.., . EARTH SYSTEMS 8 DESIGN GROUP "Spt1cialists In Earlll Retention Soll/lions" o,K_y 11, 1992 - RECEIVED - MAY 1 31992 First Phase Engineering c/o Mr. Bob Milmoe 3255 Wing street ,Suite 510 San Diego. CA 92110 Re: Test results for 660 Neptune, Encinitas, California Dear Bob, The following test resul ts are representative of material s proposed for use as backfill at the "bluff repair 660 Neptune, Encinitas, California". These materials we received on April 26. 1992: Medium to caarse sand . Maximum density: Optimum Moisture: 125 #/sf 11. 5 \ Direct Shear: JlI' = 33.5 degrees c = 225 f/sf Sincere 1 y 1- ,,/} , ' / EARTH .,-SYSTF;MS DESIGN GROUP / / ,/' ""/ /. ...0' /' 0' 1/ ,.: ,/ C / ... 6'~'-~ .", .' ,0 ./ .,. ,,' Þ:I- ~/. . ./ Charles J. Randle, PE RCE 22096 President a:ntFtune.tst 3255 WING ST., STE. 510, SAN DIEGO. CA. 92110. (619) 221-0878 NCEf 14170' CA AC,E, - C,22096 . AAZ ACE -11971 . NfV A C,E, -3037 . WA C,E _10776 ~",.. ~-~..~~.~.. "'~"-"~".'-'.'"~-'.'--"~,"'rv,~"'>"~V."'C'C'T'r'r"""'D"--r""".C,.." ^"~",,,-r""'AI T"c""""",,""""I>"'TYS-rIr)i"C:."'()NTFlAI"TMA">Ar;"'-"'NT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I- I I I F1R'ST PHAst. ENGINEERING [I 'c DESIGN REPORT FOR SEAWALL & BLUFF STABILIZATION 656,658,660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: JAMES MALLEN 656 Neptune Avenue RICHARD BOURGALT 658 Neptune Avenue JERALD D. WHITE 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 M..r 9, 199% PREPARED BY: First Phase Engineering II 1528 GRAND AVE,BTE A,BAN MARCO.S,CA 82088(818)471-8351 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I F~..R'ST PHAA 118 ENGINEERING 'c May 9, 1992 Property Owners 656,658 660 Neptune Avenu~ Encinitas, California 92024 Reference: Seawall & Bluff Stabilization Dear Property Owners: This report addresses the design and construction of the lower seawall, the upper slope and the upper retaining wall. The lower seawall will consist of a concrete cutoff wall and a concrete lower energy absorber mass with vertical concrete piers supporting horizontal timber lagging above the high water line. The top of this wall will be at elevation 35 and will be almost identical to the existing walls north and south of this site. We have previously considered a number of alternatives to stabilize the upper slope. Since these alternatives were offered the ocean has eroded the bluff and slope to an almost vertical configuration eliminating most alternate designs. The arrangement shown herein for the upper slope protection depicts the recommended arrangement. The upper wall will connect to an existing upper wall on the property abutting the north end of the site. The upper wall on the south side will bend back into the slope at the property line or may continue on tothe adjacent southern property if that property owner wishes. This end of the upper wall is on hold pending the neighbors' decision. We have a number of soils reports for the on-site soils. We have recently selected the fill material to be used behind the wall and have tested this material to determine its structural properties. The results of these studies are included herein. Very truly yours, FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING II Robert S. Milmoe 1ls\,9dáAND AVE,STE A.SAN MARCO.S,CA 82088(818)471-8381 I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I ., " 8 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS SYNOPSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 BASIS OF DESIGN.............................................1 CALCULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Soi 1 Loading Coulomb................................... 2 Soil Loading Sliding wedge...........................3,4 Slip CireleDiagrams.............................. 5,6,7,8 Upper Wall Hand Calcs............................9,10,11 Upper Wall Computer Cales.. ...... ........ .12,13,14,15,16 Lower Wall Hand Cales...................... .....17,18,19 Lower Wall Computer Cal es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 DRAWINGS INCLUDED Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secti ons 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan and E 1 eva ti on 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Det ai 1 s 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al t e rna t e Des i gns 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Wall 8...... ................. ....Miseellaneous Sections I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , pYNO,pSIS 8 8 . , The site abuts the beach and consists of a ninety-four foot (94') high bluff about eighty-three (83') feet long at the shore line and one hundred feet (100') long at the top of the bluff. Two residential structures exist on top of the bluff with the closest being seven feet (7') from the bluff edge. Concrete seawalls exist on the north and south abutting properties. The bottom of the bluff consists of a twenty-five foot (25'), near vertical height of sandstone supporting seventy feet (70') of marine terrace sands. Through the winter of 1991-1992 wave attack caused the lower sandstone to recede twenty to thirty feet. The erosion of this material has resulted in the upper terrace sands being almost vertical and both dwellings are in peril. Work has commenced on a lower seawall. This work is almost identical to the adjacent seawalls. This work was initiated on an emergency basis. This report will depict the design, the calculations and drawings for the permanent work. BASIS OF DESIGN The lower wall will have a minimum five foot (5') cutoff into the seafloor to provide protection against ongoing future scour. This wall will also have a large concrete energy absorber to elevation 7 which is above the high water mark. The top of the lower wall will be at elevation 35. The wall design considers twelve foot (12') seas on top of a two foot (2') storm surge with the tide level at plus 7. The thirty-five (35') foot height is adequate for protection against overtopping. The thirty-five foot (35') height is also consistent with the adjacent walls and is required to preclude the construction of very high walls at the top of the bluff. The wall will require thousands of yards of backfill. This backfill has been selected and tested. The material will have a phi of 33 degrees and a cohesion of 200 psf at 90 per cent compaction. The active soil loads have been derived using slip circle analyses, Coulomb analyses and sliding wedge calculations. These calculations are included herein. (1) I I I I I .J I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., 8 8 ',The verti cal el ements (concrete piers) of the wall wi 11 be quite stiff. Accordingly, we have utilized a rectangular soil loading since deflections will not occur at the top of the wall. The soil loading will be retained by permanent tiebacks bored into the slope and anchored at a depth exceeding any failure circle or failure plane. This arrangement is very applicable to seawalls where future undermining in the area of the wall toes can be envisioned. Because of the exposed location of this wall maintenance will be required. This is described on the drawings and will be presented in a recommended maintenance and inspection manual provided at the end of the work. The upper slope will be backfilled at an angle of about thirty- five (35) degrees which is consistent with the borrow material tested. We prefer to compact this material at thirty-one or thirty-two degrees but have over-steepened this bank to reduce the exposed height of the upper wall. The upper wall will utilize vertical timber poles supporting horizontal lagging. Two levels of timber walers and tiebacks will be provided to preclude lateral movement in the future. CALCULATIONS The enclosed computer calculations have been prepared to satisfy the aforementioned criteria. Sample hand calculations have also been provided to explain the computer program. -2- ,As- S1-ffi.DP£81 H= 350 DATESI 3/21191 Fa- o.n ---- ----5/1192 --- - ------ -----SUlÞ------ 0--------- --- 0 TIED Alt= 0 SGll 1116: 4000 SOIl: IT o--HO- 'SOll U"SOIL U"SOIL lD==SGIL LD==SOll lD==SGIL LD..SOIL lD..SOIL lI=="SOIL lDo=SOlL U:aSOll U==SGIl lD==SOll LD==SOIL U:aSOIL LD='SOIL U..SOIL lDuSDlL U==50IL LDnSOll lI==SOll lD==SDIL LD==SOIL U..... I CllCIt TllAIGWII 58IL 1UTT8£5S IUIIST VElT PLAII£: ,:~.t~'-'-::'ii<.:"'<:' ,',', c. (, I I C t--1'tRSl PHfIS[""fIlBIIlURI18 It 2 3 Itltltltttttttlttlttttttttl E F H 8 5 PIItI.'IEtTI IIAlLEI , 'a.IEIITI " -----f-MIIRESSr------- 8 stDPE: SOIL lOADIII6 9 SEE AlSO CIRClES It II " _.12 ",--U-lEVElUtKflll: ,,"'ERPE.DICIUlIlMll: " 14 ". 15 SOIL MT: III PeF '",-~-flll-IE681 ;J6.-U"O'lEl8lll1E1+flLa- '" 11 PHI IADSI 0.63 '" II 511 'HII 0.~7147 1I,-----t9--l!Arll-511 PllIIIII+511 PllII-'--f.260 - - 20 EPI 11+511 PHIIIII-SII PHil . J.851 21 PI otcl . I'tF . 30.63821 PCF LEVel FlLL,1D BATTER ii---f,-""P-...PeF ---454.4651 PCF 23 FIItT SOILI 0.13 USE» 0.126471 SGIL 24 FIItT SOIUtllltJ 0.35 DR 0.726471 11TH I' 8W 11Itl11lE Filii 125 PCF . 34 PHI ---lATTEI-Pl- --- - - - -- 90 35.00 ---i2-~¡68 94 32.0~ " 3O.U -91 ---18.83 --------------t------- 100 27.24 102 25.61 29 SIIIA I PI"2 "'~4508 30 ICI8 ----. - b' ------. 0.1050\5 I 31 1111.'11 l"2tI5IICH'I' I+I5DRJI IIIIICPIIIIISIII'..' , / II5II'HI +891111+8' 1t"2- --3, 452674 - ---- ---- ---- - - 32 UPPER SlOPEJ 33 DE68 54--AlP1tAIIATTElI- -,--~ A- 35 PIlI. 36 P :> 36 IEUI IlIALI, FRI' 01 --J1--t(JA'FIllSUIPEt.----31 ~-- - --- ;,1 38 SOIL MY PeFl 118 PeF 39 0.o:m8 " " " II' :; 2S 1.4 24.M ft' 26 106 22.~6 " 27 tIIUI.ÐII8 Filii BATTElEI IlAl.l.I All SlOPED .rFILL: ill ,Ii " '", ~ .... I a . I T U v --~r---"""1IOII-- S-E!a-[--- STEEL ------ , -2500-It---450CO 16;36361 2500 14 61250 22.27272 2500 ., IDOOO 29.09..0 --- - ---2500' --"18--101250-:6;111818 2-IItIOln-- 2-C10I 30 --- ---- --------- HT BATTER TOT IIITH VEl SOIL salt I'DI. SDll.T t of FR IESIST 1---- HIV -tTilAPl-- it- TII---TOT--- TOT HU» 115 to 0.85m2 0 32 1463 398229 0.6 238m ------------j-------- ----- ----- - ----------- ---------------- ------------------, -_.. --------.. ,,- HADS (85IHI[3411"2I1SIHI[34-£3>1 IlmlTI ItSII(E3~lmIIIIINlE3~IEm) 1 ------1.51-fl+I5IIIITlltSIHIPHI+DItI5IHIP+IIIIII5IHIA-al+89llc"IIJlA2 - --- 0.63 fI+ISIIrI 185IIIPHI+I) ..SIIIPI" IIIISIIIA-a. "51111+1111'2 0.00 flll5llllrr IISII(PHI+II tlSlllP+lIlIll5llll-a'tISIIIA+II'1 '2 -'.~4 .- ._------ ---------------- 8 :s / H--tO---E~" 41 42 U .. 45 .. -------- 41 " 4a .,----49- ----.. --- ~D PHI t ::6 '0 CDIt ~I ~2- - 'HI t 34 10 tilll 53 54 PHI I 32 .0 till 55 HT IIALI. HI SUlPE TOT HI SlIlPE 'HI FP AlII. OTD VEl TD VEl ro 1116 DES FI HDR IITlStT II1RStT IITtStr -u -- --.. - u..- ITRINoI -SLOPE --FP 3~ 60 9~ 34 ::6 63 30 55.2 5B.9 O.~m68 O.628m 1.09941643 35 60 95 ----14 -- 34 -- i2 30 :5.2 5.\.4 o.~m61 0.5mlol 1.08202443 3~ 60 9~ 34 32 61 3D 55.2 ~4. 0.593361 0.558"4 1,06457242 . 0.409623 ,. THI .41.33552 USE FOR BATTER»»}- -------- ISEE a3 ETtI 1.597130 tAlC pi IECT' 24.16716 ., - ----------..-- --- - - - -- ----.. _____n_- ---- -----.. ------- ----- ..-------- ------ - ----- --..-_u_--.. --- .....--- -- -------------- -- ---- .. ------- --- -- .....n .......... .......... .........: :.........................:. ==... n==- ===. : n=.................... ...... : ... .n=........ ..... = .:n".:......n ..:. ., ::. n: :... ...=.. =...:a.... c= =::: un: =::. .u..n ........... 51.1 DE lEDGE:......... ....== =.:a == :.== ===. == ===:.. =.............. ....: u.: =. =...: n= c:... :.== u:: : ==: =: n =.:.:::= ... = =. =n u=.= ..n.. :=..: s= =:: :n =.. = :" : : =: :: =. .......=.... '.==:a..: =.. == :==. u==:===:==:== u.. ...... COlI P5F FP LEI TOT COlI TaT lEI UII8M. FI + CDII LD SlDPE ----.. _h-- ----- - -- - - - -- - ------ -- !lEDGE lEDGE D" TAlI SDIL AREA SOIL IT SlDPE --h---III"-- m U95D 28129 FRltT FRltT SI.DP£ IESIST --- ---- --- 525 s~m 0.1264'1 20m D 66 0 2Dm -14761 ~4696 0.0144'4 19618 D 64 0 -19618 --3~071 -- -- - m80 0.624812 18168 0 62 0 18161 -m12 -61950 29081 m 61950 30038 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I: ~' i." I (Í! ; 2 ¡ , ì 3 ~ ' I I I L I:: I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I i 6 i 'd , 8 ! ! 9 ¡ :101 : 11' : 12: '131 , 'IH' ¡ : IS! I i 161 'n: :SI 191 '201 :211 ~22 ¡ I~JI ,2&1 I ;251 '2sF !ni ' I ' 1281 I I :, 1291 3D; ! ' :JI: , , IJ2r':. :33: " iJ41 ,;s' J6, 371 'JU, I" , J91 , :~Ol 41 42' ¡4JI . I 144¡'" , I '4Si '461 41 J8 49 ; SOl 51, \2 I';, ~'I ¡S, 56' ,7 -, 3 4 :¡ 6 7 8 9 18 11 .12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 l' 20 21 2i 23 24 '25 26 27 28 29 30 8 x. AA AB At y I ., '" =SOIL LD=SOll" LD=SDlll.D=--SOIL LD=SOll LD=--SOIL LD=== LATERAL «(TaT F.S. 57600 4.15 8 (. : .'J: 4- >\;. .l?",:;". ¡. " \ t . " ~: ; . J " . '. 1;. :1 32 33 ~4 35~, 36 !7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 #) 47 48 49 ===--=--====== = ==--======== === ==== ---- ----- -- --- --- - -- -- - --- ------ -- ------------------------------------------ UIIBAL !lOR RES .TRI ..RECT PSF LDHDR RED F.S. pa pa RECT 1.5 -15783 23675 39 19 676 1641t--%41Ð6 4~i&----7&lr-- -17171 257S6 42. 21 nla 50 51 S2 53 54 55' .. , , I .,", d , ',-i'::~ '-;': ',F_;;, -,-Co 4IÞ;~";/r:.;:~.',;,;:i;;<?Nt,;::':. :> ;';8;-,> '; \ ',f ';' :'~:-- -"":;'.'-,. \~~~", I 19, , ..' --,- -- 201 $ I 21 .n 1:. I ,- IS B' 1 27' IS ~J " I ~ PASS PR E.S.!:j¡UIII Nx~ Po; SWIll T' + !:CJ./-1!LARC AD1I mE: + H CDHPDHE:NT Dr TB I JI .. ,. I J; :, I 37' ." .. ' ~~ I '. b " " I, ,.' .s. I ;.~ ;7 '8, SL~.1ßtd-E:~.ål-Y~1S 19 ',c, I ;1 .. .. I -- is -- --------- -,; I ,'; ----. - ,----- I I I I I I ¡ I i ! ~--, I : -I ¡ ! ! I I . 1 ! I I I L!l Q..I Qi ~ If); -i ~ lÑ1 31 01 _i ! i , . ¡ Ii j ~ ~::J g ! 0 ll.f I I i I . I . I~ '0 V'. ! Or I , , ! ;J)- 19 1'-" I I I I ,- , I I ' I I c-1 :f'" N q- ~ -.t' -: I II: " ;.¡ <J '-" @ ~ V' ~ I . '" (J), V\ ¡(/) : u...: 0 I 0 ! : .....,.. . I!IO leN , .... !~ '-..J 0 0 ~ ¡ /i , I' / ' ! I Ii , ;' ¡ ;/ i I: ".:.~ l\~-; t-; \' ¡.o' ~' \ '\ \ \ '\ :. .~~~:::..:: -+-~=- .., -"- -"'.; 'I<. b uO ::) {'- 0 ,It : \ ' ~ 0 to ., -~ ~ -'/ () -N - - . I .- ¡ -ì 9 ..... - ! 0 <> 0 Cf' Æ C r-- . '- p ~ , " . , ' Q \S1 . :, I .i :(\ I I 1 I I .-I , I I I I I I I I I I I I .....- .q- a õ' ~ '-" ¡ I J ¡ cr ,...---.. ~ v 3 a 4> ...Q' t.-- "':::::' ..J 5 It) I 'fI 4:. c rn ~ -/ \i - c ~ ~, \/) I.L.- -..... ~~ -.....- ..J> "- 0 ~ r-- íX\ >- ô'-, ~ ""'\-.L ~ o::r \Æ) Ç"' 0" - '-.J '-'~'t. -s~ .~ ~. -:. t ( --t \> d v ~ -(or- - 0 ~ -.J ~ ¡-..') -!J ~ N I; V' ..J .)1 - £ 0 ~ <I' .:>- IÞ II 1 I/'> ú} -:. 1..í- )/. C) C> 8 I / J /[ , Ii; I " ,\ \ / " ! i \' ¥-' " "1.. '- " "'- '" " '" ~ <;T «> '--" -\' V'I C <1' a ro 8 0 "T ,_/-'0, ~ ',,-- () ~ Ç) (\ ,) 1 ~ ~ \.\J '<" ~ - a <:I ,. , \ "I ) "" ' " "'-. ./' \ 0, \.X <::> <:7'- \ \ \ \\. \ ~ \ (. \ \,¡... \ e:J. ' ':) \ cI' \, 0 ro g .. \. \, \ \ 0 -.Ð ~tL ~ .) ./ ~ ~ & 8( ~o 0 """ 0 -.9 . , , " () " ~ ~ I 1 I I I I I I I I I I l.1' ~ -.:.. I ~ 4 ~ I ~~ - ~ r- 0 CV1 - ~ ~ ~C}.. I ('- (K) q- ~u! -.r ~ II \I ~'5 I .¡ <J )l~ - - ~! ~ ~ ;-.8 If\ \f) IW I . 1~ (j) V\ (j) ~ u...: C) Xl.L. I " (11 .~- <V -1 .{/) ûL Ln I1:J 0 '3' D 0 lu -...J . -. -. .. ,-.. ~ 0 ~- ......., "" øo fl' ..... ...,.. 6"- '-...J 0 4;) - .. 8 -8 ., .- -" - I . ! j f.., - / / I , .- , e .- . - - . . - - ' . - - - --q . ....-----'-- --... ~'--......~-.:--:.::~----"" ---~ \ '\ ~~\. --.... 0" -. t- -~ 1'0' \ -....... ~ "- \ ~ \ \ \ " ~ j -1 lI. ~ 1:) 110 0 ~ O. -.9 ,-, , ,,' 1<" ~, -- '-' 0 LO Ç) ~ ~ () t\t c -- 0 0 0 ø" <:) Q) 0 ..... " 0 .J) .\ 0 \s1 ~ ~ toe - I\J - F, S. S-r",¡ Ie. ! . l '3 \ - - - - F. (' -- 0 ( .-. I"~ , " -:: . -'. -,., ,- .~sò ..,..~y t\'(.(S þIGITrZ€:D - fo~ COMPUìft f( ~R.o~~" "" $l1ìeL~ '0 go 70 ~O 5D II I I ~ 10 (~3) gO /' /,' // /' // FILL ,/' . ' ,/ (68}:>'-J. / I -' / (5~)47)/ / -.x /' . ./'/ Œ7,"" 0,/ ." f 40 1(4'3,40) so Coo .)1. /'/* . // (g4.~8) ,,/ / 70 go ~D - ./ " ,/ // / - - - -~E- - Cot-JSTRuc.l (()fJ (111,01104 ) II D - . (140) 1M .--.....w ------ --~--&- )( TE~ " A<:: {. ( E'!J-. fA' I...U fR. ç 'S() R.FAc.¡¡:, (IO~Jð' ') ~) 120 13C) lðO 8 8 14-ù Ò' .l'i'\ i ..s' ¡<'\ Ie" ¡'-'. ¡ --' :1-' - II: -1. II .J .:J. \I -' í .0, .- I/' f II!I '\f)V\ '" II - 1\, '(j'l' -:.. u... ¡loJ-, I; I I, , ,: I ~i .j ~j ie' ~i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I , \ ~ i-'~---~~ 0, A- ' I ¡ ') , "",. ~: : ) "'~ 10. \' -;J' . J' ! . '" "",-,. ~ \.~ \ ", ~ ',.., . l. :-d' : ~.O\' . : . ,- , : . : " I\~\.., ..:> I ~ \: ~. . '~~,\...' . I ' ! ' , , '. \ \ .¡ I i - j ~. ~ 0 g:'- '8 I' \"J I , I j T-r ,51 ; It!) ! 1.' : \fl: i£i ¡ r . : ' , I 1 uu¡ '-~ . i ' ¡'t-' i ; I I ~'.,'J i I ; :~!'- I ¡ i ,.;;;' I ' : ~; I I ! 'i, t I , ¡ I I : /':' "'" <> . .:s,'" ' 0 ~ I i ,00; ~ iô',-¡ :,q.,.::1: il N~ ; I f7" ' \;0 ", G" , '-' i =.: : \ '-;../ '-t \ ! i-)¡ 14: \1 ¡ \1'-)' 1.....jJ, .: -.;, ~. ~i ~, (, or-. ~: -..; t i ,.-.! I '""' , q" '(Ò '---' t: ¡' :0 , C> C <T'" 2, ~ : (): : .-./ ' :~&J ~ ~~ i~: -; ': C I" ,8 I 0 ~ () 'l} \) (\ -- .. , ì C ~ ì "'1 ¡ , .,. : 0 <:I -r \ I Q (>. 0 ø¡) ~ 0 ~ ~ ti ?~ ô: & 0 ~" c .... ~- - - - ....... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; tS ~I T- ~ ~S ~ ,., , E:L ~ 'f N~ ," 7~ G fS ¡5 S I / / II / I / r I / / I / / / /' / I~t /' /VI ,~ <: 4" / ~Zt~. '/ j I I ' I..:. '37, I!" . ,/. "'-., ""- : / ~ 3D cJ '/ . l / ~ ~, . 2.1 ,V ' "'" ~ I :s' ,," ... ' i6 1..-, t' < " . . ",' "'-, i ~ T " 1(, ~-:::;::¿; { '" . '. . ""i . ~ \ """', / C\ _K,' "" ,. .... 71' \, '\, '-. '. '-... ., - 7 1. ...~ ../ \ \ " " I "- "", " : r .?1" . \ ' , {, " ' I .!.--'""", ,\ "I, I I"" - I C \ I ... \. ' ' .. ' I " , I "" "",,: I "" ./ :: tv! 4 Lh'!: Ù &&.1 r-r-- : EL3~~:~í\'/ to., "" \\, ,"\ 1\\\,1'\1 ", "'-!'l /~ . J'L/PC,H2c.-L-E ,,4- ,\ ,\\,,' "r ',. 1,/ ' \ '\ \ \pY"'" . ,. \\ ' ' \ .. '^ ; ZrrCc307.u'IC.,,~ ." "().~"', '35 ~ \ ' ' QI . \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ Cou- . "S" )Co ISo prF:r 20, '2t'~ \ /' " -1., D .1$'" \ ~ \ J 'j " /~ 1='.$. -: ZIO.7SI&. =' .46 _"/ 242.1) Ie .c:: 'EL ð P - /' UIJß~L (D - Z;'Z.S c- 2.JO.7S'c = OJ. '1stl:: LD\^Æ~ W.6t.L :3o~ / ) l':20 Su(.~ COfi!et,."C,7ICUJ = 35 =. 41~ ?f- / / / / upperz. WALl.- "tL 8 8 \ \~ ( " u I 1-[. " . ;1, 'I I 2 """1" FlIST PIIA5£ UlIIlEUI. 1""""" J J2SS II. ST. ,STE 112, sail IIE&O, tAL, 92110 4 {~ MTESr--fflttlt : . ¡ 'a.lm I MUD 81E 111111 II IOTTDII IF IIIlL .i 7 ...SSI EEIIITII IISEIIT IA" »»SlIL IITI 111.00 «« I"~ I III9EIf-tlJHmtIIl: III T 10;ff- 9 'CIIClE'PIIIIIIII IISE/IT II" »»t11C \IEIT 'Y' 110.00 10 TM& I Ð. ~ I.IT IA" »»PHI DEllI ~( 11 -flltUI O.~- 12 IICIII'£I OTlIE II.JFF nlCTI ~ 13 tlltl ID.OO 11SEII' II'. »)_1 ~ 14 IIE~HII"""'»Fftt1f---~.OG--««( 15 I.IT IAfI »»WIISI 110.00 «« II 16 -~ ,,:--- -i1-- 11I5EIIH61tt-»»llCHIJIIf-VFJlIIFT~« f ..; 11 SOIL IITI...... HT Clit IIY FlUI 15.00 acTIVE SIDE 1111111111111:1111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111:111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 .' 19 . ,. "Ii .' .., ,.' ¡" 28 E .. rl SIll If ~11I5 IIAlI. Iff 115' a. SUI'[ SIIICII IlaH-ftHBIT-'HIST-elSOlHll-!ØlHR--tOIHfT-DC-1IT 1fTt-IIIIt-TIIIII t't-tlllll-tJ-mt:r--J1HMI- 21 0.62 TO TOIl VFT/IlfT PSF VEl 5.00 TO ARC '0 SLOPE CllllPUTE PLOT 5.00 5.00 RID IICR IIItR IN:II AtTVE 22 a 1.~IM--1.....-tIt.*~i8t---'l~+'~.08 1.Ot-tiOiOO--15-.08 :15." !N5&-_h"" --8." 1--2I650----to12 UU41 24 G.62 III." 100.00 111.00 :15.00 75." 0.62 1.00 5.00 IOt.89 71." 31." 22412 1.00 0.05 1019 22:189 1.62 ~ 1.62 111.00 100.00 110." :15.00 75.00 0.62 1.00 10.00 1".54 61.80 40.74 240J! 0.00 O.Ot 2185 23940 1.62 H UZ III." 1".18 1JI.*-i5ilt-1s.t1--t-.62 I." 15...-ftt;91~õ1t--.U7 !55U- 1.00 t:1t--i411--2:1292---to12 27 0.62 111.00 100.00 110.00 :15.00 75.00 0.62 0.00 20.00 108.17 62.60 45.57 26884 0.00 0.11 4888 26436 1.62 28 G.62 111.00 100.00 110.00 :15.00 75.00 0.62 0.00 25.00 107.12 59.:58 47.62 21097 0.00 0.23 6386 27361 1.62 '" 29 uz-tt.... 1".08-tt0.tt--+""'~-"6i---+.tI :lti..-t05-.83-- 56." ".4J 29164 -..... 1.28--1954--28058 If' :J8 1.62 111.00 100.00 110.00 :15.00 75.00 0.62 0." :15.00 IM.21 5J.:J8 :58.98 30080 0.00 O.U 'lS71 28517 ~ J' Z II II It II . M .. III M ~ . . III III M . .. In I l ." 2 .11 J ; .,}.'t~.>/;:.t.,.,;,:.::.~. ',::;::.:i'; (~ m II saIL RPT! ,. II 8 'II ", ", :,,1 i,,; "I ',. 0.62 8 : . ," '"' 5 ,J] , ., 7 " 8 " 9 '" It :0' 11 " 12 IUTEI TO IIIPROYE SlJUATlIiII I. lOUSE 711 CAPAtIO to-iIlElWi-fIS- 3. UIIIEI ß 8.£ 4. llITEIllI! DOmS --- --tAt ---fltl- -tiIIIIA - - -f;S.--tIIIIAl '""Ç "j 14 ., 15 .,--t6------ --lIIIDEl»»- .-....8t--t.oo---t---t;oo'--t,~ 17 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIU 1111: 1111111111 19 20 TD' NOR" ARC lEN 21 ACTIVE ACTIVE 22 23 490869 157.70 0.00 ~ ~" 15--------10.80" U ~OO 27 .eo ---'--28--'--- --- -- . ----- --25.00 --- ~ ~" ~ :15. eo '0.00----'.00 ----'--""00- ,-------- --- PASSIVE SIIE. """"""""""'" ........... ........ ................... ......... ......... 80TH SIDES'.."'" .............. "........... lilt' -I SOIL HT SOil MT IETA aIlS TAlIS II IIIIRJI LD fRIC~ nOE) 2.00 PASS IIItR 10 TDT TAliS Tli lOR" ARt PASSIVE PASSIVE LEI PAS TOT CDH RESiSt AC"PAS FR,. ,..S !lllAi. LI F.S IlET PER LF SLIDE --- 15770 3O67tl 278m 44128 1.16 AlII f;i;.- - 'I.!' TANG . COH . --, -fIICT II£slsT. TOTALS F.5.IED' - ------------- ---. 27m2 Imo ~'701- -- - -------, 28358 1.50 ,-_u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I aY~_.... CA TE -.d~.~ I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I aECT.._..._$.~...JV~~_.__._-.-. SHE:t~ NO. .....-...." . oj!", .. .....~ c""o(q.~v ..-. ...-.-.-. OA ~E -.........-.......-. .............-........ .---......-............ .......--.-...--. ... .--.--.....-- ~oe NO. ......---.-.........-..----.- ........ .. h...._............~J..(.lUJ..._..4r. ..4' ...-......-... . n....' . . ._.m..._..-..... . .... ..-. hn'_"h.'..- .. -.--h.".'.....- -.-.............,...................-. ..- .. . {/Pf/é'L IA/.dLl- . Set; ¡;;P~/UG.J t' aw~ ,P/l,¿/TDt.17: - - - úA/E 20 :::::--T ~ . . I "'1 A ::7 '" .- A .7' '2DO ot " 11 es H Z0' ðP ..,í VL1 19 H .-=- SS I PJ'F Sou- L..P ," #f Toe: D WbL-L- SF!.cr. .JOI/-. J."D/I.,F' :: S$ J ,c. ¿~ - ,~~ 7 1C !:s , - /4-oso '/u:- SO(- L.QÀ/L.F r, c5 '1-. 7'~.!'rJ C "'l-i""/V: SC) t f.- LJ"~" /L~ I: It"'1- S':51 ~ CO&'/ ' / V 5'OIL L-O è. it /LF 1:. j ,:)Co ~I Co " 7Z>P' Tß ¿p I tJe.~ ¡ ~ z..B 4- Gt%/ / z. :;:: 4!J $8 . /t.~ Low 71J u Iv ~ z..)I' (;~I/Z . CC>6/ "/u:: 7'ðl:; L.O /u: ., bO~/ /~ e 30 30 II ILt: r-ð ~ L/,;) -- ßo¡t. LP ~r Z/)6 ){ . S . 77/P 45Sl'O ¡:". ¡( /, S :r 7Z, 7 IC gaT" 6'(;)(;/0/. ~9- )I. \"S: :: 9C. ¡If:. LJNClI ~ w! TfJ:,J-r p,ucr e... / ZOO P.1 F ¿ / ' 4AJC&J PI¿ = ;øP 7Z. 7/1' r;;J, 14)( / '¡( '/200) ,. z,o/ /rI11J ßOr ~~. 7" [ J, 1'1-)<./ )( /'2.00) .. z.c:: I' Hi;j 71JsP<- /kJ1Z. /()' 11Jh. La L 495: 10' bCXI' 4- I It Jl..C. I ~ OMTUHB ~. ~~ W¿LI.. . . .OM 80L. ~ (!r ..d L I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I - . I I T:)3L.8u8 10 3TAa 3TAC V8 V8 .C)lH:) ( !/PPS2 w~ u. ~dr.J Pot.6 7ZJes; ,;Z; ~;rN') - v' ~'-;:)t pp" l.rot. /Z)~ PIA ~ Z r l Ut:ø aJ¿A:. - .. V ~ ~;:OUJX 2- . ~ ..5;' #/ i./ AUf: ,Ho " a? CJ ur ::: " N e. S PØ,J -= .. 13)( /fJZ-ð" Jé ~ 1- ' c;/c. = /7 tf'1'ð ' Ii: S $'/ p ,¡ ,II! )(4-' cIt;. )C / I J: z. :. ~øz:z:z.. 4 I t:i: /VI /) }f ~ z.z 'Z.Z. 4 þt ///1J s (le7/¡)"3 = / Z . ¡Þ . 3-z.. ¡n~ $ ~1fQ -- Z22. 74-- ~ I?- eo / , 7 /500 Lð&&/Ai& VS~ 4. N"ib Sa ,6¡'~.. /,Z¡<L! t: ~ 4OoP.n= ~ 4'% :: 800 1M oCOo )( ~ - 300 PJ/ OIl:/¡ 400 ~ ~ - /7 PfT,' ~ ~ ¡(./Z- 11"? '16 ~ /1/ ~ I I ~A'~.OMT3:!1He~~ tVÂU- ~~. .OM 80\. I " J4~..LI "., 1 1FT A L -I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T:):!I\.8ue8 Y8 )\ :!IT AD :!IT AD Y8.OXH:) /A/¿~ (V'Pei(. IV¿¿¿ CÞ~) 7f)p Lo /LF ::; ~ .5,3'" (~/ ) N ": 49 S 8 x Ø;l8 :: 5/), 'L'IC.. Ikr ::. ~()~ I )( a Ya ,. C/'o ¿¡.',C 7ðP tV "d U!:A.. 2 6)(/6 ~ ~ I&. VI .Ie:- ß or tV,I) '- t!/l.. tI.J I!- , W ¿ I.I!:A J;&i:J It./ /0 - I ~ /8/' pún: S¿y = If:. ..s ~:;. ~,~){ IZ.. ~ 4oz.., / S'tJO ~ S 1Zt'!Q ~ CZ ¡<rL ~ 48 I, I~Ø ~. 512 I;' :J J.. $I z.. I;' $ .. " ' , ',- , , O" 1'2. (,: .. A . E 1 a I D . JI I z-lmffiifF1ll~IIEEIIIIIIì ..f"""t 3 3255 MIllS ST ,Sh 112, Su litgD, til, 92101 . tUm IIAUÐI r-PIO./EtT: IIUß' IIÐ'AII DATES:-J717192- , AII.SS: 7 StIIPE: IfPEi IIAll I ' 5EIInRAP- SØIL LD 9 .05£111 TRAr-WI TR"SEnI TR"SE"I TR==WI n"wl TR.oSEftl TR,oSEII TRo'SE"1 TI"WI TRaWl TRA-oSE"1 TW---WI n==wl TI"SE"I Ti--SEnI YRooWI TInSEl I TRooSE"1 TlooSE"1 TRooSE"1 TR'-SEIII TR-oSEnI TRAP.. 10 SOILS DATA FlIIII TEST: PHI . 32.00 DUll 0.56 lADS II tmr=-I50.00-PSf" - ------ 12 IT . 115.00 I'tF 13 EFP . IWIIA I 11-511 ,.,111/111111 PHil . :15.34 TII. .4 Efy RECr..-m--TRTMõë:1t - .9;-0B'1i£tT 15 16 IEStRlPT 1/ II 19 20 :¡;,:~~;-~iñõimtiüñõi"mnïš GO--=vi:Õr,;õõ=¡.¡;õõ-~r.õ~iÜ2õ+m-ï~Ï2-¡=--;' 00 -=-,0; oa-- -10; 00 21 (LETTERS DElDTE t1IlUIIIS,LIIlES AIlE RIJIS) 22 5£111 TIAP zr--- 24 25 CIEtTAII&II.AR ...ARISIIU ------- - ---- I-L' II FROII SOIL REPT PA- "" PHI- ISII. . 22.00 lEU 311f.1O' 20.00 2.00 - -------------- 8 - - -- ------ ----, :0 " ElP1I!iED El TOP DES NT SOIL M SOIL LD SOIL LD TOT LD TOT LI POlE SPt TI SPt TI 1ft l1li TIS A 01" . DI" t Dlft ~I SEIII'i.,--rTtfTlr---"LF IEtT -mrPStIlttTIIII-11IP-1III .lJnør--u-------n' --,.u-n ----- A . t " -------------- ~;DD-Ir:w- -11.00- ;' 22.00 9..00 29.00 19.00 1El~ 1929 12122 1.051 551 4.00 10.00 10.00 2.00 7.00 11.00 11.00 ~ ------ " 22.00 9..00 29.00 n.DI 16048 160.. 553 4.00 10.00 10.00 2.00 5.00 12.00 12.00 " :0 " " ---- -- ----------- II ,-- ---- -- --- ------ ---_u -- ---- 8 " ------- --- ------_.. ----------- -------------- - ------------- - ---------- 'f --- ------- ----- u --- -------- -- -....--- --------- ----------- .._u_----.... -----_u_-- -- ----- -..---- -m.., ,- --- ---------' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I I I : I I II I. I I , : I I I I I I I II "~ ~'l' /"'" "I" ~~' ~~r~' ~ü' ~~. ~~. ~~.. ~~' ~ ._~ II I' II ~ I II ~ I I i ~ I ¡ ¡ a! J: ~ ! ~ I~ ~I ~~ i . , ~I J = ~ ~ . !I "]i f ~ i I~ ;.:,1. r;¡~.. 1,1 I: ~ - I : il I I E ~ f> ~I I i = II:: :! ~ ... I = I i¡ ~~ I ! .. ~ ði J i ~ i - i! I~ I I L¡ ~I~;I J:I ir , II: j~ ~: L I L;a g m ~¡~ - .~... ," ¡I . L . "] § ~;~'I' . ~~~ ; hJ ... 'I Ii : il1 I !~ ~I ¡ , : , ê¡ ~:! I ¡ I ~I I =! I ~i =1 .... :::!I I .. ~ i . 8 8 . , - .. . .' , , . II I I tt , ~ < " " ';'- , " ,0 '. ~ '. '.<.:" :>". , '. .. I: II; II; I I ~ I I ¡ I ¡r; i I ! I If; I; ~ e I: . U¡ .. - .."""'" - , , , n , , " . . ~~' ~ll~' ~+ J. - .~ - ~ -j ~I l I ¡ I, i ~I J. ~ , I '" I' :1 I I = I ~ iN ~I ¡ 'I :! I ¡" 1111 ill J ; : I i I !,"§:i~ :~I 11111 I'" I. ... I I ' 10 1= III J ! I I ,I ~ ~5!a", i~ 'I'. 8 8 II III I - I II ~ ! ! I ~I :: ~ i ¡ ~ ... 1- i! 'II;::::, ... $ ¡ 5 ~I i J~ ¡ II 1: : ~ r ~ la~1 '-'1 ii' f¡ IN I ! 5 . ~ ~~ I ; = i II I;!! ¡;¡ : ¡¡¡ ¡ ~I 5 I !; i ~ 'N~I I ii~i \ f¡ ! ~ ?! ' "~g . '1 ' I II~: ' i I I~ ~;I j. ! 'I I !I ii ; ~ I I -;1' "I !:i;;I! ! ~ I ..;1 iii jI ". I ~I am II § '\ 'I ~I i ¡; , . ]1 ; 'I ! i Ñ § " ' ¡ ~I I~ : & I I =:¡ 'ê : I I I; ~ ¡ i jl I' I 51 : ~ 21 ::: ~i if ~ .... ~ I I'" - I- I i JI ¡; \: I,: II , ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 8 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 8 I I. I I I i- I~ I~ ~;¡¡ ~~ I i ~ I , :: I I T I : E I I - I ;: : I I ~ ¡ I I = ~ I , I I I ! I ! I i ,. I I I ¡ I I .1 I . ,'" ',' ,-. - - B B, . I: II: ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I . , .. , 8 8 ",T, . ..". n ~~: ~~: J --L'~-.___L. - . . - .-J.U WN 0 I I ¡ ~ i I ~j , ~ Š 9. 1/ ~ ; J :~ : : J -J". 8 8 ~ ::~ ~ i dl : r " 'I ;. ~ ~J : ~ fj ~ ~I ! ~ 2 I, ~ - ¡I ~ ~ I C : J;: ¡:: .:¡ = ~ ~ ~ ;.; § a ~ :;; - ~~: I ;; co I e Ei ~ = ~I !;;¡: - ~i ~= !. ~I I; I ~ Ë î I I I I I i ! I I I I I I .. ! ¡: . C' = § ¡ II a a § ~ X: ~ I I i § ! I , ~ ft § ¡ ': a * I !§ I i § ¡ ; š ! i ..... ~ e ¡ . " § ¡ c § ..... r: § I ..... I f " . , ."- ., .. - = I !: II II ,. 81 r I - ... 181 81 !! e I: . Ú\ , i ! Ð ;]1 J ~ : :;1 j~ § ;= ~ ~ jl II > ::¡ ;:!I ~ ] i ~ § : : ~¡ : @ ! :1 ~I I I" jl - 51 a ii! : : JI : :. : ~I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I 8 I I I I i I ~ ;;I II ø ~ ~ ¡ ~ ~ ~ i I i i a !D !! I Ii i I .. g 8 = ~ , = . § ;;I ~ ä n ;;I " § ¡ ø ø u ø 8 ¡ ø i <~~-. : " . " '. .' -~:'" . "; , ',.' ',.., ,- . . .. '"' II . . II . Ii . III = II 1! i' I. Y~_...- DA TE 9.fl.? HKO. BY ..-.-.--.-. OA TE ----...---.. I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ".",..".,.",. . .--....... ......-....... -...-...........--.. .:.~~::=:~:=:~_,..L._..=~:=~::~..- -........ ,.""""",., .....7S1'A..t..L/£V.... ......_t!:r......A.. L_..._.. ..... . .. ............................ ........-.................. SHEET NO. ----..... OF ......_.J7 .Joe NO. -.--.-..---."--- LoWI!:/Z. HALL: .~- ~-- - - Se6 CoÞl#tJ7t!X Hl/UTOtn: T8 35' ,.j Te ¿. HII/../,JU!: Co ~ rJ tJfS¿L.. 1.-1) ILF -= ufu=- D~.MTltJÄJT~ r2cF~T. S"lVC~ WAU- IS T/~O ŒA'-IC S"E ~ CDJIt PIJ~ pr¿1U/Our /-Jut?- J9 J/t:.sCJ2,Iße,s CIJ l, c. U L-/J 7/ olJ,S ~n ~À. COI-UPf A.J III 7Zlt!: Z. 4!,.1~'¿;) PICÅ-$ WIU-. ,v¡(}j;E ~ ~~ ßvr,;lLL ~~A!..f Ú;t1'/U- ß~ /¿JI!IVTIC¿J¿.. . ~c.:;cJ'(/t.. J'O¡,- t,.ø"P$ tlJJ' pe~Þ?/¿¡eo 8\/ ØAII..t-J(Z ë Q~ ¿.~J' W~f .I~t:A.crøJt:!Þ -n> 990 pJ'/# ( Z~ ,411::/¿...r:,), Àt...Jo C;1Jl!CI~~ ~Y J"I..I,I)IQ& 1Ve¿)~e. ¿ ~Vú:JÞ"1'ð.. 5/)/#1 Pl.!: Clft{,/.,..6 e~UD Ie/:) , T8 m 2411: 84-~ P:JF 1..~~£L.o~.::: JI'2. ,¿e.ð JV LLI... >:>'LBue. . ~ 13""- 4.¿. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :!TAa 3TAa VII Jð Y8 .c)H;) ~ W4J.L LC¡()~ J CO'Mlfra ÞIl/NT ~vr CxPL,/JV Á-rrÞd "'- S"eE' u~€ /' HNO 'Tð7¿L Ú,ð¿) Pt!/l '-1= If' /Ztt:cT ~a psI': z1 /2/1.;""6£ TI/!S/Jt:K UV~U I )~p 7?e/J4t:~ /2ef/.J/ L.o¿JD .ldßdvl£ 73'" ~ ¿&J;dJ? TQ Ã¥4.J<r r-.&~ Ú/Nt!A.. 7Z I24..J/~J ~ kÂi1~.ø ~ r& ~ ~Æ. 7Þ~ ~~ 12~lf~J ¿.o~~ ~ Jp¿l1~ ¿'¿';lIU. Lo/Jp i.1 CII¡f.¡j2IÌ!):) Þba~~t.Ly ßy 7'/.ø,&::::/t. LAt:~ /".;>~ I rb j)/e,¡¿s/ TBe.u veA.7~Clax ~ /ß J" ø Cb AJ Cl/,e:!~¿Jt P/w & l!. íPeU ~6? 4 y ¿V 4¡{~/ Q&: J';?~~.i...t ,¡If &7ZIAO ~ /l e p ¿Jc.E C/2.-' ~ ~ ,V ~ (; p- ~ ~ .tE 7" is ;(/ T 71/i.f /I"£./,(I~ ~~", /2e"ù~ ~ ,QI1!'A.I' ., Os ~yP CP"~, v~ ..r~", ~:"""A,~4 /, OJPCA!é~ ;f111J',K. .5e~ ¡;)/lwt; ,v47l::S: CAl..CVtJITe¿J 7Z1 ÃvaJQI( Ll'pC/MS A:f..4 (/~ /.J4L:u /~")CI1~¿:~ (§~Sf ÐI2W~~) 7'Ü P~C,LI.KK .P1.!".eP I"'SIJ/~)l~.!). e4~1i 77~..IJ/J~ ~ ß~ ~.r-r4¿;) é!. /S"~%. --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ...0 .OH T33H2 .OH BOL -8 . T~3L8ua8 . ..." Y8 YB .QJlH~ 3TAD :!TAD V/t./ 8.41.. t-o C r: s: 1./.$. SZIt:. Æ.d r: S, = ~ &. 4-$' , .4f1<JS() # ¿::/3 ~ Fo/L ~s. I-S lIS H~ /~ 6 "Pf7 PfF :J.f' Ie. 7CJT/J£ T¿J11I6:= 340 t2~~. ~/ /. S' r::...s: :: I. S' x i) VAIl- r-IZ .ð vA/I- COJ-{ N~~ IIBIC- 8 - .IS 3 tM If:. =- ...s7 0 Ie "l~ 7~~) = C/~IC) l/ð~ÄF 8 8 . .' u ,.., A ..-l--_.......!I_-'--_-.-l._l____'- 8._----'..__1._u-J ----, . . Cnn__] f H DATES: -.L.~-_---1 1.00 FRIIII SOIL WT PA' 30.00 1'1" '~Q,J! PHI' 20.00 312/92 - Fl. 1.36 ..._-_--.JIIS! _.,,!OO.iL___--. PIER FR' BOO.OO .-.-- -- h- :J I 2 "11'1111 FIIST PHASE Ell&11ŒU11IIi ""11'11' L..m5 HIIIIi.J!JlU!J.Jp.JiJud4l....1UOl f a.IEIIT nI IIAI.lEII ET .. 5 PllØÆCT I SEAIIALL l._Alm;~; - _j5UEI'J.QII(- - --- 7 Al88ESS: 58 I SCOPE: SEE AlSO 'STAllllTY'PRÐ6iIM FGI OPPEl CWIT DES\611 9 II SEAIIW. . UI'I'£IIIMllS -1£91111 Fill ESTlIlATE - lilT FDI CllllSTROCTIIIII!j'!!!!! \I PElIIlEJEI . 83.00 ««(DTEI DA HT . . , 12 "5EAHAU .....SEAIIAU .. SEAIIAll"SEAIIII.l" 5a11A1.l '=SEAIIAU. ==5£AIIII.l"SEAIIII.I. .. SlAIIAlI. 'aSEAIIAll" SEAllll.l'" SE AllAU.. SEAIIAlI. .. SEAIIAU .as£AIIII.l.. SEAIIAlla:SEAIIAll" SEAIIII.luSEAIIII.I. .. SE AJ!All =- ~~l"=SE. Alio1l.l "!. ~ .... ï3'- .-----. ..-.----.. II DESCiIPT 51 110 TO 51 III IIIR $IC El TÐP a. lOT SHORE NT SOIL H SOIL H TII OPTH TII LD 1m LD TOT LI I'Sf LI 15 IECT Sl't PIER IfAlL tAIIT REeT AT TÐP PEl LF PER LF PEl LF REtT IA 11 ------- II 19 CØl EIPlAII. SEE DtI&S 20 l! 22 n M 25...........................................................................................................................-.........................................................::................................ " .----....---.., ____n_._. .--- SIIRCH . 0.00' PEIIIITR TOT 110 PIERS SIlL SPAll lID TDS A 01" I 01" t II" It II .11 A I t " ------ --------- - --- - - ----- --- - ---- - - - - -- ---- --- - -- - --- --- u tiC PIER 0.5'N'J'2 1,&'2 2.00 7.00 &-ITtVI 10.00 13.00 IN/fl 35.00 IE-Ft ISOll CDEFFt KfL 1'& 0.00 ". " " EII8 .lli!.. CD PIEIS EI8 PIER moo 29fOO 29400 83.00 83.00 83.00 f." I." f." 1: gG----.J 9.00 A.OO 19.00 A.OO 19.00 !9.~@' 18.00 11.00 29400 29400 29400 If. ... ... 1.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ...9 ..., 8.89 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 2f.00 21.00 24.00 ! 0 0 ! 2 10 ! , II !,~ 0.00 1.00 I' U ." " .. 10' !l ", 10 " " ". II. ..--..-".- -_.--------- -.- --- ._-- --.-------.----..---- ---... -. -...--.-- .-- ------ ___no.. . - ---- ----- -_._-- - ...-. -- ._-.. - ----.. .... ..._un - --- -- .- -.- -- --- - . --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , . 8 8 ---_.".t,...~; "~~I""~~c-~w""~~~~=~",,;¡,,.._.;;=;t..__...~-~~, I U~~~~~;=~.P.w~=; -- Þ. N- I . I , E ... : tItItI .!: Ë å ~:g :, : U ElI!w .. ¡ e~ë .1; . ! E ¡ : : 5 I : : I :: ä ä ii u : Ë ~ u i ! E . . Š ~ 5 ~ 5 ~ E ~ : i I Llt~. I' I~ ~ ~ii :E .. : ¡; - : Ii ...I~ ~ !!I=IÞ i I ~i1 '! ~~ 5 !ËE ~ I . Ë i'¡ê ~ co I ~ ¡; ~III ;¡- i ¡I~ ~ ~:;;~ ¡, . ==!:: E ~:E .1;, I a d- ..1. ~II aM & 15 g gig ~I r;;! A I ;;¡ i ;i :~! I I! I¡" --1- .11 . . i! iiils ~¡ I ::" - a, -þ ¡ICI i~¡~; :: I' Þ =1",;:; Ii: - III ;:¡::!!;:¡: : ~ =:::= ..., !II- i~ I I ;: i'ii - - - :! ¡III ti ti I;" :., I !3 IJ 'I'" LO!, I ,... ¡;; ;: I U - ~I I ~ ¡ICI j ~¡ã ii I - Þ ! .. :1= 1;11 §:: III i~i i I ~ , ; I ~fi. i ..."" ~. ~ u ~ Ë tu:~ : = ~I ! ~¡ I ~IJi:: II =1, 1'" in ..." III I I ii I l =' I ~t:I~ ~: I I ¡:. I ! i 11 I I j I ,= I 'I :: II II;:: ~.m~ . wi. ~: ¡ 5:~ ;::::;::: -: I I I" g 8;18 :: I I...) 1= ~'I :~¡¡¡ .~ ~~~ III a ~ I r t I I [ l I ~ I r _L... i iri l I \ ëï- I I s!!!i~§¡;1 ..~-- -~I ¡¡~. ~ih; "'"':2 I I I : ~~ ~~I ".. -- .. . , . -, '" I . I L I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I - " ¡. 8 .. .. '.., .'.' ,. r'l'T-I : I ' ¡ I I j I i ""~C"IU~.~"~'"-~"C" I ~-~~~~._~.Ü.~N=;r-~-I' M.WN-¡ ~ ~ I Xii i I ¡ = w~w .c¡ i !i! I wi - wwl~ I ta,~ ~ I I,"ji ~~~~g~~1 = I ¡ b:!,~ I' ¡ I E~,E ~: I ¡iiI,!~ :;I_...¡~~~!I; = ~~;~ 11;1 I 1= :".:"':"':":""'1 . -N.- -., II OM~..'--.. !! ' i I..... II L !, : = - ~I- I ,m i!: 1111 - -'.. W-' . 8::18 I; I ~- I~ -"".'8o8oN'1i I = ~ :1= I 1= ~ :I"'i~ f> r ~ g [8 8 g iL !! ' 'I-;¡¡ ~;:~:o::.~~~.", = ~~i~ ~ I ~,~~g,gg:;1 !! I I .. 'I ø :: I ä I I I :;¡ ~ ,III ~ ~ ~ ¡;:!;; ;; ~ !: II ~~I~ ~II' IJ èI::~g,gU;1 5 I : ¡ I:! Ii ! I : " ww'w ¡þ I I... £! ~- --.-1 II ""'W 71 I .... IE ~~~!'"~~'"'= H g s;s ~'I I ,~ èI~ ~ g g g èI¡ II i I!n I !! ~ 1 I. 1111 , !! ::: I !1:!:r!1 S I ~I i I ~ íï : !;: I I In . =, I a Ë I ~¡! I I" ä ~~I~ ~I !,! G Ë l' ;:~ I~ Ë ~~!I~ ~II ,r;:!:1 nil i'ii =...-1 í~I'" n .. .. ,.. .. .1;1" I£! : ~ ;.~ -I I . ¡¡ i~ " I I '" "" n 1 ¡þ:! :r'- I'::' :1 0 -10 ~i i i ~ ,i ¡i iÜ~ it.: ~ i I 5i" 1" ë I I ~I I '... 11 II f 'ö:" I I Jii Ii:! II I II : c :. ~ ! ~I I' :I¡ ä ~¡ I i G ;!G ~i II' :- I~:, II I I -¡'. . ~ I ! ! II : ~I : 5 I ~ Ii ii: oW ~ a ~s~ ¡; 'I' :!,..: rig; 1I1=;:'I!~1 ¡"':'oo; II~W:~!:::I 1:00' ë ¡ ! i I¡¡¡¡: Ii II :":"- :,,1 1 '",...,~ u g g'8 81 I :.. ,.. :" " I -i I' ,0;;- s - N- ~! i i! i ,~ :1 - ~:;: '1,: eD ~ " - N¡- .~I: ¡:: r- ä ;: ¡ 'i ::1 :r ! 'I ¡¡ I - i : -.0;;- M I ' '... -iii." a - -,- ¡þ ¡ .~ Iii: !"i " N:æI"" - I r-,... is S g ...g I;'" "': '1= 5 '!, !~~¡ Y/; : =:: 'r-_:'~ " 'l ':;::: !: iii ',. " ~"... 5 :::' i 9 " ;; I' 1 n . - :;; 1 n w"W ~ 1 ~ N~r -II 1 , 8 . I 1 '¡þ I IC ~ b ..: . !~ ~ õ:i i " ..." " . " "I g...~g:gg;;: .. L _I... M - ~!,"~!,"I:":"~,~ ~.t:g.8g8' I I =L. ----, ~ "" 0 ..,~ ... N l¡þ :,.;:..... 0 ë,ë,;.r 010"0000 ..L ~__=i -oO"-"'-~1IÞ ;';':"g~g~i'" COON 0 01 , I I . ~ _I : _I ;;:!1::I..~ò!òn= g::gg8g! ! : I ' ; :;;... NeD"':::;. ~~~~~~~I =~_::::==¡¡¡... gid::g~:g:- : 1 I:!L.. N:"'" ~I N"'......" g~!3gg8SI . : :: !:: .. :::: ::: ::: ~ 1- " . " . . . " ... gèl=g~~gi , . i ~~ .._..~I """0"""111 :s:;!388g8; I I ::~..~ii~L. ¡;~kg~8gr . , I: ! , .. l- - - ~ I ~;¡;..~;:... 8ji:8iggl . i ':. , " .. .. . . . ." tIo3 N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , .. , , 8 8 8IíTl ¡ I I I = !I! a'" 1= I I ! ŠI r-:;~ I I I iii ~,I "'5:~ ~ ..t:~~!¡i II j sss ¡ I It;!!= 8 iag~gg E !:I !:I !:I !:II: ¡¡'" I I ! = Ssg 8¡ I' a.: I I l ~~~ ~I ' ¡;;aiE ¡: ¡: '¡: .. I ... II I ! II I ! ! I,' i I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I , . ¡ I- i , ",':: ' , ," ct , ~ ~ '\ ) 60D0 U~PTUN(~, D\oIELLItiG ~'\ fArLU~.E CIRCLE -', \, FACTOR OF SAFETY = <1 """,. r\--I. """ ~ .¡ EL 94 DECK . EG AD..J prop" "-',.J EO NŒTH -"" , '- ¡ " tL 72 ¡ EG ADJ PR[J" """'", . ':, .// ,/ , ~.. , " ~ Y I 'y.."" " / 31 U:GR -\,/ / / EI... 49 (\ . / ,,/ ~ / .J /,' ~,/' EL 3~ -./ ",/ I[/~ I / =:111= ==HI== ~ t , ; ~ NORTH PROP LINE G5~ NEPTUNE..., D\.'ELLIHG \ \ "-11 NEPTUNE -\ \ \ ' fAILURE CIRCLE"", \ \. FACTOR OF SAFETY ~7/~'~.. \. \ I EL 94 DE~K.- r' J' ~ 1 ""., ? ' ~;30' I , .~ 1,....-1 l E\IST GR ", ..z-f'. ! / '- ,.-' 1..1 j -^ y , /'" ,.......... ,{ /' ,.../' 'y' /' /",/ (' ,/' .-.""~ ¡ ,/" ...../ I .,.,,/ [' // / /~ ---- I \ ",1"" ",IF" ¡ ì --" M I ¡ ~ '5(. NEPTut£ \" DWELLING \ fAILURE CIRCLE ~ \ FACTOR OF SAFETY = <1 Xf' \ , \ EL 94 DEC~í J' I, I, I , ! , /1 11/ , / I / ' I lõ:G ADJ PRrP %" / / " -t-/ / // ' ~t.G ,~nUTH ~ /'¿" / // ~U ,~// f ~ II>\/~' \r ~IF ~IF , I ~I ...... CD'ITER PROP LINE SOUTH PROP LINE SCALE 5' EA IIIII I I IIII I II THIS DRA\.iING DEPICTS SITE CROSSECTrONS AT 3 PLACES ALONG THE PRCPERT~ AND DEPICTS THE FAILURE CIRCLES '..'HERE THE FACTOR OF' SAF"ETY BECCMES U:SS THAN 1.0 THIS DR\./G. SHOIN'S EXISTING TDPO. ON FEBRUARY 8,.1992, THIS DRAVrNG SUPER$~DES DVG 5 4/;/92 2/8/92 eIt192 ! IU ~ ~ i~ I~ §! iti I~ (~ @ ~@:j) ~~ IÞ~ ~~ [F~ (D) -. ~l!.!!J I] . dJ i" ~ D !? DOOI dJ tm t1 ~IO' ~- ~~ cg(!D ;; ~ - - . . -. .. . " , - rbI)' I -- (L ?4 m:~ r::=:IIG T~NSAR RCNfORCED SUP£: T' / /1 """ L:=-! ", l .~ / /--- / <' ~"iT,<' . Þ---,I HARII'£ TERRACE '¡)I'Y"W" I ~ /, I;f-- /"'- l[I\rIEF!. ""'-ALL -"" /~ ,/ "'-. E:XIST SLOPE EL 3:5 ---....:> F' ~J '" TINBLR LAtiGIHG " CON: PIERS ~ BEACH "\ EL7~ EL.O~ ...- EL -6- . ceNt fïG " CJJTCrr v AU..! r(,.{ ¡ I -~ I I EL 94 DECK /~ DVELUNG SDIL CEMENT """"' ¡,I ,/1 (I .II - .",,<?'",' ------ 31 DE uP. /-~ ,-"" ,/ i -..... / u ----"'--..... l ./ / ./ " i../ I .I / Cle--.. GEOGR ID SOIL CD~ENT AL T, SECTIONS THROUGH BLUFF ¡'¡OTE! THIS DRA~ING DEPICTS ALTERNATE TREATMENTS FOR THE UPPER SLOPE. FINAL ARRANGEMENT MUST MERGE ~ITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND BE APpROVED BY COASTAL AND THE C~TY. ' I UPPER \~lALL I- bI]' . I -, I EL 94DE~~ ' [ I ¡f" "t----------. ...-"'1 I dill P' DEDh , II rlr--- i "V~ jl I ... /11 -j'"/'""" / ~,.-'" / ...."'" / ,,/ / I ( I '--k---Tn::BACKs'- ) ---! ---I' ---- --U ~ DOUBLE UPPER VALL 4/8/92 3/10/92 ì B t ~ -I ð ~ I s ii~ ~ I ~ Ie! t Ii }V ~ . <g ~ I~ [?t @~ Im~ IF~ @mt m!: @,J ¡mëg ~I? lQJ~ c!I ¡81)¡æ ;! ~~ ~fj II éù PR FESSIONAL REGISTERED INS~TIONS. INC. 18 5 Convoy Court 115 ~ Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 ~3 8 JOB NO.: 4871 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENGINEER: NAME: SEAWALL GEN CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR BL G AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CO STR. MAT'L: CONCRETE PL N FILE: /21 REBAR A615; 40 & 50, MIX #1-69RAE INSPECTION REPORT Inspected reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete in north block of ener'gy absor'ber', elevation 0 to 7 . Prepared a set .of three test specimens from concrete being used. Engineer v~sited jobsite; discussed status of work to date and received a set of revi sed drawi n'3s. New drawi ngs call for 6" of concrete coverage on front face of energy absor'ber i as bui 1 t has 3 II coverage over steel. Inspected reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete in end closure blocks of energy absorber, elevation 0 to 71. Prepared a set of three test specimens from concrete being used. Some dowel steel for northern most pier not cast in place due to interference from existing concrete projecting from adjacent sea wall. Contractor states missing dowels (4 - #1015 and 1 - #7) will be drilled in and epoxied per engineer's directions. d.a6/~ : DALE REGLI INSPECTOR SUPERVISOR : 4/23/92 DATE : 280 REGISTER 1 .--,. PR_FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPECTIONS, INC, 7895 Convoy Court #15 4IÞ San Diego, Ca. 92111 'f1JJ -~ JOB NO.: 11871 JOB: s: E,£I, I,'¡,Â,L L 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: PERM I T NO.: PLAN FILE: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: SEAWALL FOOTINGS ~H NO.: 1-69RÞ,E MADE BY: .JEFFREY GAYLEf:;: PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 511 AD IXTURE: P()ZZ DATE MADE: 4;/14/92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: h/17/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: SUPERIOR READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: 226hO9 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90515 90=,16 90517 DA E TESTED: l.t/21 5/12 5/12 AR A-SQ. IN.: 28.28 28.28 28.28 UL 1MATE LOAD-LBS: 125000 1h6000 159000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 1".1.120 : 5160 : 5620 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: If 0 0 0 , D1 TR1BUT10N: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS <¿~Þ4J ENGINEER PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONS INC 78 5 Convoy Court 115 ...' . Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 . JOB NO.: 4871 CL ENT: SEA WALL 658 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR BLDG AUTH: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER CITY OF ENCINITAS GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: IN PECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: FI LD SA PLE OF: CONCRETE í LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: SEAWALL FOOTINGS MI NO. : 1-69RAE MADE BY: ,JEFFREY GAYLER, '.' PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 5" AD IXTURE: POll DATE MADE: 4/14/92 4/17/92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: SUPERIOR READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 2261+09 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90515 90516 90517 ÐA E TESTED: 4/21 5/12 5/12 AR A-SQ.IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 125000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 1...420 . . SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: 4000 DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ~~~/ 4~/" ENGINEER ..... ""","w. PROFESS IONAL REG I¡ERED INS PECTI ONS, IN ' z#.. 7895 Convoy Court San Diego, California 92111 Phone a INSPECTORS WEEKLY REPORT . 17 . . , 18.9.2 COVERING WORK PERFORMED ~ REINFORCED CONCRETE 0 PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE 0 REINFORCED MASONRY LAM. FABRICATION INSP'N. DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED, TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED, JOB PROBLEMS, PROGRESS, REM"RKS. ETC . " INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT - AMOUNTS OF MATERIAL PLACED OR WORK PERFORMED: NUMBER. TYPE. & IDENT. NO'S. OF TEST SAMPLES TAKEN; STRUCT. CONNECTIONS (WELDS MADE, H.T. BOLTS TORQUED) CHECKED: ETC. -- SIGNATU~~~CTOR ~ 46397 DATE OF REPORT REGISTER NUMBER '--". ,'n, ." PRO ESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~j¡ON~ INr 789 Convoy Court 115 -" -t -I San Diegot Ca. 92111 . ~~ JOB NO.: 1+871 .JOB: SEA WÞ,LL ARC ITECT: 656 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BlDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS INS ECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: MIX NO.: 1-69RAE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: NORTH BLOCK ENERGY ABSORBER MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON CONCRETE PROPORTIONS: 9 S,t..CK SLUMP: 6 1/211 ADMIXTURE: POll DATE MADE: 4/1'3/92 TYPE OF CEMENT: DATE RECEIVED: 1+/1/1/92 CON_. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TICKET NO.: 226369 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SPECIMEN MARKINGS: 90lf75 901,76 901'1- 77 DATE TESTED: /+ /20 5/1 1 5/1 1 AREA-SQ.IN. : 28.28 28.28 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 118000 1/+8000 1'+8000 UNIT STRESS-LBS: : h175 : 5235 : 5235 SPECIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: hOOO DISTRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS c~/~ ENGINEER PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONS. INC. 78 5 Convoy Court 115 .., Sa Diego. Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 4871 CL ENT: SEA WALL 656 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS' PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: FI LD LOCATION OF SPECIMEN SA PLE OF: CONCRETE IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: NORTH BLOCK ENERGV I ABSORBER NI NO.: 1-69RAE MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON .", PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 6 1/2" POll DATE MADE: 4/13/92 DATE RECEIVED: 4/14/92 TY E OF CEMENT: CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READV MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 226369 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90475 90476 90477 . DA E TESTED: 4/20 5/11 5/11 AR A-SQ. IN. : UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 28.28 118000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 4175 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: 4000 DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ,,-M¿ç. ENGINEER ..... lif,",. ~-"'" PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPECTIONS, INC, 78 5 Convoy Court 115 4IÞ Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 1~87 ,:' ~ AR HITECT: SEÞ. WALL 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: MI NO.: 1-69RAE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: INTERMEDIATE ENERGY ABSORBER BLOCKS MADE BV: DENNIS OLSON CONCRETE PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 6" AD IXTURE: POZZ DATE MADE: 1../10/92 TV E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: 1~/'3/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READV MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 226301, INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 901~66 90l¡.67 901.¡ 68 ; DA E TESTED: h/17 5/08 5/08 AR A-SQ. IN. : 28.28 28.28 28.28 I UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: UN T STRESS-LBS: 120000 1l¡0000 1h3000 : h2lf5 : 1~950 : 5060 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: hOOO 01 TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ~~~ /~J, ENGINEER PRO ESSIONAL REGISTER INSPEQliONS. INC. 189 Convoy Court 115 .., San Diego. Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 4871 JOB: SEA WALL CLI NT: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR~ GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER ARC ITECT: BLDG AUTH~ CITV OF ENCINITAS INS ECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE~ CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: ENERGY ABSORBER BLOCK. SOUTH END 1-69RAE MADE BV: DENì"¡ I S OL SON PRO ORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 611 POll DATE MADE: 4/09/92 OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: 1+/13/92 ESCONDIDO READV MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TIC ET NO. ~ 1328142 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORV TEST DATA 7 DAVS 14 DAVS .28 DAVS 28 DAVS SPE IMEN MARKINGS: 90381 90382 90383 I.~/ 1 6 5/07 5/07 AR E - SQ. IN . : 28.28 28.28 28.28 ULTIMATE LOAD-LBS: 115000 146000 1l~7500 STRESS-LBS: ~ 4065 : 5165 : 521~ SPE_IFIED STRENGTH AT 8 DAYS-PSI: 1+000 DISTRIBUTION~ GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITV OF ENCINITAS d.4¿4/-' ENGINEER PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPE~ONSt INCt 7895 Convoy Court 115 San Diegot Ca. 92111 SEA WALL i AD RESS: I 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: AR HITECT: BLDG AUTH: PERMIT NO.: 8 JOB NO.: i+871 FIRST PHASE ENGINEER CITY OF ENCINITAS PLAN FILE: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: LOWER PORTION OF ENERGY ABSORBER! NORTH E~D MADE BV: DENNIS OLSON' MI NO. : 1-69R.ö,E PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: POZZUTEC 20/POZZ DATE MADE: DATE RECEIVED: TV E OF CEMENT: II 6 1/2" 4/08/92 4/09/92 SOURCE OF ROCK: CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX TI KET NO.: 1327973 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORV TEST DATA 7 DAVS 14 DAVS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90309 DA E TESTED: i+/15 AR A-SQ.IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 135000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : i.l. 7 7 5 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAVS-PSI: DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS 28 DAVS 28 DAVS 90310 90311 5/06 5/06 28.28 28.28 160000 1 63 000- 0 5660 0 5765 . . 4000 ~~~/L;/ ENGINEER PRO ESSIONAL REGISTER INSPEtlJ°NS, INC, 789 Convoy Court 115 San Diego, Ca. 92111 JOB: SEA W,A.L L ADD ESS: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR FIRST PHASE ENGINEER OWNER: CLIENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: ARC ITECT: BLDG AUTH: INSPECTOR: PERMIT NO.: 8 JOB NO.: 4871 CITY OF ENCINITAS PLAN FILE: FIE D SAMPLE OF: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: CUT-OFF WALL SOUTH HALF MIX NO.: 1-69RAE PR PORTIONS: 9 SACI< ADMIXTURE: POll MADE BY: SLUMP: DATE MADE: TYPE OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: DENNIS OLSON 6" -.. ""06/92 4/07/92 SOURCE OF ROCK: CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READV MIX TI KET NO.: 1327699 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90156 DA E TESTED: 4/13 28.28 AR A - SQ. IN . : UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 98000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 31+65 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS, 90157 90158 5/01+ 5/0l~ 28.28 28.28 129000 128000 . l¡.560 : '+525 . 1+000 é A.-L,. ./ 4/ ENGINEER 8 - FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING . March 5, 1992 City of Encinitas Building Department 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Attention: Hans Jensen Reference: Mallen Seawall 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen: Enclosed are the calculations we discussed today at your office. Sheet #1 depicts the design of the lower wall. a computer printout, Line 19 depicts the calculations for each column. This is the only seek approval at this time. Although this is explanation and wall for which we Also enclosed is backup computer data from a number of slip circles and wedge analyses made to determine the soil loads. We have selected conservative values for the backfill soils. The granular backfill will be selected to conform with this design criteria. As you know, this is emergency work which is to start on March 13, 1992, when a good "tide window" occurs for work on the beach. Let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING a~~ Robert S. Milmoe CE 8946 RM:ns cc: J. Mallen R. Trettin 3255 WING STREET, SUITE 112, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 (619) 226-8076 FAX (619) 226-8078 ) ." ., .. ", '.., -- .~ .FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING 8 February 13, 1992 California Coastal Commission San Diego Office 3111 Camino Del Rio N., ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92108 œŒ,(~ Œ OWŒrID MAR 0 5 1992 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Attention: Mr. Paul Webb ENGINEERING DEPT. Reference: 656-658-660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Webb: In late December, 1991, the properties at Neptune Avenue experienced a major coastal Subsequently, ~dditional failure has occurred portion of the bluffs fronting these praperties. 656, 658 and 660 bluff failure. on the upper The residences at the above-referenced properties are in imminent danger from further bluff failure and an emergency permit to develop a coastal protective device is warranted at this time. The owners at the above-referenced properties are in the progess of applying for an emergency permit to develop a coastal seawall. Preliminary plans, prepãred by First Phase Engineering, are being submitted with the application. An initial review of the bluff illustrates that soil conditions are virtually identical to adjacent areas of the bluff where failures have previously occurred. It is my recommendation that the immediate project include stabilization of the upper bluff and development of a "lower seawall" -- to protect the homeowners from the immediate threat to their residences. I have reviewed several available methods of construction and determined that the most applicable to the circumstances existing at this property are as depicted an the engineering site plan. 3255 WING STREET. SUITE 112. SAN DIEGO. CA 92110 (619) 226-8076 FAX (619) 226-8078 J' ~ .. e 8 .. .... , :. California Coastal Commission February 13, 1992 PageTwo Because of extensive drainage through the bluff, I am recommending lateral wood crossbeams and weepholes placed at critical locations along the length of the wall. The composition of the bluff, which allows free-dr~ining to~~ccur, is such that subdrains would not be appropriate in this case. The use of subdrains, or "hydroggers" would be anticipated in areas where bluff composition restricted the passage of water (i.e., clay). Again, the on-going bluff failure at 656-660 Neptune Avbenue canstitutes an immediate threat to the residential structures at these properties. An emergency coastal permit is urgently required to allow the initiation of work at this site. Please contact me directly if project. you have any questions on this Very t~uly yours, ! FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING ( ~ / ,7./2/ ~ç/~~d4f./. I Robert S. Milmoe CE 8946 RM:ns '. , '/ .. - 8 8 , ~, BID DOCUMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS & RELATED WORK 656/658/660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA .., -\.1 \ ,~_.l. PREPARED FOR: JAMES MALLEN 656 Neptune Avenue RICHARD BOURGAULT 658 Neptune Avenue JERALD D. WHITE 660 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 JAlftJARY 28/ 1992 PREPARED BY: FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING 3255 Wing Street, Suite #112 San Diego, CA 92110 ,. , . ( . . .. A. 8 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Invitation to Bid.................................l Instructions to Bidders... ....... ......... ........1 Information Available to Bidders..................2 Site Description..................................3 GENERAL CONDITIONS................................4 A.l A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.? A.8 A.9 A.I0 B. Bid Schedule.................................4 Variable Quantity Work Fixed Quantity Work Contract Farm................................5 Definitions..................................5 Change Orders................................5 Terminatians and Disputes............. .......5 Interpretation of Documents. ........... ......6 Material & Workmanship.......................6 Inspection & Acceptance............ ... .......6 Payment......................................6 Unit Prices Retention Materials Insurance....................................? Limits of Liability Proof of Insurance Additional Insured Hold Harmless SPECIAL CONDITIONS................................8 B.l Environmental Protection......... ..... .......9 Contamination Cleanup Restoratian of Landscape Water Burning Fueling & Disposal Earthwork Dust Noise '( B.2 , ~ B.3 B.4 B.5 B.G B.7 B.8 B.9 Earth~~tL~~"""""""""""8........1O Excavation Backfill Compaction Wall Backfill Final Grading Cleanup Tests Cast In Place Concrete...................... .12 Applicable Publications Shop Drawings Samples and Testing Materials and Manufacturers Installation Surface Finishes Tolerance Testing and Inspection Tiebacks.....................................31 Description Anchors Materials Installation Testing/Inspectian Drain System.................................32 Materials Installatian Description Cleanup......................................32 Monitoring...................................32 Geogrids.....................................33 Products.....................................34 APPENDIX Drawings AGC Contract Form ',' , . 8 8 INVITATION TO BID You are invited to offer prices for furnishing all material, labor and supervision for the work as described herein. Prices should include all applicable taxes. Cost of bonds and permits, if required, will be paid by the owner. Prices are to be depicted using the enclosed bid schedule. Any substitutions or deviations from these documents must be noted in the space provided on the bid documents. Bids are to be business day on received as designated by the close of the A pre-bid conference will be held at the site followed by a question and answer period. Measures will be taken to allow each contractor confidentiality during this meeting with respect to any special procedures, techniques or alternates the Contractar might propose. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS The bidders will fill out the enclosed bid documents and note any addenda received. Unit, lump sum and other prices must be entered in the appropriate spaces provided. Unit prices should be multiplied by the amount or estimated quantity, and the product inserted in the "Total Price" column shown on the Bid Form; the "Total Prices" should be added to arrive at the "Total Bid Price", "Estimated Quantities" shawn on the Bid Form are approximate and are based on the best information available at the time of bidding and are used solely for the purpose of evaluating the Bids. The owner or agent does not represent, expressly or by implication, the the actual amount of work will correspond to the "Estimated Quantities", and further reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any or all Bid items, and to omit portions of the work. In the case of bid items for which a fixed amount predetermined by the owner or agent has already been entered on the Bid farm, the amount so entered shall be conclusive on Bidders as the price for such item, and shall not be revised unless the owner or agent directs a change in the scope of the work affecting the item to which such amount relates. (1) I " I ' I I 8 8 The Proposal Letter must be signed by the Bidder or on its behalf by the person or persons having the authority to do so. The Bid Form and the other forms accompanying it should be completed in ink and printed, or by means of typewriting. Identifying information, such as the Bidder's name, address, and state of incorporation, should be entered in the spaces provided on the Proposal Letter. Also include state Contractor's license number. Corrections shall Proposal Letter. be initialed by the person who signs the Bidders shall list all subcontractors whose participation in the contract will amount to ten percent (10%) or more af the total Contract. Alternate subcontractors will be allawed. The Bidder is requested to submit qualifications and business references since the owner is not obligated to accept the lowest price bid. INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO BIDDERS The enclosed documents, specifications, drawings and soils repart represent the extent of knawledge at this time. If a Bidder wishes to conduct independent investigations of subsurface conditions, he must first obtain a permit to do so from the owner ar agent. The Bidder must neither trespass nor conduct investigations af subsurface conditions on public property without written and signed cansent from the municipality. The Bidder must neither interfere with, nor create hazardous conditions during, the use and occupancy of public property and private property, and must restore areas damaged, as a result of his investigations, to essentially the conditions which existed before the investigations were started. Costs of conducting investigations of subsurface conditions must be borne by the Bidder conducting those investigations, and will not be reimbursed. The praject is currently being reviewed by the City of Encinitas Building Department and the California Coastal Commission and minor changes may result. (2 ) '; 8 8 SITE DESCRIPTION The location of the concrete wall will be at the base of the existing bluff and will be subject to tidal flooding during construction. At this beach elevation a 5' deep concrete cutoff wall will be excavated and poured into the bedrock. This operatian may be done in horizontal segments to accommodate tides. Upon completion of the cutoff wall and foundation concrete to Elevation 7, the lower tiebacks may be installed and tested and the wall backfilled to Elevation 7 to obtain an above water construction area. The columns may be installed and connected to the lower tiebacks. When cancrete is cured the columns may be lagged and backfilled to the upper tieback level. The upper tiebacks can then be installed, tested and tensioned. The upper portion of the wall may then be lagged and backfilled. At this point, (Elevation 35) the geogrid system begins with alternate layers of compacted soil and geogrid per the specifications and drawings. The bidders are to be aware that the site has had a number of rock falls and landslides. The Contractor must devise his own plan to safeguard personnel and property. (3) r . A. GENERAL CONditIONS 8 A.1 Bid Schedule: The fallowing Bid Schedule will be used to evaluate the proposals. A copy af this schedule has been appended for submittal. The quantities depicted below are based upon best available information and may vary. Payment will be adjusted on basis of field measured quantities. A.I.1 ITEM 10. 11. 12. A.I. 2 A.1.3 A.I. 4 B. VARIABLE QUANTITY WORK DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1. Elevate Cutoff Trench (rock) Reinforce Cutoff Trench Concrete Cutoff Trench Concrete Foundation Reinforced Concrete Piers 6" Treated Timber Lagging Tiebacks - Lower Complete Tiebacks - Upper Complete Compacted Soil Backfill Complete Geogrid Square Foot Mat Area Filter Fabric Drain Weeps at Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . 4. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIXED QUANTITY WORK Mobilization. ....... Demolition....... . Cleanup/Demob . ....... All other work not subject to quantity variation....... Total Bid far All Above UNIT L. S. L. S. L. S. L. S. Each Sq. Foot Each Each Cu.Yd. Sq. Foot Sq. Foot Each Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum UNIT PRICE EXT. TOTAL PRICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schedule to Complete Work ......... .Calendar Days Note: All quantities are "neat" from drawings not include "waste" or "over break". ( 4) and do A.2 CONTRA8FORM 8 The contract will be form (sample attached). executed on a standard AGC contract A.3 DEFINITIONS The owners are: James Mallen 656 Neptune Ave Encinitas, CA Richard Baurgault 658 Neptune Ave Encinitas,CA Jerald D. White 660 Neptune Ave Encinitas, CA The owners will be represented by their Agent: James Mallen 656 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 (619)632-7200 The Engineer is: First Phase Engineering 3255 Wing Street, #112 San Diego, CA 92110 The Contractor will be: The Selected Bidder All financial matters including invoices, payment request, liens, lien releases, etc., shall be addressed to the Owners or Agent. All inspection, supervision, measurement and payment approval shall be by the Engineer. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work performed by his agents, assignees and subcantractors and shall indemnify the Owner and the Engineer against any claims by his agents or subcontractors. A.4 CHANGE ORDERS The Owner or his Agent may, at any time, issue change orders increasing, decreasing or altering work. The Contractor is expected to respond immediately with revised pricing. Where unit prices are established herein, these unit prices will cantrol without adjustments in overhead or fees if they do not exceed plus or minus twenty per cent (20%) of the contract amount. The contractor shall not proceed with revised work until prices are agreed upon unless atherwise directed. The Contractor shall immediately notify the awner of any required changes to the work to ensure that payment will be made for the changed work. (5) A.S TERMINA4IÞON AND DISPUTES 8 It is the intent of the Owner that the work will proceed ta campletion. In the event that work is terminated, the Contractor will be paid for all work done according to unit prices. He will also be paid for a percentage of other items on the bid schedule in accordance with the percentage completion of those items. The contractar must not unilaterally terminate or lengthen his propased construction schedule without approval. A.6 INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS The final interpretation of drawings and specifications will be made by the Owner or his Agent. Any ambiguities must be reported to the Engineer prior to purchase of materials or construction of the work. A.7 MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP All materials incorporated into the permanent work are to be new and the most suitable grade for the purpose intended. All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Engineer, in writing, may require replacement of any defective work or material. A.8 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE Each work item will be continually inspected for adequacy and completion. Inspection requirements appear in the indi- vidual work items elsewhere in this document. Upon accep- tance of the work, or any percentage af the work, the con- tractor may submit invoices. See also payment and measure- ment. A.9 PAYMENT AND MEASUREMENT The Contractor may call for inspection at any time to allaw acceptance for work completed. Measurement and value of the work will be performed by the Engineer and payment will be made at unit prices less ten per cent (10%) retention. Payment far lump sum work will be based on a percentage of the lump sum item campleted in the apinion of the engineer, less ten per cent (10%) retention. Payment for permanent materials will be made when materials are installed. -6- . . Upon essential completion and acceptance of all work the Contractor will be reimbursed to ninety per cent (90%) of the contract amount. The ten per cent (10%) retention will be withheld from all work until final acceptance af the work. Final acceptance of the work does not relieve the Cantractor of standard workmanship and material guarantees as well as adhering to the specifications and drawings herein. Final payment of the retention will be made within sixty (60) days of final acceptance. A.10 INSURANCE Contractor shall at all times carryon all aperations here- under: Workers' Compensation Insurance covering all of its employees, Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, including liability coverage for (a) all operations, (b) subcontract wark, (c) contractural obligations, (d) product or completion operations,(e)all owned vehicles, (f) non- owned vehicles, in forms, amounts and underwritten by insurance companies satisfactary to Owner/Agent. Before Contractor performs any work at, or prepares or delivers materials to, the site of construction, Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages and such such certificates shall provide that the insurance is in force and will not be cancelled without ten days written notice to Owner/Agent. Contractor shall maintain all of the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed. The requirement for carrying the foregoing in- surance shall not derogate from the provisions for indem- nification on Owner by Contractor. -7- 8 8 All work covered by this Agreement done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials or equipment, ar any or all of them, to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor exclusively. Contractor shall, with respect to all work which is covered by or incidental to this contract, indemnity and hold Owner harmless from and against all of the following: 1. Any claim, liability, loss, damage, cast, expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, awards, fines or judgements arising by reason of the death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, design defects (if design originated by Cantractor) or other loss, damage or expense, including any of the same resulting from Contractor's alleged or actual negligent act or omission, regardless of whether such act or omission is active ar passive. -8- -_J B. SPECIAL CONditIONS 8 This section will define the requirements for the wark items designated on the bid schedule. B.l ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION B.l.l. The Contractor should satisfy himself that no contaminated sailor material exists at this site priar to commencement of work. B.l.2. The Contractor shall be responsible for removal and dispasal of any chemical wastes, sanitary wastes, sewage, garbage, rubbish or debris generated during the wark. B.l.3 Excepting the areas indicated to be cleared, do not remove, cut, deface, injure or destroy trees or shrubs without special permission from the Agent. Do not fasten or attach ropes, cables or guys to any existing trees for anchorages unless specifically authorized. Where such special emergency use is authorized, the Contractar shall be reponsible for any resultant damage. Protect any existing trees which are to remain and which may be injured, bruised, defaced or otherwise damaged by construction operations. Remove displaced rocks from uncleared areas, protect monuments, markers and works of art. Repair or restore to their orginal condition all trees or other landscape features scarred or damaged by the equipment or operations. Obtain approval of the repair or restaration from the Agent prior to its initiation. B.l.4 Obliterate all signs of temporary construction facilities such as work areas, structures, foundations of temporary structures, stockpiles of excess ar waste material and all other vestiges of construction. B.l.S Perform all work in such a manner that any adverse enviranmental impact on water resources is reduced to a level acceptable to the Agent. (9) , . B.1.6 TJIa special measures to ttevent oily or other hazardous substances from entering the ground, drainage areas or local bodies of water. Surround all temporary fuel oil, petroleum ar liquid chemical storage tanks with a temparary earth berm af sufficient size and strength to contain the contents of the tanks in the event of content leakage or spillage. B.1.7 All earthwork brought to final grade shall be immediately finished as indicated or specified. Upon completion of rough grading, immediately protect side slopes and back slopes. Plan and conduct all earthwork in such a manner so as to minimize the duration of exposure of unpratected soils. B.1.8 Keep dust down at all times, including non-working hours, weekends and holidays. With dust suppressors, sprinkle or treat the soil at the site. B.1.9 When available, make the maximum use of "Low- noise-emission-products" as certified by EPA. No blasting or use of explosives is permitted. B.2 EARTHWORK B.2.1 Vegetable matter, sod, muck, rubbish, and loose and porous soils, shall be removed under embankments. B.2.2 Excavation shall be to the contours and dimensions indicated. Keep excavations free from water while con- struction is in progress. Notify the Agent immediately in writing in the event that it becomes necessary to remove hard, soft, weak or wet material to a depth greater than indicated and an adjustment in contract price will be considered in accordance with the "Changes" paragraph of the General Provisions. Excavations cut below the depths indicated shall, unless otherwise specified, be refilled in eight inch (8") lifts with fill and be compacted to ninety percent (90%) of ASTM D 1557, Method D, maximum density. Soil disturbed or weakened by the Contractor's operations and soils permitted to soften from exposure to weather shall be excavated and refilled with fill and be compacted to ninety percent (90%) of ASTM D 1557, Method D, maximum density. All additianal wark of this nature will be at the Contractor's expense, and as approved. (10) B.2.3 B~fill embankments shall bJIIÞlaced in lifts of eight (8) inches thick and each lift shall be compacted as specified herein, befare the overlaying lift is placed. In all areas not accessible to rollers or compactor, the fill shall be compacted with mechanical hand tampers. If the mixture is excessively moistened by rain, it shall be aerated by means of blade graders or harrows until the moisture content of the mixture is satisfactory. The surface of the layer shall be finished by blading or raIling with a smooth roller, or a combination thereof, and shall be smooth. B.2.4 Perfarm compaction. If necessary, the Contractor's selected equipment and construction procedure shall be altered, changed or modifed in order to meet the specified compaction requirements. B.2.5 Wall backfills shall percent (90%) of ASTM D density. be compacted to ninety 1557, Method D, maximum B.2.6 Grading shall be to finished grades indicated within one tenth of a foot. Grade areas to drain water away from structures and to provide suitable surface for mowing machines. Existing grades which are to remain but are disturbed by the Contractor's operations shall be graded as directed. B.2.7 Surplus or other soil material not required ar suitable for filling, backfilling or embankment shall be removed fram the property. Repair or re-establish damaged grades, elevations or slopes. B.2.8 Backfill shall be free of debris, roots, wood, scrap material, vegetable matter, refuse, soft unsound particles, frozen, deleterious or objectionable materials. Soil shall be granular material and approved by the Engineer. B.2.9 Testing and inspection shall be performed by others and will include inspectian of cuts and grades and compaction. -11- B.3 CAST IJlaLACE CONCRETE 8 B.3.1 The publications listed below form a part af this specification to the extent referenced. The publications are referred to in the text by the basic designation only. American Concrete Institute (ACI): ACI 211.1-77 ACI 211.2-69 (1977) ACI 214-77 ACI301-72 (1975) ACI 305-77 ACI 315-74 (1978) ACI318-77 & 77C Suppl ACI 347-78 Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part I Recommended Practice for Selecting Praportians far Normal and Heavy Weight Concrete Recommended Practice for Selecting Praportians for Structural Weight Concrete Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Compression Test Results of Field Concrete Specifications for Buildings for Structural Concrete Recommended Practice for Hot Weather Concreting Manual of Standard Practice for Detailing Reinforced Concrete Structures Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Recommended Formwork Practice for Concrete American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): A185-79 A615-80 Welded Steel Wire Fabric for Concrete Reinfarcement Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinfarcement -12- I -_J B.3.2 C31-6~980) Making and curin~oncrete Compressive and Flexural strength Test Specimens in the Field C39-80 Compressive Strength Concrete Specimens af Cylindrical C94-81 Ready-mixed Concrete C12S-79a Concrete and Concrete Aggregates. Definitian af Terms C143-78 Slump of Partland Cement Concrete C1S0-80 Portland Cement C172-71 (1977) Fresh Concrete, Sampling American Welding Society (AWS): D1.4-80 Structural Welding Code, Reinforcing International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards, 1979 SUBMITTALS .a All submittals require approval of the Engineer. .b Submit the fallowing shap drawings: Shop drawings for all reinforcing steel in accordance with ACI 31S. Indicate bending diagrams, assembly diagrams, splicing and laps of rods and shapes, dimensions and details of bar reinforcing and accessories. Do nat use scaled dimensions from structural drawings in determining the lengths of reinforcing rads. Shop drawings covering all formwork for exposed cancrete, showing general arrangement af forms. Indicate schedules of placement, construction and control joints and their method of forming: locations of inserts, tees, sleeves and other related items. -13- .c sJltit a concrete mix deSign~or concrete included in the work. each class of Before concrete is placed at the job site, each concrete mix design shall be reviewed and certified by a cammercial, independent engineering testing laboratory. The mix design shall be based on aggregate data (gradation and specific gravity determined by a laboratory within the past 6 months) and the specified requirements. The laboratory's certification shall include but not be limited to the following: .c.l Confirmation of aggregate test data based on available test results determined within the past six months and the date tests were made. .c.2 Check calculations and report cement factor, concrete plant standard deviation used in the design af the mix, water-cement ratio (gallons per sack of cement), percentage of fine aggregate (ratio),to tatal aggregate by weight, weight in pounds of saturated surface-dry aggregates (find and coarse) per sack of cement, percentage of admixtures and yield for one cubic yard of concrete. .c.3 statement of recommended disapproval of mix designs. approval or .d Submit for appraval certified copies of the tests in the referenced publications for the following materials: .d.l Aggregates .d.2 Admixtures .d.3 Reinforcement B.3.3 Concrete Specifications .a Provide concrete of this section. canforming to TABLE 2 at the end .b Cement shall be Type II, low alkali conforming to ASTM CISO. All cement for expased concrete surfaces shall be of the same type from the same manufacturing plant and, for integrally colored concrete, shall be of uniform gray calor. -14- .c wJltr for mixing and curilt, including free moisture and water in the aggregate, shall be fresh, clean and potable. Turbidity of the water shall not exceed 2,000 parts per million. Martar specimens made in accordance with ASTM C87, when compared with similar mortar specimens made with water of known satisfactory quality and using the same sand and cement, shall show no unsoundness or marked change in setting, and the compressive strength of mortar specimens at 28 days shall be at least 95 percent of the compressive strength af the specimens made with water of known satisfactory quality. .d Normal weight fine aggregates, ASTM C33. When using fine aggregates from different sources of supply do not mix, store in the same stockpile, or use alternately in the same structure. The fineness modulus of fine aggregate for corresponding coarse aggregate maximum sizes shall be from 2.40 to 2.90. Combine the separate sizes of coarse aggregates with other sizes in the proportions by weight to produce an aggregate meeting the grading specified in TABLE 3 at the end of this section. .e Where not shown or specified, the use of admix- tures shall be subject to written approval of the Engineer. When more than one admixture is used in a mix, furnish satisfactory evidence to the Engineer that the admixtures to be used for the project are compat- tible in combination with the cement and aggregates to be used and with each ather, and will be suitable at job temperatures. Hydroxylated polymer type admixtures for water reduction or set controlling may be used with the approval af the Engineer. Admixtures shall conform to ASTM C494, Type A for water reducing and Type D for water reducing retarding. Relative durability factor of cancrete with admixture shall be a minimum of 100 percent in lieu of 80 percent. Air-Entraining Admixtures shall be ASTM C260. Submit for approval certification that the air- entraining agent has been tested in accordance with ASTM C233. Use air entraining admixture in all structural concrete. -15- 8 8 Retarding admixture shall be Type D conforming to ASTM C494. Submit for appraval test reports from a laboratory approved by the Engineer certifying that the proposed admixture, when combined with the cement and aggregates ta be used, will produce the specified concrete having the desired properties with respect to retardation, water content, slump, and strength. Use retarding admixture in normal weight concrete when the ambient temperature is above 90 degrees F at the time of concrete placing. B.3.4 Reinforcing steel, except No.2 bars, shall be deformed. Reinforcing bars to be welded shall have 0.75 maximum carbon equivalent (CE) as determined in accordance with UBC Standard 26-4. Reinforcing bars shall unless otherwise indicated. be ASTM A615,Grade \J Provide reinforcement bars, stirrups, hanger bars, wire fabric and other reinforcing materials as indi- cated, tagether with all necessary wire ties, chairs, spacers, supporters and ather devices necessary to install and secure reinforcement properly. All reinforcement, when placed, shall be free from rust, scale, oil, grease, clay and other coatings and foreign substances that would reduce or destroy the bond. Rusting af reinforcement shall not be a basis of rejection, provided that rusting has not reduced the effective cross sectional area of reinforcement ta the extent that the strength is reduced beyond specified values. Remove heavy, thick rust or loose, flaky rust by rubbing with burlap or other approved method, prior to placing. Do not use reinforcement which has bends not shown on the project drawings or on approved shop drawings or is reduced in section by rusting such that its weight is not within permissible ASTM tolerances. All reinforcement shall be supported and wired tagether to prevent displacement by construction loads ar by the placing of concrete. Unless directed atherwise by the Engineer, da not bend reinforcement after being partially embedded in hardened concrete. Detailing of reinforcing shall conform to ACI 315. Where cover over } reinfarcing steel is not specified or indicated it shall be in accordance with ACI 318. -16- s~e reinforcement in a man~ that will avoid excessive rusting or coating with grease, oil, dirt and other objectionable materials. Starage shall be in separate piles or racks so as to avoid confusion or loss of identification after bundles are broken. B.3.5 Provide forms for all concrete not indicated or specified otherwise. Set forms true to line and grade and maintain so as to insure completed work within the allowable tolerances specified, and mortar-tight. The Contractor shall be responsible for the adequacy of farms and form supparts. Arrange baIts and rods used for internal ties so that when the forms are removed, all metal will be nat less than 1-1/2 inches for concrete exposed to weathering and for sump, and pit structure concrete, and not less than one inch for unexposed concrete. Do not use removable bolts or rod type form ties for sump and pit structure forms. Do not use wire ties where the cancrete surfaces will be exposed to weathering, and where discoloration will be exposed. Provide all form work with adequate clean-aut openings to permit inspection and easy cleaning after all reinforcement has been placed. Where forms for continuous surfaces are placed in successive units. fit the forms over the completed surface to obtain accurate alignment of the surface and to prevent leakage of . mortar. Construct all panel forms to provide tight joints between the panels. Construct all forms to that they can be removed without damaging the cancrete. Chamfer joints, edges, and external corners a minimum of 3/4 inch unles specified athewise. Forms shall be of wood, plywood, or steel. Use plywood forms for surfaces exposed to view in finished structure and requiring a smooth form finish. For unexposed surfaces, undressed square-edge lumber may be used. Plywood shall be concrete-farm plywood not less than 5/8-inch thick conforming to Department af Commerce Product standard PS-l free of raised grain, torn surfaces, worn edges, patches, or other surface defects which would impair the texture of the concrete surface. Surfaces of steel forms shall be free from irregularities, dents and sags. -17- , ' B~re placing the concrettP coat the contact surfaces of forms with a suitable non-staining form coating compound or apply twa coats of nitracellulose lacquer. For surfaces not exposed to view the the finished structure and when the temperature is above 40 degrees F, sheathing may be wetted thoroughly with clean water Remove all excess coating by wiping with cloths. Reused forms shall have the cantact surfaces cleaned thoroughly; those which have been coated shall be given an additional application of the coating. Set and maintain concrete forms to ensure that, after removal af the forms and prior to patching and finishing, no portion of the concrete work will exceed any of the tolerances specified. Measure variations in floor levels before removal of supporting shores. The Contractor shall be responsible for variations due ta deflection, when the latter results from concrete quality or curing other than that which has been specified. The tolerances specified shall nat be exceeded by any portion of any concrete surface; the specified variation for one element of the structure will not be applicable when it will permit another element of the structure to exceed its allawable -~,., \~ """~ --- , We~ed wire fabric us~ for structural reinforcement in slabs shall be supported and adequately secured as required for reinforcing steel. Extend it through contraction joints and construction joints, except expansion joints in slabs on ground. Splicing of reinforcement shall be in accordance with ACI 318 except as indicated otherwise or modified herein. Where splices in addition to those indicated on the drawings are necesssary, they shall be approved by the Engineer prior to their use. Do not make splices in beams, girders and slabs at joints of maximum stress. Except as indicated, or specfied otherwise herein, in lieu of lapping, butt splicing of reinforce- ment may be permitted provided the splicing material, equal or greater in cross-sectional area to the spliced steel, shall possess a minimum of 125 percent of the yield strength or 90 percent of the ultimate strength of the reinforcing steel, which ever is the greater. Use butt splicing for bar sizes No. 11 and above. Splices to be welded shall canform to AWS Dl.4. Submit certification of weldability and carbon equivalent of the reinforcement by the manufacturer. If the Contractor elects to use butt splicing of reinforcing, he shall submit complete details of the process to be used to the Enginer. If butt splices are used, ensure that splices meet the requirements speci- fied herein by performing at least three test splices which shall be submitted for tests to a testing laboratory that is approved for such testing by the Engineer. The costs of these tests shall be borne by the Contractor. Make splices so that the overlap measured between outermost cross wires of each fabric sheet is not less than the spacing of the cross wires plus two inches. All placement after placement, to specified, shall be Engineer. or movement of reinfarcing steel positions other than indicated or subject to the approval of the Concrete protection for reinforcement shall be as indicated or, if not indicated, in accordance with ACI 318. -19- .' T~ minimum concrete cove1Þ for reinforcement specified in the contract documents takes precedence over all permissible reinforcement-placement variations; nothing in the variations listed below is to be construed as permitting violation or compromise thereof: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Height of bottom bars above form Lengthwise pasitioning of bars Spacing bars in walls and solid slabs Spacing bars in beams, and footings Height of top bars Stirrup (a) For (b) For af spacing any 1 stirrup over-all group stirrups Plus or minus 1/4-inch Plus or minus 2-inch Plus or minus 1 inch Minus 0 inches Plus 1/4-inch Minus 0 inch Plus 1/4-inch Plus or minus 1 inch Plus or minus 1 inch Anchors and bolts and pipes passing through walls conduits, drains, and all other materials in connection with concrete construction; shall, where practicable, be placed and secured in pasition immediately prior to concrete placement. Convey concrete from the mixer to the forms as rapidly as practicable without causing segregation or loss of ingredients. Deposit the concrete as closely as practicable to its final position in the forms. The free vertical drop of the concrete, at any point during conveying, shall nat exceed 3 feet. chuting will be permitted only where the concrete is deposited into a hopper before being placed in the forms. Use a telescoping drop chute to place concrete in walls and caissons when the vertical lift of the forms exceeds 6 feet. Clean conveying equipment thoroughly before each run. Concrete which has segregated in conveying shall be removed and disposed of as directed by the Engineer. -20- N4IÞconcrete shall be pl~ after there is evidence of initial set. Concrete placement will not be permitted when weather conditions prevent praper placement and consolidation. The placement of concrete in uncovered areas during periods of precipitation ar the placement of concrete in water will not be allowed. Praperly prepare subgrades of earth or other material to prevent the concrete from becoming contaminated. Dampen porous subgrades before placing concrete. Forms shall be clean of dirt, construction debris and water. Do not place fresh concrete on vertical supporting members such as columns and walls without approval af the Engineer. Deposit concrete in approximately hori- zontal layers 12 to 20 inches deep in a manner to preclude the farmation af cold joints betwen successive layers. The method of depositing concrete shall be such as to avoid displacing the reinforcement and segregating the aggregate. Work the concrete around the reinforcement and embedded fixtures and into corners and angles of the forms, care being taken to avoid overworking which may result in segregation. Pumping of concrete through aluminum pipe shall nat be permitted. Campact all concrete, with high frequency internal mechanical vibrating equipment supplemented by hand spading and tamping also, consolidate concrete slabs by wood tampers,spading and settling with a heavy leveling straight edge. Vibrators shall be designed to operate with the vibratory element submerged in the concrete, and shall have a requency of not less than 6,000 impulses per minute when submerged. The vibrating equipment shall be adequate at all times in number af units & power of each unit to consolidate the concrete properly. Do not vibrate forms and reinforcement except when authorized specifically by the Engineer. Do not use vibration ta transport the concrete in the forms. Concrete containing retarding admixture shall be placed by a schedule that allows layers of concrete to be compacted and in place for at least 30 minutes before next layer of concrete is placed. Remove all bleed water on the concrete surface and revibrate the concrete down as far as the concrete is still plastic before placing the next layer. Do not disturb concrete that has begun to set. -21- , . B~re placing the next laye~Of concrete, and at the top of vertical elements, remave concrete containing excess water for fine aggregate or showing deficiency of coarse aggregate and fill the space with concrete of correct proportions compacted with vibratians. Joints not shown on the drawings shall be made and located so as to least impair the strength of the structure and shall be subject to approval of the Engineer. Horizontal joints in walls and columns shall be at the underside of floors, slabs, beams, ar girders and at the top of footings or grade slabs. Joints shall be perpendicular to the main reinforcement. Pravide keys and inclined dowels Provide longitudinal keys at least 1-1/2 all joints in walls and between walls footings. as indicated. inches deep in and slabs for Surface of the concrete at all joints shall be thoroughly cleaned and all laitance removed. When a bonded construction joint is required, obtain a bond by one of the following methods: (1) The use of a bonding compound for concrete, conforming to Mil.Spec. MIL-B-19235. (2) The use of suitable chemical retardant which delays but does not prevent setting of the surface mortar. Remove retarded mortar within 24 hours after placing to produce a clean exposed aggregate banding surface. (3) By roughening the proper manner which uniformly and will not particles of aggregate surface. surface of concrete in will expose aggregate leave laitance, loosened or damaged concrete at the Expansion joints drawing. shall be as indicated on the When appraved by the Engineer, bars may be moved as necessary ta avoid interference with ather reinfor- cing steel, conduits, or embedded items, but not so as to impair design strengths of the members. -22- T~ extra care to reduce ~ temperature of the concre~being placed, and to prevent rapid drying of newly placed concrete. When the outdoor ambient temperature is more than 90 degrees F, the temperature of the concrete as placed shall not exceed 90 degrrees F; shade the fresh concrete as soon as passible after placing; and start curing as soon as the surface of the fresh concrete is sufficiently hard to permit it without damage. Concrete placement temperatures shall be controlled by the Contractor at his expense and shall not be limited to (1) shading and cooling the aggregates; (2) avoiding use of hot cement; (3) cooling mixing water by additions of ice; (4) insulating water supply lines and tanks; (5) insulating mixer drums ar cooling them with sprays or wet burlap covering; (6) working anly at night; and (7) addition of a retarder or water reducing retarder in the mix, if approved by Engineer. Additional recommended practices may be found in ACI 1305. Pumping of concrete from mixer to the forms may be permitted. B.3.7 SURFACE FINISHES Repair all surface defects including tie holes, minor honeycombing and otherwise defective concrete with cement mortar. Cement mortar for patching shall be the same composition as that used in the concrete, except that for exposed surfaces part of the cement shall be white portland cement to provide a finish color matching the surrounding concrete. Patching shall be done as soon as forms are removed. Clean thoroughly all areas to be patched. Minor honeycombed or otherwise defective areas shall be cut out to solid concrete ta a depth of not less than one inch. The edges of the cut shall be perpendicular to the surface of the concrete. Saturate the area to be patched and at least 6 inches adjacent thereto with water before placing the mortar. Mix the mortar approximately one hour before placing and remix occasionally during this period with a trowel without the addition of water. A grout of cement and water mixed to the consistency of paint shall then be brushed onto the surfaces to which the martar is to be banded. The mortar shall be compacted into place and screeded slightly higher than the surrounding surface. Finish patches on exposed surfaces to match the adjoining surfaces, after they have set for an hour or more. -23- " C~ patches as specified f~the concrete. Fill holes extending through the concrete by means of a plunger type gun or other suitable device from the unexpased face, Wipe excess mortar off the exposed face with a cloth, Protect finished surfaces from stains and abrasions. As-cast finish against steel and plywood forms shall be equal in workmanship, texture, and general appearance to that of sample panels specified herein. Concrete with excessive honeycombing which exposes reinforcing steel or other defects which affect structural strength of the member, shall be rejected or the defects corrected as directed by the Engineer and at the expense of the Contractor. Protect concrete adequately from injurious action by sun, rain, flowing water, and mechanical injury, and do not allow to dry out from the time it is placed until the expiration of the minmum curing periods specified hereinafter. Accomplish the curing by moist curing. Concrete surfaces to which liquid membrane-forming compounds have been applied shall be kept free from all foot and vehicular traffic and all other sources of abrasion far not less than 72 hours. Maintain the continuity of the caating for the entire curing period and repair any damage to the coating during this period immediately. When the 7-day compression-test cylinders, representative of parts af a structure already placed, indicate that the 28-day strengths may be less than 90 percent of the design strengths, give those parts of the structure additional curing, as directed by the Engineer. Curing shall be as follows: Time (minimum) Concrete Element 7 days or as directed All concrete Remove forms in a manner which will prevent damage to the concrete, Do not remove forms before the expiration of the minimum periods specified herein: -24- 8 ~ays After Placing Side forms on beams, columns and walls (lifts, 15 ft. & under) 3 Supporting forms for beams and slabs. 14 Provide sufficient shoring members to support dead load plus construction loads on beams and slabs for a periad af 8 days in addition to the 7 days time for removal af forms and shores shall be 50 percent greater than specified. The time for removal of forms for structures not included herein shall be in accordance with ACI 318 or as directed by the Engineer. B.3.8 All concrete sidewalks, curbs,gutters,combination curbs and gutters, ramps, stairs an grade and planter curbs shall be of integrally colored concrete. Jaint sealer is not required for the expansion joints in curbs, gutters, combination curbs and gutters and sidewalks. Provide expansion joints as shown, set plumb, square and to same profile as the curbs. Edge curb tops to 1/2-inch radius and vertical joints ta 1/8- inch radius. Apply smooth trowel finish followed by fine hair brush finish. Provide expansion joints as indicated, set 1/8- inch below the surface. Apply a light broom finish with a 3-inch wide steel trowel finish at the flow line. Provide expansion joints as abave for curbs and gutters, expansion joints installed in one piece units, flow line smooth troweled 3-inches wide at flow line. Provide expansion joints as shown, at beginnings and ends of curves, and where sidewalks abut rigid structures. Screed the surface and apply a broom finish unless otherwise indicated. Align expansion joints in curbs and sidewalks where adjoining and in contact. Round the edges and joints with a 1/8 inch radius edging tool. Provide scoring as specified hereinbefore. Apply non-slip broom finish at right angles to the traffic direction. -25- I I ;' I I I B.3.10 T'iJING/INSPECTION 8 Unless otherwise specified, all sampling and testing shall be made at the Owner's expense, taken at random loctions and at such times to correctly reflect the quality of the materials and work throughout the project. Submit to the Engineer the name and location of the praposed commercial "Ready-Mix Cancrete Plant". The concrete plant shall have a quality control system that will assure that the concrete conforms to the specfied requirements. The plant quality control shall be approved by the Contractor. The frequency of sampling and testing of material for field tests shall be performed by the Engineer. All materials and identification of material sources shall be approved by the Engineer not less than 30 days prior to the use of such materials in the work. The strengths specified and the design mix shall be verified by the approved testing laboratory, during placement of concrete at intervals, by testing standard cylinders of samples taken at the job site. Make one set of four test cylinders for each 100 cubic yards or for each 4000 sq.ft. of surface area, of each strength of cancrete placed, but take at least 4 test cylinders each day for each strength of concrete placed. Na more than 4 cylinders shall be taken from anyone batch. The making and curing of test specimens shall be in accordance with ASTM C131. The Contractor shall furnish the necessary labor, materials and facilities for molding the samples, handling and storing the cylinders at the site of the work. For the first 24 hours after molding, keep the cylinders moist in a storage box, constructed and located so that its interior air temperature will be between 60 & 80 degrees F. Transport the cylinders at the end of 24 hours to the laboratory. Test specimens for compressive strength in accordance with ASTM C39. Make test at 7 and 28 days from time of molding: one test at 7 days and 3 tests at 28 days. Each strength test result shall be the average of the strength of three test specimens at 28 days, except that if one specimen in a set of three shows evidence, other than low strength, of improper -26- : sampli~ molding, handling or c~ng, the average of the rem~ning two specimens shalJlrbe cansidered the strength test result. Evaluate the 28-day test results in accordance with ACI 214. Average of three consecutive strength test results (9 test cylinders) shall be equal to or exceed the specified strength and no individual strength test result shall be less than the specified strength by mare than 500 psi. Tabulate all test results and submit to the Engineer. If the foregoing criteria is nat met, core samples shall be taken and tested at the Contractor's expense. In such event, three core samples for each cylinder test indicating defective concrete shall be taken for further testing. Sampling, testing and evaluation of drilled cores shall be in accordance with ACI 318, Part 3, Chapter 4. Concrete which is determined to be defective based on the strength acceptance criteria therein shall be removed and replaced with acceptable concrete. The slump shall be as specified when measured in accordance with ASTM C143. Take samples for slump determination from the concrete during placing in the forms. Make tests as follows: (a) At the beginning of a concrete placement operation and at subsequent intervals to insure that the specification requirements are met. (b) Whenever test cylinders are made. Make temperature tests: (a) In hot ar cald weather conditons, at frequent intervals until satisfactory control is established. (b) Whenever test cylinders are made. If the evaluation of the 28-day test results of any concrete to be used in the project show that the concrete strength is below the specified limits and does not meet other requirements of this specification; the Contractar shall make all necessary adjustments as directed by the Engineer, at the Contractor's expense. -27- M~ the minimum number of t~s as follows: TABLE 1 TEST METHOD FREQUENCY l. 2. Portland Cement Aggregates At Concrete Batch Plant Gradation Specific Gravity (@SSD) Fineness Modulus Organic Impurities Soundness Concrete (Normal Weight): Compression Slump Air Content Yield Shrinkage Limit Note (3) Note (4) Note (4) Nate (5) Note (4) C150 Note (6) C136 C127,C128 C125 C87 C88 Note (1) Note (1) Note (1) Note (1) Note (2) 3. C31 & 39 C143 C231 C138 C157 Note: (a) Sampling and tests shall be made at the start of the job. Coarse aggregates shall be taken 3 times for each 400 tons. Fine aggregates shall be taken at least 3 times far each 200 tans and sampling can be reduced to two times when test results show that the fine aggregates consistently meet specified requirements. (b) Test reports within the past twelve months from an approved laboratory acceptable at start of job. (c) Test 1-7 day, 3-28 day. Sample as concrete is delivered from mixer to conveying vehicle used to transport concrete to forms, or at discharge of cancrete pump. (d) One slump test at beginning of work and whenever standard cylinders are molded. For air- entrained concrete, one air content test for each 200 cubic yards or once per day. For normal weight concrete, one shrinkage limit test for each 500 cubic yards. -28- (, As specified 8 (f) Portland Cement: Type II by Certificate. Payment for concrete (Variable Bid Items) shall be measured by neat lines on drawings or as directed by the Engineer. -29- 4IÞCOMBINED AGGREGATE GRADI~ (Unless otherwise Directe~ Size of Coarse Aggregate (Inches) 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 100 90-100 100 90-100 100 25-60 20-55 90-100 40-70 100 85-100 0-10 0-5 0-10 0-5 0-15 0-5 10-30 0-10 Size of Coarse Percentage by Weight Passing Laboratory Sieves Having Aggregate Square Openings (Inches) 4" 3-1/2" 3" 2-1/2" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8 #4 - -- -- -- 1.5 100 95-100 -- 35-70 10-30 0-5 -30- B.4 TIEBACI 8 The tieback system is used to laterally restrain the seawall piers. The tieback system is depicted on the drawings. B.4.1 Anchor lengths and anchor diameters as shown are estimated by the engineer. The lengths shown are minimum. The Contractor shall be responsible for achieving the test loading criteria in the schedule. The soil anchor must be entirely beyond the failure plane. Contractor may alter concrete anchor diameters and lengths with permission of the Engineer. B.4.2 MATERIALS Tieback rods and hardware: Rods to be ASTM A 722- 75 150 KSI and double corrosion protected. Net area of tendons will be sufficient to limit stresses to 60% of above values at design laad and 82% of values at test loads. Lean Concrete: 1 1/2 sack mix Tieback Grout: 3000psi 28 days B.4.3 TESTING AND INSPECTION Tieback shafts to Tendons shall be provided intervals to maintain the shaft. be minimum depths shown. with centering devices at 8' tendons in the center af the Each tieback to be tested and locked per schedule, and witnessed by Inspector. Any tiebacks not reaching test capacity shall be reported to the Engineer. Tiebacks shall nat creep over a 5 minute period at test load. Concrete test cylinders for the tiebacks will be taken and tested. A fourth cylinder will be taken for tieback concrete or grout and broken in 72 hours. The -31- jack r"'s and gages shall have cu~nt calibration curves for data. Concrete or grout mix designs will be provided to the Engineer S days prior to placing. ~ DRAINS B.S.l The wall drainage system will consist of a continuous filter fabric mat behind the timber lagging. No exterior collection system will be utilized. The Contractor shall submit his specification for the filter cloth material. The filter cloth material shall be Mirafi 140N or equal. B.S.2 Two weep holes (4" diameter), shall be drilled drilled through the timber lagging between the concrete column. Additional 4" weeps will be installed through the concrete foundation as shown on the drawings. BG. CLEANUP B.G.l The Contractor shall leave the site as he finds it, free of all debris plant equipment and otherwise as specified in the Environment section of these specifications. 1L.L MONITORING B.7.1 The Contractor will be required ta install 10 monitoring points along the wall. These points will be placed as directed by the Engineer and will be referenced to a permanent benchmark ta monitor any future deflections or movement of the finished wall. -32- .. B.8 GEOGRIDS B.8.l B.8.2 B.8.3 . 8 The work included shall be as follows: (a) Preparation of site and foundation soil. (b) Construction of leveling pad for facing units. (c) Furnishing and installation of modular concrete facing units as shown on the construction drawings. (d) Furnishing and installation of geogrid rein- forcement, wall fill and backfill to the lines and grades designated on the construction drawings. Related Work Site Preparatian - Section Earthwork - Section APPLICABLE STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS Geosvnthetic Research Institute GGl-87 Standard Test Method for Geogrid Rib Tensile Strength Standard Test Method for Geogrid Junction Strength Standard Test Method for Tension Creep Testing of Geogrids Standard Practice for Determination of the Long Term Design Strength of Geogrids "Draft" Standard Practice far Evaluating Geogrid Pullout Behavious GG2-87 GG3-90 GG4-90 GRI B.8.4 Contractor shall check the geogrid upon delivery to ensure that the proper material has been received. Geogrids shall be stored above -20 degrees F (-29 degrees C). Contractor shall prevent excessive mud,wet cement, epoxy and like materials from corning in contact with and affixing to the geogrid material. (33) . ... B.9 R4IIed geogrid material may ~laid flat or stood on end~ar storage. Contractor shall check connecting pins upon delivery materials have been received. the facing units and to ensure that proper Contractar shall prevent excessive mud, wet cement, epoxy and like materials from coming in contact with and affixing to the facing units. Contractor shall protect the facing units from damage (i.e. cracks, chips, spalls). Damaged facing units shall not be incorporated into the wall. PRODUCTS B.9.1 DEFINITIONS Geogrid A geosynthetic farmed by a regular network of integrally connected tensile elements with apertures of sufficient size to allaw interlocking with surrounding soil, rock or earth and function primarily as reinforcement. Facing Units - required. Modular block concrete units if Wall Fill - Compacted soil which is within the reinforced soil mass. Backfill Compacted or in-situ behind the reinforced soil mass. soil which is Foundation Soil beneath the entire wall. Compacted in-situ soil or B.9.2 The Geogrids shall meet or exceed the design properties specified in Table 2.1 and shall also con- form to the minimum property requirements of Table 2.2. Tensar UX1500 or equal will be used throughout. The design properties listed in Table 2.1 are measured by performance tests that require elaborate equipment, long test durations and experienced test supervision. They are impractical for acceptance test- ing an shipments received at the project site. (34) B.9.3 Theref~ index criteria for QA t~ing have been establ~ed that relate to specif~Ci and Td performance capabilities. Table 2.2 pravides the appropriate index criteria for the Geogrids in Table 2.1. For geogrids that do nat meet both the design and index properties in accordance with the criteria of Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the manufacturer must supply certified test data from an approved laboratory for both design and index properties in accordance with the criteria of Tables 2.1 and 2.2. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT The TENSAR Corporation, Morrow, Georgia. 1(800)845-4453. A manufacturer of equivalent products, pre- approved by the Engineer prior to bid opening. (35) , " ~ I" . 8 8 LEVEL PA= 30 PP= 300 FR= 0,4 SUR= 0 TIED ADD= 5 SINGLE TB TRI: SOIL BRG= 2500 SBS OR POLES I SOL = 2 ==STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL== PEPIN NO ~B~ SD NO EXC HT ~LnPE HI SHURE HT SOIL W SURC PSF TIED ADD TRI LOAD RECT LD TOT LD RECT LD AFH PSF PER LF PER LF PER LF PSF *********FIRST PHASE ENGINEERING******** 3255 WING ST,STE Ill,SAN DIE60.92110 PROJECT: MALLEN ET AL APR RB CLIENT: SAME ADDF:ESS: SD SCOPE: UPPER WALL I ROW TBS SLOPE BACKFILL DATES: 10/26/89 IN W/MOD OUT W/WT IN FOR VV SLOPE OUT W/DPT 48 OUT W/tw OUT W/As OUT W/MOD 0.1 26 26 12 0.23 7.65 33.4 33.4 30 30 12 . 0.26 8.79 38.6 ..-----------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------ IE. 0 16 48 0 80 &144 1280 7424 80 17 ( 17 48 0 85 6'13(; 1445 8381 85 18 0 18 48 0 '30 7776 1620 '33% 90 19 0 1 '3 48 0 95 8664 1805 10469 95 ---;> 20 0 ?O 48 0 100 %00 2000 11&00 100 œŒœŒ~WŒ[ID JUl - 11992 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS t ENGINEERING DEPT. .. . 38.& :30. (I t :30.01 0.27 8,85 t 4 34 14 0,285 ¡n 42 :34 4H.fi 38 3R 54.h 40 40 8 F,4.7 O,:Wi 13, :1 Ii.,' n,7 45 45 If, !f:, f.),3fJ 50 ~(I 0.43 16,8 9i'.2 81 57 t:-, ,11 !F. O.f..55 ¡ '3.7 117 92.2 117 68 F,8 24 0.415 20.1 154 24 0,44 22.4 fs= 8 154 7b 7[" 176 84 84 24 0.47 24.7 196 84.04 84.01 27 1% 0,4fj 24.8 213 213 'N '34 24 ')')') LLL 34.01 '34.01 n 42 48J, 14 CUI 11.2 54,6 16 0, :,0<; 11.8 FA.7 14,7 HI 67 b! / ' 1,., !7f, 33000 0.515 27,7 0.43 27.7 243 '1~") LLL ==STEEL====STEEL====5TEEl.====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL====STEEL== NO TBS 5B 5PC TOT LD A DIM B DIM TB LD MOM @ A MOM MAX MOM SB MOD SB DPTH SB WT PER SB V PER LF CANT A-B REQ I N SELECTED TOP-A AB HOP PER SB PER SB ------------------------------------,._---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1 I 1 ~1 7 51%8 5%67 f:.,5772 732R3 BUO" ~ i ï I , ~., , , ~'J 8,33 r¡ I 1 n. '.' R '3.U in 10.67 í 1.33 n j 4742 52'34 EOn 66'38 7357 3273f, 37818 48545 55! 1 ì 62440 23862 36487 41650 49870 5'3013 32736 37818 48545 55117 62440 11.90 13.75 17.65 20.04 22.71 12 12 12 26 26 26 12 12 26 26 . . . 0,52 29. ! 2E,3 243 '3'3 9'3 30 30 0.545 259 108 108 29'3 ! IE, 1 j h 30 0.5::; 34.7 8 329 \If! li8 .".. ,):' 0.58 ')""J cJ.J 0 38. ~J 40& 35'3 130 130 'J') "'.' (I,t.. :J9.7 406 13~ 440 150 \50 36 504 \60 160 36 0.b5 542 170 170 3b 0.68 0.725 8 580 lB2 182 36 622 194 194 36 0.765 664 210 210 36 0.83 31.7 0,";65 ~4.2 2'39 "',,", C'LJ \35 :j5 0.625 44.2 43'3 504 542 47 50 580 53.5 523 57 654 61.8 719 TEST LD= ~ """"""'" ANCH DIA= ~EOLES====POLES====POlES====POI.ES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES===~~=POLES== lIõp"'SrCRUREPC"'MAXffOft s-mm porrDIA'ï,JAu¡r WALFR WAr DPTH WALER ~ WALER r"-- -.."..-----....-..."",/ TOE LD t1liX TBS POŒ" EA POLE REI) REo. MOM S REo. TOT HT TOT TOTAL WALER WALER LD/LF 1600 (D) (8) AVAIL tb tv --..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 12 \1.5 \0 9.5 F. 28059 4.5 3,5 :¡ :'4312 24273 r, '" C, J 23621 22300 210 182 182 177 ib7 12,8 12.2 12.2 \2,\ 11.9 71727 80073 8374[1 67820 f,6447 5:J8 bOI 628 50'3 4'38 Ib 512 683 683 683 \2 16 16 16 16 683 16 16 16 if, 1681 1408 1472 1192 1168 148 124 136 13\ 2682 3087 3319 3771 4243 137 " , , ' . .' '- 8 719 837 8'35 353 1030 110 24~ 2F,iI ì.!W 300 130 245 260 280 300 36 36 3E, 36 36 0.76 0.8 0.84 0.885 0.345 67.6 n,1 lE,5 82.4 88.3 837 895 353 1030 I! 10 8 1110 1,2 1Esr ANCH F~= 12i10 0.666667 ISOL= ¿ ==POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====POLES====prn_ES====POLES====POLES====POLES== T8 A LO TB A fB A TOE LOAD PASS PR TOE DIA TOE DPfH TOE DPTH @20 DEG TST LV ANCH L PER POLE CALI: SELFCTED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 60539 67584 1434(, 71258 74357 12647 81 too R'3215 85510 8'3229 29 32 36 16090 138'31 \1 F,I7 11312 1%06 100 300 300 'i '- 5 " J 300 300 '- ,., ¿ 5.18 4.81 4.40 4.34 4.20 5 34 3b '1 '- " J 'i L " J ~ 8 8 / LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATEs, INC. C-Jb Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants June 21, 1989 Project NO. 4841180-04 To: ~1r. Don Morton P.O. Box 1457 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 Subject: Geotechnical Update, Existing Duplex at 656 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California References: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1986, Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, San Diego County, California, dated February 10. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987, Estimated Bluff Retreat and Foundation Setback, Proposed Duplex at 656 Neptune Avenue (Vacant Lot), Leucadia, California, dated June 17. In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide updated geotechnical information for the subject property. The results of our previous studies at the site were presented in our referenced reports. To assist in preparing this letter, we have performed a site reconnaissance and reviewed our referenced reports. A site reconnaissance was performed on June 20, 1989, by a geologist from our firm. Based on our site observations and review of the documentation from our previous site visits, it does not appear that the existing site conditions have changed significantly. It is our opinion that construction of the duplex did not adversely impact the coastal bluff. In addition, the existing duplex should not be affected by expected bluff retreat during its economic lifetime (assumed to be 75 ye a rs) . 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGo. CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030. (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 .-:.t:' ~ -- 8 8 .. 4841180-04 If you have any questions regarding our letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~¿:Ç;.,~Ð Gene Custenborder, CEG 1319 Chief Engineering Geologist ST/GC/jss Distribution: (3) Addressee (1) Chase Home Loan - 2 - ~. LEIGHTON AND ASSDCIATES, INe. .. :, Cjb .. 8 -~.."", ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ~rn ~ INCORPORATED . -SOIL ENGINEERING .GEOlOGY 'GEOPHYSICS -GROUND WA TEn .MA TERIAlS TESTING .HAZAnoous WASTE ASSES5MEN I Jun. !"', 19~7 Project No, 4841180-02 . ., Camelback Financial Corporation P.O. Box 1457 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 Mr. Don Morton TO: ATTENTION: SUOJECT: Estimated Bluff Retreat and Foundation Setback, Proposed Single- Family Residence, at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California "Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 660 Neptune Avenue, Leucad1a, San ¡)fego County: California," Project No. 4861180-01, dated February 10, 1986, by Leighton and ^ssociates, Inc. Reference :' In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to discuss es- timated bluff retreat and its effect oñ thë proposed structure alld its economic lifetime at the subject property. The results óf our previous studies at the site were presented in our referenced report. To assist in preparing this letter, we have performed a site reconnaissance and reviewed our referenced report. A site reconnaissance was performed on June 11. 1987, by a geologist from our firm. Basea on our site observations and review of the documentation from our previous site visit, it does not appear that the existing site conditions have changed significantly from our previous visit on February 3. 1906. '- ;'¡ t ..,,' I As indicated in our referenced report, we typically consider the economic lifetime of a proposed structure to be approximately 40 years. However, from con~ersations with you, we understand that regulatory agencies invol ved with your' project assume the economic lifetime of the proposed structure to be 75 years. 0 . b. a true and correct . , rfy 1hls to .. eer I L. ~. 'no! instrurr,,:¡¡t, ny of h,e O.lgl \.^I CO I I .' (feet". ":O:ZTlo\ COUNTY ESCROH ' ~ , ~L.- , B- E;)CíOW officer 4393 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE D, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 2123 (619129,,0030 . (8001 ""1.2ü::'ü TELEX 2.19200 lAGF.O un 8 8 .~ A4B41lBO-O2 '." '., ~' :-. As discussed in 'our referenced report. a conservative bluff retreat rate of ~, :: 0.22-0.33 feet per year has been estimated for the subject property. Based Qn I ,~, this conservative bluff retreat rate, a bluff retreat' of approximately 17 to . ;- 25 feet is con,servathely estimated over the 75-year economic lifetime of the '~ proposed struct~re. ~ ~.. We al so undèrstand from conversations with you that foundation support for the -,~ proposed structure will be set back a minimum of 26 feet from the bluff edge. It ~~. is our opinion that this setback will be suffi¿ient to safeguard the proposed : 't: foundations from being undermineCf for the economic li fetime of the 5 tructure of ~ 75 years (unless future climatic conditions vary significantly from present , : conditions). . '0' i; ~ M If you have any questions regar~1ng our letter. please do not hesitate to contacL .. ,., this office. We appreciate thi~. opportunity to be of service. "~, .~ ... Respectfully submitted. . ',' .. , .'- , '?: ,,; ')¥ - ,,¡~~ , "",. ,..¡', ...:' .,r ~' , .., T- ., ill .. iLt' ," '. ""': , ....' ~" .. ST/GC/JGF/jss '. Distribution: (J) Addressee - -, ""-, ~ ~ " ,.. . I certify this to b" a true and correct copy af the origin\J1 instrument. (};ORTH COUNTY ESCr~OW CO. y ~j- \ Escrow fica, II ,. .; ... [ljm~ LEIGHTON ,n&.! ASSOCIATtS IHCOIlt'OIl"TO:O - 2 - '..~ ' ... ." ., . - "8 8 "'...T..~- "-" , - """ . '1 -",- }:~¡.Œ " ,;,;'.' '::;:;~f:'" to",;t; V;,j~:~;;~::;-;p; ~ ,,'. ,Y;';. '. ,;' ',," ,:':YAi':;, ;:,,;:. ,. ':' ,h, ,,';,...;;LeIGHTON,and,,:,...ASSOCJ,ATE~~.~,:~~:!~}:..,,': r:;,:""1'...:;,"',"",o"',',:"""" :"Y";""'P~¡;;---r;,-..:,¡ '-f, ,.;'" ":"'~' ,', ,:,..,..,' ,....;t',':,;, ,.,!'t,,¡,""'¡;::"'" ""'~4'~~~\:,';,",!>';:;-,.-;:;'~',~:':,,':~i" ","', ';":":,.',-':", , ,~' ,",'~"",:':..::¡;..:,::,r~~~7'.;t~,,-,,"~~ :',,',' " [], ,~ .. ',,',' ',,"c:,C"PO,"¡,A"Tla,":.i:"',,\>:,,\_,~,"""""",:"",..""..""" ,'," '.,":",'" ", ",,'" "',,",',",-"',"','\";,k.,',.,'.,,',','" " ,.' i' "n"""~"";;¡;r-.'" """""~"'ç""" ,0" ,..,' " ,,'r~""'(-'\'" , ~', ~", u;::~/¡~y;: <"¡8(;¡:':~} ,.,'.'" "', ",.: ',':, (~};::~~:'t '! . ';j' ~, ..",..' ,',.." ".. .."-,.:1_,,,.., , '~, ~ . ' '-", ... ' 1',,>,," :;';:,'.)':,';"": "':>, :':,;: .:-' , . "::-::H':j-f',"',' :, r; 'GEOTECHNICAL and ENVIFlONUENTAt:ENOINEÈÀINO CONSULTANTS', ':" ' , , ,':~ ' ~,' " ;, February 10. 1986 " Project Ho. 4841180-01 - , , -,' " . , ' I,', " :/~~i~~:f ; ',,:~:. 'TO: " ",::'~" ,'" ,,', ':~"~;:';,' " '\"'",':';:""',':~.:"~"..,;.¡.,..~",_t' ',,'~'~"L,/,'," Hr. Arthur. Rosenstein.'IfIt,;,..., ,:',',: ,;.I¡:, ' 423 Stratford Cour.t,,~~~.,~,t:~,,'-\t~;;::: ',~~:~:: Del Har~ California 92014. :'~,' ".,,- ," , " " ,..".,,~.. '..., , """',, , "'i,;:~~::':,>, , " . . ' ,.J, SUBJECT: Geotechnical Asses'sment¡ ~ Pr.oposed Single-Family Residence at , ) ~~' "'..:,.> ',' 660 N!,: r::~.:,;~f,~,;,~,~,:,,:,~nu,::,:,':',.,"~,~" ~ ~ u'C;;;~'~I~I,:..?:,¡: ~.~,:n,',.,~11, ~o 0 , C ~:u:" ~~:' C. 11~ or " 11 " ':',::t ~ :,¿ : ::':~:;'Íntroduëtion - - ~ ," .,":,. \', ; . ,,' ,,' ,./. ' '..~:' "'" , ' " . ' , ",'We have 'completed our geotechnical assessment of the s\lbjec\ property. This" ~" report presents a summary of our field observations and geotechni,cal: analysis. , :¡"".tPlease note that the conê'~'sions and ~~c'~~~eridå-t'ions ,contained h~rein ar~,,~~'G"~':,' :.;., '-.: ',;.i~: opinions based 0" ..the data obtained during our field 'and research studies and our;'.~,. ,,' :? ".i,""~~':experience with similar geotechnical 'conditions. The County of San Diego i s the'., - ':>:;, ':ì,:':rregulatory agency that makes the ultimate" decisiòn as to whether or not your;, ,:.' ':". ' ~~'~..'tproject is approved', and we do not guarantee th'atthey will' agree w1th:o~r<':- <~ findings.' ',,_..' " , ' , ""'~ ,. Accompanying Haps, Illustrations, and Appendices "..._' " Figure 1 - Site Location Hap - Page 2 ' Figure 2 - Generalized Bluff Profile and Geologic CrOss Section - Rear of Text Figure 3 - Modified Hercall; Scale of Earthquake Intensities - Rear of Text Figure 4 - Retaining Wall Drainage' - Rear of Text Appendix A - References - ,;;, ---- -,,---.......~,..... lFi1Q, :t<I2.ßO:)c . 1800! .41.2826 ~, .t. " 8 8 ;a.<:.~"-: ..,ri\Q"'" " , . . ~ I Î , 7 ¡ ¡ . 1;. 1; :::_'~¡;~ ,~\\.,..t.... . 1/~~?~~.~'~ -Ii:... . ;~i:;"'~:; . o. . '. ".' ~ ..:., ,'.' '=,"I.~h..,' ~ ~¡::;:~~i- ¡~I:~': ~i::' ", .,0 .~ .-' . ~. , . ,0" '. ':' :;.': :;, '.', . '~"" :, , " \ .- .¡ . , '.-, '. . "'~' j :::',:'.:.:"....'-. . ..,",,"..0,.. ~~}f"::'~' ~,',;' , " " ' ;: .:' .' ';. ~,'" ~ "'" 'or": '0' ,'" .. ,I' " . :. ',;", . ',.. ... . ::~. '. ,.. ,..~, : '.. 'C" Encinitas ..1'" .11 ' rB................, ":i:i:~:t. 1¡~~~::::" ..:::;.:::~~¡¡: ~:. =;:;" :~: ':'. ;':';';'.., :,. BASE MAP: u.s.a.s. Enclnltas Quadrangle, 1'.5 minute, dated 1967, photorevIsed 1915. ROSENSTEIN PROPERTY 660 NEPTUNE AVENUE , LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA Flour. 1 0 2000 4000 SITE LocATION MAP [fj[I]~ ~ [.;.:.;.:.;.;.:,;.;,:,:.:. ' "..:-:,:.:-t ~""",,:,:,:,;,;,,'l :J scale fA IItt Project No. 4841180-01 LEIGHTON ,"41 ASSOCIATES INco""O,,,,"IO --- ,--- );~>',-! '~',~:~~.."';\-:,t}:~', : , 4841180..01 '~', 1 - 8 8 ":;:"~~~....,,,~,:'./:, "~i;~,' 'H", ".., '(¥~' "- ' ' ,: ,,-r""" "'~~~::!C°ptioo~'~S~~,V,1~,~f,..;:::,t/>",I:-:::>,~:':,,':'>:~',',,'-::: ~:,:~:, "', ",,: ", ,: -.: " .=;:i~;~I~~:'a~~,~/~~f¡~ti?-~ii~;?~~:~~,:t~:qti'ê'~~V(~~r~:~'y~'~,cÓ~p:;'ë~ed' ,à::o'..~,t'èc~_n'ica 1"a~s~'s s~en t':"o"":?~ ,', ,~~"o :~~f~th~""s,~bject prope,rtr:.:.;, "T~.: ør6pertY::1s":-1ðêate,ct';,~t 660. Nèp~un~ Avenue!'::1n:Lp.ucad1at';'~:,;,:' ,;';, :' '~'~~Oâ}1.!,or.nla. This report:: pl:',~sents ou~,:'"fil'ld1ngs. cone 1us,i ons" and recomme nda t ions':.' ' '" '~~j;:¡'e 1a frY'e to the proposed,' dIve 1 opmen t', and', its' effects 'on b 1 u ffand' sea 'cliff ":,,;~,.,, 'Þitit ' ",',,!,'},,' ' ,:,¡,.,.',~," ,',,'r, ," '.,' ,::",,','sta 'I., ,'o"...."...,.,..J"""",~""".,;".".",:.:o",:!_:.., ,,' '1" ::',0". /"t\~i,~.;'¡;;~#'~'~"'\;"" ,',: ,',,:':~;:;,,: "';':':;:::/'~t,\f',"::~::~:;:,~,_;:r~;.t:,~' ':~,':~o::~¡~>::;::;~(:":':'" ','},;" ,;:':.?(ü~;.:;scopê of serv1c'e-s.' itlC:tude~ the .f~;Ùówrno'~~~: ,~', ". . ':,~- , , ,',' " ;" , ' " , . Revte~ of geotechnical )1teratur~¡nd stereoscopic pairs of vertical aerial photographs pertaining to the site area, includ~;~' a previous geotechnical report issued for the proposed development. A list "I the documents reviewed is presented in Appendix A. .. Review of undated plans entitled The Rosenstein House, ",~-,,'.Assoc1ates., ".":" ,',' !' :~','.~~\K~:~~,.:~"'";,,,,>- ,," ,..." ',",." ",,:,:'('~\,,;:::.; ::-"~~A'::.;{."Fhld reconnaiSsance of the present, site cond1t1ons.~, ,"."(J:,/:,:."'."~ .. "":"",'~:"";;'I',':~',:;'I '~":i:,,,':~.i,:'\.,~:"'" o...'~ Prof 11 Ing and oeologic' 'mapping of ' the bluff face.' . I prepared by Batter Kay: - ',", :' .. , ' " ," ",,' c,' ":';:,:" '., . , - " " , , ' . . Geotechnical evaluation of the bluff fa~e and the subject s1te~ ' , :},.. ,':,." ",", , ":' ,', ' '0 .. ';.' , " ,:' : ',~":,,' f:' Geot'echn1cal ana~ys1s offield and,researcho data.,'" ':':-:7f"~F' p~~~~~at1~~ 'of' ;tÌt'is ';~:~:o;.t 'p~es'~~t~1~4g :~ü'~ :'f1~din~s, c~nclusions,"and, reconvne'n~ , .. dat ions with regard to site development., ' , ,':',"f,' " . " ,:, - .. Site Description , ' , ' , On February:'3~,,1986. two geologi,sts,trom'our firm visited the subject site. ,"<'The following is a.,sunrnar'l-of our observations of site,conQ1t10ns:' "" ;', '.'"".", :.,' ..,..;,:,.":-.,~",.,..:,..::,;;,,,-' 0, "",' ',:, ",'.' . .The subject property; is 'Situated;atop, the: co.astal bluff- area in Leucadiii. . San, Diego County.- CaHfornia., '0 T~e~ general"locat ion ,of, the site,' 1,5 shown on " the Site Location Hap, Figure 1. The eastern property line lies along a , portion of the western side of Neptune Avenue~ Residences exist on the 'l'ots , north and south of the site. The approximately 90-foot ,high coasta' bluff , sloping downward to the west at an overall gradient of approximately 40 . degrees deline! the western property boundary. Figure 2 is a generalized . profile and geologic cross section of the coasta~.bluff. . The relatively flat area at the bluff top slopes very gent1y toward Neptune Avenue and is presently a driveway and yard area for the single-story residence to the north. Improvements include a concrete patio area, a stone wall, and asphaltic driveway. Vegetation consists of grass and scattered shrubs and trees. '. The bluff face is generally not we" vegetated. The property owner " (Hr. Rosenstein) indicated that planting of the bluff face occurred ap- proximately one year ago, but did not bec~me w~ll established. Several .3- œ[TI~ LEIGHTON a/MI ASSOCIATES IHCO"..O"ATIED , ~~'1,'" '.1~!!." ',' ,:¡/.¡, ,::' , " , '~f~ 48'41180'.01 ';";.':'~~),l',;':":,',"a':>:',' ',:'t':'J"':~i~',:";,;",,, ;~,;;~.~' -~Y,:,,'.,,:' ',', "',:" """"" ",,' , '-';':-" ,,' , ;, ~,,~,,~~~',: 'sp:r.f'n'~Ji;., "t~nQs..~~~~d:'!f..~~:,:t~~~~~I~,f(~~~',:'to,.a'pp,r~o~\~te,11, '2,O,Jee't ,above .Ot~~::"',',,, ,', .$I'~~,;,~:bå's;" of' the, C 11 ff...._,t! ""f~' t--",- :;"",~' 'I,.~~"~-..;':""II!, "~'" ';" ;¥I:i""..,:~' ,\,¡,I :,';""~ ,':","";',..-1:'11;;', '"""')",.1,,. "'" .'~"';i'~:';::":' ':' "'" , :~ ~~£:,,' " ,'" ' ,,' ,,; ':7ëe:!~~t¡ ;~f'::~~~t~? :::])~:;¡¡~j~};i(':ì~(\"'1~{/,i':ljiE;f~t;;:~':, ' '~~):'!i.EP°sedaevelopment,; ,:;.~~;",,', ".:' """,",:,,',:- ,:' , , .,"..t:;'::"" ::i~L:~,-..,. :,,,It';:;1:':'~~':'':';'':;I~':':: ,:"",~,>".~,.::,;:....,: ", ",,' '/:~::~:,~," ,i~Based..on, our, reYiew,o~ ù~~a"tect: p1ans'.nt1tTed:>The Rosenstein:"Hôu S8. prepared: by, '," , i;¡(aatter Kay Assocfates...:the project.;¡rch1tect, the proposed development, will, ' ,', consist of a two'-starJ,~res1dence over r parking/basement' Teve1., , It is,our " 'understand i"9 tha,t mast,; of the foundation support for the new res idence wi11 be " p1aced approxirnatety 3B,fe~t. fronl the bluff top. Howev~f'. our review of the " 'plans indicate th&t..tw~ho.Tated, foot1n!)S for support of 't,." 'second floor master " bedroom are proposed apprax1J1t.ately 28 feet from the '11uff . .i~. , , , . ".,..'. 8 ", ,',:,:' ' " , .. :, Eng1neerHno Geq]~9I.'_""~!'~'I::¡: ': .~": ..' " ' : , ' -' ~,:A!,"", :"""';"""",,:,,..:,',:,,'.,'., .",:\-'.' :"', ':::.,"., "{;;~Fô,11oWing is asu.amary of.tI!.:..ge,o~e,C:h"1ca1 cand1tions observed during our s1ti::. ':~fÍ"e:ëonn&1ssance. PTëas~.riate.;t.hat,Le1~ton and~Assoc1ates, Inc.' has'not performed~~, , , ':/~~'c1eta1te(t' suÞsurfadflrive~,f1,~t1on' at..:th~ s1te1 ",,' ': ': '; ~;" ,..~ ,'" ,: , , " ..~":: \:, , , '! " ',', : .,.:-, :,:' , . :: ' , :..', 'Eart'h Pfaterials ",; , '. ,':,'i~j;~T'6'tr:e'Y:Slndsto'rii',;~'~;;:~,'~~en.T~rré,"Sånds~one is exposed as the ne~~~~:;' ::'~J~~~~yert,~,c~,1 þ appraxt~r..:~~~-out:> Jrt~, s..~1fff 1nmedhte,ly; abovehthe beach,-,-f,n::' ',;~~::~the:,Vestern port,cm at.:ttt.'¡'Š,U8. ,/~.'Torrey Sandsto;ne..consists of gray,to.-,.- "'~':~í;~110ht::brawn:. 1114U1ve~:,t1Tty ffne- to'some medium-grained sandstone. 'As ',::;":¡:,exposed, the Torrey SancŒtone is" wen indurated, cross-bedded, and appears, " ;' coß1]etent. ' ,', ,',' , .: ~':'~Terrace Deposits - Pleistocene ;'rfn'e terrace deposits unconformably overl1e, , :,:.;,)~:t~, the ,I orre1 Sanc1s tone-, an~ collprise I the" appraxima te ly', 7S-foot ~ igh bluff face",'" ,,:~~,~.::~t~that: s Topes 'at :,a'n..'avett1T,~grad1ent"ofapprox1I11a te 1y' 4 ~/degrees 'to the west _,f,;..' , '~;:~'~~;7~Thi'! P1 e i stocen( ter..ace: de pas its' :,cans 1 st of poorly, 'canso' f~ated., fr1ab1 e ~ ",,' "~C",:mass1ve. 11oh,t brown to :orange-brovn. f1nê..to'Jlled1:um-gra1ned sands. Th... ,';":;-;~':: uppermost approx1Ø\1te1y. 8-foot.,:,tt\ick"'seet1on' or:' th'& b1uff appears ,to be,'" , ":":':"cornpósed of re1atfŸe1j"iñorê'res1sta~t. s11ght1y cemented terrace deposits. ,,' " '. " I , '. " . ' BeJclt DC!Q9sits - A variab1e thickness of unèonsol1dated beach depos,its oc'cur. along the western site boundary. The beach deposits consist of we'l rounded' cobbles along the base of the sea c11ff and gray. medium-grained sand. This materiaT is subject to addition and removal in r~sponse to storm waves and currents. ' . Geoloq1c Structure The Torrey Sandstone'1n the vicinity of the subject site dips gently to the south and west. No major out-of-slope dip components were noted that would ,adverseTy affect slope stability. ' , Bed,d1ngin the Pleistocene terrace deposits can be observed as alternating liQht and dark colored laminations. ~here observed, the Pleistocene terrace deposits appear to be horizonta 11y bedded. I ' . , . Of][Ð~ .'~' -- . 8 - ~~~8-'~' il",' , ' ~::~841l80-01 .' , .' . -,- j:~':t :.; :5:'::":' ;,,}:;it\" ,":::..,'~"::';,~;;LL~\+Xi:~D~:D"l~~ :, ,,;':. ,:~,\ "":';~"'~' ',,:,~);,'., ;::',<':,;"'~l~~:';','f,~,,:,~~::'.j;,,,'qr~\\, , "",',:,,-::,sea c1Hfand,81'Iuft Re"t"r',at~,"~~~!':,:'¡""'~il'rIJiI'~,I!.!"J~~~",~:",~;.."",.. "",' ',::'" ,:,',~"""","¡::',..","",,}I'-¡~,~""',~,~,",t"",,:,,~-j.i',,~~, !fd'-"),I,'~"""" c .' ,",,'- -, .....,' -':;"~' ~'~',"~"";"""~'l!,;. "T"'.1')ti:'I~ti'~~"'~' ','7 ",,~, ",,-~ ,':(; ,:.,,',',',' ,..;,,~,-.:~,': '~~, ,,'~',!,,;.' ~i(1~~~':"'" ': /:-:. ':/ Factorsaffecti~'O~ th~~;'~:~è;~~'~i;' ~':~~:r~':'~'t~{~f:ëx'~:~:~~1~de..the '¿eo:re';:~'i;( it;if'~~~f~,~~;~:~r::,"'.. ' ',' ::'," . , j 0 ; nti n~, and:" canso 1 f~atfon' 0' U,d1ments'.and' the steepness of s Tope. 9rouJ:\d'::~'i~1 " water and s,urface',water:condftfons,:,'veqet.,atfon or lack of, and ,1ntensity,,:!,,~:.(,::,> : ',:, :;:~.~::; pede s t r, 1arl,,;,:~n,!l:~~~ 11114 t~t r~ f"1 C'. ~., ~aYI!\ ac~ i~,:, is a 150 cont 1~~,llY',:,u,.derrrii ~1',!c¡;~~~~~~, ;":~'~,ò'?~"t.he'; cult,:. (~ce. ~,ftëre' the. ,Torrey Sands tone,'eve ntua 1 ly spa lTs,,':thus, ,. emovi"nO.~::i:~; '\:""support. fromÞeneath the terrace depos.1t,sands. " ><,"'~"" ',',-\.èe and others (1976) r'~:'\ort an annuaT '~~t;':'af sea cliff recession 11".'1,' thi?' subject property of 0, Inches. This emJç;T'~~tE applies only to t..,Ò4t!} Sandstone. Greater rr",t, at- instantaneous:, retreat can occur Jut! t~~ ,~'1n~ bloCk failures or mass~'."'~ Tandslidinc¡. .... ,~......¡¡h::¡,.;...,.. " '. " , " ,:.,The Quaternary terrace depas1t~ in thl!'~, vtcinitJ of the subjec~ property ðre~' ,;::/~:~~\,'bo~~,: the, 11n."'o", dfrectwa.ve..,a.t4C:,k.;"Dd;.',t"æJr:i,~e'. 4 d1fferent,combinatfon;~;,,!,-,. ~/. ':r~J)J~<Of.,:: fa~~,o,,~ ;,'11 ),1'1"'1uenc.~ bluff "'~~~~!M-.;;"Ittltfs are ,e xpos ed to p,ree i P 1 ts~:,,:~~~:~, '~~:,:,,:tibñ/{,:,w,i,nd,::6nd'pedestrtan- e,.athtlt"':,:~yar.1.t1ons,"1rt landscaþe",1andstape:""',:""':"", " ,l,: '~~i;,:~'ma i,t\tenan,c'e.:,:anct."':,o~hel\~,4ttf¥.1t;~Ì!Š~~~ '_:'~'AW:8rr'a-ve~age-:b'ruff"a;eai'.s im11 ar';,t't~> :'~",":1n"conff9urlti(J1t aner expOsur." t'cr"that af'the subject pro,perty. 1n.~ause " .,:"research by, Lefghton Ind'Asso~fates. Inc.' his calculated a conservative .;..~~, .:retreat rata of 0.22-0.33 fee~ per year' (to-IS' feet in 4S years)., ' t'E~~~~~~:~~~~~'~1¿,;~jJ¿#iii,~tl~f~';::i:'~~t, " "',', .',,', , ""'."::'.'.~.: ,,;'J~:: :g:<. ,~". ;:;~rounCf.','wlte,.':, seepage was'obServed '"t: thacontact between the Torrey Sandstone,., ,>:'" ";~~~,"ánd thf'terr:a'c:e sands. Ground' water::, seepaqe is probab1-y due to i rr i 9a t ion'" ,~ .. .~,' ,'water 'entering the ground fnTand east 'of the sit! and f1owi~~ westward along, ::1<\ the upper contact of the les! permeabTe Torrey Sandstone. ,;~~::£ei~~I~;t/ .,co,>, ,:" ,<"c." 'ti~~~+~i~'i:ró;i~~-~;~1'~~Yé~h~'ki~g~~p'ra~;~:~\~;~b:1'~;~~':~t;~~'t is dependent on bluff: condf~' "'".I':;/":,t.'ions" at the" moment of Sh4k 1ng.",:Fa11ure' of bedrock project ions on b1uff ' ;"i.\t:~~':taces. failure, of marg1nI1ly,'stab'1e:,bloc:Jts ot bedrock, collapse of sea caves. ' -.~ij;~:s'ha 110wsoits fa.ilure's',;5; and: fanure's'ot undercut cliffs and bluffs wou rd be ". ":~~~'c'ommon occurrences during! IIBxil1JJM credible event ,a10n9 the San Diego coast. . " .. ~' Legg and others (1978) conclude that coastal San Diego County has been shake~ by many earthquakes. including five events with intensities of VII and VIII on . the Hodified-Hercall1 Scale (see Figure J) in the latter, half of the nineteenth century. They regard the E1s1nore fault 'zone (26 miles northeast of Leucadîa) as the most active fault zone of significance to coastal San D1ègo County. Other known active fault zones capable of causing significant ground shaking on the site are the Coronado Banks fault zone (approx1mðtely 23 miles southwest of Leucad1a) and the San Jacinto fault zone (51 miles northeast of Leucadia). The potentially active Rose Canyon fault zone is located 2,5 mites west of Leucadia. Events are much less likely to occur on , pot e n t ; ally act i va fa u 1 t s . n~m~ ,'" . ~...-:..z ~ ,',;~~:-8:. ,:~"~,';"" ..,--."--,- 8 ,,:. . " ,'", ,,", '.. , "'O'Q'~"""":~""""""':"'~ " ~"48411ß,,~,,,¡J~~:~~._,:;;,:,;,:,.,~.;.:.;tÆ;',Wl;i'::;(~'~~t:.::-",¡:"",':'_:,-",'" "',,,.'..:.;,,0 , -,- ,', ""'!'?i.,o""w..t'4¡"~I',!"..,.....r'j'.~"~\;.~..~~:-r:""'-~...t"::;:J,',1"',','\';"~"".":"'" , ' ,') '~:;'lt~~',¡:",;":.:..:'.~,,,,::,!;~ '-:;l';;I,.,,~:.::~~r...', ,~,~,.'~",... ""'~i::,.~.-.,~""....,'JI;.tr';." '., " ,,' ',t'".. -, ""~:: ' ¡~~3~~N~'f.,:~'¡~§m."~~~?f¡i~~1.11~:~,~, ~ 1t;~~.yg~,~~-.':;~~~1.~f~~~,'¡~\';:neer1n" st4b11 ~ t , a~a'~:',s8,Li~jJd:;:;.:~<:,,::::'., ;. :~..Jm\)ì~ti~!f'ff\~_I,I' ~,;'þ.,~Toiit1~ 'ot,1fi~~ lab \11 ty of th \ s ~ 1 t I,' ,low I~'t'jf¡m;::;,;"i' >~~.;..,~ 1ndJêätÎSt..that:d~~,UJ~;lf'~~W,~.ta~~'Ì,t",,','vfTt.~.cfar f no, s trono 0 round' fhåk,1 n-O:;í'~<!',.:;'", , . :'::{,~:Th" 'most~, l1kilY"'C,~^s~enc_d: would, be, surf t chT' fa11ures a long over-steepened!'-, . ':',f:~~'p"'órt1,Otl$:O,f,¡'t~,8",b)~f..f)i;~;~~,:".':..,?;~,.'",:::".'"..':';' , "-"'" ' '.....'..' ..',"~' ""~'~'.l.-¡.::t"~.'".~."."..,.,.",,. " ;..;'!:'Xtr'.;~,¥~'tI;;"""'~...t"".!~'t"}";"'~, f'AY-t:~~'!"'~"i~1:~v....':",i":.irì:!,'k""~"""'-':':"~""c ' ::,,~:', .. "f .; ~~,~;,~....-"')o :,..r¡,;;::):~': '~~;;.:,'~-f"I;"r$,~;:~~':L;;ç..;"~i ?;: ~'~:':'~:;~::;;;-~-,:"',n~'¡'\ " .. ':<,,'.:._',':,',,:,:,::~.,,',,',:,):"i'.,\~,:,',f,:;::",' """'~~'I-".,:...,.,._:...,:':,I",,':"""':""'l<j.~:'~:~',,..'t.~"""'\~.;;"S4"'",:";",\",,,,-,,:\ """i:"'\"" ,,',',",-"'" ,~.~ ,:~'i"',< ". " "t~~~r;Ut:5~~~':.,'S ;~::':"'- ' :':,C ~ 'f. ,', :' ' ',' :- ", .. , '" , ~i\'," ~}~:'. },::, , ~ '." ",. t' ,;' .' ' :~,;Î¿t~Ï:i~,~~~_~. :.J~j ~i. ~ \ù¡ if , , '::,,-..:.~~t~~r-.i~E~~:Y'~~, '~,',:"~.,'~I,; ;JJi::'::,t~~~,>,¡~,\111~~~:~~L\ ';;'-',:-~~Ìt"";. ~':'~'" "."i",,:i' ~ ;' :~'-:¡f.t,:".(,'...:....,~\,;~-~",.Òo"":':';"':~'.';"'~~'~;":!~ '~".it~~"t~.~,-.." "":.IS~.r£"",~,,,:,,"":,.: 'iI'.'. . , ~"ti:,p::iti:/;~,<i"t:':!'I' f!.;" ",~ ../\".:"'~.Ji;..;:;~::r~,'£,.~;~¡;..:.:::.,;......,.'I1:~1"-;!':'::' J¡":¡~(¡~:C!" t,. . ',&l~~~:\{:;~,~: ' ,,~ ',.~:~~':~,~~.;~ .,' -':' ::',~~:~." ' ;' ,.. ' ,,' , ."~'Jilf~~t."..........-\;.~:. ;,'.h~...,: ,.v.t;~ø'í¡);!~""". r.ti'-'""'-'" .. .':~.~. .~.","'. ' . .,.,~~~~\~~~~{;g~~~~/',: .'~,,5. ;ff~;:'>'~;}¡~~~r~;~¡!;:,~.::"~" ,'~:.~~::~;~,~t <::;~'" :.;::.~:...' :.' - ,:.:';t.:,,:<.:..¡~,~~,.t~{~~f',: ',(" .rl'~:'I:"!":":'f,:"El..'~1.~-_.ll~..~o\L~.: ,...{,..¥,.".,~..~." "S¡>,:~,:~~,;, ::.~: "; ." '~'>::'\,~~;~~¡;:. :;~~f ;~:. .',' " ;" " .."'~:.,>~i"¡'" '(' ""'j ....";, "".1~~:~?"~"~"'" '. .," , , ,,"..:,.,',,',:,',:,'~,..~.~,'"~'-';',:t,~,';,:,~,"'I";:'~,,~,.4.,'~.'.,:,_...~,,:;i,~.:_'",',~:-:,',~,',~,":"'-~.."-~,.',; ¡"';"""",~,:,""~""',',;:\"','~,,~,~_,:,,,?"".',~,,::.'~-'"',"',',<"l'.',.':.""",',,:',- ,'~:""',',' ,', ,'" ,:".:,', 1". ",' ~:'~~j~~~;{.':: '. 'ç.:: ~¡;. ,,",,~~¡, ~; ....,t's..,'... ,.."'. ",! '" ..; . ," .' ., ;:' ;. ~, ' - ',.:;: r:f:~¡~;t;;~,;~ ;~:~;:,~,',D:: ' "." , ' r, - . .;: '.:~',:;:~~~',..- ;" -',,' " ',' ,- .. , ',.'.i¿. ',¿- -, . -,~,' ," " ..' -.-' ',: - ..~'~i,; ," '-:" ~.. , .- , , . . ,. . ",-, ::~' "',,-' , . , '. - .. '-0"""" " r1ìm~' ,...,--- :,~ ",0""""" , "',':"': ,i ", ". " , , 4841180-01 '-~" ',,::8" , , " e" ,.'.'00"'" - ' . " " , ':~:~~~: ":~"':O' . "~~O~ , ,':, -,--' , , , " " ,", , ,'.., '~;~~1t;,,;~;,~,~..t~:'ï""":":" ',,' ";"'",i~';Y':- "~i~'!{~/'::' ,~::;i~';(.':';,:,~:.'::"'~ '~'~i:.' , ' ,:, ",,' " ,': :..~", '~ ' '::~"~-ø::::;:f,.{:;:~;":~:f,"h~::" ,:,...'::'::/':,'~~,\:~~'~';":¡"',':'COHCLÜ'SIONS ÄND RE'COHHENDATIONS, ,'~"" ':--': ,:,' ::':,:'~~;::r;' " '""~,,,~~~,::' ."..",-,~:,~...:;~r=~!,~..I'~~,1":""~~~~i?]:""" "~"."1" ," ,,' ',' '~.",',',:"" :,.,,",:', '~":':,"'."":""'~':',:,:,.'~~'.:::,:,'~!',:,~o""'"r:..,.',",.~,~I',~,',,"'.~:,~!'.~:'.~,,':,r¡-,~,.~,':"',':".'~::::-~:o',:,~,"":",,~,~,:,'":,~,:.:,;;,:,, '~:; ~f ;', ' "., :"':~~~,I.['{~~ '4,')21r'.""{"!-n..~~I';(i,;,;¡r,":":"'1':"'" ';'Jr.'r",' ,"f;: ""::':""," ..:" '" ".."0:, , ;' :'~"'t~~?':~~f: ":" " ;""~;:'~':~~:>O;"Ú'¿~~;~~"~,~i"5:.)i'~;"-:,,> ",; 'o~/(:~ ..~;.';:o:"::> I :'::~',< , ,':::;:>~, .,"-r,S10peStability""""":",';J.(,"";;,"",,:,,, :'""",,'~>" ,:. ' '~,'~.r ' ,.t~':":.~~;.::~' "", '-.: - ',-' - ". ' ....- jj~.,JurgeOlogic e~a',l~ati~n;:::~r:the,:.oÿ~'r.al,1.sta~iC slope stability on, the subject.. ';r~~';"'øraperty:: 1nd1 cates"thðt,,~t~e:, bluff,;fs:' 9rass'ly:~stab,l eo" Bedrock: type- and' deQree of ,,' )',I~; Cd'mpetency are favorab1e' with- regard'to'overa1l' slope stability. The impact of - .':f site construction on slope' stab'l1ity'conditions is expected'to be negt1gible. '. ':~~'provided that grading.'is°m1n1mhed an~ the introduction of water is strictly controlled. Limiting the 'irrigation of P J,',ts to the minimum amount required to maintain plant vigor wo¡Jld reduce ground ~;'.~'er and surface water effects. ',' ' -, ;Eros 10n- ".-r.,!; ..;-.,î.", , -:'- ;7:::"',: - - ;-\-'.,.,-- ~~:;,~t~¡, noted previousl,.: måJo'i"::Po'~t10ns ot,' t'h'. bluffs, on site are not wel1 vegetated'" ( , , :;~;~a,n-d,hav~,.ibeen"S~bje~t;'t"D,::rJ~,1~f,;,~ta'n:d', ~ros10'n~;;;'~:: To ,mitigate or rèduce adve"sl:, , ; ,:~};i~.e'r~eicdts'~~~ ,~:he,;..p~,~P~,~!¡:~~~~,~~~J.oP~~~~':;o~,:,:,~~.~!!; eros 1~n, . thefon~1n9,: should, be:,; ,~- :'::::_:;'.:C~t"s er " :'!' '-~ '-~r;~,j ;",.'~>,: -:' ' ' , :,-",-~"_.,, ""'," . , ' , - ~.~' .;~ The propo'séd str'ûctûrtr st1o'uld be: outfitted with eave gutters and downspouts '{.~t.t}~ th"~~,,,,~,i.,~,~h~r~e "~~, ,~h~:'~~ttee_~,}~~,~.o,lJ~~~", ro~f. ~unof~... .,' -'. cq;.Qi!V-ði'.~"'-"4r."'-,'," ",;"'_0_'",'1).-"",-""",, "'~""'-""" "",.. , - , :£~tf~~%r~~;~~~~~~o.~a't~~"~jf~a_~~~~~ftjft'bi~~ff,>f¡~'i',: cou'T~: be. p l~~t:c¡- ~ ith I nat 1 v~ spec 1~Š':+ ,:-, > - 211tèri~'s~ite,d for'- eras 1,on, contr~l:_~,u~poses,-',.:1( p,lant ino 'can be Iccomp 11shed wi thout,: . :,,:':'~i,'~.terrac1ng or major-excavation- on' the, s_10pe." ,', , -' - ,: ',f. " -,;"~t::.~':-,, ,"-,.',',~.,..~,-,-;~',-. :', "., . - ,~, -,- . Jr¿'.'j-Irrigatfon' of the 1an4,s.cap~. 'sho~'1d be' Ùmit':!d to the minimum amount reQuir'ed - :,:~::~~f{~$~to maintain plant vigor., If the exist1_ng b1uff irrigation system 15 utilized" ' -~!:1tt:r~;.1t:,should be periodically checked.far--leaks and breaks. A broken line would :..:, .. "f{i~~;"re,su'_t'>in r,1l11,..~O',~~~-~t~~.';~,~~~"1'~~,~~~,,,t~_~r~,~e;de~osits and possibly ~ d~crease "in,,:,~;,-::, . -";,"f~}.I(~~C:.:b'u,ff:stab111t1.-':'.'~;:j!,~,~",.~,.';'o",:,:.,~,~.~~;~,,~-:_,1,"'-':":'~:":':' ' ,,- ': ,:-.' ,'---::':":-, ','I'."..'It\'oIM.""-')":'---'-" """~"'-~--""""""-"'O~"""_""'-' "-~J'---",', '."'",'£"Ioll'~""'"", - '-"\~" -,," ".', ""'-., - ",' ',' 1fj~~,~~f~~(ã"~~t~i~~tra'fff~. ~:~::the~ b"'~'f":;;f~"c:e"~n'd bl-uff edge should not' be a 110~~d- '~,;,-";'::'~'-.-,,' - ~,:..'~4~;since' pedestrian traffJ~'increases: erosion~';';' , ,',' - " . " '.' . ..".,:*:~ç:~:.~ ,:- .ty::~:~~~:,--..- - -:,' >""':.' ,', " :'....' , . , -:", - Erosion Due to Wave Attack, - -O~r evaluat1on~d1d not include a detailed siudy of recession rates and, as indicated above, the general rate of sea c11ff ~8treat could'vary from very- little to several tenths of a foot per year. Severe erosion is episodic in nature, and is dependent upon intensity of storms and combined high tides, and it , is probable that several feet of sea cliff and bluff top retreat could occur during severe weather conditions. There may also be periods during the future years when erosion along the coast will be rather insignificant. ,~' L ..' ,1- -.- ". -:J!' .;: :.: ;.. 2- .' 'f' ;,~. ", ~~.t:.Í" ,~ ,-,..,.,'.., ,~-, "c. ::..' - ," n~rTl~.- , , ,.ì '. ' 8 -8 ',.." , " ' '", ","'.' .,,",f,"""'" n'. ,,'., ~ " ""."..". """..~,....,I.....,."-,.""""",, ""':'~,":":',1~;""""i"""~,:::: ' ,"'" ';';".l'i."¿';!;'¡;'i'¡~'" , '~:\~':""':Ji;T;t ' -, ,:',:' ,: :¡,', " . . 4841180-01, ':, ',; ',\ ,'" ........,.~'-' , ',,' ," ; "" ' "',"'.. ' ' ' , " ,':,.. ';':,:~i~~Jt~\~:~:'~:':;;~l~i,'::":'~',":,'::,~<,,\:~';~::":~.,~r~~:;,,:'~~~~::~~~~~~fŒt~;:{:;2,;:¿t '~~:'~~::,;~(~~;~,'",' :'::."':f~\¿~' :,,'.'~~\~"~'; ,'/':,t~ft:~~A';:') , . ';' ;;,~' s'ft!:' G'rðdt"i1C1':::~~',~,['~~~, ~IC~;:', i'~,', ?;:t~::,:i,_"'~'1.,t,;iY"'*'}Í!t,.y.r;.r~~;,..¡?,~;'i.~,",-:"",',"':--1-'!I./:,:ii::;":' ",' '",' ',' <i.;., '~'~,'~;',;c..ì ~"",I~"..~~,~~.;¡....,~:~,;:,¡,;: , .:,-' , , ~::;;~:::,;;,,;,;,,~,~~'~7~~Jfi.!}~I::i';Á~?::':~~~~*~fl~~:!"i'}'<i;:':;.::,~;~'~'J,::;'!:':, ':',:";~",;::,,,: ,,;,';'~::'~':;:i!,,:}r..:L,~,:"~';~J;'f':.,';-:~" '-:'"¡j~~ S it:et9';'~'d1ng'::t;~~~:~~f~~j¡;i1~1~i~{;'ð.~lá't~~'t~Wf;P~~'Ø~~~:d~2c¡~ve:1~pci~'~'t'. '..:",'i¡:~~~-i¿'fif!~::::{~ ~'- ',is proposed. gradirîo:p1ans~':shou1d:~~rey.hwed by th,e"'geotechnical e¡'g1rieèf;:~,:lnd,~f,:."::,::', ',: grading should, be perfor~,,~,:,~:~~~~,,~,-h,~i-~up,!rV~,;~..1~~, of', ~:h:~",geote~hnfca l; 'e,r1QJ:~~;~:~;'i:::,;'" "~lnd,en9ineer1nq geologist.,..:.:".. /~"" ""!"~';þ'.þ'I"t'W~'""",,,,, "". "",'" ",~"""",,~,.....(,,;:'!:""" ",,':~i.~:;~:,:<~:', "," '-: ',;':"" "",:.::':~!'/::T~~;~'~,?¿~~t~,~i~y~:~t>:~":j',:, ' !::),~ " ", ' ,,';" 5;T~,:~~~~? ',' ,'Foundation Setback '-,",: :'~"~'-':',;"';:?~",",":: ,,' " ' , "," -., ' We unciustand that fo\J!\'.d on support for the proposed structure ..,il 1 b~ !':dC:~ ", inin~;¡:;Jm of Z8 feet '~i"": t;.e bluff edge. It is our opinion that thi:: ,,:d: 'will be suffit~nto safeguard the proposed foundations from expected ~luf1 , retreat for its economic 11fetime (at 1,east 40 years)., ' " , ~:;~~~a;i'¿ .>:: ",\)'..'" ,:: ',' :.~"~:':,.':,1~~t;~':~;:';J:,{J.;k~¡¡r:./.\:,:I:i,~~~~:i~ :~,~,;,{,: , :', '. ,"',,' ';:,', ~.<~t:;;~)~;~{:>~:'f~.~",,:....' r,¡y;,~'oùndð"t"ion',and-Slab oes1grt'>':'w,,:,I:-';'~:~",:,;;,i~~~~i~~j,"""-:1'?'~~/,)'~"<!.,:.'-:,:, ",,:, ,'t,: """ ;,i.:,..::-:'~;"',::~.:;)¡t~,,::,"','::~F--,',' <.~.~.v-«j!;',.', '.; " ;"'~: ~.',. ,; ". :,'t,'\ : :,.'<:~~~':: '~';t: ~f~~~~'~*;~~4:.;,,:{::~~'~,:,~,~\\!:,,~?:: ':~~:::,',::; ),::' "'~:::':~>F:~',::::\d:i~'\~;-;:..,~~~";t.,-:;;~j\.!:;: '.. ' >~iA's,~~ðf., th1s-,.reporto' d'a tit ~:', foUtida t io~!þ'rans~,hay¡:,'-':not:" beent:f1 nl 1 1zed;~ '.HoweYer{)~.i~~,:':: ' , " ,'~':fó,indat1ons'and s1abs, shou1d be:"du1gned,1n':ac:co'rdancl"ith' st;auctura1 cons1dera"'~""" ,I : ", t1ans' and the foHawing recommendatf'ont~~:\.These)recommendations' assume',that ,the~.',.., .:~,~o,~~s ,enc~~~tered W~.~oh,~~7~~::.'~;~,~,~:~!t~~~:,~'~~,,~~~~':..:W,~.1~'r':,~~,v8':."'~_'~i~~~,~:~~~~n;;t~a,~ ~!~~::'~~~:;'~'" ' " ,,~expa!,~,ion. ",' """""',' "'::b\.,',..,.r'(""",~t'~""",\;"", ,"""",,,',+"1'-: "~'::"""':o'"~,~,;,, . ',~~:"!:~~~tÝ;:'::\~":I~:':"": ,,:':':;{.J':'" '5~~"'~~:?~"~""'~1~1~i-:::'~;"'r-~~:\,',~. ~ "'~:<',:" :,~':~(::~.t:~~i,:::'~",:~~::"":::~: ;:~',t~t~,:~:~~'~;'~', : ' ,",~ ~'~oundat10ns,. "f,',,>:'" .,,~r¡?,O",'~'~l""""..:ii~,""" ,~.,..,~:".,';":,':""""""'.""",:":".,.;,:-:,,.'~..':::~",'::'-'~ ",~,"'~~';\~H;,","~" ,~.......,r, ,,' ,." ,..t,., "';:~"#')'\o-""""""" ""..f"""'1 .....-."".,',' :,~~~!W~!~;~o'p'Ós~;d: ~~i:t~f~9 t~:~y~~~ ':~'~:~V;m'~:'~::'~~,'::'i~~o:"~~'ei'~:r:"~'~':~:~i~ri~~~~,~~~~,~;~,~'~~'i~:~~~,::':~: ,'.' , ,,;,t~':::..;::bearing in' firm~ natural so11s' at-:.ä,: minimum depth of 12 inches (18 inches før:~:" ',-,: "'::~í,~~:f:~two.story structures) ben~ath lowe~t adjacent,; finished grade.;, At this deptn~'; :,~' , :':'~~J',:'::~fo'ot f nos may be des 1 gne'd" for an',.11.1owable::sol1 bearing va lue of',20aO' pounds, ': .., ;~;':r:~.:r:'~pe'#;:square' foot.:' This':'vålue.'may. btiitri,crease'd' one,-third for'1oads of" short.<' ' , " ";,:~~~~~~:'~û'~~a~;fon ~ ,such.;~s ',~1~'~~;,ór;'se 1 s"',¿;}.orces. ',' Foot i nos shou ld ha,~e";¡:',ini~ filKlnf.;~~:<,<:.... ' :3:,~!~~~'W~,d~h' of,. 12 ,inches,.: ~n~/efnrorcemetrt:,,~~~~,1st:fng 0,' ~wo No. 4rebars: (one" at'...':' ' , , : >,;:'/:tlie" top and bOttOM, of' each, foot1'noh::, 0, Al1 foundation excavations shou ld be::'"". ";,,::",: observed by a representative of th 1sf1rm so'that construction is performed 1n<'" , ',: :': ;¡,!:,:',ccordance with the recol1111endat 1ons:'of this. report.: ' " , .. . "Floor Slabs , . ""- . , Slabs foundeji on nonexpanshe 'so11s should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be underlain by a 6-ml1 Visqueen moisture barrier p,rotected with, a Z-inch, layer of clean sand. Slabs should be.reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed' at midheight fn the slab. ' . Lateral Load Resistance Footings or slabs founded in natural soils or properly compacted fill may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and so11 of 0.4 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. n~rl~ ... "",", ".1'-',."-¡\,..,è~i;,.i',~, \,':~'.';'" :,""~,~,'i'¡'," "'~'~<',,'. .. "-'-"~" ,......;..',.¡I- '.~ ~l ' ;:~...*~;<,.t!I::"" ~ );J:' !;..:~r.:_, :~~t¡~' ' TI -- - vr.-..6; ,'1: .: lãó'~Ol , ,-'" ' ,,:, ~~~~Fè(:,:.t:" '"",' ':.:_,~",::):þ,:,:~~~~t~k:~~i~:7tt~!~~~.~~~,:t;::',~>:<1::,'.:,~,,:':'.:,:',: ,:..,I:,':." '~'~',~:'~~,,:' :: , ,~.' :~' ~,L;,:;r'.;:' " , :4Lt:.atera1.£arth' PressureS:.).l.or.,Rdta.in1tT~'¡"i"~~;"";";"":"";: \:~.:;...!,;,..,:,,\..;,..:.",:,~,,::,;,.;;~:'\o'tl,;.¡~;~, 'T,:',", "::..::, "....""~: T"'~~: ~:"" ,~",,\~':!., '',:';~¡"':-;~'!:¡~t;ï.~~~~~:!'.~~i':~i':;"!:;;:(",;!~)':'\ (~":':::":'~' " :,:,~:~~?:..,{;;':' ~'.': ;.:,.,::;:/,;:~:'~,~f;,',"::,/"", ".'::',"',':')"::<:' '~~:The recommended' 'atel"i',tfirtN':pressures' for the' on-s1te:"soJlS and level o,.~':"'~' ' ":':sloø1n" backfnFa'...e';'asi:.'fóJJoWS""'.i"L'J'I)iN~.(i:'~:"" <'.'"1"',"""" ""',';!. ":"',"',-"",,,,',;,",:-",' ,:,,""'::'" ',':"þ', ~ ",::",¡:""""\",,,,"'~;,:':,";N,~;:.,,"" "",:..,;""',,::-::,, ",,:...:",:' "":,,, ", ": ',,:',; : i(~"" ',-'1:."~,,,~~~,.,.,I~:\;ij""'¡',':.t"" "", , ",,',,' ",.',"" '"".' """"(","""",,' ~:~i¡!:-~:;::;,' ',,', "",::';),\fi,;.:;:~~,.t:r!-r";"'1~'~:""""'~"F"l'~1, O't',-:, ,,:', , :';';"" ":>~:,~~>.'",:,:..:",~:>~~,,,,'.,~:ÙK~':..:~~"," ;i:~"'.-{i.:'" l:";;"'.', '; ..',: ": ,;",:.'~'i!(;$jI."'~'!o=:~u ,VI ,ent, u d "e ght t2ill~~..~,~ ;, :Ij".t'f~/:.:,: 'i"";:t'::'."-",::.!!i~~.t;j;"; ':;', ,f,f&'.-g.~,~~,..."" ':;""":,.:"':':,~:,:':'.',:,:"';):~::'4f~~';'.itt,:;;::¡;~:~~.:'~~::~~r¡.:':~:"".:':'::~:': " ':::;':':;":,'..:':",;~;',,:,,~':',~t,":-"" ';,:"'l,::t'.' "~¡;df,, ' ",', COñd1ti'óns"""';.~"""";";'Le'ver" ' 2'1 s1' ",.:,'" " '" . ",-,".....",.. .)~\;,,!:~' ",:, ,,:.. :", "A~~M:': :;:O}"i.::;'i:, 35' "50o~::~~" ,,:,,;;:: ,,:,,\;,/;'" At-Rest, , S5 90 "', ,',';;,.: ' ':;;";'" :,:" Passive" :..300, 150 (Sloping Cown) ,]':i:~;'~~:deS'1gn an unrest'raf~ê~L,wa:1.l~~',S:U'~bta~ ',I ,cantilevel" wall~, the, active ea~t~,<,;" , ,~~1t~pr,e~$ure' may be' used"" ,För/~; r;~,~~,r~ti(~cf;'r.,età'1!,,~ no, WI "h~ ;such' as-- a:: base me n t:waJ,t'.{~,~~.,:/:~ , ' :~~i:~~,.,,~at-r,e~ t, 'preS$UI:'~:ShóuJ~~~.~;,!!~~IfiÏ~~~,S;h,~) p,res su~.e./:1s:, used' .;.to'.;: compute, l~'èl"a t:~:!;~;i,}~"~ ¡~.. .~~t~Of~,;:..es,htince' de,Y,~lO~e~~~~o,m~~t,'~~ '~£',~í.~~ S~,r::u.cture, mov,ement.,.'~' ~ur.ther;;':for;;,,¡;;;~'ij;;(~,~, :,~~~~J_1~,i,no~te~,1.~tanc,~.:;: th,~~f"'lot~r~è~Jtt~f~n~!,~~f .00.4: may, be.., used,,~,ðJ: the,contr"etef~~.:,!~,~;,~~,~,:1' '~#;;,a'n'cf son~'1ntfl",fact'-:t.;'The' at'TóW)i\11e:;¡laterlnres','stance can be, taken, as ,the- su/li'-'of-' , , ' '~~~th:e'\,~fÍ"icti'onal res1sta:~ce"'an,d;¡~hietR'issfvl':rès1stance~' provided thepIss1Ve:, ,:' " ,~~.)s,1stanc. does not' excee~ tw~~,t,t;jr,dS(~o'::,the.: tat,ll 111owable res f st.'nee. Thes~:,,' ': I': ' , l~,"~iN\~lü"'sIllðY be fr\crelsec1.;'b;"'6ñ.~tttFr(J,when"cans1der1ng,lolds of~,short:'durat1on'~:;~";,~:,,-:-:t,:',:,: , ;':~~1]~¡Ju.dfng. wind or' sè1-sm~~fl~,à'd~~1;t$ilt~~tge, ..1oadfng, may::~~é "CI '"éu l.ted,"äcc;ord1'f9;;(~'~~:~ '::> :¡~, 9,~1(th,e -,~i,ty"of san,:"o,1eg~;1u1J~fn,'~:tt,~i~,e~t,10,n,.,DéPlrtment:'Newsletter, 23-J,'or ,ot~e, r:,' /:~::,,:::: ' ;4&t~~,1,valent',netho~s.,:;..We';should',b~ co!,~aët~d:.~~,unusul,l", surcharge loadings ,a~a ': i'" ';;":íi~a:~tJc1plted.' ,A l1 ,I"eta il11nl1: structur~i';',s,houtd be- provi ded 'with a drainage blanket. " , ~~~~d,fweep holes or drains; (see, Figure'~ 4}'..:: Wa,n foot 1 ngs shou?d be des i gned 1 n.', ' ~~~'jc~ordance with foundation design recommendations ,and reinforced in a~cordance A~~~.Hh ,local codes and structural co~s1d~'rat~ons.,:':, "" ',' ,,:",' :~¥.~~jo'p'po~tun1ty,tO:-be,'~'~f:":s'e:f;~:t'C'~,::,~:~:~:~h~,~J"P~Oj~t~,"'S 'sinc'~~~eiy" ~pp~'ec1~ted~",~;~If.~ '",:,<~, ,::.:, ' j~'~1~u¿have any qu&stions:regard~ng:..t~~~s,~,t:'epor.t.' p"ease :contact:~r. Ge,~_e~,,?,:,;, , ::\'J.~CÎJstenborderofour'off1ce'" ",:",,':"";:,":"""'~:!'" :" -,:-,' '-:"",. ,;c,-,;,:,,:':""" :~~]~{.if(:' "",:;~,,~~::~"~','S,:~~~;::f~:',':r:~.;/::¿:~:':\"'",~,:::",.,>;;:~'~'-";~:",:,, "'" "".'~>' "~~;~;):::,'j>.:';-~ "',~"1'+"""" " ,,"::,~J" ~,,""""'¡"¡""""""..;,i...:Respectfu-11y submitted;",":' '"", ,"f ,',\',_~;I,"'."';' ?~,c~~~:,::,~~~<"':""':"~.";':"~;':~", "'-,"',;,-:;,',""".:,', : ,', ,",' ,','" " :':"'. t", ' ' :.. :iEIGHTON AND'AS'SociATES. INC. ':' , " It!! 1!1 : :-?!!!!:!!'CEG 10 à 7 . . .I~;; Ävram Ninyo. RCE 29538 Manager/Chief Geotechnical Engineer '::,8 j ""- , ,S'RIGC/GTF/AN/11c Distribution: , (3) Addressee ...: ...' ': ',t,' []m~ NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText