Loading...
2005-9486 G Gi ty Of ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering May 23, 2008 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: John Quattro and William Truppi 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue APN 256- 084 -11,12 and 13 Grading Permit 9486 -G Final release of security Permit 486 -G duthorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, a J ded to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 726155S, (in the original amount of $98,442.00), reduced by 75% to $24,610.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. r ` Sincerely, i Debra Geishart J Le ach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager John Quattro and William Truppi Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760 -633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 �� recycled paper City 01 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encini Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 3, 2006 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: John Quattro and William Truppi 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue APN 256- 084 -11,12 and 13 Grading Permit 9486 -G Partial release of security Permit 9486 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 726155S, in the amount of $98,442.00, may be reduced by 75% to $24,610.00. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. . Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincer Debra Geishart J em ach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager John Quamo and William Truppi Debra Geishart File TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 � recycled paper Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Single Family Residences 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 FOR: Mr. John Quattro 88 Robbins Road Sommerville, New Jersey 08876 DATE: Revised/Reissued -June 30, 2004 Project No. 01 -1982 PREPARED BY: Anthony- Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 - (760) 738 -8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SCOPE ............................................................ ..............................1 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................... ..............................2 III. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................. ..............................2 1. General .................................................... ..............................2 2. Existing Bluff Improvements .................................... ..............................4 3. Existing Beach and Bluff Conditions ............................. ............................... 5 4. Regional Geologic Settiu ...................................... ..............................6 5. Subsurface Conditions ......................................... ..............................7 6. Groundwater ................................................ .............................10 IV. FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................... .............................10 V. LABORATORY TESTING ............................................. .............................11 VI. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................ .............................13 VII. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RESEARCH ................................ ............................... 15 VIII. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... .............................16 1. General .................................................... .............................16 2. Groundwater ................................................ .............................17 3. Moisture Content ........................................... ............................... 17 4. Expansive Soil s .............................................. .............................17 5. Water Soluble Sulfate in Soils ................................. ............................... 17 6. SoilCorrosivity .............................................. .............................17 7. Land Slippage and Erosion ..................................... .............................18 8. Potentially Compressible Soils ................................. ............................... 19 9 Flooding ................................................... .............................20 _ 10 Seismic Considerations ...... 20 ................................ ............................... 11 Seacliff Retreat .............................................. .............................23 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... .............................24 1. Seismicity ..............................................:... .............................25 2. Earthwork .................................................. .............................25 3. Foundations and Slab Desie n .................................... .............................27 4. Metal Protection ............................................. .............................30 5. Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance .......................... ............................... 31 6. Surface and Subsurface Drainage ................................. .............................32 7. Construction Observation and Plan Review ....................... ............................... 33 X. LIMITATIONS ...................................................... .............................33 -- FIGURES: Ia Vicinity Map IIa - IIb Site Plan/Geotechnical Map -560 Neptune, 566 Neptune IIc - Ed Generalized Cross - Sections -560 Neptune, 566 Neptune Ma. - IIIb Excavation Logs (also see Supplemental Logs and Laboratory Testing - Appendix E) IVa - IVb Laboratory Soil Data Summary IVc - IVe Direct Shear Test Results IVf - IVi Consolidation- Pressure Curve IVj Soluble Sulfate and Resistivity Analysis APPENDICES: A References B Unified Soil Classification Chart C Seismicity and Local Faulting D Slope Stability Analysis E Supplemental Boring Logs and Laboratory Analysis F Earthwork and Grading Guidelines (Includes Wall Detail Figure) ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street • Escondido, CA 92029 • (760) 738 -8800 (760) 738 -8232 fax Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Project No. 01 -1982 Mr. John Quattro 88 Robbins Road Sommerville, New Jersey 08876 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Single - Family Residences 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 References: See Appendix A Dear Mr. Quattro: In accordance with your request, Anthony- Taylor Consultants has performed a Geotechnical Investigation to address the geotechnical conditions existing at the subject site. It is our understanding that the proposed development will include demolishing the existing structure, and the construction of a new single family residences and associated exterior improvements within each of the two properties. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the underlying soils, and to provide general engineering and geotechnical recommendations for the construction of the proposed new single family residence at the project site. This report describes: the investigation performed; the results and opinions of our findings; and our geotechnical recommendations for construction. I Scope The scope of our geotechnical investigation was based upon our discussions with the project architect (Mr. Kyron Brimmer), and our review of updated (redesigned -2004) building architectural and site plans prepared for the project, and other information provided to us, including recent and past field and laboratory investigations, as well as other engineering evaluations pertinent to the site. Our investigation included: • Review of readily available published and unpublished maps and other documents relative to the site, and general area. Our review included available proprietary and non - proprietary photographs, maps, reports, and other documents pertinent to the subject site and the adjacent site area, (See References, Appendix A); Architects - Engineers • Planners - Construction Managers Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 2 • The excavation of three exploratory test borings in the vicinity of the each of the proposed buildings. The soils encountered in the excavations were logged by our geologic staff, and relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples of representative soil materials were collected where encountered to the maximum depth of the exploration; • Laboratory analysis of the collected samples, • Engineering and geotechnical analysis of field, laboratory and other pertinent _._ data and information obtained; and • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations pertinent to the project site and the proposed site construction. II Introduction In accordance with the your request, we present herein our report of geotechnical investigation. The purpose of our report, was to evaluate and discuss conditions present within the site relative to the design of a new single family residence as proposed at the subject property. III Site Descri tion 1. General: The subject properties consist of Parcel No. 11 (APN 256- 084 -11), Parcel 12, (APN 256- 084 -12) and Parcel 13, (APN 256- 084 -13) of Tract 1935, South Coast Park Subdivision Unit No. 3, City of Encinitas, State of California, see Vicinity Map, Figure I. On -site improvements within the property located at 560 Neptune Avenue (Lot 11) consists of a roughly 46- year -old, single -story, single family residence. The existing residence is constructed with a perimeter concrete spread footing and slab -on -grade floor, with exterior stucco and wood siding over wood frame. A small wood framed enclosed patio addition has been constructed onto the rear of the residence. Exterior improvements include an asphalt driveway, and a masonry block retaining wall along the front of the property. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 3 The property located to the north of 560 Neptune Avenue, has preliminary been assigned the address 566 Neptune Avenue, and consists of a vacant undeveloped lot (Parcel 13). Parcel 12 consists of a narrow 4 -feet wide section of undeveloped land located between Parcels 11 and 13. The lot predominately consists of natural soils, — with some light weight gravel and compacted soil backfill placed immediately adjacent to and behind a shotcrete cover, located within the upper bluff along the westerly portion of the building pad, as well as along the other property at 560 Neptune. The subject properties generally consist of two side -by -side lots, bound by Neptune Avenue on the east, similar single - family residences to the south of 560 Neptune Avenue, and to the north of 566 Neptune Avenue. An approximately 96 foot high, moderately to steeply sloping coastal bluff is located along the westerly side of both properties. The coastal bluff descends onto a natural sand and cobble beach located within the Encinitas Beach County Park. Site elevations within the subject building pads range from approximately 97 -feet to 98 -feet along the westerly portion of the both lots, to approximately 92 -feet to 93- feet along the easterly portion of the both lots (where located adjacent to Neptune Avenue). Within the building pad area of 560 Neptune Avenue (Parcel 11), the top of the -- existing shotcrete cover is situated within approximately 6 -feet to 24 -feet from the existing principal structure, and approximately 2.5- to 13 -feet from the patio addition. Along the upper bluff within both properties, the bluff has been provided with a shotcrete structure with tie -backs anchors. The shotcrete structure covers approximately the upper most 20 -feet to 29 -feet of the bluff face. The shotcrete /tie- back structure extends basically the full width of both lots. A concrete drainage swale with drain inlet has been integrated into the bottom edge of the shotcrete cover. The mid- section of the bluff is characterized by natural exposure of dense sand, with a sequence of several approximately 3 to 4 foot high pipe and board landscape retaining walls and minor gravel fills below 560 Neptune Avenue, and a gravel fill slope with a beam and lagging wall located below 566 Neptune Avenue. At the time of our site visits, we noted that the upper most shotcrete /tie -back wall, the sequence of pipe and board landscape walls, and the gravel and soil fill slope appear to be in generally good condition, and are performing as intended. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 4 Below 560 Neptune Avenue, the lower section of the existing bluff exposes an approximately vertical to near vertical exposure of dense to very dense natural -- sandstone (Torrey Sandstone Formation), approximately 6 -feet in height. Below and to the west of this lower bluff exposure, a cast -in -place concrete seawall has been constructed and is founded on the underlying formational materials, and is also `- supported using tie -back anchors. Below 566 Neptune Avenue, the lower most section (approximately lower 25 feet) of the existing bluff is characterized by dense to very dense natural sandstone (Torrey Sandstone Formation), which is covered by the cast -in -place concrete seawall, as well as overlain by a steel beam and wood lagging wall constructed into the top of the seawall. A soil over rock (gravel) fill slope has been constructed between the top of the steel beam and wood lagging wall, and the base of the upper shotcrete cover. 2. Existing Bluff Improvements: The bluff adjacent to and below the subject properties, has been provided with a sequence of bluff retaining improvements. These improvements include a tie -back shotcrete wall system used to protect the upper bluff face, (References 32, 33, and 34, Appendix A). Our review indicates that the shotcrete structure was designed as the first phase of more comprehensive (top -to- bottom) bluff repair program (Reference 3 5, Appendix A). The upper shotcrete wall system was completed in 1992, with the apparent exception of the installation of the safety railing and a colorized surface coating. In 1998, the owner of the property -- contacted this firm to proceed with the design and permitting of a lower seawall and /or rock revetment. Based on this request, this office prepared an up -dated geotechnical evaluation report for the site, as well as prepared engineering design plans for the construction of a cast -in -place concrete seawall (which currently exists). Along the length of both properties, the lower bluff face is protected by a tie -back supported concrete seawall. Below 566 Neptune, the seawall has been provided with supplemental support, in the form of cast -in -place caissons. The construction of the existing seawall was completed by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) in 1999. During construction of the lower seawall, conditions of soil sloughing developed within the northerly most mid bluff. Because of budgetary constraints and other delays, the progressive erosion associated with this instability gradually resulted in significant soil erosion and bluff loss. This instability was ultimately addressed by the installation of the existing steel beam and wood lagging wall, with soil over rock fill slope designed and installed by Soil Engineering Construction, which was completed in approximately 200 1. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 5 Additional bluff related aesthetic improvements are also planned as part of the final bluff improvements. We understand that upon City approval, the additional aesthetic measures (consisting of landscaping, colorations and texturing) will be performed. - 3. Existing Beach and Bluff Conditions: At zero tide, the waterline of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 60+ feet from the base of the existing bluff. During periods of moderate to high tide, ocean swells impact the base of the existing bluff and seawall. The near -shore beach environment west of the property generally consists of a gently, westward sloping wave -cut shelf /reef composed of a moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone Formation. These cemented sandstones are visible as localized outcrops exposed beneath unconsolidated sand and cobble beach deposits, and typically weather into 20 to 25 -feet near - vertical to vertical lower bluff exposures, where no protective structures are present. Unconformably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of 25 feet to the bluff top, are Quaternary-aged marine terrace deposits consisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandstones. These materials are slightly cemented, massive, fine to medium - grained silty sands and -- sandstones which have naturally weathered into slopes ranging from locally vertical to approximately 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Surface drainage within the bluff face, is generally controlled within the upper 25 feet of the bluff, where the shotcrete /tie -back wall has been constructed. Surface runoff from the shotcrete wall is drained into an existing concrete swale and drain box, located along the base of the shotcrete wall, which empties into a 4 -inch diameter down pipe discharging near the base of the bluff. The remaining portions of the bluff face are characterized by sheet -flow type drainage, directed in a westerly (downslope) direction. Surface drainage and building runoff from the building pad area of 560 Neptune Avenue appears to generally be controlled. Runoff appears to be directed into the existing system of roof gutters, downspouts, and drain inlets which empty into drain pipes that discharge onto Neptune Avenue, located on the east side of the property. Surface drainage from the building pad area of 566 Neptune Avenue appears to generally be directed towards Neptune Avenue, by gentle sheet flow runoff towards the east. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) _ Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 6 Previously, a majority of the exposed bluff and soil over rock fill slope is characterized by sparse, poorly established, localized growths of ground cover, especially behind existing wood and pipe landscape retaining walls. The remaining natural slope area -- supported minimal ground cover and native plant species. As of the date of this report, the property owners has installed new bluff landscape plantings. As such, the bluff has now been provided with some new landscape trees and shrubs, supported by temporary irrigation, in accordance with an approved landscape plan. Existing bluff protection is present along the shoreline on the neighboring properties, located to the north and south. To the north, the neighboring property has been provided with a concrete and rock revetment. To the south, the neighboring properties have been provided with an approximately 13 -foot high (approximately 7- feet readily exposed), approximately 3- to 5 -foot wide concrete seawall anchored to the base of the lower bluff face and provided with tie - backs. Based on previous site visits performed during the construction of the southerly sea walls, we understand that these structures have been provided with tie -backs and drain systems. The existing lower bluff seawalls located to the south of the project sites, extend for a distance in- excess of approximately 200 + feet. These seawalls have been constructed with a similar texture and color so as to blend with the surrounding natural exposed bluff, as well as the seawall located along the project sites. Based on our site observations, these lower bluff walls located to the south appear to be performing as intended, with no visible signs of deterioration, scouring or undermining. - 4. Regional Geologic Setting The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province, a California geomorphic province with a long and active history in Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of Jurassic metavolcanic and meta - sedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rock of the Southern California batholith. Later Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sediments have been deposited to the west of the mountain ranges. The upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary rocks flanking the western margin of the mountains are generally comprised of detrital marine, lagoonal, and non - marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones, and conglomerates. These sedimentary formations are generally flat -lying or dip gently to the southwest, except for locally deformed areas such as Mount Soledad in La Jolla. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California -- Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 7 The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults are the Major tectonic features. Both are strike -slip faults with predominantly right - lateral movements. The major tectonic activity appears to be a result of right - lateral movements on faults within the San Andreas Fault system. The nearest major active faults are the off -shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 3.2 miles (5.2 km) from the subject site, the off -shore Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 10.1 miles (16.3 km)from the subject site, the off -shore Coronado Banks Fault Zone located approximately 17.7 miles (28.7 km) from the site and the on -shore Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 27.7 miles (44.6 km) from the site. Our review of the proper literature - (Hart, E. W. 1997) indicates that the subject site lies outside the present Earthquake Fault Zones, which are described in the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act as being placed along active faults. Additional review of geologic literature indicates that minor fault features have been mapped within the Torrey Sandstone Formation north of the site. This minor fault feature represents a zone of minor to moderate jointing, which reportedly extends along the westerly edge of Parcel 13 (566 Neptune), and to several hundred feet towards the north. Attitudes on faults mapped in this zone suggest an overall strike of north- northeast, and dips of 50 to 90 degrees both east and west. 5. Subsurface Conditions: As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed the geologic maps and excavation logs performed as part of previous exploratory investigations at the site (see References, Appendix A). Soil borings were excavated using a limited access machine operated drill rig, equipped with solid stem auger and a 140 -1b sampling hammer. Test borings performed at the site by previous consultants, have been included herein, and Excavation Logs, Figures IIIa. through IIIg, and Supplemental Borings- Appendix D. We have also performed supplemental geologic reconnaissance observations during our site visits. Based on our review of exploration logs, our staff's previous experience in this general area, and - supplemented by our recent observations and soil borings, we present below a summary of soil conditions within the project site. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised /Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 8 Artificial Fill (AfJ Minor amounts of soil backfill are present within portions of Lot 11 (560 Neptune) behind the existing site retaining walls, and the wood landscape retaining walls located in the upper bluff (below the shotcrete /tie -back wall). Soils exposures within this area appear to consist of brown, silty, fine to -._ medium- grained sands most probably derived from the on -site terrace deposits. The maximum thickness of the backfill materials is estimated to range from 4 feet to 5 feet. Though it appears some efforts were undertaken -- to compact these backfill materials, the actual extent and quality of these soils is, as of this time, undetermined. Along the mid -bluff below the Parcels 12 and 13, a soil over rock backfill has been placed above the existing steel beam and wood lagging wall. A soil over rock fill was placed as part of bluff restoration repairs used to stabilize the mid and upper bluff soils and restore support the existing shotcrete wall. The rock fill was observed to consist of angular gravel and cobble sized dense aggregate, placed within the slope restoration area, and estimated to range from appro:xi nately 6 to 19 feet thick. Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were noted to overlie the Torrey Sandstone materials which are exposed along the base of the coast bluff. These materials consist of loose, unconsolidated, sand and gravel/cobble deposits subject to ongoing transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits are estimated to range from approximately 3 to 5 feet thick. Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) -- Quaternary -aged terrace deposits are exposed in the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 25 feet, and extend to the top of the slope (lot areas). The terrace deposits exposed on -site consist of poorly to moderately well consolidated, locally slightly to moderately cemented, light yellow to orange- brown, dark brown and gray -brown silty fine to medium sands and sandstones. These sands are generally massive with an apparent slight dip ranging from roughly 3 to 10 degrees to the south - southwest. These on -site deposits have been identified by other names including the Linda Vista Formation and the Sweitzer Formation (References 42 and 43, Appendix A). Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised /Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 9 For the purposes of simplicity, we have utilized the general terms "Quaternary Terrace deposits" or "Terrace deposits." Torrey Sandstone Formation (Tt) Materials of the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone Formation underlie terrace deposits throughout the site, and are exposed as localized shoreline outcrops beneath the beach deposits, and as vertical to near - vertical cliff exposures, located along the base of the bluff face and above the existing lower seawall. w These materials consist generally of well consolidated, moderately to locally well cemented, massive yellow -brown to gray -brown silty and clayey fine- to coarse - grained sandstone, interbedded with occasional siltstone and claystone layers. Within the locality of the project sites, no claystone layers or clay beds have been noted or reported within the soil exposures and /or borings performed at the project sites. However, some clay bedding has been - documented within portions of the Torrey Sandstone Formation at locations and below properties located further north of the subject sites. Bedding features observed within the unit suggest dips ranging from 5 to 15 degrees toward the north - northwest. Several joints and fractures have previously been noted within the exposed lower bluff face below the adjacent property (Lot No. 10). These features strike in a northerly direction and dip steeply (70 to 85 degrees) towards the east and west. Since the construction of the lower seawall, beam and lagging wall, as well as the placement of the rock backfill, these features are no longer exposed for view. Also noted was a fault /fracture zone within the Torrey Sandstone, located below and towards the northwest of Parcel 13 (566 Neptune Avenue). This fault fractures trend northeast and dips at approximately 85 degrees towards the west, with an apparent offset of several inches (north side up). No displacement of the overlying terrace deposits was observed. Ancient faults and fracture zones located below and adjacent to Parcel 13, and - north of the property have been previously reported by others (References 3 5, 42 and 43, Appendix A). These faults are generally considered to lie within a,fault zone possessing an overall strike in a north- northeasterly direction, and dipping at angles of approximately 50 to 90 degrees towards the east and west. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 10 Typically, the cemented, generally resistant Torrey Sandstone forms straight sections of near - vertical beach cliffs except where weakened by fracturing, jointing, or faulting. To a great extent, the overall rate of retreat or recession of the terrace deposits forming much of the bluffs within the site, appears to have been controlled by the rate of retreat of the lower Torrey Sandstone. 6. Groundwater: Continuous minor to moderate water seepage was observed emanating from the lower portion of the bluff face, primarily in the vicinity of the contact between the terrace deposits and the Torrey Sandstone. In addition, a review of previous exploration logs and observations during seawall construction noted evidence of groundwater seepage from the exposed bluff face and beneath the project sites, at a depth of approximately 70 feet below the existing building pad elevation (Reference 35, Appendix A). The source of the observed seepage is most likely water from landscape irrigation and other urban sources accumulating and becoming locally perched on less permeable strata elements. Within the vicinity of the lower bluff, these seepage waters are now being carried by the system of backdrains and outlet pipes constructed into the existing lower bluff seawall. At the time of our site visits a nearly continuous flow of seepage water was observed from the exposed outlets placed within the seawall. IV. FIELD EXPLORATION Three (3) exploratory borings were drilled, logged and sampled within the area of the 560 _ Neptune Avenue by our Field Geologist on September 18, 2001 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan (Figure No. IIa). Four (4) exploratory borings were drilled, logged and sampled within the area of the 566 Neptune Avenue by our Field Geologist on September 19, 2001 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan/Geotechnical Map (Figure No. IIb). The borings were advanced using a portable drill rig with a 4 -inch diameter solid -stem auger. Drive samples recovered from borings were obtained using a Modified California - Drive Sampler (2.5- inches inside diameter and 3- inches outside diameter) with thin brass liners. The samplers were driven 12 to 18 inches into the soil by a 140 -pound hammer. The number of blows required to penetrate the last 12 inches is shown on the Boring Logs. The obtained samples were carefully removed, sealed to minimize moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Representative bulk samples were collected from cuttings obtained from the borings. The bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples were placed in transport containers and returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Geotechnical investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 11 The soils classifications listed in the excavation logs are a result of visual classification of soil with field moisture content. The classifications were assigned in accordance with ASTM D- 2488: "Description of Soils (Visual- Manual Method)" and all applicable field soil- __ identification procedures described therein. These may or may not correspond precisely to those indicated by subsequent laboratory methods. Classifications, made in the field from auger cuttings and drive samples, were verified in the laboratory after further examination and -- testing of samples. Conditions between boring locations may vary considerably and it should be expected that site conditions may or may not be precisely represented by any one of the borings. Soil deposition processes and topographic forming processes are such that soil and rock types and conditions may change in small vertical intervals and short horizontal distances. Stratification lines, as indicated on the Boring Logs, represent approximate changes in soil composition, moisture and color, as approximated by field personnel logging the drilling operation and by the engineering and laboratory staff from sample data and observations. Actual depths to changes in the field may differ from those indicated on the logs, or transitions may occur in a gradual manner and may not be sharply defined by a readily obvious line of demarcation. The location of the soil borings are shown on the attached Site Plan/Geotechnical Map, Figure Nos. IIa and IIb. The locations shown are approximate and should be considered accurate only as a general location of the actual borings. V. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their pertinent physical and engineering properties. The following tests - -- were conducted on the sampled soils, within or adjacent to the project site: 1) Moisture Content ASTM D2216 -71 - 2) Density Evaluations ASTM D1557, Method A and others 3) Direct Shear Test ASTM D3080 4) Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 5) Expansion Index Test ASTM D4928, UBC 18 -2 6) Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil ASTM D1428, D516 7) Resistivity AWWA 2510 Electrical Conductivity 8) pH -Value AWWA 4500 H 9) Chloride ASTM G57, AWWA 4500 -C1 Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 12 * The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples give qualitative information regarding the in -place soil strength characteristics and soil conditions. Results of our in -place moisture and density testing are presented on the Boring Logs (Figure Nos. IIIa through IIIc (560 Neptune Avenue), and Figure Nos. 1IId through IIIg (566 Neptune Avenue). The results of our maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determinations are presented on the attached Laboratory Soil Data Summary, Figure Nos. IVa and IVb. * Direct shear testing was performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils remolded to a relative compaction of 90 percent (based on ASTM D1557 -91) and on a representative sample of the existing materials. Results of this testing is shown on attached Figure Nos. IVc through IVe. * The consolidation test is used to estimate the consolidation/settlement or expansion that could potentially occur within a soil under specific loadings (such as may be imposed by buildings, walls, piers, etc.) and after saturation. The results of our testing are presented in Figure Nos. IIIf and IIIi. * The expansion index of the upper foundation soils was evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4928 (UBC 18 -2), where representative soil samples are tested at saturations near 50 percent. Expansive soils are classified as follows (by the Expansion Index Test): 0 to 20 Very Low 21 to 50 Low 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 131 Very High The tested soil sample yielded an expansion index of 0 which indicates a very low expansion potential for both the soil sampled obtained from the subject sites, remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557 -91). See the attached Laboratory Soil Data Summary, Figure Nos. IVa and 1Vb. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California _ Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 13 The water soluble sulfate content of the near surface soils was determined in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D1428 and D516, in order to estimate the potential for sulfate attack on normal Type I/II cement. The results of our testing are presented on Soil Corrosivity and Chemical Attack section of this report, as well as Figure IVj. * The resistivity, pH, and chloride content of the near surface soils in the proposed construction area were tested to determine the corrosion potential of those soils to ferrous metals. The results of the testing are presented in Section VII. VI. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS As part of our site evaluation, we performed slope stability analysis of existing slope conditions and including estimated site load conditions modeled to represent the proposed _.. buildings, exterior rear yard improvements, and existing shotcrete tie - backs. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the minimum factor of safety with respect to sliding for the proposed construction, and encompassing the building pad area from 2 -feet east of the top -- of the bluff/shotcrete wall, and further eastward beneath the proposed building. The analysis was performed using the GSTABL7 computer program, and utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices, assuming both static and pseudo- static (seismic) conditions. Laboratory tests have been performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their pertinent physical and engineering properties. Based on a review of laboratory test results, pertinent reference documents, our experience on similar projects, and data and analysis performed by others relative to site, the following assumed soil parameters were used in the analysis. Based on our engineering judgement, it is our opinion that the soil parameters presented below are considered to be reasonable and generally representative of the existing materials at the site. Materials Total Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle (pcf) (psf) (degrees) Moderately Cemented 110 300 38 Terrace Deposits (Upper Bluff Weakly Cemented 110 205 38 Terrace Deposits (Mid -Upper Bluff Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 14 Materials Total Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle (pc{) (psf) (degrees) Torrey Sandstone 120 2000 45 Formation (Lower Bluff) Light Weight Volcanic 46 0 39 Gravel Aggregate __. Coarse Angular Gravel 115 0 41 Aggregate Dense Course Angular Gravel 120 0 43 Aggregate Estimated Site Loads The following estimated load values were used: Exterior Patio Slab -On- Grade: 50 psf Perimeter Foundation Wall (Residence): 1500 psf Interior Slab -On -Grade (Residence): 500 psf Additionally, the analysis included modeling of the existing upper bluff shotcrete structure with the associated tie -back loads. Field observations have confirmed the presence of both two and three strand, cable type tie -backs installed within the existing upper shotcrete structure. Tie -back load values selected for use in the analysis were based on our review of the structural plans prepared for the shotcrete upper wall (References 33 and 34, Appendix A). As part of the slope stability analysis, seismic criteria were included within the stability analysis. The analysis uses a pseudo- static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. A 0.15 gravity (g) value was selected based on a review of "Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California- Special Bulletin 117° (CDMG- Adopted March 13, 1997, updated 05/28/02). The results of the slope stability analysis is presented in the Land - Slippage and Erosion section of this report. The cross - sectional profile of the site and proposed improvements is shown on the attached Generalized Cross - Sections, A -A' and B- B', Figures IIc and IId, and output files from the analysis are included in the attached Slope Stability Analysis, Appendix D. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 15 VII AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RESEARCH As part of our evaluation, we reviewed readily available historic topographic maps w and aerial photographs from the site area, to estimate of the rate of bluff retreat experienced over the last approximately 75 -years at the project site. A summary of our review is presented below. The average value shown represents the average setback from the street, as measured in the vicinity of the northerly and southerly property boundaries. Document Average Distance Average Distance Calculated Annual Retreat CL of St. To Bluff Top (Ft.) CL of St. To Bluff Toe (Ft.) Average Retreat of Top/Toe (Period) Topographic Survey, Prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants Santo Aerial Surveys Scale: 1 " -20' Date: 2001 115 ft. 190 ft Recent Site Survey Used As Comparison With Historic Photos. Real Estate Atlas of San Diego County - Volume 2, by Real Estate Data Inc., Aerial Photograph- Page 152B, Scale: 1" =400', Date: 1977 120 ft. 196 ft. 0.2 ft. per yr. J - 0.25 ft. per yr. (Comparison 2001 -1977, 24 yrs.) County of San Diego- 'ropographic Survey Orthophoto -Sheet 326 -1677, by Rick Engineering Scale: 1"=200', Date: 1975 114 ft. 195 ft. + 0.04 ft * per yr. /- 0.18 ft. per yr. (Comparison 2001 -1975, 28 yrs.) Aerial Photograph- T- 2 -SDC, Photo 3 -92 County of San Diego Photo - Archives Scale: I"=1000', Date: 1960 116 ft. 200 ft - 0.024 R per yr. ! - 0.24 ft. per yr. (Comparison 2001 -1960, 41 yrs.) Aerial Photograph -No. 3701 County of San Diego Photo - Archives by San Diego Company Scale: 1 "= 1000', Date: 1928 113 ft. 206 ft + 0.027 & per yr. / - 0.22 ft. per yr. (Comparison 2001 -1928, 73 yrs.) ( *) Note: Retreat values shown as positive numbers indicate an apparent increase in distance between the bluff top and the centerline of the street. Such readings are considered anomalous, and reflective of inaccuracies attributed to scale measurements, and other factors. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 16 Based on a review of historical aerial photographs and other documents, the magnitude of retreat in the lower bluff at the project site has historically (within the last 73 years) ranged from an average of approximately - 0.18 -feet (- 2.2- inches) to - - 0 -25 -feet (- 3- inches) per year, with an estimated average annual retreat of 0.22 -feet (2.6- inches) per year. This average retreat rate (0.22 -feet per year) equals a loss of approximately 16.1 feet within the lower bluff face over the last 73 -years (1928 to -- 2001). Further, a comparison of survey data and historic aerial photographs and topographic information appears to indicate that the average annual retreat within the upper bluff top appears to range from zero to approximately - 0.2 -feet (- 2.4 -inch) per -" year over the last 24 years (1977- 2001). Based on this analysis, using the average annual retreat of 0.25 -feet per year, (and assuming no protective structures) the lower bluff would be expected to retreat approximately 18.75 -feet over the next 75- years, and an average retreat rate of - 0.22- _ feet per year, the upper bluff would be expected to retreat approximately 15 feet over the next 75- years. Further, to account for changes in site conditions, reduced sand levels, variations in measurements performed during the aerial and topographic review, and assuming the absence of existing preemptive measures, we have increased the average historic rate by 10 percent (which equals a revised assumed average retreat rate of - 0 -275 -feet per year in the lower bluff and -0.22 -feet per year in the upper bluff). Assuming these conditions, it would be expected (assuming the absence of the existing preemptive measures), that the lower bluff would retreat approximately 21 -feet over the next 75- years, and the upper bluff would retreat approximately 17- - feet over the next 75- years. However, this retreat is based on a conditions present between 1977 and 2001, and reflect conditions prior to the installation of the existing seawall and other bluff protective structures. Therefore, barring extraordinary circumstances and provided that the existing mitigative bluff repair structures are properly maintained, it is anticipated that the expected bluff retreat would be at or around historic rates. VIII. CONCLUSIONS 1. General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed structure can be constructed as planned, provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. It is our opinion that the on -site soils (when properly processed and recompacted as recommended herein) should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures and improvements. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 17 2. Groundwater As discussed previously, groundwater was encountered in an earlier exploratory borings performed in the area of the subject properties, at a depth of approximately 70 -feet below the existing pad elevation. Additionally, site observations also noted water seepage from the existing seawall backdrains exposed along the lower bluff adjacent to the properties. It is our opinion that this water - seepage represents the general groundwater conditions beneath the site. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation, - and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the time of our investigation. 3. Moisture Content The in -place moisture content of the samples obtained from the soil in the vicinity of the proposed residence, were observed to range from 3.0 percent to 5.9 percent. The optimum moisture content for these upper soils was determined during our laboratory testing to be approximately 9.5 percent, indicating that the soils underlying the proposed building area, generally possessed moisture contents that were below optimum at the time of drilling. See Figure Nos. IIIa through IIIg for moisture content data of near surface soils. 4. Expansive Soils The soils encountered in our exploratory borings were observed to consist mainly of silty sands. Based on our site observations and site specific laboratory testing, the on -site materials possess a very low potential for expansion. If a change in the expansion potential of the near surface soils is encountered during construction, Anthony- Taylor Consultants shall provide additional recommendations to address such a condition. 5. Water Soluble Sulfate in Soils The principal cause of deterioration of concrete in foundations and other below ground structures is the corrosive attack by soluble sulfates present in the soil and groundwater. The results of water soluble sulfate testing performed on representative samples of the soils underlying the proposed building structures, indicate that proposed cement - concrete structures that are in contact with these underlying soils are anticipated to be affected with a moderate sulfate exposure (Sulfate Content (mg/kg) found to range from 300, to 150, for samples from 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue, respectively). 6. Soil Corrosivity and Chemical Attack Resistivity, pH and chloride tests were performed on a sample of the near surface soils. Results of this testing indicate that the near surface soils have a low degree of corrosivity to ferrous metals and special measures need not be taken in the design of buried conduits and other metal items. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California ® Revised/Rcissued June 30, 2004 Page 18 The sampled soils yielded a pH value of 8.54, indicating that the soils are slightly alkaline and does not correlate to a significant effect on soil corrosivity. Sample from 560 Ne tune Avenue Test B -1 @ 8 -12 ft. Resistivity (Ohm -cm) 5432 Sulfide Nil pH Value 8.54 Chloride (mg/kg) 75 Sample from 566 Ne tune Avenue Test B -1 @ 8 -15 ft. Resistivity (Ohm -cm) 2716 Sulfide Nil pH Value 9.46 Chloride (mg/kg) 50 7. Land Slippage and Erosion Based on our review of pertinent documents, as well as our site reconnaissance observations, there are no indications of deep- seated landsliding on or adjacent to the subject property. However, previous bluff and wall failures have been documented adjacent to the sites. A review of available information suggests that these previous failures resulted from conditions of insufficient design and /or construction. Future sea cliff or bluff retreat at the subject site will largely depend on the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone and the effectiveness and life -span of any protective structures installed along the bluff face. At present, the potential for instability and erosion within the lower 20 feet of the bluff face, is generally considered to be low, because of the presence of the existing seawall, and the improved site drainage system (i.e. existing swale, inlet box, roof Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 19 gutters, downspouts and drain pipes). Further, the potential for bluff erosion and instability caused by wave and tidal actions along the base and lower - mid - section of the bluff face is also considered to be low because of the presence of the existing seawall structure. Within the mid -bluff face (where no rock fills have been placed), there remains a - potential for soil erosion. However, at the time of our site visits and exploration, we noted no clear evidence of significant erosion or land slippage at the site. It is our opinion that the potential for significant land slippage or erosion to affect the proposed residences is considered to be limited, provided that the existing bluff improvements, site drainage, and the surrounding landscaping are properly maintained. Further, as with all coastal bluff properties, some bluff erosion and sloughing should be expected. The potential for such erosion can be reduced using suitable measures to control site surface drainage, the application of erosion control matts/fabrics, the establishment and maintenance of suitable landscape foliage, as well as other mitigative measures. The results of the slope stability analysis for the minimum calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each of the project sites are presented below: Cross - Section A -A'- Post Construction Analysis 566 Neptune) Static Analysis - Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety: 1.5 Pseudo- Static Analysis- Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety (with assumed .15g acceleration): 1.16 Cross- Section B -B'- Post Construction Analysis 560 Neptune) Static Analysis - Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety: 1.53 Pseudo - Static Analysis- Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety (with assumed .15g acceleration): 1.23 8. Potentially Compressible Soils As noted before, the existing upper fill soils in the vicinity of the existing landscape retaining walls along the front of the residence located at 560 Neptune, were found to consist of loose soil and debris. These backfill soils are considered to be potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of structures in their current condition. As a result, these substandard fill soils should Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 20 be removed and /or properly reprocessed and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations presented herein prior to there use as foundational soil materials. Additionally, laboratory testing of the underlying terrace deposits indicate that these soil materials are generally medium dense to dense, and dry to slightly moist. In there current condition, these soils may be subject to some consolidation should they become wet. To address this condition, we have recommended that the area of the building foot print be properly moisture conditioned prior to construction, and that the finish site be provided with proper surface drainage improvements, to limit the - potential for water intrusion into the underlying soils. 9. Flooding A review of the available literature (ESRI/FEMA, 2000) indicates that the subject site is located outside of the 100 year floodplain. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area within similar geologic and topographic settings. 10. Seismic Considerations 10.1 Regional and Local Faulting: The principal seismic considerations for improvements at the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking during a seismic event, and seismically- induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency of fault activity and the proximity of nearby faults to the subject site. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely µ- since no active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of active faulting was noted during our investigation. The nearest major active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately 16.3 kilometers - from the area of study. A review of the available literature (Blake 2000) indicates that this fault is capable of a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. Other regional faults include the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located at approximately 5.2 kilometers from the area of study, and considered capable of a magnitude 6.9 earthquake, and the Coronado Bank Fault Zone which is located at approximately 28.7 kilometers from the subject site, and considered capable of a magnitude 7.4 earthquake. A list of active and potentially- active faults located within a 80 kilometer radius of the subject site is presented in Appendix C. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 21 10.2 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards: The review of the available references, indicates that the subject site is located outside the present Seismic Hazard Zones (CDMG, 2000) that are described in the literature (Seismic Hazards - Mapping Act), as "Zones of Required Investigation" where sites are required to determine the need for mitigation of potential liquefaction and /or earthquake - induced landslide ground displacement. The seismic hazard most - likely to impact the site is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Because of the proximity to the subject site and the maximum credible event, it appears that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is most likely to affect the site with severe ground shaking should a significant earthquake occur along this fault. A summary of seismic design parameters associated with the major faults located within a radius of 100 miles of the site W _ is presented in Appendix C. 10.3 Liquefaction: Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose mostly fine sands or predominantly granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock is not as adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur primarily in saturated or near - saturated granular soils at depths shallower than about 100 feet and is also a function of relative density, soil type and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Because of the anticipated depth to groundwater is approximately 70 feet below the building pad elevation (based on site observations and previous soil borings), and that the underlying natural soil materials (terrace deposits and Torrey Sandstone Formation) consist of medium dense to dense soil, the potential for liquefaction at the site during a major seismic event is relatively low. However, the unconsolidated beach deposits located along the base of the bluff are generally considered susceptible to potential liquefaction. Should liquefaction occur within these beach materials, it is unlikely to have any affect on the proposed residential development or related site improvements. 10.4 Seismic Settlement: Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium - dense, granular soils consolidate during ground shaking. The materials which underlie the subject site were observed to be primarily medium dense to dense silty sands, sands, and cemented sandstones. As such, it appears that the soils underlying the subject site possess a relatively low potential for seismically induced settlement in their present condition. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 22 - 10.5 Design Earthquake Magnitude: The review of readily available references pertinent to the subject site indicates that the proposed residential structures should be designed to resist moderate earthquakes with a low probability of structural damage. Such design shall resist major or severe earthquakes with some structural damage, but with a low probability of collapse. The moderate and major earthquakes have been interpreted to represent the maximum `- probable and maximum credible earthquakes, respectively. The maximum credible earthquake is defined as the largest event that a specific fault is theoretically capable of producing, within the presently known tectonic framework and is established based on mechanical relationships of the fault and fault mechanisms and does not consider rate of recurrence or probability of occurrence. The maximum probable earthquake is generally defined as that seismic event along a particular fault which has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. For the subject site and the design ground acceleration for use in the planned building construction, was calculated to be 0.34g. The graphics presented in Appendix C illustrate the probability of exceedance for the subject site, given in percent, for the ground motion __. magnitude (acceleration). These graphics also show the average return period in years of a given acceleration for the subject site. These graphics can be used to understand the relative significance of different combinations of magnitude and distance to the generation of a specific ground motion level. It may be expected that for the lower levels of ground motion (e.g., 0. 1g) many faults and combinations of magnitude and distance are likely to have - made substantial contributions to the probability of exceedance of that ground motion. For higher levels of ground motion, fewer combinations of magnitude and distance contribute to the probability of exceedance of that ground motion. The following table shows the return period and probability of exceedance of a given peak ground acceleration for the subject site: Peak Ground Acceleration (g) Return period (years) Probability of Exceedance 0.1 40 56 percent in 50 years - 0.2 200 22 percent in 50 years The probability of exceedance for 25, 50, 75, and 100 years for the subject site, is presented in Appendix C. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 23 11. Sea Cliff Retreat Many factors affect the retreat rate of coastal sea cliffs composed of formational materials, similar to the one existing along the westerly property boundary. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, the amount of induration of the cliff - forming sedimentary rocks, the degree and orientation of fracturing/jointing /faulting, the amount of uncontrolled drainage runoff from adjoining up -slope areas and other sources, and the frequency and intensity of wave and storm action, etc. For similar bluffs and environments, other proprietary and non - proprietary studies (Reference 10) as well as our historical photographic review indicate that bluff erosion and retreat can be expected to be on the order of 0.2 - 0.3 feet per year. We should however note that bluff retreat is episodic, and strongly related to meteorological, tidal, wave, and site specific geologic conditions. During our site reconnaissance observations of the existing bluff face area, we noted the following conditions affecting the erosion rate of the bluff materials within the site area. 11.1 Bluff Stabilizing Characteristics a 0 The lower 20 to 25 foot section of the sea cliff is composed of moderately cemented and resistant Torrey Sandstone materials • The basal sections of the sea cliff along the southern portion of Parcel 11 appear to have very little jointing or fracturing within the subject property; • The cast -in -place concrete seawall is constructed along the base of the coastal bluff adjacent to both of the lots (560 Neptune and 566 -- Neptune). The seawall appears to be in good condition and is performing as intended and designed; • The existing shotcrete /tie -back wall system along the upper bluff adjacent to both of the lots (560 Neptune and 566 Neptune) appears to be in reasonably good condition and is performing as intended and designed; • Existing up -slope runoff from the building pad areas is directed away from the slope and towards Neptune Avenue. Vegetation associated Geoteclutical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 24 with an approved is planned and shall be completed, to enhance slope's aesthetic condition. The landscaping is planned to be supported using temporary irrigation; • A reinforced concrete seawall has been constructed to extend the length of the lower bluff adjacent to both of the subject lots. 11.2 Destabilizing Characteristics • Erosion and surficial sloughing may occur where the natural Terrace deposits remain exposed; • The presence of joints, fractures, and a minor fault within the Torrey Sandstone is present along the base of the bluff within the adjacent property (Parcel 13). These features have previously contributed to undermining of the lower bluff. These materials have since been covered and are protected from further wave attack by the existing seawall, which extends at the base of the bluff along both properties. The Torrey Sandstone materials present below Parcel 11 (560 Neptune) does not display similar evidence of jointing, fracturing and faulting; • Exposed areas of the natural formation (Torrey Sandstone and Terrace deposits) may be affected by natural erosion. • Bluff retaining improvements will age and require maintenance and /or repair on an as- needed basis. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical study at the site, our review of readily available reports and literature pertinent to the site (Appendix A), and our understanding of the proposed final grades, it is our opinion that the proposed development at the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations included in this report are properly incorporated into the project design and construction. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the underlying materials, surface drainage, and anticipated degree of seismic risk offer conditions comparable to the other sites surrounding the subject project. The following sections provide Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) _... Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 25 geotechnical recommendations that should be incorporated into the design of the proposed improvements at the site. — 1. Seismicity The design acceleration that is considered appropriate for structural design of residential and commercial buildings, (CBC, 1998 and UBC, 1997), is estimated to be 0.348 based on a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the current edition of the California Building Code (1998 CBC, Title 24), the Uniform Building Code (1997 UBC) and /or state -of -the -art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The following earthquake design parameters are recommended for the subject site based on the 1998 California Building Code and the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Table 16 - I Z = 0.40 Table 16 - J Soil Type - S, Table 16 - Q C A. = 0.40 N, Table 16 - R C„ = 0.56 N, Table 16 - S N, = 1.0 — Table 16 - T N„ = 1.2 Table 16 - U Source Type - B — 2. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines LL included in Appendix F. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those presented in Appendix F. 2.1. Site Preparation: Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and debris should then be properly disposed of off -site. Following the clearing of the surface improvements and prior to commencing grading, a supplemental survey using ground penetrating radar (GPR) should be performed to assist in locating the tie -backs for existing shotcrete cover. This GPR data and that from an earlier survey shall then be reviewed to further evaluate and confirm the general location and depth of the tie -backs prior to site excavation. This supplemental survey should be reviewed by this office, and additional foundation and /or earthwork recommendations may be provided, as needed so such recommendations can be implemented at the time of construction/excavation. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California - - Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 26 2.2. Removal of Unsuitable Soils: As noted above, the near surface fill soils within both properties and the backfill soils placed around the existing retaining walls along the front of the 560 Neptune, are considered to be potentially compressible in their current condition. As a result, we recommend the reprocessing of these existing soils in all areas to receive new structural elements and exterior improvements (where these materials are not removed during the proposed development). Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, it is anticipated that the removal depths in the vicinity of the existing front yard landscape walls may be on the order of 4 to 7 feet below the existing grade. Further, it is also anticipated that following the removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the excavation(s) should be observed and approved by a representative of this office to verify that the _- potentially any compressible materials have been properly removed. All areas to receive fill and /or other surface improvements, shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches below removal grade elevations, brought to near- optimum moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557 -91). These operations should be performed under the observation and testing of a representative of this office. It should be understood that based on the observations of our field representative, localized deeper or shallower removals may be recommended. Any removed soils shall be moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557 -91). This earthwork should extend a minimum of 3 feet �- beyond the proposed footing limits. 2.3. Fill Placement and Compaction: If necessary, the on -site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and debris and material larger than 6 inches in diameter. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557 -91). Should import soils be utilized for near - surface fills, these soils should be predominately granular, possess a low or very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to -- their transportation to the site. Lift thicknesses will be dependent upon the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 27 performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that if encountered, oversize materials (materials greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension) be removed from the upper 3 feet of fill or placed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines contained in Appendix F. 2.4. Trench Excavations and Backfill: Trenches are anticipated to be excavated - with moderate effort using conventional construction equipment in good operating condition. To satisfy OSHA requirements and for workmen's safety, it will be necessary to shore excavations deeper than 5 feet. The on -site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 6 inches in maximum dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557 -91). 3. Foundations and Slab Design Foundations and slabs should be designed in _ accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that soils exposed at finish pad grade will have a very low potential for expansion. These recommendations may be verified by performing additional expansion tests after grading is completed. Localized areas of higher expansion may be possible. 3.1 Foundation Design: All proposed building and non - building improvements that are anticipated to constitute a structural load may be supported by an appropriate foundation system designed by the project structural engineer in accordance with the guidelines of the Uniform Building Code and /or all applicable local building codes. Foundations: Footings adequately founded in firm natural soils or properly compacted fill soils should be a minimum 18 inches deep by 18 inches wide for a one -story building structure and 24 inches deep by 18 inches wide for a two -story building, or in accordance with the structural engineers recommendations. At these dimensions, footings adequately founded in firm natural soils or properly compacted fill soil may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2500 pounds per square foot. This value may be Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California " Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 28 increased by one -third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. Foundations should be properly reinforced in accordance with the project structural engineer's recommendations. A minimum reinforcement shall consist of two No. 5 rebar at the top and two No. 5 rebar at the bottom of the footing. We estimate that the total and differential settlement for the proposed improvements will be on the order of 1 -inch, and approximately 1/4 -inch between structural elements over a horizontal distance of 20 feet. It is recommended that the residence and related building structural elements be supported on a structurally designed, post- tension matt slab and foundation system designed in accordance with the recommendations of the this report, and the recommendations of the project structural design engineer. All foundation excavations should be observed and tested by a representative of Anthony- Taylor Consultants prior to placement of steel and concrete. It should be noted that the building excavations are expected to extend into - medium dense predominately sandy materials and some caving could occur. All excavations should be excavated in accordance with Cal -OSHA requirements, unless an Alternate Sloping Plan has been prepared by the project soil engineer and approved by OSHA staff. Caving, if encountered, may require modified excavation methods, and /or temporary shoring to protest site workers and adjacent improvements. The contractor shall take special care to protect site workers, and provide a safe working environment. It shall be the contractors responsibility to take any necessary and reasonable _ measures to protect the existing on -site and off -site improvements. If unsafe conditions are encountered during construction, any such conditions should be brought to the attention of the on -site foreman, the site workers, the project soil engineer, and the owner. Upon the review of such conditions, appropriate measures shall be undertaken to protect persons and property. It is recommended that the site excavations be observed by a representative of Anthony- Taylor Consultants to verify that the encountered soil conditions match those anticipated by our recommendations, and to ensure that the applicable soil- related specifications are met. The conditions observed by the soils engineer shall be made during excavation, so that in case unexpected soil _ conditions are encountered, special recommendations may quickly be submitted. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised /Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 29 All steel and concrete to be used in the caissons shall be placed as recommended in the structural plans 3.2 Concrete Slabs: Interior concrete slabs should have a minimum thickness of 5- inches and be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent of at least 30), a 10 -mil visqueen moisture barrier, underlain by an additional 2- inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent of at least 30). All slabs should be constructed with minimum reinforcement consisting of No. 4 bars placed mid - height in the slab and spaced on 18 inch centers in both directions, or in - accordance with the recommendations and specifications of the project foundation plans prepared by the project structural engineer. We recommend that the structural foundation plans be reviewed by this office to confirm that the plans conform to the general recommendations provided by this office for the project sites. The reinforcement shall be supported on blocks /dobies, so that the reinforcement is positioned mid- height within the slab. Crack control joints should be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. Exterior concrete flatwork (sidewalks, etc.) should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand, and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars placed at 18- inches on centers, oriented in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on blocks / dobies, so that the reinforcement is positioned mid- height within the slab. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab mid - height. We recommend that crack control joints for exterior flatwork be provided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a maximum of -- 15 feet, or in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. We also recommend that every third control joint be converted to an expansion joint. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for this slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water /cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack - sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 30 3.3 Cement Type: As noted before, our laboratory testing of a representative sample of the near surface indicated a moderate concentration of soluble sulfates. Based on a review of the guidelines presented in the current edition - of the Uniform Building Code, we recommend a minimum Type V cement be used in concrete that will be in direct contact with the near - surface soils, and existing coastal conditions. Concrete exposed to these conditions shall be a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.45, and minimum compressive strength of 4500 psi, at 28 days. 3.4 Moistening of Foundation Soils: Footing excavations and slab subgrades should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Metal Protection As noted previously, the results of our laboratory testing indicated that the soils on or adjacent to the project sites are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. We recommend that conventional corrosion mitigation measures be taken, including but not limited to the following: • All steel and wire concrete reinforcement should have at least 3 inches of concrete cover where cast against soil. • Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such building floors or walls, use plastic sleeves, rubber seals or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel. • Below -grade ferrous metals should be given a high- quality protective coating, such as 18 -mil plastic tape, extruded poly - ethylene, coal -tar enamel or -- Portland Type V cement mortar. • Above -grade steel appurtenances that will be in contact with the surface soils, such as bolts, harnesses couplings etc. should be given a protective coating such as coal tar enamel, rubber mastic, epoxy or wax tape. • Below -grade metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above - grade metals by means of dielectric fittings in ferrous utilities and /or exposed metal structures breaking grade. • We recommend the use of suitable PVC Schedule 40 or ABS piping in all non- pressurized applications. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California - Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 31 • Bare copper should perform in these soils. However, if a recirculating hot water system is installed, buried hot copper tubing may be subject to corrosion by a thermo - galvanic cell. The best corrosion control measure for these conditions would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, dielectric joints should be placed in all hot water risers just inside the building. 5. Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level and free - draining backfill are recommended for retaining walls (if proposed) backfilled with on -site soils, and for those backfilled with select soils (possessing an internal friction angle of at least 30 degrees and extending at least 0.5H from the up slope face of the wall, where H is the wall height). EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PCF) Conditions On -Site Backfill Select Back-fill PHI >30 Degrees)__ Active 35 35 At -Rest 55 55 Passive (Fill Soils ) 1 350 1 350 Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non - yielding), such as basement walls or re- entrant corners, the at -rest - pressures should be used. For areas of re- entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. The above values assume backfill soils will have a very low expansion potential and free - draining conditions. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures should be provided on an individual basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix E. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557 -91). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 32 a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 8 W feet. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two - thirds of the total resistance. 6. Surface and Subsurface Drainage Our experience indicates that surface or near -- surface ground water conditions can develop in areas where ground water conditions did not exsst prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface eater infiltration results from landscape irrigation. This sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable and /or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill soils. In addition, retaining wall excavations (as proposed), may allow for the concentration of irrigation or seepage. We recommend that Anthony- Taylor Consultants be present during grading operations to evaluate the site for seepage. Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation adjacent to and beneath the building foundation should be integrated into the site construction. Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The drainage of the upper building _ pad area of the property should always be maintained such that the surface waters are directed away from the bluff face and to the street. We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade the site, such that surface drainage is directed away from structure foundations, floor slabs, and tops of slopes, at a 2 percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for subgrade, and 1 percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for hard finish surface (pavement, walkways etc.). Ponding of water should not be permitted, and installation of roof gutters which outlet into a non - perforated drainage system is recommended. Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage directed away from all buildings, as well as the bluff face. Proper water proofing and back drainage adjacent to the lower basement retaining walls should also be provided. The design of these waterproofing and drainage improvements shall be the responsibility of the design architect. If requested, this office can also provide general recommendations. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 33 7. Construction Observation and Plan Review The recommendations provided in - this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field reconnaissance and widely- spaced exploratory borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Anthony- Taylor - Consultants. We recommend that on -site excavations be observed during grading for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions by a representative of this firm. Construction observation and field density testing of compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. The final grading plan and building plan should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. X. LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information gathered, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not provide a guarantee or warranty (either expressed or implied) of the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgements meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions cannot be discounted. Any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any required -- supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the final grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than one year, or changes in ownership. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or owner's representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is also subject to - -- review by the controlling authorities for this project. Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (Parcels 11, 12, and 13) Encinitas, California Revised/Reissued June 30, 2004 Page 34 _. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further information, please refer to Project No. 01 -1982 to expedite your requests. -- Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony - Taylor Company r Bruce Ta or Josep . Welch President Senior Geotechnical Engineer C.E.G. No. 1960 G.E. No. 2239 r` S10 H L SXP L SCI JZ BRUCE W. TAYLOR —► ' ��� Gregor/ taren NO. 1960 Project Engineering Geologist * CERTIFIED ENGINEERING N X GEOLOGIST Distribution: 2 Addressee y �Q• OF CAL Attachments: See Table of Contents Quattro -560 -5 66- Neptune- rpt -Rev2. wpd VICINITY MAP S C � z c PRI R < w = r -o KI R 1G qNR G GUNDY D N D pHOE s c NORMA ILL L dla ITTANY p o to t a N 3 z U UCADI 0 p a Y Q C 0> z 0 x 0 c RO t L) - j �wQ =O v o B o o m a J� cn Be ch ou Par a — UID R AY pPF Subject Sits " UNION CA E DE SOW m e en ty p , Eckc Park y D 3 O Z D n n O < B c c I t Star ITO Lu EE m N NEI L Z w O - D z } w m a n EL m ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS N S.. Ay. (C.rpn4). 304 1.,"— s~ CRw�t/4. 4 9028 (760) 708 -8800 SCALE: NTS JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 566 NEPTUNE. SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. f a 01 -1982 GMK /JW 10/01/02 0 EXISTING SHOTCRETE L. COVERED BLUFF FOUND 3/4* IRO PIPE W/PLUG MK LS 3788* Ex _IA/ EX CA Bd / rr7 EXI SAND & COBE BEACH rr7 EXI CAI PACIFIC 15 — 1 !f fArM OCEAN I A — i 12 0 2� , AF �L T G Bd R NE ATC-3 EXISTING CONC. SEAWALL WITH FIL Z TIE-BACK ANCHORS AND BACK DRAIN (53± L.F. OR TYPE 'A' WALL, SEE DETAIL A, SHEET 6)--:" m 1 -EXISTING MASONRY BLOCK LANDSCAPE Bd 13.5' TW RETAINING WALL 0 1:1 STEPUP ON TOP OF WALL APPROX. SHORELINE AT ZERO TIDE —T -7, EXISTING CONC SEAWALL (13'± HIGH. 7' EXPOSED ABOVE SAND BEACH)-�� LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS Af ARTIFICAL FILL Bd BEACH DEPOSITS SCA Qt QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS 201 Tt TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE is TOPSOIL/WEATHERED SOIL DEPOSITS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTA Soy AWV* (0&1..100 9%4rprim Strogf. #­&" CA 9"29 ( ?"-*M G EOLOGIC CONTACT (QUERIED JOB NAME: WHERE UNCERTAIN) QUATTRO PROPERTY-560 NEPTUNE AVE. A A' LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCI ITAS, CA _92024 30— EXISTING 2 CONTOURS - JOB N UMBER: REVIEWED qY.- I DATE: FIG. NO. 01-1982 IGMK/JW/BT 106 28/04 1 la J 0 I EXISTING SHOTCRET COVERED BLUFF - h FOUND 3/4" IRDN PIPE W /PLUG MK'D. / "LS 3788 " /,,:: 15.5' / i EXISTIA. MON OF 11 A BE N EW ; A , / EXIST. / CAISSO Bd ExlsT. _r7 SAND do C( 13 25 T y BEACH j Z �+ y EXIST. �r?7 CAISSO PACIFIC 15.5' r - -* - -- 1 MCEL % OCEAN ,:I ST— N ' Bd OF WAI F I i AFB L i r — _ ! 20 GRAVEL r ' i NEW CI D 1T 1'1 EXISTING CONIC. SEAWALL WIT � AFIL I r Z TIE -BACK ANCHORS AND SAC DRAIN (53t L.F. OF TYPE "A WALL, SEE DETAIL A, SHEET EXISTING MASONRY BLOCK LANpSC�APE Bd 13.5 TW \ RETh NING WALL APPROX. SHORELINE TOP SO W L ON AT ZERO TIDE EXISTING CONC SEAWALL (ABOVE H IGH, SAND BEACH) SED j LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS N Af ARTIFICAL FILL Bd BEACH DEPOSITS _ Qt QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS SCALE: � � „ _ 20 Tt TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE is TOPSOIL /WEATHERED SOIL DEPOSITS { ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS s— O 9. (C p-ak). for 8..4.Tiw so—I. n—h" G moro (790) 738 -aoo GEOLOGIC CONTACT (QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN) JOB NAME: A A' - ?UATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION SITE ADDRESS: �- 30 — 566 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS CA 92024 EXISTING 2' CONTOURS —JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. I I b )1 -1982 I GMK/JW/BT . 106/28/04 1 A A , I T 1 I 1101 I �� 1 110 100 I I ! 1 1 NEPTUNE 901 1 - _ - 1 AVENUE 190 I 80 8 I 1 i 701 I I 1 70 I I I I � I 601 I 1 I 160 j I DENSE GRq�/EL /G. j SO j ! 150 I I I 40 ST EL BEA Y AND ( j I RETAINING ALL 40 30 i 30 I 20 1 _ I ' j I I (E)i 2500 PSI CO-� � 1 20 BACKFILL t , l0i 1� (E) SEAWALL W/T ; o 0 -10 i 0 20 -10 220 240 260 ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS San a.eo (Co porntr). 304 (nt"r" a st e.4 Gro..dim, CA erotr (760) 778 - 8800 )B NAME: JATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. TE ADDRESS: 36 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 IB N UM BER.7 REVIEWED BY: I DATE: FIG. NQ. uC -1982 GMK JW _ L12/31/02 1 B B , I 1101 i �I 110 IEPTU�E I i 100 i SED NEW RESI+SENCE ! i j 100 SEMENT) I NEPTUN ' AVENUE 90 I ! I 1 90 i i 80 i 80 70 1 70 I 60 I INAI 60 SO I I iDEP i _ 150 I � I 1 40 � STEQ t IW G 1 140 30 ! I 30 20; i ! 120 10 ! Tt �E) ' 10 I ITIEEV of 0 7 -- 1 Q 0 20 220 240 260 ® ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS San D49- (Cv P—t.). 304 £nf—p. Str..t. E—didn. CA 95019 (760) "0 -49000 JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 1�� 01 -1982 GMK JW 112/31/02 EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/18/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED GMK ATC- 1(13-1) 4 FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION w o V o w O J 3v U Uj Lo 0 w N u N m O DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS vi a r a z p m O U I to —� Ui a — Ln — w U (Groin size, Density, Moisture, Color) vi z� z w O 0 < w p o o p 0 I . _I FL.L: 2" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN SILTY TO FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST. I:I Li 5 I I - ! BECOMES DARKER REDDISH BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST r! t ! TO MOIST. I :I. 1 :1 I I j Ii BECOMES MOIST, SLIGHTLY CEMENTED. 40 4.6 117.3 90.0 10 1:11.1 9.5 130.8 ill 44 5.8 104.2 L111 4.4 106.1 15 51 3.5 109.7 -r I .C! BECOMES LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY BROWN, LESS SILTY, I:I.I:.I PREDOMINANTLY MEDIUM GRAINED. ,p1 1 t .1 y .1.1: 20 111 54 4.6 104.0 1 :1 1 :1 3 1 1 t:! BROWN TO GRAY BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO SM ? l`i MEDIUM SAND, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOTTLED 25 r:ia REDDISH BROWN. 45 2.3 101.4 TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BACKFILLED: 9/18/2001 - ( ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE San DGyo County - 304 Enhrprwc St—L Es — d id,, CA 92oY3 (ndo) 739 -eeoo ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Q SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. * * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE 560 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01-1982 GMK /JW 10/01 /02 ilia EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/18/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED GMK ATC -2 (B -2) J a w FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W* o o ^. O M ° = m Q a 3� a wa °'.' �a �o t— N _jZ — � V} 5- p a N 7} V)� a } a m° DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS �' a �- a 1 �- z o v ZI L aN aut x� w° m v (Groin size, Density, Moisture, or ? — 0 z o ° m w ° ° 0 — ' ! FILL: BROWN, SILTY, FINE SAND, DRY, LOOSE, FEW SM GRAVEL AND COBBLE TO 4" DIA. I r t i I :i f 1'lt c I :Iaa REFUSAL ON DEBRIS, CONCRETE. TOTAL DEPTH = 7.5' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 10 NO CAVING BACKFILLED: 9/18/2001 - 15 20 25 VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE Son Diego Co tp - 301 Ent—prve 9M1eet. £eco G 91029 (160) 739 -9900 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE [ 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01 GMK /JW 10/01/02 I1b EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/18/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED GMK ATC- 3(B -3) FIELD DESCRIPTION w a. w ION AND CLASSIFICATION ,,, o \ a = m a a Sin aw Uj �w ° �a O r - J of a: w N m D DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS V ' a _� z o a z Ln a 5i n N 5� m (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) ? 0 z o O < w o - o 0 -1 , r! TERRACE DE 4D8n' = BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SILTY SM ! FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, DRY TO SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM r 1: DENSE. i aa i i aiji 5 ii BECOMES DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, SLIGHTLY CEMENTED. 10 4.9 108.4 I : i l i 75 19 113.3 15 71 2.3 108.5 TOTAL DEPTH = 16.0' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BACKFILLED: 9/18/2001 20 25 ( ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Z' WATER TABLE Sun Di.po County -,704 Entary,yr St—C. Es.ondido. G 91029 (760) 796 -6600 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Q SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. * * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS. CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01 -1982 GMK /JW 10/01/02 ���C EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/19/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED HC ATC- 4(13-1) J a w FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION w`�°, o o o �- a " m Q i 3tn Qw w �. �w �- �o a >_ DESCRIPTION m DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS �^ o a Z w v) c� rn 1 (n -' N m (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) j? z o 0 o o 0 c!'1I FLL: TAN, SILTY SAND, LOOSE, DRY. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. LJ11 1 1 1 :i 5 i ri: BECOMES MEDIUM GRAINED AND REDDISH BROWN. I :b I I 1 i 1 `i 4 7.0 105.8 10 I.I.La BECOMES MOTTLED TAN AND REDDISH BROWN. 1 :1 1 :1 11.1.1 L i t 10 6.1 103.2 j : 1 4 1 1 . 5.5 98.7 1:11:1 -I: 1:. I "IIl 20 r1 l 1 — I : 1 1 j It 7 2.2 94.2 11 TAN, MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. SP 25 29 TOTAL DEPTH = 25.5' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BACKFILLED:9 /19/2001 ( ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE s— a. C - 9 V _ ,04 £- ,.,,'U- 51-1, Z.—did.. G 92029 (780) 738 -8800 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO RESID * * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE 566 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 01-1982 1 GMK /JLM 02/25/02 111d EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION k TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/19/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED HGE ATC- 5(B -2) W FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ^ Q_ Uj \ a m a a Sin QW W .. �w a �o ~ 2 rn m D DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS N a a' =1 Z CL in c� N O v I N aN a - X� w... — ° m U (Groin size, Density, Moisture, Color) u Z 0 z Z o 5 < Z ° 0 — FLL: TAN, GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, LOOSE, DRY. SM TEFFtACE DEPOWS BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN MEDIUM SM rdl<! SILTY SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. 5 11.1.i I I l j_ j :i 45 8.2 111.5 91 10 I: Il 7.5 122.5 L . L i I ! I i l :! 4. 15 45 TAN MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. SP 2.0 102.0 — TOTAL DEPTH = 15.5' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING 20 BACKFILLED: 9/19/2001 25 ( ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE Sean ae,o County - 304 Enterprise St —at. Eee —dldo, CA 92029 (780) 738 -8800 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Q SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO RESIDENCE * * N O SAMPLE RECOVERY S ITE A DDRESS: DI STURBED SAMPLE 566 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 * DI JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. 01 -1982 GMK /JLM 02/25/02 We EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/19/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED HGE ATC- 6(B -3) J 61 FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W r ;, o o \ a `� = m a a � pro a > N a m DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS u! a a t >- : z w vi 0 to o v � to a N a in x N W V ° m v (Groin size, Density, Moisture, Color) _ ? I o 0 o ° \ I! L! FLL.L= TAN GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, LOOSE, DRY. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SILTY SM MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. 5 I ! I i 14 58 BECOMES DENSE. 5.7 110.9 10 TOTAL DEPTH = 8.5' NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BACKFILLED: 9/19/2001 _ 15 20 25 () VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE San Dilpo County - 904 Ent, pri4, Stnrl. Era dida, CA 92029 (760) 798 -8600 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO RESIDENCE * * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE 566 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: I FIG. NO. 01 -1982 GMK /JLM 02/25/02 lilt EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: AUGER DRILL RIG 4" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 9/19/01 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED HGE ATC- 7: No: B-4) Uj w a w FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION w w x o o U- m 2-1 3V) aw av jw Off EL N N m D DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS v ai a �= a w V1 to X in ° m v (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) ? ? C ? o o ° \ 0 r� t? FLL TAN GRAVELLY SILTY SAND, LOOSE, DRY. SM BROWN, CONTAINS GYPSUM. � T I TERRACE DEPOSITS REDDISH BROWN SILTY MEDIUM SAND, SM LOOSE, MOIST. IA i.a ii 5 i i s i 1 ;I BECOMES TIGHTER, MORE DENSE. TOTAL DEPTH = 7.0 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BORING BACKFILLED: 9/19/2001 10 15 - ( ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE San Die9c co, ty - 304 E Stn t. E­ndidq CA 9 (780) 738 -9800 ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE QUATTRO RESIDENCE * * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: * DISTURBED SAMPLE 566 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: I FIG. N0. 01 -1982 GMK /JLM 02/25/02 1 �j'g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY 71 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST cl� EXPANSION INDEX: INITIAL MOISTURE 7.0% FINAL MOISTURE 13.9% LAJI EXPANSIVE INDEX = 0 EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL: NON EXPANSIVE. Ix 0 4 L MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 1 2 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 9.5 2i 5 0 ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 00 MOISTURE CONTENT (%ffid' 0 10 20 30 40 SOIL SOIL CLASSIFICATION BORING TRENCH DEPTH TYPE NO. NO. I DARK REDDISH BROWN SILTY SAND 8.0 FT TO 12-0 FT ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS San Diego fC"aratt). 304 Ent—p­ St-14 Ejeondido. CA 92023 (760) "0-8800 JOB NAME: - QUATTRO PROPERTY-560 NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPT NE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 01-1982 GMK/JW i 10/0 1 /02 lv�j _ JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY 160 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST EXPANSION INDEX: INITIAL MOISTURE 10.0% FINAL MOISTURE 17.8% EXPANSIVE INDEX = 0 ED EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL: NON EXPANSIVE. CD 110 MAXI MUM DRY DENSITY 1 2 2 70 SPECIFIC CRAVITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 7.5% 2.50 ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES MOISTURE CONTENT 1-4 i j-'1 5 0 10 20 30 40 SOIL SOIL CLASSIFICATION BORING TRENCH DEPTH TYPE NO. NO. 1 DARK REDDISH BROWN SILTY SAND 8-2 7.0 FT TO 15.0 FT ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY- 566 - NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 566 NEPT NE AVE., ENC CA 92024 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 0. 01-1982 GMK/JW 10/01/0 �Ubb -- DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 I I I I I I I I I I I I a 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 ! LL 2000 V) I I I t CL I I t I I I = I I I I Z I I I t w I I I t Q I I I w I I I V) 1000 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 577 1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE ' _- 6-1 @ 13.0 -13.5 FT. 300 34' NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, SATURATED ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS $an 0(-V- (C- p.-U). 704 EM"rj" 91­f, E—did., CA 92029 (760) 738-6600 JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 - JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01 -1982 GMK /JW 10101102 IVc DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 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 � 2000 V) I I I I I I I Z I I Li V) I I I I I I I Q I I I w I I I 1000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 - 0 577 1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE _ B -1 Q 21.0-21.5 FT. 190 39' NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, SATURATED ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Sin 01-9- (COry —W), 704 £nlerp+Ul Sheet. fl —iidn, CA 92019 (760) 776 -8600 JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY -560 NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 _ JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01 -1982 GMK /Jw 10/01/02 IVd DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 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 LA- 2000 V) I I ► I - I I I I I 2 I I I ► � I ► I I Z I I ► w ry- I I I I I ► w I ► ► � = I ► I 1000 I ► I ► I I ► I I ► i ► ► I I I ► I I I I ► I ► I I I I ► ► I 0 - 0 577 1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE 8 -1 @ 20.0 FT. 220 36• NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, SATURATED ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS s.,, Oi.yu (c.' — t.), s64 fm-PL. St-4 f—' id., CA 91039 (760) 738 -6800 - JOB NAME: QUATTRO PROPERTY -566 NEPTUNE AVE. SITE ADDRESS: 566 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA 92024 -- JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0. 01 -1982 2 /JW 10/01/02 e p 0 Z cN 2 O m > � W Q (N Z U O CL w w < F O Z Z C O U O Z LO W } 0000o t- �.i 03 W w Q _WY O Z C7 W O CL NZ) Q ..p w� wN W m a� ° oZ �rn ZQ Q ZT 1 ti (A V L o °o� wL �o W a oZSll - 00001 Cl) Cl) m I z ; W J Q. w i 09LS CL w I D 088Z z� Z m 0� O a ovv L p O Q 0801 a 0001 Q O OZL Q F J F 7- zz Z 092 _4 O p F U W z p Q OOl = w O � Ln 0 0 _ Q i O N M to O n 00 rn O C a 1N3083d - NOIlda110SNOO tn m ��. z N Z _ O w Nod in 0 W Q N Z U \ O CL w J UJ F- <0 Z z O U 1 10 Z 0000ot- 3: � W y a W Y CL > z W Z � c� o a Ln� cj� cc w� w- mOO U ° Z Q Z� a (A m = F (D zz W °O FA LO °O or ozs t i N 00001 m z: W m ¢: i 09LS F CL LJ �c 1 0992 z Z N U O N W � Q'. CL ovv l o C); LLJ 080L Q < ; 0001 � ¢� :D E� O J OZL Q r /// V) z y __. Z o9 � • x o E- , U w ¢� 0 Q o 00 l = W Elf O L> LL— I 0 Q r rj z_ U I O c� �• J @> O N M ct Ln l0 r� 00 O) O - Q I 1N33a3d — N01MMOSN00 cn m z N Z m ) W Q N � Z U 0 CL Q � w Z Z o Z LO w ; 00000L __. W Q w Y Q_ 1 z Z d� W o a W o -Do -j a~ Z �rn U ° Z~ Z a �' m� �� m� W Zo °o F,Ln °o U O OZSIt D 00001 m Z. W J 09LS CL w s i oSSZ z " z N o l Q w VY OM o O I Q 0001 . J OZL F ; Q �' F z: O Z OK • O o z U o Q N OOL W cr cn O J Q _Z �- U L` Ln O Uj J@ O N M �t in co CO 0) p - � 1N3083d - NOIlddIIOSN00 � °� Q o Z N Z L j 06 CD > rn � W Q N z U � vi W o a I w o0 TF z Z w V co z LO W} 000001 } . m � F- W Lj w < wY a >� O w O W O a z Q O WD_ wN a� 2 (n pZ U° Z a Z� W �' m� �� m I F- z °o t: °o � o cr o OZSl1 0 - D 00001 1 F I (A m I z W _j ¢= 09LS _. CL w z 1 D osa z N �� 0 __. Z w 0 9 l Z U O a ott, l N Q 0001 >' S 4� J ozL Q U) z z€ O Z os � x � w z" o Q o N o0l W H cn ° Q Z � C LL O O p N O N M In cD 00 O O C I 1N3083d - NOIld0110SN00 n FROM PHONE PJO• Sep. 25 2001 09.15W P1 - Atlas Consultants, Inc. 6000 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 10J • Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 _ (702) 383 -1199 ..Fax (702) 383 -4983 CHEMICAL (702) of PHYSICAL AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR FORENSIC TESTING MATERIALS LABORATORY NO: 10407(b) DATE: September 25, 2001 SAMPLE: Soil P O, MARKED: 01 -1982 LAB ID: SUBMTITED BY: Anthony- Taylor consultants SOIL SIEVE = -10 QUATrRO PROPERTY MORT OF DETERMINATION BORING NUMBER Br1 B -1 SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (&et) 8 -12 8 -15 pH VALUE 8.54 9.46 SULFATE (ma/k¢) 300 150 SULFIDE (me/ke) Nil Nil CHLORIDE(mziyJ 75 50 RES(MVITY (Okm-c,n) 5432 2716 Respectfully submitted: ATLAS CONSULTANTS, INC. Robert L. Summrers Analytical Chemist NOTES: I. The soil water extract ratio was 1:5, the results are mg/kg in the soil 2. The standard methods used for the determinations are AWWA 4500 H pH Value, AWWA 4500 -SO E Turbidimctric, AWWA 4500 -S D Methylene Blue, ASTM G 57 and AWWA 4500 -C1 Argentometric. APPENDIX A REFERENCES References Appendix A 1. Proposed Custom Residence - Quattro Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared by Architectural Illustrated, dated June 9, 2003, (Revised May 1, 2004) Site Plan and Building Elevations Sheet A -3.01. 2. Proposed Custom Residence - Quattro Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared by Architectural Illustrated, dated June 9, 2003, (Revised May 1, 2004), Site Plan and Building Elevations Sheet A -3.01. 3. City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30, 34,020,B,C, and D as amended by __. Ordinance 91 -19 and Resolutions 95 -31 and 95 -32. 4. Third Party Review, Status of 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California -Case 99- 078 MUP /CDP/EIA, prepared by GeoPacifica Geotechnical Consultants, dated April 13, 2002. 5. Supplemental Discussion, Proposed Bluff Improvements, Existing Bluff - Quattro Property (Formerly Bradley Property), 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California _ . 92024 MUP /CDP/E1A No. 99 -078; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated February 26, 2002, Project No. 01 -1892. 6. Response to Planning Discussions, Discussion of Proposed Landscaping, Existing Bluff- Quattro Property (Formerly Bradley Property), 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 MUP /CDP/EIA No. 99 -078; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated February 25, 2002, Project No. 01 -1892. 7. Response Planning Discussions, Proposed Interim Hydroseed Application, Quattro Property (Formerly Bradley Property) 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, MUP /CDP/EIA No. 99 -078; prepared Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated February 21, 2002, Project No. 01 -1892. 8. Supplement to Third Party Review, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case No. 99 -078 MUP /CDP, review dated December 1, 2000/Updated and Revised December 31, 2000; prepared by Engineering Geology Consultants, dated February 3, 2001, Project No. 00 -121a. 9. Response to Third Party Review, Proposed Mid-Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024: prepared by Anthony- Taylor - -- Consultants, dated January 22, 2001, Project No. 98- 1055.1. References Appendix A 10. Response to City's Geotechnical Review dated December 1, 2000/Updated and Revised December 31, 2000. Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Case No. 99- 078 MUP /CDP, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction ,Inc. dated January 18, 2001, Project No. 98- 1055.1. 11. Third Party Review, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, - Case No. 99 -078 MUP /CDP; prepared by Engineering Geology Consultants, dated December 1, 2000/ Updated and revised December 31, 2000, Project No. 00 -121. - 12. Revised Slope Stability Analysis, Proposed bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated October 31, 2000. 13. Supplemental Documents, Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated October 31, 2000. 14. Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated October 23, 2000, 5 pages. 15. Supplemental Documents, Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated October 12, 2000, Project No. 98 -1055. 16. Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property - Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated — September 27, 2000, Project No. 98 -1055. 17. Revised Statement of Justification, New Seawall and Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated September 27, 2000, Project No. 98- 1055. 18. Submittal, and Request for Formal Permit Processing, Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated September 27, 2000, Project No. 98- 1055. References Appendix A 19. Letter Report- Slope Stability Analysis, Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20, 2000. 20. Plans for Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated 9- 6- 00/Revised 9- 19 -00, Sheets project No. 00 -053. 21. Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6, 2000, 14 pages. 22. Request for Emergency Permit Approval, Revised Mid -Bluff Repairs, Stabilization of Existing Shotcrete Cover, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated December 23, 1999, Project No. 98 -1055. 23. Plans for Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., Dated December 8, 1999, 4 Sheets, Job No. 00 -010. 24. Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated December 8, 1999, 16 pages. 25. Review of Response to Third Party Review, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case No. 99 -078 MUP /CDP/EIA; prepared by Engineering Geology Consultants, date May 26, 1999, Project No. 99 -22a. - 26. Response to Third Party Document Review, Proposed Seawall and Mid -Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, Encinitas, California 92 -24; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated May 3, 1999, Project No. 98 -1055. 27. Third Party Review, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case No. 99 -078 MUP /CDP/EIA; prepared by Engineering Geology Consultants, April 11, 1999, Project No. 99 -22. 28. Supplemental Project Discussion- Bradley Bluff Repair, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated March 11, 1999, Projected No. 98 -1055. References Appendix A 29. Statement of Justification, Proposed Seawall and Mid -Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony - Taylor Companies, dated February 1, 1999, Project No. 98 -1055. 30. Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Bradley Property- Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated December 11, 1998, Project No. 98 -1055. 31. Project Plans, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, Sheets 1 through 9 dated November 21, 98, 1- 26 -99, 5 -6 -99, 9- 27 -00, October 12, 2000, As- Built: June 28, 2002. 32. Grading Plan, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas CA, Prepared by Mr. Ken Long RCE, Signed June 17, 1991 /Approved December 4, 1991, Drawing No. 2628 -G. 33. Structural Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue; prepared by Universal �- Structures, (Mr. Wan Young, RSE), dated July 17, 1991. 34. Bradley Residence Bluff Protection. Sheets 1 through 4 of 4, prepared by Universal Structures, (Mr. Wan Young, RSE) dated November 7,199 1, approved November 21, 1991. 35. Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, (Lot Nos. 4 and 5) Encinitas, California, prepared by Owen Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 30 1989, Project No. 959.1.1. 36. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Bradley Residence, Lot Adjacent to 560 -- Neptune Avenue, Leucadia California, prepared by Buchanan - Rahilly, Inc. dated, October 27, 1986. 37. Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 55,373 -A, Aerial Fotobank, Inc, Archives, flown June 19, 1976. 38. Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 25,984, Aerial Fotobank,, Inc, Archives, flown July 26, 1983. 39. County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 16 -41, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet, dated July, 1960. References Appendix A 40. County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326=1677, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet, dated September 17, 1975. 41. Final Subdivision Map for South Coast Park, Unit No. 3, Map No. 1935. 42. Abbott, P.L., (Ed) 1985, " On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego, County California," San Diego Association of Geologists Publication, dated April 13, 1985. 43. Eisenberg, L.I.,, "Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California," Master of Science Thesis, SDSU, dated 9- 20 -83. 44. Tan, S.S. "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California," California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. Dated 1986. 45. Weber. F.H., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of North - Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California," California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82 -12 LA, datedJuly 1, 1982. 46. "Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Bulletin 117, Updated 5/28/02. 47. Table 1, Page 7.2 -39, Foundations and Earth Structures -Naval Facilities Engineering Command- Design Manual 7.02. APPENDIX B UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART Unified Soil Classification Chart Soil Description COARSE - GRAINED More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve. GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well- graded gravel and sand More than half of coarse fraction is larger mixtures, IL or no fines than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3 ". GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels. poorly graded gravel -sand -silt mixtures GRAVELS WITH FINES (appreciable amount) GC Clay Gravels, poorly graded -sand silt mixtures SW Well- graded sand, gravelly sands. little or no fines SAND WITH FINES (appreciable amount) SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, littlie or no tines SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures FINE- G2AkINED More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures SILT ATN'D CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey -silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity Liquid Limit Less Than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 - - MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatommaceous fine sandy or silty soils elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat - clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils APPENDIX C SEISMICITY AND LOCAL FAULTING 560.OUT # * #t * * * # # # + # * # # # * # #t * #t # # * E Q F A U L T * Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS w JOB NUMBER: 01 -1982 DATE: 09 -25 -2001 JOB NAME: Quatro Residence 560 Neptune Avenue CALCULATION NAME: Quatro FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0587 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3022 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor. -Soft Rock -Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M =Median, S= Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 560. OUT --------- - - - - -- - EQFAULT SUMMARY --------- - - - - -- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK ZEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) 1EARTHQUAKEI SITE (INTENSITY I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 3.2( 5.2)1 6.9 1 0.429 1 X NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 10.1( 16.3)1 6.9 1 0.213 1 VIII CORONADO BANK 1 17.8( 28.7)1 7.4 1 0.174 1 VIII ELSINORE - TEMECULA 1 27.7( 44.6;1 6.8 1 0.075 1 VII ELSINORE- JULIAN 1 27.7( 44.6)1 7.1 1 0.092 1 VII PALOS VERDES 1 40.0( 64.4)1 7.1 1 0.063 1 VI ELSINORE -GLEN IVY 1 40.5( 65.2)1 6.8 1 0.051 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.6( 68.6)1 6.5 1 0.039 1 V SAN JACINTO -ANZA 1 50.5( 81.3)1 7.2 1 0.053 1 VI SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 52.1( 83.9)1 6.9 1 0.042 1 VI NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 52.3( 84.1)1 6.9 1 0.041 1 V SAN • JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.8 1 0.038 1 V CHINO- CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 54.7( 88.1)1 6.7 1 0.049 1 VI ELSINORE - COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.9( 88.3)1 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 58.3( 93.8)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 61.9( 99.6 )1 6.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 64.9( 104.5)1 6.6 1 0.027 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 65.4( 105.2)1 6.7 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO -SAN BERNARDINO 1 66.3( 106.7)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1 70.1( 112.8)1 7.3 1 0.040 1 V SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 70.1( 112.8)1 7.4 1 0.043 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 75.6( 121.7)1 6.5 1 0.030 1 V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 76.7( 123.5)1 7.1 1 0.032 1 V PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 76.8( 123.6)1 7.0 1 0.030 1 V SIERRA MADRE 1 79.3( 127.6)1 7.0 1 0.040 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 79.6( 128.1)1 7.0 1 0.040 1 V SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 80.1( 128.9)1 6.6 1 0.022 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 81.4( 131.0)1 6.4 1 0.019 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 82.1( 132.2)1 7.0 1 0.039 1 V ELMORE RANCH 1 83.9( 135.0)1 6.6 1 0.020 1 IV CLEGHORN 1 84.1( 135.3)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV EUREKA PEAK 1 84.1( 135.4)1 6.4 1 0.018 1 IV SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)( 84.9( 136.6)1 6.6 1 0.020 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4( 137.5)1 7.0 1 0.026 1 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 85.7( 137.9)1 6.7 1 0.030 1 V RAYMOND 1 87.2( 140.4)1 6.5 1 0.026 1 V SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 87.5( 140.8)1 7.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1 87.5( 140.8)1 7.1 1 0.028 1 V CLAMSHELL - SAWPIT 1 89.0( 143.3)1 6.5 1 0.025 1 V VERDUGO 1 89.8( 144.5)1 6.7 1 0.029 1 V ----------------------------- Page 2 560.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- I IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM 1 PEAK IEST. SITE FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE (INTENSITY I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. 9 IMOD.MERC. HOLLYWOOD 1 91.5( 147.2)1 6.4 1 0.023 1 IV LANDERS 1 92.0( 148.0)1 7.3 1 0.030 1 V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 94.1( 151.4)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 94.5( 152.1)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV SANTA MONICA 1 95.9( 154.3) 1 6.6 1 0.025 1 V LENWOOD LOCKHART -OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 97.5( 156.9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 98.2( 158.1)1 6.7 1 0.026 1 V EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 99.7 ( 160.4) 1 6.9 1 0.021 1 IV -END OF SEARCH- 48 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. _ IT IS ABOUT 3.2 MILES (5.2 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM - EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4290 g "' Page 3 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Quatro Residence 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 ♦ dam ° o Si 0 -100 ' -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Quatro Residence 150 100 \ 50 ; SITE 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 100. 150 200 250 300 350 400 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR PS COR 1 FA] 0 100 25 yrs 50 rs 75 yrs 100 yrs �._ 90 80 70 0 60 :o m .n 0 50 a 40 a� U X w 30 20 10 0.0 0,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Acceleration (g) O II IT III I co -� O CD O 1� LO Ja o� o � U � Q co � O h+1 W N ^.A O om O r O O O O O O IT— (say() pOiaad uanja�j 566. OUT * * * E Q F A U L T * Version 3.00 * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 01 - 1982 DATE: 09 -25 -2001 JOB NAME: Quatro Residence 566 Neptune Avenue CALCULATION NAME: Quatro FAULT- DATA - FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0586 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3021 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi 'ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor. -Soft Rock -Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M= Median, S= Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 566.OUT EQFAULT SUMMARY --------- - - - - -- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 --------------------------------------- (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE i---------- -- ----- - - - - -- _ ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK ZEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) (EARTHQUAKE( SITE IINTENSITY MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 3.2( 5.2)1 6.9 1 0.429 1 X NEWPORT INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 10.1( 16.3)1 6.9 1 0.213 1 VIII CORONADO BANK 1 17.8( 28.7)1 7.4 1 0.174 1 VIII ELSINORE- TEMECULA 1 27.7( 44,6)) 6,8 1 0.075 1 VII ELSINORE- JULIAN 1 27.7( 44.6)1 7.1 1 0.092 1 VII PALOS VERDES 1 40.0( 64.4)1 7.1 1 0.063 1 VI ELSINORE -GLEN IVY 1 40.5( 65.2)1 6.8 1 0.051 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.6( 68.6)1 6.5 1 0.039 1 V SAN JACINTO -ANZA 1 50.6( 81.4)1 7.2 1 0.053 1 VI SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 52.1( 83.9)1 6.9 1 0.042 1 VI NEWPORT INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 52.3( 84.2)1 6.9 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO - COYOTE CREEK 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.8 1 0.038 1 V CHINO CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 54.7( 88.1)1 6.7 1 0.049 1 VI ELSINORE- COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.9( 88.3)1 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 58.3( 93.8)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 62.0( 99.7 )1 6.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 64.9( 104.5)1 6.6 1 0,027 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 65.4( 105.2)1 6.7 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO -SAN BERNARDINO 1 66.3( 106.7)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1 70.1( 112.8)1 7.3 1 0.040 1 V SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 70.1( 112.8)1 7.4 1 0.043 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 75.6( 121.7)1 6.5 1 0.030 I V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 76.7( 123.5)1 7.1 1 0.032 I V PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 76.8( 123.6)1 7.0 1 0.030 I V SIERRA MADRE 1 79.3( 127.6)1 7.0 1 0.040 I V CUCAMONGA 1 79.6( 128.1)1 7.0 1 0.040 I V SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 80.1( 128.9)1 6.6 1 0.022 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 81.4( 131.0)1 6.4 1 0.019 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 82.1( 132.2)1 7,0 1 0.039 1 V ELMORE RANCH 1 83.9( 135.0)1 6.6 1 0.020 1 IV CLEGHORN 1 84.1( 135.3)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV EUREKA PEAK 1 84.1( 135.4)1 6.4 1 0.018 1 IV -- SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)( 84.9( 136.6)1 6.6 1 0.020 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4( 137.5)1 7.0 1 0.026 1 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 85.7( 137.9)1 6.7 1 0.030 1 V RAYMOND 1 87.2( 140.4)1 6.5 1 0.026 1 V M_ SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 87.6( 140.9)1 7.8 ! 0.046 1 I SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1 87.6( 140.9)1 7.1 1 0.028 1 V CLAMSHELL - SAWPIT 1 89.0( 143.3)1 6.5 1 0.025 1 V VERDUGO 1 89.8( 144.5)1 6.7 1 0.029 1 V ----------------------------- Page 2 566. OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I- ---- --- ----------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE 1 MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) (EARTHQUAKE( SITE (INTENSITY I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. HOLLYWOOD 1 91.5( 147.2)1 6.4 1 0.023 1 IV LANDERS 1 92.0( 148.0)1 7.3 1 0.030 1 V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 94.1( 151.4)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V -.- BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 94.5( 152.1)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV SANTA MONICA 1 95.9( 154.3)1 6.6 1 0.025 1 V LENWOOD - LOCKHART -OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ 97.5( 156.9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 98.2( 158.1)1 6.7 1 0.026 1 V _ EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 99.7 ( 160.4)1 6.9 1 0.021 I IV -END OF SEARCH- 48 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 3.2 MILES (5.2 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM - EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4290 g Page 3 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Quatro Residence 1100 1000 900 _ . 800 700 600 500 - 400 300 200 - 4 100 d& _ v SI 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Quatro Residence 150 100 \ 50 SITE 0 -50 -100 -150 _200 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR PS COR 1 100 25 yrs 50 rs 75 yrs 100 yrs _- 90 80 _._ 70 0 60 m 0 50 a a� C cc 40 U X w 30 20 10 p LL 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 _ Acceleration (g) Return Period (yrs) 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 1 y N � o y D d 0 ~ -0 C CD b or 0 a' o O 00 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 0 M 0 00 N Q O N N o _ � � O C w d w � c N m V � N O (n `o 1 T Q C O L p a *J T V m N N C w O > w o D r LLI C a rL U) Z o 0 J (p � O r to Lo O J O r O N r O .1 N C r r r to N �1 Qq L'! O ch O O N Q --- 0 O N CO o N (A o a� Q 0 `o N a N 1n a _C 0 O L i E L O c o U) Q m a F- m J a r o N LL a N m N C > Ir N W Z 4 0 0 0 O O o O m a a� V _.. Q 0 o wg0000000 U LLQ�m Vm � L +� Cy N yo000000 O' aOpOt000% Lam_ I U V C N LL CD -i m3c�0000000 f ._...e. to jj n - 0 N O0 �� 0 O S m O V) �0000000 0 0� �oouioo�o O� o v o a cVM CU) (.Orl- U) W> N H N= M U)w Mo�,; ��E p V r 000 ". -V COI�c0a0 -... U) to to to In i17 LO Lo Ln In to \ rl c7 M p 1� C) O N O W c0 N �S r� C:\ oldslo l \oldste-1 \gliattroe.OUT Page 1 * ** GSTABL7 * ** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved - Unauthorized Use Prohibited) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier /Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber - Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo - Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + +* Analysis Run Date: 6/30/03 Time of Run: 10:26AM Run By: Anthony- Taylor Consultants Input Data Filename: C:quattroe. Output Filename: C:quattroe.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:quattroe.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 566 Neptune Avenue Section A -A' Static Analysis '- BOUNDARY COORDINATES Note: User origin value specified. Add 100.00 to X- values and 0.00 to Y- values listed. 12 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd -- 1 100.00 24.00 100.15 37.00 3 2 100.15 37.00 100.25 38.00 5 3 100.25 38.00 107.00 44.00 5 4 107.00 44.00 144.10 73.00 3 5 144.10 73.00 146.70 77.00 3 6 146.70 77.00 147.20 78.00 3 7 147.20 78.00 157.00 94.00 6 8 157.00 94.00 159.00 97.00 7 9 159.00 97.00 173.00 97.00 7 10 173.00 97.00 206.00 97.00 4 11 206.00 97.00 206.10 92.00 4 12 206.10 92.00 240.00 92.00 4 13 171.00 93.00 173.00 97.00 4 14 157.00 94.00 171.00 93.00 6 15 160.00 77.00 171.00 93.00 4 16 146.00 77.00 163.00 77.00 1 17 163.00 77.00 240.00 77.00 1 -- 18 146.60 75.00 146.70 77.00 6 19 146.50 66.00 151.00 77.00 1 20 125.00 44.00 146.50 66.00 1 21 107.00 44.00 125.00 44.00 5 _.. 22 118.00 37.00 125.00 44.00 1 23 100.15 37.00 118.00 37.00 3 24 100.00 24.00 118.00 37.00 1 25 100.00 24.00 240.00 20.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 7 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) Param. (psf) No. 1 110.0 120.0 205.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 0.0 41.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 110.0 120.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 120.0 125.0 0.0 43.0 0.00 0.0 0 6 46.0 51.0 0.0 39.0 0.00 0.0 0 C: \oldslo-1 \oldste-1 \quattroe.OUT Page 2 7 110.0 120.0 180.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) �4 Load(s) Specified Load X -Left X -Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 159.00 175.00 50.0 0.0 2 175.00 206.00 50.0 0.0 3 206.10 207.60 1500.0 0.0 4 207.70 240.00 500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length Force No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) Method 1 155.77 92.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 2 148.49 80.10 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Force Method 1 Considers Only Tangential Tieback Forces. Force Method 2 Considers Both Tangential and Normal Tieback Forces. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random - Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.20(ft) and X = 143.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 160.00(ft) and X = 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 15.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 1600 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 9.470 FS Min = 1.495 FS Ave = 3.798 Standard Deviation = 1.515 Coefficient of Variation = 39.90 % Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.96 43.96 2 121.06 49.07 3 134.00 56.66 4 145.34 66.48 5 154.69 78.21 6 161.74 91.45 7 163.50 97.00 Circle Center At X = 86.3 ; Y = 123.2 and Radius, 81.9 v Factor of Safety * ** 1.495 * ** Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 14.0 4809.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 12.9 10691.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 10.1 9312.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 1.2 1137.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 -20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.7 650.4 0.0 0.0 12.4 -24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.6 571.9 0.0 0.0 16.2 -29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 C: \oldslo- l \oldste- l \quattroe.OUT Page 3 9 0.1 46.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 -5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.5 495.9 0.0 0.0 19.4 -32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.9 854.0 0.0 0.0 53.9 -79.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 2.9 2286.3 0.0 0.0 473.1 -474.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2.7 1692.5 0.0 0.0 1550.4 -424.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 °- 14 1.0 525.2 0.0 0.0 645.1 105.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 2.3 1247.9 0.0 0.0 1546.8 445.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 2.0 1220.3 0.0 0.0 1049.1 -24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.7 1595.6 0.0 0.0 2950.1 208.8 0.0 0.0 137.2 18 0.7 288.3 0.0 0.0 879.8 457.5 0.0 0.0 34.2 19 1.1 199.7 0.0 0.0 709.1 730.1 0.0 0.0 53.6 Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 111.46 47.49 2 125.74 52.11 3 138.81 59.47 4 150.15 69.28 5 159.32 81.15 6 165.95 94.61 7 166.58 97.00 Circle Center At X = 95.6 ; Y = 120.9 and Radius, 75.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.495 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 102.45 39.96 2 116.54 45.12 3 129.82 52.08 4 142.09 60.72 5 153.11 70.89 6 162.72 82.41 7 170.73 95.09 8 171.61 97.00 Circle Center At X = 70.5 ; Y = 149.1 and,Radius, 113.7 Factor of Safety * ** 1.496 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 102.45 39.96 2 117.04 43.44 3 130.67 49.72 4 142.78 58.56 5 152.93 69.61 6 160.70 82.44 _. 7 165.80 96.55 8 165.86 97.00 Circle Center At X = 92.3 ; Y = 115.0 and Radius, 75.7 Factor of Safety * ** 1.512 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.71 41.96 2 118.51 47.84 3 131.59 55.18 4, 143.79 63.91 5 154.96 73.92 6 164.98 85.08 7 173.52 97.00 Circle Center At X = 57.9 ; Y = 171.0 and Radius, 137.3 Factor of Safety 1.512 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points C: \oldslo-1 \oldste- l \quattroe.OUT Page 4 Point X -surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 113.55 44.35 3 126.14 52.50 4 137.85 61.87 5 148.56 72.37 6 158.16 83.90 7 166.55 96.34 - 8 166.90 97.00 Circle Center At X = 39.2 ; Y = 173.0 and Radius, 148.6 Factor of Safety * ** 1.539 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 114.83 40.80 3 128.69 46.56 4 141.35 54.60 5 152.45 64.69 6 161.66 76.53 7 168.71 89.76 8 171.09 97.00 Circle Center At X = 88.8 ; Y = 123.1 and Radius, 86.4 Factor of Safety 1.563 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 115.03 39.75 3 128.99 45.25 4 141.36 53.73 5 151.53 64.76 w 6 158.99 77.77 7 163.34 92.13 8 163.69 97.00 Circle Center At X = 98.0 ; Y = 103.5 and Radius, 66.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.568 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 102.45 39.96 2 117.30 42.10 3 131.30 47.49 4 143.76 55.84 5 154.05 66.75 6 161.67 79.67 7 166.24 93.96 8 166.50 97.00 Circle Center At X = 100.5 ; Y = 106.6 and Radius, 66.6 Factor of Safety * ** 1.581 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1, 102.45 39.96 2 116.86 44.13 -" 3 130.65 50.05 4 143.59 57.62 5 155.50 66.74 6 166.19 77.26 7 175.51 89.02 8 180.35 97.00 C: \oldslo- 1 \oldste- l \quattroe.OUT Page 5 Circle Center At X = 76.5 ; Y = 157.1 and Radius, 120.0 Factor of Safety * ** 1.584 * ** * * ** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT * * ** o 0 M O co N _ O Q w m N O � O (fl � a N O c - 0 � y Q� c 0 N U a `0 O Q m N Q c 0 L .O r M T V m o Qn 0 N _ CI F- J � a N `" > a Q {~- o co C d + + L F N � Z o 0 J � Ot 10 J U) J 0 u O r O N CD t- r O O O O O O p p N O 00 w N �t C� 0 0 M 0 00 N O M Cfl o N V � � ++ o O (d M t 1 N 'O m C N j CL U a m o v O tU Q lu 0) N t0 co,- -O N Q ? Moo`oc0 O �� O — o L Y a E cr LL U' p = ~ O N m � N c @ > C -- (D J a7Zo000oo0 Q > D `n F- is a g 0 a0000o00 00 U C�MITV'M V a Ii Q O C R _ H ,—, QO t . co N O r W aoOO r \ u � W p CN M .n Z U) � r CO LL CO o UOUi00Lr) 0 w U) �\ O J N��00000 (n _..... F- C a0_O�ON�O 0 U o �>'O —NM V Lo (D I-- N > > > = M ..._., N >, 10 o UUi a)U U) T ornW c � 0 N ~ ~ Q J co r�,OQ)ONNNN - 0 N - pl r - M o 1� O O O O O O O [t O N O 00 C:\oldslo-l\oldste-l\qLiatt-ps.OUT Page 1 * ** GSTABL7 * ** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved - Unauthorized Use Prohibited) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier /Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber - Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo - Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** -- Analysis Run Date: 6/30/03 Time of Run: 10:31AM Run By: Anthony- Taylor Consultants Input Data Filename: C:quatt-ps. Output Filename: C:quatt- ps.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:quatt- ps.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 566 Neptune Avenue Section A -A' Pseudo - Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES Note: User origin value specified. Add 100.00 to X- values and 0.00 to Y- values listed. 12 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 24.00 100.15 37.00 3 2 100.15 37.00 100.25 38.00 5 3 1.00.25 38.00 107.00 44.00 5 4 107.00 44.00 144.10 73.00 3 5 144.10 73.00 146.70 77.00 3 6 146.70 77.00 147.20 78.00 3 7 147.20 78.00 157.00 94.00 6 8 157.00 94.00 159.00 97.00 7 9 159.00 97.00 173.00 97.00 7 10 173.00 97.00 206.00 97.00 4 11 206.00 97.00 206.10 92.00 4 12 206.10 92.00 240.00 92.00 4 13 171.00 93.00 173.00 97.00 4 4 14 157.00 94.00 171.00 93.00 6 15 160.00 77.00 171.00 93.00 4 16 146.00 77.00 163.00 77.00 1 17 163.00 77.00 240.00 77.00 1 18 146.60 75.00 146.70 77.00 6 19 146.50 66.00 151.00 77.00 1 20 125.00 44.00 146.50 66.00 1 2.1 107.00 44.00 125.00 44.00 5 22 118.00 37.00 125.00 44.00 1 23 100.15 37.00 118.00 37.00 3 24 100.00 24.00 118.00 37.00 1 25 100.00 24.00 240.00 20.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 7 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) Param. (psf) No. 1 110.0 120.0 205.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 0.0 41.0 0.00 0,0 0 4 110.0 120.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 120.0 125.0 0.0 43.0 0.00 0,0 0 6 46.0 51.0 0.0 39.0 0.00 0.0 0 C: \oldslo- l \oldste-1 \quatt- ps.OUT Page 2 _ 7 110.0 120.0 180.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 4 Load(s) Specified Load X -Left X -Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 159.00 175.00 50.0 0.0 2 175.00 206.00 50.0 0.0 3 206.10 207.60 1500.0 0.0 4 207.70 240.00 500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned - A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) _._ 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Fos Y -Fos Load Spacing Inclination Length Force No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) Method 1 155.77 92.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 2 148.49 80.10 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Force Method 1 Considers Only Tangential Tieback Forces. Force Method 2 Considers Both Tangential and Normal Tieback Forces. - A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.20(ft) and X = 143.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 160.00(ft) and X = 240.00(ft) -.. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 15.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 1000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 5.267 FS Min = 1.159 FS Ave = 2.647 Standard Deviation = 0.896 Coefficient of Variation = 33.85 $ Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf `- No. (ft) (ft) 1 102.45 39.96 2 116.54 45.12 3 129.82 52.08 4 142.09 60.72 5 153.11 70.89 6 162.72 82.41 7 170.73 95.09 8 171.61 97.00 Circle Center At X = 70.5 ; Y = 149.1 and Radius, 113.7 Factor of Safety * ** 1.159 * ** Individual data on the 21 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.5 647.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 2 6.5 2807.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 421.1 0.0 0.0 C: \oldslo- l \oldste-1 \quatt- ps.OUT Page 3 3 3.1 2005.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.8 0.0 0.0 4 13.3 12292.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1843.9 0.0 0.0 5 9.9 11511.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1726.8 0.0 0.0 6 2.4 2911.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 436.6 0.0 0.0 7 2.0 2437.7 0.0 0.0 12.4 -20.5 365.7 0.0 0.0 8 1.9 2394.9 0.0 0.0 33.5 -46.6 359.2 0.0 0.0 9 0.5 644.3 0.0 0.0 15.0 -18.8 96.7 0.0 0.0 10 0.1 131.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 -4.2 19.7 0.0 0.0 11 0.1 70.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 -4.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 -- 12 0.5 677.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 -23.5 101.6 0.0 0.0 13 3.8 4818.1 0.0 0.0 334.8 -300.4 722.7 0.0 0.0 14 2.1 2515.6 0.0 0.0 444.4 -227.1 377.3 0.0 0.0 15 3.9 4087.3 0.0 0.0 1652.9 -393.7 613.1 0.0 0.0 __. 16 1.2 1162.9 0.0 0.0 585.0 39.6 174.4 0.0 0.0 17 0.8 819.0 0.0 0.0 374.2 52.8 122.8 0.0 0.0 18 3.7 3655.1 0.0 0.0 1668.4 336.2 548.3 0.0 185.9 19 6.8 4452.7 0.0 0.0 3908.9 1593.1 667.9 0.0 338.0 20 1.3 399.8 0.0 0.0 371.1 396.9 60.0 0.0 62.7 21 0.9 92.5 0.0 0.0 297.4 296.2 13.9 0.0 44.0 Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.96 43.96 2 121.06 49.07 3 134.00 56.66 4 145.34 66.48 5 154.69 78.21 6 161.74 91.45 7 163.50 97.00 Circle Center At X = 86.3 ; Y = 123.2 and Radius, 81.9 Factor of Safety * ** 1.162 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.46 47.49 2 125.74 52.11 3 138.81 59.47 4 150.15 69.28 5 159.32 81.15 6 165.95 94.61 7 166.58 97.00 Circle Center At X = 95.6 ; Y = 120.9 and Radius, 75.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.174 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf -- No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.71 41.96 2 118.51 47.84 3 131.59 55.18 __. 4 143.79 63.91 5 154.96 73.92 6 164.98 85.08 7 173.52 97.00 Circle Center At X = 57.9 ; Y = 171.0 and Radius, 137.3 Factor of Safety * ** 1.178 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 113.55 44.35 3 126.14 52.50 4 137.85 61.87 5 148.56 72.37 C: \oldslo- l \oldste-1 \quatt ps.OUT Page 4 6 158.16 83.90 7 166.55 96.34 8 166.90 97.00 Circle Center At X = 39.2 ; Y = 173.0 and Radius, 148.6 Factor of Safety * ** 1.192 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) - 1 102.45 39.96 2 117.04 43.44 3 130.67 49.72 4 142.78 58.56 5 152.93 69.61 6 160.70 82.44 7 165.80 96.55 8 165.86 97.00 Circle Center At X = 92.3 ; Y = 115.0 and Radius, 75.7 Factor of Safety * ** 1.203 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 102.45 39.96 2 116.86 44.13 3 130.65 50.05 - 4 143.59 57.62 5 1 66.74 6 166.19 77.26 7 175.51 89.02 -._ 8 180.35 97.00 Circle Center At X = 76.5 ; Y = 157.1 and Radius, 120.0 Factor of Safety * ** 1.241 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.96 43.96 2 120.67 50.04 3 133.32 58.11 4 144.61 67.98 5 154.29 79.44 6 162.14 92.22 - 7 164.16 97.00 Circle Center At X = 73.6 ; Y = 137.8 and Radius, 99.6 Factor of Safety * ** 1.241 * ** - Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 114.83 40.80 3 128.69 46.56 4 141.35 54.60 5 152.45 64.69 6 161.66 76.53 7 168.71 89.76 8 171.09 97.00 Circle Center At X = 88.8 ; Y = 123.1 and Radius, 86.4 Factor of Safety * ** 1.242 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 37.50 2 114.99 40.03 C: \oldslo- l \oldste -1 \quatt- ps.OUT Page 5 3 129.21 44.81 4 142.51 51.73 5 154.59 60.62 6 165.15 71.28 7 173.93 83.44 8 180.73 96.81 9 180.79 97.00 Circle Center At X = 91.4 ; Y = 133.8 and Radius, 96.7 Factor of Safety * ** 1.253 * ** * * ** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT * * ** n N O N N to Z O 00 1 v C M Q o N N V N ++ a co M N W C m `a _ O a N V '^ C VJ Q U) m U C O� L Of U �- ' J {A a f, m C v co > r a w V) �s d t O zc 0 O J O O LO U U) An - °- N N � M N O W O W) p O L e- O N 'hQ un n N O LO N CL N ao o ° 0 LO r M S N d N NF o Q 0 ra D II '++ N C v0 0 Ear c N N Q 0 ...1�..: - N m 0 m U N V ap A J ty i v`t 0 000000 U) m 3 7 a a�z f ^ ~ C c i o Q) , \ .- N U o,000000 0 N rn v.- coNUiMOD 0 a d L vcv(o Q = L j o� 0 00 o F- W 2 �aIn000O N 0 !, a ory00 0 m v ❑ U C N N LL J O 163 ,p000009 N LO Z 7 = ONNN td (1) U) r N ❑ 0o 0 0 0 0 0 r O = a� O� N 0 C:) 0 0 U �� -.-�. US ' 0 m V (n (O N LO ma�'C� N CN U) 0 m O C C M C G1 t- O N U QF- Uog P Mm V' V 0 Nw(0t- co _._.. LL too 0 m to 0 M 0 In U? r- .- — — .- r- .-- .- ta m u m (D rn t U p N n O to O p `- r r N � �Y. C: \oldslo-1 \old3te-1 \g4b2.OUT Page 1 * ** GSTABL7 * ** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved - Unauthorized Use Prohibited) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier /Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber - Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo - Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. Analysis Run Date: 6/30/03 Time of Run: 4:18PM Run By: Anthony- Taylor Consultants Input Data Filename: C:g4b2. -- Output Filename: C:g4b2.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:g4b2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 560 Neptune Avenue- Cross Section B -B' Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES Note: User origin value specified. Add 100.00 to X- values and 0.00 to Y- values listed. 9 Top Boundaries 18 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 16.00 107.00 18.00 4 2 107.00 18.00 107.15 31.00 1 3 107.15 31.00 107.20 32.00 5 4 107.20 32.00 113.40 38.00 5 - 5 113.40 38.00 162.00 78.00 1 6 162.00 78.00 175.00 98.OQ 6 7 175.00 98.00 215.00 98.00 6 8 215.00 98.00 215.10 93.00 6 v 9 215.10 93.00 275.00 93.00 6 10 162.00 78.00 275.00 78.00 2 11 113.40 38.00 127.00 38.00 5 12 107.15 31.00 122.50 31.00 1 13 107.00 24.50 120.00 24.00 3 14 120.00 24.00 122.50 31.00 2 15 122.50 31.00 127.00 38.00 2 16 127.00 38.00 134.00 48.00 2 17 134.00 48.00 162.00 78.00 2 18 120.00 24.00 275.00 20.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 6 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) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 0.0 41.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 110.0 120.0 205.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 43.0 0.00 0.0 0 6 110.0 120.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 - -- BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 3 Load(s) Specified Load X -Left X -Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 174.00 215.00 50.0 0.0 2 215.10 216.60 1500.0 0.0 3 216.70 250.00 500.0 0.0 C: \oldslo-1 \old5te-1 \g4b2.OUT Page 2 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length Force No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) Method 1 163.30 80.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 2 168.50 88.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 3 173.70 96.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Force Method 1 Considers Only Tangential Tieback Forces. Force Method 2 Considers Both Tangential and Normal Tieback Forces. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 108.50(ft) and X = 157.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 178.00(ft) and X = 245.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 15.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. _ The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of 0.0 And 30.0 deg. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 1000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 87.334 FS Min = 1.535 FS Ave = 3.333 Standard Deviation = 3.732 Coefficient of Variation = 111.98 % Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.74 38.76 3 139.69 44.28 4 152.49 52.11 5 163.74 62.02 6 173.12 73.73 7 180.35 86.87 8 184.16 98.00 Circle Center At X = 101.1 ; Y = 121.4 and Radius, 86.3 Factor of Safety * ** 1.535 * ** Individual data on the 15 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 2.3 251.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 8.7 4475.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.7 3502.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.5 2823.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 5.8 7690.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 5.7 9037.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 12.8 23772.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.5 18670.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 -21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 1.7 3462.0 0.0 0.0 103.8 -100.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 9.4 20655.1 0.0 0.0 3231.6 - 2226.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.9 2055.2 0.0 0.0 940.9 -286.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 1.0 2309.4 0.0 0.0 1186.1 -246.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 C: \oldslo- l \oldste-1 \g4b2.OUT Page 3 13 0.5 1054.9 0.0 0.0 591.6 -87.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 14 4.9 8351.7 0.0 0.0 7198.0 274.3 0.0 0.0 243.9 15 3.8 2330.7 0.0 0.0 9207.3 2525.4 0.0 0.0 190.4 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 113.61 38.17 2 128.40 40.63 _ 3 142.39 46.04 4 154.99 54.17 5 165.68 64.70 6 174.00 77.18 7 179.62 91.09 8 180.88 98.00 Circle Center At X = 109.4 ; Y = 110.7 and Radius, 72.6 Factor of Safety * ** 1.535 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.96 37.39 3 140.16 42.21 4 153.01 49.97 5 163.89 60.29 6 172.30 72.71 7 177.86 86.64 8 179.74 98.00 Circle Center At X = 111.0 ; Y = 104.8 and Radius, 69.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.540 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 108.50 33.26 2 123.41 34.87 3 137.83 39.02 4 151.32 45.59 -° 5 163.48 54.37 6 173.95 65.11 7 182.42 77.49 8 188.64 91.14 w- 9 190.43 98.00 Circle Center At X = 106.6 ; Y = 120.3 and Radius, 87.0 Factor of Safety * ** 1.540 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.79 38.51 3 139.71 44.12 4 152.26 52.33 5 162.97 62.82 6 171.44 75.21 T` 7 177.32 89.01 8 179.21 98.00 Circle Center At X = 104.6 ; Y = 111.2 and Radius, 75.8 Factor of Safety * ** 1.540 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.99 37.14 3 140.28 41.68 C: \old5lo-1 \old3te-1 \g4b2.OUT Page 4 4 153.29 49.15 5 164.42 59.21 6 173.17 71.40 7 179.13 85.16 8 181.68 98.00 Circle Center At X = 112.0 ; Y = 105.8 and Radius, 70.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.549 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 113.61 38.17 2 128.23 41.53 3 142.05 47.34 4 154.69 55.42 5 165.75 65.55 6 174.92 77.43 -- 7 181.92 90.69 8 184.29 98.00 Circle Center At X = 101.8 ; Y = 123.8 and Radius, 86.4 Factor of Safety * ** 1.554 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 108.50 33.26 2 123.48 34.02 3 137.98 37.87 4 151.36 44.64 5 163.05 54.04 6 172.54 65.66 7 179.42 78.99 8 183.38 93.46 9 183.64 98.00 - Circle Center At X = 112.4 ; Y = 105.1 and Radius, 72.0 Factor of Safety * ** 1.556 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points - -. Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 126.01 36.89 3 140.42 41.03 4 153.71 47.99 5 165.33 57.48 6 174.79 69.12 7 181.73 82.42 8 185.84 96.84 9 185.93 98.00 Circle Center At X = 112.8 ; Y = 109.9 and Radius, 74.2 Factor of Safety * ** 1.562 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) -- 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.80 38.48 3 139.97 43.38 4 153.27 50.33 5 165.38 59.18 6 176.05 69.73 7 185.03 81.74 8 192.13 94.95 9 193.23 98.00 Circle Center At X = 100.0 ; Y = 136.0 and Radius, 100.9 Factor of Safety C: \oldslo-1 \oldste-1 \g4b2.OUT Page 5 * ** 1.565 * ** * * ** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT * * ** N -W) O N t0 V 00-) 4.0 O M m , ;r J M , O O 0 to (D N � N N � N CL= N M C W O 11 V W O T C F Oc o 4-0 O N V t M C VJ Q N CO 7 O Q L U ~ J IL _. a C m > Q i CD f C � CL o N r to Z O O p (0 J �i W) N N � 7 N C to O to p O LZ e �- N 'hQ,' LO N O N a rn .V a 0 y o ° 0 @� to L N d Q N C N- o Q CL r W 0 m 0 U m `o v d �� > j o N 0 ~ jo °o�� 0 r• V a ° N �C M O r Y E d r Q v w U m ~ -.N� 0 aa�.N >+ Nm J `o - C-4 IM J v 00 000000 to Q u OCL o il to v) N o a 0 x000000 C) U > 00 N .0 �� COLnU)mCa Q a LL Q..�V Ma V"cTM Q d (1) .0 C 0 QQ 9 O i F t y 0.000000 t1 �+ (n U N N N M LL z x.000000 aNNNl \ m � G v� e � 0 0� N D �3:, r J 0(200000 U N 0 ( T V 12(0 F Lf) N ..�..- — . (a N >, N � 0 w C7 U N E rn ! 0 ` c c v Gt - ~ C)�g MV�V C0 C0 M LL N N N N N N N N N N it m -0 U U N w 0) Lc O LO N O 1� LO S �, � N AL C : \oldslo \oldste- l \g4b2p -s.OUT Page 1 - * ** GSTABL7 * ** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved - Unauthorized Use Prohibited) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier /Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber - Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo - Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Analysis Run Date: 6/30/03 Time of Run: 4:09PM Run By: Anthony- Taylor Consultants Input Data Filename: C:g4b2p -s. -- Output Filename: C:g4b2p -s.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:g4b2p -s.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 560 Neptune Avenue- Cross Section B -B' Pseudo- Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES Note: User origin value specified. Add 100.00 to X- values and 0.00 to Y- values listed. 9 Top Boundaries 18 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 16.00 107.00 18.00 4 2 107.00 18.00 107.15 31.00 1 3 107.15 31.00 107.20 32.00 5 4 107.20 32.00 113.40 38.00 5 5 113.40 38.00 162.00 78.00 1 6 162.00 78.00 175.00 98.0 6 7 175.00 98.00 215.00 98.00 6 8 215.00 98.00 215.10 93.00 6 - 9 215.10 93.00 275.00 93.00 6 10 162.00 78.00 275.00 78.00 2 11 113.40 38.00 127.00 38.00 5 12 107.15 31.00 122.50 31.00 1 13 107.00 24.50 120.00 24.00 3 14 120.00 24.00 122.50 31.00 2 15 122.50 31.00 127.00 38.00 2 16 127.00 38.00 134.00 48.00 2 17 134.00 48.00 162.00 78.00 2 18 120.00 24.00 275.00 20.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 6 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) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 0.0 41.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 110.0 120.0 205.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 - 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 43.0 0.00 0.0 0 6 110.0 120.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 -- BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 3 Load(s) Specified Load X -Left X -Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) _- 1 174.00 215.00 50.0 0.0 2 215.10 216.60 1500.0 0.0 3 216.70 250.00 500.0 0.0 C : \old3lo- 1 \oldste- l \g4b2p -s.oUT Page 2 -- NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length Force No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) Method 1 163.30 80.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 2 168.50 88.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 3 173.70 96.00 70000.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Force Method 1 Considers Only Tangential Tieback Forces. Force Method 2 Considers Both Tangential and Normal Tieback Forces. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. - 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 108.50(ft) and X = 157.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 178.00(ft) and X = 245.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 15.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of 0.0 And 30.0 deg. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 1000 Statistical Data on All Valid FS Values: - FS Max = 11.186 FS Min = 1.233 FS Ave = 2.152 Standard Deviation = 0.955 Coefficient of Variation = 44.36 % Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.74 38.76 3 139.69 44.28 4 152.49 52.11 5 163.74 62.02 6 173.12 73.73 7 180.35 86.87 8 184.16 98.00 Circle Center At X = 101.1 ; Y = 121.4 and Radius, 86.3 Factor of Safety * ** 1.233 * ** Individual data on the 15 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) - 1 2.3 251.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 0.0 0.0 2 8.7 4475.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 671.3 0.0 0.0 3 3.7 3502.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 525.4 0.0 0.0 4 2.5 2823.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 423.6 0.0 0.0 -- 5 5.8 7690.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1153.5 0.0 0.0 6 5.7 9037.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1355.7 0.0 0.0 7 12.8 23772.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3565.9 0.0 0.0 C : \oldslo-1 \oldste- l \g4b2p -s.OUT Page 3 8 9.5 18670.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 -21.2 2800.5 0.0 0.0 9 1.7 3462.0 0.0 0.0 103.8 -100.6 519.3 0.0 0.0 10 9.4 20655.1 0.0 0.0 3231.6 - 2226.7 3098.3 0.0 0.0 11 0.9 2055.2 0.0 0.0 940.9 -286.4 308.3 0.0 0.0 12 1.0 2309.4 0.0 0.0 1186.1 -246.4 346.4 0.0 50.0 13 0.5 1054.9 0.0 0.0 591.6 -87.0 158.2 0.0 23.5 14 4.9 8351.7 0.0 0.0 7198.0 274.3 1252.8 0.0 243.9 15 3.8 2330.7 0.0 0.0 9207.3 2525.4 349.6 0.0 190.4 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 108.50 33.26 2 123.04 36.95 - 3 137.05 42.31 4 150.35 49.25 5 162.75 57.69 6 174.09 67.51 7 184.21 78.58 8 192.98 90.75 9 197.02 98.00 Circle Center At X = 84.0 ; Y = 160.0 and Radius, 129.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.240 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 108.50 33.26 2 123.41 34.87 3 137.83 39.02 4 151.32 45.59 5 163.48 54.37 6 173.95 65.11 7 182.42 77.49 8 188.64 91.14 -- 9 190.43 98.00 Circle Center At X = 106.6 ; Y = 120.3 and.Radius, 87.0 Factor of Safety * ** 1.241 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 113.61 38.17 2 128.40 40.63 3 142.39 46.04 4 154.99 54.17 5 165.68 64.70 6 174.00 77.18 7 179.62 91.09 8 180.88 98.00 Circle Center At X = 109.4 ; Y = 110.7 and Radius, 72.6 Factor of Safety " * ** 1.242 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.79 38.51 3 139.71 44.12 4 152.26 52.33 5 162.97 62.82 6 171.44 75.21 7 177.32 89.01 8 179.21 98.00 _ Circle Center At X = 104.6 ; Y = 111.2 and Radius, 75.8 Factor of Safety * ** 1.244 * ** C : \old5lo-1 \oldste-1 \g4b2p -s.OUT Page 4 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.80 38.48 3 139.97 43.38 4 153.27 50.33 5 165.38 59.18 6 176.05 69.73 7 185.03 81.74 8 192.13 94.95 9 193.23 98.00 Circle Center At X = 100.0 ; Y = 136.0 and Radius, 100.9 Factor of Safety * ** 1.247 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 113.61 38.17 2 128.23 41.53 3 142.05 47.34 4 154.69 55.42 5 165.75 65.55 6 174.92 77.43 7 181.92 90.69 8 184.29 98.00 Circle Center At X = 101.8 ; Y = 123.8 and Radius, 86.4 Factor Safety * ** 1.248 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.96 37.39 3 140.16 42.21 4 153.01 49.97 5 163.89 60.29 6 172.30 72.71 7 177.86 86.64 8 179.74 98.00 Circle Center At X = 111.0 ; Y = 104.8 and Radius, 69.1 Factor of Safety * ** 1.251 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 113.61 38.17 - 2 128.19 41.66 3 142.04 47.43 4 154.79 55.34 5 166.11 65.17 6 175.73 76.68 7 183.39 89.58 8 186.71 98.00 Circle Center At X = 99.5 ; Y = 130.0 and Radius, 92.9 Factor of Safety * ** 1.256 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.05 35.73 2 125.67 39.08 3 139.75 44.27 4 153.04 51.22 5 165.34 59.81 6 176.44 69.89 C : \oldslo-1 \oldste-1 \g4b2p -s.OUT Page 5 7 186.17 81.31 8 194.35 93.88 9 196.34 98.00 Circle Center At X = 92.2 ; Y = 151.5 and Radius, 117.3 Factor of Safety * ** 1.257 * ** * * ** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT * * ** APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TESTING Test Borings and Laboratory Testing by Buchanan - Rahilly, Inc., (October 27, 1986, Annotated by William J. Elliot, CEG -April 1987), Supplemental Laboratory Testing by Owen Geotechnical Consultants, (June 30, 1989), and by Anthony- Taylor Consultants (November 2000) B -2 Ruchanran- Rahillj; «C _ O } W oW } 0 _ 7 w 0 3 Test Boring P1o. 1 aZ`n� U. Uj ELEVATION '100 E pRl = <3p Z Q ' Z c n 0 U. :2 •1 DAT LLED ��- -Qn ~ J O c U 0 - - v a , EQUIPMENT Mob B -61 8 -i nc:: H.S. Auc:er zInnco } �z UJ � g O o a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lindavista Formtion 2 _ Medium dense, dry damp, to da rao- brown, silty to slightly clayey SAiM 4 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 6 8 10 very dense, damp, red - brown, silty SAm 12 2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 5 L 14 1 i6 Torrey Sandstone Very dense, damp, light yellow- trow to light 18 brozm, silty medium to coarse SAND Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) - 20 22 } 58 24 26 s 28 .. c NOTE' THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN MEREON APPLIES ONLY . IS W AT TMC SPECI F�L 90R !+G OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED IT NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSVRFACE CDNOiTiONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES Loy of Test Boring No. 1 Property Aa j agent to 56C iveptwitf n ve„ue Drawn by r"'.F Chec;ced �Y: File Nc. 86 -.0� Dace: 86 -�gure No. h - ' B-3 - ' Bu chanan - Rahill � :, .(>>c,• L-9 of Test Boring No. 1 continued z > w O 3 O w .- c Z LU -J n LL ELEVATION -'100 c <�p Z LL Cr Z DATE DRILLED -� -A� ' '-cc c v w ;' In EOUIPMENT Mobile B -61 :I/ $ —inch H.S, WE ? -d" a. (n �n iil:'2r Zcnm } C Z O � 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION silty, medium to coarse SAID as before ` J 32 very en 4 'y se, damp, lieht brocrn media-, to coarse SAND With trace of silt 34 44 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 36 38 40 t 5 -- ` � 93 a } 6 f 48 1 50 52 54 50/3. "98.8 2.3 i- 56 56 NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS THE DATE INDICATED. !T IS NOT WARRANT SH OW N HEREON APPLIES TO BE HEREON E N NL AT SURF E SPECIFIC BOaiNG OP TwENCm LOCATION ANC AT .' ACE CONDITIONS AT QT:Eq LOCATIONS ANO TIMES Log of Test Boring No. 1, Continued eroperty Adjacent to 560 Neptane Avenue Drawn b j TR Checked by: F i l e No. 66-105 Date: -0 -' % -86 Figure No.r B -4 Buchanan- Rahill j: Irr�•. cc 3 Loci of Test Boring No. 1, continued g LU O V) w a2�� pp � Z c: w 7. ELEVATION ±100 DATE DRILLED = 3 0 Z =' w p � 1(1_Z_AF O u J ' 4n EQUIPMENT Atn} - it R_F�, •.i C_ 4n C u w u 60 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Torrey Sandstone, Continued 62 Very dense, damp, light yellow- bro,rn mediLLn -- 7 to coarse SAND with trace of silt 50/5" 98.4 4.6 - 64 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) ' 66 68 Water table 70 i 72 100/5 i4 very hard drilling i 76 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 78 80 84 86 88 Near Refusal at 87 Feet NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOwN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC THE DATE INDICTED. IT I$NOT WARRANTED TO BE RE OF SUBSURFACE CONDIT OTHER AT OA TAENC. LOCATION TI AT OTHE LOCATIONS AND TIMES Log of Test Boring No. 1, Continued ' ?rc ,)erty to 560 Neptune Avenue Drawn by NtIP— Checked bY: File No. 86- 0� Date: !0, _ 86 IFigure No A -3 B -5 Buchanan- Rahill F: Il�c•. o r w Log of Test Boring No. 2 ow w =W G O 3 ELEVATION X100 DATE DRILLED 10 - .=�00 U. o sc W _ � _ -- o < EQUIPMENT Mobile B -61 w/ 8-inch H.S. Auger wWm }^ ^Z) C- I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lindavista Formation Medium dense to very dense; dry to d?r;,a, red - j 2 brown, silty SAND 1 14 4 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 6 i 8 2 35 113.2 8.1 r -- 10 12 Torrey Sandstone 3 44 Very dense, damp, light yello:.- brourn me ium 14 to coarse SAND with trace silt Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 18 20 22 4 53 24 Near Refusal at 23 Feet 1 NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT O THER LOCA TIONS AND TIMES Log of Test Boring No. 2 _._ ?roperty Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue Drawn by MRR lChecked by: jFile No. tib -lU; I Date- ��,_, ;_�6 Figure Na -^ B -6 Buchanan- Rahill � ; f fly .. z , Log of Test Boring No. 3 c (� < __, w O 3 aZ�` N L w� J O o ELEVATION 1100 GATE DRILLED c <�O a o LL 2 - � -� -AR ACC C J N EQUIPMENT Mobile B -61 8 -inch H.S. Auc2r w w ° Oo o-- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lindavista For ation 2 Medium dense to dense, dry to damp, dark red - 1 brown, silty SAND 21 -- 4 2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) _._. 6 8 3 30 10 4 i iL 5 Torrey Sandstone 63 14 Very dense, damp, light yellow- broum, medium '' to coarse SAND with trace of silt j._ i6 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 20 L7 6 54 24 Bottom of Boring at 23.5 Feet NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HER THE DATE INDICATED. 171$NCIT WARRANTED T O BE REoRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFA EON APPIS ON AT THC 80RiNG OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT CE CONDITIONS AT OT "ER _OCATIONS AND TIMES Lcg of Test Boring No. 3 Property Adjacent to SSC •.uGut „✓ Ave Drawn by ! Checked by: File No. 36 -105 Date: ;n_ - - � -86 r IgurA NO.r- AMU40r1:111als- xf,:r�1111'•�; �lt�•. I:uw..rrhin� I:wrN•r•Irrr„•.,l �:,. vrr .. •.•.. t)-: t o c•.. r 2;, t S18 d `1s . Lurim i t i a Brad i ev 560 Neptune avenue Leucadia, California 99-024 Subject: Bradley Residence Lot ,adjacent to 360 Neptune kvenue Leucadia, California GEOTECHr ICAL INVESTIGATI0(4 Dear `'!s . Bradley, We are Pleased to submit the accompanying report which Presents the results oo ou: geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated September 10,1986. The report presents our conclusions and recommendations w Pertaining to pile development, as - :ell as the results of the field and laborator tests upon which they are based. This Opportunity to be of service is appreciated. !g you have questions or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitat to csll. Ver7 truly yours, B[:C RaHILLY, INCORPORATED / ?Michael R. Rahilly RCE 28188 (2) addressee . l31 Sjirk W. ZiJIStra, A.I.A. architect saZ Hang _ C� Sc San•Otego. CA ;3i :C L d P lee NO- rtb - tun -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- TABLE t -- Summary of gin- ?lace `(oisture- Density- and Direct Shear Test k''su[rs Samote so. Ors- Density Moisture Cohesion Angle of Shear No . peF Content 'G psf Resistance D eqr p es 1 -6 98.8 2.3 190 6.3 I 98.4 4.6 133 �i 7 _2 113.2 8,1 _ 3-4* 100.8 12.3 60 33 = Sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of aaaximum laborato den sity at near optimum moisture content. - TAZL.E 11 Suanmary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results Sample Description Maximum Orr Densit "40. •ccf y Optimum `lo in t..: -- %of Dro weizht Silty SAND II2.d _. I2. a B d WOd� �VdZS °F �70T —pE —fit ��CQ�lS�A inNC; � N 'dNl I i `I , :1 , `l ♦ •. 1.11'1 • \PII - I NvwU 1 00.11 NIAI 1. '11 NILJ'I It1W.1 `111 t•• \ill li`� /11• _. 'AN iALt.w', c:A V °111 Itlf ,IJI(r/;. l 1;111 , I,JI•,,, : ..1 .T 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 _ - . Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 NQptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subjects GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE (LOT Nos. 4 AND S) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Bradley: Tn accordance with your request and those of Mr. Fred Nerlinger (project structural engineer), we submit this report presenting Our findings and recammendations the bluff conditions at the subject site. regarding This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should You have any questions, please cal?. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS GREGORY M. KAR-r. I „ Se for Staff Geologist Qp0 S�0 C"'i � � DANIEL K. STEUSSY No. 41140 x Engineering Manager EKP.3gtjgI RCE 41140 Expiration 3 -31 -91 ' F CALi MARTIN R. OWEN 0 .�O Q oQ p .4�p 4 , ,! RCE s2dent c�, ,``K R, c� e - � q�H R 3155, GE 658 s Expiration 12 -31 -89 "�' „^ �; OIL OMW GMK /DKS /ERA:ms 4s EW E*o, 12nt,e9 Attachments p� CR! OF CAL (Distribution on following page) GI(ICl ^rr( :AN Uk k)_i M%(1 / IA ANU ( .f ;NG(iIr1J. ;AI M iUN1A T 'd 002 -OE -0l $000 a000 I -� 4000 0000 N Q W 2 i s000 o soo s000 1600 s000 aoo s000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION fall fRICTICN RSMANKS ANGLE 101 • S - 0 61• (Torrey Sandstone) Typical Brittle rraeture Behavior' at Peak Load DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS CONSULTi4W$ I maxar No. 959.1.1 1 F►GURE tv0. D -1 D d Noa-:l WdOS ° = 0OT -OE -0 L $000 6000 4 000 1 V' 1 � a J = C7 � 1 0000 N Q 1L 1n 2000 1O O'O r 1 61 O 0 Soo ►000 1600 2000 2600 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) s SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION Ipd) FRICTION ANGLE I•) REMARKS • S 2000 58° (Torrey Sandstone) Typical Brittlq Fracture Behavior at Peak Load DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 00"CONSU JWS 1projEcT No. 959 .1.1 /FlGUF7E NO. D -3 G � DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 , i (/7 2000 Ca Z Ld a✓ 0e LJ 1000 0 0 577 10001154 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) MROL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE • B -1 Q 3.0 TO 3.5 FT 140 45' NATURAL SHEAR (TERRACE DEPOSITS) LOT 5- 8 UILDING PAD ANTHONY - TAY T O CONS 11 TANTS n 3 v z JOd NAMEr AOLEY R 1 E —BLUFF REPAIR SITE ADDRESS% 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS CA JOB NUMBER; RfVIfW 1 T FIG. NO. .1 98 -1055 GMK JLM� 9 d WOad WdLS'E 00Z- GCE -Dt DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 I i i 2000 CL Z W N OC ' 4l c 1000 0 0 577 1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE REMARKS • _. B -1 0 2.5 TO 3.0 FT 125 38' NATURAL SHEAR (T ARAcE DEPOSITS) LOT 5- BUILDING PAO AKTHONY- TAYT.og CONBULTANT9 JOB NAME: BRADLEY NCE —BLUFF REPAI SrtE ADDRESSi 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS CA JOB NUMBER: REVI Y: DaT : FIG. NO. 98 -1055 GMK .1LAA 10 31 00 S "d L ol:u Wd L S; E 00Z -0E -0 L Ppr 05 01 11:25a Sierra ACCrecate 909 600 -0761 p.2 INVOlcs COPY John R. B 1 N C O R P O R A T E D December 11, 1998 ii Sierra Aggregate Company, Inc. Rpt. No.: 6182 40960 California Oaks Road, Suite 223 File No.: S - 9089 Murrista, California 92562 • -- Attention: Don Jolly Project: Quality Control (P.O.L.B.) Subject: Laboratory Test Results Gentlemen: Enclosed are the results of laboratory tests performed as regUested on three bulk samples submitted to this firm on November 16, 1998. Preparation and testing were performed in accordance to California State and ASTM test methods. Test results are presented oo the — enclosures with this letter. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continuing service. Should there be questions. please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, F _ JOHN R. BYERLY. INC, � �� (t. AlY�iQ''Y .y 6U No. GEODO179 ^' Exp. ate 0 30 01 d ohn R Byerty, Geotechnital Engineer JRB:SM:rnh CAL �fl� Enclosures: ( "1) Sieve Analysts (2) Test Data Copies: (3) Client Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc. a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS - TESTING AND INSPECTION _ 2257 South ulec Ave.. Bloomington. CA 92316 -2907 Olrw.�...��.. 10M1 dk19 .99• O�r....� -- W~, — .n... r—. ......+............ .. Apr 05 01 11z26a Sierra Agere6ate 909 600 -0761 P -3 • w i _ I SIEVE ANALYSIS Sampled By. Client Date Sampled: 11118/98 Date Received: 11118/98 Sample No.: 1 DescnpUon: 1' x #4 Location: Red Top Mine Sieve AnatySi§ (ASTM C13"4) • Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specs._ 1 Vii' 100 95-100 1" 72 00-85 3/4" .34 5/8' 14 10-40 1/r 5 0-15 3/8' 4 No. 4 3 0-10' No. 9 2.9 No. 16 2.? No. 30 2.5 No. 50 2.2 No. 100 1.7 No. 200 1.4 Enclosure 1 Rpt. No,*. 6182 File No.' S -9089 ,Apr 05 01 11:2Ga Sierra nggrecate 90e 600 -0751 i METHOD OF TEST FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION Of COURB AGGREGATES (California Test 206) Bulk Specific Gravity Oven Dry Basis 1.85 Percent Absorption 10.6 METHOD OF TESir FOR QURAIMLITY INDEX (California Test 229) Sediment Height 0.0 Durability Index 100 STANDARD TEST MMOO FOR uNIT WEIGHT AND ,VOIDS I .CATE (AS TM C29/C29M-91 A) Dry Unit Weight 45.6 Ibs. per cubic ft Saturated Unit Weight 50.4 ft. per cubic R Enclosure 2 Rpt. No.: 6182 File No.. S -9089 rO Dt sac 7.1f ^fPQAQ? cur ��• .. - � .rT ,,� APPENDIX F EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I. GENERAL. A. These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of sub - drains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluation performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. B. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and Qeotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AlIND TESTING A. GeotechnicaL Consultant -- Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with -- the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them appraised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so theat they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and sub- drains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. B. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be - performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D -1557. Random field compaction tests should be performed in with method ASTM designations D- 1556 -82, D -2937 or D- 2922 & D -3017, at intervals of approximately two (2) feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. C. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer. And to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non -earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. III SITE PREPARATION A. All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in -place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fill. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. B. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to -- grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over excavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture- conditioned should be recompacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. C. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in rifts restricted to about six (6) inches in compacted thickness. D. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on -site soils engineering geologist. Scarification, dicing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until: the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described in Item III, C, above. E. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least two (2) feet deep into firm material, and approved by the .soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firs. material, ans designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to one -half (1/2) the height of the slope. E. Standard benching is generally four feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, - acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed four feet. Pre- stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of - four feet in thickness. G. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades are attained. IV. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor - gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. B. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock - derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fillibedrock contact. C. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed _._ in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approve by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off -site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. D. if import material is required for grading, representative samples of the material to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. E. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in - near- horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed six (6) inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thicker lifts if, testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. F. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be _ blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layers should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. G. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture - conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D 1557 -78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed .in an area until the last placed lift of till has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. H. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over- building a minimum of three (3) feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluated compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction_ in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1, s ecifiic_ material types, a higlier minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures may be 'recommended. I. If an alternative to over- building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be mad to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: Ia. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short- shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. Ib. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. Ic. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) two (2) to eight (8) feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. Id. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid- rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid roiling. Ie. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and recompact the slope - materials as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional resting should be performed to verify compaction. If. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the -" recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. V. SUB -DRAIN INSTALLATION A. Sub - drains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Sub -drain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without - approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in sub -drain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed sub - drains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. VI. EXCAVATIONS A. Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer. If directed by the engineer geologist, further excavations or over - excavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved,'the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineer geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. B. The engineer geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. C. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing, should be based on in- grading evaluations by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated previously or not. , D. Unless otherwise specified in soil and-geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes or temporary excavation is the contractors responsibility. E. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be contracted in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. VII. COMPLETION A. Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. B. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification - of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. C. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL J� uI ' , BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTM D1557 r � RETAINING WALL - - — — — — — _ - ' _— _ —_ — — — WATERPROOFING —00 PER PROJECT — — — ARCHITECT _ — _ — —FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR 1. • MIN. LAP P — — _ — APPROVED EQUIVALENT) O ° _ _ WITH 6" MIN. FABRIC LAP. 3J4 " -1 1 /2 - CLEAN GRAVEL a 1 MIN. 4" (MIN.) DIAMETER ° I .1 _ — PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH ° FINISHED GRADE PERFORATIONS ORIENTED — ° a , i " _ _ (SLAB, SOIL, — - a (° — — DOWN. PLACE PIPE AT A OR PAVEMENT.) — — — — MINIMUM I PERCENT _ GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE — — TO SUITABLE OUTLET OR a COMA ILL L _I — — — THROUGH THE WALL FACE 4 AT 20' O.C. IF APPLICABLE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SUITABLE MATERIAL AS CONCRETE WALL EVALUATED BY THE FOOTING GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOT TO SCALE _ ® ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS S... m_'. (f.7 -.1.) San Fra I C v [e —1 10• Enrrp S1.eer ]TS •m n1 250 5]00 •o • e p 560 E,c....... f. ne 92029 Spn 1--, e we sn. 1 1T60 23BB900 i { 3 0 2005 AUG U ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For QUATTRO RESIDENCE APN: 256 -084 - 11,12,13 CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Mr. John Quattro 560 & 566 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PE 1427 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259 -8212 DATE: 8 /23/05 gQE,uFCisz- ® y E A C e a � No. 29577 m J2- � Exp. 3/31/07 WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 DATE �' clylu OF CALF ` PE # 1427 2:41 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION INTRODUCTION.......................................... ............................... A CONCLUSION................................................ ..............................B PRE - DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......................0 POST - DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .....................D APPENDIX.................................................. ............................... G Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Map PE # 1427 2:41 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post - developed condition of the Neptune Avenue development site. The subject property is physically located at 560 & 566 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California. Pre - Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of residential and vacant land. There is one existing home that covers approximately half of the property, and the rest of the land is undeveloped. The existing site slopes east and west away from the top of the bluff which is located near the center of the property. East of the bluff, the average slope is -3.4 %. All existing drainage from the site is conveyed to Neptune Avenue. The existing runoff to Neptune Avenue is 0.73 cfs. Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of two single family residences. Each residence will be served by an asphalt paved driveway. The access to the residence, via the driveway, is from Neptune Avenue. All proposed runoff from the development will outlet as sheet flow into Neptune Avenue as it does today. The proposed runoff is 0.75 cfs. The time of concentration for proposed development is greater than the time of concentration for existing conditions due to the routing of the proposed on site drainage system. The increase in runoff is a result of the addition of one single family residence on the undeveloped portion of the property. Methodology and Results The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D ". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post - development runoff coefficients, used to analyze the both conditions, were obtained from Table 3 -1 of the June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the PE # 1427 2:45 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 C. PRE - DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 No. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM * PE 1427 QUATTRO i * 8/24/05 ' FILE NAME: 1427PRE.DAT TIIvlE/DATE OF STUDY: 14:05 08/24/2005 ----------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENI S(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER - DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK - HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 21 »»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 98.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 94.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.80 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.114 PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/1-IOUR) = 5.786 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.73 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.73 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TC(MIN.) = 6.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.73 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 D. POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 ss rssrsssssrrss rrssssss rrrs rrs rs ss rss srsss rs s ssssssssrssss *rssrssrsssrss RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 No. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 ssssrsssssrsssrssssssssrrs DESCRIPTION OF STUDY sssssssrssssrsrrrssrrsssrr * POSTI)EVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM ' * PE 1427 QUATTRO ' * 8/24/05 ' ss rs srss rsss rrss srsss ssss ssss ss srssss ss ssrs rssrsssrsssssssrss FILE NAME: 1427POST.DAT TUVIE/DATE OF STUDY: 08:20 08/25/2005 ---------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER - DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK - HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018 /0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *( Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. ss sssss rrss srss srsss ssss ss ss ssss ssss sss ss sss srs ssrsssssssrsssssssssrss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------- ---- ------------------- - - - -__ » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 68.00 PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 98.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 96.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.701 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 »s»»ss»»ss»» »s»»sss»ss»ss»ss»»sss»ss»»s»»ss»» ss »ss » » »s » » »s » »ss » » »s » »s » » »s » »» FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (E)GSTING ELEMENT)<«« ---------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 96.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 91.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 114.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 4.0 INCH PIPE LS 1.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.51 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 4.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.18 PIPE TRAVEL TM E(MIN.) = 0.42 Tc(MIN.) = 6.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 1.00= 182.00 FEET. »»s s*»ss»» ss»»»s»»s»»»ss»ss»»s»»»s»»»s»»ss»»s » »s » » » »s » » »sss »ss » » »»s » » » » » » » »» FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< ----------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.605 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.57 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.75 TC(MIN) = 6.42 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TC(MIN.) = 6.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.75 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/25/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for QUATTRO RESIDENCE PE 1427 G. APPENDIX PE # 1427 1:10 PM 8/2512005 0 C� C x i� �:s l� �I rz el C IS En 152 0 Yk 1 si I 45 b imperial County .......... * .......... .. ....... . 10. . ..... ..... .0 ........ 4�7 % ov -1 . .......... -* .......... ............... .......... ...... ...... *"*"* 0 ...... ..... . .. MA MJLL &L.LLt StdLL ............. AS—L L L CE.LLL z bio W N il Cd cf) 0 45 0 CD Imperial County L, .......... &L.9LL AW. ... . .... ........ . ... ... . . ............ .............. ... . ...... .... ... .. ........... er .... ...... =-ILL —.M.LL" dD St.LLL 'St.LLL . -�(� .q • . - _ ' Z ' � p z .M.LLL ZE.LLL - roe M - MAM C c� - - - -- AW'WW SERSOMMEN UNION 1221 or now = MW. A rw - wffuAw FF, d I- WAA nl�� WMWAK REM MO EN NNE XONVAREW ��L.r� .. N 2Ee gE-r s c ry- � ayd _ Z� _CiiC Cr .u■i �..o.aa�a� CCC� Gt -�i�i��.�5.► WA -CC •.ua��Y. ONE INIZENEINE OWN NOW C'G� P��A CCC C CCC -_° RESER W El WAZIFAR manoscons Log. ......' WS MUNIONE Cir��i . C� , r y �'Tr.C_r�CrG�.z.=CWMrr§u"�'s OF A MHE ME mmmm�m in w i�C■��C M ue���n. ON SEE MH IMER ONE OF ..�..�����CC�000C� � p L c a en C14 0 0 0 - U t!1 OG ef• r O D\ ao 00 ^ •tt C r M M In tr1 '•.� ` O O O O O O O C O O O O O C C lu G C N U to N CG to — wl oc r r r O v v r M M sr v to • to to 'IC! r r o? Co oc or, o c o d o 0 0 0 0 0 cn U R O C � � Q ^ C U Gy N N M M CC v h , 0 O o o a •C . O C O C O O O O C O O � C cc .D cc C E U 'U C C ' s CD # O O v1 O O v1 O h O O h O O V O N N M t'. r•-1 O e •� ►-t �z o ►�[ y to v V. N N C.1 . U . V •1U.. V U u v 4-. a. O O O' U u O O O O °• a a a A a E� A A A A v c A A A A A c . o U u o �° o P O O O C\ M N? O NT f`l N •ct •y v . qu I U Q N �C r 0 y au L. a cc a U O G c U ' 'G 'C 'C 'C 'C .0 'C •C O C U U U U U U U U U 'fl L) u u u u ai v u W aci V v u V r v c r_ �•, .r'.�,,' - ' Vic.' - ' � r. .. ,E o •o � . c r [- rF E E r c � U�• E c �_ �_ •° � cui 'C -r U - -' ._ • O 'G 'O 'G • C • C % r iC r r y C yj U 44 C4 t.l is u � u ei u U U . . '� •� � ►. cG.' H y b b o a> ec cs c o ^''. Z C r+ C = U u' U c _ 'u 'v E E E a c d -a 2 �1 o A A E E E E E a u o<� c' ' I ' °) ° co =° 0 0 0 0 o a n a .-I .a .a y x U U U U U a u A Z 7i� N vo U � r � � 1 O ' W Q i W , O < O Z Q ' � � m LLJ i O L( J �. Ln ' Q CD m ••a O LL , J W i i i i O N Q W �' > I _ 0 W O II J Z J W co Z I Ln O Ln H LD i � H C'U I I O U CU II Q i W O 1 n I U � LL O r - \ cli � O / \ LU II i/ J \ (n W LO > Q �I \ O CL O II JCL �. .. -..... \ O \\ a I I I � I I - - L ......... d CO I - m II Q CU LL Ln -1 000 Q O 11 - m W O >a ( 2: II O —WW I O II J Q I W , z JWQ Z W J t O U U7 I I O O [ti i � o I I H 0 CD I I H I ' � H I x I I W I I I � I i I I I I I I � � I -. 4" PVC STORM DRAIN Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description _ Project File c :lhaestadlacademiclfmw\1427.fm2 Worksheet ON -SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 1.0000% Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 4.00 in Discharge 0.29 cfs 0.33 ft 4.00 in 1 V N H 1 NTS 0824/05 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:53:59 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 4" PVC STORM DRAIN Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c :lhaestadlacademi6fmw11427.fm2 Worksheet ON -SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 1.0000% Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 4.00 in Results Discharge 0.29 cfs Flow Area 0.09 ftz Wetted Perimeter 0.98 ft Top Width 0.07 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Percent Full 99.00 Critical Slope 0.009719 ftlft Velocity 3.29 ftis Velocity Head 0.17 ft Specific Energy 0.50 ft Froude Number 0.51 Maximum Discharge 0.30 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.27 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.010857 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 08/24/05 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:53:45 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, CA 92029 (760) 738 -8800 (760) 738.8232 fax March 20, 2006 Architecture Illustrated Project No, 01 -1982 833 Crest Drive Encinitas California 92024 i Attention: Mr. Kyron Brimmer LIAR 21 2006 1 Subject: Review of Revised Shoring Plans New Single Family Residence - -- - - -- - -- Quattro Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 References: 1) "Shoring Plans For 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, Sheet 6 of 6), Drawing No. 9486 -G, Case No. 01 -196" prepared by Flores Lund Consultants, dated March 20, 2006. 2) "Review Memorandum -Third Party Geotechnical Review, Truppi and Quattro Residences, 560, and 566 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Case No. 01- 196DR/CDP -Case 01 -197 DR/CDP, Drawing 9486 -GR" prepared by Geopacfica Inc., updated March 9, 2006. 3) "Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed New Single Family Residences, 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024," prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated June 30, 2004. Dear: Mr. Kyron Brimmer In accordance with your requests and those of Mr. John Quattro in our phone discussions, we have reviewed the above referenced shoring plans (References 1) and Review Memorandum (Reference 2) pertinent to the subject site. The character of our review was to determine if the project shoring plans (Reference 1), utilized applicable design soil parameters and the general geotechnical recommendations as outlined within the project soils report (Reference 3), prepared by this office. Based on our limited review, it appears that the referenced shoring plans have utilized the recommended design soil parameters for the project, as generally outlined in our report. Additionally, in response to the Geopacific's comments in the Review Memorandum (Reference 2), we provide the following response. Architects Engineers • Planners • Construction Managers Review of Revised Shoring Plans Project No. 01 -1982 Proposed Quattro Residence 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 March 20, 2006 Page 2 Review Comment: 1. Lateral movement and potential of impact to adjacent properties (north /south /east) is not acceptable. The consultant must provide certification that the proposed shoring system and basement retaining walls will not result in lateral movement and/or any potential of impact to adjacent properties. Response: I. We concur that the proposed shoring and building foundation system (basement retaining walls) should be designed and constructed to mitigate the potential for lateral movement to impact adjacent properties. In the case of this property, it appears the greatest potential for lateral movement to affect a neighboring property is along the southerly property boundary, where the building envelope and planned site excavation are the closest to a neighboring property. The potential for impact to occur can be mitigated with proper design and construction of the proposed shoring and building retaining wall systems. The shoring designer and contractor, as well as the foundation retaining wall designer should confirm that the design and installation of these site improvements shall properly mitigate the potential for lateral movement to affect the adjacent properties. Along the easterly property boundary, it appears that the proposed basement excavation will extend approximately 3 to 4 -feet below the adjacent street elevation, which is approximately 15 -feet (plus) away. Given the setback of the basement excavation from the road, the potential for lateral movement to affect the roadway area east of the proposed excavation is considered very low to non - existent. Hence, no shoring is apparently planned along the easterly side of the basement excavation. Along the northerly property boundary, the proposed building excavation will extend along the common property boundary with the property at 566 Neptune Avene. At this location, the proposed basement excavation will be approximately 8.5 -feet deep, approximately I0 -feet from the property line. We have been informed by Mr. John Quattro, that in leu of installing shoring along this commonly property line, he and the property owner of 566 Neptune have agreed to prepare and sign a hold harmless agreement relative to potential property encroachment and the impact from lateral soil movement along their common property boundary (property line between 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue). We have yet to receive a copy of this hold - harmless agreement. However, once this agreement is in place and accepted by both parties, Review of Revised Shoring Plans Project No. 01 -1982 Proposed Quattro Residence 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 March 20, 2006 Page 3 it is our opinion that prior to performing the proposed basement excavation, a shallow removal of approximately 2- to 3 -feet of the existing surface soils soil should be performed to prepare the proposed pool area, located within the 10 -foot wide side yard along the north side of building footprint. This shallow soil removal should extend from the easterly side of the shoring, but no closer than 5 -feet to the westerly setback line in un- shored areas. Once this shallow soil removal is complete, the temporary basement excavation may proceed at an maximum incline of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a maximum height of 7 -feet. It is our opinion, that, with the neighboring hold - harmless property agreement in- place, the proposed basement excavation along the northerly side of the building (as specified above), should be adequately stable to allow for the proposed foundation and retaining wall construction to proceed without the use of shoring along the northerly side of the building. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further information, please refer to Project No. 0 1- 1982 Respectfully Submitted, Anthony - Taylor Consultants G4 �oFESS/�� r M ichal ����� L ' M % Bruce Ta or Project Engineer �` �� m President u NO. 2515 G.E. No. 2515 * Exp * C.E.G. No. 1960 ED G tiT TfCH�` 1 4_ C1 O F BRUCE W. TAYLOR N —A N0. 1 960 CERTIFIED Gre o aren ENGINEERING Project Engineering Geologist N� GEOLOGIST OF CAL�F�Q Distribution: 2 Originals and 1 Copy to Addressee C:\My Documents\Reports \GMK Projects \Quattro \Shoring- Rev -Ltr- 560- 3- 20- 06.wpd ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street - Escondido, CA 92029 (760) 738 -8800 - (760) 738 -8232 fax February 8, 2006 Project No. 01 -1892 City of Encinitas D Engineering Services Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue L FEB 9 2006 Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 ' Attention: Ms. Debbie Geishart EPJGINCERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS Subject: Response to Third Party Geotechnical Review Truppi and Quattro Residence, 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue (APN 256 -084 -11, 12 and 13) Encinitas, California 92024 Case No. 01 -196 DR/CDP and Case No. 01 -197 DR/CDP References: 1) "Third Part} Gcotechnical Review, Truppi and Quattro Residences, 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas. California. Case No. 01 496 DR/CDP -Case No. 01 -197 DR/CDP, Drawing 9486 -GR." prepared by'GeoPacifica 1nc., dated October 6, 2005. 2) "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single Family Residences, 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, Project No. 01- 1982," prepared by Anthony - Taylor Consultants. Revised/Reissued -June 30, 2004. 3) "Grading Plan for 560 & 566 Neptune Avenue, APN 256- 058 -11, 12, 13; by Pasco Engineering, Sheets 1 through 4, dated February 8, 2006, unsigned. 4) Plans for Temporary Shoring -566 Neptune Avenue, (Sheet 1 of 1), Drawing No. 9486 -G, prepared by Flores Lund Consultants, (Raymond H. Flores), dated 1- 25 -05; (06), and accompanying Structural Calculations for Contino Property, Project No. 05197, dated 12/5/05, w ith included calculation sheets dated 2/6/06. 5) Plaus for Temporary Shoring -560 Neptune Avenue, (Sheet 1 of 1), Drawing No. 9486 -G, prepared b} Flores Lund Consultants, (Raymond H. Flores), dated 1- 25 -05; (06), and accompan} ing Structural Calculations for Quattro Property, Project No. 05 -196, dated 12/5/05 with included calculation sheets dated 2/6/06. Dear Ms. Geishart: We have reviewed the above referenced City Review Documents (Reference 1 above). Based on our review of the above letter prepared by your third party geotechnical consultant, we have prepared the following response pertinent to the requested information. We hope this response and the revised geotechnical information included provides the requested additional information and clarifications desired to complete your review. Architects - Engineers - Planners - Construction Managers Response to Third Party Geotechnical Review Project 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Case No. 01 -196 and 01 -197, DR/CDP February 8, 2006 Page 2 Response to Third Party_(GeoPacifica ) Review: For purposes of clarity, we have included the review comment in italics, and our response immediately below: 1. Document I (page 33) provides, for review of the grading plans. That geotechnical grading plan review report is not within the review package. Please submit a copy of the geotechnical gradir)g plan review report for our review. • We have reviewed the project grading plans prepared for the project sites by Pasco Engineering, (Reference 3, above). Our review of these plans has concluded that the proposed development is similar to that outlined and assumed in the preparation of the project soils report (Reference 2, above). Therefore, we have found the residential developments outlined on the project grading plans in general accordance and the project soils report. 2. The grading plan will require signature of both the soil /geotechnical engineer and the engineering geologist. • We understand that once the project grading plans have been finalized by Pasco Engineering, copies will be forwarded to our office for our final review and signature. 3. The project is in an area. where grading plans require that topography and existing structures be shown for adjacent property,for at least 20 feet both north and south and including the hh�ff jcrce. • It is anticipated that the project civil engineer (Pasco Engineering ) will be amending the project grading plans to include this additional information. 4. The g7 ading plan depicts hasement with elevation estimated to be 10 +I-feet below the adjacent properties. These features will require retaining walls and shoring. Please provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed retaining walls as well as shoring criteria. Lateral movement and/or impact to adjacent properties is not acceptable. • The soil criteria indicated in the project soils report (Reference 2, above) appear to have been used in the design of temporary shoring (References 4 through 5, above), building foundations, and site retaining wall systems reviewed to -date. The installation of the proposed shoring system should be observed by a representative from this office, in order to best insure that the Response to Third Party Geotechnical Review Project 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Case No. 01 -196 and 01-197, DR /CDP February 8, 2006 Page 3 proposed site construction and excavation be performed in a fashion so as to limit any potential impact to on -site and off -site improvements. We recommend that we review the final approved version of the shoring plans, grading plans, and foundation design plans and their related structural calculations. In the case of this report, we have reviewed the above reference documents, (References 3 through 5, above), and have found the proposed construction and related design in general accordance with the recommendations of the project report. Should these documents be revised or should they be re- issued with changes, we recommend that this office again review and comment regarding the proposed design and construction. 5. The grading plan provide construction and earthwork on the bluff and state proposed bluff improvements pet soils engineer under separate permit. Please provide the geotechnical srrnrmary and report that reflects the approved reports and plans, fnr• this phcrse of ' ]voi Note that the bluff has been previously confirmed by Anthony - Taylor C'onsullants to be stabilized According to Anthony Taylor documents listed under Case No: 01 -196 DR/CDP and 01 -197 DR/CDP, no additions, modifications, or changes to the bluff face or bluff stabilization devices will be necessary for the next 75 years. Based on these statements, the construction should not be permitted fur the next 75 years. • We have contacted the project civil engineer to correct this note as shown on the previous project plans. The revised grading plan no longer includes any reference to proposed bluff related construction as part of the proposed building construction. 6. The geotechnical consuhatil will need to verify that the proposed plans will not affect the bluff face fn• these or adjacent properties. • It is our opinion that the proposed grading should not affect the existing project bluff and adjacent areas, provided that the proposed excavations are properly shored during construction. Special care should be taken so as to properly install the proposed temporary shoring, both prior to and as the building basement excavations are performed. All site excavation and drilling activities should be reviewed prior to excavation, and the excavation process be observed by a representative of this office, to best insure that all reasonable pre - cautions are being undertaken to protect the on -site and off -site improvements and adjacent property areas. We recommend that the placement the storage or use of heavy construction equipment (20 -tons or larger) or the stockpiling of soils or construction materials be prohibited from Response to Third Party Geotechnical Review Project 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Case No. 01 -196 and 01 -197, DR/CDP February 8, 2006 Page 4 placement the storage or use of heavy construction equipment (20 -tons or larger) or the stockpiling of soils or construction materials be prohibited from within 30 feet of the bluff top, and /or within 10 -feet of the uphill side of site basement /construction excavations. Prior to drilling for the shoring installation, the proposed beam locations should be marked at the site, and these locations should be checked using the existing ground penetrating radar data as well as additional small diameter pilot holes (6 -inch diameter hand augers or light duty [little beaver] drill equipment), to confirm if any conflict may be present which may affect the existing underground improvements (tie- backs locations or other). Should a construction conflict arise, the shoring contractor as well as this office should be informed of these conditions, a review be made and appropriate design recommendations / revisions be performed prior to commencing the proposed excavations/ drilling. 7. Other pertinent geotechnical reports exist for the project that should likely be submitted for review. • A significant volume (boxes) of documents have been previously prepared and submitted to the City for the review and approvals of past site and bluff work performed on these properties. These documents are considered applicable to historical work, and these older documents represent references to the previous repairs performed under separate permits, at different times and in some cases under other property owners. Therefore, the significant volume of past documents under MUP /CDP/EIA 99 -078 should be considered as separate from the current scope, but applicable as historical references related to previous work performed at the project sites. Response to Third Party Geotechnical Review Project 01 -1982 560 and 566 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Case No. 01 -196 and 01 -197, DR/CDP February 8, 2006 Page 5 We hope the above information is fully responsive to the need for additional information. Upon your review, should you have questions or need further information, please feel free to contact this office directly, at (760) 738 -8800. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS �CRED GF� O J ry L. c L Bruce .Taylor enior Pro ct Engineer President G.E No. 2515 C.E.G. No. 1960 BRUCE W. TAYLOR * eROFESS /() NO. 1960 N CERTIFIED L. A4z Y,,F� ENGINEERING G _ 1 NO. 2515 GEOLOGIST �r, Gregory M�Ca n * EXp. - J/ -V ( * 9�FOF CAL�FpP Project Engineering Geologist r C F0 Q, FCNN\ Distribution: (2) Addressee '•^ City- Geot -Resp -566- 560- 2- 8- 06.wpd 3569 Fifth Ave.. Suite 100 " San D iego. CA 92103 Phone 619.294.6600 /�SW & Associates Fax _ 619 294 6 6_00 Plan Review Services, Inc. www smrconsuitinggroup con, March 3, 2006 Mr. Ruben Macabitas City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 RE: Quattro Residence Temporary Shoring Project No. 9486 -G Dear Mr. Macabitas: In response to your request, SMR & Associates Plan Review Services, Inc. has reviewed the documents submitted for the above - referenced project and is submitting our report for your information and use. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, SMR & Associates Plan Review Services, Inc. Dave Littler, S.E. Project Engineer Enclosures: Structural Plan Review Comments Red - marked copy of calculations Red - marked copy of Sheets 1 of 6 through 6 of 6 3569 Fifth Ave.. Suite 100 S an Diego. CA 92103 !Phone 619.29 �� ;�& ASSOCIateS Fax 619 .2 9 4 saoo ] Plan Review Services, Inc. ­w . smrcon5uiting9roup. con 3- Mar -06 Ruben Macabitas City of Encinitas — Subdivision Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Quattro Residence Temporary Shoring PROJ. NO. 9486 -G RE: STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS GENERAL INFO Submit final review set to our office with the original redline set for approval. MARK SHT NO. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT R ESPONSE S -1 5 of 6 Page 30 in the Anthony - Taylor geotech- nical report recommends concrete having a 4500 psi 28 -day compressive strength. It also recommends that Type V cement be used in this concrete. Please revise your note to conform to their recommendations. Add a note regarding the type of cement required. S -2 5 of 6 Regarding Metal Protection page 30 of the Anthony - Taylor geotechnical report makes four (4) recommendations regarding protection of the steel soldier beams against corrosion. Please address these recommendations. S -3 5 of 6 Provide a letter from the geotechnical engineer stating that he has reviewed Sheet 5 of 6 and the corresponding structural calculations and that they are both in accordance with his recommendations. P MARK SHT NO. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE S -4 5 of 6 The sentence or sentences circled do not make sense as written. Please review this. S -5 5 of 6 Make it clear which wall or walls you are referring to. Are you referring to the walls of temporary shoring shown in Elevation A and Elevation B? S -6 5 of 6 It appears that the first part of Note 2 is missing. Please correct this. S -7 5 of 6 Provide a copy of this ASTM A36 specification which specifies a minimum steel yield stress of 50 ksi. S -8 6 of 6 Make it clear that sheet 5 of 6 applies to 566 Neptune Ave. and that sheet 6 of 6 applies to 560 Neptune Ave. Make it clear that there are not two Sheets 5 of 6. S -9 5 of 6 Add these titles to the shoring plans to and make it clear where they - the plans - 6 of 6 apply. S -10 5 of 6 Section 1 shows the retained earth and to the left side with the soldier beams 6 of 6 also on the left or "dirt" side of the wood lagging. In your shoring plans on Sheet 5 of 6 and 6 of 6, however, you show the soldier beams on the excavation side of the lagging - the side opposite the retained earth. This discrepancy ( ?) also occurs on Sheet 3 of 6. If the soldier beams are installed as shown on your plans won't they interfere with the foundation walls for the residence? S -11 6 of 6 If the shoring is temporary, will some or all of the wood lagging be removed at some point? How will this removal be accomplished - especially if the the lagging is loaded by the soil? If the shoring is NOT temporary, will some of the steel soldier beams be exposed to view? S -12 6 of 6 How will the lagging in this area be installed, by hand excavation? MARK SHT NO. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE S -13 6 of 6 These 6 x 6 angles must run the entire height of the excavation. How, exactly, are they to be installed - in 5 ft. -long pieces? Make this procedure clear. Provide calculations for the 5/8" dia. lag bolts subject to horizontal earth pressures. 5/8" dia. lag bolts require 7/16" dia. lead holes. Make this clear. The geotechnical report recommends that exposed steel be protected from corrosion. Address this issue. S -14 5 of 6 On your shoring plans please make and clear the location of the "retained 6 of 6 earth." Make the location of the excavation clear. S -15 6 of 6 Make it clear who has to sign this note. Provide Dig Alert's phone number. S -16 6 of 6 Can the contractor choose not to install the lagging? S -17 6 of 6 Why have you ignored Details 4, 5, and 6? S -18 5 of 6 Why have you ignored Details 5 and 6? S -19 5 of 6 You don't have concrete reinforcing steel. Are the notes referring to such reinforcing steel necessary? S -20 5 of 6 How will the contractor know which steel soldier beams must be coated with epoxy? S -21 5 of 6 Please be specific. Thereafter is a long time. S -22 5 of 6 Even your caisson concrete has a 28 -day strength less than 3000 psi. S -23 5 of 6 You don't have welded studs. Is this note necessary? S -24 5 of 6 Please provide the units for these horizontal pressures, i.e. psf. S -25 5 of 6 Which "dimensions in parentheses" are you referring to? S -26 calc's The parameters Pa, Pp, and Found do not occur on your Shoring Beam Worksheet. Please make the work- sheet parameters correspond to those in your hand calculations. MARK SHT NO. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE S -27 calc's Please justify this addition to the M.A. (moment arm) that you use. Also justify the 1.25 "short term reduction" that you use in calculating Mu. S -28 calc's On your worksheet you have Pmax = 4000 psf. What is Pmax? What is Psurch? What is Mu(seis.)? Please show these parameters on your hand calculation and sketch. S -29 calc's On your sketch you locate RT with the M.A. dimension. Where is RB located? What is the dimension to the force RB? S -30 calc's The force Pfound is located at the dimension Hfound. How do you determine Hfound? S -31 calc's Where are the forces Pactive and Psurch on your hand sketch? How do you determine Pactive and Psurch? Is Pactive the same as PA? S -32 calc's You multiply your passive pressure force (RT) at the bottom of the beam by a 2 x 1.25 = 2.5 factor. Please justify this increase. S -33 calc's To determine RB it appears that you are summing moments about some point. Which point is it? Make this clear with a note. S -34 calc's How is the dimension M.A. determined? S -35 calc's Psurch + Pactive + Rt = 32.6 kips The summation of these three should equal RB = 30.62 kips. There is a 6% difference. Why is this? S -36 calc's About the bottom of the soldier beam Psurch, Pactive, and RT exert a counterclockwise moment on the beam = 144.5 ft-kips. RB exerts a resisting clockwise moment on the beam = 167 ft-kips. These moments should be equal. Explain why they are not. MARK SHT NO. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE S -37 calc's From your worksheet Mu = (1.4 x Msoil) / 1.25 = 47.3 ft-kips. Mu(temp) = 56.2 ft-kips. What is the difference between Mu and Mu(temp)? Why aren't they the same? Structural Calculations For QUATTRO RESIDENCE TEMPORARY SHORING Encinitas, CA J I�. ! FEB 9 2006 i r iCES nS Prepared for. Western Foundations \` \ \ \ \ I11 11111ll lltfff„ ' RAYMO D L w Project No.: 05196 * o. Date Issued: 12 /5 /05 REN. 6-" J' STRUCTURAL Revision Date: a9�� p P CAL � ff 11 1111 111 111 „1 \1\ RE-CENFED Prepared B 2006 Si; r - .- _ , sulting Structural Engineers, Inc. F� L.I= F L O R E S L U N D r.nr\i C=Z i ii TANTC- 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 FAX (858) 566 -0627 Civil and Structural Engineering www.floreslund.com JOB FLCFLORES LUND CONSULTANTS SHEET NO. OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 CALCULATED BY DATE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2325 CHECKED BY DATE (858) 566-0626 FAX [858) 566-0627 SCALE . .. ......... ........ ..... . . . ....... .. .. ....... . . . . ........... ............ . . .... . ..... .............. ...... ..... . ....... ............. . ..... ...... ..... A .. ............ ...... ......... ...... . .. ........ .. ..... 5. 17);Xce-Jr .... ........ ..... .... .. ......... . ........ .. ......... . . . ................. ... . . . . ... .............. . ...... ..... ............ ..... . ............ ........... ....... .......... .. ............. . ............. ............. ............. ......... . 71 S . If ............. ............ ....... .. .. .......... .......................... ............ . ........... ...... ....... ........... .. ........... ............... ............ ........... . :Fov 6 --to . .. ...... . . ............ ......... . ..... . ... .. ..... ....... ... ......... ... .............. ..... ... ... . . ...... .............. ..... .. ..... .......... ULM ...................... ............... ...... ........ A ............ ............... ......... . ... ...................... 4- .......... . ......... ............... .. uT . . ........ ... . .. .. ......... .. ............ ..... .......... ........ .............. i ............ ... ........ ( q. A .......... ............ .... . ......... . ....... - .......... . AA ...... ..... ........... ....... .... AM ......... ..... .......... . .......... - 4 - ............ .......... .. ........... . . .......... . ............ ............. ............. ............. ....... .... .... . . ........... .. T A .... .. . ..... .... ... .. .... .......... . . .... ............. T -1 ............. .......................... . ........... .... ...... . N A f- ...... ....... .......................... .. ......... . .... . ............... ........... ..... ....... .... .. ...... ..... . . ...... .. .... . ......... .. ................ ..... ......... .. ... ....... . ......... .. . . .... . ...... T . ... ...... ............ J r� ...... . ............ ........... ........... . .................. ................ ... .......... .... ....... .. ... ....... L .......... . ............ ...... .......... ........... ............ ............. . ............. .......... ............. ....... ..... . ... ......... ...... I T.. OA50-- '5 ........... .......... .. ........... ...................... . ...... ..... .......... ................. . ............ ............. .............. . ......... 44 4M.AURwAv 4 � . . .. . ...... . .. ........... (0 . ........ XA ........................ ......... . . ............... ....... . ....... .......... ...... ................ . ....... ....... ...... ...... . ...... .............. ............. . ............... . ... .... ....... ............. ......... .. .......... . ... . . ..... ............. . ....... + i CA 15504! PIA ... Idle M64 ..T ......... .... .... .............. ............. �..... ........... . . ..... .......... .......... .... ...... ...... ... ...... - .......... ... ................. . ........... .............. ......... ............. ......... ............ ...... . ... .......... .......... . . ............ ........ .................... . . ........ - 5 ...... ........ ............................ ............. . ............. .............. .............. .............. ............. : ............... r%A ......... ............ ............. .... ............... ... .................... . . .... ...... ........ ... ............. ............. ............. ... . ............ ...... - .................... .............. ....... ..... ............ .......... ............. . . ........... ... .... ............. ....... ..... ..... .. .. . 'o ............. ............. ..... . ............. ... ....... ............... . .. ..... . ........ . .............. ........... .... ......... ............ .............. . ........ . .. .... .. ......... . .............. . .. ...... ........... .......... + 0. K-Emg -V 0. Ills ewtO) Lv ......... ... .. .......... .......... . ........ ...... ... ......... .... ...... .... .............. . .. ............ .......... . ............... ...... .. .... .......... ....... .... ....... ........... .. . . ....... . .... ... ......... .............. . . .................. ...... ........ ......... .. .. ........ ........... ... .......... . . .. ....... ........... .. .... ... ........ ... .......... . I ........ ... ........................ - ................ .......... .......... . ......... . ......... . . .. . . .. . ..... . .. .................. . ..... - . .. ... ...... ...... .. .. ..... .. . ........ ..... .. ........ PRODUCT 2041 P411 SbWsl 205 1 (PAW) 2/6/2006 Cantilever 05196 Shoring Beam Worksheet Active 38 pcf Cut Ht. ZftCaisson Dia. 24 in. Seismic 0 pcf Spacing Increase 1.25 Passive 300 pcf Arching 2 Pmax 4000 psf qactive 266 psf Pactive 3.7 kips Hactive 2.3 ft qsurch 16 psf Psurch 0.4 kips Hsurch 0 ft qseis 0 psf Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 0.0 ft Pfound 1.67 kips Wound 0 ft Embedment 7.0 ft M.A. 6.00 ft Toe 2 ft Reactions Allowables Rb 12.50 kips Rb 15.00 kips Rt 6.7 kips Rt 14.4 kips Beam Moments M.A. 1.05 ft Msoil 12.6 k' Msurch. 0.5 Wound. 1.8 Mseis 0.0 k' Mu(perm.) 23.0 k' Mu(temp.) 16.6 k' Use W12x26 Mu(seis.) 21.8 k' phiMn= 139 k' 1,13 2/6/2006 Cantilever 05196 Shoring Beam Worksheet Active 35 pcf Cut Ht. 8.5 ft Caisson Dia. ' 4 in. Seismic 0 pcf Spacing 8 ft Inc e 5 Passiv 350 cf Arching2 Pmax 4000 psf qactive 297.k j2sf Pactive 10.1 kips Hactive 2.8 ft gsurch 16 psf Psurch 1.1 kips Hsurch 0 ft gseis 0 psf Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 0.0 ft Pfound .67 kips Wound 2.5 ft Embedment 9.0 ft M.A. 8.05 ft Toe 1.9 ft . 34' Reactions Allowables Rb 30.32 kips Rb 30.62 kips �8 Rt 17.5 kips Rt 21.4 kips (/ Beam Moments M.A. 1.35 ft Msoil 42.3 k' Msurch. 1.5 Wound. 6.4 Mseis 0.0 k' Mu (perm.) 77.8 k' Mu(temp.) 56.2 k' Use W 12x26 u(seis.) 73.31D phiMn= 139 k' or W 10x26 phiMn= 117 k' kips Y. k � A 1 PT •�r�� 2 -12 � Sm �7 FLORE! IND CONSULTANT= ice — PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 SHEci NO.�_ - • OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2325 CALCULATED 8Y (858) 566-0626 FAX (85BJ 5ao-0627 �� - CHECKED ev OAT. SCALE •' I ! I i I i t -- -- � - -- - - -- - � fi r: - ..� . � -. — AD�O,4 of x12 -- — _ — _ - -- ����F � Sot�-� -�-t� r� try �?�:.'rvd - • I i I �a f tr�i o .x,11 ,SOIL �#�5�= - I�1 T -�r�f - - sue- ; �o� -A -�j -VIA --- -__ __ . t ' UM ___— --- �' _... - - - - -_ _- — ......._.._...._.. _ _ -- __ -_ ... -- . ......._..........---- rm S 12 = lib- M . - - -- - - -- . 22 I X 7 "X �QEt- .. 1 ... — _� -- — —_ —_ _ _ ___ _- __ ..._..__ _ ...._............_._._......�. 1 9I 8 E —max . -- - : r - = = •-- l --S -�S - -��-=- -1836 �`-/�r . __:..._...._ - b __ __ _.._... _. Y— �, - _12.5 �r / - - -- -S 18�3bb - Fob —po�7i zi -- �lT� t + 40r_ f }�; - 1�0- �_ ��� �- % — .. ' y�Cti " " ;� x � 3 g5o 1.2 s x I.�S x 1•Z. 1` 1.b = I� lD�O � {�41 �s� ok- ' '� c^"`m� � / ln' ,o' ./m�m Reourd�gRequeab��By ) ' ~ � ' `- _ ) ' City Engineer ) "Al /n 1Ex p~ ) .`�..a�..,'k |�E: '.x.�.i,� o^F'(z (� VVhenRecorded MaUto: ) �/w, 2z /m City Clerk ) City ofEncinitas ) 5O5 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. pnojeotNm.: 1}1-1196 1CJ9 VV.O.No.: 9486-G THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private mbonn water treatment facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by JOHN A. QUATTRO, AMARR|ED MAN AS HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY. (hereinafter referred to as ^Oeve|oper") for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as ^ownmro^). which ohoU include the Developer tothe extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required an a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas of Grading Permit 9486-G; and VVHERE/S. Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit "A" that will use and enjoy the benefit ofsaid storm water treatment haoi|iUma(m) (Said naa| property is hereinafter referred to as the "property"); and VVHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and VVHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer hoestablish o method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense ofsuch maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and VVHEREAS, there exists o benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and VVHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the |and, binding upon each successive owner ofall or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AG FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit ofthe land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private obornn water treatment facilities shall be paid by the owner of the haino, assigns and ouocmamoro in interest ofeach such owner. 3. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, if any, and other work reasonably necessary and proper to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes. 5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. 8. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property referred to herein. 12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and /or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, 2 including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 16. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Association" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the "agent" as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement This sA day of i 1 ' f= r , 2006. Developer: ` 1 John A. Quattro Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. 3 ALL PURPQSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF 3 On rte. � vp before me, (N �r1d Title Ot 4 - personally appeared y ------ Pe rsonally known to me (or 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 helsheMey executed the same in his I her I their authorized capacity6es), and that by his I her 1 their signature(&) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person($) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (This area for omcW notedal seal) ! I �I �� -- - -�/ MICHAEL M CARING Notary Public Signature State of New Jersey My Commission Expires Oct 18, 2009 Rse Fare NRt t (01108!09) ATTACHMENT " A " TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. LDP 01 -196 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ALL OF LOT 5 (EXCEPTING THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET THEREOF) IN BLOCK "E" OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1935, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 17, 1926. ALSO THAT PORTION OF BLOCK "F" IN SAID SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED DATED JANUARY 10, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 256 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION HERTETOFORE OR NOW LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. Cov6133.doc jlr 03/09/06(01- 11 -93) to v -41 r-- o ujN H.< W � a U q cua i d° bIn L =61.21 ' cu a Q R= 231.54 ' S22 - 30 '42"E s ^ 4 D =S16 '40 '53 "E 29.26 amp,° °aaO aaa�daN Z 1 LU 1 "• 1 1 1� 1 cu 1^ N Iv � W � _ O _ to 1� W v N1U Z 0 INS ` 1 m w j' W al Z oIWQ co 1 con Z WQm w 1 C� p QIItax 1 ~ OH a:w u cu 3 [r Z �1 U co "'"J ZHQQW � H F- w - 1-W Z ZQ i 1 XQWZCD I i w3a�- -Q 1 ti¢ wa LU am dMW 8L ' d 06-- ds dT8 M" 9S, 06 . 6= M.00 ZT =O . 50 • 4 . 9 98. BIE_y . TB'6pT =d E S =7 Co LU �L Recording Requested By: ) City Engineer When Recorded Mail to: ) `� City Clerk ) City of Encinitas } 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SI PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 256- 084 -11, 12 ProjectNo.: 01 -197 CDP W.O.No.: 9486 -G THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private storm water treatment facilities, the legal description and /or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by WILLIAM A. TRUPPI, AN UNMARRIED MAN, (hereinafter referred to as "Developer ") for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as " owners "), which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas of Grading Permit 9486 -G; and WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit "A" that will use and enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s) (Said real property is hereinafter referred to as the "property"); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water treatment facilities shall be paid by the owner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owner. 3. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, if any, and other work reasonably necessary and proper to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes. 5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. 8. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property referred to herein. 12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and /or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, 2 including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 16. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Association" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the "agent" as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement This ( n day of fil—A ; t , 2006. Developer: William A. Truppi Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. 3 ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF �'`� �` } SS. I COUNTY OF On t'�Y � o before me, N.me.nd .c p.ersonaly appeared i u "" reomliy known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be ft person(s) whose name(l) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshehrley executed the some in his / her I their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his t her I their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official goat. (This area for off clef aotadaf anal) 1 Signature MICHAEL M CARRIG Notary pubfic --- _ -- State of New Jersey My Commission Expkes Oct 18, 2009 m ATTACHMENT " A " TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. CDP 01 -197 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ALL OF LOT 4 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK "E" OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1935, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY , AUGUST 17, 1926. ALSO THAT PORTION OF BLOCK "F" IN SAID SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED DATED JANUARY 10, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 256 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 4 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION HERTETOFORE OR NOW LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. Cov6133.doc jlr 03/09/06(01- 11 -93) s n v an CU H QI w in CL U II N o m ICU u ~ I N C3 CM 3 p L =61. 21 D= S26 '53 E S .22 29 26 - ~E Za a °D...It7 '..,, °aoA afro d L1 t� �s in C6 ui _ `J I 01 l� 111 Irn ; J UQ Q N Z w da m Z NI -� z U_ W Y I co p I-U I cm -W Z _ N� Z WQao� -, W I a ¢ I WX i� oW 1 =I"pp 01 UN j.1 1 cn z NI z .., OI -3cc z "1 Z� -+QQW p U H � z i HJfZO� �0 1 w3azQ cn wa 8L 0.9 ' ' �' dim .� bs dt8 OM.. 95. Ob 6-_ - O M.. 00.9T. ZT =0 ~ •9e EG .EO ZE= a / - JC # 007- 0735079 11111111 ill 11111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 ill Gc NOV 26, 2007 12: PM RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, ) WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) OFFICIAL RECORDS - :AN D1EG0 CO U NT`r' RECORDER OFFICE 17REGJRYJ Sh41TH,C,iIJhJT`r'RECORDEFI FEES= 40.011 CITY CLERK ) PAGES: 7 CITY OF E N C I N ITAS 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ) I �IfI�IIII�IIIII�IIIIII ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. '769 - l°� A.P.N. L5 6 -d - q - 1 d Z An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A ", as the owner of the Benefited 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, encumbrancers, 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 purpose 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 the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 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 hold harmless, defend and indemnify 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. bp6603 /08 /22 /06 /gsabine 7. Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, Permittee shall, at no cost E 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, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited 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 incurred. Notice may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of the Permittee, which shall be deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by any other reasonable method likely to give actual notice. 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 shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited 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 manner in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the 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. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement 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. 14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this 2S day of Ot) .,) 20 0=(— AGREED AND ACCEPTED PERMITTEE Dated: Dated: •y��A�- 7�?LPP� (Notarization of PE signature is attached) City NTf Encinitas 01 bp6603 /08 /22 /06 /gsabine ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO 7" - AE PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee WILLIAM A. TRUPPI, AN UNMARRIED MAN PARAGRAPH TWO: Benefited Property LOT 4 AND THE S.ELY 4.00' OF LOT 5, BLOCK E, TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF BLOCK F, ALL OF MAP 1935 PARAGRAPH THREE: City Property PORTION OF NEPTUNE AVENUE ABUTTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE. PARAGRAPH FOUR: Q RpFESS /p Purpose Qc�O �GNA �l WALLS AND WALKWAYS CD m No. X161.1 " Exp)2 U l 9TF OF C A0i ATTAC "B" DETAIL OF ENCROACRAIENT INIVEP7 VNE AVE. CONCRETE WALKWAY �'_— - CENTERLINE NEPTUNE AVENUE 1 °~ LIMIT OF R.O.W. 1� MASONRY RETAINING WALL (6" MAX HEIGHT WITHIN R.O.W.) EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 3' HIGH FREESTANDING SITE WALL .lPl 2f6 OB4 - li & iZ 20 s ' CONCRETE WALKWAY oQ ?pE ESS /0A'�l �CHA' C7 G No. 716 rn Expl liLl c civl\ � PE 1427 F OF CAQ1 PASCO ENGINEERING (858) 259 -8212 535 N. HWY 101. STE . A SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075 State of 4 ss. lr l County of /I O n C l ) before me �>� J� �Jf �s�� �✓G` %7 ✓a J'�✓ `i On Name and I Itle�of ' Officer (e. g., Jane Dde, Notary Pubhcy [�J Date personally appeared rr 1. h p Y PP Na e( of Signers) ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence I 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. DONALD R, ANDERSON WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC y t STATE OF NEW JERSEY MY COMMISSION HPIPH NOVEMBU 01,2010 , �� " _ Place Notary Seal Above / signature of Notary Public / E!S OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document f , and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. l ; Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Top of thumb here ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ) ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator O Other: Signer Is Representing: ® 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 •Chatsworth; CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800 - 876 -6827 .P ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT h State o#aFi€a�n+er ss. County of /vc ��j ' G ^� >` i before me, � ;��� -' Date 1 - � �n Name and Title of Officer (e.g., `Jane Do , olary Public') � I! ) ( personally appeared L r r d a , d2e i7r 1 ' Name(s) of Signer(s) (' ❑ personally known to me ( ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory `) evidence I� 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., ;11 DONALD R, ANDERSON WITNESS my hand and official seal. N NOTARY PUBLIC ( STATE OF NEW JERSEY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NO mrM l 01,2010 �L� Place Notary Seal Above Sq e^oi Notary Public t'S OPTIONAL f Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document f, and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document f Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer —Title (s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ) Signer Is Representing: t C 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chalsworth; CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827 State of California ) CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE County of ) CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT R On _Z/ before lJ67h�llf`7 /aUeL. /G 3 (here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose R name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha he he /they executed the same i his/ er /their authorized capacity(ies), and that b his er /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. RANDA G. MILUOUR Commsion t�17096W Notary ?ubk - CaWoMe San Diego County MY Commission Exp. Jan. 6, 2011 Signature vte& f (Seal) OPTIONAL INFORMATION Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document. Description of Attached Document Additional Information The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document Method of Signer Identification F titled /for the purpose of ❑ Personally known to me ❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence: L0 form(s) of identification 0 credible witness(es) Identification is detailed in notary journal on: containing pages, and dated Page # Entry # The signer(s) capacity or authority is /are as: Notary contact: ❑ Individual(s) Other ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Additional Signers) ❑ Signer(s)Thumbprint(s) ❑ Corporate Officer(s) Title(s) ❑ ❑ Guardian /Conservator ❑ Partner - Limited /General ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other: representing: Name(s) of Persons) or Entity(ies) Signer is Representing Copyright 2005 Notary Rotary, Inc. 925 29th St., Des Moines, IA 50312-3612 Form ACK02. 10/05. To re- order, call toll -free 1 -877- 349 -6588 or visit us an the Internet at httpn / /www.notaryrotary.com C )C# 2007 - 0735078 �`� i !II!illl ill VIII 11111 VIII VIII illll VIII lilll VIII Ilill VIII IIII III RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, ) NOV 26, 2007 12:37 PM WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) _ { ) OFFICIAL RECORDS �H DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GREGOR`i' J. SMITH.. COUNTY RECORDER CITY CLERK FEE`': 45.00 CITY OF ENCINITAS ) PAGES. , 8 505 SOUTH VULCAN ENCIINIITAS, CA 92024 VENUE Illlillllllllllllllillllllllllilllllllllll1111111111111111 111011111111111111 SPACE ABOVE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 7599 PE A.P.N. �� C U 7 — I 3 An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A ", as the owner of the Benefited 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, encumbrancers, 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 purpose 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 the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 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 hold harmless, defend and indemnify 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. bp6603/08/22/06/gsa bine r 7. Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, 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 or 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 Benefited 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 incurred. Notice may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of the Permittee, which shall be deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by any other reasonable method likely to give actual notice. 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 shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited 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 manner in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the 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. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement 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. 14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this 5 day of Nay 200+ AGREED AND ACCEPTED PER ITTEE L _75�'lw� Dated: 5 �� �/' & Dated: (Notarization of PERMITTEE s at-ureis attached) Gam- M n City of Encinitas bp6603/08 /22/06 /gsab ine ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 75.9 PF PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee PHILLIP L. DENNISTON, JR. AND PATRICIA W. DENNISTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS PARAGRAPH TWO: Benefited Property LOT 5 EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE S.ELY 4.00' THEREOF IN BLOCK E, TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF BLOCK F, ALL OF MAP 1935 PARAGRAPH THREE: City Property PORTION OF NEPTUNE AVENUE ABUTTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE. PARAGRAPH FOUR: � /�� Purpose WALLS AND WALKWAYS ? u No.7 ° Exp'L clw- TF OF CRl.iFO�'� s AFITACTIM ENT "B" DETAIL OF ENCROAC RV NEPTUNE AVE. ..yW CONCRETE WALKWAY :2s6-0e� —i3 p 0� CENTERLINE NEPTUNE AVENUE LIMIT OF R.O.W. MASONRY RETAINING WALL (6" MAX HEIGHT WITHIN R.O.W.) EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 3 HIGH FREESTANDING SITE WALL AVIL a � a 2 0 ' — — — — CONCRETE WALKWAY oQ �pFESS /ON \ c.� m Flo. 7 i k75 "I =0 Exp. Z' � 'o1 1 CIVI\- 4 ,Q PE 1427 OF C AL�F� PASCO ENGINEERING (858) 259 -8212 535 N. HWY 101, STE. A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT i State of California ss. X County of N V 00 V�r'antc� 6 . �rrW os 0 On S t a before me, i' e. Name and Title of Officer ( Date r g . •Jane oe, Notary Public') ) r personally appeared Pti t �, i A L keYy-� D� h n i s 6 r J fz-- Name(s) of Signer(s) ❑ personally known to me (` ;9 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ;) I evidence I' to be the person(,$) whose name(A &are VERONICA B. CAW6gi subscribed to the within instrument and ) COMM. #1677630 acknowledged to me that( /she /they executed NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA g the same in tpher /their authorized SAN DIEGO COUNTY ca acit i s , and that b /her /their ) ' Commission es Ju 22, 2010 p y (�) y signature( on the instrument the person(), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(-A acted, executed the instrument. >; ^1 I N , WITNESS my hand and official seal (, Z&4 � Signalure of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above, ` P - - 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. I Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ) ❑ Guardian or Conservator l ❑ Other: ) Signer Is Representing: l © 1997 National Notary Association - 9350 De Solo Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth: CA 91 31 3 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1 -800- 876-6827 — CALIFORNIA ALL - P URPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT z State of California ss. V County of D L e-V� D I 'n No v 5 a OD � before me, VeYrox c C-4— (2) ��� ( O Dat Name and Title of Officer (e.g., J ne Doe, Notary Public) I •, h�1 11, personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s) I N ❑ personally known to me ( X proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ;) I evidence to be the person( whose name( is re subscribed to the within instrumertit and f' acknowledged to me that heo/they executed ) VERONICA B. CAMPOS the same in his/ e /t eir authorized t COMM. #1677630 NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA I capacity(iXs), and t at by his SAN DIEGO COUNTY signature(o on the instrument the persono), or Commission Ex 'res Juy 22, 2010 1 the entity upon behalf of which the person `1 acted, executed the instrument. i i WI ESS my hand and official seal. I Place Notary Seal Above signalure of Notary Publ f 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. I Description of Attached Document ) Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s): ❑ Partner — O Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ) ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: © 1997 National Notary Association - 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chalsworlh; CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827 o State of California ) CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE County of ) CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT F On q 2 667 before me,S 0d?00f7 6./ , / /LL.J71(J2 A),6 L&, (here insert name and title of the officer) 3 personally appeared `D7 - N - personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name( is/ re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me th he/ he /they executed the same i his r /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his er /their signature(s) on the instrument the R person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 1lANDA G. ' Z flwf tft Coffin N170K64 � _ ft E Nibk - 00 erofa EV. �nJ i. 2011 Signatures (Seal) OPTIONAL INFORMATION Although the information in this section is not required bylaw, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document. Description of Attached Document The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document Method of Signer Identification titled /for the purpose of ❑Personally known to me ❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence: L0 form(s) of identification 0 credible witness(es) Identification is detailed in notary journal on: containing pages, and dated Page It Entry n The signer(s) capacity or authority is /are as: Notary contact: ❑ Individual(s) O ther ❑ Attorney-in-Fact E] Additional Signer(s) ❑ Signer(s)Thumbprint(s) ❑ Corporate Officer(s) Title(s) ❑ ❑ Guardian /Conservator ❑ Partner -Limited/General ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other: representing: Name(s) of Person(s) or Entity(ies) Signer is Representing m Copyright 2005 Notary Rotary, Inc. 925 29th St, Des Moines, IA 50312 -3612 Form ACK02. 10/05. To re- order, call toll -free 1- 877- 349 -6588 or visit us on the Internet at http : / /www_notaryrotary. com F State of California ) CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE County of CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT On V. � . �1 � before me �,4a ,p (here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared 1 %i Z", 'l'7U/ p ers ` onally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name( Is/ re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me th he/ e /they executed the same i his r /their authorized capacity(ies), and that b hi er /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. x WITNESS my hand and official seal. '''� 8 RANDA G. MILUOl1R � emission 61705664 Notary Public � C1Mfana Son III County L soon Exp. Jsn. Signature�� (Seal) OPTIONAL INFORMATION Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document. Description of Attached Document Additional linforitnation The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document Method of Signer Identification Personally known to me titled /for the purpose of ❑ ❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence: L0 form(s) of identification 0 credible witness(es) Identification is detailed in notaryjournal on: containing pages, and dated Page # Entry # The signer(s) capacity or authority is /are as: (votary contact: ❑ Individual(s) Other ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Additional Signer(s) ❑ Signer(s)Thumbprint(s) ❑ Corporate Officer(s) Title(s) ❑ ❑ Guardian /Conservator ❑ Partner- Limited /General ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other: representing: Name(s) of Person(s) or Entity(les) Signer is Representing V Copyright 2005 Notary Rotary, Inc. 925 29th St., Des Moines, IA 50312 -3612 Form ACK02. 10/05. To re- order, call toll -free 1- 877 - 349 -6588 or visit us on the Internet at http. / /www.notaryrotary.com Recording Requested Bv: ) up/u/m«/o, oocuwsmT w�s��co�o Qb/0fEnCiD�t@S ) Eoom wAY2a ax� ^ , uo�owENTNuwBER 2o06~o364164 swnncuuw|Y 'ecoHoER When Recorded Mail To: Couwr/RsCOi��',o"aOFFICE City Clerk ) T/ws 3 3 PM City nfEncinitas \ 505 South Vulcan Avenue \ Encinitas, CA ) COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING/DRAINAGE Assessor's Parcel K/ P No.: 01 CDP S486-G A. John A. Quattro, a married man as his sole and separate property, ("(]VV0ER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 566 Neptune Avenue (''PR|C)PERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment Awhich is attached hereto and made o part hereof. B. In consideration o by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit cfCITY, todo the following: See At Bvvhioh is attached hereto and made o part hereof. C. This Covenant ah@8 run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, Gncurnbnmncero. Sucueoaora, heina, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the naapecUwm parties. D. [)VVh/EF| agrees that OWNER'e duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to nempond. CITY may add to the property Cox bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing 10 CITY by way of this Covenant. WaiVPr 04-27n 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: OWNER Dated John A. Quattro (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated by ) a (1� (Notarization not r quired) Peter Cota - Robles Director of Engineering Services waitrar n4 - ?-7R ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF �'i:�� ✓�� }} SS. COUNTY OF On �1 G before me, and Tit of offlceq personal ppeared v ue nwnally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons) whose narne(s) (stare subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that het$hahhey executed the some in his ! her / their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his 1 her t their slgnature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (This area for official notedal seal) Signature DONALD R. ANDERSON NOTARY PUBIIc STATE Of NEW JERSEY GOYYISSION EN KS NOVE118Et OT, 2010 PmpanNR11 (04+08" ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING /DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. 01 -196 CDP APN 256- 084 -13 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ALL OF LOT 5 (EXCEPTING THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET THEREOF) IN BLOCK "E" OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1935, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 17, 1926. ALSO THAT PORTION OF BLOCK "F" IN SAID SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED DATED JANUARY 10, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 256 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION HERTETOFORE OR NOW LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. wa;.rAr na - ?- 7a 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 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. Waiver 04 -278 ....................................................................... .............................. CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California 1 ss County of San Diego J On before me, Randa G. Milliour, Notary Public personally appeared Peter Cota - Robles, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Randa G. Milljo r •••» `......r`. Dl� c.ltt. a,R n'0138920S Pubk - Co1104 � on DIM" cow�ty MY Jw G. 2007 Place Notary Seal Above OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the docu- ment 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: e Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s) ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑Other: Signer is Representing: i ........................................................................ ..............................� ` Recording Requested ) /'��`�/~/uwmo/ � ' ' C NA, 01N wA`zauvm City \ ' ' o�..ws�rm�/wHen z/m�oa�was When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk \ nws 3 3 pw ' City ofEnc \ 5O5 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA . ) COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FORGRADUNG0DRAUNAGE Assessor's Parcel N Project No.: 94G6-G A. William A. 7nnpni, an 000zom man, ("OWNER" hereinafter) io the owner nf real property wh im commonly known oo 560 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which ia attached hereto and made @ part hereof. B.|n consideration o by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and aQnaea for the benefit of CITY, todo the follow See Attachment B which ia attached hereto and made o part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure tothe benefit of the future ovvnerS, encunlbnsnc8na, auoceas0nm, heirS, p9ranno| nypreogntaUv8a, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees th@tOVVNER'a duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the F Upon notice and opportunity torespond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. =- o^-^-7o 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 Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER Dated William A. Truppi (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated by s z 69 go - (Notariz tion not required) Peter Cota - Robles Director of Engineering Services ara; ror na -��R ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF On ;I �2vp before me, (NA1118 nd Tdie o persona appeared pe rsonally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the pmon(s) whose narne(s) Ware subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he /shelthey executed the same In his ! her 1 their authorized capactty(ies), and that by his / her / their signatures) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Mia area for official notarial seal) Signature i s =yon DONALD R. ANDERSON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW JERSEY ill COYYISSION EMPIRES NOYERBES 01,1010 nG rte. aR,i job ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING /DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. 01 -197 CDP APN 256- 084 -11, 12 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ALL OF LOT 4 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK "E" OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1935, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY , AUGUST 17, 1926. ALSO THAT PORTION OF BLOCK "F" IN SAID SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED DATED JANUARY 10, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 256 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 4 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION HERTETOFORE OR NOW LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. WAivar 04 -97R ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING /DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. 01 -197 CDP OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any grading or drainage runoff 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. 9 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected bV 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. 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, Waiver 04 -278 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 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. Waiver 04 -278 ....................................................................... ..............................� CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss County of San Diego On inaozz 206 (o , before me, Randa G. Milliour, Notary Public personally appeared Peter Cota - Robles, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Randa G. Milljo r 04k CW4_ so 6114" COW" �, EX01. JUL 4, Z09T Place Notary Seal Above ^ PTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the docu- ment 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: a Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: RIGHT THUMBPRINT ❑ Individual OF SIGNER ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s) ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑Other: Signer is Representing: i ........................................................................ ...............................