The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7348 G city oNGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT � Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering June 23, 2004 Traffic Engineering Attn: Union Bank of California East Encinitas Branch 247 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Berg, Craig 1264 Neptune Avenue APN 254-230-18 Grading permit 7348-G Final release of security Permit 7348-G authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare this project. The Field Inspector has approved the final grading. Therefore, a release of the remaining security deposit is warranted. Certificate of Deposit Account 2889020778, in the remaining amount of$6,700.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. The original amount was $26,800.00. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Q r Masih Maher .1 Le ach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Berg,Craig Debra Geishart File AcZ TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3 63 3 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper City 0 0NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering May 21, 2003 Attn: Union Bank of California East Encinitas Branch 247 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Berg, Craig 1264 Neptune Avenue APN 254-230-18 Grading permit 7348-G Partial release of security Permit 7348-G authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare this project. The Field Inspector has approved a partial release of security. Certificate of Deposit Account 2889020778, in the amount of$26,800.00, may be reduced by 25% to $6,700.00. The document original will be returned when the project is complete. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, ` Masih Maher Jay Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Berg,Craig 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 KeSOurce Development JN99-026G Corporation June 15, 2000 CIVIL ENGINEERING • 5UR✓EYING PLANNING Page 1 of 4 bu [FD I ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY (OF ENCINITAS HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE DESIGN CALCULATIONS BERG RESIDENCE 1264 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS Hydrology and Drainage Design Calculations by: PEO CIV/1 Ftic/ BRIAN y c DONALp RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION No.26175 M * CIVIL N Professional c J' 9�FOf CALIF�Q� Brian Donald, RCE 26175 License Expires 3/31/02 14 N.COAST HIGHWAY 101 SUITE E • ENCINITA5,CA 92024 • TEL(760)942-1106 • FAX(760)942-2514 X06 �a –O?�' . RESOURCE DEVELOPM.-NT CORP. SHEET 1` . Z 914 North Coast Highway 101 Suite E OF —___ ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY �7 DATE _ (760) 942-1106 FAX (760) 942-2514 CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE I 5TORwl nRAIN_DE.5 G N_ U;MMARY f I OpO ED BERG 1z 5!PENCE_11 1264 NEPTUNE AVENUE The Design of the Sitei Drainage System for the proposed Be'rg Residence'is based orb the criteria established by'the City of Encinitas that no Site Runoff shall be allowed to flow ove#the Coastal bluff, portion of the property: In order to achieve this, a sump pump Will be constructed at fhe Westerly low end of the property above the bluff that will pump alb of thecollected runoff from the Easterly 110 feet of the site u' to Neptune Avenue The runoff deposited in Neptune Avenue,'flows by surface flow to Hig way 1:01 where it will not ! prodluce seepage through the bluffs or surface flow oven the bluffs. I The following page is a calcUlation of the 100 year surface runoff quantity to the sump pumplocation and a calculation showing the adequacy of 4" PVC pipes to carry the 1U0 year quantity to the sump pump. The sump pump system should have two pumps that ppeiate alternately at low flows (tu keep.them each operating occasionally) and to operate simpltaneously at the full 100 vear flow for the required capacity. A schematic of this system is shown on the grading plan in profile and the pump system requirements are stated on the plan. A;planter is shownon the plan at the NorthEast corner of the site t0 provide a loeation for the bad'kflow prevention check valve and to set the outlet from the sump pump;slightly above the exist ing street grade. 1. PRODUCT 204 1(Sfn*Sheets)2051(PaW RESOURCE DEVELOrMENT CORP. Jos—q -C - 914 North Coast Highway 101 Suite E SHEET NO. 3 of ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY.. PJF� (760) 942-1106 FAX (760) 942-2514 DATE� I�^'�____ CHECKED BY DATE SCALE HYDROLOGY CALCULATION Q100 = * f*A K= 0.1 1 Acres 5500 sq ft from Neptune Avenue to Earth Berm C!= 0.80 Almost Entire Site Area Roof and Patio I'= 5.00 inohes/hour (Max intensity for Tc < 10 minufes) Q100 0.51 CFS Pj1P CAPACITY CALCULATION Maximum C: paclty of PVG Pike Flowing:Just Full gmax ((1.486)*(A)*(R**.6667)*($**.5))/(N) For 6" PVC;Pipe at 2% Min r= 0.25 ft A 3.14*(r**2) = 0.20 sq ft R A/P 01125 ft S. !0.02 N = 0.012 Qmax = 0.86 CFS >p.51 cfs OK 6" PVC @ MWILL CARRY ENTIRE:SITE USE A" PVC 2% MIN POR SU�3AREAS� �►IND RdOF:DRAINS ' !� IN GA JMIN 0100 = 0.51 *(7 48 ga/min)*(60 sec/min) 227 gpm PRWI 12M.1 r�m RESOURCE DEVELOPMEN. CORP. J013 914 North Coast Highway 101 Suite E SHEET NO. OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY 'F�f� (760) 942-1106 FAX (760) 942-2514 oATE_(�/c •�/� CHFCKED BY _-_ DATE SCALE 1 T r—e1' CZ z Z57 c r1 = c7,of Z �t?vL, i q2 �, Ve�Lx ,yl 3 G is Pe , """'�+ (Smp6 ShMS)fi5 1(ParMMI ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 23, 2004 Attn: Union Bank of California East Encinitas Branch 247 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Berg, Craig 1264 Neptune Avenue APN 254-230-18 Grading permit 7348-G Final release of security Permit 7348-G authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare this project. The Field Inspector has approved the final grading. Therefore, a release of the remaining security deposit is warranted. Certificate of Deposit Account 2889020778, in the remaining amount of$6,700.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. The original amount was $26,800.00. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher Jay Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Berg,Craig Debra Geishart File FAX CO'V'ER SHEET GILROLM CONSTRCJCTION, Inc. 143 South Cedros Ave. Suite C-202 Solana Beach, CA 92075 PH 858-481-9887 FAX 858-481-9665 W W W. i,UiolmconstructiQn.com DATE: TO: CONVANY: �1 FAX #: 1 � 6 - RE: �3e0- c cso . No. of pages (inluding cover sheet): MESSAGE: 7 0. e a— 1N 701 15 e� Yl c/Z. D C r?(C- c Q 740- s33 -Zs-s� 1,o kvx. Vu � s TO 39Vd ONI 1SN00 W-10H1I9 5996-T8b-858 T9:T1 6OOZ/0Z/50 Keoource . May 15, 2003 Development IN99-O26H Corporation. CIVIL ENGINEERING'• 6UKVEYING FLAtiININ6 City of Encinitas Engineering Dept 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Rough Pad Grade Certification Berg Residence 1264 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia Dwg. No. 7348-G To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that on May 15, 2003, we surveyed the pad grade constructed at the above referenced project and found it to be completed in conformance with the approved Grading Plan as follows: Lower Floor Pad Elevation = 76.4 (Approved Pad Grade = 76.4) Please feel free to call if there are any questions or comments. Sincerely, Resource Development Corporation Brian Donald, RCE 26175 ��Ea �l�� Ftic Project Engineer �� BRIAN 'rZ c� DONALD No. 26175 CIVIL Professional F OF C At�FQ FNCINITA5,CALIFORNIA 92024 • TEL(760)942-1106 FAX(760)942-2514 I _ r COASTAL BLUFF STABILITY ' 1616 NEPTUNE AVENUE -- ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Z x� { �1KAan.4 b - Prepared for ' r w CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION San Francisco, California s r I I Prepared by I r TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. San Diego, California I Project No. 2105 t May 30, 2002 1 7 I _. Project No. 2105 May 30, 2002 Geotechniral Engineering log Dr. Mark Johnsson y Hydrogeology CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Coastal Engineering 45 Fremont Street Hydrology Suite 2000 Hydraulics San Francisco, California 94105-2219 COASTAL BLUFF STABILITY 1616 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Dr. Johnsson: This report is a follow-up to our February 21, 2002, Coastal Bluff Stability Assessment for 1616 Neptune Avenue, specifically addressing the results of our core drilling at 1264 Neptune Avenue on March 29 and 30, 2002. As you are aware, Ms. Sue Tanges of Southland Geotechnical represents the Bergs at 1264 Neptune Avenue, and both Coastal and City Staff have raised the same concerns regarding deep-seated instability for both 1264 and 1616 Neptune Avenue. As you may recall, and at your suggestion, a group of geologists participated in a half-day site inspection on March 28, 2002, essentially covering that section of Encinitas coastline from the 700 block of Neptune Avenue, to just north of the Grandview stairway, a total distance of approximately 5,500 feet. I believe the consensus of opinion from that geologic site inspection was that the series of faults in north Encinitas are down-faulted to the north, thus exposing progressively younger stratigraphic sections from south to north. The clay seams exposed in the sea cliffs south of Beacons, on which three slides have moved, are down-dropped and thus significantly below sea level north of the Beacons fault. There are, however, a few exposed clay seams within the Eocene-age sea cliff, generally southerly of the 1200 block of Neptune. However, in all instances, these clay seams are extremely hard, with pocket penetrometer values significantly in 4455 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 100 A San Diego,California 92123-4379 A (858)573-6900 voice A (858)573-8900 fax Dr. Mark Johnsson May 30, 2002 California Coastal Commission Page 2 Project No. 2105 excess of 5 tsf [the pocket penetrometer could not indent the hard clay seam at its maximum plunger value, much less penetrate the required 0.25 inch]. From our discussions with you at the conclusion of the day's geologic inspections, we believe there was general concurrence that the potential for deep-seated slope instability is significant for that section of coastline generally from the 700 to the 900 block of Neptune Avenue, but that, to the north of the Beacons fault, the bluffs become progressively more stable as one continues to the north. It was also concluded that a clay seam was exposed in the sea cliff below 1264 Neptune Avenue, and that a deep test boring was appropriate at this location to obtain quality samples of the Eocene sediments (including the clay seam), and to provide data for a lower- bound stability assessment for 1616 Neptune Avenue. - On March 29 and 30, 2002, two test borings were advanced in the front yard of 1264 Neptune Avenue, about 20 feet westerly of the eastern property line. Both borings were advanced by Ruen Drilling, Inc. using a Christensen CS 1500 truck-mounted coring rig, advancing a continuous core using 1'/4-inch HQ cores with 5-foot runs. Core recovery was excellent, and a second boring was advanced 4 feet westerly of the first boring, changing the core recovery sequence by 2'/2 feet to positively capture the interface between adjacent 5-foot cores. Mr. Greg Spaulding, a Registered Geologist and Certified Engineering Geologist with our firm, continuously logged both borings, with Ms. Tanges intermittently logging the borings and Dr. Johnsson intermittently observing the drilling operation on Friday, March 29th. Copies of the core logs are presented in Appendix A. All of the core samples, with the exception of those tested in the laboratory, are also still available in our San Diego office for your inspection. A series of samples considered representative of the Eocene bedrock unit, including a sample of the clay seam encountered at a depth of 93 feet, were tested for both strength and index properties by Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. A total of five consolidated drained direct shear tests were performed, along with three unconfined compression tests, seven Atterberg limits, and fifteen moisture content/dry density tests. The results of this laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. The test results are interesting, and in part responsible for the significant delay in reporting the test results. All five direct shear tests, including the test on the clay seam encountered at 93 feet, were terminated prior to failure (even the test with Dr. Mark Johnsson May 30, 2002 _._ California Coastal Commission Page 3 Project No. 2105 the lowest overburden pressure), due to the fact that the core sample specimen- - strength exceeded the maximum limit of the proving ring. Thus, in all instances (with the possible exception of 132-1 at a depth of 65 to 66 feet, under a 2,000 psf overburden pressure), the specimens exceeded the capacity of the direct shear test apparatus. In discussions with Mr. Craft, the Principal Engineer at Law, this is a rare occurrence, and all of the core samples tested had extremely high shear strengths. We have plotted on Figure 1 the lower-bound results of the direct shear tests on the 15 specimens taken at five sample locations. This is an informative plot, as the strength of any soil, when used for stability analysis, is the summation of cohesion intercept plus overburden pressure x tangent phi. We have also plotted on Figure 1 the typical strength envelope that we routinely use to approximate the strength of the Eocene cliff-forming units. We have also ballooned the area of interest, approximating an 85-foot-high slope and, for this condition, it is quite obvious that the existing soil strengths, including those of the clay seam at 93.5 feet, are in excess of twice those used in our preliminary analyses as reported in Appendix A of the February 21, 2002, report. With regard to the unconfined compression tests, the unconfined compressive strength ranged from 10,400 psf to 18,150 psf. These are important parameters for - use in our marine erosion estimates with our Corps study. However, as a measure of soil strength for stability analyses, the composition of the siltstone failing in unconfined compression underestimates the true strength of the soil that would be exhibited with full confinement. Even with no confinement, the equivalent cohesion intercept ranges from 5,200 psf to 9,075 psf. One must still conclude that the original soil strengths used in our February analyses significantly underestimate the intact strength of this Eocene-age cliff-forming unit below both 1264 Neptune Avenue and 1616 Neptune Avenue. As indicated in our February 21, 2002, report, we remain of the opinion that using the Coastal Commission's current guidelines for development atop coastal bluffs, the structure setback would be less than 30 feet at both of these bluff-top lots. However, the new proposed improvements would maintain a minimum 40-foot setback, consistent with the City of Encinitas' minimum bluff-top setback requirements. Dr. Mark Johnsson May 30, 2002 California Coastal Commission Page 4 Project No. 2105 Since our March 28 site inspection, Mr. William Elliott has finalized his paper on the - Eocene landsliding along the Encinitas bluffs, which he recently submitted for publication in the 2001 Edition of the San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guide Book Series. Mr. Elliott provided us a pre-print copy of his paper, which is presented in Appendix C. Dr. Tom Demere with the San Diego Natural History Museum also reviewed and concurred with Mr. Elliott's work in characterizing the coastal landsliding in northern Encinitas, which again supports the premise of increased stability northerly of the Beacon's fault. With regard to 1616 Neptune Avenue, we are completing our field exploratory work to characterize the near-surface site geology this week, and anticipate submitting an updated geotechnical report for City and Coastal Staff review next week. We trust this information adequately addresses your concerns regarding coastal bluff stability in northern Encinitas. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Wal r F.tra m ton, Princi l Engineer Braven R. Smillie, Principal Geologist R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245 R.G. 402, C.E.G. 207 WFC/BRS/jg Attachments cc: Mr. Jim Knowlton Mr. Jay Refold Mr. Gary Cannon, California Coastal Commission Ms. Sue Tanges, Southland Geotechnical Consultants W m D J z Z In O w U N (7 O r J 0 V)O"t^ � W U IIn ow�o 7 U Z� Z VJ z=°= '� W O<zm w Q¢o< Z U m Y to Z d 7 Z W 5 p H (� U Z w It 0 --- it ` Q0. �4 —�---- - -s\ o� 1 0 \ \ \ p \ p O 00 O O (�sd) �.!ood ajenbs.gad spunod - APPENDIX A EXCAVATION LOGS LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT NAME 616 NEPTUNE PROJECT NUMBER BORING 2105 B-1 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. 1 of 5 Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZEITYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED (feet) 105 Rock Coring HO-3 Oversize INCLINATION FROM VERTICAL/BEARING DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY Christensen CS1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 85 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE r � j °o ° o FIELD Z o� DESCRIPTION W o w NOTES a. 0 W § Z Z W LL p F?CO F=- U ca W o W Z O O Cj O �� d LL g o W 2 m U g Q� Z W LL LL K TERRACE DEPOSITS Silty SAND(SM),medium dense, red-brown to gray,dry to damp,fine-grained,with minor iron oxide cementation ADVANCED CASING TO 52 FEET I I 0 10 75 I I I I I 15 70 I � I I I 0 5 a C7 I F I LL THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w� OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER o LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 a ;� 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT NAME 616 NEPTUNE 2ROOJECTNUMBER BORING SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 2 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZE/TYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize (feet) 105 " DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICAL/BEARING Christensen CS 1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION w None encountered (feet) 85 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } Cn w a Q a ~ = FIELD > o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z w o NOTES Z w Z LL m Y Uj-_ ° Uj Z o o v a �� J a g oLL w m m w �az U- - 5 0 i I Ir- i � I I L � I 0 5 � j I I 5 50 0 5 i N I O it 5 ."0 o W I or U FI LL I 0 r THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w, OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. z TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER U LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 b 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA F PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, California 92123 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT NAME 616 NEPTUNE 2ROOJECTNUMBER BORING B-1 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 3 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZE/TYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize (feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICAL/BEARING Christensen CS1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION r None encountered (feet) 85 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } w o ('Z �o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o W ° FIELD NOTES= o~ W Z Z U_ m Uj° D o o U a ��z J j a g °L ` W °° w � LL 0 5 _BEGIN CORING AT 52 FEET_ __ — Silty SAND(SM),dense,interbedded gray/brown,damp I 1 80 5 0 ' I I 2 100 i 0 25 — 3 100 -Temporary lost circulation on 6"void/fracture -Coarse sand from 63 to 64 feet 5 20 SANTIAGO FORMATION Silty to Sandy CLAY(CL), hard,olive-gray to gray-brown, -I damp to moist fine-grained sand___________ Silty CLAY(CL),hard,blue-gray,damp ° 4 100 � I o Clayey SILT(ML),very dense,blue gray,damp 1 Y 70 15 j w_ a w O 0 5 100 N LL 0 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER 0 LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 C 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA F PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, California 92123 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT NAME 616 NEPTUNE 2105 CT NUMBER BORING B-1 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 4 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZE/TYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize I(feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICAUBEARING Christensen CS 1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 85 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } uiaf o d w ° 0, ° FIELD n=~ I ¢ o o it it Z w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w w J P NOTES Z Z x y O r- w .. 0 J Z (] O V U�j J Q a a l- w I � m w 4Q �oz a J w U- 75 10 — 6 100 L I � 1"hard clay seam MC PI -Cemented zone approximately 3" 0 7 i 100 r s 1001 5 � i — ' � I ~ I 9 100 I 0 5 — 10 100 o -2"hard clay seam MC PI Y -1/4"pyrite U O 5 �10 — a' � I O N 11 100 r LL I o THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION WI OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. cc lwp�' TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER 0I LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 d 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA ~ San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL g CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING PROJECT 616 NEPTUNE PROJECT NUMBER BORING 2105 B_1 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 5 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZEITYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize (feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICAL/BEARING Christensen CS 1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 85 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL I ROCK CORE } w CC W om �-D z z y � FIELD Wz J o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w ( NOTES w O W W m 0 W 0 Z O O O O J C g I OLL W m m z a W W LL LL -Occasional fossil 100 15 — L 112 100 j -Cemented zone from 103 to 103.5 feet 105 x--20 Boring terminated at depth of 105 feet. No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation. Backfilled hole with EnviroP/ug. I � I I I I 110 25 i I II � 115 30 I I I Y U R —120 35 O w Cr O U � o I i N I I LL I THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION m0, OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. W TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER 0 LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 e 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA F PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, California 92123 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT NAME 616 NEPTUNE 2ROOJECTNUMBER BORING B-2 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3129/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 1 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZETYYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize (feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICALIBEARING Christensen CS1500 Ruen Drilling ° APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 84.5 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE U) > } Q� H� a ° o o a of a w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 9(n NOTES Z Z = y OF- W Uj 0 W Z X LL U�� U �LL W ZW m L g9Z a Uj 0 a U_ LL TERRACE DEPOSITS Silty SAND(SM),dense,interbedded red-brown to gray, damp,fine-grained I ADVANCED CASING TO 42t FEET I I 75 _ 10 1. I _ �70 15 I i i ry I O O — I I r 65 0 0 U r f- LL I I o THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION wl OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, InC. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER -° o LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-2 a 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA ~ San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1PROJECT 616 NEPTUNE 2ROOJECT NUMBER BB12G SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 2 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZEITYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED (feet) 105 Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize INCLINATION FROM VERTICALIBEARING DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY Christensen CS1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 84.5 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE r F j z qa FIELD X a o o > w z m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w o w �o NOTES Z Z w U- �m Co w W ° D v a g °LL o o w m m w 4a z °z LL w LL 5 I I I I 0 15 I I I I I 0 5 I i I � 5 o I ry O I r Q 5 1 0 K 'a it o F LL o THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER O LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-2 b 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA F PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, California 92123 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 116 6 NEPTNAME UNE 2105 CT NUMBER BORING B-2 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3129/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 3 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZEI YPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize I(feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICALIBEARING Christensen CS 1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 84.5 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } N a: ui Cr Z go FIELD a ° a o it W W z w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w W = NOTES .._ Z Z = W O� W o W Z x > 6 °d �� a g oU_ W of m W g 9'Z d W U_ 0 I 1 0 —55 I ; i —25 BEGIN CORING ____G AT 60 FEET ___ _ _ 0 _Silty SAND(SM),dense,interbedded gray/brown,damp L 1 100 SANTIAGO FORMATION 20 Silty CLAY(CL),hard,olive-gray,damp,with iron 5 �stainigg---------------------/ Silty CLAY(CL),very hard,blue-gray,damp DS PI MC/DC o 2 100 I Clayey SILT(ML),very dense,blue-gray,damp x 15 o -70 C7 ui o — 3 100 I I 0 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w, THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. x TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc.Ir1C SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER O LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-2 C ;� 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA ~ San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 1616 NEPTUNE PROJECT NAME 2ROOJECTNUMBER BOBR12G SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29/02 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 4 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZE/TYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED HQ-3 Oversize (feet) 105 Rock Coring INCLINATION FROM VERTICAUBEARING DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY Christensen CS 1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 84.5 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } Q� Ui x Z g_ FIELD -: a ° o o j z w Jo MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w w o NOTES Z Z = Y OF W W W U_ I...j CO F V M cc W D O O U C7 O>�M J a g OLL W K m U K Z W LL LL 10 75 — DS PI UCS MC/D 4 100 UCS MC 0 Clayey SILT(ML),very dense,blue-gray,damp,with occasional fossils 5 88 DS PI I MC/00 5 —0 � uCs 6 109 � j I 5 0 — ry Q S2 7 104 IDS P1 Hard clay from 93.5 to 94.25 feet MC/DO Y 0 10 a—95 ° ui o � N 8 96 N LL 1 ° THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION w, OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, InC. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-2 d 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF CORE BORING 16116 NEPTNAME UNE 2ROOJECT NUMBER BORING B-2 SITE LOCATION DATE(S)DRILLED LOGGED BY SHEET NO. Encinitas,California 3/29102 to 3/29/02 G.Spaulding 5 of 5 DRILLING METHOD DRILL BIT SIZEITYPE CHECKED BY TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED Rock Coring HQ-3 Oversize I(feet) 105 DRILL RIG TYPE DRILLED BY INCLINATION FROM VERTICAL/BEARING Christensen CS1500 Ruen Drilling 0 APPARENT GROUNDWATER DEPTH APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION None encountered (feet) 84.5 COMMENTS BOREHOLE BACKFILL ROCK CORE } w LLJ Z o Q a ° o o w w z w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w w -j o NOTES Z Z = Y O F W 0 J Z O O U d U3� J d g OLL w � m w 4a �oZ w LL 15 -Cemented zone from 99 to 99.5 feet —100 — DS PI MC/D 9 100 20 105 Boring terminated at depth of 105 feet. -. No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation. Sealed hole with bentonite. i 25 110 I 30 115 N O a o i o z 35 R 120 o I w o _ N LL THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION 0 w, OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER o LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-2 e 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA ~ PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, California 92123 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS PROJECT: TerraCosta Consulting Group LAB NO.: 12957 PROJECT NO.:70341.1.0081.22.831 SAMPLED BY: G.Spaulding DATE: 04/16/02 Project#2112 SUBMITTED BY: G. Spaulding DATE: 04/16/02 1264 Neptune AUTHORIZED BY: W.Crampton DATE: 04/16/02 REVIEWED BY: L. Shuler REPORT DATE: 05/15/02 Sample I.D. Depth Liquid Limit/ Expansion Percent Dry Moisture Content (ft.) Plastic Limit Index Passing#200 Density (%), as received ASTM ASTM 4829- Sieve ASTM (pcf) ASTM D2216 D4318-00 95 D 1140-00 B2-6 101' 39/35 * * 123.8 9.0 B2-6 101' * * * 119.7 9.0 132-6 101' * * * 121.5 9.0 B2-2 75-76' 44/18 * * 119.5 10.4 B2-2 75-76' * * * 117.6 10.4 B2-2 75-76' * * * 118.3 10.4 B2-1 65-66' 66/26 * * 110.4 16.6 B2-1 65-66' * * * 106.8 16.6 B2-1 65-66' * * * 73.8 16.6 B2-4 83.5-84' 56/22 * * 118.6 13.4 132-4 83.5-84' * * * 116.6 13.4 B2-4 83.5-84' * * * 115.4 13.4 *Indicates test not requested Distribution: TerraCosta/W. Crampton TerraCosta/G. Spaulding Submitted By: Cliffor ft, P.E. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS PROJECT: TerraCosta Consulting Group LAB NO.: 12957 PROJECT NO.:70341.1.0081.22.831 SAMPLED BY: G. Spaulding DATE: 04/16/02 Project#2112 SUBMITTED BY: G. Spaulding DATE: 04/16/02 1264 Neptune AUTHORIZED BY: W.Crampton DATE: 04/16/02 REVIEWED BY: L.Shuler REPORT DATE: 05/15/02 Sample I.D. Depth Liquid Limit/ Expansion Percent Dry Moisture Content (ft.) Plastic Limit Index Passing#200 Density (%), as received ASTM ASTM 4829- Sieve ASTM (pcf) ASTM D2216 D4318-00 95 D 1140-00 B2-5 93-94' 50/19 * * 120.7 10.5 B2-5 93-94' * * * 121.4 10.5 B2-5 93-94' * * * 120.2 10.5 B2-3 78.5-79.5' * * * * 10.1 B1-1 78.5' 52/24 * * * 9.5 ._ B1-2 93.25' 57/30 * * * 16.2 *Indicates test not requested Distribution: TerraCosta/W. Crampton TerraCosta/G. Spaulding W Submitted By: Cliffo raft, P.E. REPORT OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA FrEPTH: : Team Costa#2112 LAB NO.: 12957 JOB NO: 70341-1-0081.22.820 SUBMITTED BY: Tema Costa DATE: ** TION SAMPLE: ** •* AUTHORIZED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ** DATE: Aril 32002 B2-1 TESTED BY: RV LEPTH: 65-66 COMPUTED BY: RV DATE: Ma 3,2 002 PREPARED AT: REVIEWED BY: ELS DATE: Ma I5,2002 E CONTENT: SOIL TYPE: NSITY: SOURCE: : May 15 2002 MOISTURE CONTENT TESTED AT: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE 20000 18000 16000 14000 w d 12000 N a b 10000 0 a 8000 y y ai r 6000 4000 2000 ON 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 STRAIN in inches per inches –4--2000 psf –a–4000 psf - i 8000 psf Note:Test terminated at maximum l Respectfully Submitted, limit of proving ring. — Cliifor . raft P.E. REPORT OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROJECT: Tetra Costa#2112 LAB NO.: 12957 JOB NO: 70341-1-0081.22.820 COMPACTION SAMPLE: ** SUBMITTED BY Terra Costa DATE: '* EPTH: ** AUTHORIZED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ** ORINO. g2 TESTED BY: RV DATE: April 30,2002 Epp: 7B2 COMPUTED BY: RV DATE: May 3,2002 COMPACTION PREPARED AT: REVIEWED BY: ELS DATE: May 15,2002 OPT.MOISTURE CONTENT: SOIL TYPE: DRY DENSITY: SOURCE: REPORT DATE: 5/15 MOISTURE CONTENT TESTED AT: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE 25000 20000 0 w d a 15000 d a a 0 10000 M 5000 0 0.14 p 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 STRAIN in inches per inches —•—2000 psf--w-4000 psf—a 6800 psf Note:Test terminated at maximum Respectfully Submitted, limit of proving ring. Clifford raft, P.E. REPORT OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA - rJEPTH:ECT: Terra Costa#2112 LAB NO.: 12957 JOB NO: 70341-1-0081.22.820 PACTION SAMPLE: ** SUBMITTED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ** H: ** AUTHORIZED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ** ING: B2-4 TESTED BY: RV DATE: April 30,2002 83.5-84 COMPUTED BY: RV DATE: May 3,2002 PACTION PREPARED AT: REVIEWED BY: ELS DATE: Ma 15,2002 MOISTURE CONTENT: SOIL TYPE: DRY DENSITY: SOURCE: RT DATE: May I S 2002 MOISTURE CONTENT TESTED AT: STRESS -STRAIN CURVE 25000 20000 0 w u w p, 15000 y d a 0 0 a 5 10000 rn 5000 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 O.I8 STRAIN in inches per inches —2000 psf-+–4000 psf–+–8000 psf Note:Test terminated at maximum limit of proving ring. Respectfully Submitted, Clifford Craft, P.E. REPORT OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA [LRI CT: Tetra costa 1#2112LAB NO.: 12957 JOB NO: 70341-1-0081.22.820 •• SUBMITTED BY: Terra Costa DATE:ACTION SAMPLE:HAUTHORIZED BY: Terra Costa DATE: G: B2 TESTED BY: RV DATE: Aril 30,2002 : 93-94 COMPUTED BY: RV DATE: Ma 3,2002 ACTION PREPARED AT: REVIEWED BY: ELS DATE: Ma 15,2002 MOISTURE CONTENT: SOIL TYPE: DRY DENSITY: SOURCE:RT DATE: May 15,200-2 MOISTURE CONTENT TESTED AT: STRESS- STRAIN CURVE 25000 20000 0 w v o. 15000 d a b 0 -- a rn 10000 rWn F .. rn 5000 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 STRAIN in inches per inches -+—2000 psf--a—4000 psf- 8000 psf Note:Test terminated at maximum limit of proving ring. Respectfully Submitted, Cliffor Craft�PE. REPORT OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROJECT: Tetra costa#2112 LAB NO.: 12957 JOB NO: 70341-1-0081.22.820 COMPACTION SAMPLE: ** SUBMITTED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ss ** AUTHORIZED BY: Terra Costa DATE: ORING: B2 TESTED BY: RV *' NTH DATE: A ri130,2002 EPTH: 101 COMPUTED BY: RV DATE: May 3,2002 COMPACTION PREPARED AT: REVIEWED BY: ELS DATE: Ma 15,2002 T.MOISTURE CONTENT: SOIL TYPE: DRY DENSITY: SOURCE: PORT DATE: May 15 2002 MOISTURE CONTENT TESTED AT: STRESS - STRAIN CURVE 25000 20000 0 w u a 15000 u a �C O 0 a rn 10000 rA 5000 0 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 STRAIN in inches per inches � e 2000 psf —x-4000 psf—A 8000 psf Note:Test terminated at maximum Respectfully Submitted, limit of proving ring. Cliffo . Craft, P.E. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION ASTM D-2166 LAW PROJECT Terra Coate '1264 Neptune#2112 RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS LOCATION JOB No. 70341-1-0081.22 A Division of BORING/SAMPLE No. R'2_9 Law Engineering and Environmental Services,Inc. SAMPLE 7 DESCRIPTION S S 13' 9177 Sky Park Court TESTED BY RV San Diego,California DATE OF TESTING REVIEWED BY ELS DATE OF REVIEW 5/16/2002 DIAMETER,Do 2:37 in 60.198 mm AREA,Ao 4.4115 in2 28.4613 ant WET SOIL SAMPLE g HEIGHT,Lo 6.773 in 146.634 mm WET SOIL+PAN MASS 9 VOLUME,Vo 25.4676 in3 417.339 Cn3 DRY SOIL+PAN MASS 9 WATER CONT. % PAN MASS g WET DENSITY Ib/ft3 DRY DENSITY Ib/ft3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH,% 18160.00 psf 869.02 kPa 126.04 psi COHESION,Sc=qu 12= 9075.00 PSI 434.51 kPa Ring Calibration(lbs/div): 1 0.0000 0 0.00 0.0000 1.0000 4.4115 0.00 0.00 UNCONFINED 0.0100 17 17.00 0.1732 0.9x63 a.a19z 553ss z6.5z COMPRESSION TEST 0.0200 as 45.00 0.3464 0.9965 4.4268 1463.80 70.09 20000.0 0.0300 84 84.00 0.5197 0.9948 4.4345 2727.67 130.60 18000.0 0.0400 129 129.00 0.6929 0.9931 4.4423 4181.63 200.72 1s000.o 0.0500 176 176.00 0.8661 0.9913 4.4500 5695.22 272.69 14000.0 0.0600 224 224.00 1.0393 0.9896 4.4578 7235.80 346.45 22 12000.0 9 10000.0 0.0700 273 273.00 1.2125 0.9879 4.4657 8803.20 421.50 8000.0 0 0800 324 324.00 1.3858 0.9861 4.4735 10429.43 499.36 4000.0 0.0900 367 367.00 1.5590 0.9644 4.4814 11792.83 564.64 ,`7 4000.0 0.1000 398 398.00 1.7322 0.9827 4.4893 12766.45 611.26 2000.0 0.0 0.1100 428 428.00 1.9054 0.9809 4.4972 13704.55 656.17 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 7.00 0.1200 461 461.00 2.0786 0.9792 4.5051 14735.14 705.52 UNIT STRAIN,% 0.1300 493 493.001 22519 0.9775 4.5131 15730.09 753.16 0.1400 522 522.00 2.4251 0.9757 4.5211 16625.88 796.05 MohfsCircle 0.1500 551 551.00 2.5983 0.9740 4.5292 17518.38 838.78 -- 0.1600 572 572.00 2.7715 0.9723 4.5373 18153.71 869.20 c m n m Su-9075 psf N a3=0 stress(psf) al= 18150 psf Remarks: Material failed suddenly at maximum reported loading. Respectfully Submitted, Cliff, Craft,P.E. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION T ASTM t -2166 LAWL `J,/ PROJECT Terra Costa-,1264 Neptune 02112 RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS LOCATION JOB No. 70341-1-0081:22 A DlvWon of BORING I SAMPLE No. 12223 Law Engineering and Environmental Services,Inc. � 78' DESCRIPTION 9177 Sky Park Court TESTED BY RV San Diego,California DATE OF TESTING REVIEWED BY ELS DATE OF REVIEW 5!16/2002 DIAMETER,Do 2.367 in 60.1218 mm AREA,Ao 4.40034 in 28.3892 cm WET SOIL SAMPLE 9 HEIGHT,Lo 5.782 in 146.863 mm WET SOIL+PAN MASS 9 VOLUME,Vo 25.4428 in3 416.932_M3 DRY SOIL+PAN MASS 9 WATER CONT. % PAN MASS 9 WET DENSITY Iblft3 DRY DENSITY Ib/ft3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH,q„ 12090.00 psf 578.87 kPa 83.96 psi COHESION,Sc=qu 12= 6045.00 psi 289.43 kPa Ring Calibration(ibsidiv): 1 0.0000 0 0.00 0.0000 1.0000 4.4003 0.00 0.00 UNCONFINED 0-0100 9 9.00 0.1730 0.9983 4.4080 294.01 14.06 COMPRESSION TEST 0.0200 20 20.00 0.3459 0.9965 4.4156 652.23 31.23 19500.0 0.0300 38 38.00 0.5189 0.9948 4.4233 1237.09 59.23 lz000.0 0.0400 61 61.00 0.6918 0.9931 4.4310 1982.40 94.92 C 0.0500 88 88.00 0.8648 0.9914 4.4387 2854.87 136.69 `10000.0 v7 _..- 0.0600 121 121.00 1.0377 0.9896 4.4465 3918.60 187.62 (n s000.o 0.0700 159 159.00 1.2107 0.9879 4.4543 5140.24 246.11 �y 5000.0 0.0800 196 196.00 1.3836 0.9862 4.4621 6325.30 302.86 4000.0 0.0900 238 238.00 1.5566 0.9844 4.4699 7667.25 367.11 n 2000.0 ~ 0.1000 280 280.00 1.7295 0.9827 4.4778 9004.45 431.13 0.01 0:1100 323 323.00 1.9025 0.9810 4.4857 10369.00 496.47 0.00 0.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.1200 362 362.00 2.0754 0.9792 4.4936 11600.49 555.43 UNIT STRAIN, 0.1300 378 378.00 2.2484 0.9775 4.5016 12091.83 578.96 Mohrs Circles c a w m Su=6045 psf L N a3=0 Stress(psf) a1= 12090 psf Remarks: Material tailed suddenly at maximum reported klad . Respectfully Submitted, Cliffo Cra ,P.E. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION .� AsTM D-2168 *LAW PROJECT Terra Costa-1264 Neptune*2112 RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS LOCATION _ JOB No. 70341-1-0061.22'' A Division of BORING/SAMPLE No. 82-4 Law Engineering and Environmental Services,Inc. SAMPLE DEPTH 86' SOIL DESCRIPTION 9177 Sky Park Court TESTED BY RV San Diego,California DATE OF TESTING REVIEWED BY ELS DATE OF REVIEW 5/16/2002 DIAMETER,Do 2.362 in 59.9948 mm AREA,Ao 4.38177 in .2694 2 28 cm WET SOIL SAMPLE 9 HEIGHT,Lo 4.456 in 113.182 mm WET SOIL+PAN MASS 9 VOLUME,Vo 19.5252 in' 319.96 un3 DRY SOIL+PAN MASS 9 WATER CONT. % PAN MASS 9 WET DENSITY lb/ft 3 DRY DENSITY Ib/ft3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH,q„ 10401).00 Psf 497.95 kPa 72.22 psi COHESION,Sc=qu f 2= 5200.00 psf 248.98 kPa Ring Calibration(lbs/div): 1' 0.0000 0 0.00 0.0000 1.0000 4.3818 0.00 0.00 UNCONFINED 0.0100 s 6.00 o.22aa 0.9978 4.3916 196.7a 9.42 COMPRESSION TEST 0.0200 16 16.00 0.4488 0.9955 4.4015 523.45 25.06 12000.0 p.030p 34 34.00 0.6732 0.9933 4.4115 1109.83 53.14 I 0.0400 64 64.00 0.8977 0.9910 4.4215 2054.38 99.80 10000.0 0.050b 96 90.00 1.1221 0.9886 4.4315 2924.52 140.03 twao.a I 0.0600 118 113.00 1.3465 0.9865 4.4416 3663.56 175.41 ' txao.o 0.0700 134 134.00 1.5709 0.9843 4.4517 4334.52 20734 0.0800 160 160.00 1.7953 0.9820 4.4619 5163.75 247.24 4000.0 0.0900 189 189.00 2.0197 0.9798 4.4721 6085.74 291.39 5 2000.0 0.1000 223 223.00 2.2442 0.9776 4.4824 7164.08 343.02 0.0 0.1100 261 261.00 2.4686 0.9753 4.4927 8365.61 400.55 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 0.1200 296 296.00 2.6930 0.9731 4.5030 9465.61 453.21 UNrr STRAI4,% 0.1300 326 326.00 2.9174 0.9706 4.5134 10400.92 498.00 Mohrs Cirde n r o Su=5200 psf r N _... v3=0 Stress(psf) 01= 10400 psf Remarks: Materiel failed suddenly at maximum repotted kodin9. Respectfully Submitted, �Q Cliffo .Craft,P.E. APPENDIX C PRE-PRINT COPY (DATED 5-24-2002) OF PAPER TITLED COASTAL LANDSLIDING, LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA BY WILLIAM J. ELLIOTT, ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST WILLIAM J. ELLIOTT ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST May 24, 2002 Mr. Walter F. Crampton TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92123-4379 -- Dear Walt: Enclosed, please find a "PRE-PRINT" copy of my paper submitted to Bob Stroh, editor, for the 2001 edition of the San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook series. I thank you and Bob Smillie for the helpful discussions and time we have spent in the field together. Tom Demere has reviewed and "blessed" this effort. If you have any questions, please call me at (858) 586-0870. Sincerely yours, William J. Elliott Engineering Geologist Enclosure: (1) "PRE-PRINT" copy of "Coastal Landsliding, Leucadia, California. " P.O.BOX 541 SOLANA BEACH,CA 92075 (858)586-0870 or 755-0370 .w l COASTAL LANDSLIDING, LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA William J. Elliott z4A Consulting Engineering Geologist P . 0 . Box 5 41 Solana Beach, California 92075 ABSTRACT Prehistoric and recent deep-seated, rotational-slump/block-glide landsliding along the 2 . 5-mile-long Leucadia coastline is confined to a distance of approximately 0 . 3-mile, between two north-northeasterly trending faults . These failures have occurred along a black clay seam or seams , interbedded within the lower portions of nearly flat-lying Middle Eocene siltstone . A description of upper and lower sea cliff stratigraphy, as well as faulting, provide a basis for understanding and evaluating slope stability along the urbanized edge of this actively eroding coastline . INTRODUCTION On the afternoon of June 2 , 1996 , a catastrophic sea cliff landslide occurred in the rear-yards of homes located seaward from 808 through 866 Neptune Avenue , Leucadia, San Diego County, California ( Photo 1 ) An -- approximately 300-foot-wide , 95-foot-high, section of sea-cliff slid onto the beach along a train black clay seam or seams ( Photo 2 ) , interbedded within a dark gray sequence of siltstones , claystones , and very fine- grained sandstones . Most recently mapped by Tan and Kennedy ( 1996 ) as the Middle Eocene Santiago Formation, this slide-prone facies is informally referred to herein as the "Beacon ' s siltstone" ( Table 1 ) . A room addition at the rear of 828 Neptune Avenue , and the rear-yard wooden deck of an adjacent residence ( 836-838 Neptune Avenue ) detached, disintegrated, and rode upper Pleistocene terrace deposits and underlying Middle Eocene lower sea cliff bedrock sedimentary rocks ( Figure 1 , Photo 1 ) down onto the beach below . Gray beach-sand was "bulldozed" toward the ocean for approximately 55 to 65 feet by slide debris moving along the beach-level basal failure surface ( cf .. June 2 , 1996 , photo noted in the following paragraph ) . Before- , during- , and after-photographs of this event can be seen on the front cover of the September 1996 , San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook (Elliott , 1996 ) ; these photographs were taken on November 3 , 1991 , June 2 , 1996 , and on June 4 , 1996 ) . Landslide repair, as of January -- 12 , 2002 , is shown in Photo 4 . Why did this coastal landslide occur where it did, and not somewhere else along this 2 . 5-mile-long stretch of Leucadia coastline? To answer this question, geologic conditions between the South Carlsbad State Beach parking lot and Moonlight State Beach will be addressed first -- from an engineering geologic and slope stability point of view . With this background in mind, the answer to the question should fall logically into place in the final section on slope stability . GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - Previous Work An early account of the geology of San Diego County included a discussion of the Leucadia area by Ellis and Lee ( 1919, p . 53-57 ) . Eocene strata in and around Del Mar and Encinitas were described in some detail on page 53 . And, on plate 3 , Eocene strata iii the western part of San Diego County were characterized as "Alternate beds of shale , sandstone , and limestone [ Delmar Formation] , generally capped by a massive white sandstone [ Torrey Sandstone ] . " Nomenclature in brackets is that of Kennedy and Moore - - ( 1971 ) , Kennedy ( 197 5 ) . Other geologic work of general and historic interest has been published by Jahns ( 1954 , Ch * II , p . 39 , pl . 3 ) , Hertlein and Grant ( 1954 , Ch . II , p . 57-60 , fig . 1 ) , Weber ( 1963 , p . 27-29 , pl . 1 ) , Rogers ( 1966 ) , and Kennedy ( 1973a, p . 9-1J ) A fault map , which included the Leucadia area, was prepared by Hannan ( 1975 , p . 56-59 , including two maps ) ; a landslide hazard map, which included the Leucadia area, was published by Tan and Giffen ( 1995 , pl . 35D) . South of Leucadia South of Leucadia, Hanna ( 1926 , p . 207-215 and Geologic Map of La Jolla Quadrangle ) mapped and named Eocene strata in the La Jolla 15 ' quadrangle ; from youngest to oldest , these included the : Delmar sand, Torrey sand, and Rose Canon shale ( all members of the La Jolla formation ) , and the Poway conglomerate . Kennedy and Moore ( 1971 ) redefined Cretaceous and Eocene stratigraphic relationships in the San Diego area and established new formations , complete with type sections . Subsequently, Kennedy ( 1973b, 1975 ; and Kennedy and Peterson, 1975 ) prepared and published geologic maps covering metropolitan San Diego from Solana Beach to Coronado and inland to Rancho Bernardo and La Mesa . North of Leucadia North of Leucadia, Phillips ( 1941 , p . 34-37 and Geologic Map of the Oceanside Quadrangle ) mapped Eocene strata in the Oceanside 15 ' quadrangle . He followed the stratigraphic nomenclature of Hanna ( 1926 ) , using the Delmar sand and Torrey sand members of the La Jolla formation south of Batiquitos Lagoon -- which included the Leucadia coastline sequence . Jones ( 1959 , p . 23-50 and Figure 2 - Geologic Map of the San Luis Rey Quadrangle ) mapped Eocene strata in the San Luis Rey 71-x' quadrangle , north of the Leucadia coastline sequence , and followed the same stratigraphic nomenclature as Phillips ( 1941 ) . Weber ( 1982 , p . 16-24 , pl . 1 ) mapped portions of five 71-�' quadrangle maps , including those covering the communities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos , where he used both La Jolla Group nomenclature (Kennedy and Moore , 1971 , p . 713 ) and Santiago Formation nomenclature (Woodring and Popenoe , 1945 ; Schoellhammer and others , 1954 ) . Moyle ( 1975 ) mapped undifferentiated Eocene strata on Marine Corps Base Camp Joseph H . Pendleton, following the La Jolla Group nomenclature of Kennedy and Moore ( 1971 , p . 713 ) . Further north, in the western Santa Ana Mountains of eastern Orange County, California, Woodring and Popenoe ( 1945 ) and Schoellhammer and others ( 1954 ) named and mapped, respectively, Eocene strata ( Santiago Formation ) that appear to be lithologically indistinguishable from Torrey Sandstone ( Kennedy and Moore , 1971 , p . 715- 16; Kennedy, 1975 , p . 16-18 ) in the San Diego sequence . Woodring and Popenoe ( 1945 ) reported that , "The name Santiago formation is proposed for the Eocene deposits of the northwestern Santa Ana Mountains . . . Though these Eocene deposits evidently are the equivalent of an undetermined part of the Eocene section in the San Diego district , a local name for them appears to be preferable . . . " The Leucadia Coastline Geologic mapping of the sea cliffs along the Leucadia coastline , between the South Carlsbad State Beach parking lot and Moonlight Sate Beach, has been accomplished by Wilson ( 1972 ) , Eisenberg ( 1983 ) f Irwin ( 1985 , 1986 ) , Tan ( 198 6 ) , and Tan and Kennedy ( 1996 ) . See Table 1 . Work in Progress It is understood that Dr . Tom Demere , and his staff at the San Diego Natural History Museum, are planning to document their -- recent paleontological and stratigraphic work in the Encinitas/Carlsbad/Oceanside area . Publication of this effort is expected within the next few years . Therefore, in the paragraphs that follow, detailed descriptions of stratigraphic correlations and age relationships have been left for this anticipated new work . Sea Cliff Stratigraphy Sea cliffs along the Leucadia shoreline can be subdivided into an upper stratigraphic sequence of upper Pleistocene terrace deposits and a lower stratigraphic sequence of Middle Eocene marine deposits . An unconformity, representing an elevated marine abrasion platform, separates the two sequences . Upper Sea Cliff Stratigraphy Upper sea cliff stratigraphy ( above about elevation 14 to 30 feet , from north to south, respectively, Eisenberg, 1983 , pl . 1 ) has been mapped variously as : Lindavista Formation (Wilson, 1972 , pls . B and C ) ; Bird Rock terrace north of the Encinitas Beach fault and Nestor terrace south of the Encinitas Beach fault (Eisenberg, 1983 , pl . 1 ; Eisenberg and Abbott , 1985 , pl . 1 ) ; and terrace deposits , Qt-1 ( Tan, 1986 , pl . 4C ; Tan and Kennedy, 1996 , pl . 2 ) . Terrace deposits , as described by Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 74-87 and 97-101 ) , consist of a basal sequence of friable laminated "beach" sandstones and an upper sequence of friable to compact cross-bedded to massive "dune " sandstones . These essentially flat-lying, upper Pleistocene ( approximately 80 , 000 to 125 , 000 years old; Eisenberg, 1983 , p . 104-105 ) clastic, near-shore marine and non-marine sedimentary deposits are typically composed of brown to red-orange brown, thinly to massively bedded and cross-bedded, poorly to moderately consolidated, gravelly silty sandstone . Terrace deposits fail and retreat landward for a variety of reasons ( some unclear ) , including weathering, erosion, and retreat of underlying lower sea cliff Middle Eocene bedrock strata in response to relentless wave attack . Lower Sea Cliff Stratigraphy Lower sea cliff stratigraphy consists of Eocene sedimentary rocks that have a rather complex nomenclatural history . Middle Eocene strata in northwestern San Diego County, including Encinitas , Carlsbad and Oceanside , have remained somewhat of a transitional orphan child to the more well-defined and named sequences in Del Mar - La Jolla to the south and in the western Santa Ana Mountains to the north . For example , compare Hanna ( 1926 ) / Kennedy ( 1975 ) with Woodring and Popenoe ( 1945 ) / Schoellhammer and others ( 1954 ) , respectively . As pointed out by Young and Berry ( 1981 , p . 33-35 ) , Eocene sequences are quite different in this transitional region where strata do not simply grade directly and conveniently from one sequence to the other . Other workers , for example , those noted in Table w 1 , have similarly grappled with the problem of identifiable/mappable units as well as with appropriate nomenclature .. Lower sea cliff stratigraphy between the South Carlsbad State Beach parking lot and Moonlight State Beach has been mapped and identified variously by others as shown in Table 1 . In this table , lower sea cliff stratigraphy is divided into six groups , separated by four faults and one concealed "mystery" contact . For purposes of this discussion, the geologic nomenclature of Wilson ( 1972 ) is followed . The importance of this is that the Encinitas Beach fault separates two distinctly different geologic terranes and physiographic terrains . North of this fault , Santiago Formation (member B of Wilson, 1972 ) occurs in the lower sea cliffs , while to the south, Torrey Sandstone � O (of Wilson, 1972 ) is exposed in bold lower sea cliff outcrop . - Physiographic reflection of this lithologic change was recorded on a late 19th century coastal topographic survey map (U . S . Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1887 ) . North of the Encinitas Beach fault , closely spaced contour lines are used to depict sea cliff topography; to the south, short vertical hachure marks are used to depict a sea cliff too steep ( at a map scale of 1 "=833 ' ) to show with contour lines . - Distinctive differences in color have been observed in outcrops of Santiago Formation (member B of Wilson, 1972 ) and Torrey Sandstone ( of Kennedy and Moore , 1971 ; Kennedy, 1975 ) . Although exceptions do occur, the former tends to be bluish and greenish white and gray in color ( cool tones ) , while the latter tends to be off- white , tan, yellowish and orangish brown (warm tones ) in color . Even though generalized, similar observations , were made and/or alluded to by Phillips ( 1941 , p . 35 ) and by Wilson ( 1972 , pl . C ) . This marked contrast in appearance is particularly noticeable in the field, north and south of the Encinitas Beach fault ( Figure 1 ) . For convenience , and to facilitate discussion, member B of the Santiago Formation is herein divided into five distinctive facies and given informal names as noted in quotes below . From north to south, these informal stratigraphic units are described briefly in the paragraphs that follow . Torrey Sandstone is discussed at the end of this section . 1 . "Grandview sandstone " Between the South Carlsbad State Beach parking lot and the Grandview fault (Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , white to light-gray, light greenish-gray, and locally pale pink, moderately well, consolidated, silty fine-grained sandstone forms stark near-vertical sea cliffs . Close inspection, shows that , thin pink- to rose- colored lenses , and scattered dark pink- and rose-colored claystone clasts are scattered throughout . Bedding in this thinly to massively bedded facies dips approximately 1 ° to 30 in northerly directions (Eisenberg , 1983 , p . 343 ) . Differential weathering and erosion around small faults and fractures provide texture and relief to the otherwise monotonous , approximately 2550 linear feet of cliff face . Irwin ( 1986 , p . 62- 64 ) reported the presence of shark and ray teeth low in the section . He also suggested (p . 68 ) that these " . . . teeth also may have been reworked from the lower deposits " . 12- Outcrop and structural/stratigraphic relationships suggest that the thickness is at least 14 feet , but probably does not exceed about 105 feet . Beach access along this stretch of coastline is via the Grandview public beach access stairs , and a set of private stairs located approximately 900 feet to the north . Except for a lower sea cliff concrete face under the Grandview stairs , seawalls are absent . 2 . "Jupiter siltstone " Between the Grandview fault and the concealed "mystery" contact ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , medium- to dark-gray, greenish-gray, and black, well consolidated, alternating layers and lenses of silty claystone , clayey siltstone , silty very very fine-grained sandstone , and very very fine-grained sandy siltstone , form cavernous and recessive near-vertical and overhanging sea cliffs . At least two paper- - thin to approximately 3/4-inch thick, soft , gray to gray-brown and olive-brown, "rubbery" clay seams occur in the southernmost exposures of "Jupiter siltstone " . Seitz ( 1983 ) reported that hundreds of closely spaced normal faults create planes of weakness along which weathering, erosion, - and sea cliff retreat occur . By disrupting bedding continuity, this intense faulting may, at least in part , provide a limiting factor to deep-seated slope failures -- such as those that have occurred in "Beacon ' s siltstone" further south . LL Bedding planes in this thinly to moderately bedded facies dip approximately 1 ° to 5 ° in southerly directions (Wilson, 1972 , pl . B ; Eisenberg, 1983 , p . 342 , pl . 3 ; Tan and Kennedy, 1996 , pl . 2 ) . Exceptions do, however, occur . For example , an approximately 1/32- to 1/16-inch thick, soft , olive-brown to gray-brown clay seam occurs approximately 3120 feet south of the Grandview stairs and dips approximately 2 ° to 4 ° in a north-northeasterly direction, favorably into slope . This , and other variations like this , are structural , and likely result from intense faulting as described by Seitz ( 1983 ) . Several whole and partial clam (bivalve mollusc ) shells and impressions were observed at scattered localities in this lower sea cliff outcrop . Outcrop and structural/stratigraphic relationships suggest that the thickness is at least 18 to 20 feet , but probably does not exceed about 60 . Numerous low seawalls and private beach access stairs characterize this approximately 3390-foot-long stretch of Leucadia coastline . 3 . "Promontory sandstone " Between the concealed "mystery" contact and the Beacon ' s fault (Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , yellow-brown to olive- and greenish-brown, well consolidated silty very fine-grained sandstone forms subdued, as well as prominent corrugated (bedding-parallel grooves and ridges ) near- vertical sea cliffs . Southerly from the concrete armored promontory ( located approximately 3700 to 3900 feet south of the Grandview stairs ) , bedding planes in this thinly to moderately bedded facies dip approximately 3 ° to 11 ° in southerly directions . Differential weathering and erosion along thin, dark, fine-grained interbeds provide a laterally ribbed appearance to this stretch of coastline . Northerly from the concrete armored promontory exposures are rare and difficult to find. Fossil remains were not found . Outcrop and structural/stratigraphic relationships suggest that the thickness is at least 19 to 20 feet , but probably does not exceed about 110 feet . Numerous low seawalls , dense vegetation, and private beach access stairs characterize 1S this approximately 660-foot-long stretch of Leucadia coastline . 4 . "Beacon ' s siltstone " Between the Beacon ' s and Seawall faults ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , medium- to dark-gray, greenish-gray and black, well consolidated, alternating layers and lenses of silty very fine-grained sandstone, claystone, silty claystone , and clayey very very fine-grained sandy siltstone form near-vertical sea cliffs ( see Figure 2 on p . 50 of Dem6r6 and Boettcher , 1985 ) . Paper-thin to approximately one-inch thick, soft , black, "rubbery" clay seams ( Photo 2 ) occur near the base of this unit and provide a basal rupture surface for prehistoric and recent rotational- slump/block-glide landsliding . Bedding planes in this thinly to moderately bedded facies form an approximately east northeasterly plunging shallow syncline centered approximately in the middle of the recent , June 2 , 1996 , landslide ( cf . "Leucadia syncline" of Eisenberg, 1983 , p . 342 , pl . 3 ) . Bedding attitudes on the northern limb dip approximately 50 to 10 ° in an easterly to east-northeasterly direction . While on the southern limb, bedding dips approximately 3 ° to 70 in a northeasterly direction . Calcareous cementation of selected layers and lenses , as well as " signature" flying- saucer- and boomerang-shaped, boxwork- decorated concretions provide horizontally ribbed relief to this approximately 1600 -- feet long stretch of coastline ( see Figure 2 on p . 50 of Dem6re and Boettcher, 1985 ) . Portions of this facies are richly fossiliferous and contain well-preserved shells of fossil marine molluscs . As to age, Wilson ( 1972 , p . 99 ) concluded that : "These [ fossil ] collections [ along the sea cliffs north of Moonlight Beach { at Beacon' s Beach } and at Evans Point { located approximately five miles north of Beacon' s Beach} ] both indicate an upper late Eocene age (upper Tejon . . . ) and hence an age correlation with the marine Mission Valley Formation in the San Diego sequence . " In more recent work, a gravelly fossiliferous layer, located near the base of this unit , was determined by Dem6r6 and Boettcher ( 1985 ) to be about 45 to 46 . 5 million years old . Furthermore , it was provisionally assigned to the Ardath shale ( cf .. Kennedy and Moore , 1971 ; Kennedy 197 5 ) which occurs in the La Jolla area of San Diego . Supported by additional field work, Dem6re (personal communication , December 19 , 2001 ) reported that : this fossiliferous bed is now believed to be closer to approximately 42 million years old (based on molluscs ) , probably a Mission Valley Formation equivalent ( cf . Kennedy and Moore , 1971 ; Kennedy, 1975 ) , and of late Middle Eocene age (Walsh, and others , 1996 ) . Outcrop and structural/stratigraphic relationships suggest that the thickness is at least 20 feet, but probably does not exceed about 60 feet . Prehistoric and recent deep-seated rotational-slump/block-glide landsliding, as well as recently constructed low to moderate height seawalls characterize the physiography of this portion of the Leucadia coastline ( Photos 1 , 3 , and 4 ) . 5 . "Woodley sandstone" Between the Seawall and Encinitas Beach faults ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , white to light-gray and pale j greenish-gray to gray-brown, moderately well consolidated, clayey and silty very fine- to _. fine-grained sandstone forms near-vertical to vertical sea cliffs . Bedding inclinations in this thinly to massively bedded and cross-bedded facies are variable , but appear, in general , to dip approximately 6 ° to 16 ° degrees in northerly to westerly directions . Fossil remains were not found . Outcrop and structural/stratigraphic relationships suggest that the thickness is at least 21 feet , but probably does not exceed about 185 feet . Numerous low and high seawalls , as well as private beach access stairs characterize and almost completely cover this approximately 1100-foot-long stretch of coastline . Precious few exposures of "Woodley sandstone " remain . Torrey Sandstone Between the Encinitas Beach fault and Moonlight State Beach (Table 1 , Figure 1 ) , off-white to pale yellow-brown and pale orange-brown, well consolidated, silty fine- to medium-grained sandstone forms stark and distinctly bold near- vertical and vertical sea cliffs . Bedding planes in this thinly to massively bedded and cross-bedded formation are nearly flat- lying . Subtle differences in weathering and erosion result in bumps and hollows which give the sea cliff face an irregular wavy and textured appearance . Fossil remains were not found . Hanna ( 1926 , p . 210 ) reported that : "The Torrey sand has an exposed thickness between 25 and approximately 200 feet . " Wilson ( 1972 , p . 69 ) reported that : "The Torrey Sandstone thins from south to north . . . from a thickness of about 180 feet north of San Elijo Lagoon to zero north of Palomar Airport Road . " This approximately 3900-foot-long stretch of coastline is characterized by : scattered discontinuous low seawalls , the Stonesteps stairs , one set of private beach access stairs ( approximately 1750 feet south of the Stonesteps stairs ) , and two stretches of riprap located within the first 950 feet north from Moonlight State Beach . Faulting Numerous faults have been identified and mapped along the Leucadia coastline by investigators noted earlier . In addition, Seitz ( 1983 ) made a detailed study of more than 100 closely spaced small faults in a portion of the "Jupiter siltstone " . From north to south, principal faults , especially those that juxtapose and/or separate major portions of individual facies , are described below . Grandview fault The Grandview fault of Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 128 ) is located in the lower sea cliffs approximately 200 feet south of the Grandview stairs ( Figure 1 ) . This fault strikes approximately north- south, and dips approximately 88 ° east . 20 "Grandview sandstone" on the west is juxtaposed with "Jupiter siltstone" on the east (Table 1 ) . Irwin ( 1986 , p . 62-63 , Fig . 38 ; Table 1 ) reported that his lithofacies G ( a portion of which equals the "Jupiter siltstone " ) underlies his lithofacies H (which equals the "Grandview sandstone" ) on the west side of the Grandview fault . The contact was reported to be a mostly flat (with local relief up to about a foot or so ) , sharp, irregular, erosional surface (p . 62- 63 ) . This relationship is presently obscured by approximately 5 to 7 feet of beach sand . According to Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 130 ) " . . . approximately 15 feet of down-to-the-west [apparent ] dip [ -slip] separation is present . " Additionally, Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 128 ) notes that this fault does not cut overlying upper Pleistocene terrace deposits . Beacon' s fault The Beacon' s fault , alluded to by Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 126 ) . is located approximately 60 feet north of the seaward projection of the north end of the Beacon' s Beach parking lot ( Figure 1 ) . It was observed to strike approximately N . 5 °E . , and to dip approximately 75 ° west . z1 At times when low tides and minimal beach sand coincide, the seaward ( southerly) extension of the Beacon ' s fault is exposed in the abrasion platform where differential weathering and erosion have produced a distinct , low relief, fault-line scarp . This fault juxtaposes "Promontory sandstone " on the west with "Beacon' s siltstone " on the east ( Table 1 ) . En echelon offsets in overlying upper Pleistocene terrace deposits suggest an apparent down-to-the-west sense of dip-slip separation . Therefore , by State definition (Hart and Bryant , 1997 , p . 5 ) , the Beacon' s fault would be classified as "Quaternary" , or "Potentially Active" . Seawall fault The Seawall fault ( Figure 1 ) is located approximately 40 feet north of the northern end of an approximately 25- to 30-foot-high seawall ( composed of distinctive vertical concrete "H" members which retain horizontal wood lagging ) . This fault strikes approximately N . 20 °E . and dips approximately 82 ° west . The fault offsets the sharp, apparently conformable contact of Irwin' s ( 1985 , p . 44 - 4 6 ; 1986, p . 50-52 , Figures 26 , 27 , and 33 ) lithofacies G ( a portion of which equals "Beacon' s siltstone" ) over lithofacies F (which equals a portion of the "Woodley sandstone" ) with approximately 2 feet of down-to-the-west apparent dip-slip separation . Because of northerly stratigraphic dip, the "Beacon' s siltstone" thins to zero under upper Pleistocene terrace deposits a few feet east of the fault . In addition, "Woodley sandstone " disappears below beach level approximately 200 or so feet north of the Seawall fault . Whether or not this fault cuts overlying upper Pleistocene terrace deposits could not be determined . Encinitas Beach fault The Encinitas Beach fault of Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 125-132 , pl . 1 ) , which is the same as Wilson ' s fault "D" ( 1972 , p . 117 , pl . B ) , is located approximately 1450 feet north of the Stonesteps stairs ( Figure 1 ) . It was observed to strike approximately N . 30 °E . , and to dip approximately 70 ° west . It juxtaposes "Woodley sandstone" on the west with Torrey Sandstone on the east . Prior to recent seawall construction, this fault was observed to cut overlying upper Pleistocene terrace deposits with an approximately one foot of down-to-the-west sense of apparent dip-slip separation . Therefore , by State definition ( Hart and Bryant , 1997 , p . 5 ) , the Encinitas Beach 23 fault would be classified as "Quaternary" , or "Potentially Active" . Moonlight Beach fault The Moonlight Beach fault is located approximately 1700 feet south of the Stonesteps stairs ( Figure 1 ) . It was observed to strike approximately N . 10 °E . , and to dip approximately 750 west . Horizontal striae indicate a strike-slip sense of separation . (This is not the same "Moonlight Beach fault" referred to by Eisenberg ( 1983 , p . 37 ) . Differential weathering and erosion associated with this fault have resulted in a shallow cove in the otherwise nearly straight coastline . It was not determined whether or not the Moonlight Beach fault cuts overlying upper Pleistocene terrace deposits . Concealed "Mystery" Contact The concealed "mystery" contact ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ) is located along a stretch of Leucadia coastline , which is covered with seawalls and dense vegetation . This approximately 140-foot-long veneered section extends from approximately 3560 to 3700 feet south of the Grandview stairs . z � For lack of better information, a subtle break in sea cliff geomorphology, located approximately 3590 feet south of the Grandview stairs has been provisionally chosen as the approximate location of the concealed "mystery" contact . Here , this break separates "Jupiter siltstone" on the north from "Promontory sandstone" on the south . As to the nature of the "mystery" contact , the abundance of faulting in this area would suggest a fault contact . On the other hand, a conformable , or nearly conformable , contact is suggested by similarly gently southerly dipping bedding on both sides of the "mystery" contact . Additional information will be required to resolve this dilemma . SLOPE STABILITY And now, back to the question, why did the recent landslide (Qls-r) , as well as two prehistoric sea cliff landslides (Qls-o ) , occur at the locations shown on the accompanying geologic map ( Figure 1 ) , and not elsewhere along the coastline? Beacon ' s fault to Seawall fault Geologic observations of the lower sea cliffs and the modern bedrock abrasion platform ( temporarily exposed during recent winter storms ) showed that the slide-prone "Beacon' s siltstone (with its interbedded clay seams exposed near beach-level ) is bound by two north-northeast trending, near- vertical faults , the Beacon' s and Seawall faults ( Figure 1 ) . Exposed briefly during July 1996, the lower sea cliff exposure of the Beacon' s fault is currently obscured by a sandy talus slope and thick vegetation . The Seawall fault is exposed in the lower sea cliff approximately 2550 feet north of the Stonesteps stairs as an approximately eight-foot-wide , near- __ vertical shear zone . Relatively large , rotational-slump/block- glide failures along the Leucadia coastline have been historically confined to nearly flat-lying "Beacon' s siltstone" exposed between the Beacon' s and Seawall faults . The prehistoric Beacon' s landslide ( Figure 1 , Photo 3 ) is believed to have failed along a clay seam or seams located slightly below beach-level . In contrast , the prehistoric -- Seawall landslide ( Figure 1 , Photo 3 ) , failed along a clay seam or seams exposed a few feet above beach-level . Photo 2 shows an approximately one-inch thick, black, soft, clay seam on which, or similar to 2 � which, the prehistoric and recent landslides occurred. The northern end of the Seawall landslide has continued to move over the past several years , as evidenced by shadows cast by the protruding lip of the seaward-creeping clayey basal portion of the slide . More recently, during winter 2002 , vegetation (groundcover and brush) has slid off of the leading edge and down onto the sandy beach below . Photographs of a fresh Beacon ' s landslide head-scarp, taken by Charles Lough (personal communication, March 28 , 2002 ) on February 20 , 1987 , show that this coastal landslide too, continues to move -- at least episodically . Raveling and small shallow surficial failures occur from time to time as a natural progression of the mass wasting process . - The June 2 , 1996 , landslide is currently being mitigated with a beach-level seawall _ and upper slope reconstruction ( Photo 4 ) . North of Beacon ' s Fault and South of Seawall Fault North of the Beacon' s fault , and south of the Seawall fault , Middle Eocene stratigraphy in the lower sea cliffs is noticeably different . "Promontory sandstone" , "Jupiter siltstone" , and "Grandview sandstone" crop out in the lower sea cliffs north of the Beacon ' s fault , while "Woodley sandstone " and Torrey Sandstone crop out in the lower sea cliffs - south of the Seawall fault ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ) . Although coastal landslides and slope instability problems do occur in these areas , they result from different geological conditions than those noted between the Beacon' s and Seawall faults . For example, typical failures in these lower sea cliff sandstones and siltstones are characterized primarily by block falls , and thin sea-cliff-parallel slabs that peel away along planes of weakness ( such as fractures and faults ) . These failures appear to vary greatly in size and to occur relatively randomly in both time and space . Sadly, a young woman was killed on January 15 , 2000 , approximately 600 feet south of the Stonesteps stairs when a large thin slab of lower sea cliff Torrey Sandstone crushed her as it fell suddenly to the beach . Seawall Fault to Encinitas Beach Fault Between the Seawall and Encinitas Beach faults , a number of large (high and low) seawalls , have been constructed to support unstable upper and lower sea cliff sedimentary strata . Unfortunately, three z � construction workers were injured (none fatally) on April 27 , 1989 , approximately 2370 feet north of the Stonesteps stairs , when a sea cliff stabilization project failed -- burying them in piles of loose running terrace sand . South of the Encinitas Beach Fault South of the Encinitas Beach fault the frequency of fractures in the lower sea cliff Torrey Sandstone steadily decreases ( spacing increases ) over a relatively short distance of approximately 1 , 000 feet , beyond which the formation becomes nearly devoid of fractures and faults , and relatively stable . The death of the young woman described above , however, emphasizes the importance of the word "relatively" . Upper sea cliff instability problems in upper Pleistocene sandy terrace deposits have occurred during recent years over a distance of approximately 700 feet south of the Encinitas Beach fault . North of the Beacon ' s Fault Significant historical slope instability problems have occurred for a distance of approximately 1000 feet north of the Beacon' s fault . For example , a large ( approximately 300-foot- wide ) upper sea cliff terrace sand failure , located approximately 3580 to 3880 feet south of the Grandview stairs , is clearly 2 Cl distinguishable on an October 1960 , San Diego Historical Society oblique aerial photograph . In addition, immediately adjacent to the north, a set of private beach access stairs was recently lost to what appear to be relatively shallow slope-failures and raveling in the upper sea cliff terrace sands . Currently, translucent plastic sheeting covers most of this approximately 75-foot-wide failure , and a sea wall is being constructed at the toe of the sea cliff . Beyond, to the north, noticeably fewer problems appear to be associated with the seemingly more stable lower sea cliff sandstones and siltstones , and the overlying upper sea cliff upper Pleistocene sandy terrace deposits . A notable local exception, however, occurred on January 30 , 1998 , during the 1997-98 El Nino Winter storms . Approximately 93 to 153 feet south of the Grandview stairs , an approximately 1- to 5-foot-thick, 8+ foot-high, 60-foot-long, block of "Promontory sandstone " broke away from the cliff face along a coast-parallel fracture and fell harmlessly to the beach . LANDSLIDE PREDICTION 3c Could large-scale coastal landsliding along the Leucadia coastline been have been predicted? As to location between the Beacon' s and Seawall faults , I believe the answer is yes . For example , between these two faults , the prehistoric Beacon' s and Seawall landslides are clearly visible in the field, on topographic maps ( U . -S . Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1887 ; U . S . Geological Survey, 1898 , 1968-75 ; San Diego, County of, 1975 ) , and on older aerial photographs ( San Diego County of, 1928-29 ; U . S . Department of Agriculture , 1939 , 1953 ; Photo 3 , herein) . Additionally, these prehistoric landslides were noted by Wilson ( 1972 , pl . B ) , Tan ( 1986 , pl . 4C ) , and Tan and Kennedy ( 1996 , pl . 2 ) . As to the timing of the occurrence of the June 2 , 1996 , landslide , or any possible future landsliding between the Beacon' s and Seawall faults , I believe that the answer is not likely . At best , predicting the timing and/or location of coastal slope failures north of the Beacon' s fault and/or south of the Seawall fault would likely prove to be a difficult , if not impossible task . 3I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks go to Dr . Tom Demere for his critical review, constructive criticism, and helpful suggestions for manuscript improvement, and to Walt Crampton and Braven Smillie for stimulating discussions and for sharing copies of 2001 color oblique aerial photographs of the Leucadia coastline . REFERENCES Demere, T . A. , and Boettcher, R . S . , 1985 , Paleontology and biostratigraphy of Middle Eocene nearshore marine sedimentary rocks , Leucadia, San Diego County, California, in Abbott , P . L . , ed . , On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County [ California] : San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook, April 13 , 1985 , p . 49-53 . Eisenberg, L . I . , ' 1983 , Pleistocene marine terrace and Eocene geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles , San Diego County, California [M . S . thesis ] : San Diego - State University, 386p . Approximate geologic map scale 111=22001 . Eisenberg, L . I . , and Abbott , P . L . , 1985 , Eocene lithofacies and geologic history, 3Z northern San Diego County, [California] , in __- Abbott, P . L . , ed . , On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County [ California] : San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook, April 13 , 1985 , p . 19-35 . Elliott , W . J . , 1996, Three cover photographs and accompanying one page explanation following guidebook title page , in Munasinghe, T . , and Rosenberg, P . , eds . , Geology and natural resources of coastal San Diego County, California : San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook, September, 1996 . Elliott , W . J . , 1997 , Sea-cliff landslides - history repeats itself, Leucadia, California 92024 [ abs . ] : Program with Abstracts , 40th annual meeting, Association of Engineering Geologists , Portland, Oregon, p . 96 . Ellis , A . J . , and Lee , C . H . , 1919 , Geology and ground waters of the western part of San Diego County, California : U . S . Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 446 , 321p . Scale of preliminary geologic map of San Diego County, California 1 " = 4 miles . Hanna, M . A . , 1926 , Geology of the La Jolla quadrangle , California : University of California Publications , Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences , v . 16 , n . 7 , p . 187-246, issued November 20 , 1926 . Geologic map scale 1 " = 1 mile . � y _ Irwin, R . L . , 1986 , Eocene lithofacies in the vicinity of Leucadia and Encinitas , San Diego County, California [M . S . thesis ] : San Diego State University, 124p . Jahns , R . H . , 1954 , Geology of the Peninsular Range province, Southern California and Baja California, in Jahns , R . H . , ed . , Geology of Southern California : California Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Chapter II , p . 29-52 , pl . 3 . Geologic map scale 1" = 6 miles . Jones , B . F. , 1959 , Geology of the San Luis Rey quadrangle [M . S . thesis ] : University of Southern California, 109p . , geologic map scale 1 "=2000 ' . Kennedy, M . P . , 1973a, Bedrock lithologies , San Diego coastal area, California , in Ross , A . , and Dowlen, R . J . , eds . , Studies on the geology and geologic hazards of the greater San Diego area, California : San Diego Association of Geologists and Association of Engineering Geologists field trip guidebook, May, 1973, p . 9-15 . Geologic map scale approximately 1 " = 9 . 8 miles . Kennedy, M . P . , 1973b, Stratigraphy of the San Diego embayment , California [ Ph . D . thesis ] : University of California , Riverside , 148p . Kennedy, M . P . , 1975 , Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California , Section A - western San Diego metropolitan area : California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200 , p, 9-39 . Scale of geologic maps 1 "=2000 ' . Kennedy, M . P . , and Moore, G . W . , 1971 , Stratigraphic relations of Upper Cretaceous and Eocene formations , San Diego coastal area, California : The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v . 55 , n . 5 , p . 709-722 . Kennedy, M . P . , and Peterson, G . L . , 1975 , Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California, Section B - eastern San Diego metropolitan area : California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200 , p, 41-56 . Scale of geologic maps 1 "=20001 . Moyle , W . R . , Jr . , 1975 , Geologic maps of the eastern and western parts Camp Pendleton, Southern California, in Ross , A . , and Dowlen, R . J . , eds . , Studies on the geology of Camp Pendleton and western San Diego County, California : San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook, U . S . Geological Survey Open-File Report , 2 map sheets , compiled 1973 . Geologic map scale 1 " = 0 . 9 mile . Phillips , I . L . , 1941 , A study of the geology and soils of the Oceanside quadrangle [M .A . thesis ] : University of v California, 58p . , geologic map scale 1" = 1 mile . Rogers , T . H . , compiler, 1966 , Geologic map of California, Santa Ana sheet : California Division of Mines and Geology, map scale 1" 4 miles . Map compiled 1965 . :i San Diego, County of, 1928-29 , Stereographic black and white aerial photographs , Nos . 37- E-1 , 37-F-1 , and 37-F-2 , approximate scale 1"=1 , 0001 , photos flown winter 1928-29 . San Diego, County of, 1975 , Topographic survey, Ortho photo base, Sheet Nos . 322- 1677 , 326-1671 , 326-1677 , 330-1671 , and 334 - 1671 , scale 1 "=200 ' , contour interval 51 , photos flown September 17 , 1975 . San Diego Historical Society, 1957 , Black and white oblique aerial photograph ( see Photo 3 , herein) . View is southeasterly of the Leucadia, California coastline . Photo No . S-4130-1 . San Diego Historical Society, 1960 , Black and white oblique aerial photograph . View is east-northeasterly of the Leucadia, California coastline ( October 1960 ) . Photo No . S-6725-2 . (Not reproduced herein . ) Schoellhammer, J . E . , Kinney, D . M . , Yerkes , R . F . , and Vedder, J . G . , 1954 , Geologic map of the northern Santa Ana Mountains , Orange and Riverside counties , California : U . S . Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM-154 , scale 1"=20001 , contour interval 20 . Seitz , G . , 1983 , Normal faulting associated with major strike-slip faulting in the Leucadia area of San Diego County [California] [ Senior Research thesis ] : San Diego State University, 32p . Tan, S . S . , 1986 , Landslide hazards in the Encinitas quadrangle , San Diego County, California, Geologic map - Plate 4 -C : California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 86-8-LA, 1p . , map scale 1 "=2000 ' . Tan, S . S . and Giffen, D . G . , 1995 , Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California -- Plate 35D, Landslide 4 distribution map [U . S . Geological Survey, Encinitas , CA, 71� ' topographic quadrangle -- map] : California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04 , 6p . , map scale 1 "=2000 ' . Tan, S . S . , and Kennedy, M . P . , 1996 , Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California -- Plate 2 , Geologic map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7 . 5 ' quadrangles , San Diego County, - California : California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02 , 1p . , map scale 1 "=2000 ' . United States Department of Agriculture , 1939, Stereographic black and white aerial photographs , Nos . AXN-204-72 and 73 , flown April 16, 1939, scale 1"=1667 ' . United States Department of Agriculture , 1953 , Stereographic black and white aerial photographs , Nos . AXN-8M-95 and 96, flown April 11 , 1953 , scale 1 "=16671 . United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1887 , Pacific coast topography northward from San Dieguito [River] Valley [ to Batiquitos Lagoon] , California, surveyed 8- 1887 , Register No . 1898 [ T-1898 ] , original map scale 1 : 10 , 000 [ 1 "=833 ' ] . United States Geological Survey, 1898 , Oceanside , California, 15 ' topographic quadrangle map, scale 1 " = 1 mile , contour interval 25 ' , ( surveyed in 1891 and 1898 ) . United States Geological Survey, 1968-75 , Encinitas , California, 7-1/2 ' topographic quadrangle map, scale 1 "=20001 , contour interval 201 , photos flown 1947 , 1967 , and 1975 . Walsh, S . L . , Prothero, D . R . , and Lundquist , D . J . , 1996 , Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of the Middle Eocene Friars Formation and Poway Group, southwestern San Diego County, California, in Prothero, D . R . , and Emry R . J . , eds . , The terrestrial Eocene-Oligocene transition in North America : Cambridge University Press , p . 120- 151 . Weber, F . H . , Jr . , 1963 , Geology and mineral resources of San Diego County, California : California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3 , 309p . Geologic map scale 1" = 2 miles . Weber, F . H . , Jr . , 1982 , Recent slope failures , ancient landslides , and related geology of the north-central coastal area, San Diego County, California : California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 82-12-LA, 77p . , geologic map scale 1 "=2000 ' . Wilson, K . L . , 1972 , Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles , [northern] San Diego County, California [M . A . thesis ] : University of California, Riverside , 135p . , geologic map scale 1 "=2000 ' . Woodring, W . P . , and Popenoe , W . P . , 1945 , Paleocene and Eocene stratigraphy of northwestern Santa Ana Mountains , Orange County, California : U . S . Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations , Preliminary Chart 12 . Young, J . M . , and Berry, R . W . , 1981 , Tertiary lithostratigraphic variations , _ Santa Margarita River to Agua Hedionda Lagoon , in Abbott , P . L . , and O' Dunn, S . , eds . , Geologic investigations of the coastal plain, San Diego County, California : San Diego Association of Geologists field trip guidebook, April 25 , 1981 , p . 33-51 . Geologic map scale 1" = 0 . 58 mile . i i Table 1 Stratigraphic correlation chart for lower sea-cliff exposures between South Carlsbad State Beach and Moonlight State Beach, Encinitas, California. Author: Wilson, 1972 Eisenberg, Irwin, 1985, Tan, 1986 Tan and 1983 1 1986 1 1 Kennedy, 1996 Coastline identification features, from north to south, are noted in the left-hand column below. Compare with Figure 1 - Geologic Ma South Carlsbad State Beach Private beach Tsb Lithofacies 5 Lithofacies H Tsc Tsa access stairs Santiago (Tsc Scripps (no name Scripps Santiago Formation Formation) given) Formation Formation Grandview member B beach access stairs (Eisenberg's Grandview fault Grandview fault) Low seawalls Tsb Lithofacies 7 Lithofacies G Ta Tsa and private Santiago (Ta Ardath (Ta Ardath Ardath Shale Santiago beach access Formation Shale) Shale) Formation stairs member B Concealed "mystery" contact Low seawalls Tsb Lithofacies 7 Lithofacies G Ta Tsa and private Santiago (Ta Ardath (Ta Ardath Ardath Shale Santiago beach access Formation Shale) Shale) Formation stairs member B Armored Promontory Beacon's fault Qls-o Tsb Lithofacies 7 Lithofacies G Ta Tsa Santiago (Ta Ardath (Ta Ardath Ardath Shale Santiago Formation Shale) Shale) Formation Qls-r member B ---over--- ---over--- ---over--- (6-2-1996) Lithofacies 6 Lithofacies F Tt Torrey (Tt Torrey (Tt Torrey Sandstone Qls-o Sandstone) Sandstone) Seawall fault Tsb Lithofacies 7 Lithofacies G Tt Tt High Santiago (Ta Ardath (Ardath sh.) Torrey Torrey seawalls Formation Shale) ---over--- Sandstone Sandstone member B ---over--- Lithofacies F Low seawalls Lithofacies 6 (Torrey ss) (Tt Torrey ---over--- Sandstone) Lithofacies E Encinitas (Wilson's (Eisenberg's Beach fault Fault D) Encinitas Beach fault) Discontinuous Tt Lithofacies 6 Lithofacies E Tt Tt low seawalls Torrey ---over--- (Tt Torrey Torrey Torrey Sandstone Lithofacies 5 Sandstone) Sandstone Sandstone Stonesteps (all Tt beach access Torrey stairs Sandstone) Discontinuous low seawalls Moonlight Beach fault Moonlight State Beach The Grandview, Beacon' s, Seawall, and Encinitas Beach faults, as well as the concealed "mystery" contact, provide logical breaks within the lower sea cliff bedrock geology. Variables include: rock type/structure, weathering/erosion, physiographic expression, as well as differences in slope stability and landslide susceptibility. Table 1 (Continued) Stratigraphic correlation chart for lower sea- cliff exposures between South Carlsbad State Beach and Moonlight State Beach, Encinitas, California. Author: This paper* Description of informal units. See text (Faulting) for units that occur on both sides of fault divisions. Coastline identification features, from north to south, are noted in the left-hand column below. Compare with Figure 1 - Geologic Ma South Carlsbad State Beach Private beach access stairs "Grandview Sandstone. White to light-gray, light greenish-gray, and sandstone" locally pale pink, moderately well consolidated, silty Grandview fine-grained sandstone. beach access stairs Grandview fault Low seawalls Siltstone. Medium- to dark-gray, greenish-gray and and private "Jupiter black, well consolidated, alt. Layers and lenses of silty beach access siltstone" claystone, clayey siltstone, silty very very fine-grained stairs sandstone, and very very fine-grained sandy siltstone. Concealed "mystery" contact Low seawalls and private beach access "Promontory Sandstone. Yellow-brown to olive- and greenish-brown, stairs sandstone" well consolidated silty very fine-grained sandstone. Armored Promontory Beacon's fault Qls-o Siltstone. Medium- to dark-gray, greenish-gray, and black, well consolidated, alternating layers and lenses of Qls-r "Beacon's silty very fine-grained sandstone, claystone, silty (6-2-1996) siltstone" claystone, and clayey very very fine-grained sandy siltstone. Soft, black, "rubbery" clay seams (Photo 2) occur near the base of this unit and provide a basal Qls-o rupture surface for prehistoric and recent rotational- slump/block-glide landslidin . Seawall fault High "Woodley Sandstone. white to light-gray and pale greenish-gray to seawalls sandstone" gray-brown, moderately well consolidated, clayey and silty very fine- to fine-grained sandstone. Low seawalls Encinitas Beach fault Discontinuous low seawalls Stonesteps Torrey Sandstone. Off-white to pale yellow-brown and pale beach access Sandstone orange-brown, well consolidated, silty fine- to medium- -- stairs grained sandstone. Discontinuous low seawalls Moonlight Beach fault Moonlight State Beach * Informal stratigraphic names are suggested herein to identify distinct "mappable" facies within the lower sea cliffs between South Carlsbad State Beach and the Encinitas Beach fault. This provides for convenient identification of individual terranes/terrains with differing slope stability and weathering/erosion characteristics. South Carlsbad State Beach � ,• t f OSTA a, ,'`, ,r•r <>� �:. ,._;_L$ C••-•. Parking Lot "AVE •' { �, re � r Ni� 1 _ •. t N f �. 1 f 5 0 Grandview Beach �h ►• + .F) Access Stairs 4 � � � •,it 1 s� Grandview Fault r" C, .0 A.'- 1 tis :9 D.t rOj" � S;v.' 4'• .. A'� gyp• LeUca .L • s' t Concealed "Mystery" Contact ! PARK Beacon' s Landslide -o) June 2, 1996 Landslide (Qls-r) 5, . LEUC A'B` '�"+ X``. s ,. Seawall Landslide (Qls-o) 7r`� t Beacon' s Fault i �nFinit3� 6 t. . .�c. •\ i � :. _._ �.,rn,h�y P� ii � r •� Z h. I'• ry?. Seawall Fault � 'u.'• 70 ° ` �. ant ir�tas ,'_ : off Encinitas Beach Fault Stonesteps Beach 2%t5t�:1;: i,,5r �. fit.lot.p♦ �•Z r Access Stairs Cokinty O..--i r Tt Moonlight Beach Fault •J , O Moonlight State Beach 7s ' 'r 0 3000 �s '' �.. Ni,)(4N.J.I ctI'r Scale Feet 4 16 FIGURE 1 - GEOLOGIC MAP t _• ` CALIF L.11`Cinit ti See Fig. 1 (Cont. ) for Explanations �; �, Z: t U T 7, H"t AA- South Carlsbad 011 ,F 0�r1t GUSTA State Beach AVE. Parking Lot k4ts.,, 4 �t 60 b ,V nrt N � • 1 2� sa n ' A j 1 T SS 1,4 W : :r 5 =150L Grandview Beach Access Stairs Q+ � 4 � r • ' s• � =T Grandview Fault -� ' 'i �''• t 4 i 3 Y,}tTi n LeuCa.d'a� � �.' , ' :N V1 Zf _ C Concealed t` 1� .: i •` "Mystery" Contact k BEA 1Q'$; BEA�CHj 5. sa Pjkz Beacon' s Landslide (Qls-o) June 2, 1996 Landslide (Qls-r - �, 's;�y `LEUC ' T Seawall Landslide (Qls-o) �'F�i • DAU y Trt t Beacon' s Fault • t Enc) L�5 Seawall Fault --2:'�1 '� 70 ?� 99 t r,,,.;t;St, Encinitas Beach Fault �L 7 Stonesteps Beach <ti Access Stairs 5 :4 r Moonlight Beach Fault vy• o Moonlight State Beach ---- -- 7 7s TIL Ft 0 3000 s f Q Scale Feet FIGURE 1 - GEOLOGIC MAP `` S CALIF Encinitas See Fig. 1 (Cont. ) for Explanation TQ ' FIGURE 1 Continued EXPLANATION for GEOLOGIC MAP Qs = Undifferentiated surficial deposits: alluvium, colluvium, beach sand, and artificial fill (Holocene) . Qls-r = Recent landslide (June 2, 1996) . Qls-o = Prehistoric landslides (Holocene / upper Pleistocene) . Qt-1 = Terrace deposits (lowest elevation, youngest) (Bay Point Formation, upper Pleistocene) . Qt-2 = Terrace deposits (Bay Point Formation, upper Pleistocene) . Qt-3 = Terrace Deposits (highest elevation, oldest) (Bay Point Formation, upper Pleistocene) . Tsa = Santiago Formation (Middle Eocene) . See Table 1 and text for informal divisions. Tt = Torrey Sandstone (Middle Eocene) . Td = Delmar Formation (Middle Eocene) . = Geologic contact, dotted where location is concealed or inferred. 5 = Strike and dip of bedding. 75 = Strike and dip of fault, dashed where location is approximate, dotted where location is concealed or inferred. U. = Up, D. = Down. SS. = Strike Slip. = Landslide. Arrows show direction of movement. Modified after Tan and Kennedy, 1996: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02. Base map after: U. S.G. S. , Encinitas, California, 7} ' topographic quadrangle map, 1968-75. a� s y�Q0 ysya 0� y � •4- = 0 A72 :a ,y p ' sSS' yy yq�0 '0 w�. S as 0 Ln .r4 4J (1) -Q 44,4 M 01, r-I O .I-f to-r'I , 3' m U 4 U O r-II 4J r-1 ...._. r •rm-I V mm 0 � cn of •rl �I a) rU -r'I EH � U Q 4J — ama Unw 1 fi �. v,rev , •: J d+. s ry4✓ Y r � � tl • 1 1 1 J{ 1 it VI a +✓1� • Q) —4-) Imo Q) N 4-I >y Q) 4 En I- O Z. 4) m la, -�11 En� -4 O U (d r-I C)4 ro 0 >1 A r- m I- Q) 4J U Q) m r-1 m 4 Q) 9 m m U ° O ; )-1 M 4J 3 1 r°•1 rO Imo!) U°) 4J W •J rtS r-I o 4J td 4J r-I (d 74 (d .--I U) Q) r•-1 -r1 :. Q) F4 •4J � �" N 3 In f0-I (t Ea o Q) >4 44 rd r1 •r1 O a SA m Q) EO O 3 44 r-I U 4a o Z (d rnw •� � r-q . U O r-I M )4 S4 34 U rd •ri U O % 0 (1) x U GQ rt m ON N M4-) Q) o() rO H -P co N M A ra C: S4 rti rl xz4J Q) >,Na� vw • U 4a W +) r-i v ,-I Q) I Q) 4 rO 9 44 Q) U Q) r3 g +-) o-H cn :, o �: a� = o q ro �d •r1 -,1 341 Q) 04ri � c>1Z A � Pr=004 Mm J a •ri 34 O O A A ro m U I Q) 04 44 ;. „q q .-1 r-I m Q) D O ro O U m (L) Q) .� :J x ►•r1 $4 +I-r-I Q) 4J •ri (1) 41 U U O )•a N X +-) TJ m ?4 CO U +d r 3 4) (d r•I res 3 - 0 E m ri > 30 +JF0 (1) :. ty)-H W r I Q) r•-4 p i~ > a. O •r♦ X 4 `•.� 4-3 U Q) b W O ° >r-rq o4 to m -I.1 O-r-I Q) GA � 104 A N•r� z r i 0) U) A Q) (d X Q) z cd rd m >, 3-I U E-1 -1 fn �Q �4 S4 3 4 14 4-1 •r1 r= �4 .'y Q) r-I xaN•,q (d 41 a) � U � 0 CL d! 0 ? r� rn m .y. 1 is x (d () 9 rd •rl 4 -r-1 4-) Z -P >1 �4. -4 O O 44 P 4) 4a Oa) O "1 r- O Qrt O U -H ro 4 J i". N Rf RS O;Rf ra b1 O�rl 4J r� ,i ' I U (d N 0 44 ( a o (1) > u, �q 3 fu v y` of a) F3 5 Q) -P KC . > O �4 z a) r I r—I (n i O +� a.� • a a a) U a) a) a) a �sro �4z a) SZ r-I 4-4 l0 ro Ef)�Y O ro OD Z Ea (13 r-1 l0 ro a) r•-i 0)r, rcJ U) ([f a a) rn41 O 4 M b �4 +) .•i 44 N O r-i ro ;:: N •rl �4 H � x 3 Ou� ... Ufu SG7 C South/and Geotechnical Consultants ENGiNEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINiTAS GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 1264 NEPTUNE AVENUE LEUCADIA AREA OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Project No. 147A42 June 15, 2000 Prepared for: Craig and Luann Berg 1723 Fire Mountain Drive Oceanside, California 92054 • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 (619)442-8022 • FAX(619)442-7859 SGC South/and Geotechnical Consultants June 15, 2000 Project No. 147A42 To: Craig and Luann Berg 1723 Fire Mountain Drive Oceanside, California 92054 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Property, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1264 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia Area of Encinitas, California Introduction In accordance with your request, Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a geotechnical evaluation of the subject coastal bluff property. This geotechnical evaluation consists of a geologic evaluation of the coastal bluff property and a soils investigation for a proposed single-family residence at the site. This report presents a summary of our field and research studies and our conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed development. Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation (geologic evaluation/soils investigation) of the coastal bluff property located at 1264 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the coastal bluff property and provide recommendations relative to the proposed construction. The scope of our geotechnical evaluation included the following: - Review of aerial photographs, geologic/topographic maps, and geologic literature pertaining to the site and vicinity. A list of the items reviewed is presented in Appendix A. - Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions including the coastal bluff and general vicinity. - Preparation of a tape and clinometer profile of the bluff face. - Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging and sampling four exploratory borings at the site. • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 • (619)442-8022 • FAX(619)442-7859 Project No. 147A42 Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained, including a computer-generated slope stability analysis of the coastal bluff. Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation of the coastal bluff property. This report includes a summary of the coastal bluff conditions and discusses the geotechnical factors affecting the proposed residence and provides geotechnical recommendations including allowable soil- bearing pressure, foundation design and other design/construction considerations. Site Description The subject coastal bluff property is a roughly rectangular parcel located at 1264 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas (see Figure 1). The eastern property line is located along the westerly side of the Neptune Avenue roadway. Single-family residential developments exist on the properties to the north and south of the subject property. The bluff-top area of the property is bounded on the west by an approximately 70-foot high coastal bluff (see Photo 1 ). The approximate elevation of the bluff edge is about 75 feet above sea level based on our review of the County of San Diego 1975 orthophoto topographic map. On November 1 , 1999, SGC representatives compiled a Site Plan (Figure 2) based on approximate measurements of the features located on the bluff-top area at the site. In general, the western approximately one-half of the bluff-top area slopes to the west at an overall gradient of approximately 7 degrees. The eastern portion of the bluff-top area at the site is relatively level. A single-story, single-family residence occupies the south-central portion of the bluff-top area. A wood deck exists westerly of the residence. The remainder of the bluff-top area west of the residence is vegetated with iceplant and weeds. The bluff edge on the site is obscured by vegetative growth (see Photo 2) and its approximate location is depicted on Figure 2. Bluff Description During our site visit on November 1 , 1999, a tape and clinometer profile of the coastal bluff on the property was prepared. The results of our approximate measurements are presented on Figure 3 (Coastal Bluff Profile). The approximately 70-foot high coastal bluff slopes at an overall gradient of approximately 37 degrees (from the base of the 2 SGC t Project No. 147A42 exposed seacliff to the upper bluff edge). There is an approximately 25-foot high, near vertical to overhanging, unvegetated, seacliff at the base of the coastal bluff. The overlying approximately 50 vertical feet of the bluff slopes at an overall gradient of approximately 31 degrees and is moderately vegetated with iceplant and weeds. A wooden stairway descends the northern portion of the onsite bluff. The top of the bluff is shown on Photo 2. Proposed Development We have reviewed preliminary project plans for the proposed residence (Appendix A). It is our understanding that the existing residence will be razed and a new residence and associated site improvements will be constructed. Site grading will consist of excavation of soils to be removed from site. We understand that the foundations for the proposed residence will be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge and anticipate that building loads will be typical for relatively light residential construction. Subsurface Exploration On November 1 , 1999, representatives from our firm manually excavated, logged and sampled four exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 4 feet. Logs of the exploratory borings are included as Figure 4. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the exploratory borings were backfilled. Geologic Units Based on our review of a geologic map (Appendix A, Reference 3) and our onsite observations, the property appears to be underlain by Eocene-aged Ardath Shale, Quaternary-aged terrace deposits and surficial deposits consisting of beach sand, topsoil and fill soils. The approximate limits of these units, as observed in our onsite studies, are shown on Figure 3 and are described below. Ardath Shale - The Eocene-aged Ardath Shale is exposed in the near-vertical seacliff at the base of the coastal bluff and underlies the entire site at depth (below the terrace deposits). The Ardath Shale at the site generally consisted of a gray-brown, well-consolidated, fine sandy to slightly clayey siltstone and silty fine sandstone. 3 SGC Project No. 147A42 Terrace Deposits - Quaternary-aged terrace deposits comprise the majority of the bluff face. The terrace deposits generally consisted of orange-brown to light brown, dense, friable to slightly cemented, slightly silty fine to medium sand. Topsoil - A thin veneer of topsoil has developed on the terrace deposits and exists locally at the site. Topsoil was encountered in all the borings to a maximum depth of 1 .8 feet. The topsoil is considered potentially compressible should not be relied upon for the support of structural loads. The limits of the topsoil are not shown on Figure 3. Beach Deposits - A variable thickness of unconsolidated beach deposits occur on the beach at the base of the coastal bluff. During our site visit, the beach deposits consisted of sand. The beach deposits are subject to addition and removal in response to storm waves and currents. Fill Soils - Fill soils exist locally on the bluff-top area and appear to be associated with the existing site improvements. Fill soil associated with topsoil was encountered in boring 3 to a maximum depth of approximately 1 .3 feet. Localized deeper areas of fill may exist on site. The fill generally consisted of brown, dry, loose, silty fine sand with roots and organics. The limits of the relatively minor amounts of fill soils are not shown on Figure 3. These fill soils are considered potentially compressible and should not be relied upon for the support of the proposed structure and other site improvements. Geologic Structure The Ardath Shale exposed in the seacliff at the subject property and near the subject property, is mapped as nearly flat-lying (Appendix A, Reference 3). In the general site vicinity, bedding in the Quaternary terrace deposits can be observed as alternating more resistant and less resistant beds. Where observed on site and in the general site vicinity, the terrace deposits appear to be horizontally bedded with localized cross bedding. Jointing of the Ardath Shale was observed in the seacliff and did not appear to extend into the overlying terrace deposits. The major joint pattern had an attitude of approximately N60-70E/70NW. The joints have the same general attitude of and are part of a series of relatively minor, subparallel faults (with down-to the-northwest separations) mapped in the site vicinity (Appendix A, Reference 3). Some faulting of the Ardath Shale was observed, however, major out-of-slope components adverse to 4 SGC t Project No. 147A42 deep-seated slope stability were not observed on site. Joints, faults, or fractures were not observed extending into the overlying terrace deposits. Indications of deep-seated landslide features were not observed during our research studies or site visits. Faulting Our review of geologic literature (Appendix A) pertaining to the general site area indicates that there are no known "active" faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. An "active" fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as one which has "had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11 ,000 years)" (Appendix A, Reference 5). Indications of active faulting were not observed in the subject coastal bluff or in nearby exposures. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 2 miles west of the site, the Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 18 miles west, and the Elsinore fault located approximately 26 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 65 miles north-northeast of the site. As previously mentioned, a series of relatively minor faults have been mapped on the seacliff of this site and in the vicinity (Appendix A, Reference 3). These faults do not appear to extend into and displace the overlying terrace deposits and are not considered to be "active" faults as defined by CDMG. They are not considered to be a constraint to site development. Tsunami and Storm Waves Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami recorded on the San Diego tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977) have only been a few tenths of a meter in height (Appendix A, Reference 1 ). The largest recorded San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (1 meter) was associated with the tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Pier) (Appendix A, Reference 13). The tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 earthquake in Chile. For comparison, the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1 .7 meters. The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered low (Appendix A, Reference 6). However, tsunami or storm waves, in conjunction with high tides, may erode the soils that comprise the coastal bluff face but are not anticipated to have the potential for inundation of the bluff-top building site. 5 SGC f 't Project No. 147A42 Groundwater and Surface Water Relatively minor groundwater seepage was observed in the seacliff at the site during our visit on November 1 , 1999. However, no indications of groundwater seepage were observed during our subsequent visit in May, 2000. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with the tides, seasonal precipitation and irrigation. Groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to construction of the proposed residence. However, our experience indicates that near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions previously existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. Surface water at the site appears to drain primarily towards the west. Surface water on the bluff-face appears to occur as sheet flow towards the west. It appears that some of the bluff-face surface-water flow has locally rilled the bluff-face soils at the property. Historic Research Summary We have reviewed the literature, maps and aerial photographs of the site and general vicinity listed in Appendix A. Following is a limited outline summary of our review observations: The oldest photographs we reviewed were from the 1928-29 aerial photograph set on file at the County of San Diego. Neptune Avenue and the majority of the existing nearby streets appear to be unpaved, dirt roads. No structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject property were observed. The existing residence is not apparent on the 1953 photographs. On the 1960 topographic map, the perimeters of the existing residence and garage are shown. - The existing residence is apparent on the 1964 photographs and subsequent photographs reviewed. 6 SGC Project No. 147A42 Coastal Bluff Retreat The referenced property is subject to coastal bluff retreat. Mechanisms for seacliff retreat at the site include slow abrasion and undercutting by marine erosion (wave action) of the harder, erosion-resistant Ardath Shale exposed in the seacliff. Storm surf and higher tides contribute to the natural process of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of a seacliff at the toe of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, jointing, consolidation of sediments, steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, vegetation or lack of, and intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic. In response to the landward retreat of the seacliff, the overlying coastal bluff becomes undermined and also retreats landward. Other mechanisms contributing to bluff retreat include failure of overhanging bedrock projections, shallow failure of oversteepened portions of the bluff-face terrace deposits, and rilling and ravelling of the terrace deposits. Portions of coastal bluffs are also exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian/animal erosion (including foot traffic and burrowing rodents), variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities by humans. During our studies, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability, such as ancient or active landslides, on the site or adjacent properties. The terrace deposits are friable and commonly rill and ravel in oversteepened slopes, however, they are not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures. Coastal Bluff-Edge Retreat Rates The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site are dependent on a variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing processes and historic documentation can be helpful in estimating general bluff-edge retreat rates. However, there are other factors affecting coastal bluff retreat that cannot be estimated from historic documentation. Such factors include future human activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns. Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff-edge retreat, such as misdirected drainage, water line breaks, very heavy storm surf and/or precipitation, could increase the rate of future erosion. However, favorable changes in the factors affecting bluff- edge retreat could decrease the rate of future erosion. Some of these include eliminating detrimental human activities on the bluff, proper maintenance of a bluff- 7 GC Project No. 147A42 stabilizing vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand replenishment. Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review are components in providing an estimation of the rate of bluff-edge retreat. We assume that the historic retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate at a particular site. However, accurate and clear photographic and map documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or is of fairly short time intervals so changes may not be noticeable. Lee and others (Appendix A, Reference 7) performed research studies of regional historic seacliff retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff-edge retreat rate of 0.22 to 0.33 feet per year. Over a 75-year period (assumed to be the economic lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff-edge retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research studies of regional historic bluff retreat that includes coastal bluffs with generally favorable conditions, as well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse conditions (highly fractured, sea caves, human activities, etc.). The estimated values of maximum retreat are very conservative, and the actual rate of bluff retreat at the subject property is expected to be less considering the site conditions and historic bluff-edge retreat at the site. Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff retreat process. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject property or in the nearby vicinity during our site visit. Our historic photograph review (Appendix A) indicates that the coastal bluff at the subject property is generally similar in configuration in the 1929, 1953, and subsequent photos. The location of the onsite bluff edge is also generally similar on the photographs. The distance between the west side of the existing residence and the bluff edge has not noticeably changed between the 1964 and subsequent aerial photographs. It is very difficult to predict the future and the magnitude of bluff-edge retreat that may occur in one year, during one storm event or over the 75-year assumed economic lifetime of the new construction. The rate of coastal bluff retreat over a particular interval of time (day, year, decade, etc.) may vary from very little to several tenths of a foot. However, severe erosion is generally episodic in nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or humans' detrimental actions). It is probable that several feet of coastal bluff-edge retreat could occur at one time or 8 SGC Project No. 147A42 over a short period of time. However, it is also likely that there will be periods in the future when erosion along the coast and bluff edge is rather insignificant and undetectable. Erosion is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions. With time, the bluff edge will retreat landward. It is our opinion that the residence, proposed to be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge, will not be endangered by coastal bluff retreat over the next 75 years. However, if improvements, such as patios, fences, etc., are built nearer to the bluff edge within this setback zone, they may in the future become undermined by bluff-edge retreat and may need to be removed from the site. Slope Stability Calculations A computer-generated slope stability analysis was performed on the coastal bluff at the site. The slope stability was analyzed using 'Janbu's Simplified Method of Slices' with the PCSTABL 5M computer program. Groundwater was included in our slope stability analyses. The slope stability calculations are included in Appendix B. The soil strength parameters used in our analysis are presented below. These values are based on laboratory test results, back-calculation, our past experience in this area, and our professional judgement. Soil Type Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion Terrace Deposits 120.0 pcf 35 degrees 350 psf Ardath Shale 120.0 pcf 30 degrees 950 psf The results of the analyses (Appendix B) indicate that for the existing configuration, the calculated factor of safety against deep-seated failure is in excess of 1 .5 (the generally accepted standard for the geotechnical industry). 9 SGC i Project N CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical evaluation of the coastal bluff at the site, it is our opinion that the proposed residence (and the loading from this relatively light bluff-top construction) will not adversely impact the existing coastal bluff. In addition, it is our opinion that the proposed residence should not be affected by anticipated coastal bluff retreat processes during its economic lifetime (assumed to be 75 years). Slope Stability and Erosion Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject property indicates that the bluff is grossly stable. In its present state, the slope has a low to moderate potential for erosion and future surficial instability. We provide the following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential for future instability of the bluff face. Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be limited to the minimum amount required to establish vegetation and maintain plant vigor. The subject coastal bluff edge is currently moderately to well vegetated with iceplant, grasses and weeds. At this time, it is our opinion that modifications to the vegetation in this area should not be considered. However, if landscape planting and/or plant removal on the westerly bluff-top area is performed, it should be done without significantly disturbing the bluff-top soils. The surficial stability of those portions of the bluff edge and bluff face that are not well vegetated may be increased by planting in accordance with the recommendations of a professional landscape company experienced with coastal bluffs. Terracing or excavation of the bluff-face soils should be avoided. - Drainage at the site predominantly flows towards the west. Drainage at the site should be maintained such that accumulated surface waters discharge into non- erosive drainage provisions that preferably discharge to the east (Neptune Avenue roadway). Runoff at the site should not be directed over the bluff edge. Eave gutters should be installed on the new residence and should be properly maintained with downspouts that discharge into non-erosive drainage provisions. Pedestrian and animal traffic (and burrowing, etc.) on the bluff face and bluff edge should not be allowed. 10 SGC Project No. 147A42 Bluff-Edge Setback Based on our understanding of the project, the foundations for the proposed residence will be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge. It is our opinion that the proposed setback will safeguard the proposed residence from bluff-edge retreat during the economic lifetime of the new construction. Seismic Considerations The principal considerations for most structures in southern California are damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking and seismically-induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. It is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement at the bluff- top site due to an earthquake is very low because of the dense nature of the underlying geologic units and lack of a near-surface groundwater table. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 2 miles west of the site. It is estimated that a maximum earthquake on this portion of the Rose Canyon fault (magnitude 6.5) could produce moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Section 1636, Tables 16-J, 16-S, 16-T and 16-U are provided below. UBC Table 16-J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and our review of UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile type for the subject property is Sp ("Stiff Soil Profile"). UBC Table 16-U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near-Source Zones map (P-37) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 3.3 km to the west of the site. This fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16-U. 11 - SGC r Project No. 147A42 UBC Table 16-S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .2. UBC Table 16-T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .4. Site Preparation We understand that the existing improvements will be removed prior to the new construction. The bluff-top soils near the bluff edge (within approximately 15 feet of the edge) should not be significantly disturbed during removal activities. Debris should not be allowed to fall down or accumulate on the bluff face. Prior to construction activities, the proposed building area should be cleared of vegetation, demolition debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions (pipes, etc.) which extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly compacted fill soils. Removal/Recom action of Compressible Soils The existing fill soils and topsoil are considered compressible and unsuitable for the support of structural loads in their present condition. We recommend that the existing fill and topsoil be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill placement. As encountered in our exploratory borings, these soils locally underlie the site to varying depths. The maximum depth of these soils encountered during our subsurface investigation was approximately 1 .8 feet below the existing ground surface. Locally deeper areas of fill/topsoil may exist at the site. Actual depths may vary and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these unsuitable soils. These soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill provided they are free of organic material and deleterious debris. Structural Fill Placement Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on laboratory standard 12 SGC Project No. 147A42 ASTM D1557. Fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in loose lift thicknesses not exceeding 8 inches. Foundation and Slab Recommendations Project plans have not been finalized, however, we are assuming that the proposed single-family residence may be supported by continuous perimeter and spread footings with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during foundation excavation will consist of medium dense to dense natural terrace deposits with a very low to low expansion potential. The proposed two-story structure may be supported on isolated or continuous footings bearing at least 6 inches into firm, natural soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil-bearing value of 1 ,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. Footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches, and reinforcement consisting of two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and one near the bottom of each footing). Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at midheight in the slab with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of sand which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier. The potential for slab cracking may be lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of concrete during hot weather. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on the concrete slab. Footings and slabs founded in firm, natural soils may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. 13 SGC L . Project No. 147A42 Lateral Resistance and Retaining Wall Design Pressures Lateral loads can be resisted by assuming a passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and soil. The lateral resistance may be taken as the sum of the passive and frictional resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. Cantilever (yielding) retaining walls, with horizontal backfill, may be designed for an "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. Rigid (non-yielding) walls may be designed for an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. These values assume horizontal, nonexpansive, granular backfill and free-draining conditions. If walls are surcharged by adjacent structures, the wall design should take into account the surcharge load. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the previous foundation recommendations. We recommend that retaining walls be provided with appropriate drainage provisions. Figure 5 contains a typical detail for drainage of retaining walls. The walls should be appropriately waterproofed. Appropriate waterproofing treatments and alternative, suitable wall drainage products are available commercially. Design of waterproofing and its protection during construction should be performed by the project architect. Retaining wall backfill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). As an alternative, retaining walls may be backfilled with gravel (see Figure 5). Care should be taken when using compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining walls so that the walls are not damaged by excessive loading. Plan Review - Construction Observation and Testina Final project drawings should be reviewed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants to check that the recommendations contained in this report have been incorporated into the project design. The interpolated subsurface soil conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Foundation excavation observation and field density testing of compacted fill (including retaining wall backfill) should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. 14 SGC Project No. 147A42 Other Considerations Figures 2 and 3 have been compiled from approximate measurements made during our site visits and they should not be relied on for site development. Please note that the recommendations contained herein may be revised based on modified and/or additional information regarding the structure and improvements planned at the site. A qualified consultant should be retained to review site conditions and assess potential site impacts if significant erosion events or major changes in the bluff configuration are noticed. Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions This geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at the subject property and is based on our understanding that the proposed development consists of demolition of the existing structure and the design and construction of a new single-family residence. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding that a single-family residence (with its relatively light loading) is planned at the site and the foundations for the new construction will be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge. This report is based on our document/photograph review and our observations of the geologic conditions exposed in our exploratory borings and in the coastal bluff at the site and general vicinity. This report assumes that the geologic/soils conditions do not deviate appreciably from those observed. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the coastal bluff property evaluated and the development as proposed. We have not performed an evaluation of the presence of hazardous materials/ contamination at the site. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us. If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the 15 SGC i Project N information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us. If you have any questions regarding our report, please call. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Gene Custenborder, CEG 1 Char es R. Corbin, RCE 36302 Principal Engineering G` Project Engi 0. 131�� o Q�oF ESS14 P1 CERTIFIED 4-1 ENGINEERING Co.) , � 2 m �r1 GEOLOGIST �� No. 36002 M C:F C �-aF s p 04, 0z Vt Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Site Plan Figure 3 - Coastal Bluff Profile Figure 4 - Logs of Exploratory Borings 1-4 Figure 5 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Photographs 1 and 2 Appendix A - References Appendix B - Slope Stability Calculations Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Mr. Brian Donald 16 SGC r ' _ 1r• -� ��1 - � fit.♦. 'f w ' '� \ray/ 1 ;W '�ti1•� �`. " t z 1 SITE r P ki N SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 147A42 1264 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia Area of Encinitas Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 200 feet Base Map: County of San Diego Orthophoto Topographic Map 330-1671 dated 17 Sep 1975 FIGURE 1 SGC W D _0 NOVS 13S .0t, t V LL I I Q I r 30N3GIS3H 03SOdOad _ -�� C) .o a I I V 0 ac Q o I 0 0 c w a �, I N U. I -•� LL a�i Z c I J a coo c .3DN301S3H JNIISIX3 W M o "' N Z a •� U ui p � O o O Z O 3 � 0 39(13 =unie a 10 uoileool alewlxojddd —___ '• . M C c O a) a� E o v • a m .? o • E o m o • V O a) E ai ch a o °' o .. �cL Eve N x U E w ' M m w Z �? LL • ^o ) EU � O O co C N . lz v Y- " E o y cn ' I- ' cn O a SGUVO9 JNINIt IAI a00/b1 p • w U • Q • pC w 4- t . E X • O • d • a m • m 30N3� �' I I ( cn . ' • • II ( Ill I � Lu CM0 I ' •, Ills . I i I I I I I I I I III � I � I ► � 01— l I cl 1 1 . fn .D O U aD E N _N C Vl D N n L O~ U N Q W cc Q LL e11110ny eunldeN awal Nuq ufeyo I c 7 Z v aci 'c � o aD Q ;� cr I a I W n a N 0 � I � Z _c 0 (D n aCN w d I O • CL N w y! aD I 'C 0 U I N . 1.0 I O I O 8.C: O d D I N O .Q O CL a y._ Q axr I O I cW, c u L C: 0 IIeM Bululelaj yBiy-fool Z-t 0■ ��■��"name=..■ i N N C i j t I E O ■ ■ cn a s E i ■ _ Q x x i !�• I I n ■ •• -L J i C �, o0 •m U) LU _v I �I a w� cl N — m �I N L; 3 U) j ai ° a H ddb ? j c 0) to m Er- I QUE0 0 y x y : Z 4 Q j : I I cn a < E � j a H I I I o g ° . I 3 I I N a x I 0.o m } m m - ° p E o I N cr O - f'F7 M a n L cu v w U _ I - m - O °' .� I w I I : M O LL O X U O:0 I - 0 N O 3 Q c`0 Qp� Q O QJ O - I �_/ v 30e_q��me ♦ ` I `j I Project No. 147A42 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS BORING NO. DEPTH DESCRIPTION Boring 1 0-1.8' Topsoil - Brown, dry, loose, silty fine sand (SM); with roots, angular gravel 1.8-4' Terrace Deposits-Orange-brown,slightly damp,medium dense to dense (density increases with depth), silty fine sand (SM); friable Total depth = 4 feet No ground water encountered Excavated and backfilled 1 1-1-99 ---------------------- Boring 2 0-1.2' Topsoil - Brown, dry, loose, silty fine sand (SM); with roots 1.2-3.5' Terrace Deposits-Orange-brown, slightly damp, medium dense to dense (density increases with depth), silty fine sand (SM); friable Total depth = 3.5 feet No groundwater encountered Excavated and backfilled 11-1-99 Boring 3 0-1.3' Topsoil/Fill - Brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty fine sand (SM); roots, organics 1.3-4' Terrace Deposits-Dark orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense (increasing density with depth), silty fine sand (SM); friable Total depth = 4 feet No ground water encountered Excavated and backfilled 11-1-99 ---------------------- Boring 4 0-1' Topsoil - Brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty fine sand (SM); roots, organics 1-3' Terrace Deposits- Dark orange-brown, medium dense to dense (increasing density with depth), silty fine sand (SM); friable Total depth = 3 feet No groundwater encountered Excavated and backfilled 11-1-99 FIGURE 4 SGC RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* ------ -------- ------ - ---- - ----------- RETAINING WALL-----... o G IN. FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140M OR APPROVED PER ARCHITECT'S EQUIVALENT) SPECIFICATIONS 314'-1-IJ2' CLEAN GRAVEL FINISH GRAVE O o 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED ------------------------------ ------------------------ -- --------- ---- MINIMUM I PERCENT GRADIENT ----------------- - ----- OMPACTED IFIZL- TO SUITABLE OUTLET ------------------- ------------- — WALL FOOTING 7 rl-1 1(31 Lae � 3 MIN. NOT TO SCALE':`:� <COMPET.ENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CONSULTANT CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard *13ASED ON ASTM 01557 Sieve Size Z Passing IN 100 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL 3/44 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) 13 USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY 13E 3/8" 40-100 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE No. 4 25-40 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 No. 8 18-33 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 NOTE.COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN Sand Equiva7ent>75 OR J—DRAIN MAY SE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS Z INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFCFhED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, SGC FIGURE 5 y � Photo 1 1 Coastal bluff at 1 264 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas (1 Nov 99) r 4 • 'lam V^ �F'.ti's" r Photo 2 1 View south along coastal bluff, 1264 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas (1 Nov 99) SGC .,, "' r,.r'�t��"y..�r+jrnei'6"rf�T..., jfi i :' , ,yam 'F p.'. v 1.� (!u' r ,f'.e. «�' i ,�r 4, x. n. rtt<., �: ta. ''i•�, r.c a•o Sn.x.` t' tr ,«r 'is ti { �"+' 'f: 1� a �` '� :r i� c v�' > ^*fi•'{', �' }"`"�11. .e t g�W.i < :y a, 0#,,,s. a e a it S. ; e. z- .x °" ?*J r r "� K :, .., { �` '+„{° f € tF, r $y.� -x k ✓ Ji$1t,rt ��a. ,+ .d ark L::.k4� + +4 X f ''. a i".. d '��'k' S.'f7 �.. a f •, f` x.s . 1 k's,:1 } :I '�t f J_, - t a 4� <!r .•e s .+ •�, i�.;r 3 fl tZ7,.r. r'7i�, ^'�, . .; ,i?sf�lP Y v 1'.r d t r # s 1d'L� c Y�r ?�A "° 4 .y, t ,,,,tt w �� k S '. I%•` rt '4`1t S Svfa�,ay .,}3 ^.`f'; a yj<.`p q i t� r > �x�r'` �¢$' . � '1`'it"i '{ri N �r'11r+ xjJ"y'��Y,'db° t-•Y'*„r? y, S. `t .q ♦ £- S G 4 {, ., } e i'r7 3 J .P) a •Y >,- +g,.? '�Sfi 4,�J .h, - ,1, NX� P�'r y �r I +.;F, ).. ,.� T ... ,F"Ill 4 '" 1.,t !i" rP .y,. �'! r: 'f' •< ,^ a I t 3' - ; 7 k.& it x i, c S f £' � �v��F a �'' �� v k, P ,akk r x) ; + JiFs 74 i d y i y 1 r:�rJ A j Zr"FJ rr .-e r Y d a t 'q`3 k t 4,i �L.. �t t §.� sL `! f 1.� '� J") I{pl' * ,.{/X'y A Yti t t"!a r N '! + 'n t: 3 ' t i.kl "¢ 1. 'P'i''�i,+�-�1 ) it r t A.. r a,h �)r r ie�f: pr i ) P M K I: ay.i y r ,t,,.. ,� 7 -t S a r '•� Y, � �� F¢ % n . 7! 1 I f , C a . n . y '..d wu 7 -r a '. sf„w'. P'. a a'C r I., '�, P,. + r 1 1) - °'� IG- t. � �?` 1 i F i s , , u r I., ; k r 1. ' , � , a e a .F y t 'ai- a PP.. rrf+t� :.��y* °-J i a Y `� f +. - j - fit,. ` 11�`i y ft-... K^ a s y 4 r .� p 7 �'11 11 !'b.•"MfIM "h �?tsr4 "L ' S,' 7 SF f A. ,J f a r�5 I �, t , - P. r�,.X �, 1.Y 5YY 1$ C t N' _ 1 ' .- - . T ii;# ,� .tr � ,I Y .t�� ➢t, d'..P a:rJ ^,r I a 'emu,Y r} Tel t� ) t,i ,� ' ` °� .. ..rte 11 0. t A hC,a4s ,. .: _ _1 1. X& r ,'fr'w? w 4 r .a r _ I't ,, �, p _ ��'EI�[Q X A , s. N4 ,"I ,, : I ,I ,� I � � . , . � . � I . � ,, , . �s I#P i x C "3 t.11 {tSY -. .. - w •:4,;, .r w ,, t t o `+,' A "r � " Y s,^! ) °' ;,fit d' , ,- .{G M _ ' r y _ ' 1 i ce. fit # ri a . -g x 1 ^I - b' ^t!1. S: Ji ;' } J - Grp Y lli I Y S ,�+. i^4'C t, .)Nt _J d . ! :,J {-1 � -I 6. 6 4 Y 6 - '.t• , 11 ,Nyxs � dry-' �� # 't e'•� � ,! .a +,, 1 ..}.t .y ;.. `+ t. r t^b� .j�l F r 4� t C «> h ,}•th{Yp1'. se^. !- era. u , 4! t F' v 4 j}� •c' r� t T+,r T" '' i r r - r,.'N` - w r�; ik•%11 SJ, ff,, t` ''s.. ar � , t. f k(; �*r'i ,y,{ 1T '� t Lt �C~ 1�" "� ii '�' 7 P` . `? r ;f-r .,4 '� t 4 < w 7 e� t TJ _" .r.', ,S -1 elk p s .,' ,' . s'. n r Ik r !. e ,., k ; r �. �+;. s lF., " ::4 . v: s s.. H�}} a i-: t '�.�a E� - 'rr,,n.a +i , .« .i t `r, ;fi¢ 11 P..., .a- �, R x. :x:72' Ind,_% '�.:;ti'r _,� r' s �.. i ll�s 'i tx" a - v i r�T r j "� "'.7 + :x, f � 3'P+ "f f v 7 �a 5- s,,.{,^ -'s. s -.Fr > 3a Y r C -- r`�"'" k S -VV.4k.7J'y+,4 r ,3,..,y j r 7y'C .+IY. .;°'c�P.�< � '�"k�+'s.'t3 -w5 =�a.`adiw .. Rt".r ^sf,.x-?"�� k ,e11 .:' rr~+ 'b�. 'k6•+P 'S^ • `. mow. tM,-ab 3 h rl 'k �,e� a r.J+'Y •.r3z° p3- �'w. r .�•r+ ' S tq,�,�A4.�,',�+�RI i Y,b� 'F lr, 3.q?"'�y' ):�J`' i, ` } ,'r.(, ,&', .�)w. I , '4."ar fV`e^. r.. fa1Y-`r ' '" 'fy 4, y�2 �s x �'ti „L�' '', 1 , e,+,+.t,trr F„�k .�,,�-+'° 7 a° ,}.ZV,l, 'e y k ` . F'S"y .+.'��p ySr +v('.�LS['".b.'�' ar k' Gk`s 7Ft,.T S .�� wal R t , }yt w. j"'r1',y` c�..�ij • _s W_.< % +,g 'a. e•.i p m{ •'u`+t y, i b r��jy�yGGy �r.t*e � { , ' r Jp .ca'i Z a.u=.k x.. 4: y t�..,�, fTf tjr `yes r t-vy, .x a �: ¢ 4T, r '?� '� F a, * SS�Arta'i``� + (;: Y skr� r, yarti r `r ,,, � I n I I IN 11 � 111 111!1! !I � � I�1��!�� . 11�11 I I 1111, li �� i� !l;l 1 111111�1�, I'llip! I , , 1 , .--;�Ll'�'Illi I I . - _E: _._... Project No. 147A42 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1 . Agnew, D.C., 1979, Tsunami history of San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6. 3. Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in, Abbott, P.L., ed., 1985, On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook. 4. Flick, R.E., ed., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region: California Department of Boating and Waterways and the San Diego Association of Governments publication, dated December (two volumes). 5. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised. 6. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Victoria, J.K., eds., Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication. 7. Lee, L., Pinckney, C., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea bluff erosion: American Society of Civil Engineers, National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Convention Preprint No. 2708. 8. Legg, M.R., Agnew, D.C., and Simons, R.S., 1978, Earthquake history and seismicity of coastal San Diego County, California, 1800-1976 (unpublished). 9. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic information. 10. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide hazards in the Encinitas quadrangle, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 86-8LA. SGC Project No. 147A42 APPENDIX A REFERENCES (continued) 11 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border (1852-1982) (CCSTWS 85-10), dated December. 12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June. 13. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979, Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook. 14. Zeiserkling Consultants, 1994, FINAL Beach Bluff Erosion Report, RFP #93-01 , City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California, dated January 24. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS County of San Diego, 1928-9, Photos 37F1 and 37F2 (black and white, vertical stereoscopic). County of San Diego, 1967, Series GS-VBTA, Flight Line 1 , Photos 1 -140 and 1 -141 dated May 8 (vertical, stereoscopic). County of San Diego, 1970, Series S.D.C.O., Photos 3-1 (016) and 3-2 (042) dated October 9 (color, vertical, not stereoscopic), scale 1 :24,000. County of San Diego, 1975, Flight SDPD, Flight Line 34, Photos 5 (047) and 6 (046), dated January 20 (color, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 1 ,000 feet. County of San Diego, 1983, Flight C1 1 109 83059, Photos 247 (015) and 248 (016), dated November 19 (black and white, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet. SGC Project No. 147A42 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Series AXN, Flight Line 8M, Photos 76 and 77, dated April 11 (black and white, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 :20,000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964, Series AXN, Flight Line 3DD, Photos 253 and 254, dated April 9 (black and white, vertical, stereoscopic). MAPS County of San Diego, 1975, Orthophoto Topographic Map 330-1671 , dated September 17, scale 1 " = 200'. County of San Diego, Assessor's Map Book, page 254. County of San Diego, 1888, Amended Map of the Town of Leucadia, San Diego Co., Cal., Map No. 570, filed October 23. County of San Diego, 1918, Leucadia Acres, San Diego County, Cal., Map No. 1704, filed June 5. County of San Diego, 1927, South Coast Park No. 4, Map No. 2049, filed July 19. Paul Longton Architect, 1999, Project Plans for Berg Residence, 1264 Neptune, Leucadia, CA, (sheets T1 , A2, A3 and A4), dated May 22. Resource Development Corporation, undated, Grading Plan for Berg Residence, 1264 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia. SGC .'ln�,. q' ;�ti ��':.`� a�"�'"Er 11. h%�iqt i r ter' "+[C.r� rr j a ti-1, �';7Y `T+,V! �.7J i �x 'Ir��:e� r�e�'�' +'Z,'vr, r' 4 If �fi y,F,+r i :'. FT r t 3 r w rx a�'� �'., 'r` Y§" '•X y:. t y�`, s a 4 c a :" �. r� �i y,�,,�1, 7a Ma `k- 1 1�'� .0,y,} .P Z»'"r,fi r+ylr.r,. q Y ''(a, : r � `r1 f :�3�Pt ,..,.�, + f^f ns:�.. ,�'t }'..t"*$ , �A �?„'a a� �6 - .r + ti.'i'r k.`�t�`l...fi rTa �. nn !L I r✓ Fx �,"�7 ,�' -..Ya _ h n - �r ..�. r �, a �� 1'. "; Y x' CJr 9r !.: r 'M �, .f 1 t .. f ji)Y 1 w 3 (' F,1 ' t, I di r 1 y > tir,. x ,ftta a t Y # y, a, - 1 G:La nu't1; y L+: ♦I v„ja 1 E ,f d I 1••',.S• x - h nti h j + 1 i,° `» "v :.n.1 a ri. Y I(' '.!,r `�kn }..,y tip'..M �f s +t`�, J{,��'�1'f'r',�+.1�':�.,3 ,-,; qi I, 7,�{Y� x {._,; '.S r r "Ye :.'. 7p',f. h A 1 ,R �r r 11 s, -A xbA 'ji .a_...+.. - {_- r r. �. �I ri 4, - 4 �y�d �' t y k i:, t��t "r .:y J j'. F 1`i M1Y{"� ','-11 "4 " tr 5 E .` ; �].Y ,3 it ' !° F1 x a gl`ii i i r ,�s { l £1 S .y I'll, .1, x 1 rpr f 'F an 2�" .7f,`'�r`"l:e;,,y '�{yt}.'r�W P ^i; �'A��r� ."�. `a•'!j �.-` .l Y�r y .'h rte; i I, ti' i !+'�' a :} ;,I" �rF 4, � c r' A '" ! A ilRL tJr 1: ♦ e' J°.' :� l t ,.1�' h y d�Y"q 't,,-:p,,� 'S I1. . .f;w1 �,r :;f ad-e ��1 f[} wr,",;x 7Y..rL�;�. F ,t r,t; ,r'4 v!Y1. ! r' y f ._ ;'raf d sa$w;1.f t�MMr�,A 'N 'i 'tRua , !' `'atysr� < ' 2,i .',ryt E�} ?.,'17fW'�,� .,1° 4�`sJ''�y,... „s, ..:n`{"1 Jtl..ttz "Z '. 4 ° rh �y c,',r} t.a y l'` p Y ° r$ p'' r; 11 11 Fy ti„r , 6 �`' y �' � a' "" ' .q�a+,�. z�_,y �� txr ^' rt1 y 1',.)ri V�,� I � �,i .�, '�r ` _ + ,` flya � R�rx i�9 ip i+ ` I t r r �` l 't 1 rx R - ti I", ,, , } - #•, r { 1 ,t A '} a 4 x,, i 1 e -tit s "I 1.I 1111 � '� Y `r a ,� y r i,:_ , 1 r } r - 4x14 �.11 W A i rrl e F .' f'f ° I , , �` 7�' s: e -d.44K z-ss + i- s I r }' " s 3 t - `�'.a"4>1 r 1. I 1 ' J t 4 , r Stiy�� .fY� -.4"'.►1 e �.; + r �,° F �, 1 I 5 : '- r, rt. .,,'A'�, " '"�s' k t r I 1 :r. !.1 4 r 1 y»b y .E s i. S a '' h ' , ' + `[� fin ' N 1.-4." �A ° 3 I— r./;°t a �7 t i Ir t - >A 1 � ° a d >,r # ijpg�.{, 1 * a '� iC t q - i r 1. L. 11 ��' �:. p _ _ 5 r x 11+' K i ' _,`k w "t n ":: t _ I lf`$ yr 1.: s _ _ 7< L.f, ". .,-,,, .. I- I,:�1,. I I., ,I- - , I.� � I,��:, .� �,,I . . . . : , % . : � " I I..1 , : ,- . I I I I � I .� � 4 t -" - t 4A�t ' s } _ t _"Z' F r � r w s, ` PPEN[3EX �:: . -. t_ y T r' ., ' w`w- 11 "�: F.: A F n _ s. tea' r �e 't qy2 '''� '} 9 .k 9 a r� 2 _ �>:Ir 3� Z, �` r _ ,V 'y 4 4" !' r' ^Y d yT F t �1 f 'Y7 L .� L' - V f 2♦`vgq7Y Y x y #, y k r r h ..r , 3Y I 1,i ,q,nt W G �{ � f i r .'. # >~r ° yY rt ", Y..�, x _ s ;} �,.r P ,,.�� i w... '� r i Sa .',:!=fit�x'� } -.r h F A a: t -S r v_.µh,:. .x1:7 i, '� 4 ', ,{ t to F Y f K - J Y '. �r+5 i 3 ! S .•.' tZ_e,A, ?�, t k fi,F` .r1a ax T .r k , rx r .z Y., 'i7 i m. '1�" �y.' :t Ja ae -a y �L:.P r s qty n+�i d r r ^l t% f k.,sy 3' n ,^ ly {t x 1 y 3 t 11 k¢1� '''Fr+'- •, ,4,-,7','"'"" d�r -�`�7' ♦'� 7Y .3-¢.� t z n�" ,' �, r >` r 'i"JLC: i, r w .,� 'Y 4., 'tc '" ,. vk„�,-'.ti». � 1"} i+,,``�� >,._ YS�_aX ti,f fY� fixrtr}" 1 t fr ,y;„a �.." = y}°,a.;:' $4i . a- ��'e w:.. '� M .ft sthxwt 1'v', 'f'i, ,., s. ,":. f 1 ' 3 y S` -xq+," 'yn'.,e ,ti `,tk* k:' y^9 v.. �' t,.F`'` 'S„E.'?i3f.`�� a r `t ^.".r 3 4 j r.:4 ,Y}�,.v,,W, ''''•> t,F t'.f'n,,, s. `' .*-z y4 5.� ;:iZ, r }�3 v ` ..«T u�7?'r"Si,`'�''!r .-.y'(`",••Y.Y "iSmast!•'''`?s.. � t JA'.f..;?t a.. Sa f .: ,4."t R / S :w yid r: �, `*?? <► r hR' .'•f�� ..� r s +r t'f a. ,, �}' , ".ya � yz i. y u�' ,sfiw .�14 a33 +5� .x, S, u'`{ i ":+-¢ a r s" �'' '3a:' y z - a ,b '' x ; Y' .?g `.Rr .tee `�'w w ��,ua "'fi�r� '"ry.�. !' '#"s tt::,, 7f.�'ic.{ :`,u r.. �,' z. ,in t s`� �t ,.w e 1.*" $5 t �, �-. x,w-y�' r'^t, .S-. y' as 1 z s t s R^Ak� """'.G�. - s; rr'.., ,",.. x x ;l te,,, !+ �s „% y & „a 2..s4-.•."s, ..: '-s ::'.'', a,�.'4.rkR. J 4... A t{ "S'S�, �a t+ a^'t -''.' a`v7p ^ t r..,(�s?G r x S' ! .7�' --»} .+ry'S.., ]],,�� t,. �?� � .,,vr» na sk t,.'',y. l-C .u'.. t2wt'; ry > ,'^i'r t' a 'il t ,. ' " "r te ' vx 3`7Y •t ! ' '',� r K'yA`�"!!�'-TMF,',a>ra.-- Hf tt 5•g ,a�.. �' .a{ -„, `� C ' t ."1 :,,`„e ,�' '..f�` "4:y e "'u' +y. 'y ,1�>'k” >%?'efd�'"l- ? �.,z'��:v:. t._?...+ '.�.'xett }N ..t t{5.,q' x•�"�- Yy tD}+"•:,1 y}4 �+S'. 'iY.prk/ - fkY'i�;" -A",� 4 -,°,`;S`3 A ^' +. 'tf�r' ^J"" •�,��*°`' f¢y`.}�" .^, 'r +' N p;a y!"•8 .ty:. ,•yr )r �4�t Y ' s yy L Y -+ ,1 f ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: December 1, 1999 Time of Run: 12:30 PM Run By: GC Input Data Filename: 1264.in Output Filename: 1264.out Plotted Output Filename: 1264.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION STABILITY ANALYSYS - 1264 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, California BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 9.00 20.00 10.00 1 2 20.00 10.00 21.00 16.00 1 3 21.00 16.00 25.00 21.00 1 4 25.00 21.00 44.00 33.00 2 5 44.00 33.00 64.00 47.00 2 6 64.00 47.00 75.00 50.00 2 7 75.00 50.00 95.00 61.00 2 8 95.00 61.00 103.00 64.00 2 9 103.00 64.00 106.00 73.00 2 10 106.00 73.00 122.00 75.00 2 11 122.00 75.00 134.00 76.00 2 12 134.00 76.00 195.00 73.00 2 13 25.00 21.00 195.00 22.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 135.0 950.0 30.0 .00 .0 0 2 120.0 135.0 350.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 i 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.00 21.00 2 195.00 23.00 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 2 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sqft) (deg) 1 134.00 135.00 1000.0 .0 2 146.00 147.00 1000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft. and X = 60.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 70.00 ft. and X = 160.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method ii r _ Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.95 9.95 2 23.83 8.85 3 28.76 8.04 4 33.73 7.52 5 38.73 7.31 6 43.73 7.38 7 48.71 7.76 8 53.67 8.43 9 58.57 9.40 10 63.41 10.65 11 68.17 12.19 12 72.83 14.01 13 77.37 16.10 14 81.78 18.46 15 86.04 21.08 16 90.14 23.95 17 94.05 27.05 18 97.78 30.38 19 101.31 33.93 20 104.61 37.68 21 107.69 41.62 22 110.53 45.73 23 113.12 50.01 24 115.45 54.43 25 117.52 58.99 26 119.31 63.66 27 120.81 68.42 28 122.04 73.27 29 122.37 75.03 *** 1.805 *** Individual data on the 40 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 1.1 20.6 987.8 1021.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 1.0 459.4 4554.8 985.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 2.8 3280.2 2041.6 2861.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 1.2 1826.3 555.6 1207.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 3.8 7024.6 780.4 3958.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 5.0 11524.4 20.2 5372.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 5.0 13713.0 .0 5486.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 5.0 15664.7 .0 5508.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 .3 906.7 .0 300.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 iii 10 4.7 16540.2 .0 5137.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11 5.0 19055.8 .0 5273.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12 4.9 20358.6 .0 5018.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13 4.8 21341.0 .0 4672.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14 .6 2659.9 .0 547.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15 4.2 18888.8 .0 3688.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16 4.7 20766.2 .0 3712.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17 2.2 9513.6 .0 1565.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18 2.4 10311.2 .0 1536.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19 4.4 19147.7 .0 2407.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20 4.3 18292.7 .0 1631.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21 .4 1706.9 .0 115.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22 .5 2228.0 .0 138.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 23 3.2 13271.8 .0 522.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 24 3.9 15948.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 25 .9 3772.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 26 2.8 10817.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 27 3.5 12919.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 28 1.7 5847.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 29 1.6 5747.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 30 1.4 5378.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 31 1.7 6618.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 32 2.8 10122.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 33 2.6 8034.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 34 2.3 6100.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 35 2.1 4358.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 36 1.8 2840.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 37 1.5 1578.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 38 1.2 590.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 39 .0 8.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40 .3 34.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.79 9.79 2 20.78 9.51 3 25.78 9.49 4 30.78 9.73 5 35.75 10.23 6 40.70 10.98 7 45.59 11.98 8 50.43 13.24 9 55.20 14.75 10 59.88 16.50 11 64.47 18.49 12 68.95 20.71 13 73.31 23.16 14 77.53 25.83 15 81.62 28.72 16 85.54 31.81 17 89.31 35.11 18 92.89 38.59 19 96.30 42.25 20 99.51 46.09 iv 21 102.52 50.08 22 105.31 54.22 23 107.89 58.51 24 110.25 62.92 25 112.37 67.44 26 114.26 72.07 27 114.98 74.12 *** 1.845 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 6.32 9.32 2 11.26 8.56 3 16.23 8.02 4 21.22 7.70 5 26.22 7.58 6 31.22 7.68 7 36.21 8.00 8 41.18 8.52 9 46.12 9.26 10 51.03 10.21 11 55.90 11.37 12 60.71 12.73 13 65.45 14.30 14 70.13 16.07 15 74.73 18.04 16 79.23 20.21 17 83.64 22.56 18 87.95 25.10 19 92.14 27.83 20 96.22 30.73 21 100.16 33.80 22 103.97 37.03 23 107.64 40.43 24 111.16 43.98 25 114.53 47.68 26 117.73 51.52 27 120.77 55.49 28 123.63 59.59 29 126.32 63.80 30 128.83 68.13 31 131.14 72.56 32 132.71 75.89 *** 1.849 *** v i l I Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 9.47 9.47 2 14.27 8.07 3 19.13 6.89 4 24.04 5.95 5 28.99 5.24 6 33.97 4.77 7 38.96 4.54 8 43.96 4.56 9 48.96 4.80 10 53.93 5.29 11 58.88 6.02 12 63.79 6.98 13 68.64 8.18 14 73.43 9.61 15 78.15 11.26 16 82.79 13.14 17 87.32 15.24 18 91.76 17.55 19 96.07 20.08 20 100.26 22.80 21 104.32 25.73 22 108.23 28.84 23 111.99 32.14 24 115.58 35.62 25 119.01 39.26 26 122.25 43.07 27 125.31 47.02 28 128.18 51.12 29 130.85 55.34 30 133.31 59.70 31 135.56 64.16 32 137.59 68.73 33 139.41 73.39 34 140.18 75.70 *** 1.850 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.79 9.79 2 20.46 8.01 3 25.24 6.53 vi F I 4 30.09 5.33 5 35.01 4.43 6 39.98 3.84 7 44.97 3.54 8 49.97 3.55 9 54.96 3.86 10 59.92 4.48 11 64.83 5.40 12 69.68 6.61 13 74.45 8.12 14 79.12 9.91 15 83.67 11.98 16 88.08 14.33 17 92.35 16.94 18 96.45 19.81 19 100.36 22.92 20 104.08 26.26 21 107.59 29.82 22 110.88 33.59 23 113.93 37.55 24 116.74 41.68 25 119.29 45.99 26 121.57 50.43 27 123.58 55.01 28 125.30 59.71 29 126.74 64.50 30 127.88 69.36 31 128.73 74.29 32 128.87 75.57 *** 1.853 *** Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 6.32 9.32 2 11.18 8.17 3 16.10 7.24 4 21.04 6.52 5 26.02 6.03 6 31.01 5.74 7 36.01 5.68 8 41.01 5.84 9 45.99 6.21 10 50.96 6.81 11 55.89 7.62 12 60.79 8.64 13 65.63 9.88 14 70.42 11.33 15 75.14 12.98 16 79.78 14.84 vii 17 84.33 16.91 18 88.79 19.17 19 93.15 21.62 20 97.39 24.26 21 101.52 27.08 22 105.52 30.08 23 109.38 33.26 24 113.11 36.60 25 116.68 40.09 26 120.09 43.75 27 123.35 47.54 28 126.43 51.48 29 129.34 55.55 30 132.06 59.74 31 134.61 64.04 32 136.96 68.46 33 139.11 72.97 34 140.27 75.69 *** 1.855 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 3.16 9.16 2 8.01 7.95 3 12.92 7.01 4 17.88 6.34 5 22.86 5.93 6 27.86 5.79 7 32.86 5.92 8 37.84 6.32 9 42.80 6.99 10 47.71 7.92 11 52.56 9.11 12 57.35 10.56 13 62.05 12.27 14 66.65 14.23 15 71.14 16.43 16 75.50 18.87 17 79.73 21.54 18 83.80 24.44 19 87.72 27.55 20 91.46 30.87 21 95.02 34.38 22 98.38 38.08 23 101.54 41.95 24 104.49 45.99 25 107.22 50.18 26 109.72 54.51 viii 27 111.98 58.97 28 113.99 63.55 29 115.76 68.22 30 117.28 72.99 31 117.66 74.46 *** 1.862 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 6.32 9.32 2 10.79 7.09 3 15.41 5.16 4 20.13 3.53 5 24.95 2.20 6 29.85 1.18 7 34.80 .48 8 39.78 .09 9 44.78 .03 10 49.78 .28 11 54.74 .86 12 59.66 1.75 13 64.52 2.95 14 69.28 4.46 15 73.94 6.28 16 78.48 8.39 17 82.87 10.78 18 87.09 13.45 19 91.14 16.38 20 95.00 19.57 21 98.64 22.99 22 102.05 26.65 23 105.23 30.51 24 108.15 34.57 25 110.80 38.81 26 113.18 43.20 27 115.27 47.75 28 117.07 52.41 29 118.56 57.18 30 119.75 62.04 31 120.63 66.96 32 121.18 71.93 33 121.33 74.92 *** 1.875 *** ix Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 12.63 9.63 2 17.16 7.52 3 21.82 5.70 4 26.59 4.19 5 31.44 2.99 6 36.36 2.10 7 41.33 1.53 8 46.32 1.29 9 51.32 1.37 10 56.31 1.77 11 61.25 2.49 12 66.14 3.53 13 70.96 4.89 14 75.67 6.55 15 80.27 8.51 16 84.73 10.77 17 89.04 13.31 18 93.17 16.12 19 97.12 19.19 20 100.85 22.52 21 104.37 26.07 22 107.65 29.85 23 110.67 33.83 24 113.44 38.00 25 115.93 42.33 26 118.13 46.82 27 120.04 51.44 28 121.64 56.18 29 122.94 61.01 30 123.92 65.91 31 124.59 70.86 32 124.89 75.24 *** 1.878 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 12.63 9.63 2 17.15 7.50 3 21.80 5.66 4 26.56 4.12 5 31.41 2.90 6 36.32 1.98 7 41.29 1.38 x i 8 46.28 1.11 9 51.28 1.15 10 56.27 1.52 11 61.22 2.20 12 66.12 3.21 13 70.94 4.52 14 75.67 6.14 15 80.29 8.06 16 84.77 10.28 17 89.10 12.78 18 93.27 15.55 19 97.24 18.58 20 101.01 21.86 21 104.57 25.38 22 107.89 29.11 23 110.96 33.06 24 113.78 37.19 25 116.32 41.49 26 118.58 45.95 27 120.56 50.55 28 122.23 55.26 29 123.59 60.07 30 124.65 64.96 31 125.39 69.90 32 125.80 74.88 33 125.81 75.32 *** 1.880 *** xi y A X Z S F T .00 24.38 48.75 73.13 97.50 121.88 x .00 +---*-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+ .7 .73 -. .63 -.832 -893* 24.38 .8431 .* 8.41. . . . . . . .9412. . . . . . 89532. . . . . . . . 8941.2. . . . . . . . 854132. . . . . . . .* A 48.75 8541.2. . . . . . . . . . 89413. . . . . . . . . . . . .946132. . . . . . . . . . . .85.63.2. . . . . . . . . . . .8541.3.2. . . . . . . . . .* . .84.1.32. . . . . . . . . . . . x 73.13 . . .54613. .2. . . . . . . . . .* . . .854.17. .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .9846.17. .2. . . . . . . . . . -. . .9546.17. .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9586.17. .2. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .0486.1.77.2. . . . . . . . * I 97.50 +. . . . . . .486.13. .72.2. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .4.6. .1. .7. . .2. . . .*. . . . . . . . .0458.1.3.7.72. . . . . .* . . . . . . . . .4.5.8131. .7.2.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.49.8.311.7.7.2.2 - . . . . . . . . . . . .45.5.388181. . .77 S 121.88 + . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.65.339.81.1- - . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.6. .5.3959.9 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4. . . .3.35 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .464. . . .*1/1 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 146.25 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F 170.63 + T 195.00 + xii C_ • A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft. and X = 60.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 70.00 ft. and X = 160.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined By The Following 22 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 31.58 25.16 2 36.53 24.49 3 41.53 24.22 4 46.27 25.80 5 51.25 26.25 6 56.21 26.93 7 61.21 26.97 8 66.09 25.91 9 70.87 24.42 10 75.48 22.51 11 79.91 20.18 12 84.73 18.85 13 89.26 20.97 14 91.71 25.33 15 92.33 30.29 16 92.40 35.29 17 92.43 40.29 18 93.33 45.21 19 93.56 50.20 20 94.87 55.03 21 96.35 59.81 22 97.72 62.02 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 7.082 xiii I Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined By The Following 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 47.37 35.36 2 51.14 32.07 3 54.79 28.65 4 59.74 28.00 5 64.74 27.80 6 69.72 27.31 7 74.40 29.05 8 76.93 33.37 9 77.12 38.37 10 77.18 43.37 11 77.30 48.36 12 77.32 51.28 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 11.836 Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined By The Following 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 60.00 44.20 2 63.76 40.90 3 68.70 40.15 4 73.66 39.48 5 78.59 38.69 6 83.56 38.10 7 88.22 39.90 8 91.27 43.87 9 94.01 48.05 10 94.02 53.05 11 94.03 58.05 12 94.12 60.52 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 7.816 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. xiv * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 12.63 9.63 2 16.97 7.14 3 20.53 3.63 4 25.40 2.49 5 30.31 3.45 6 35.26 4.10 7 40.21 3.34 8 44.77 5.38 9 49.67 6.40 10 53.11 10.03 11 57.39 12.61 12 62.14 14.17 13 67.04 15.17 14 71.93 14.12 15 76.54 16.04 16 81.51 15.47 17 86.24 17.10 18 90.86 19.01 19 93.89 22.99 20 97.00 26.90 21 99.45 31.26 22 101.70 35.73 23 105.62 38.84 24 107.09 43.62 25 110.66 47.12 26 112.13 51.89 27 115.72 55.37 28 120.04 57.90 29 122.39 62.31 30 122.95 67.28 31 125.38 71.65 32 128.55 75.51 33 128.66 75.56 *** 2.063 *** xv i Individual data on the 44 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 4.3 792.9 4131.9 5184.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 3.0 1752.4 2857.9 5139.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 .5 551.8 2701.6 980.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 .5 697.6 1853.2 644.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 4.0 8340.8 2597.1 5625.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 .4 1001.9 114.2 574.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 4.9 13134.4 796.1 6872.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 5.0 14751.2 .0 6621.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 4.9 16595.7 .0 6639.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 3.8 13753.9 .0 5394.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11 .8 2829.5 .0 1044.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12 4.9 18655.8 .0 5962.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13 3.4 13223.1 .0 5237.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14 4.3 16058.1 .0 4268.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15 4.8 18301.8 .0 3622.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16 1.9 7446.5 .0 1262.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17 3.0 12327.5 .0 1961.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18 4.9 20621.1 .0 3231.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19 3.1 13317.5 .0 2127.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20 1.5 6644.5 .0 968.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21 5.0 22425.7 .0 2884.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22 4.7 22516.0 .0 2719.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 23 4.6 22317.2 .0 2166.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 24 1.8 8656.6 .0 897.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 25 .3 1421.8 .0 107.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 26 .9 4141.6 .0 243.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 27 1.1 4940.3 .0 146.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 28 2.0 8575.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 29 2.5 9758.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 30 2.2 7991.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 31 1.3 4276.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 32 2.6 9465.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 33 .4 1511.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 34 1.1 4071.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 35 3.6 11998.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 36 1.5 4264.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 37 3.6 8780.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 38 4.3 9238.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 39 2.0 3567.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40 .4 618.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 41 .6 684.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 42 2.4 1667.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 43 3.2 698.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 44 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 xvi Failure Surface Specified By 35 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.79 9.79 2 20.14 7.33 3 24.99 6.09 4 29.37 3.68 5 34.03 1.86 6 38.83 3.25 7 43.82 3.56 8 48.58 5.08 9 53.58 5.30 10 58.57 4.93 11 63.27 3.23 12 67.70 .91 13 72.60 1.92 14 77.55 2.63 15 82.40 3.83 16 86.92 5.98 17 91.56 7.83 18 95.86 10.38 19 100.37 12.53 20 102.30 17.15 21 105.41 21.06 22 107.66 25.53 23 110.28 29.78 24 113.77 33.36 25 117.31 36.90 26 119.87 41.19 27 123.17 44.95 28 126.54 48.64 29 127.33 53.58 30 128.68 58.39 31 130.78 62.93 32 132.77 67.52 33 135.95 71.37 34 138.80 75.49 35 138.86 75.76 *** 2.075 *** Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 9.47 9.47 2 13.35 6.31 3 17.41 3.39 4 22.40 3.27 5 27.11 4.96 xvii P 6 32.05 5.74 7 37.00 6.44 8 41.98 6.83 9 46.97 6.43 10 51.94 6.94 11 56.71 8.45 12 61.69 8.81 13 66.65 9.50 14 71.57 10.39 15 75.94 12.81 16 80.63 14.54 17 83.82 18.39 18 86.30 22.74 19 88.01 27.43 20 90.99 31.45 21 94.95 34.50 22 99.28 37.00 23 103.07 40.26 24 107.42 42.73 25 112.16 44.32 26 116.80 46.19 27 121.08 48.76 28 124.63 52.29 29 127.93 56.04 30 128.73 60.98 31 130.23 65.75 32 131.38 70.61 33 133.33 75.21 34 133.44 75.95 *** 2.098 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 9.47 9.47 2 14.09 7.55 3 18.50 5.19 4 23.49 4.92 5 28.48 4.67 6 33.46 5.16 7 38.28 3.82 8 42.84 1.77 9 47.73 2.80 10 52.69 3.47 11 57.69 3.55 12 61.79 6.40 13 65.31 9.96 14 69.11 13.20 15 73.79 14.96 16 78.57 16.44 xviii 17 82.02 20.06 18 86.68 21.88 19 91.66 22.27 20 95.54 25.43 21 99.91 27.86 22 103.06 31.74 23 103.47 36.73 24 105.47 41.31 25 107.69 45.79 26 111.32 49.23 27 111.89 54.19 28 113.28 59.00 29 116.56 62.77 30 118.13 67.52 31 120.67 71.82 32 121.41 74.93 *** 2.105 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 9.47 9.47 2 13.13 6.06 3 17.78 4.23 4 22.75 3.68 5 27.74 3.37 6 32.70 4.00 7 37.34 5.86 8 42.30 6.47 9 47.15 7.69 10 50.27 11.60 11 54.20 14.68 12 57.29 18.62 13 61.33 21.57 14 65.70 23.99 15 70.58 25.09 16 75.56 25.49 17 79.17 28.95 18 83.01 32.16 19 86.53 35.71 20 89.30 39.87 21 92.51 43.70 22 95.28 47.87 23 98.56 51.63 24 98.83 56.63 25 100.50 61.34 26 101.13 63.30 xix *** 2.157 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.79 9.79 2 20.26 7.56 3 25.18 8.45 4 29.92 10.05 5 34.46 12.15 6 38.79 14.64 7 43.06 17.25 8 48.03 17.76 9 52.38 20.22 10 57.32 21.00 11 61.55 23.67 12 65.86 26.21 13 70.65 27.65 14 73.86 31.47 15 77.76 34.60 16 79.15 39.41 17 81.97 43.53 18 85.65 46.92 19 89.59 50.00 20 94.37 51.46 21 97.44 55.40 22 101.94 57.58 23 105.01 61.53 24 107.95 65.58 25 109.03 70.46 26 110.30 73.54 *** 2.192 *** Failure Surface Specified By 37 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 3.16 9.16 2 6.72 5.65 3 11.00 3.06 4 15.17 .30 5 20.16 .04 6 25.14 .48 7 30.13 .14 xx 8 34.92 1.55 9 39.68 3.09 10 44.51 4.39 11 49.09 6.38 12 53.65 8.44 13 58.27 10.36 14 63.23 10.96 15 68.23 10.95 16 72.66 13.27 17 77.21 15.34 18 79.38 19.85 19 82.17 24.00 20 85.68 27.56 21 90.07 29.96 22 94.21 32.76 23 98.93 34.39 24 102.98 37.33 25 107.68 39.03 26 112.66 39.47 27 117.53 38.32 28 121.82 40.88 29 125.33 44.44 30 127.43 48.98 31 129.45 53.55 32 132.67 57.38 33 134.94 61.83 34 138.38 65.46 35 141.81 69.09 36 145.25 72.72 37 145.34 75.44 *** 2.203 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.79 9.79 2 19.45 6.38 3 24.16 4.70 4 29.00 3.44 5 33.48 1.22 6 38.33 2.45 7 43.24 3.35 8 47.62 5.78 9 50.19 10.07 10 53.55 13.77 11 56.22 18.00 12 59.51 21.76 13 62.81 25.52 14 65.07 29.98 15 68.21 33.87 xxi I 16 71.86 37.28 17 76.12 39.90 18 79.21 43.84 19 82.02 47.97 20 83.56 52.73 21 84.31 55.12 *** 2.205 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.95 9.95 2 22.95 6.95 3 27.17 4.26 4 31.35 1.53 5 36.28 2.38 6 40.93 4.21 7 45.92 4.58 8 50.73 5.93 9 55.36 7.82 10 60.13 9.33 11 64.03 12.46 12 68.55 14.60 13 71.29 18.78 14 74.54 22.58 15 78.07 26.12 16 82.19 28.95 17 86.85 30.77 18 89.99 34.66 19 90.77 39.60 20 91.49 44.55 21 93.22 49.24 22 94.64 54.04 23 96.93 58.48 24 98.35 62.26 *** 2.207 *** Failure Surface Specified By 37 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 9.00 xxii r ' 2 3.82 5.77 3 8.11 3.21 4 13.11 3.29 5 17.81 1.58 6 22.49 3.35 7 27.41 2.45 8 31.97 .41 9 36.96 .16 10 41.66 1.87 11 46.58 2.78 12 51.09 .61 13 55.92 1.91 14 60.91 2.07 15 65.91 1.79 16 70.60 3.51 17 73.81 7.34 18 77.62 10.59 19 79.72 15.12 20 83.42 18.48 21 88.38 19.15 22 93.13 20.71 23 97.71 22.72 24 102.32 24.65 25 104.66 29.07 26 106.40 33.76 27 107.05 38.72 28 107.57 43.69 29 110.87 47.44 30 112.96 51.98 31 115.80 56.10 32 120.41 58.04 33 123.99 61.53 34 126.95 65.56 35 129.54 69.84 36 133.73 72.56 37 135.06 75.95 *** 2.233 *** xxiii y A X I S F T .00 24.38 48.75 73.13 97.50 121.88 x .00 +---*-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+ - 0.7 -07.3 .7531 73512 7142* 24.38 7126. 712.6. . . . . 023. .6. . . . . 0713. . . . . . . . . .193. .6. . . . . . .21. . . .6. . . . . .* A 48.75 .42185.6. . . . . . . . 04231.5.6. . . . . . . . .42371.856. . . . . . . . .0.43.1. .56. . . . . . . . .2. .39. . . .568. . . . . .* 20. .741. . .56. .8. . . . . . x 73.13 .2.0371.99. . .6.8. . . . .* .2. .0371. .595.6.6.8. . . -.2. . .1.4.7.95. . . .6.8. . . .2. . .133.7.9.5. . .6. .88 . . . . . . . .1. .3739.5. . . .6. . . -. .2. . . .01. . .73. . .5.569. .* I 97.50 +. . .2. . . .041.173. . . . .5.59.9 . .2.2. .04.4.1.3. . . . . .65*. . . . .2. .0.0.141. . . . . .6. . . .* . . .2.2. . .7. .14. . . . . .6.66 . . . . . . 2.7.3. .1414. . . . . . . . . . . .27. .3. . .0. .4.4 . . S 121.88 + . . . . 22.3. . .1.1.14.* . . . . . . .7.2323.0.0.1. . . . . . . . . . . .7.2323.3.1 . . . . . . . . . 77. .220*1/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . 2 . . . . . . . . . .7. . . 146.25 + . . . . . . . . . .772/2 F 170.63 + T 195.00 + xxiv „ CV iI f I f A 71i 3 E i � 1 , , i. i cm w--I a C4 co CD CD CD �l 1 i w ,i I � 4.7d N Tti Ail 11' P"I �+ I C X " M f i I � i 1 � d Lj ppo Ci .rA 5 GO) iy !S t I i a i �.y 4c x �"� �� H .-� C 1 •� � r�-I � � �� .� � - - � �� ,tS � � :� �' � � � � ��+ +s + ' � °� �� S 5,� 5 '' i �l ��. { i � s � � � � � � � � � � � � � rl �--I _.. _. CITY OF ENCINITAS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARYACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL,PLANNING COMMISSION,AND ALL . OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership,list the names of all individuals owning more than 10%of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more that $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees,and Council within the past twelve months? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, please indicate person(s). PERSON is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership,joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality,district or other political subdivision,or any group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Applicant Date Print or type name of applicant CD/ddc/l:\BAPT\DISCLOSE.DOC(5/5/97)