The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-9180 GLine: 3Z / 3 �s A 3 C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ! 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 9180GI PARCEL NO. 264-040-2700 PLAN NO.: JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1610 NEPTUNE AVE CASE NO.: 03157 / CDP APPLICANT NAME MONTE BREM MAILING ADDRESS: 1200 PROSPECT ST STE 200 PHONE NO.: CITY: LA JOLLA STATE: CA ZIP: 92037 - CONTRACTOR : R. E. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO:: 760 - 727 -4!25 LICENSE NO.: 334441 LICENSE TYPE: B ENGINEER ANE JOSEPH GERRY - PSOMAS PHONE N ,: 858 - 576 -9200 PERMIT SUE DATE. 7/24/06 ,' PERMIT EXP. DATE: 24/07 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPE TOR.: PETER HALL ----- -- -- ----- -- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PE T FEE 00 2. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: 00 3... INSPE N FEE 8,185.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. PLAN CHECK FEE .00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT` : .00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FEE 105.00 8. SR ° 982.00 -------------- ----- - - - --- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---- ---------- --- ----- --- - -- - -- PERMIT ISSUED TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIAL FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALI TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. N5PECTION INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUA' TCy THIS APPLICATION. esS l - � - �2zoz TELEPHONE NUMBER OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTH YENGINEERING TO EXCELLENCE MASSOCIATES B. Malhas Lic. CE #23092 Date: " � !� City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Malhas and Associates Inc. 6729 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA. 92111 Tel: (858) 571 -1514, Fax: (858) 5711514 MCEngineersCdsan rr com Encinitas, CA 92024 03-157 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No. and Grading Permit Number The grading under permit number9 /1 &C'nias been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached 'As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1 % to the street and /or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the covenant(s). Engineer of Record BEM Z • MAC --H'01', S Dated Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated: The above information shall be on the Engineer of Record's letterhead and shall be signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. Padcert.doc September 17, 2008 City Engineer City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Release of Responsibility . Brem Residence Grading Plan City of Encinitas Drawing No. 9180 -G, Sheets 1 - 8 Psomas WO # 0186301100 City Engineer, SEP L � �pCB In accordance with Section 23.24.360 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, please be advised that in reference to the above - stated plans, Psomas releases all responsibility for these plans and relinquishes all as stated in Declaration of Responsible Charge, as shown on plans to Mr. Sam Z. Malhas, PE, License Number C- 23092, of Malhas Consulting Engineers, located at *839 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111, contact phone: 858.571.1514. 471 If you have any questions or comments regarding the above matter, please call me at 858.576.9200 or email me at ieerry @,psomas.com. Thank you, PS OMAS Duane J. Gerryi*JrE , 6, PLS 5436 Project Manager DJG:cjc cc: Monte Brem, Owner Sam Malhas, PE 4455 Murphy Canyon Road Suite 208 San Diego. CA 921234379 858.576 9200 858565.1738 Fa, w psomas com MI Sam Z. Malhas PE Malhas Consulting Engineers 6729Convoy Court San Diego, CA 91111 Tel. 858.571.1514 Far. 858.571.1799 MCEngineers a�san. rr. com October 2, 2008 City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 Track: Drawing Number: 9180 -G Sheets 1 thru 6. Project Name: Brem Residence, 1610 Neptune Av, Encinitas. Release of Responsibility In accordance with Section 23.24 -360 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, please be advised that in reference to the above stated plans, we are verifying a change of professional Engineer from Duane J. Gerry, Jr. to Sam Z. Malhas. Sincerely, Sam Z. Mathes, PE #23092 1 September 17, 2008 SEP 2 9 2008 City Engineer City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Release of Responsibility . Brem Residence Grading Plan City of Encinitas Drawing No. 9180 -G, Sheets 1- 8 Psomas WO # 0186301100 City Engineer, In accordance with Section 23.24.360 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, please be advised that in reference to the above - stated plans, Psomas releases all responsibility for these plans and relinquishes all as stated in Declaration of Responsible Charge, as shown on plans to Mr. Sam Z. Malhas, PE, License Number C- 23092, of Malhas Consulting Engineers, located at �[ 6939 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111, contact phone: 858.571.1514. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above matter, please call me at 858.576.9200 or email me at igerry (a.osomas.com. Thank you, P S 0'M Duane J. Project Manager DJG:cjc cc: Monte Brem, Owner Sam Malhas, PE 5436 ' No.34686 Exp. !J-QA- 4455 WA Camym Road Suue 200 San Diego. CA 92123.4379 058.576.9200 858.56.1738 Fax w .Psomas.com September 17, 2008 I Mr. Monte Brem 655 Poinsettia Park North Encinitas, CA 92024 Mr. Sam Malthas, PE 23092 Malhas Consulting Engineers 6839 Convoy Court San Diego, CA 92111 Re: Release of Responsibility/Engineer of Record for Brem Residence 1610 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 W.O. # 0186301100 Dear Mr. Brem and Mr. Malhas: SEP 2 9 2008 We understand that Mr. Monte Brem, as Owner, has requested that Psomas release its position as Responsible Professional/Engineer of Record for the Brem Residence project located at 1610 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, CA 92024. Psomas has had no involvement in the project since approximately July 2006, and further understands that Mr. Sam Malhas, of Malhas Consulting Engineers, has been providing civil engineering services for the project since that time. Pursuant to your request, Psomas agrees to transfer all documents, plans, drawings, files, and information regarding the Brem Residence Grading Plan project to Malhas Consulting Engineers (the "documents "). In consideration for this transfer, and our agreement to be relieved as the Responsible Professional/Engineer of Record on the project, both Mr. Monte Brem and Malhas Consulting Engineers, jointly and severely, agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Psomas, and its owners, employees, and officers, from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, and liabilities of any kind and nature (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of or relating to, directly or indirectly, the completion, submittal, use, reuse or any changes made by 4455 Murphy Camm Road Suue 200 San Diego, CA 92123/379 858.5769200 858.565.1738 Fax w Psomas cum P S O M A S Mr. Monte Brem Mr. Sam Malhas Page 2 September 17, 2008 W.O. # 0186301100 SEP 2 9 2008 any party, to any of the documents or related in any way to the project. This indemnification provision shall be retroactive and apply to all work related to the project, regardless of when actually performed. Please acknowledge your agreement with the above by signing below. Sincerely, P S O M A S Duane J. Gety . Project Manager DJG:cjc Agreed: Owner Mr. me Brem, Owner PLS 5436 Date: 54to' --Ix* 1- � �#03 Agreed: Malhas Consulting Engineers--,. Mr. Sam Malhas, PE Date: September 17, 2008 City Engineer City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Release of Responsibility Brem Residence Grading Plan City of Encinitas Drawing No. 9180 -G, Sheets 1 - 8 Psomas WO # 0186301100 City Engineer, *? 2 g ?0 In accordance with Section 23.24.360 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, please be advised that in reference to the above - stated plans, Psomas releases all responsibility for these plans and relinquishes all as stated in Declaration of Responsible Charge, as shown on plans to Mr. Sam Z. Malhas, PE, License Number C- 23092, of Malhas Consulting Engineers, located at ly6939 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111, contact phone: 858.571.1514. -67Z% If you have any questions or comments regarding the above matter, please call me at 858.576.9200 or email me at i eg � C&,psomas.com. Thank you, P DuaneJ Project 1 5436 DJG:cjc cc: Monte Brem, Owner Sam Malhas, PE No. 34686 FF. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road Suite 200 San Diego. CA 92123 -4379 858,576 9200 858.565.1738 Fax wtwcpsonnas can ' C I . T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 9180GI PARCEL NO. : 264 - 040 -2700 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1610 NEPTUNE AVE APPLICANT NAME MONTE BREM MAILING ADDRESS: 1200 PROSPECT ST STE CITY: LA JOLLA STATE: CA PLAN NO.: CASE NO.: 03157 / CDP 200 PHONE NO.: ZIP: 92037- CONTRACTOR : R. E. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760 - 727 -4125 LICENSE NO.: 334441 LICENSE TYPE: B ENGINEER : DUANE JOSEPH GERRY - PSOMAS PHONE N 858 -576 -9200 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 7/24/06 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/24/07 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: PETER HALL PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 3. INSPECTION FEE 8,185.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. PLAN CHECK FEE .00 6. SECURITY DEPOSI .00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FEE 105.00 8. °rrcnrriG- + 982.00 ----------------- -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- PERMIT ISSUED TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIAL FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS. LETTER DATED APRIL 27, 2006 APPLIES. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - -- - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF YPE ANYIT ISSUED PURSUA T THIS APPLICATION. IGNATURE DATE S GI NED 8s° .s7i6 -9zvt?> RINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER Structural Calculations for BREM RESIDENCE SHORING Prepared for, WESTERN SHORING Project No.: 04150 Revision Date: 9/15/05 Prepared B i'LLC FLORES LIJNO CONSULTANTS ' °�QgOFSS310 BAYM ND * A/ 1'ou'V '9'Tn9 l# <zFM11M 0P CA'60.1111 ° ,Itl! 24 Wi D ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego, California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627 Civil and Structural Engineering www.florealund.com 7c: =F C R r L UNEC ONS U L T OB PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS SHE ET NO. 7 22 0 7 m d, Sweet, CALCULATED SAN DEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2325 (B513) 5664DE26 FAX (85815664:1627 CHECKED By. RP.Al p OF DATE DATE �-n, - r Li I.-I. I I-LLI-1-1. L.1-J, I 1 --gir 1—T-1--F-1 H—i —ii i Hl it , I I il'i 1 1-71 T-1 ! r I . . . . . . . ... Lu- - - - - - N-A. Fl- fill k) w I I, tt -T.1; (+L±0 1,1vs41r)1 1 ol� Ike �-n, - r Li I.-I. I I-LLI-1-1. L.1-J, I 1 --gir 1—T-1--F-1 H—i —ii i Hl it , I I il'i 1 1-71 T-1 ! r I F:I.I=FLORr=S LUNG CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, Calffornia 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 CMJMXATED Br DATE CHECKED By DATE a ..... . ---- --- 0 . . ....... iti .. ...... PL vt . .. ..... ..... . .. .. ----- --- 4-- .. . ...... . . 6-In . . ..... .. .... .... 9/15/2005 Tieback Active Seismic Passive gactive gsurch gseis 35 pcf 0 pcf 300 pcf 770 psf 70 psf 0 psf Tieback Shoring Beam Worksheet Embedment 6 ft TB, Height = 18 ft TB2 Height = 10 ft Total Length 28.0 Reactions Mu Rb= -7.05 kips Rtbi = 73.56 kips Negative Beam Moments Msoil 47.04 k' Mseis 0.00 k' Positive Beam Moments HMS = 8.00 ft Msoil = 23.5 k' Mseis = 0.0 k' Tieback Design 18 ft dia 8 in. TB Angle 15 dec S.F. 1 ft TB -1 L Bond 29.09 ft Lunb 10.00 ft Ltotal 39.09 ft TB -2 L Bond 20.88 ft L Unbond 10.00 ft Ltotal 30.88 ft Cut Ht. 22 ft Caisson Dia. 24 in. Spacing 7 ft Increase 1.25 UO Load Mu Arching 2 Pactive 94.9 kips Hactive 11.0 ft Psurch 2.5 kips Hsurch 19.5 ft Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 0.0 ft Pfound 22 kips Wound 18 ft P2found 22 kips H2found 10 ft M.A. 4.00 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 76.2 kips Allowables 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load Rb = 27.0 kips Rtb2 = 52.8 kips UO Load Mu 79.97 k' 105.5 kips Mu(temp) 63.97 k' Use Mu(seis) 23.52 k' 82.0 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips Beams E -1 Mu 40.0 k' Use W12x35 Mu(temp) 32.0 k' phiMn= 192 k' Mu(seis) 11.8 k' Lu = 0 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 76.2 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 114.2 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 72.3 kips Allow UO 105.5 kips Work Load 54.7 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 82.0 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 51.9 kips Allow UO 105.5 kips 22' CUT - E1 3 9/15/2005 Tieback 5 ft Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf gactive 805 psf qsurch 70 psf qseis psf Tieback Shoring Beam Worksheet Embedment 5 ft TB, Height = 18 ft TB2 Height = 10 ft Total Length 28.0 Reactions Mu Rb = 16.33 kips Rtb, = 49.63 kips Negative Beam Moments Msoil 68.03 k' Mseis 0.00 k' Positive Beam Moments HM, = 8.00 ft Msoil = 8.0 k' Mseis = 0.0 k' Tieback Design 14 ft dia 8 in. TB Angle 15 dec S.F. 1 ft TB -1 L Bond 19.63 ft Lunb 10.00 ft Ltotal 29.63 ft TB -2 L Bond 17.08 ft L Unbond 10.00 ft Ltotal 27.08 ft Cut Ht. 23 ft Caisson Dia. 24 in. Spacing 6 ft Increase 1.25 UO Load Mu Arching 2 Pactive 88.9 kips Hactive 11.5 ft Psurch 2.1 kips Hsurch 20.5 ft Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 0.0 ft Pfound 6 kips Wound 14 ft P2found 1.2 kips H2found 20 ft M.A. 3.33 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 51.4 kips Allowables 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load Rb = 18.8 kips Rtb2 = 31.0 kips UO Load Mu 115.64 k' 105.5 kips Mu(temp) 92.51 k' Mu(seis) 34.01 k' Beams E -( 2,3,4,5) Mu 13.6 k' Use W12x35 Mu(temp) 10.9 k' phiMn= 192 k' Mu(seis) 4.0 k' Lu = 0 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 51.4 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 77.1 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 48.8 kips Allow UO 105.5 kips Work Load 44.7 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 67.1 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 44.7 kips Allow UO 105.5 kips 23' CUT E2 -E5 9/15/2005 Tieback 5 ft Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf gactive 805 psf gsurch 70 psf qseis psf Tieback Shoring Beam Worksheet Embedment 5 ft TB, Height = 18 ft TB2 Height = 10 ft Total Length 28.0 Reactions Mu Rb = 19.05 kips Rtb, = 57.90 kips Negative Beam Moments Msoil 79.36 k' Mseis 0.00 k' Positive Beam Moments HM, = 8.00 ft Msoil = 9.3 k' Mseis = 0.0 k' Tieback Design 14 ft dia 8 in. TB Angle 15 deg S.F. 1 ft TB -1 L Bond 25.57 ft Lunb 10.00 ft Ltotal 35.57 ft TB -2 L Bond 21.19 ft L Unbond 10.00 ft Ltotal 31.19 ft Cut Ht. 23 ft Caisson Dia. 24 in. Spacing 7 ft Increase 1.25 JO Load Mu Arching 2 Pacive 103.7 kips Hactive 11.5 ft Psurch 2.5 kips Hsurch 20.5 ft Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 0.0 ft Pfound 7 kips Hfound 14 ft P2found 1.4 kips 1-12found 20 ft M.A. 3.33 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 66.9 kips Allowables 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load Rb = 18.8 kips Rtb2 = 36.2 kips JO Load Mu 134.92 k' 105.5 kips Mu(temp) 107.93 k' Use Mu(seis) 39.68 k' 83.2 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips Beams E -6 Mu 15.8 k' Use W12x35 Mu(temp) 12.7 k' phiMn= 192 k' Mu(seis) 4.7 k' Lu = 0 ft Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Work Load 66.9 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 100.4 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips JO Load 66.9 kips Allow JO 105.5 kips Work Load 55.5 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 83.2 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 55.5 kips Allow JO 105.5 kips 23' CUT E6 5 9/15/2005 Tieback Active Seismic Passive gactive gsurch qseis 35 pcf 0 pcf 300 pcf 595 psf 70 psf psi Embedment 5 ft TBI Height = 12 ft TB2 Height = 4 ft Total Length 22.0 Reactions Mseis = Rb= 0.63 kips Rtbi = 50.67 kips Neaative Beam Moments Msoil 82.50 k' Mseis 000 k Positive Beam Moments HM, = 8.00 ft Msoil = 1.3 k' Mseis = 0.0 k' Tieback Design dia 8 in. TB Angle 15 deg S.F. 1 ft TB -1 L Bond 20.04 ft Lunb 10.00 ft Ltotal 30.04 ft TB -2 L Bond 9.58 ft L Unbond 10.00 ft Ltotal 19.58 ft Tieback Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. Spacing Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound P2found M.A. Rtbz = Mu Mu(temp) Mu(seis) Mu Mu(temp) Mu(seis) 17 ft 8 f 64.7 kips 2.8 kips 0.0 kips 8 kips 1.6 kips 3.33 ft 24.2 kips 140.25 k' 112.20 k' 41.25 k' 2.2 k' 1.8 k' 0.7 k' Active Zone 30 deg skin friction 1250.0 psf Caisson Dia. Increase Arching Hactive Hsurch Hseis Wound H2found Allowables Rb = 24 in 1.25 2 8.5 ft 14.5 ft 0.0 ft 14 ft 8 f 18.8 kips Beams E -7 Use NI12x35 phiMn= 192 k' Lu = 0 ft Work Load 52.5 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 78.7 kips Allow Test 140.6 kips UO Load 49.8 kips Allow UO 105.5 kips Work Load 25.1 kips Use 3 -0.6 STRAND Test Load 37.6 kips Allow Test 140.5 kips JO Load 23.8 kips Allow JO 105.5 kips 17' CUT E7 I FLC FLORr=S Lurmo CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 CAUD"TED - DATE CHBMM m - Bpi M ON gas M M 0 ■ ON 0 0 M Ell is 1.4 1, M oil. on Iffin a 0 ME 0 no no ME ME No ME ON ME F1 m No 0 0 0 11. IN I M 0 M 0 MEN PAV M ME NEI .. I MEN M no 0 h lvubie Corrosion Protection DCP (Type C) ,orrosion protection for the anchor tendon can be - (proved by extending the outer corrugated PE or duct over the free stressing length. In this ,ase, pregrouting of the anchor inside the plastic `•ijct.is not recommended_ because of difficulties } hich might be encountered during transportation nd placing. } oubie C0770SiOn ?rot =_ction DCP (Type D) ne ideal protection for strand anchors is one in hich the strand is totally and permanently pro- f} cted from the time of manufacture throughout its re. Such protection is provided by epoxy coating ie individual strands both externally and intemally. o -bond Flo -fill is a rugged, thermally bonded ,olymer coating that ofrers maximum corrosion xotection, with a bond strength that exceeds that + bare strand. When two stage grouting is used, 1 ,j additional corrosion protection is required even .�.. r..i �L. , in applications where the free stressing length will remain unarouted for an extended period of time. The Dywidag wedge.anchor for epoxy coated strand bites through the coating into the strand, developing a minimum of 95% of its nominal ultimata tensile strength. Corrosion protection provided by the epoxy Is not compromised by the wedoe. Although the cost of epoxy coated strand is higher than bare strand, the total cost of the installed anchor is reduced by eliminating the outer corru- gated plastic duct. This makes it possible to mini- mize the drill hole size, thereby reducing the cost of drilling and grouting. Double Corrosion Prot_ciion DCP (Type E For anchors in which single stage grouting is desirable, the free stressing length of epoxy coat- ed strand anchors can be coated with a lubricat- ing grease and encased in a seamless extruded PE sheath. hul#i-s d -esfi =ssina Steel Proaerties - AST M A. =:16 51 " Anchor Size Nominal Cross Section Area Nominal Weight (bare strand) Ultimaie Strength (1w AP.) Prestressing Force 0.80 fm An 0.70 fm Ar 0.60 fw A.s in: mm' I plf kg/m kips kN kips kN kips kN kips I kN =3- 0.65 I 420 I 2.20 3.27 175.8 782 140.6 625 123.0 547 105.5 469 4 -0.6 0.87 560 3.00 4.46 234.4 1,043 187.5 834 164.1 I 730 I 140.6 I 626 _5 -0.6 1.09 700 I 3.70 5.51 293.0 1.303 I 234.4 1,043 205.1 912 175.8 I 762 6 -06F 1.3o I 840 4.40 6.55 351.6 1.564 281.3 1,251 246.1 1,095 211.0 I 938 7 -0.6 1.52 980 520 7.74 410.2 1_825 328.2 I 1,460 287.2 1,2 I 246.2 I 1095 8 -0.6 1.74 I 1,120 5.90 8.78 468.8 2.085 375.0 1,668 I 328.1 I 1,460 I 281.3 1.251 9 -0.6 1 1.95 1250 6.70 9.97 5274 2.346 1 421.9 1.877 3892 1 I ,era 2 - 0.6 2.60 I 1,680 8.90 13.24 703.2 3.128 I -562.6 2.503 - 492.3 I " "2,190 I -4229.0- I -1.8-,7 5 -0.6 3.26 I 2.100 11.10 I 16.52 879.0 3.910 I 703.2 3.128 615.3 2,737 I 527.4 I 2.346 19 -0.6 I 4.12 2.660 I 14.10 I 20.98 1,113.4 4.953 ( 890.7 3.962 I -79 1 3.467 I 668.0 I 2912 _7 -0.6I 5.86 3.7 20 I 20.00 29.76 1.58-2.2 I -'35 11?85.8 � - ! E�_� �',„. - _ 4.. 37 -0. 6 I 8.03 I 5.180 27.40 I 40.78 1 2.168.2 9.645 1. 731.8 I 7.716 1.1.517.8 6.751 1 1.301.0 5..c- B -0,61 10.41 I 6,720 I 35.50 1 52.83 2,8128 12512 1 2250.2 1 10.009 1.958.9 8.758 1 1,687.7 I 7.507 54 -O.fi 11.72 I 7,560 39.90 59.34 3,164_4 -�I 14.076 1 2.531.5 I 11.261 1 2.215.1 1 9.853 1 1.898.6 I 8.4�t6 1 -0.6 1324 8,540 I 45.10 67.12 1 3,574.6 15.901 1 2.959.7 12.721 2.502.2 11,131 2.144.8 9.540 11 F L. V FLORES LUNG CONSULTANTS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 SAN OEM, CALIFORNIA 92121.2325 (6597 566-0626 FAX (656] 566-0627 ( SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY ai phw wr i ��Ih, nnii 7� nl®■■ _ nnll Il►�Ml�n�� ( n■■ nnfl �i�`�n■n��n ■ann n� Ili ®I�► \� ■I�di ■n0 MEN� 9.6 11 MEN 11 ■nnn■ ■ . ��(1 I i �� ■■■nm■nnnn�n ��n Finn . ■n�nn■n■n�n®n■ illlll �- ■n■n ■■ ��r�in�nn�■�nnnnn� miff -ff o. n■nnn■n ■ ■n r ai phw wr F=L.= V-7 FLORES LUNO CONSULTANTS SHEET W. 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 OAIE I to ME ME ON re. No MEN 0 MEN 0=1 No m No ON ME 00 No OEM NEEN No M No Ell NEON No IN I 9/15/2005 Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet 03132 Cut length 19' - C1 Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf Cut Ht. 19 ft Caisson Dia. Spacing 6 ft Increase Arching gactive 665 psf Pactive gsurch psf Psurch qseis psf Pseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu f Mmax My long col Hu 3 f 353.8 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 601.4 k' 601.4 k' 37.9 kips Pfound 20.0 ft M.A. 6 f % 0 kips Allowables 88.4 kips Rb 50.5 kips Rt 3 f 353.8 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 601.4 k' 601.4 k' 37.9 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 0 kips Hfcund 17.00 ft 0.3 144.4 kips 75.0 kips Mu(temp.) 495.3 k Brom's Emb check 113.9241 k' P= 10.10627 1489.084 k' -ft 816.6667 k' -ft 72 k' 37.9 cut 19'- 6'spacing C1 Use phiMn= Use phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 6.3 ft 9.5 ft 12.7 ft Oft W21 x83 735 k' or W1 6X89 660 k' 9/15/2005 Cut length 19'- C2 -C4 Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. 19 ft Caisson Dia. Spacing 8 ft Increase Arching gactive 665 psf Pactive qsurch psf Psurch qseis psf Pseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Wound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu f Mmax My long col Hu 3 f 471.7 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 801.9 k' 801.9 k' 50.5 kips Pfound 20.0 ft M.A. Eft Hseis 0 kips AI lowables 117.9 kips Rb 67.4 kips Rt 3 f 471.7 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 801.9 k' 801.9 k' 50.5 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 0 kips Wound 17.00 ft 0.3 144.4 kips 75.0 kips Mu(temp.) 660.4 k' Brom's Emb check 113.9241 k' P= 10.10627 1489.084 k' -ft 1054.444 k' -ft 89 k' 50.5 cut 19'- 8'spacing C2 -C4 Use phiMn= Use phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 6.3 ft 9.5 ft 12.7 ft Oft W18x106 863 k' or W21 x101 949 k' l2 03132 9/15/2005 Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut length 19'- C5 -C6 Active 35 pcf Cut Ht. 19 ft Caisson Dia. Seismic 0 pcf Spacing 6 ft Increase Passive 300 pcf Arching Pmax 2000 psf gactive 665 psf Pactive 37.9 kips Hactive qsurch psf Psurch 0.0 kips Hsurch qseis psf Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis Pfound 0 kips Wound Embedment 22.0 ft M.A. 19.00 ft Toe 6 ft % 0.272727 Reactions Allowables Rb 87.3 kips Rb 185.0 kips Rt 49.4 kips Rt 75.0 kips Beam Moments M.A. Ms0i1 Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu f Mmax My long col Hu 3.3 ft 365.2 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 620.8 k' 620.8 k' Mu(temp.) 511.2 k' Brom's Emb check 140.9294 k' P= 11.24046 1948.627 k' -ft 1288.889 k' -ft 51 k' 37.9 cut 19'- 6'spacing C5 -C6 Use phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 6.3 ft 9.5 ft 12.7 ft 0 It or W21 x122 1160 k' 13 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 22'- C7 Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. Spacing qactive 770 psf Pactive qsurch 70 psf Psurch qseis psf Pseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu f Mmax My long col Hu 3.9 ft 761.2 k' 195.9 74.7 0.0 k' 1716.6 k' 1664.3 k' 22 ft 8 f 67.8 kips 12.3 kips 0.0 kips 4 kips 1.2 kips 21.50 ft 0.346154 207.2 kips 112.5 kips Mu(temp.) 1444.4 k' Brom's Emb check 197.73 k' P= 13.31434 3205.116 k' -ft 2133.333 k' -ft 149 k' 85.3 cut 22'- 8'spacing C7 Caisson Dia. Increase Arching Hactive Hsurch Hseis Wound H2found Use phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 7.3 ft 12 ft 12.0 ft 10 ft 12 or W24x176 1920 k' 1 If 03132 Pfound P2found 26.0 ft M. A. 9 f % Allowables 191.7 kips Rib 107.6 kips Rt 3.9 ft 761.2 k' 195.9 74.7 0.0 k' 1716.6 k' 1664.3 k' 22 ft 8 f 67.8 kips 12.3 kips 0.0 kips 4 kips 1.2 kips 21.50 ft 0.346154 207.2 kips 112.5 kips Mu(temp.) 1444.4 k' Brom's Emb check 197.73 k' P= 13.31434 3205.116 k' -ft 2133.333 k' -ft 149 k' 85.3 cut 22'- 8'spacing C7 Caisson Dia. Increase Arching Hactive Hsurch Hseis Wound H2found Use phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 7.3 ft 12 ft 12.0 ft 10 ft 12 or W24x176 1920 k' 1 If 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 18' B1 -B5 Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. 18 ft Caisson pia. Spacing 8 ft Increase Arching gactive 630 psf Pactive qsurch 0 psf Psurch qseis 0 psf Pseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu f Mmax My long col Hu 3.3 ft 421.8 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 717.1 k' 717.1 k' 45.4 kips Hound 0.0 kips P2found 22.0 ft M.A. 6.5 it Wound 1.6 kips Allowables 102.1 kips Rb 56.7 kips Rt 3.3 ft 421.8 k' 0.0 0.0 0.0 k' 717.1 k' 717.1 k' 45.4 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 0 kips Wound 1.6 kips 1-12found 18.75 ft 0.295455 174.4 kips 81.3 kips Mu(temp.) 590.6 k' Brom's Emb check 142.6071 k' P= 11.30717 1930.632 k' -ft 1012.222 k' -ft 88 47.0 CUT 18 W N WALL SURCH B1 -B5 Use phiMn= phiMn= phiMn= 30 in. 1.25 2 6.0 ft 15.5 ft 12.0 ft 8 f 16 W21 x101 949 k' or w12x152 911 k' or w14x45 975 k' /S 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 18'-BB Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. 15 ft Caisson Dia, Spacing 7 ft Increase Arching gacive 525 psf Pactive qsurch 0 psf Psurch qseis 0 psf Pseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) Hu If Mmax My long col Hu 3 f 220.5 k' 0.0 94.4 0.0 k' 488.1 k' 422.1 k' 27.6 kips Pfound 0.0 kips P2found 20.0 ft M.A. 7 f % 1.4 kips Allowables 77.3 kips Rb 41.7 kips Rt 3 f 220.5 k' 0.0 94.4 0.0 k' 488.1 k' 422.1 k' 27.6 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 8 kips Hfound 1.4 kips 1-12found 16.50 ft 0.35 100.8 kips 70.0 kips Mu(temp.) 440.9 k' Brom's Emb check 96 k' P= 10.37227 1143.825 k' -ft 550 k' -ft 50 k' 37.0 18 N house surch. B6 Use phiMn= phiMn= phiMn= 24 in. 1.25 2 5.0 ft 12.5 ft 10.0 ft 6 f 13 ft W21 x62 540 k' or w12x87 495 k' or w14x62 521 k' 03132 9/15/2005 Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut length 9'- B7 Active 35 pcf Cut Ht. 9 ft Caisson Dia. 24 in. Seismic 0 pcf Spacing 6 It Increase 1.25 Passive 300 pcf Arching 2 Pmax 2000 psf qactive 315 psf Pactive 8.5 kips Hactive 3.0 ft qsurch psf Psurch 0.0 kips Hsurch 4.5 ft qseis psf Pseis 0.0 kips Hseis 6.0 ft Pfound 6 kips Wound 1 ft P21ound 1.2 kips H2found 6 It Embedment 11.0 It M.A. 10.00 ft Toe 2 ft % 0.181818 Reactions Allowables Rb 32.1 kips Rb 51.8 kips Rt 17.6 kips Rt 20.0 kips Beam Moments M.A. 1.65 It Msoil 39 5 k' Msurch. 0.0 Mfound. 25.1 Mseis 0.0 k' Mu(perm.) 97.3 k' Mu(temp.) 90.5 k' Use W16x26 Mu(seis.) 79.8 k' phiMn= 166 k' or w1 2x40 phiMn= 214 k' Brom's Emb check Hu 28.52143 k' P= 15.7 f 5.653584 Mmax 193.0632 k' -ft My 184.4444 short col Cuts 9 B7 17 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 5' Active Seismic Passive Pmax gactive qsurch qseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) 35 pcf 0 pcf 300 pcf 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. 5 ft Caisson Dia Spacing 3 ft Increase Arching 175 psf Pactive psf Psurch psf Pseis 0.6 kips Pfound 7.0 ft M.A. 1 f % Allowables 4.5 kips Rb 2.6 kips Rt 1.05 ft 3.6 k' 0.0 1.8 0.0 k' 8.3 k' Mu(temp.) 7.0 k' Brom's Emb check Hu 11.87308 k' P= f 3.647706 Mmax 48.66146 k' -ft My 184.4444 short col 1.3 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 0.6 kips Wound 6.50 ft 0.142857 25.5 kips 10.0 kips 24 in. 1.25 2 1.7 ft 2.5 ft 3.3 ft 2 f 7.6 k' Use W16x26 phiMn= 166 k' or w12x40 phiMn= 214 k' W Cuts 5 B8 K 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 9'- E8 Active 35 pcf Seismic 0 pcf Passive 300 pcf Pmax 2000 psf gactive 315 psf qsurch psf qseis psf Embedment 11.0 ft Toe 2 ft Reactions Rb 31.5 kips Rt 18.5 kips Beam Moments 5.653584 M.A. 1.65 It Msoil 52.7 k' Msurch. 0.0 Mfound. 12.2 Mseis 0.0 k' Mu(perm.) 104.3 k' Mu(seis.) 95.8 k' Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. Spacing Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound M.A. o� Allowables 11 9 ft Caisson Dia. 8 ft Increase Arching 11.3 kips Brom's Emb check Hu 28.52143 k' P= f 5.653584 Mmax 193.0632 k' -ft My 184.4444 short col 9 ft Caisson Dia. 8 ft Increase Arching 11.3 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 1.6 kips Wound 10.00 ft 0.181818 51.8 kips 20.0 kips 24 in. 1.25 2 3.0 ft 4.5 ft 6.0 ft 6 f 91.0 k' Use W16x26 phiMn= 166 k' or w12x22 phiMn= 110 k' 12.9 Cuts 9 E8 Iq 03132 9/15/2005 Cut length 5' Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive gsurch qseis Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments M.A. Msoil Msurch. Mfound. Mseis Mu(perm.) Mu(seis.) 35 pcf 0 pcf 300 pcf 2000 psf Cantilever Shoring Beam Worksheet Cut Ht. 5 ft Caisson Dia. Spacing 8 ft Increase Arching 175 psf Pactive psf Psurch psf Pseis Mmax Pfound 5.0 ft M.A. 1 f % Allowables 12.8 kips Rb 7.7 kips Rt 0.75 ft 8.5 k' 0.0 4.4 0.0 k' 19.7 k' Mu(temp.) 16.6 k' 3.5 kips Brom's Emb check Hu 5.625 k' P= f 2.510727 Mmax 18.79023 k' -ft My 184.4444 short col 3.5 kips Hactive 0.0 kips Hsurch 0.0 kips Hseis 1.6 kips Wound 4.50 it 0.2 13.0 kips 10.0 kips 24 in. 1.25 2 1.7 ft 2.5 ft 3.3 ft 2 f 18.0 k' Use W16x26 phiMn= 166 k' or w1 2x22 phiMn= 110 k' 5.1 Cuts 5 E9 ZU 03132 21 Broms slover ky:= 0.300 ------------------------------------------- - - - - -y Cf M:= 817 el := 6.3 H:= i f:= 1 d:= 3 Given M- H•(el+ 3•f =0 f - 0.82• d ky� /= 0 r72.831422 Mi X&n(H,f) = \ 7..93142 ------------------------------------------- - - - --y M:= 1054. C2-C4 el := 6.3 H:= I f := 1 d:= 3 Given M – H• el +3•f) =0 f – 0.82• d - 0 89.654986 MinErr(H,f) ° (9.184268 ) ------------------------------------------- - - - --y M:= 1289 C5-C6 el := 6.3 H:= i f:= 1 d:= 3 Given M- H•(el+ 3•fl =0 f - 0.82• H =0 — d•ky 51.364796 MinErt(H,f) _ 6.194773 22 __________________ _______ _______ ________________y M:= 2133 C7 el := 7.3 H:= i f := 1 d:= 3 Given M — H• el + 3•f) : 0 f — 0.82• H 0 d•ky 148.846087 MmE�H'� — ( 10.545358 __________________ ___ ______ ____________ __ _______y M:= 1012 B1 -B5 el := 6 H I f:= 1 d:= 3 Given M— H•(el+ 3.f) =0 f -0.82• dky =0 (/88.588343 MmBrt{H, f) — 1 8.135437 - - M:= 550 B6 el := 6 H:= 1 f := 1 d:= 2. Given M— H. (el+ 3•f) =0 f — 0.82• d =0 50.035735 MinEcr(ii't) — ( 7.488216 F L 0 FLCRF-3 LUND CONSULTANTS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2325 (858158640626 FAX (8581566-0627 JOB — SHEET NO. — CALCULATED CHECKED BY. 7 T' T: AqvAw-A %L_ I r AT _� A'44itA� OZA r- VALA-, T 4 4 9i so 0 Iry L t4A ze t 4 1 �20 X1 -r- Fool k. FOP, 18j. J: . . . . . . . . . . . . a 160 27 (fb(p --f 7F JZC 2, !Puft=M - r7%9.1 LA -IimL(t40jn -'t4d� . . .... As. W_4 t j �k DATE .... ...... AJ F L G IFLORE3 WN13 CONS]LTAMT9 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Suwrt Sum 120 SAN OEGO. CALFURNIA 82121 -2325 (858] 588062S FAX (858) 5860627 INSET NO. Cl4CdUiEO M CHECKS) Y WALE z ct IVV :1 I , ApEGtDac -1�F - X►Z - P 'l C SoAeQS. TAB ' QWN r ; l l i EAV cxu�.Jlo_ I I. Soll_ ��;SU J E TO � A 1 oa I THE 501L 19 94 �� cb 50n15 M 2. an(g5 -y j r TFi�S FOft Irk 3oPRD5 & 6cWVJ? i 1 I I I j j ( - 191x8, - -- - - -- 6z - -s -� t-!'y ;CD�L- r�- x�,�x�� __$So�XI.z x�:�Snl_2ril.b= I�(�io15t � i't�1_PS►_B�� FLC FLORES LLPIYO CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 fax (858) 566-0627 I�ml- CALGUUTED CHECKED BY Z Project No. 2196 January 12, 2006 Geaterhniraf Engineering C.wl Engineering Mr. Monte Brem Mariam¢ Engineering c/o Pacific Corporate Group LLC 1200 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, California 92037 4UL Z 4 = D OF UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Brem: As requested, we have performed an update geotechnical study for your property located at 1610 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, California. As part of this study, we have reviewed the following documents: • " Geotechnical Investigation and Bluff Retreat Study, 1610 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," prepared by TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc., dated June 4, 2003; and • Grading and drainage plans titled "Brem Residence, 1610 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, 03- 157DR, CDP Sheets 1 -9," prepared by Pountney Psomas, San Diego, California. Additionally, we have visited the site to observe the current conditions. From our review of the above - referenced drawings and site visit, it is our opinion that, since the geotechnical investigation reported June 4, 2003, there have not been any substantial changes to the site which would preclude the development as proposed. It is also our opinion that the recommendations found in our June 4, 2003, report still apply and that the above - referenced grading and drainage plans are in conformance with the recommendations found in the above - referenced report. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 ♦ San Diego, California 92123.4379 ♦ (858) 573-6900 ratee ♦ (858) 573 -8900 fax 1513 6th Street, Suite 104 A Santa Monica, California 90401 -2500 • (310) 576 -1086 rni,e A (310) 576 -1083 Jtec www.terracosta.com Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 January 12, 2006 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust this information meets your needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Walte Crampton, Principal Engineer R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245 WFC/GAS /sd ICG SFR1FRneC kF,.j,,-,21'219 21%111 B... d, Grego A. Spauldin ro'e Geologist C.E.G. 1863, C.H.G. 351, R.G. 5892 ICG SFR1FRneC kF,.j,,-,21'219 21%111 B... d, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DM Prepared for JUL 2 4 R. MONTE BREM La Jolla, California "IIY Prepared by TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. San Diego, California Project No. 2196 -1 June 4, 2003 Geotechniml Engineering Geology Hydmgeology conw Engineertng Hydrology Hydm ha Project No. 2196 -1 June 4, 2003 Mr. Monte Brem do Pacific Corporate Group, 1 1 C 1200 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, California 92037 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALJFORNIA Dear Mr. Brem: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation and bluff retreat study for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 1610 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, Califomia. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigative work, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses of the subsurface conditions at the site, and presents our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of site development. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions or require further information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Walt© F. C�mpton, P R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E.: WFC/GAS /sd Attachments (3) Addressee (1) Mr. Jim Knowlton, (3) Mr. Gary Cannon, CRq�Al W No. 245 Exp. iz.•3/-Os I A. aulidffng,,Vroject Geologist 1863, .351, R`892 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 ♦ San Diego, California 92123 -4379 ♦ (858) 5736900 voice ♦ (858) 5738900 fax WV\� oP+ A pro v�'i QN-so�.'186�7ntp } GETIFIGD NTIrRt ENGINEERI NG J'J, GEOLOGIST 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 ♦ San Diego, California 92123 -4379 ♦ (858) 5736900 voice ♦ (858) 5738900 fax Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 10;11111 �(6)9111]11-liw June 4, 2003 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................. ............................... 1.1 Background .............................................................................. ..............................1 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................... ............................... 2 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................... ............................... 3 4 GEOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS ................................................ ............................... 3 4.1 Geologic Setting ...................................................................... ............................... 3 4.2 Site Conditions .......................................................................... ..............................4 4.3 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................. ..............................4 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...................................................................... ............................... 5 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................ ............................... 5 5.2 Landslides ................................................................................. ..............................6 6 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................. ............................... 6 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ............................... 6 7.1 General ..................................................................................... ..............................6 7.2 Proposed Site Grading. ........................................................................................... 7 7.3 Building Foundations ............................................................... ............................... 8 7.3.1 Bearing Capacity .......................................................... ............................... 8 7.3.2 Settlement .................................................................... ..............................8 7.3.3 Lateral Resistance ........................................................ ............................... 8 7.3.4 Concrete Slabs -on- Grade ............................................. ............................... 9 7.3.5 Pipes and Trenches ...................................................... ............................... 9 7.3.6 Water- and Damp - Proofing Foundation Systems ......... ............................... 9 7.4 Retaining Walls ...................................................................... ............................... 10 7.5 Construction Cuts and Excavations ........................................ ............................... 11 8 GROSS STABILITY OF THE COASTAL BLUFF .............................. ............................... 11 8.1 Predicted Bluff Retreat over the Next 75 Years ....................... ............................... 14 9 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... .............................15 REFERENCES i �\Tc, u S1 EVin.a P'*je 21096k21961 P02 Geo h i w tda Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 7:relfem FIGURE I FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E June 4, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SITE PLAN GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION SUMMARY RESULTS OF COASTAL STABILITY ANALYSES - STATIC SUMMARY RESULTS OF COASTAL STABILITY ANALYSES - DYNAMIC LOGS OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS - TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION - GEOSOILS, INC. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS - TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL SUMMARY STABILITY ANALYSES ii \\ Tc��e, tiASHAItE�NelraAlProjecea \21�2196119b1 R02 Gcaech InrtLdoc Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION June 4, 2003 Page 1 The subject property is located on the west side of Neptune Avenue, westerly of the intersection of Neptune Avenue and Avocado Street in the City of Encinitas, California. The site is located on the westerly- facing coastal bluff, which descends approximately 60 feet from the top -of -bluff, down to the Pacific shoreline. The Site Plan, Figure 1, and the Generalized Geologic Cross Section, Figure 2, summarize the general topographic and geologic conditions of the site. Figure 1 also indicates the approximate footprint of the planned residential structure. 1.1 Background In order to address Coastal Commission concerns regarding the gross stability of the coastal bluff at the neighboring property at 1616 Neptune Avenue, TerraCosta Consulting Group (TCG) arranged to share the cost of core drilling two test borings at 1264 Neptune Avenue. The purpose of these borings was to assess the potential for an Okun -type landslide occurring somewhere along the coastal bluff north of Beacons, and to evaluate the landslide susceptibility of the coastal bluff associated with relatively thin clay beds within the Santiago Formation, which are exposed in the lower, cliffed portion of the bluff in the 1200 block of Neptune Avenue. No similar exposures of thin clay seams have been observed in the sea cliff at or in the vicinity of 1610 Neptune Avenue, but Coastal Commission technical staff remained concerned regarding the possibility that a clay seam may exist at, or just below, the sand level or shore platform, which could adversely affect the stability of the coastal bluff. The general conclusion regarding coastal bluff stability, after two years of geotechnical investigative work addressing both the adjacent site and coastal erosion processes affecting the entire 32,000- foot -long Encinitas shoreline, was that the northerly portion of the Encinitas shoreline (specifically, the area northerly of Beacons) was and remains relatively stable 1 \1c8�SM E��Q111%21%i M2 Gen «h i�%ea Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 2 compared to the remainder of the City's shoreline, with no immediate threat to bluff -top improvements along this section of the City's coastline. Considerable discussion can be found in the TCG reports for the adjacent property (2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, and 2002e). A discussion of our evaluation of coastal bluff stability at 1610 Neptune Avenue is included in Section 8, Stability of the Coastal Bluff. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our study is to provide geotechnical information to assist you and your consultants in project design, and to address City of Encinitas and California Coastal Commission concerns regarding the project. For input in performing our studies and preparing this report, we have discussed the project with you, as well as with City and Coastal Commission personnel. We have reviewed geologic literature, maps, and historic aerial stereographic and oblique photographs. References for our investigation are cited in the Reference section at the end of this report. In particular, our investigation is designed to address the following geotechnical issues: The geologic setting of the site; • Potential geologic hazards; • Geotechnical characteristics of the on -site soils; • Groundwater; • Proposed site grading; • Foundation design, including allowable soil bearing and earth pressure values; • On -site and off -site surface water drainage; • Gross stability of the coastal bluff; • Construction- period stability of cut slopes; and • Predicted bluff retreat over the next 75 years. \ \TLg w-w%.SWEVfnwrlMr U%21\2196V19& 1 R02 Ge hI. to Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 3 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING A geologic reconnaissance was performed on the subject site and immediately adjacent areas to identify lithologic units exposed in the coastal bluffs, to observe structural features such as bedding attitudes, faults, joint and fracture patterns, and to identify observable evidence of perched groundwater seepage. Finally, the coastal bluff geometry of the subject site was compared to that of nearby bluff areas to aid in our understanding of the present -day stage of erosional development of the bluff at the site. Our subsurface investigation included the excavation of two 8 -inch hollow -stem auger borings ranging up to 20 feet in depth, and three backhoe test pits ranging in depth from 7.5 to 8.5 feet. The auger borings were advanced using a Mobile B -61 drill rig and the test pits were excavated with a John Deere mini excavator. The locations of the auger borings and test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. A Key to Excavation Logs is presented in Appendix A as included on Figure A -1. Final logs of the test borings are presented as Figures A -2 and A -3. Final logs of the test pits are presented as Figure A-4 through A -6. A deep boring excavated and logged by GeoSoils at 1616 Neptune Avenue provided additional subsurface data to aid in characterizing the geologic site conditions. A copy of GeoSoils' excavation log for their Test Boring B -1 is presented in Appendix B. Selected representative samples were tested in the laboratory to classify and evaluate the engineering properties of the on -site soils. Laboratory tests were performed to establish moisture/density relationships, grain size analyses, and consolidation characteristics. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. 4 GEOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting The coastal plain of San Diego County is characterized by thick sequences of interbedded Eocene marine siltstones, claystones, sandstones, and conglomerates. Coastal bluff retreat, a geomorphic process that has operated for millions of years and \ \Tce savdSWtREVkfwM ➢,gecu�2111961196 -1 N2 G� I,w Lt Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 4 continues today along most of San Diego's coastline, has formed steep coastal bluffs ranging up to as high as 300 feet in elevation in San Diego County. Locally, the project site is situated at the westerly bluff- terminated edge of a 1 /2 -mile- wide gently westerly - sloping coastal terrace, one of a sequence of well- defined wave -cut abrasion terraces created primarily by higher eustatic sea stands during Pleistocene -age interglacial episodes and, to a lesser degree, by tectonic uplift. 4.2 Site Conditions The subject 50- foot -wide property is bounded on the east by Neptune Avenue, on the north and south by adjoining residential lots, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. From Neptune Avenue, the original ground surface descends irregularly to the west at an average angle of approximately 5 degrees (below the horizontal), down to the "top - of- bluff' (as defined by the California Coastal Commission - see Figure 2, Generalized Geologic Cross Section). A review of 1928 aerial photographs indicates that this surface was altered in the mid to late 1920s by dumping excess soil during the grading and construction of Avocado Street and Neptune Avenue. From the top -of -bluff, the upper coastal bluff (underlain by Quaternary terrace deposits) descends at an average angle of approximately 30 to 35 degrees down to approximate elevation 19 feet at the top of the near - vertical cliffed section of the lower coastal bluff. As indicated on Figure 2, this lower- cliffed section of the coastal bluff is underlain by relatively horizontally- stratified Eocene -age marine sediments currently classified as a clayey sequence of the Santiago Formation. 4.3 Subsurface Conditions Two geologic units (the Santiago Formation and late Pleistocene -age terrace deposits) and two surficial deposits (natural topsoil and man - placed fill soils) are present in the general site area. These soil units are described below from oldest to youngest. Santiago Formation: A well - consolidated, relatively horizontally stratified, moderately indurated, marine, gray clayey siltstone with interbedded layers and lenses of dark gray, hard, silty claystone, characteristic of the Santiago 1\Tcg --, SIWiEV* -.MP.l m'21'2196,21961 R02 Ge h Lwe Li Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 June 4, 2003 Page 5 Formation of middle Eocene age (49 to 45 million years) is exposed in the shore platform and lower cliffed section of the bluff (generally below elevation 19 feet). Terrace Deposits: Moderately consolidated, poorly indurated, light reddish - brown, silty fine sands, characteristic of late Pleistocene -age coastal terrace deposits, are exposed in the bluff above approximate elevation 19 feet, and were encountered in our test pits and GeoSoils' test borings on the adjacent property to the north. Soils within this generally medium dense to dense, but friable, sandy geologic unit include nearshore marine and beach sands lithologically characteristic of the (approximately 120,000 years old) Bay Point Formation. Topsoils: Loose to medium dense, porous, reddish - brown, silty sands form a 3- to 6- foot -thick mantle of topsoil over the westerly - sloping coastal terrace surface. The sands, probably of Holocene age (8,000 to 9,000 years old), exhibit observable porosity and will likely consolidate under moderate loads, especially when saturated. Like the underlying terrace deposit soils from which they are derived, the topsoils are easily erodible and subject to rifling. Fill Soils: Uncompacted and moderately compacted, light brown, silty sand fill soils, the result of grading during construction of Avocado Street and Neptune Avenue, cover much of the upper bluff (Photo 1). The fill soils, derived locally, can, from a geotechnical standpoint, be considered to be the same as, or similar to, the natural topsoils, described above. 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity The site is located in a moderately - active seismic region of Southern California that is subject to significant hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking from sixteen major active fault zones could affect the site in the event of an earthquake. The nearest of these, the northerly offshore extension of the Rose Canyon fault zone, trends north - northwest and has been mapped approximately 3.5 miles west of the site. \ \TC8 w .MS1URE1f1e�YV,/.1P�aJect��2��2 1%2196. 1 R02 Ge ' fro 1i Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 6 No known active faults have been mapped, nor were any observed during our geologic reconnaissance at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the site. 5.2 Landslides Our study did not reveal the presence of any landslides on the site. No landslides have been mapped as being present, either on or immediately adjacent to the site. The unique susceptibility of landsliding in the Eocene -age cliff - forming sediments along the Encinitas - Leucadia area is discussed in greater detail in Section 8 of this report and in referenced reports for the adjacent property (1'erraCosta, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d). 6 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered in our test pits or soil borings, made to obtain geotechnical data; however, it should be noted that groundwater was observed within the terrace deposits in GeoSoils' Test Boring B-1 from 50 to 55 feet in depth, drilled on the lot located to the north. This groundwater flow, along the contact between the upper bluff terrace deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation, can also be observed on the bluff face at the contact between the terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation, at approkdmate elevation 19 feet. 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General Our investigation did not reveal the presence of any adverse geologic conditions on the site, such as faults, adverse bedding, or a high groundwater table, which would preclude development of the proposed new construction, as presently planned. %Jcg �EViehm&Pry ecU\2 121962196 -1 R@ CVoWh l c LA Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 7.2 Proposed Site Grading June 4, 2003 Page 7 We anticipate that the site preparation and earthwork operations for the project will include: Clearing and grubbing; Removal and recompaction of soils for the support of structural elements such as the principal structures, walkways and area- fiatwork (patios, etc.), pavements, retaining walls; and • Excavation for footings. We recommend that all grading and site preparation be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer, and in accordance with the attached specifications for engineered fill, Appendix D. In addition, we recommend that vegetation, trash, nubble, and other deleterious material be removed from the site prior to grading. All loose and porous topsoil, residual soils, slopewash, and uncontrolled fill soils not removed by the grading operations should be excavated and removed prior to placing additional fill or structural elements. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer confirm the actual depths and extent of removal of unsuitable materials in the field at the time of grading. Based on the results of our exploratory excavations and laboratory testing, the deposits of unsuitable materials requiring overexcavation generally range from 13 to 15 feet. The proposed foundation plans (see Figure 2), however, place all of the lower level (F.F. 58') building foundations below the depths of any unsuitable overburden soils and into competent formational soils. Any excavations resulting from utility removal should be properly backfilled, and the fill compacted in accordance with the specifications provided in Appendix D. Utility trenches under foundations or pavements should be backfilled with material that provides similar stiffness as adjacent areas. In these cases, cement -sand slurries may be warranted, depending on adjacent soil properties. We recommend that all fill soils be compacted to a minimum density of 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -91. Moisture \ \Tc9_k^'"'.SI EVIn Uro,e \21\21902196 -1 R02 Gcdech 1m tdc Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 8 content should be maintained between the optimum moisture content and 3 percent above optimum. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review the foundation and grading plans to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented herein has been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents. We further recommend that the geotechnical engineer observe the site grading, foundation excavations, construction of retaining walls, and subgrade preparation under concrete slabs and paved areas. If construction proceeds through the rainy winter months, we recommend that adequate surface drainage be provided to drain water away from any open excavations. 7.3 Building Foundations 7.3.1 Bearing Capacity For foundations having a minimum width of 12 inches, and founded a minimum of 18 inches below finished final grade, we recommend an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. In addition, we recommend that adjacent footings not be founded above an imaginary plane extending upward at an angle of 45 degrees from the bottom outside edge of an adjacent lower footing. Additionally, we recommend that all footings be adequately reinforced as recommended by a structural engineer experienced with the design of shallow foundation systems. Footing excavations should be cleared of any loose material prior to concrete placement. Lastly, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer inspect all footing excavations. 7.3.2 Settlement We estimate that footings loaded to an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf will settle approximately 12 inch or less, with differential settlements on the order of 1/4 inch or less. 7.3.3 Lateral Resistance To provide resistance for design lateral loads of footings and shear keys poured neat against vertical excavations, we recommend using an equivalent Fluid pressure of 300 or \ \Tce gene /SMWtEV1elvwgPco U\2121 W2196 -1 K2 Gca h 1 td c Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 9 450 pcf for properly compacted granular fill or competent formational materials, respectively. These values assume a horizontal surface for the soil mass extending at least 10 feet from the face of the footing or three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of soil in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavements should not be included in design for passive resistance to lateral loads. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.45 between soil and concrete for either compacted fill or formational soil. If it is desired to combine friction and passive resistance in design, we recommend reducing the friction coefficient by 25 percent. 7.3.4 Concrete Slabs -on -Grade We recommend that concrete slabs -on -grade be designed in accordance with the UBC and the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Committee Report No. 360. In addition, we recommend that the construction of concrete slabs -on -grade conform to the guidelines and specifications presented in ACI Committee Report No. 302. 7.3.5 Pipes and Trenches Open or backfilled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a plane having a downward slope of 1 unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50% slope) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing and not closer than 18 inches form the face of such footing. Where pipes cross under footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipe crosses through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1 inch. 7.3.6 Water- and Damp - Proofing Foundation Systems As a minimum, we recommend that the foundation systems for the proposed structures be waterproofed and/or damp - proofed in accordance with the appendix to Chapter 18 of the 1997 UBC. \ \Tcg �enalSlWtElJietvoAlProJecu121 1219621961 R02 Ge h Im Ldm Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 7.4 Retaining Walls June 4, 2003 Page 10 For cantilevered retaining walls that are free to rotate through a horizontal movement of at least 0.002H at the top of the wall (where H is the height of the wall in feet), we recommend the following. We recommend providing all retaining walls with a backfill drainage system adequate to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. For cantilevered retaining walls with level backfill, and which retain granular soils that comply with the material requirements of Section 300 -3.5 (Structure Backfill) of the 2000 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC), and that extend a minimum distance equal to 80 percent of the height of the wall, we recommend a design lateral earth pressure equivalent to a fluid pressure of 35 pcf. The on -site soils are sandy in nature and, in general, should comply with the requirements of Section 300 -3.5 of the SSPWC. For cantilevered retaining walls with a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) backfill slope, which retain granular soils that comply with Section 300 -3.5, and extend a minimum distance equal to 80 percent of the height of the wall, we recommend a design lateral earth pressure equivalent to a fluid pressure of 55 pcf. Cantilevered retaining walls subject to vehicular loads (including the garage floor slab) should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure for the active case described above, plus a surcharge load equal to an additional 2 feet of height of equivalent backfill. For strip footings supporting the proposed retaining walls, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for footings founded a minimum of 6 inches into competent formational soils, and 2,000 psf for footings founded in compacted fill soils. In addition, all footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent ground surface. This recommendation also assumes that the footings will be founded on and within properly compacted fill soils, or on and within competent formational soils. \\rcg_ 'a SMMEq*rvm mpcnk21\21902196 -1 R02 ceo h I�LL =q Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 11 Resistance for design lateral loads of retaining wall footings should be in conformance with Section 7.3.3. 7.5 Construction Cuts and Excavations The removal and recompaction of existing fill soils will require construction cuts and excavations. We recommend that construction cuts and excavations comply with the CALOSHA and OSHA recommendations and guidelines. For all excavations and construction cuts adjacent to, or near, existing buildings, we recommend that lateral support for the existing structures be maintained either by shoring said excavations, or that the existing buildings be underpinned. This may mean that exploratory test pits may have to be excavated in order to assess the depth and type of the existing adjacent building foundation. The sides of all un- shored excavations may be sloped no steeper than 1.4:1 (horizontal to vertical), provided that: 1. The excavation is at least 18 inches out from the face of existing footings; and 2. The excavation does not extend below a plane inclined downward at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) from a line,9 inches above the bottom edge of the existing footing. 8 GROSS STABILITY OF THE COASTAL BLUFF As described in Section 1. 1, Background, it was with the concurrence of Coastal Staff that, because a clay seam was exposed in the sea cliff below 1264 Neptune Avenue, a deep test boring was appropriate at this location to obtain quality samples of the Eocene sediments (including the clay seam), and that shear tests on samples of the clay seam from a deep boring at 1264 Neptune Avenue might provide data for a lower - bound stability assessment of the bluff at 1616 Neptune Avenue, the adjacent property to the north. \ \Tcp,neASW EVYe,.vMVi U\21\219E21961 R07Geaec Il t.0 Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 12 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 CS1500 truck- mounted coring rig, advancing a continuous core using 21/2 -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 21/2 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 (California Coastal Commission Staff Geologist) intermittently observing the drilling operation on Friday, March 29th. Copies of the core logs and laboratory test results have previously been provided to both the Coastal Commission and the City of Encinitas (TerraCosta, 2002b). Considerable discussion regarding the gross stability of the coastal bluff at 1616 Neptune Avenue has previously been presented in our February 21, May 30, and July 30, 2002, reports for the adjacent property (1616 Neptune Avenue). Those reports included the results of our previous coastal erosion inventory work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with a summary of our previous geological and geotechnical investigative work regarding coastal bluff stability in San Diego's North County. Also included in those reports were relevant technical papers presented by other respected, local, Certified Engineering Geologists, along with the geologic mapping by Mr. Sing Tan of the State Division of Mines and Geology. The three referenced reports also reflect the consensus of opinion from a geologic site inspection conducted on March 28, 2002, in which a knowledgeable group of geologists, experienced in local -area coastal stratigraphy, participated in a half -day site inspection of the Eocene sediments covering that section of the Encinitas coastline from the 700 block of Neptune Avenue to just north of the Grandview stairway, a total distance of approximately 5,500 feet. The consensus of opinion from that geologic site inspection, which was convened at the suggestion of Dr. Johnsson, was that the faults in north Encinitas are down- faulted to the north, thus exposing progressively younger stratigraphic sections within the Eocene sedimentary rocks from south to north. The clay seams exposed in the sea cliffs south of Beacons, on which three slides have \ \TCg ,c+M51tVtEVk�.veMPmjecu�2 IV 198219 I K2 GmNh i,w. 1L Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 13 moved, are down - dropped to the north, 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 northerly of Beacons and southerly of the 1200 block of Neptune. In all instances, these clay seams are thin clay beds exhibiting no sign of shearing and are extremely hard, with pocket penetrometer values significantly in 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 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. 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), which would, in essence, provide a lower -bound stability assessment for the coastal bluffs northerly of the Beacons landslide, including 1616 Neptune Avenue, and thus the subject site. Again, the March 30, 2002, coastal bluff stability report describes in some detail the results of that subsurface exploratory effort. In summary, the Eocene sediments, including two clay seams (thin clay beds with no sign of shearing) encountered below 1264 Neptune Avenue, had sufficient strengths to preclude any potential for deep - seated slope instability extending down and through the lower Eocene cliff- forming sediments, with coastal bluff stability controlled solely by the strength and geometry of the upper, younger, Quatemary-age terrace deposits located above the Eocene -age cliff- forming sediments. The stability of the coastal bluff was evaluated with the computer software PCSTABL, which is a two- dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability program developed by Purdue University. The summary results of our coastal stability analyses are included on Figures 3 and 4. As indicated in the attached figures, the minimum static factor of safety is 1.86, and the minimum seismic factor of safety is 1.39. A seismic coefficient of 0.15 g was used, consistent with the recommendations contained in the California \\ Tc��maISMMEVyee .uNPmkcea\21\219T21961 R02 Gcaecl, hwes�Aac Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 21961 Page 14 Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117 — Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. As both the static and seismic factors of safety exceed the City's minimum failure plane analysis requirements, i.e., F.S. = 1.5 static and 1.1 seismic, stability analyses do not control bluff -top setbacks. In recognition of the ongoing concern regarding the potential for an Okun -type landslide north of Beacons, we have again assumed a clay seam exiting the bluff face near elevation +6 feet, with an outslope dip of 1.85 degrees. Bluff- parallel stress relief fractures in the outer portion of the sea cliff have also been accounted for by lowering the high angle strengths of the siltstones in the outer 30 feet by invoking the anisotropic strength commands in the Slope/W slope stability computer program, with the high angle strengths assumed to have a friction angle of 28 degrees and a cohesion intercept of 0 psf. Stability analyses are discussed in more detail in TerraCosta 2002d and 2002e. Graphical stability results, assuming a 30 -foot -deep anisotropic sea cliff face, are included in Appendix E for both static and pseudo- static conditions. The failure plane analyses, and specifically the daylight failure lines for the static condition with a factor of safety of 1.5 and the pseudo -static condition with a factor of safety of 1.1, are seaward of the top -of -bluff and therefore again do not affect the bluff -top daylight failure line. Please note that, as with 1616 Neptune Avenue, the stability analyses summarized in Appendix E assume an adversely- dipping clay seam within the Eocene sea cliff, something that has not been observed anywhere in Encinitas north of the 1200 block of Neptune Avenue. 8.1 Predicted Bluff Retreat over the Next 75 Years The predicted bluff retreat affecting the coastline in the vicinity of 1610 Neptune Avenue has previously been discussed in some detail in our February 21, 2002, report for the adjacent property. In summary, however, at least anecdotally, the sea cliff and bluff top in the site vicinity continue to exhibit the lowest erosion rates anywhere in Encinitas. Moreover, due to the relatively gentle slope of the upper bluff terrace deposits, the bluff - top erosion rate over the next 75 years must be lower than the sea -cliff erosion rate. A refinement of both the sea -cliff and bluff -top erosion rates, as initially presented in the 1996 Corps of Engineers Encinitas Shoreline Reconnaissance Report is still being developed as part of the 2002 Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study. However, at this \ \TC9_wveh5 EVVetwaWro, cb21,2196219 I 02 GeaecM1 i w LE Mr. Monte Brem June 4, 2003 Project No. 2196 -1 Page 15 point it is safe to conclude that the bluff -top erosion rate of Reach 1, which includes 1610 Neptune Avenue, will not exceed 0.25 foot per year, or 18.75 feet in 75 years. The slope angle of the upper bluff is simply too gentle to develop any higher bluff -top erosion rates. With regard to sea level rise, both the 1996 and current Corps studies acknowledge an accelerated rate of sea level rise of 0.64 foot per century and assume that rate of sea level rise continuing for the next 75 years. As we understand, the Coastal Commission's current guidelines for development atop coastal bluffs includes a structure setback behind the critical failure geometry daylight line, for a factor of safety of 1.5 plus the assumed 75 -year bluff -top erosion distance (including sea level rise), and a 10 -foot buffer. For the subject property, using these criteria, the structure setback would be less than 29 feet, with the City of Encinitas' minimum 40 -Foot setback then controlling the bluff -top setback distance. As the City's bluff -top setback policies currently do not include this 10 -foot buffer, the total anticipated 75 -year bluff -top erosion would be 19 feet; well back from the City's minimum 40 -foot bluff -top setback. Please note that using these same criteria in the vicinity of Stonesteps, the required bluff -top structure setback would typically be in excess of 80 feet. 9 LIMITATIONS Geotechnical engineering and the earth sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet the current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. We have investigated only a small portion of the pertinent soil, rock, and groundwater conditions of the subject site. The opinions and conclusions made herein were based on the assumption that those rock and soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from Njcg_� HAREVYe,.wkWro)ec 2I X2198,21961 nZ Oe h Im Le Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 June 4, 2003 Page 16 those encountered during our field investigation. We recommend that a soil engineer from our office observe construction to assist in identifying soil conditions that may be significantly different from those encountered in our borings. Additional recommendations may be required at that time. \ \rcp ee,valSWA e.,.,Oy Je \21,2196121%-1 R02 Ge hl�LO ]erraCocra ll� - _ Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 REFERENCES June 4, 2003 Bjerrum, L, 1967, Progressive Failure in Slopes in Over- Consolidated Plastic Clay and Clay Shales in Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, No. SMS, pp. 3- 49. Eisenberg, LI., 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. Appro)dmate Geologic Map Scale 1:2200. Eisenberg, LI., and P.L Abbott, 1985, "Eocene lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego County," in P.L Abbott (ed.), On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 19 -35. Elliott, W.J., 2002, Coastal Landsliding, Leucadia, Califomia, dated May 24, 2002. Geosoils, Inc., 2000, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Bluff Study, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated September 6, 2000. GeoSoils, Inc., 2001, Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated July 18, 2001. GeoSoils, Inc. 2001, Supplemental Recommendations Based on Governing Agency Review, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated September 5, 2001. GeoSoils, Inc., 2001, Response to City Review, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated September 19, 2001. GeoSoils, Inc., 2001, Response to California Coastal Commission Review Dated November 5, 2001, Pertaining to Proposed Improvements at 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated November 19, 2001. Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 REFERENCES (continued) June 4, 2003 GeoSoils, Inc., 2001, Supplemental Response to California Coastal Commission Review Dated November 5, 2001, Pertaining to Proposed Improvements at 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, prepared for Mr. Jay Refold, dated December 12, 2001. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 1996, Geotechnical Appendix (Appendix D of the 1996 Encinitas Shoreline Reconnaissance Report), prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kennedy, M.P., and G.L. Peterson, 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, Map Scale 1:2000. Kennedy, M.P., and G.W. Moore, 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, pp. 709 -722. M.S.R. Consulting, 2001, 1616 Neptune Residence, Encinitas, CA, Architectural Plans, Sheet Nos. A.1, A.2, A.3, and L.1, dated February 15, 2001. Skempton, A.W., 1964, Long -Term Stability of Clay Slopes in Geotechnique, Vol. XIV, No. 2, pp. 77 -101. Skempton, A.W., 1970, First Time Slides in Over - Consolidated Clays in Geotechnique, Vol. XX, No. 3, pp. 320 -324. Skempton, A.W., 1985, Residual Strength of Clays in Landslides, Folded Strata and the Laboratory in Geotechnique, Vol. XXXV, No. 1, pp. 3 -18. Skempton, A.W., and Hutchinson, J.N., 1969, Stability of Natural Slopes in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, pp. 291 -340. Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 -1 REFERENCES (continued) June 4, 2003 Tan, S.S., and M.P. Kennedy, 1996, Geologic Maps of the NorVuoesterri Part of San Diego County, California: Plate 2 - Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5 Quadrangles, Map Scale 1:24,000, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open -File Report 96-02. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc., 2002a, Coastal Bluff Stability Assessment, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared for the California Coastal Commission, dated February 21, 2002. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 2002b, Coastal Bluff Stability, 1676 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared for the California Coastal Commission, dated May 30, 2002. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 2002c, Geotechnical Investigation, 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated July 30, 2002. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 2002d, Response to Review Comments, Coastal Bluff Stability, 1244 - 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared for the California Coastal Commission, dated September 16, 2002. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 2002e, Second Response to Review Comments, Coastal Bluff Stability, 1244 - 1616 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, prepared for the California Coastal Commission, dated November 11, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Stereographic Aerial Photograph Nos. AXN -8M- 72 through 78, and AXN -8M -95 through 98, Flown May 1953. F wy 1 I .Y. ter. ez I ,4it `1 0 0 AfA . I t r . i mac`._ .��..... - N •4 Ty \ 7erraCosta ( tdtsulllltg Grnup . I I . I state � •• =sa . I . I I . I I 1 I I II LEGEND xJ4 x4J xQ4 x1s x74 x7l 1xJJ xa4 x7.J BEACH xJJ x7.4 -i cDNc 611x x0.7 CONC JJ x44 x 7.4 x 6.J1 7 ^1 x ➢J •4 >P l j Aplwltinri7nete location ofTCG x 71.3E te&pk x73 xJ4 82 1 Ap tWmate bcaaw ofroo cRASSI w x754 1 I s0vboling 67 Aplwctdffine kwdw Of CaCOf as x 754 I so# dorflag (1616 Afeptww) 4' A X —__— AplwcudlnsAepruperty/ine Applaldmlitegeo % A7Y/laCl I — — _ — gfie 7EWAI04RSTACcmwmdHi7 Cvw BEACH P7a4ndrywe Tip of5&fi X24 I xJJ 9 AAW= Cowden of 40 Foot 1 \ saboa fiwn Top of staff IQV &jaC v4V \ \ x7.J Qaf F111 1 f3hn fLwOW21&lr FivanRIA; a a X° x 6JJ GRASS x6J6 x 6JJ C DENSE TREES \1 x 37.7 1 CONC x677 Fi 3r I x 5s 4 x PHOTOGRAMMETRICALLY PREPARED TOPOGRAPHIC 645E MAP FROM xRl \\ x'1 9 AREAL FLIGHT ON 4 -19 -2003. 1 1 x 72.x` x716 V { �1n 723 \ x12 A\ DENSE TREES \ \ y \ \ 1 ASRH \ "� \ V DIRT x 723 {\ x72..y 4 7.1 4 \ x 69.6 DIRT x y L y y BRUSH 1 \ 1 / x 72.A 1 "x 7J4 Q D \ x7J5 \\ ,\ CONC DECK DIRT x 7SJ x 71.3E �17J \ Q \ \ \\ x7Sd\\ `, x137 9 DIRT 1 \ x 7I.6 \ \ 74. 71 \ ` \ y 737 y x 74.3 _.1610 ypj(/ 01 T �pp 767'3 \\ x x 7.14 7 \ F 74v 15! f / RODL x 7. x 757 R \ CONIC \\ pp= LoknAt6Of x 76J x 754 \ , DENSE TREES , 1 \ XS 6 x x \\ A, \ HI \Y A(4o*m 1e id\D l RxRSC wR� oNwiw Amin GR LOOM 4100 01M•pl ROM. 100 owo. w Buo. w uva um mw°o ll ll RMaOE MAID FlIDIIDOi MOMR H101Q1UlE A19'lllf BiOffAB 2198.1 SITE PLAN 100- _1 _I I _I W _I o � I V .I Bo- 60- Q 20- uo 7 974"Irl"Iti T COBBLE & GRAVEL BE4CM 1 91. TCG 8-2 Agwuki wa /oration of sal boring PROJECTED-(6 . NORTH) P'oJ d into thegeaag/C sezVen from 6'to the north M; = r&73005t3 Consulting Group GS = Geasa /x Inc I7P-3 APpmimate /oeatlon of test pit TALUS SLOPE APPROX UM?S OF PROPOSED /1(EVFXED UPPER FLOOR TOG 8-2 PROJEC7ED -(6' NORTH) iCG APPROX OMITS OF Q PROPOSED STRUCIURE� 8- 1 APPROX LOC MV OF 40 FT SET64OK FROM — TOP OF BLUFF — TOP OF BLUFF SECTION A -AI SCALE: 1 "_20' IHORIZ.:VERT.) %R 1 5" I I 'x a err: •. �' ^� �' TP-2 PROJECTED - (17' NORTH) GS 8-1 PROJECTED -(95' NORTH) TP-3 PROJECTED - (17' SOUTH) r7 I I 1 e. SHtlbagl0 Famutian �IJT =ice '71 I MEPWA(EAVE TMWACWTA COPMLTM GrA" rw ruE v,a�m wo oeo�0�n 2 «a wu�. cEnrar iaao, w.re ,eo E/JI CE00. G EttiJ (YY E•i�EW • cr xuc n�o�m w 1810 NEPTUNE AVEMJE, ENCIMTAS 2198-1 CROSS - SECTION 199 149 99 49 .0 1610 Neptune Ave Encinitas, California 13:1219616- 111610NEP7.Pt2 Run By: Usememe 061=003 7:30PM -0 49 99 149 199 Z49 Z99 GSTABL7 FSmin =1.86 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE 3 199 EC171 99 49 -0 L -0 STED am 11 • g c f ed {i -- - - -- - - --L I --- - - I - - -. — I - J 49 99 149 199 249 299 GSTABL7 FSmin =1.39 Safety Factors Are Calculated By, The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE 4 1610 Neptune Ave Seismic Load = 0.15 g 0:1219618- 111610NE7Q.PL2 Run By: Usemame 06/03/2003 7:32PM # FS Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value a 1.39 Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Eqk 0.150 g< b 1.39 1.39 No. (Sc 0 (go (ppsf) (deq� No. c d 1.39 LSo 1 2 100.b 125.0 1.0 125.0 0.0 3t1.0 0 3500.0 28.0 0 e 1.39 3 120.0 120.0 300.0 33.0 0 f 1.39 4 120.0 120.0 0.0 32.0 0 g 1.40 h 1.40 1 1.40 j 1.41 -0 L -0 STED am 11 • g c f ed {i -- - - -- - - --L I --- - - I - - -. — I - J 49 99 149 199 249 299 GSTABL7 FSmin =1.39 Safety Factors Are Calculated By, The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING RCU 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE PROJECT 2196-HUMBETi 2196 -1 BORING LEGEND SITE LOCATION ST ART FINISH SIEET NO. EncinBas Caltfomia 4/16/2003 4/16/2003 1 of 2 DRLL*40 COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Hollow Stem A I G. Spaulding DRII.IJWG BORING DIA. (In) TOTAL DEPTH (11) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTW13" GROUND WATER (R) Mobile B-61 8 60 X n/a y� METHOD NOTES 140410 hammer! 30 -inch drop w p w a _J �a d in O z a W � U— y 30 zwm „ L 4 0 > z in w C O f fY y M W O~ O DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION KEY TO EXCAVATION LOGS WATER TABLE MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING OTHER TESTS 5 CS Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWSM) Number of blows required to advance the sampler 1 foot 10 California Sampler blow counts can be converted to equivalent SPT blow counts by using an end -area conversion factor of 0.67 when using a 140 -pound hammer and a 30-inch drop. SAMPLE TYPE 1 C ('Collfomla Sampler -) - An 184nch4ong, 2- 124nch I.D., 34nch O.D., thick- walled sampler. The sampler is lined with eighteen 2.3184nch I.D. 15 brass rings. Relatively undisturbed, Intact soil samples are retained in the brass rings. 2 S ('SPT') - a.k.a. Standard Penetration Test, an 18 -inch -long, 24nch O.D., 1- 3184nch I.D. drive sampler. 3 B ("Bulk) - a.k.a- Bulk Sack Sample, a disturbed, but representative sample obtained from a specific depth interval placed in a large plastic 20 bag. NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION Borings were advanced using a truck - mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig with an 8-inch hollow -stem auger. Test pits ware excavated using a John Deere 35 Mini Excavator with a 24- inch -wide budkel- 25 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and California Samplers were used to obtain soil samples. The SPT and California Samplers were driven into the soil at the bottom of the borings with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. When the samplers were withdrawn from the boring, the samples were removed, visually classified, sealed in plastic containers, and taken to the laboratory for detailed inspection. (CONTINUED) TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA FIGURE A -1 a San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. "e 'a `c 7 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJEcT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING LEGEND 1670 NEPTUNE AVENUE 2196 -1 SITE LOCATION STMT F" SHEET NO. 1 Encinitas California I 411612003 4116/2003 2 of 2 DRLLJJNC. COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Hollow Stem Auger G. Spauld i DRE.LIIIG BORING DIA (M) TOTAL DEPTH (N GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTWELEV. GROUND WATER frtl Mobile B-61 8 60 1 n/a SAMPLING PLNG METHOD NOTES 140 -lb hammer / 30 -4nch drop Q. O 9LWJ^ W = Z O ~ 2 J a r y _ W (C 1- y K C N W~ y t� Q p DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION as� >v O� J 1 LU =Wm ax.. Ov w Vai D NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION (Continued! Groundmiter was not encountered in the bonngs or test pits. Classifications are based upon the Unified Soil Classifimbon System and include Color, moisture, and consistency. Feld descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory inspection where deemed 35 appropriate. 40 45 50 55 I THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION Ten'aCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONOITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER FIGURE A-1 b 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. e 'a a i 2 LOG OF TEST BORING 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE PROJECT NUMBER 2196 -1 BORING B -1 ERE LOCATION START FINISH 1 SHEET NO. Encinitas Califomia 4/1612003 4/16/2003 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Hollow Stem Au G. Sloauldino 0f1l.L1NG BORING DUL (in) TOTAL 00-M Mt GROUND ELEV (ftl DFPTRUELEV. GROUND WATER (ft) Mobile B-61 1 B 21.5 S rile E ak—M METHOD NOTES 1404b hammer / 30-inch drop Boring sealed with six 50-lb bags of Enviroplug bentoMte Chips. 2 Lu g} r, C�' w d a Ci Z _OLu r'E 9i Cyr IWU ww m a W wo � o K Lu �i4 wr MU) C r U (� dd0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION FILL B. Silty SAND (SM), medium dense, red -brown, damp 1 13 'Bulk Sample recovered from 0 to 5 feet C B 5 2 s TOPSOIL Spry SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, red -brown to brown, damp to moist 10 3 s BAY POINT FORMATION Silty SAND (SM), medium dense, red to red-brown. damp, with Iron oxide cementation 15 4 2T — —Silty SAW( mediurn dense, moUled pray l red -broom !red, damp — — — 20 C5 23 8orft tenrumied at depth of 21.5 feet No free groundwefer encountered at time of excavation. 25 TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 F:3 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRLLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA FIGURE A -2 San Diego, Califomia 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF TEST BORING 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE PROJECT 2196-NUMBER 2196 -1 BORING B -2 SITE LOCATION START FWISH SHEET NO. Encinitas Calffomia I 4116/2003 1 4/16/2003 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECI�D BY Hollow Stem Au er G. S uldin ORI.IING BORING DIA (In) TOTAL DEPTH (It) GROUND ELEV (I) DFPTWEI".. GROUND WATER (ft) Mobile "1 6 26.5 T n!a SAMMUNG METHOD NOTES 1404b hammer / 304 nch drop Soring sealed with six 50-I1p bags of Enviroplug bentonfte Chips. �.. O z Z w W a IL o Z a DZL) - ~aN ru w O zwm d� in wo - y O p! h e O 0: 0) r w — o DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION FILL Silty SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, red - brown, damp 5 C1 e 96.9 4.5 S S TOPSOIL Silty SAND (SAS, loose to medium dense, brown to red - brown, damp to moist 10 2 5 BAY POINT POINT FOR�TION Silty SAND (SM. medium dense, red- brown, damp, with inn oxide 1S cementation 3 17 - - - - - - - Sltty SAND (SM), medium dense to dense, mottled red / red-brown. gray, damp, with iron oxide cementation 2D C i 4 b 25 5 Se Boring terminated at depth of 26.5 feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavat/on. TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA FIGURE A -3 San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. J Z 0 O 4 z e O 6 s Larne, damp, %Bhtgray -brown ' S/opavash/Fi SiKy Sand (SM) i —__ "--- - - -"-" 8agiesamp/e Loose to medium desne, damp, rghtgiay -brown to red -brown, Silty Sand (SM) Fill d SNYySawd (SM) wide Awwna/ cobble — LOG OF TEST PIT TP -1 Sra /e• I'=Z'(HorizMrt) NOTES ON FIELD /N✓E5rlM r /ON Field classf.6ruffions are based upon the Unified Soil C/a"ifrcation System and include co /or, moisture, and consistency. 0 O W O 2 n, ri W --- - - - - -- l Loose to medium desne• damp, ,ghtgW -bmm to red- bnxvn, Silty Sand (SM) 8aggre sample Medium dense, damp to moist — red- brawn to bmwn, — — SiKy Sand (SM) - — — Bale Sample IV- &3' LOG OF TEST PIT TP -2 srae• , � =1 • (Horiz:Ve�t,) NOTES ON FIELD ,NVFST,G4T,ON Field dassKcatloris are based upon the Unified Soil Classification System and ina(ude color moisture, and consistency. 7EARACOSTA CONSMTWO OR" •^/^/ xu. / ..6G WFN. C,M.OM IIOAD. il.i[ p0 A -5 N10JECi NM( /Ilp,(Ct IY 1610 NEPTUNE ENONRAS 21MI LOG OF TEST PIT O O O — I IOCSF- dry, 11gI?tgM &&y y4rDW", F/ne Sand (SM) Hff , I ---: , --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 .9 Fj 10 Loose to medlam dens- &-mm to red-bf own, SWy Sand (SM) Saggie samak -- - - - - -- ---------------- _ Medium d ense damp to most medium to dan* red -broKv to brown, Sbty Sand (SM) LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 R- ala• I'�--2'(Honk--Vejt) FIU I;a&ie Samp le NOTES ON RaD INVEST /CA r/ON Field classIficavons are based upon the Vnlfied Sod Clas.QW,ca6on System and include color, movstum and consistency. 7 .9 Fj 10 Loose to medlam dens- &-mm to red-bf own, SWy Sand (SM) Saggie samak -- - - - - -- ---------------- _ Medium d ense damp to most medium to dan* red -broKv to brown, Sbty Sand (SM) LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 R- ala• I'�--2'(Honk--Vejt) FIU I;a&ie Samp le NOTES ON RaD INVEST /CA r/ON Field classIficavons are based upon the Vnlfied Sod Clas.QW,ca6on System and include color, movstum and consistency. LOG OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION FOR 1616 NEPTUNE AVENUE GeoSoils, Inc. 1 1 26 15 106.3 1 4.7 P tr. 5', SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, medium dense. 32 1 1 107.1 1 4.2 52 1 1 104.8 14.5 +50J6" 1 106.6 1 3.8 56 1 1 105.3 1 3.1 @ 10', SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, damp to moist, medium dense. i @ 15', SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, damp to moist, dense. @ 20', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp to moist, very dense. 1 @ 25', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. 1616 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO, 2916 -A-SC PROJECT.- JAY REFOLD BOR(NO B -1 SHEET 1 OF 2 1616 Neptune DATE EXCAVATED 6.22 -00 Sample x v SAMPLE METHOD: 140th Hammer, 30' drop = z c Standard Ponsrr•tbn Test } ^ � o t Weser Seepepe hto hole v ♦ — c o • Undisturbed, Rhp Semple ® L a • L o U 1 c— H 1 a" L o • Description of Material O O f e1 Z) N O C N SM DUNE DEPOSITS @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose. 1 1 26 15 106.3 1 4.7 P tr. 5', SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, medium dense. 32 1 1 107.1 1 4.2 52 1 1 104.8 14.5 +50J6" 1 106.6 1 3.8 56 1 1 105.3 1 3.1 @ 10', SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, damp to moist, medium dense. i @ 15', SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, damp to moist, dense. @ 20', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp to moist, very dense. 1 @ 25', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. 1616 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1 ., 35- 2+5050 102.3 2.8 @ 35', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, very dense. r aD 53 94.2 2.5 v : @ 40', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. a6 50/5 112' 100.3 3.2 @ 45', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, very dense. w LX w +50 4' 102.7 21-9 �,: @ 50', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, very @ 50', Groundwater encountered. ARDATH SHALE @ 51', SILTSTONE, olive gray, ddmp, very dense. 94.5 13.1 r I @ 55', SILTSTONE, olive gray, damp, very dense. Total Depth = 56' Groundwater encountered @ 50' Backfilled 8 -22 -00 1616 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B -2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. " W.O. 2916 -A -SC pgq/ECT -JAY REFOLD BORING 6.1 SHEET 2 OF 2 1616 Negnune DATE EXCAVATED 6 -22-00 SemPH x SAMPLE METHOD: 140 W Hamner, 30' drop ^ i _ o ® Standerd Ponebwribn Test ~ L + Water Seepape into hole _ i i i o C o 3 ® Undisturbed, Rig Semple .c t 6 Y M 3 HD L 0 V E a 3� e 7 + 2 c 0 e3 oL 0 ran Description of Material 65 106.9 4.4 @ 30', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. ., 35- 2+5050 102.3 2.8 @ 35', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, very dense. r aD 53 94.2 2.5 v : @ 40', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. a6 50/5 112' 100.3 3.2 @ 45', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, very dense. w LX w +50 4' 102.7 21-9 �,: @ 50', SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, very @ 50', Groundwater encountered. ARDATH SHALE @ 51', SILTSTONE, olive gray, ddmp, very dense. 94.5 13.1 r I @ 55', SILTSTONE, olive gray, damp, very dense. Total Depth = 56' Groundwater encountered @ 50' Backfilled 8 -22 -00 1616 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B -2 Test, ng Engineers -San Diego, Inc. of I, Date: May 8, 2003 Job No: 2002 -0387 Job Name: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING GROUP LABORATORY TESTING Address: 4455 Murphy Canyon Rd, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 921214379 Report No: atiGHSOUDLOU, ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEER REVIEWED: STAFF GEOLOGIST PROJECT: 1610 NEPTUNE (2196 -1) DATE SAMPLED: 4/16/03 LAB NUMBER: 7929 SAMPLE B 2 -1 @ IDENTIFICATION/NO. 6' -6.5' MOISTURE CONTENT, % 4.5 DRY DENSITY, pcf 96.9 Established 1946 Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc.. 7895 Convov Court, Suite IS San Diego, CA. 92111 [858) 715 -5800 Fax 18581 715 -5810 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 0.i Gi 0.' 0.7 1 -0 12 1.51 1.7: 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 z n CD 3.75 �- S N d CD ).50 3.25 ).00 0.25 200 -0.50 50 -100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure - psf Natural Dry Dens, LL PI Sp. EtEE(ps� Pc C C Swell Press. Heave e Sat Moist. (P Gr. c r (psf) % ° 12% 1 4% 92.0 2.761 1 1 0 1 0.01 1 0.873 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION +USCS SHTO Poorly graded sand SP Project No. 02 -0387 Client: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING GROUP Remarks: Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING TESD Lab No. 7929 Location: Boring 2 -I @ 6' to 6.5' PLATE -, iTesting Engineers -San Diego, Inc. Established 1946 WFUTM ELVA rawsummmmin 1. 1 • (Ring t r Date: May 6, 2003 Job No: 2002 -0387 Job Name: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING GROUP LABORATORY TESTING Address: 4455 Murphy Canyon Rd, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92121 -4379 Report No: 5409 ENGINEER: CHAD kGHSOUDLOU, CIVIL ENGINEER REVIEWED: ME STAFF GEOLOGIST PROJECT: 1610 NEPTUNE (2196 -1) DATE SAMPLED: 4/16/03 LAB NUMBER: 7831 7832 _7833 7834 SAMPLE B 1_3 @ IDENTIFICATION/NO. _11' -11.5 MOISTURE CONTENT, % 8.3 DRY DENSITY, pcf 109.2 B 1 -5 @ B2-3@ B 2A @ 21' -21.5' 16' 21' -21.5' 5.0 7.9 4.2 100.2 106.7 102.5 Testing Engineers - San Diego. Inc.. 7895 Convoy Court. Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 18581 715 -5800 Fax 1858) 715 -5810 W Z LL Z Z W U tr W Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT ICLAY 0 0 82 18 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.- PERCENT PASS? (X =NO) #10 100 Atterberg Limits #20 99 P1= #40 76 D85= 0.508 D80= 0.337 #60 40 D15= D10= #100 25 #200 18 USCS= AASHTO= (no spatticsnon prov dcdJ REVIEWED BY: AIEHRZAD MAGHSOUDLOU Sample No.: 7831 Source of Sample: Date: 421/03 Location: B 1 -3 DATE: �— q�p� Elev./Depth: Client: TESTING ENGINEERS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING Project No: 02 -0387 Plate Soil Description 200 WASH = 259.0 GRAMS OF 316.4 GRAMS Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 0.508 D80= 0.337 D50= 0.293 D30= 0.194 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks TESD NO. 7831 (no spatticsnon prov dcdJ REVIEWED BY: AIEHRZAD MAGHSOUDLOU Sample No.: 7831 Source of Sample: Date: 421/03 Location: B 1 -3 DATE: �— q�p� Elev./Depth: Client: TESTING ENGINEERS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING Project No: 02 -0387 Plate Particle Size Distribution Report 1 (:RAIN 6171= - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0 0 1 96 4 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X =NO) #10 100 #20 93 #40 39 #60 15 #100 7 #200 4.2 Soil Description 200 WASH = 303.6 GRAMS OF 316.4 GRAMS Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients Dfl5= 0.774 D60= 0.571 D50= 0.500 DSO= 0.363 Dt5= 0.250 D10= 0.198 Cu= 2.89 Cc= 1.17 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks TESD NO. 7832 loo "Otici uon provided) Sample No.: 7832 Source of Sa Date: 4121/03 Location: B 1 -5 Elev. /Depth: 21' -21.5' Client: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING GROUP TESTING ENGINEERS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING Project No: 02 -0387 Plate W Z h Z W U IY W IL Particle Size Distribution Report ji UKA1N SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND 0 O X SILT %—C-ay-7 82 18 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.' PERCENT PASS? (X =NO) #10 100 #20 100 PL= # 00 77 #60 39 D85= 0.493 #100 24 D30= 0.202 #200 18 Cu= (no sP=1fil rion provided) f i+�1r!;;i i.•'�i; IN( Sample No.: 7833 Source of Sample: 1 _ P ! Date: 4Q1/03 Location: B 2 -3 _q� '/Depth: 16' Client: TERRA COSTA CONSULTIN TESTING ENGINE E RS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING Protect No: 02 -0387 alas Soil Description 200 WASH = 265.3 GRAMS OF 322.9 GRAMS Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 0.493 D60= 0.336 DSO= 0295 D30= 0.202 D15= D10= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks TESD N0. 7833 (no sP=1fil rion provided) f i+�1r!;;i i.•'�i; IN( Sample No.: 7833 Source of Sample: 1 _ P ! Date: 4Q1/03 Location: B 2 -3 _q� '/Depth: 16' Client: TERRA COSTA CONSULTIN TESTING ENGINE E RS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING Protect No: 02 -0387 alas Particle Size Distribution Report 69 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC,' PERCENT PASS? (X =NO) #10 100 #20 98 #40 55 #60 25 #100 15 #200 11 UKAIN SIZE - mm T I % CLAY Soil Description 200 WASH = 285.3 GRAMS OF 320.0 GRAMS Atterbero Limits PL= LL= P1= DB5= 0.687 D30= 0280 Cu= USCS= TESD NO. 7834 Coefficients D60= 0.460 D50= 0.393 D15= 0.150 D10= Cc= Classification AASHTO= Remarks V=1111 uon Proh(1ea) REVIEWED BY: IrIC-HRIAD MAGHG0UDLOIJ Sample No.: 7834 Source of Sample: Date: 4/21/03 Location: B 2-0 DATE:_ S – 1 -0? Elev./Depth: 21' -21.5• Client: TESTING ENGINEERS Project: TERRA COSTA CONSULTING LABORATORY TESTING IL Protect No: 02 -0387 ai.ro SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL APPENDIX D SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations performed under observation and testing of TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. No deviation from these specifications should be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist. 1. GENERAL A. The Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer includes that observation and testing performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Geotechnical Engineer signing the soils report. B. The Contractor under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct all clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsuitable for use in the engineered fill by the Geotechnical Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job -site to handle the amount of Fill being placed. If necessary, excavation D -1 equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. E. The Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist will issue a final report summarizing their observations, test results, and comments regarding the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. II. SITE PREPARAT10N A. IN areas to be graded, all vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish and any construction debris from previous structures shall be disposed of off site. This removal must be concluded prior to placing fill. B. The Civil Engineer shall locate all sewage disposal systems and large structures on the site or on the grading plan to the best of his knowledge prior to preparing the ground surface. C. Soil, alluvium or rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site. The Geotechnical Engineer is to approve any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill. D. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks or other uneven features that may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess D -2 shall be removed and placed in lifts on the order of 6 to 8 inches, depending upon material type and available construction equipment. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. E. Any abandoned building, foundations, or underground structures, such as pipelines, or others not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Engineer. III. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine - grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The distribution of the rocks is to be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer. C. Rocks greater than 12 inches in diameter shall be taken off site. D -3 D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered or dried, processed and compacted in thin lifts to obtain a uniformly dense layer. Lift thickness shall be on the order of 6 to 8 inches. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Geotechnical Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent (90 %) of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557 -91 will be used.) IV. GRADING CONTROL A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height. An adequate number of field density tests determined by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be m made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. The number of tests will vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the job. C. Density tests should also be made on the surface of the soils to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical Engineer. D. All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal must be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer (and often by the governing authorities) prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer and governing authorities when such areas are ready for inspection. V. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of observations by the Geotechnical Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. B31 VI. ON -PAD UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS A. SHALLOW TRENCHES: (Maximum Trench Depth of 2 Feet). Use soils approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The soils should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -91, and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Compaction by Flooding or jetting will be permitted only when, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, the backfill materials have a Sand Equivalent of at least 30 and the foundation materials will not soften or be damaged by the applied water. B. DEEP TRENCHES: (Depth of Trench Greater than 2 Feet). The soils should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -91, and r. tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. The backfill placement method should consist of mechanically compacting the backfill soils throughout the trench depth. If trench depth extends 5 feet, placement/compaction method should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Contractor should exercise, and is responsible for, necessary and required safety precautions in all trenching operations. C. TRENCHES UNDER VEHICLE PAVEMENTS: A minimum of 3 feet of fill should be placed over conduit, apply criteria B, above. D. TRENCHES NEAR FOOTINGS: Approved backfill soils must be mechanically compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -91, and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. The general backfill technique will be in accordance with the applicable criteria stated in A, above. M. n E. REPORTING: If the Geotechnical Engineer will be providing a written opinion as to adequacy of soil compaction and trench backfill, the entire operation should be performed under the Geotechnical Engineer's observation and testing. C -7 APPENDIX E SUMMARY STABILITY ANALYSES 100 Deeor"on: Fel 90 unit Welgett: 120 PH: 32 4 80 12 22 13 to 70 60 to .—. 50 . v '' 0) 40 '— Desaiptim: Ts Fnchsed g / � ... ,moo Unit WelgM: 725 - s PK• 93 C 30 .— C . "a"" d X00 s ' C - Vet Cd. 0 PH- HO112m1A[ 29 33 20 PH- Veitkal: 28 -� - Dm=Vdom Ta 10 1- . Description Swat Send MCd W Cahesim: 0 _)T 77 P17 0 DeKlipum BPS l�Y� -10 Cdnedw 00 Cox SM PH: 6 PM: B -20 Dseagletr To U * Wtdgit 125 -30 Cdtedm: x00 PH: m -40 r- -5U X30 - - 131 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF 300 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF 100 1.174 wpb„ FM 90 u* VVSW: 120 cdre*R 0 F". 32 80 70 60 50 ; Pdr+ 40 Ur*YYdplt U0 LL Oescriptlm: is&Fraued cl ' ,. 01111MOrC 300 Urit WeVA: 125 Plk 33 30 c - Fbdzarer: 400 ti O C - vameae 0 PM+lodmaal: 28 20 %+- verbcal: 28 t0 - N -10 -20 Dwopluc 7r U* MW 125 30 - r. .' 3W0 PM:n -40 -50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF 100 1.633 Desdlptlon, Fill 90 Lkit WeVt: 120 Cd)esim 0 x:32 80 i I, 70 � -- 50 t N12 LL 40 . 13 s ptim Tso- Fraat.ec 1x+t Wev* 120 calellm 30g Ual Weigh. 125 PM: 33 30 C - i- Wzmtal- 400 O c - Vertioat 0 Phi- Horizontal 28 y-+ 20 Phi- Verlic,4 28 m 10' LIJ 0 — - -. —� -10 -20 Desolpum: Tea lkit Wei^ 125 -30 career°': 3500 PH. 28 -40 -50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF 100 90 80 70 60 50 a) 40 '- Desaip0an: Tsa,Fraclumd LL Urdl Weight: 125 C 30 — C - Norlmrdal: 400 C - VaHeal: 0 O Phl +Wzo tal: 28 20 Phi - Vertical: 28 10 � _ Desaip0on: Beach Sad Q) i Caheslan:0 _ -_- ?: W 0 -10 -20 -30 50 D --1- 4p DasaloIcn: Fi0 Un5 WeW: 120 Cdaatm: 0 Phi: 32 i iJw B1ry .Cdvmftt 300 4� } y r a „-iWw. fi i DsalyUolc Tu Co NW= 3500 z. PH: 28 Dastsll m BPS Cdallac 0 PH: 8 DwatHm , Ta Unit WBV*.125 Cdslac 3500 Phl: 28 - i --1 Dena% a Cw Layer Calladm: 5000 Pdl: B 16 -L ._ 131 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF SEISMIC LOAD = 0.15 g Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF SEISMIC LOAD = 0.15 g 4 300 100 0pq� •�W Dasaiplron FlII 90 Unit Weight: 120 Coheslm: 0 Phi: 32 80 70 60 4 y 50 Ew Pohl L 40t Descriptim -. Tea - Prepared r tt.� 900 Unit Weight: 125 ., rp� 33 r ° - 30 C - Hodzmtal: 400 a 0 r pp �'•' . n p * r,l Phi--Vertical -Hai tlal 2B i y';``. -- � 20 - - Phi - Vertical: 28 -- � -10 I- -20 D"a"m Tea Ur* Weigh: 125 -30 Cpbaim 35W PH: 28 -40 -501— - I I I I I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF SEISMIC LOAD = 0.15 g 4 300 1.104 Descdptim: FBI Lk* Weigh: 120 Cattasim:0 i PH: 32 WSW 1�b . .Cofdd/5300, - } m33; Deavlp0ac TO lkill Wetghl: 125 Catdae 3500 Phl: 25 100 90 80 70 ._._ 60 — ,, 50 - N LL 40 Desaiptlm: Ts Fiwlufed Unit Weight: 125 C 30 C- v�i�to aoo O Phi- Horizontal 28 20 - Phi- Vertical: 28 0 -10 -20 -30 40 F- -50 1.104 Descdptim: FBI Lk* Weigh: 120 Cattasim:0 i PH: 32 WSW 1�b . .Cofdd/5300, - } m33; Deavlp0ac TO lkill Wetghl: 125 Catdae 3500 Phl: 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF SEISMIC LOAD = 0.15 g 4 300 z; 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Across Coast, Feet HYPOTHETICAL WEAK LAYER EXTENDING 30 FEET INTO SEA CLIFF SEISMIC LOAD = 0.15 g 4 300 Gmico' iXw Engi ng Hydmgmlagy Cm ul Enginer S Hydrology Hydnulia Project No. 2196 -1 June 4, 2003 Mr. Monte Brem c/o Pacific Corporate Group, LLC 1200 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, California 92037 GECTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Brem: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation and bluff retreat study for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 1610 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigative work, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses of the subsurface conditions at the site, and presents our 3 conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of site development i We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions or require further information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Walt F. C,Ddmpton, R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. WFC/GAS /sd Attachments (3) Addressee (1) Mr. Jim Knowlton, (3) Mr. Gary Cannon, nc a/0 (IWO A. aulQfng oject Geologist CR44,16 E.G. 1863, C717M. 351, R. Q 5892 SSr�PED CEO, lu A '�§� No. 245 p�GlaC /rte J° 2 Eq. IZ•31-05 f No. 1 W �1�1R$iIN�C EGEO HISS 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 A San Diego, California 9212.3 -4379 ♦ (858) 573 -6900 mice A (858) 573 -8900 fax a.J a L� T ILI I x11 x44` 1x61 x24 LEGEND CONC x ,1 CCNtt 6:.6 Q 7P-/ BRUSH \ ,E App adfl ate /aration of rcc ^\ \ x711 \\ CONC x245 xJ4 X2 Ap ndmata location of rLV GRASSI O x7JI S;2# bof;/g c d...... d"Mrta lowt/On Of owsol/s x '34 sWbafrg(1616NepWne) x 4• A X —__— AWvdm&apropertyline \ _______ - JWUdmategl agk a%749& 7EMOOSM Consu)W gCxrw o BEACH Pfa4nthfEp;c Tap of8/uff xa4 II x71 xJJ =�' $1• n* AA,W= Lars 017 of40 Pact X84 e. satdack from rop of stuff •, I � \ \ CONC oNC x671 \ \Y x ,j Qaf Pill 126P &SyP Rt formation 7A7 0x ,SCALE 1 '�=30• 71.4 BEACX \ \•\ x 62e x 672 �-N, x94 POOL \� GRASS T xl! xAJ CWC \ 1 \\ IIarAK L/mits Of \ ,1 x631 xc36 \\ �I x2.4 \ x631 �`%• - - N XS 6 \\ x16.1, \ r p 1564 Nepi> m x\fS aNC x04 x15 x O DENSE TREES ,,2J x65 xJJ n •� x17.7 x91 I x179 Z... IT �� xa4 x 94! 179 O\ x21 ;x BEACH \ x11 x9.s`yr 1 K24 -,. �A.'.•,. E'� C• „•`. x38r x164 fill x11 x44` 1x61 x14 ` \ x61 x \ 1 \ \ 1 I \ \ x 71. -4 �� \\ \ 71.5 x 72 A £ TREES \ 1 _ ASP, \ \ 1 ' 1 \ x72.) ;73! x 696 DIRT I x kJ \ \ \ PHOTOGRAMMETRICALLY PREPARED TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP FROM AREAL FLIGHT ON 4 -19 -2003. 1 \ \ x24 LEGEND Q Q 7P-/ BRUSH \ IN App adfl ate /aration of rcc \ x711 \\ teap& x245 xJ4 X2 Ap ndmata location of rLV GRASSI O x7JI S;2# bof;/g c d...... d"Mrta lowt/On Of owsol/s x '34 sWbafrg(1616NepWne) x 4• A X —__— AWvdm&apropertyline \ _______ - JWUdmategl agk a%749& 7EMOOSM Consu)W gCxrw o BEACH Pfa4nthfEp;c Tap of8/uff xa4 xJJ AA,W= Lars 017 of40 Pact satdack from rop of stuff Qb BPacf7 0epo x ,j Qaf Pill 126P &SyP Rt formation x14 ` \ x61 x \ 1 \ \ 1 I \ \ x 71. -4 �� \\ \ 71.5 x 72 A £ TREES \ 1 _ ASP, \ \ 1 ' 1 \ x72.) ;73! x 696 DIRT I x kJ \ \ \ PHOTOGRAMMETRICALLY PREPARED TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP FROM AREAL FLIGHT ON 4 -19 -2003. 1 \ \ \. 72 Q \ \ BRUSH \ - •,,64 � xr2n ,�\ \ x711 \\ CONC iT \ x 716 ,`, z71C\ x717 DIRT \ x fA6 1 \ \ UN \ \ x74.5 1610 DI T x \\ x75! n 7A7 0x \ x14 ` \ x61 x \ 1 \ \ 1 I \ \ x 71. -4 �� \\ \ 71.5 x 72 A £ TREES \ 1 _ ASP, \ \ 1 ' 1 \ x72.) ;73! x 696 DIRT I x kJ \ \ \ PHOTOGRAMMETRICALLY PREPARED TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP FROM AREAL FLIGHT ON 4 -19 -2003. 1 \ \ \. 72 Q \ \ BRUSH \ - •,,64 � xr2n ,�\ \ x711 \\ CONC iT \ x 716 ,`, z71C\ x717 DIRT \ x fA6 1 \ \ x 7A \ \ x74.5 1610 DI T x \\ x75! n 7A7 0x \ 71.4 1 POOL x 7. x 752 \ CWC \ 1 \\ IIarAK L/mits Of x 761 ,1 Indkvrird pperf/aar \\ �I DENSE TREES \ \ �`%• - - N XS 6 \\ x16.1, \ \l\ p 1564 Nepi> m x\fS aNC J \ 1 mr—W 21961 r - I 1 oQ r -_ I 80 60- O W 40- W M"S7EVT SAND MACH LEGEND COSSLE & GR4VEL SE4CN d$e/2tiag0 fgt7F2Htlgtl . ,71 TCG 5-2 Approximate /oration ofsa7boring PROJECTED -(6' NORTH) proJeUeC info the geologic tertian r from 6'to the north TCG = TerraCasta C"_.%f1ting Gfmp 1 GS = Geosa /s, Ina TP -3 Approximate /oratiarr of test pit TALUS SLOPE f APPROX UM77S OF PROR%SE0 C4WXal&ZP V UPPER FLOOR TCG2 PROJECTED-(6' NORTH) APFROK UMt75 OF PROPOS M SRUCMRE� APPROX joa4"0,VOF 4O FT, SEnWX FROM I I Topsa/ L —� TOP OF SLUFF, SECTION A -AI SCALE: 1' =20' IHORIZ.:VERT.I "'may" gsypodntPa�Fnlsebn `'- -� ...K ,- ,w`iw• 'r:e,:a ?r'•`r1�7' Vrcf.: v. r e N' 7P-2 PROJECTED- 7' NORTH) QQGS PROJECTED 95' NORTH) QTCGf O'I TP-3 PROJECTED - (17' SOUTH) I a —�i —III I' AVE TFMACOSTA =M GROUT ��Cwc wr lllvEfRB N� OEQOWi9 2 ..0 MM111 CANYON AOAO. 5111T! X00 BMI OCOO. G YM] 1lMI 61NN0 GNOACT n.uc MOACT Nu 1810 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINRAS 218&1 CROSS - SECTION nSNI8 Assow �1- /\ Plan Revlaw May 15, 2006 Ms. Stephanie Kellar City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 ices, Inc. RE: Brem Residence Shoring Project No. 9180 -G, Brem Dear Ms. Kellar: 1569 Fittt Ave. Swla 100 San Diego. OA 92103 Phone 619.294.6600 4 6600 vrww smrwnsuM1'mggrcup com In response to your request, SMR & Associates Plan Review Services, Inc. has reviewed the documents submitted for the above - referenced project and is submitting them with our SMR Plan Review Services 'Reviewed" stamp for your information and use. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, SMR & Associates Plan Review Services, Inc. Dave Littler, S.E. Project Engineer Enclosures: See attached transmittal dated May 15, 2006 Supplemental Structural Calculations for BREM RESIDENCE SHORING Prepared for. Project No.: 04150 Submittal Date: Revision Date: 5/02/05 Prepared By FLC FLORES LUNG CONSULTANTS ,......•.11........11...... " , QROFESSIO RAYMO D t°y�=; FLF0 % 0.1 = REN. 6-30- cp 3TRUGTURAL 9TH of cx'60 " 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego, California 92121 • (858) 566 -0626 • FAX (858) 566 -0627 Civil and Structural Engineering wvvw.flareslund.com F L.C= FLORES LUNG CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 CALCU ATEDev DATE San Diego, California 92121-2325 CHECKM BY MATE (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 ��KJ14 ILL F�, sk 2 - 21 K2 -7 -n,4 Aed i AqQ J1 c Si 1 are �L r _4 41 ?'1 k4 T ct "744---1 . . . . . ........... 1171 _lk 0, q- gt3y 70 70 4 3311 _k 4 iF i FLC FLORES LUNG JOB CONSULTANTS sEU NO. 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 CAUCU",>:n W San Diego, California 92121-2325 CHECKM BY— (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 c v U( A —4 --T —?— L—L . ...... I i ' ; i i I i s -30 FLC FLORES LUND CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 Od,5� : key ror 0"'•4/c A-C-6r'q- SHMN0- OF CM=&ATM ffy� DATE c'M*3'0y. nA-m flail ■ � �IIi� ' � .�, LEI Ell ■/r - MA 0 'Ell ■ MEMO ■ ■ 5 -30 Mr. Jim Knowlton J ) July 6, 2005 CITY OF ENCINITAS 6CU }a o f) ��'vv l Page 5 Project No. 2196 / o� f; e -lvu E� Desi9 -y-) . 2. The designer utilized the following soil parameters for the tieback anchor soldier pile and lagging design: • A uniform wall pressure equal to 35 *H (psf); D • An active pressure of 35 cf for la MAR 3 0 2006 p p lagging design; • A passive pressure of 300 pcf; and l CITY OF ENCiN • An SF (Skin Friction) equal to 1,250 psf (allowable value or working bond stress). The uniform wall pressure and active pressure for lagging design were based on FLC's interpretation of TCG's recommendations of July 30, 2002 (TCG's Project No. 2105). It is important to point out that TCG's report of July 30, 2002, was prepared for a project located nearby at 1616 Neptune Ave. In TCG's report of July 30, 2002, no specific recommendations were provided for tied -back anchored soldier pile systems. However, TCG did provide shoring design requirements in their May 17, 2004, letter to Mr. Brem. Specifically, TCG recommended a minimum design uniform pressure of 21H psf, where H is the height of the shoring, and stated that it is imperative that the shoring system be designed to the extent possible to eliminate any lateral deformation and, more importantly, that construction proceeds in such a way to limit any lost ground as the excavation advances. The latter comment concerning the need to minimize lateral deformation of the shoring system adjacent to existing adjacent structures was the result of extensive discussions with City personnel regarding the need to protect adjacent property owners. Given the preceding, TCG takes no exception to the distribution or magnitude of loading selected by FLC, as FLC's design loading is conservative with respect to the loading recommendations provided by TCG and the loading conditions suggested by "Caltrans Trenching and Shoring Manual" or AASHTO guidelines. N.12112 T962196 L08 City Enc4i ,.da V3 Crotedniml Enginre ng Project No. 2196 July 28, 2005 G°109' Mr. Dante Valdez Hyd'09`09y FLORES LUND CONSULTANTS Co W Engine ng 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 Hydrology San Diego, California 92121 Hydaulio k A MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION PROPOSED SHORING BREM RESIDENCE 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Valdez: MAR 3 0 2006 tt., i >t-7.wr7 Per your request, TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. (TCG) is pleased to provide the following recommended moduli of subgrade reactions for use in your analyses. As we understand, you will be using these values to compute spring constants that will be used in your deformation analyses. DISCUSSION The spring constant that is used in structural analyses for laterally - loaded piles, or in sheet -pile systems, is determined by multiplying the contributory area of that portion of the structural element supported or acting against a soil mass by the modulus of subgrade reaction. As such, one key element in the assessment of spring constants is the selection of an appropriate modulus of subgrade reaction. According to Terzaghi's landmark paper (Terzaghi, 1955), the modulus of subgrade reaction is a function of soil type and the type and dimensions of the foundation system. A copy of Terzaghi's paper is attached for reference. As such, there is no singular value that can be specified for a given soil that is independent from the characteristics of the foundation system and structural model. 9455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 ♦ San Diego, California 921234379 ♦ (858) 573 -6900 voice • (858) 573- 8900_%az Ww Aerracosta.com Mr. Dante Valdez FLORES LUND CONSULTANTS Project No. 2196 N July 28, 2005 Page 2 We understand that Flores Lund Consultants (FLC) intends to assess the deformations of the shoring system by modeling the system as being supported by a series of springs. In order to compute the corresponding spring constant, FLC needs the modulus of subgrade reaction. According to our geotechnical investigation of the site, the soil conditions can be described simply as a granular fill overlying formational soils. As such, the modulus of subgrade reaction increases with depth, and: - for a laterally- loaded pile, the modulus of subgrade reaction takes the form of a coefficient of subgrade reaction (n, times the depth from the ground surface (z) divided by diameter or width (5) of a pile; and - for a laterally - loaded sheet pile, the modulus of subgrade reaction takes the form of a coefficient of subgrade reaction (/,J times the depth (z) below the ground surface divided by the total depth of penetration (1-4. Thus: the spring constant for a laterally - loaded pile becomes: K =A� hlZif BJJ where: Kis the spring constant (FL); A is the contributory area of the spring (2); nh is the coefficient of subgrade reaction (FL') ; zis the depth below the ground surface (L); and B is the width or diameter of the pile (L). and: the spring constant for a laterally- loaded sheet pile becomes: K= A�, -(H)� where: Kis the spring constant (FL'); A is the contributory area of the spring (LZ); is the coefficient of subgrade reaction (FL "') ; z is the depth below the ground surface (L); and His the penetration depth of the sheet pile (L). \ \TCg urverYYelnvrlAPiojecta�21 \2196 2196 UN Flora Lv .d v Mr. Dante Valdez July 28, 2005 FLORES LUND CONSULTANTS Page 3 Project No. 2196 RECOMMENDATIONS Laterally- Loaded Pile For a laterally- loaded pile that is loading fill soils, we recommend using a coefficient of subgrade reaction (n) of 10 tons per cubic foot. For a laterally - loaded pile that is loading formational soils, we recommend using a coefficient of subgrade reaction (n, of 30 tons per cubic foot. Laterally -Load Sheet Pile For a laterally - loaded sheet pile that is loading fill soils, we recommend using a coefficient of subgrade reaction (/� of 3 tons per cubic foot. For a laterally - loaded sheet pile that is loading formational soils, we recommend using a coefficient of subgrade reaction ( /,,) of 10 tons per cubic foot. CLOSURE We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance and trust this information meets your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. �r.�yc�_ Matthew W. Eckert, Ph.D., Director of Engineering R.C.E. 45171, R.G.E. 2316 MWE/jg Attachments n �o qgt[ ES&04, �• 2316 A rn \ \T<g serveAfi�twalAprgeca�2112196�2196 L09 Flarc LvW.doc 3/3 1 NEPTUNE RESIDENCE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DRAINAGE STUDY Prepared: SEPTEMBER 2004 Revised: OCTOBER 2005 Prepared For: Mr. Monte Brem For submittal to the CITY OF ENCINITAS Prepared By: POUNTNEY PSOMAS 4455 Murphy Canyon Road Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Pountney Psomas 2004, Pountney Psomas All Rights Reserved OCT 18 2005 IES S 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to provide the site drainage assumptions and analyses used for the regrading and development of this residential site. This project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Encinitas. The proposed residential site to be graded is 0.14 acres of the total 0.23 -acre lot. The project site is located at 1610 Neptune Avenue, in the City of Encinitas. The proposed site development project consists of, but is not limited to the regrading and construction of drainage facilities, residential pad, a retaining wall and landscaping. While the existing site imperviousness is approximately 0 %, the proposed site imperviousness is 61 %. The runoff tributary areas for the graded site are essentially the same in the existing and proposed conditions (now divided into smaller basin areas for clarity). The total stormwater runoff from the site shall increase, as shown in this study's summary. The purpose of this study is to show that the proposed grading of the1610 Neptune Avenue - Brem Residence Lot and its improvements will neither adversely affect the existing storm drain system nor cause downstream and/or slope damage. DESIGN CRITERIA The drainage design criteria used for this project are per the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual dated September 2003. Said criteria are as follows: A. Design Runoff: As the tributary area is less than 1 square mile and is not located at a major roadway, the 100 -year storm was analyzed for conveyance. B. Design Runoff Method: The contributing watershed is less than 1.0 square mile and, therefore, the rational method is used. The theoretical runoff is calculated as Q = CIA where: • Q =flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) • C = runoff coefficient: based on soil group D. • I = storm intensity in inches per hour (in/hr) • A = area in acres (ac) POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA METHODOLOGY For this project, the 100 -year storm was used for the design of the storm drain systems onsite. The rational method was used to determine individual sub -basin peak flow rates for the given storm frequencies according to the following equation: Q =CXlxA Where: Q = Flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) C = Runoff coefficient (dimensionless ratio) I = Rainfall Intensity in inches per hour (in/hr) A = Area in acres (ac) Runoff Coefficient — The proposed average runoff coefficient of 0.83 is based on Soil Group D and an assumed 95% imperviousness in the proposed condition. Table 3 -1 from County Hydrology Manual. This 95% imperviousness is based on the proposed intent to collect all stormwater runoff from the graded site and distribute it into the public drainage system. Hydrologic characteristics for the project are as follows: A. Soil Group is determined to be Soil Group D from the U.S.G.S Hydrologic Soil Group Maps for San Diego County, as contained in the Appendix C. B. The watershed is predominantly urban. The land use is determined from the future zoning for the area and Table 3 -1 from the manual. C. The 100 -year 6 -hour precipitation (P6) is determined to be 2.5 inches using County Isopluvial Maps. D. The 100 -year 24 -hour precipitation (P24) is determined to be 4.3 inches using County Isopluvial Maps. Since the P6 is within 45 -65% of the P24, they do not need to be adjusted. The P6 is plotted on Figure 3 -2, and calculated using the formula provided in the hydrology manual to determine intensity for each corresponding Tc. E. Rainfall intensity shall be determined by the equation given in Figure 3 -1 of the Manual, where: I = 7.44 x P6 x (Tc^ -.645) I = Rainfall Intensity in inches per hour (in/hr) P6 = 100 -year 6 -hour Precipitation in inches (in) Tc = Time of concentration in minutes (min) F. Times of concentration are governed by surface characteristics of the watershed and were obtained from procedures described in the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual. If the time of concentration was determined to be less than 5 minutes, then the calculations were carried out using 5 minutes, as is stated in Section 3.1.4.1 of the hydrology manual. The time of concentration for natural watersheds is based on the POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA METHODOLOGY, Continued; Kirpitch formula, given in Figure 3 -4 of the Manual, where: Tc = 160 * (11.9 * L ^3/H) ^0.385} Tc = Time of Concentration in minutes (min.) L = Length of Watershed in miles (mi.) H = Difference in Elevation in feet (fl.) For urban watersheds the time of concentration is per the FAA formula given in Figure 3 -3 of the manual, where: Tc = [1.8 *(1.1 -C) *D ^0.51/(5 ^0.33) Tc = Time of Concentration in minutes (min.) C = Runoff coefficient D = Distance of watercourse (feet) S = Slope in % DRAINAGE BASINS Basins were delineated for each on -site drain inlet as shown on the Proposed Basin Map, Basin flows were calculated and are provided in Appendix B. Inlet control calculations were performed for the worst case flow rates, which includes the all area drains. Inlet calculations were performed for capacity using 50% blockage due to grates and debris. Inlet capacity calculations were calculated using Flow Master by Haestad Methods. The flows from each existing inlet were then routed through their corresponding pipes, then to the sump pump for pumping to the outfall location. Appendix B shows the basin outfall location and discharge. EXISTING BASINS BASIN E -1 This basin (0.14 Acres) consists of a naturally vegetated slope located at the westerly portion of 1610 Neptune Avenue lot. The runoff from this basin sheet flows southwesterly down the natural slope and discharges into the Pacific Ocean. See Exhibit 1. BASIN E -lA This basin (0.07 Acres) consists of a naturally vegetated slope located at the easterly portion of 1610 Neptune Avenue lot. The runoff from this basin sheet flows southwesterly down the natural slope and discharges into the Pacific Ocean. See Exhibit 1. BASIN E -2 This basin (0.02 Acres) consists of the natural vegetation on the fill site located at the easterly portion of the lot. The runoff from this basin sheet flows northeasterly to the outfall at Neptune Avenue's public stormdrain system. See Exhibit 1. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1963-011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED BASINS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM The project site is located at the 1610 Neptune Avenue, in the City of Encinitas. The proposed regrading and development project shall convey stormwater runoff from the proposed new fifteen sub - basins, which will outfall into the public separate stormwater system at Neptune Avenue on the northeasterly side of the project site. One existing basin (E -1) shall remain the same. See Exhibit 1. BASIN El This basin (0.14 Acres) is located at the westerly end of the project site, from the top of slope down to the beach and shall remain unchanged from the existing condition. See Exhibit 1. BASINS (E1A and E2) These basins consisting of (0.09 Acres) in the existing condition shall be subdivided into fourteen (14) smaller basins; these sub -areas are designated as Basins Rl -R6 and Hl -H8 in the proposed condition. The runoff from these basins which in the existing condition sheet flowed southwesterly to Basin E1 at the top of the slope and discharged at the toe of the slope into the Pacific Ocean, and northerly and easterly to Neptune Avenue and into the public drainage system shall now be collected onsite and pumped easterly into the public stormdrain system. See Exhibit 1. BASIN Rl This basin (0.013 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain northwesterly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the westerly comer of Basin Hl. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN R2 This basin (0.014 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain northeasterly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the westerly corner of Basin H1. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN R3 This basin (0.003 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain northeasterly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the westerly corner of Basin H 1. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN R4 This basin (0.003 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain easterly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN R5 This basin (0.002 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain southeasterly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly corner of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED BASINS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, Continued; BASIN R6 This basin (0.020 Acres) consists of building rooftop area. The runoff from this basin will drain southerly into a roofdrain then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly corner of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN Hl This basin (0.006 Acres) consists of hardscape with little to no landscaping, located at the northwesterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain through the window well opening stomrwater catchment system, which is then piped into a sump pump wet well, located at the northwesterly comer of Basin Hl. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H2 This basin (0.002 Acres) consists of a landscaped planter, located at the northeasterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin infiltrates through the soil and sand layers prior to discharging into public stormwater system. This outlet location's discharge is the confluence of the entire project site sub - basins. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H3 This basin (0.007 Acres) consists of hardscape and little to no landscaping, located on the northerly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain southwesterly into strip drain at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well, located at the northwesterly comer of Basin H 1. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H4 This basin (0.001 Acres) consists of a landscaped planter, located at the easterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain westerly into catch basin at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H5 This basin (0.004 Acres) consists of hardscape and little to no landscaping, located on the northeasterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain southwesterly into strip drain at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H6 This basin (0.006 Acres) consists of a landscaped planter, located at the easterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain southeasterly into catch basin at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED BASINS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, Continued; BASIN H7 This basin (0.001 Acres) consists of a landscaped planter, located at the easterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain westerly into catch basin at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. BASIN H8 This basin (0.004 Acres) consists of hardscape and little to no landscaping, located on the northeasterly portion of project site. The runoff from this basin drain southwesterly into a drain at this basin's outfall location, then piped into a sump pump well located at the southwesterly comer of Basin H8. This runoff is then pumped to the Basin H2 outfall location. See Exhibit 1. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA BASIN DISCHARGES ,xistin2 Condition Dischar e: BASIN AREA ACRES DISCHARGE - 100 CFS Outfall 'E1' 0.14 0.26 Outfall 'E1A' 0.07 0.13 Outfall @ 'E2' 0.02 0.04 Offsite 1.0.0 0.13 0.5 Offsite 1.0.1 0.12 Offsite 1.1 1.4 2.8 Offsite 1.2 1.2 2.2 Offsite 1.3 1.3 2.2 Discharge over the bluff is 0.39 efs and to the Neptune Avenue outfall location is 0.04 efs in the existing condition. rro osea tommmon uiscnar e: BASIN AREA (ACRES) A00) DISCHARGE(CFS) BASIN AREA (ACRES) (Q,oa) DISCHARGE(CFS) E1 0.14 .26 H1 0.006 0.04 R1 0.013 0.081 H2 0.002 0.01 R2 0.014 0.088 H3 0.007 0.044 R3 0.003 0.019 H4 0.001 0.005 R4 0.003 0.019 H5 0.004 0.03 R5 0.002 0.013 H6 0.006 0.038 R6 0.020 0.125 H7 0.001 0.005 Offsite 1.0.0 0.13 0-5 H8 0.003 0.018 Offsite 1.0.1 0.12 Offsite 1.1 1.4 2.8 Offsite 1.2 1.2 22 Offsite 1.3 1.3 2.2 Basins E I A and E2 have been divided into sub- basinsRI -R6 and Hl -H8. Pronosed Condition Outfall Location Discharge: Discharge over the bluff is 0.26 cfs and to the Neptune Avenue outfall location is 0.54 efs in the proposed condition. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 AREA DISCHARGE - BASIN ACRES 100 CFS Outfall @'H2' 0.23 0.54 Discharge over the bluff is 0.26 cfs and to the Neptune Avenue outfall location is 0.54 efs in the proposed condition. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE - DRAINAGE STUDY ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUMMATION The proposed storm water conveyance system for the 100 -year storm shall decrease the amount of runoff flowing over the bluff from the project site. In the existing condition the amount of discharge flowing over the bluff is 0.39 cfs while the proposed discharge is 0.26 cfs. This decrease shall in turn increase the amount of runoff flowing offsite into the natural swale along the edge of pavement on Neptune Avenue, the existing discharge to this outfall location is 0.04 cfs while the proposed discharge is 0.54 cfs. The existing stormdrain conveyance systems are adequate and can still convey the 100 -year storm flows of the proposed drainage system. The Offsite flows passing our project site driveway entrance, in the existing public drainage system, is 7.70 cfs of stormwater runoff at a depth of 0.10 feet. Note: The Offsite discharge is very large due to the stormwater runoff from the easterly hillside lots, from the crest of Neptune to Avocado Street, breech the minimal crown in the roadway in a couple different locations. These breeches may force the runoff to flow onto some of the westerly properties along Neptune Avenue, without these breeches the discharge along the westerly gutter would be approximately 3.5 cfs. POUNTNEY PSOMAS 1863 -011 OCTOBER 2005 • ' ' �l�]EI_1 CHARTS AND GRAPHS FROM COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL 9 III -36 90 M- 70 v 60 w N p= w 50 a Lu w w w 40 U m 3C cr w cr x 2c U N Al 0 A W 10 1033.3 -2 VELOCITY-FEET PER SECOND FROM TOPIC 3 TH£ OAA/HAS£ OF HIGHWAYS JUNE 1945 BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS DIVISION TWO WASH., D. C. CHANNEL CHART 3:19 2:1 b = 0 i f-- 1.5' -� 2% �� n =.0175 2% Concrete D RESIDENTIAL STREET ONE SIDE ONLY 20 18 16 V\ 7 2f �70f 14 12 V� 10 8 fl�.S 9 B 7 6 5 O' ryn ( a o O � fOS 4 S O0Q v 0 3 (� `0 2 o 1. 1.6 6 - 1.4 12 1.0 0.9 08 O O' Q P O' 0 ^0 h 4� O� O. A.S O O Q 0.7 0.6 + fo S IF 0.5 V 75, Qs 0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 Discharge (C.F.S.) ' EXAMPLE: Given: O = 10 S = 2.5% Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 f.p.s. OURCE. San Diego County Department of Special District Services Design Manual F I G U R E Gutter and Roadway Discharge - Velocity Chart 3 -6 `r1 a APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS RUNOFF AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS W El POUNTNEY PSOMAS <project name> 4455 MURPHY CANYON RD., STE 4200 PCGWO #: SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: 100 YEAR - EXISTING CONDITION FOR OFF -SITE LEGEND: C.P. - CONCENTRATION POINT C.B. - CATCH BASIN CI - CURB INLET MDR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNT- UDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN DRAINAGE AREA DEVELOPMENT A (ACRES) Tc C '1100 AQ" LQ MIN IN /HR CFS CFS SLOPE % SECTION V FPS L FT Tt MIN. ET (MIN) REMARKS THE FOLLOWING HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS DONE PER METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE 2003 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL 1.0 1.1 1.2 MDR 4.3 D.U. /AC MDR (4.3 D.U./AC MDR 4.3 D.U./AC MDR 4.3 D.U./AC) 0.25 1.4 1.2 1.3 11 8.3 9.4 10.8 11.9 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 4.75 4.38 4.00 3.76 0.5 2.8 2.2 2.2 0.5 3.3 5.4 7.7 2.0% 1.0% 0.8% - SWALE GUTTER GUTTER 2.0 2.4' 2.5 135 205 160 1.1 1.4 1.1 9.4 10.8 11.9 - 1.3 TOTAL FLOW TO CONVEY PAST DRIVEWAY = 7.7 CFS Intensities are based on the Regression equation from the San Diego County - Hydrology Manual, Figure 3 -1 where: I(t) = 7.44 - P6' D^ -0.645 "Q based on the rational method equation from the County of Orange - Local Drainage Manual expressed as: Q =C'I'A '**Q1,T1,11 is defined by the tributary with the shortest Tc. Select largest Qt, and the Tc associated with it. INITIAL BASINS FOR EXISTING CONDITION uC.7 ll, iviim Iii 0 Mil", ®�' FROM MANUAL uC.7 ll, iviim Iii 0 Mil", Cross Section Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Worksheet Trapezoidal Channt Flow Element Trapezoidal Chanm Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth . Section Data Mannings Coeffic 0.013 Slope 700000 ft/ft Depth 0.10 ft Left Side Slope 50.00 H : V Right Side Slope 12.50 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 it Discharge 7.70 cis rn LL! VIN HA NTS Project Engineer Peter Pountney untitled.fm2 Pountney & Associates Inc FlowMaster v6.1 [614] 01/22104 02:40:42 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 7551666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Worksheet Trapezoidal Channe Flow Element Trapezoidal Channr Method Manning's Formula Salve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.013 Slope 700000 Wft Left Side Slope 50.00 H : V Right Side Slope 12.50 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 7.70 cfs Results Depth 0.10 ft Flow Area 0.4 ft= Wetted Perim- 6.76 ft Top Width 6.75 ft Critical Depth 0.32 ft Critical Slope 0.004506 ft/ft Velocity 21.21 ft/s Velocity Head 6.99 ft Specific Enerf 7.09 ft Froude Numb 16.13 Flow Type supercritical F 001 Project Engineer. Peter Pountney untitled.fm2 Pountney & Associates Inc FlowMaster v6.1 [6149 0122104 02:40:48 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 POUNTNEYPSOMAS i,,f. r matti. i 'Engineerina Solutions �n and 11" ,Slk MIA ARFA = 0-140 Acres C = 0-45 Runoff Coefficient . 111f.rnati, n and Engineering Solutions 14 114 AREA - 0.07 Acres C - 0.45 Runoff Coefficient - ---- - - - -- jai 11 _ ®_® SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 Informal and Engineering Solutions AREA= 0.02 Acres C = 045 Runoff Coefficient SON Group Designation - D IMENUMEJ AREA = 0.14 Acres C = 0.45 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - D POUNTNEY PSOMAS Inforrmatlon and Engineering Solutions Mme:. : :. „ 4M MURPHY CANYON M"D !SAN DIEGO, CAUFORWA MZ3 POUNTNEYPSOMS Information and Engineering SolutIonsm �_m AREA= 0.013 Acres C = 0.95 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - D _� - - -�� 6-HOUR PRECIPITATION 11n) Dundlon (min P6 2.6 - - - - -�_ - - - - -�_ jin -informatimn and Engineering Solutionso 1610 NEPTUNE AVE THE AREM RESIDENCE' M ®_® mmm I IMMS AREA = 0.014 Acres C = 0.95 Runoff Coefficient jangth of watershed (in Mks) - L APPENDIX C PROPOSED CONDITIONS RUNOFF AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ©O ,�fi MURPHY CANYON ROAD SAN DIEGO. CAUPORMIA M23 (Wn 57642M POUNTNEYPSOMAS = AREA = 0.003 Acres C = 096 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - 0 J!, . Im, NOR. 1 171 CLIENT ©• SUITE 200 ®_® AREA = 0.003 Acres C = 0.95 Runoff Coefficient CLIENT POUNTMEY PSOMAS —1 'SUITE 200 SAN 01990, CALIFORNIA M23 PROJECT -1910 NEPTUNE AVE. 7HE OREN RESIDEWCE' lnfxrmatixn ani Enlineerinj Siludins. ®_® 01F�� AREA= 0.002 Acres C = 0.95 Runoff Coefficient MURPHY CANYON INDAD SUITE 200 1--10 NEPTUNE AVE. -THE OREM RESIDENCE SAN DIEGO, CAUPORMIA Mn (MA) 66SA7M FAX Informiatlon and Engineering Solutions C = 096 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - D COED Nw 4W MURPHY CANYON FAAD CUITE 200 SAN 01100, CAILIFORMIA UM23 (M) 5661738 FAX POUNTNEYPSOMM FIFTA-17VIITI=' .2 MI. W 49m 7. TMITITUB7 TOT MET AREA - 0.006 Acres ,Soil Group Designation - D - - - - -- - - -- Information and Engineering Solutions = SUITE no SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 11111123 ®_® !PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS: �� AREA = 0.002 Acres C = 0.60 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - D POUNTNEY P30111" SUITE SAN DtEG0, CAUFORIMA, Mn '—wormation T38 FAX PROJECT 1610 NEPTUNE AVE 7HE BREM RESIDENCE' and Eng neering Solutions ®_® AREA = 0.007 Acres Coefficient MURPHY CANYON ROAD ®_® POUNTNEYPWMM AREA = 0.001 Acres ._ Runoff . 'Time of Concentration ( Tc Calculations: MR MONrEBREM • �� POUNTNEYPSONAS =. AREA 0.004 Acres Runoff C 0.96 Soil Group D"Vnab�- . �� Time of Concentration (Tc Calculations: if POUNTNEYPSOMAS = PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS: AREA = 0.006 Acres C = 0.95 Runoff Coefficient Length at watershed (in miles) - ( L 44" MURPHY CANYON ROAD SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CAUPORNIA Ii P 0 U IN TN EYPSONUks Information and Engineering Solutions ®_® �� AREA= 0.001 Acres C = 070 Runoff Coefficient © MURPHY CANYON ROAD SUITE BM DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 MENOMINEE�� P 0 U N TN E Y PSOMAS = Informiation and Engineering Solutions AREA= 0.003 Acres C = 0.90 Runoff Coefficient Soil Group Designation - D APPENDIX D EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITION MAPS NOTES: DISCLAIMER: Encinitas re,ecomo>re Parcel lines are not survey accurate. Every reasonable effort has been made to assure - Photo Bight date. July 2001. 112 ft pixel resolution. the accuracy of the data provided; nevertheless, some information NORTH i-H+f me>. o >pre »lo "> Crthophoto and Top. posl0onal accuracy meet the precision adequate to support O rth o and To po Map mmrm a>a o >p aon. national Map Awumq Standards for V = 100' mapping. may not be accurate. The City of Encinitas assumes no 1 inch equals 30 feet - Map Coordinates: Stud plane NAD83 Feet, CA Zone 6 responsibility arising from the use of this Information. DRAINAGE PLAN EXISTING SITE CONDITION ND REFMIENCE 'R' . LLI z 1, T- Av6ciDo STREET" PROPOSED FINISH ELEVATION NO EXISTING CORMOR PROPURED NEW CONTOUR OH3 = 0.044 GIG E.1 TING GORE GIALES AND FLOW DIRECTION OH4 0.005 CIS MASONRY RETAINING -1 PREFAB STERN SIZON SUMP OH 4- PVC DRAIN (PRESS OTHERWISE NOTED) OHS q'I B 6 0 03 ROOF DOWNSFRAIN LOCATION /CONNECTION OHI 11 E- DRI I I�PF (FORCE MAIN) - - - PVC m ,AIR PIPE QR1 = 0.081 GfN PCC SONFAGES CONCRETE DRIVEWAY OR2 0.088 cfs CURB & GUTTER CE""' SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT RIGHT OF "' PROPERTY LINE SCALE I EN INITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT GAIN FILTER (PROPRIETARY) G. 5' 10' GO, GC- I IGE CITY OF ENCINITAS META'/—DT IRON FENCE/GATE 11 O- - FENCE NAME GATT--- 11-THRI 'XF1-1 I — PON -1 N I FIEFRADF. .11 COLORED CONCRETE G/W /5' D I ACC-L MID W/2- MASS EXPANSION joHNIS WINDOW WELL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ABBREVIATIONS P/L PROPERTY LINE CA CENTER LINE N/w IT SU oF WAY - OR ME Of MOMENT EL ELEVATION SD STORM DRAIN H""', , 10' V--1 101 ON DOWN DRAM SYSTEM YSTEM DESIGN GRIFEERIA V-- XPIR11 F1 "S"P Of AN,) CONS I mUt;fLVj DRAINAGE PLAN 1 EXIHIBIT 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS 03-157 DR, CDP ROOF DRAINS SHALL WE INSTALLED TO COLLECT ALL OF THE STAR RUNOFF. THESE DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TB THE 4- EVE P'TERIGN DRAIN SYSTEM AND TO THE SUMP PUMP SYSTEM SHOW HERE WITH PVC DRAIN PIPE. A DUAL ALTERNATING BLUE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO DELIVER ALL SITE RUIRDN' TO THE CUTLET LOCATION A SPOSAN AT THE STREET. RUNCE' F G- BE FILTERED PRIOR DI BEING DISCHARGED TO THE STREET OUTTALL I.—CH. PLIMP DESIGN CRITERIA .1 AS FOLLOWS: SAID = - - ELEVATION HEAD LOSS - SUMP - TO CURET = 15.0 FT FRICTION LOSS IN 80 LF 2' PVC NUTLET PIPE - 5.5 FT REQUIRED CAPACITY PER PUMP = 0.40 CIPS - ING GAL/NUN MINIMUM PUP S17F - I HE EROSION CONTROL NOTE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO REMAIN INTACT THROLONGHT CONSTRUCTION DURING RAINY SEASON. BLUFF RESTRICTIONS BIG CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OR DEBRIS IS PERMITTED OVER THE TOP OF BLUFF. SPECIAL BLUFF NOTE THERE SRALL HE NO GRADING WITHIN THE AD G- COASTAL BLUFF SETBACK. PROPOSED AREA LEGEND. POUNTNEY PSOMA� PROPOSED SITE CONDITION 'R' . LLI z 1, T- Av6ciDo STREET" H2 =0. 002 OH2 = 0.01 GtG H3 =0. 007 OH3 = 0.044 GIG H4 =0.001 OH4 0.005 CIS HIS =0. 004 OH HIS =0. 006 OHS q'I B 6 0 03 H7 OHI HIS =0.003 OHS = 0.018 GfG Ill =0.013 QR1 = 0.081 GfN R2 =0.014 OR2 0.088 cfs PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT SCALE I EN INITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT (9 NAw APPROVALS G. 5' 10' GO, GC- I IGE CITY OF ENCINITAS IRS --O�003 OR3 = 0.019 Cfs NOME tv, I-SIDRS NAME GATT--- 11-THRI 'XF1-1 I — PON -1 N I FIEFRADF. .11 RABE—- —MTE BENCH MARK ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 01-19 - H 1. NIGS CORD, — ". " X 2"." "PROODOGEN.-H-CURGUR, U, .. -E. SX' N'LY DE "E' NA G NOHN. PARs" ONS" AS SO (GRETCH PRI) FRR' .,O/w, -PV COR PER . OR FHED - H""', , 10' V--1 101 NAIR PAGE XPIR11 F1 "S"P Of RECOMMENDED APPROVED Ly DW ENGINEER DATE: onrE DRAINAGE PLAN 1 EXIHIBIT 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS 03-157 DR, CDP -G 91$O -G SHIEE`1-5 OF 9 I \P POUNTNEY PSOMA� 16 1 DO I 0 (D LE 0 Z NU NJ Z I z 0 1 Project No. 2196 January 12, 2006 Gearechnica! Engineering Comm( Engineering Mr. Monte Brem Mmww Engineering c/o Pacific Corporate Group LLC 1200 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, California 92037 UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1610 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Brem: As requested, we have performed an update geotechnical study for your property located at 1610 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, California. As part of this study, we have reviewed the following documents: • " Geotechnical Investigation and Bluff Retreat Study, 1610 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," prepared by TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc., dated June 4, 2003; and • Grading and drainage plans titled "Brem Residence, 1610 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, 03- 157DR, CDP Sheets 1 -9," prepared by Pountney Psomas, San Diego, California. Additionally, we have visited the site to observe the current conditions. From our review of the above- referenced drawings and site visit, it is our opinion that, since the geotechnical investigation reported June 4, 2003, there have not been any substantial changes to the site which would preclude the development as proposed. It is also our opinion that the recommendations found in our June 4, 2003, report still apply and that the above - referenced grading and drainage plans are in conformance with the recommendations found in the above - referenced report. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 A San Diego, California 92123 -4379 A (858) 573 -6900 voice A (858) 573 -8900 fox 1513 6th Street, Suite 104 A Santa Monica, California 90401 -2500 A (310) 576 -1086 voice A (310) 576 -1083 fay w Aerracosta.com Mr. Monte Brem Project No. 2196 January 12, 2006 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust this information meets your needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call. Very truly yours, TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP. INC. Walte Crampton, Principal Engineer R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245 WFQGAS /sd \ \TCV SERVFRnelwo,{.W.JecWl\21962196 L11 B.A. Grego A. Spauldin ro'e Geologist C.E.G. 1 63. C.H.G. 351. R.G. 5892 \ \TCV SERVFRnelwo,{.W.JecWl\21962196 L11 B.A.