The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-10315 GLine: zi I J1-5-3 E.,.1 STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM For Gerber Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue Prepared for: i O i Mr. Richard Gerber 794 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PSG GSE�v�Ss Project Site Address: 794 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA SWPCP Prepared by. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5 Encinitas, CA 92024 (760) 633 -3470 SWPCP Preparation Date: February 20, 2005 SW K F7wy 101. Swe S 6nrKn CaVOWO 176016333470 Fax 176016333472 Contents Section 1.0 SWPCP Certification and Approval .................................................. ............................1.1 1.1 Contractor's Certification and Approval by Resident Engineer .............. 1 -1 Section2.0 Project Information ......................................................................... ............................... 2.1 2.1 Introduction and Project Description ........................ ............................... 2 -1 2.2 Project Schedule ....................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.3 Potential Pollutant Sources .......................................... ............................2 -1 Section 3.0 Pollution Sources and Control Measures ..................................... ............................... 3-2 3.1 Soil Stabilization Practices ....................................... ............................... 3 -2 3.2 Sediment Control Practices ....................................... ............................... 3-3 3.3 Tracking Control and Entrance/Exit Stabilization .... ............................... 3-4 3.4 Wind Erosion Controls ............................................. ............................... 3-4 3.5 Non -Storm Water Management BMPs ..................... ............................... 3 -5 3.6 Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control BMPs ................... 3 -6 3.7 Construction BMP Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair ........................ 3 -7 Page ii Section 1.0 SWPCP Certification and Approval 1.1 CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL BY RESIDENT ENGINEER CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION OF SWPCP "I certify under a penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted, to the best of my knowledge and belief is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." /;,- /7 -o °5 UiAture Date ( T4W t) tLie 633 3Y70 Name and Title Telephone Number For Use by San Diego City Schools RESIDENT ENGINEER'S APPROVAL OF SWPCP I, and /or personnel acting under my direction and supervision, have reviewed this SWPCP and find that it meets the requirements set forth in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook. (0 —! 7 —O$ Ake ` J Date of SWPCP Approval fo No-) Nt Jed 7Gd 633 3'770 s Name (printed) RE's Phone Number Page I - I Section 2.0 Project Information 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of maintaining and repairing an existing rear yard, below - grade, approximately 67 foot long concrete reinforced upper bluff retention system (50 lineal ft. parallel to the bluff edge and 17 lineal feet along the northern property line). The retention system was constructed approximately five feet east of the western bluff edge in 1999 and consists of steel reinforced concrete caissons that have been drilled to a depth of 38 feet and placed 8 feet on center, with tiebacks and capped by steel and concrete. This project will further support the retention system with the installation of one row of tiebacks and grade beam along the base of the exposed caisson wall. In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed caisson for the full width of the property. The site (area of work) is located south of Beacons Beach and North of Stone Steps beach and is west of Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas. Access to the work site will be secured by using flagmen. The remaining areas surrounding the project consist of public beach. Mid and upper bluff work will be performed form private property. The project site location is illustrated on the plans prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC). No vehicle cleaning or vehicle repair will be conducted on site. No hazardous or potentially hazardous materials will be stored permanently on site. Access to the project site will occur via Neptune Avenue. The entire site will be secured during the work by the use of flagmen. BMPs will be implemented to control pollutants from entering Ocean. A representative from Soil Engineering Construction Inc. (SEC) will inspect the site in accordance with the schedule defined in Table 3.3 -1 to ensure that BMPs are properly implemented and maintained. 2.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The project will began once permits are obtained by performing administrative work and meeting with City officials. The next item of work is to access the beach and perform excavations next to the existing seawall to observe its condition and to remove portions of the foundation. The next step will be to install tiebacks and then a mat/mesh of steel and apply a decorative hand sculpted concrete surface to the seawall. It is expected that this work will take approximately two to three months. At the same time or thereafter, work to complete the reconstruction of the bluff slope failure, mid bluff retaining wall repairs and upper bluff retaining wall treatments will occur. 2.3 POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES The construction project site activities that have the potential to pollute stormwater include: a) Oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, sanitary waste, brake dust, anti - freeze, battery acid, chlorinated solvents, and metals associated with parked vehicles. b) Sediment from the removal of concrete and dirt spoils. c) General project site litter. d) Concrete and cement from concrete truck and pumping clean outs. 2 -1 Section 3.0 Pollution Sources and Control Measures 3.1 SOIL STABILIZATION PRACTICES This is a construction project, therefore typical temporary soil stabilization BMPs during construction activities are applicable. Soil stabilization techniques that will be implemented during construction are provided below. Table 3 -1 identifies soil stabilization BMPs that will be implemented at the site. Descriptions of the selected soil stabilization BMPs are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 -1 3 -2 TEMPORARY BMP No. CHECK CHECK IF BMP IF USED NOT USED Notes EC-1 Scheduling Inspection and implementation EC -2 Preservation of Existing Vegetation Observe & maintain vegetation EC -3 Hydraulic Mulch ❑ ® Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing activities. EC-4 Hydroseeding Necessary after finishing slope repair. EG-5 Sal Binder El ® Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing activities. EC-6 Straw Mulch ❑ ® Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing activities. EC-7 Geotexhles, Plastic Covers, & Necessary at the base of the shotcrete area, Erosion Control Blankets/Mats ® ❑ under concrete pump trucks, leaking vehicles and to cover slope due to rains, or as deemed necessary by SEC. EC -8 Wood Mulching El ® Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing activities. Temporary Concentrated Flow Conveyance Controls EC -9 Earth DikeslDrainage Swales & Lined Ditches ® F-1 Silt fences will be installed below the work areas in the mid bluff area and along top of seawall. EC-10 Outlet ProtectionNelocty Dissipation Devices El ® No outlets on project site will require to be protected. 3 -2 3.2 SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES Typical temporary sediment control BMPs during constr implemented as necessary. Sediment controls BMPs that w project site include broom sweeping, wetting to control dus necessary. If necessary, sand bags will be used to control control BMPs that will be implemented at the site. 'Cable 3 -2 uction activities are applicable and will be ill be implemented during construction of the t during the concrete removal operations, if off -site runoff. Table 3 -2 identifies sediment 3 -3 TEMPORARN'SEDIMENT BMP BMP CHECK IF I CHECK IF IF NOT USED, STATE REASON No. USED NOT USED Silt fences will be installed below the work SE -1 Silt Fence ® areas in the mid bluff area and along top of seawall. SE -2 Sediment Basin Not Applicable SE -3 Sediment Trap Ll Not Applicable SE-0 Check Dam D M Not Applicable SE -5 Fiber Rolls As required. SE 6 Sand Bag Berm ® Sand bags may be used if excessive runoff is observed to be problematic. Sweeping, vacuuming 6 wetting shall be conducted on an as- needed basis. Criteria for street sweeping include: observable tracking of sediment from the project site SE -7 Sweeping, Vacuuming & Wetting ® onto the public roadway, accumulation of sediment on the public roadway adjacent to the project site entrancelexit points, and/or during ground or concrete disturbing activities. (e.g., if a release occurs and requires soil removal). SE-8 Sandbag Barrier Not Applicable SE -9 Straw Bale Barrier Ll Not Applicable 3 -3 3.3 TRACKING CONTROL AND ENTRANCE/EXIT STABILIZATION The project site entrance /exit location is located at Moonlight Beach located at the western end of B Street, and is relatively flat as is the general project site grade. Therefore, appropriate BMPs are not recommended at this site. Neptune Avenue BMP's will be necessary on an as needed basis. 3.4 WIND EROSION CONTROLS Wind erosion controls include the use of water, on an as- needed basis, to prevent nuisance dust. Criteria for wind erosion control include: observable dust, periods of increased vehicle or equipment traffic, and /or during ground disturbing activities that remove the concrete surfacing and expose the underlying soil (e.g., if a release occurs and requires soil removal). Table 3-4 identifies wind erosion control BMPs that will be implemented at the site. Descriptions of the selected wind erosion control BMPs are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 -4 3 -4 3.5 NON -STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BMPS The project will include the following activities that have the potential to generate non - stormwater discharges. • Watering the site for dust control. • Potential releases from parked vehicles and equipment. No vehicle cleaning or maintenance activities will be conducted at project site however it is possible that fueling operations will occur for the limited equipment used at the site. Table 3 -5 identifies non -storm water management BMPs that will be implemented at the site. Descriptions of the selected non -storm water management BMPs are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 -5 BMP No. CHECK CHECK IF BMP IF USED NOT USED Notes N Water Conservation Practices ❑ ® Minimal onsite water will be used and will be managed so that no runoff into the Ocean. NS-2 Dewatedng Operations F] ® Not applicable unless it is determined that it is necessary NS-3 Seawall Preparation ❑ ® Concrete saw cutting and concrete demo work will implement slurry pick up and disposal, wetting, and sweeping NS-4 Temporary Stream Crossing O ® Not applicable NS-5 Clear Water Diversion F� ® Not applicable NS-6 Illicit Connection ❑ ® Not applicable /Discharge NS-7 Potable Waterilrtigabon ® Not applicable Vehicle and Equipment Operations NS -8 e and Equipment ing ❑ ® No vehicle or equipment cleaning will be conducted at the project site. NS-9 Vehicle and Equipment rFueliflg ® Limited equipment fueling will occur and it will require that secondary containment around the fueling operation. NS-10 e and Equipment ❑ ® No vehicle or equipment maintenance will be nance conducted at the project site. 3 -5 3.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL BMPS The project site will be secured during working hours using flagmen. No hazardous materials, solid or liquid waste will be stored at project site. Small quantities of potentially hazardous materials or liquid waste may be released as a result of drips from parked vehicles or equipment. Spill prevention and control will be conducted in accordance with WM-4. Drip pans and /or plastic tarps will be placed under older vehicles or vehicles that are not scheduled for immediate removal from the site. If oil or other automotive fluid accumulates in a drip pan it will be properly recycled or disposed of offsite in accordance with WM -6. If a release occurs and impacts soil, then the impacted soil will be removed and properly disposed of. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention BMPs that will be implemented include emptying waste containers on a regular basis, and removal of obsolete equipment on an as- needed basis. The following materials and wastes that have the potential to contact storm water runoff include: • Oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, sanitary waste, brake dust, anti - freeze, battery acid, chlorinated solvents, and metals associated with parked vehicles. General litter • Obsolete equipment • Trash /Garbage stored in receptacles Table 3 -6 identifies waste management and materials pollution control BMPs that will be implemented at the site. Table 3 -6 3 -6 Notes BMP No. BMP CHECK IF USED CHECK IF NOT USED WM -1 Material Delivery and Storage ® ❑ Will be performed in a neat and orderly fashion so as to not adversely affect the site. WM -2 Material Use ® ❑ Containment of concrete delivery truck dean outs will be performed using a suitable containers. WM -3 Stockpile Management ® ❑ Stockpiles of concrete debris and /or soil will be maintained for short periods of time and in the event of rain or wind the piles will be protected with plastic sheeting. WM-4 Spill Prevention and Control ® ❑ Plastic tarps and/or drip pans will be placed beneath parked vehicles WM -5 Solid Waste Management ® F-1 Regular trash pick -up will be performed WM -6 Hazardous Waste Management ® ❑ Leaked Fluids from parked vehides /equipment will be properly cleaned and disposed. WM -7 Contaminated Soil Management ® ❑ Any soil contaminated by leaking vehicles will be removed and property disposed. 3 -6 WM -8 Concrete Waste Management BMP Rainy Non -Rainy MaintenancelRepair Measures Containment of concrete delivery truck clean outs will (Oct.1— May 31) (June 1— Sept 31) EC -1 ® ❑ be performed using a suitable containers. Stockpiles of concrete debris and/or soil will be maintained for short EC -2 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Maintain as necessary. periods of time and in the event of rain or wind the during, and after rain and prior, during, and piles will be protected with plastic sheeting. WM -9 Sanitary/Septic Waste Management EC -7 ® Every two weeks, El Removal of septic waste from portable toilets will occur during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events on a regular basis. MP-032 Dispose of Obsolete Every two weeks, Repair as necessary. Obsolete equipment and vehicles will be removed and I Equipment, Inoperable ® El disposed. after rain events Vehicles, and Surplus SE -6 Weekly, and priorFandd wo weeks, If gravel bags are used then inspect and maintain them in accordance with the Materials during, and after ra, during, and specified frequency. Replace any damaged gr avel bags. 3.7 CONSTRUCTION BMP MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION AND REPAIR The inspection, maintenance and repair program is summarized in Table 3 -7. Table 3 -7 3 -7 Inspection Frequency BMP Rainy Non -Rainy MaintenancelRepair Measures (Oct.1— May 31) (June 1— Sept 31) EC -1 NA NA NA EC -2 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Maintain as necessary. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events EC -7 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, If required, maintain as necessary. Replace damaged plastic sheeting. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events EC -10 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Repair as necessary. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events SE -6 Weekly, and priorFandd wo weeks, If gravel bags are used then inspect and maintain them in accordance with the during, and after ra, during, and specified frequency. Replace any damaged gr avel bags. events in events SE -7 Daily when active hen active Sweep or vacuum any trac ed material. ingress and egressnd egress, otherwise weekly; e every two Prior, during, and and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events 3 -7 REPAIR 1 Inspection Frequency TG1 Daily when active Daily when active Replace gravel to stabilize exit as needed. ingress and egress, ingress and egress, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events TC -2 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Replace gravel to stabilize travel ways within project site as needed. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events WE -1 Daily when activities Daily when activities Apply water to control dust for stockpiles and areas exposed to erosion within are being performed, are being performed, project site as needed. Inspect and control runoff from wind erosion control otherwise weekly; otherwise weekly, activities. Prior, during, and Prior, during, and after rain events after rain events NS-3 Daily when activities Daily when activities Inspect vacuuming equipment and disposal procedures as well as run off from are being performed, are being performed, wetting operations. otherwise weekly, otherwise weekly; Prior, during, and Prior, during, and after rain events after rain events NS-9 Daily when activities Daily when activities Inspect containment containers for any leaks and assure proper removal of are being performed, are being performed, spillage liquids. otherwise weekly; otherwise weekly; Prior, during, and Prior, during, and after rain events after rain events WM-1 Daily when active Daily when active Maintain deliveries and storage as necessary. ingress and egress, in and egress, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain vents WM -2 ctive Daily when active Maintain as necessary. gress, ingress and egress, =activeDaily ekly; otherwise every two and weeks, and prior, ents during, and after rain events WM-3 Daily when active Daily when active Maintain plastic sheeting as necessary. ingress and egress, ingress and egress, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events 3 -8 3 -9 Inspection Frequency NN H 11 WM4 Daily when active Daily when active Contain any leaked material using drip pans or plastic sheeting. Property ingress and egress, ingress and egress, dispose of leaked material, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events WM -5 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Remove trash when receptacles are nearly full. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events WM-6 Daily when active Daily when active Contain any leaked material using drip pans or plastic sheeting. Properly ingress and egress, ingress and egress, dispose of leaked material. otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events WM -7 Daily when active Daily when active Repave any soil contaminated from leaking vehicles and properly dispose. ingress and egress, ingress and egress, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events WM -8 Daily when active Daily when active Inspect concrete containment containers for leaks and review disposal ingress and egress, ingress and egress, procedures. Inspect plastic sheeting for wear during use. otherwise weekly, otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events WM -9 Daily when active Daily when active Review disposal removal intervals and adjust as deemed necessary, ingress and egress, ingress and egress, otherwise weekly; otherwise every two Prior, during, and weeks, and prior, after rain events during, and after rain events BMP -032 Weekly, and prior, Every two weeks, Property dispose of obsolete equipment and vehicles. during, and after rain and prior, during, and events after rain events 3 -9 September 15, 2009 Mr. Jim Knowlton, P.E. City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONiwc. SEP 1 6 2009 Re: Response to 3'a Party Structural Review by Geopacifica Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Shotcrete Facing & Tiebacks Gerber Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No: 08/087 MUP /CDP /EIA Dear Mr. Knowlton: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following responses to your review of our structural calculations for the subject project. The engineered plans and calculations should be considered a part of our geotechnical reports prepared to date for this project. Design parameters utilized in our calculations are conservative are based on our extensive experience working on Encinitas bluff repair projects along Neptune Avenue. In regards to the seismic parameters SEC recommends a seismic coefficient of 0.15g's. This is an acceptable value used in the design of similar structures along the Encinitas bluff areas as well as in the State of California. If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Respectfully submitted, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. JoiW W. Niven, P.E. (( (k A Robert D. Ma G. ExP. 0670 -tt (� EXP.OW1110 i 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760( 633 -3472 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONIMc September 1, 2009 Mr. Steve Nowak, Assistant Civil Engineer City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate & Project Bonding Amount Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Shotcrete Facing & Tiebacks Across Exposed Caisson Structure Gerber Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No: 08/087 MUP /CDP/EIA Dear Steve: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter presenting our engineer's construction cost estimate for the aesthetic /structural hand sculpted Shotcrete facing and tiebacks over the exposed portions of the caisson structure at the subject site. The scope of work is the installation of a hand sculpted, reinforced shotcrete skin over exposures of the upper bluff caisson retention system. The work estimated below assumes that the area to receive treatment is 50 feet in length and no more than 25 feet high. Scope of Work Cost Bond Percentage Bonding Amount Mobilization & Install Scaffolding $10,000 25% $2,500 Material & Installation of Reinforcing Steel (1,250 SF $18,750 25% $4,700 Installation of Hand Sculpted Shotcrete (1,250SF @ $40 /SF $50,000 100% $50,000 Installation of 6 Tiebacks (@ S4,500 each) $27,000 25% $6,750 Installation of Grade Beam (50LF@ $300/1,F) $15,000 1 25% $3,750 Landscape & Irrigation $15,000 1 100% $15,000 Demobilization & Scaffold Removal $8,000 1 25% $2,000 TOTAL BOND AMOUNT $84,700.00 560 N Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encintus, California (760)63 }3470 Fu (760) 633 -3472 BAIL CINSi NOMNIM Mr. Steve Nowak September 1, 2009 Page 2 If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Respectfully submitted, SO NG ERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. John Niven R.C.E. 57517 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Eminims, Califonua (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472 Recording Requested By and ) THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT When Recorded Mail To: ) WAS RECORDED ON NOV 04.2009 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2009- 0615396 DAVID L BUTLER. COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME. 10.02 AM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 S. Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF COASTAL BLUFF & STEEP SLOPES CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 256- 011 -09 Case Nos.: 00-113 MUP /CDP & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP Grey Diamond Marketing, Inc. ( "GRANTOR" hereinafter), does hereby grant, convey and dedicate an open space easement to the CITY OF ENCINITAS, State of California ( "CITY" hereinafter), with terms, covenants and conditions as follows: An easement over, upon, across, and under the lands hereinafter described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, hereinafter referred to as the subject land, to wit: (1) GRANTOR conveys a perpetual easement for open space over, upon, across and under the subject land consisting of all steep slopes and bluff face not disturbed or restored by the grading as shown on the approved project drawings for Case No. 00 -113 MUP /CDP/EIA and Case No. 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP. No building, structure or other improvements whatsoever shall be constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the subject land, nor shall grading be performed, except as is permitted by Case Nos. 00 -113 MUP /CDP/EIA & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP, as said permits were issued by Resolution Nos. PC 2001 -11 & PC 2009 -23 of the Planning Commission on March 1, 2001 and August 6, 2009 respectively or as said permits may be hereinafter amended or modified pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas. Planting and maintenance of new vegetation may be performed in and on the subject land provided that all new plantings consist of native species consistent with the approvals of Case Nos. 00 -113 MUP /CDP/EIA & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP. (2) GRANTOR conveys the perpetual right, but not the obligation to enter upon the subject land and remove any buildings, structures or other things whatsoever constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the subject land contrary to any term, covenant or condition of this easement and to do any work necessary to eliminate the effects of any excavation or grading or placement of sand, soil, rock or gravel or any other material PBD/ RS/ g:\ Covenant108- 087MUPMODCDPCoastalB I u ffOpenSpaceEasement.doc placed on the subject land contrary to any term, covenant or condition of this easement (3) GRANTOR covenants and agrees for itself and its successors and assigns as follows: (A) That it shall not erect, construct, place or maintain, or permit the erection, construction, placement, or maintenance of any building or structpre or other thing whatsoever on the subject land, nor shall grading be performeil, other than such grading or other things as are permitted by Case Nos. 00 -113 MUP /CDP/EIA & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP, as said permits were issued by Resolution Nos. PC 2001 -11 & PC 2009 -23 of the Planning Commission on March 1, 2001 and August 6, 2009 respectively or as said permits may be hereinafter amended or modified pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas. (B) That, except for those portions authorized by Case Nos. 00 -113 MUP /CDP/EIA & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP for grading and landscaping, it shall not use the subject land for any purpose except as open space to permanently maintain the steep slopes and bluff face. (C) That it shall not excavate or grade or permit any excavating or grading to be done or, place or allow to be placed any sand, soil, rock, gravel or other material whatsoever on the subject land without the written permission of CITY or its successors or assigns; provided, however, that grantor may excavate, grade or place sand, soil, rock or gravel or other material on the subject land as is permitted by Case No 00 -113 MUP /CDP /EIA & 08 -087 MUPMOD /CDP, as said permits were issued by Resolution Nos. PC 2001 -11 & PC 2009 -23 of the Planning Commission on March 1, 2001 and August 6, 2009 respectively or as said permits may be hereinafter amended or modified pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas. (D) That the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein may be specifically enforced or enjoined by proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California. It is agreed that the grant of this easement and its acceptance by CITY shall not authorize the public or any members thereof to use or enter upon all or any portion of the subject land, it being understood that the purpose of this easement is solely to restrict the use to which the subject land may be put. This easement shall bind the owner and its successors and assigns. GRANTOR: Dated 0 by onna mdner, aging Member of Grey Diamond Marketing, Inc. maid of C&V"bW : SS (Notarizations of GRANTOR'S signature is attached.) NO dSII" 'IV �:Col day Of by PBD/RS /g:\ Covenant\ 08- 087MUPMODCDPCoastalBluffDpeoSpaceEascment .doc er an Any cottunhsim mgms OcM i 31, CITY OF ENCINITAS: I certify on behalf of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to Resolution No. PC 2009 -23 dated August 6, 2009, that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Grant of Coastal Bluff and Steep Slopes Conservation Open Space Easement and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. • Dated (Notarization not required) by Tom Curriden City Planner PBD/RS /g:\ Covenant\ 08- 087MUPMODCDPCoastalBluf7OpenSpaceEasement. doc EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 IN BLOCK 11 OF SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1859, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1925, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF BLOCK D OF SAID MAP NO. 1859 BEING A WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY SIDELINES OF SAID LOT 13, THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF SAID BLOCK D BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTHCOAST LAND COMPANY TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, BY DEED DATED JANUARY 10, 1930, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 138 OF DEEDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO, 14309, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1993 AS FILE NO. 93- 612207, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, NORTH 740 11'35" EAST 13.85 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 230 58'52" EAST 50.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13 CHRIS . C REMELE g "D D C/ S �oPq�y' P�5 U N0. LS 5267 m z N Exp. 12 -31 -09 1 -o C� z s m v� -6 7` EXHIBI T "B" BLOCK 11 MAP NO. 1859 \ LOT 14 113.35 471 35'1 N 99.50 o SCALE. 1' =30' 794 NEPTUNE AVE. LOT 13 R.O.S. 14309 101•` N 7A73'12 "E LOT 12 1N 2� cp 20 o. ck m Z 9 \N� 1051, LINE DATA TABLE NUMBER DIRECTION DISTANCE L1 N 7471'35" E 1 13.85' L2 S 23 58'52' E 50.47' L3 S 74'13'12" W 1 10.51' MAP PREPARED BY CHRIS D. CIREMELE, LS 5267 164 S. ESCONDIDO BLVD, ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 (760) 489 -2200 lt) t9 ll CHRIS D. CIREM LE LIC. EXP. 12131 12009 INDICATES PROPOSED OPEN SPACE EASEMENT NOTE- BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS PER RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 14309. re NG 0 'C 4 LA EXP. 12/31/09 4y, NO.5267 OF Cae CITY OF ENCINI TAS OPEN SPACE EASEMENT PLAT 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINI TAS, CA 92024 APN: 256 - 011 -09 SCALE: 1 " =30' DATE: 10129109 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27361.7 Place of Execution I certify under penalty of perjury that this material is a true copy of the original material contained in this document. MEWED Date Signature of Declarant Type or Print Name District of Columbia; SS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 day of Oct , 2009 by Ronna Lindner Signature Robert Kotchenreuther II, Notary Public, D.C. My Commission expires October 31, 2011 4/94 Recorder Form RR9 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONINc. October 14, 2009 Steve Nowak City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: REVISED - Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate — Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Shotcrete Facing & Tiebacks Across Exposed Caisson Structure Gerber Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No: 07 -060 MUP /CDP /EIA Dear Steve: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter presenting our engineer's construction cost estimate for the aesthetic /structural hand sculpted shotcrete facing and tiebacks over the exposed portions of the caisson structure at the subject site. The scope of work is the installation of a hand sculpted, reinforced shotcrete skin over exposures of the upper bluff caisson retention system. The work estimated below assumes that the area to receive treatment is 42 feet in length and no more than 29 feet high. Construction of Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Facina & Tiebacks Mobilization & Install Scaffolding = $10,000.00 Material & Installation of Reinforcing Steel (1,218 SF) _ $15,750.00 Installation of Hand Sculpted Shotcrete (1,218 SF @ $40 /SF) _ $48,720.00 Installation of 30 Tiebacks (2 Rows of 5 @ $3,500 each) _ $35,000.00 Installation of 2 Grade Beams (84 total LF @ $250 /LF) _ $21,000.00 Demobilization & Scaffold Removal = $8,000.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs = $138,470.00 These cost estimates exclude engineering and permit processing fees and only includes the cost of the construction work. If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Respectfully submitted, SOI GINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. Joh r . Niven R.C.E. 57517 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinit 13 -3472 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONiNe. -- October 14, 2009 Mr. Steve Nowak, Assistant Civil Engineer City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: REVISED - Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate & Project Bonding Amount Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Shotcrete Facing & Tiebacks Across Exposed Caisson Structure Gerber Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No: 08/087 MUP /CDP /EIA Dear Steve: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter presenting our revised engineers construction cost estimate for the aesthetic /structural hand sculpted Shotcrete facing and tiebacks over the exposed portions of the caisson structure at the subject site. The scope of work is the installation of a hand sculpted, reinforced shotcrete skin over exposures of the upper bluff caisson retention system. The work estimated below assumes that the area to receive treatment is 42 feet in length and no more than 29 feet high. The total cost for the work proposed is $138,470.00. Scope of Work cost Bond Percentage Bonding Amount Mobilization & Install Scaffolding $10,000 25% $2,500 Material & Installation of Reinforcing Steel (1,218SF) $15,750 25% $3,940 Installation of Hand Sculpted Shotcrete (1,218 SF @ $40 /SF) $48,720 100% $48,720 Installation of 10 Tiebacks (@ $3,500 each) $35,000 25% $8,750 Installation of Grade Beam (84 LF@ $250 /LF) $21,000 25% $5,250 Landscape & Irrigation $15,000 100% $15,000 Demobilization & Scaffold Removal $8,000 25% $2,000 TOTAL BOND AMOUNT $86,160.00 If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Respectfully submitted, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. tokven 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas 'IS 1. 1 1 I V r R N k- 1 N 1 1 ki J ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 10315GI PARCEL NO. : 256- 011 -0900 PLAN NO.: 10315G JOB SITE ADDRESS: 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE CASE NO.: 08087 / CDP APPLICANT NAME RONNA LINDNER & RICHARD GERBER MAILING ADDRESS: 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE PHONE NO.: CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024- CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION LICENSE NO.: 268082 ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 11110109 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/10 PERMIT ISSUED INSPECTOR: RON BRADY -------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS PHONE NO.: 760 - 633 -3470 LICENSE TYPE: A PHONE 760 - 633 -3470 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. GIS MAP FEE .00 3. INSPECTION FEE 6,154.10 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. NPDES INSPT FEE .00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 86,160.00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FE .00 8. TRAFFIC FEE .00 9. IN -LIEU UNDERGRN .00 10.IN -LIEU IMPROVMT .00 ll.PLAN CHECK FEE 00 12.PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT TO GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND EROSION CONTROL PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN 10315 -G. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS. LETTER DATED OCTOBER 20. 2009. - - -- 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 ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. SI URE /C= PRINT NADfE CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER ////o DATE GN ;Vo_ 633. 3�/7D TELEPHONE NUMBER ELJ PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RENTENTION STRUCTURE 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: _ -1 Mr. Richard Gerber — NOV 1 0 2009 February 20, 2008 - -- 560 N. Hwy 101, Sume S, Encatilas, Califomv (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472 SIR ENGINEERING CINSTRRCTINN.E February 20, 2008 Mr. Richard Gerber 794 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report Proposed Maintenance Repairs to Existing Retention Structure 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Dear Richard: In accordance with your request, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. has completed this Preliminary Geotechnical recommendation report of the coastal bluff and the existing structures below your property. This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed urgent maintenance repairs to an existing approved and permitted upper bluff retention wall. It is our opinion that the recommendations contained in this report are consistent with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and with all appropriate provisions of the California Coastal Act. The following report documents our findings and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning geotechnical aspects of the coastal bluff as well as the most appropriate engineering solutions for the needed onsite structure maintenance. The most significant geotechnical issues affecting the site are: The ongoing mid bluff erosion is presently extending eastward intersecting the rear yard caisson system. The proposed project is an anticipated emergency repair to the below - grade, rear yard system at 794 Neptune. As the coastal bluff has failed to the east, the caissons have become exposed. Without remedial emergency maintenance, the bluff will continue to fail between, and potentially behind, the caissons, ultimately impacting the residential structure in the near future. These areas that are subject to imminent failures that will likely result in failure of existing onsite retaining structures as well as the bluff areas above them which serve to protect the residential structures on the subject site as well as on the neighboring properties. As noted in the report, we believe that the conditions at the site pose a significant threat to the bluff top structure and it is recommended that immediate maintenance repairs, consisting of the 560N. Hwy 101, Suiu: S, Encinkm Califaoia (760) 633 -3470 Fu (760) 613 -3472 installation of one row of tiebacks and grade beam along the base of the exposed caisson wall. In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed caisson for the full width of the property. Some trimming of the bluff immediately adjacent to and on the caissons will be necessary. It is recommended that this work be done carefully and by hand. Design parameters for this repair are presented in our design calculations. It is recommended that the bluff face below the proposed tied back shotcrete repair should be planted with drought tolerant coastal plantings. The new planting may be placed using a hydroseed mix. It is further recommended that the Owner perform supplemental plantings on a bi -yearly basis until substantial plant growth is established. The hydroseeding should be performed during the late fall to early spring periods of the year. As per the City's Aesthetic Appearance Policy, all of the existing retaining structures will be covered with a structural /aesthetic hand sculpted and colored shotcrete so that it will blend into the natural bluff conditions in the area. Accompanying this report are engineering drawings and calculations for the repair of the bluff and bluff retaining structures. We trust that this report meets your present needs. If you should have any questions or need more information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. %O N. Hwy 101 _ Suite 5, Foitinitr California (760)(33 -3470 F'ax (760)633-3472 2 PRELIMINARY GEOTECIINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RETENTION STRUCTURE 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PRIMARY REFERENCES: 1. Repairs to Upper Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction Inc., dated March 24, 2008. 2. Structural Calculations, Repairs to Upper Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated March 24, 2008. 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation/Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Retention System, Mattingley Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 10, 1999. 4. Structural Calculations for Repairs to Lower Bluff — Concrete Seawall at the Toe of Existing Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 8, 1999. 5. Structural Calculations for Repairs to Upper Bluff — Buried Drilled Pier Wall with Tiebacks, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated January 28, 1999. 6. Preliminary Observations and Recommendations, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 18, 1998. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) geotechnical evaluation of the existing approved and permitted upper bluff retention system at 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. A site location map is shown attached Figure 1. This report was conducted at the request of the property owner based on the owner's observation of the ongoing erosion occurring on the westerly facing bluff exposing some of the caissons for the retention system. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for the anticipated repairs to the previously approved and permitted structure located at the rear of the subject property. Elements of the report include a general evaluation of subsurface soil and geologic conditions, and a presentation of useful information relevant to the coastline erosion processes in the area. Based on site visits and geotechnical documentation, SEC, Inc. has determined that the existing conditions pose a threat that requires a more immediate response. This report outlines geotechnical considerations, findings, conclusions and recommendations pertinent to providing time - sensitive repairs to the existing permitted upper coastal bluff retention structure necessary for the long term stabilization and protection of the primary residential structure. Reviewers and users of this report should also utilize our engineered design calculations and plans when interpreting this report. The engineered plans and calculations are part of this geotechnical document. Design parameters utilized in our calculations are conservative are based on our extensive experience working on Encinitas bluff repair projects along Neptune Avenue and are not represented in this document. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this geotechnical evaluation includes the following: GerberResidence -94 Neptune Prelim. Geotechnicai Recommendations Rpt • Review of geological and topographical maps and literature pertaining to the sites and vicinity. (see Appendix A). • Geological reconnaissance to record, measure and map portions of the coastal bluff pertaining to the existing site conditions. • Preparation of the final draft of this report. 3.0 BLUFF I SITE DESCRIPTION According to the topographic survey prepared by Ciremele Surveying (dated March 21, 2008) and our recent field observations, the subject site is located atop a coastal bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Leucadia, San Diego County, California. The "building pad" portion of the site is located between approximately 92 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), and consists of relatively flat - lying to gentle ascending ground eastward from the top of bluff toward Neptune Avenue. A single - family, two story, residence occupies a majority of the "building pad ". The single - family residence appears to be a wood framed residential structure with appurtenant improvements. The project is bounded on the east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences on the north and south, and on west by and approximately 92 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea bluff. An existing approximately 50 foot long, 15 foot high, 27 -inch thick, reinforced concrete seawall was constructed in March 1999. The seawall incorporates two rows of tieback anchors approximately 45 to 55 feet in length and has been colored and sculpted to match the existing surrounding bluff area. Also in 1999, the construction of a below- grade, approximately 67 foot long concrete reinforced upper bluff retention system (50 lineal ft. parallel to the bluff edge and 17 lineal feet along the northern property line). The retention system was constructed in the rear yard of the residence approximately five feet east of the western bluff edge of its location in 1999 and consists of steel reinforced concrete caissons that have been drilled to a depth of 38 feet and placed 8 feet on center, with tiebacks and capped by steel and concrete. At this time, the bluff has eroded to the point that some of the vertical piers and the upper grade beam are now exposed. GerberResidence 794 Neptune Prelim Geotechnical Recommendanons Rpt 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A site reconnaissance was performed by a staff geologist under the supervision of our licensed engineering geologist. During the reconnaissance, the geologic conditions exposed in the coastal bluff were documented. The attached Geologic Map (Figure 1), which has been modified from the 10 -scale topographic survey and construction plans prepared by SEC (March 24, 2008), presents the general geologic conditions of the coastal bluff at the site. Soil and geologic units were noted to be very similar to previous sampled and tested soil/geologic units of this area of Neptune Avenue. t; l =lT�1TIC1Zl7Z�If��1I1673- 0_13M I R11ft YNO � Relzional Geolot_y The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are generally underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre - Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous -age plutonic rocks and Jurassic -age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid- to late - Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. Geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2005) indicate that site geologic units include Quaternary marine beach deposits, Quaternary old paralic deposits, and the Tertiary Santiago Formation. GeterResidence Prelim. xotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune L ON U0 , NA IVA• �• �� LEGEND O• Ouahwnary beach depoft Tsa GEOLOGIC MA- 10 0 10 Regional bedding trends northeast and dips 5 degrees to the northwest. Kennedy and Tan (2005) have also mapped several northeast trending faults within the seacliff near the site. Regional and local faulting is discussed later in this report. A regional geologic map, modified from Kennedy and Tan (2005), is presented as Figure 2. Tan (1986) indicates that the site is located in Landslide Susceptibility Areas 2 and 4, which are respectively defrled as areas marginally and most susceptible to landslides. Coastal Bluff Geomorpholozy The typical coastal -bluff profile may be divided into three zones; the shore platform, a lower near - vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff, and an upper bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 30 and 45 degrees. The bluff top is the boundary between the upper bluff and geomorphic surface of the coastal terrace. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area that extends to approximate elevation of -60 feet MSL, termed the near -shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near -shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near - horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (h:v). The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower vertical and near - vertical section of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff - platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near -shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all, or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In the case of a shoreline with a bluff. the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. GertwResidence 794 Neptune 5 Prelim Geotecnnical Recommendations Rpt 5 Qty iamb Qop7 Qop6 Tca J— ..W. l SITE LEGEND oualernary lendable deposits undivided ouaternary marine beach deposits Ouaternary old paraliic deposits - 1-W 7 Quaternary old parsoc deposits - Unit 8 ouate ary old paraec depoMs - Units 2 through 4 Tertiary eenbdgo Formavon Strike and dip of bade FKU)00 Oop2 -4 N A w 0 845 Scalc p ° ^' Rom Kennedy and Tan 2UU,, REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Figure 2 Emery and Kuhn (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982) designated this portion of the coast as "active" and "Type C (c)," as the surficial deposits are relatively thick with respect to the underlying bedrock. The letter "C" designates coastal bluffs where the sea cliff portion of the bluff is more resistant to erosion that the upper bluff portion. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is about equal to that of marine erosion. However, the presence of the upper and lower bluff retention systems are protecting the sea cliff from active marine erosion, and portions of the upper bluff from subaerial erosion. Site Geolo¢ic Units Based upon a review of SEC (1999a and 1999b) and our observations during the recent site reconnaissance, site geologic units include Quaternary beach deposits, undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary terrace deposits, and bedrock units consisting of the Tertiary Santiago and the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone. The Tertiary Santiago and the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone were not directly observed at the site during the site reconnaissance because of the present low relief sand berm, vegetation, and a lower bluff seawall that conceal the sea cliff. However, a review of SEC (1999a and 1999b) indicates that these formational units underlie the site. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest, and their limits are delineated on Figure 1. Quaternary Beach Deposits (Man Symbol Qb) A transient shingle beach composed of rounded, fine- to medium - grained sand and sparse cobbles exists at the base of the bluff. The thickness of the sandy beach deposits varies seasonally. During winter months, storm related surf and currents typically remove the sand from the beach and transport it offshore. The sand is typically re- deposited along the beach during the summer months when calmer seas and currents prevail. Previous beach replenishment GerberResidence Prelim. Geotechnlcai Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune efforts by SANDAG have resulted in a low relief berm near the rear of the beach. Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol- Afu) According to SEC (1999a and 1999b), undocumented fill soils, consisting of brown, moist loose to medium dense silty sands, occur within the upper 3 feet of the building pad, mainly on the eastern portions of the building pad area. Based upon a review of available topographic maps and information gathered during our previous subsurface exploration, the thickness of these soils may vary across the site. Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Also according to SEC (1999a and 1999b), Quaternary terrace deposits comprise the coastal bluff at the site between approximately 24%2 and 91 feet MSL, and currently comprise the exposed mid and upper bluff areas. According to SEC (1999a), these deposits generally consist of orange - brown, yellow - brown, light gray- brown, light brown, and brown silty to slightly silty sand to light yellow, gray, and gray -brown fine- to medium - grained sand. The terrace deposits typically vary between thickly and poorly bedded to thinly and well bedded. Due to their generally cohesionless nature, the terrace deposits are considered highly erosive and are subject to sandflows and slumps when saturated. Killing was observed within the terrace deposits at the site. Tertiary Santiago (Map Symbol - Ta) As indicated in SEC (1999a), the Tertiary Santiago formation unconformably underlies the terrace deposits at an approximate elevation of 24'/2 feet MSL. These formational sediments generally consist of a gray siltstone with some sand. Tertiary Torrey Sandstone (not mapped) GerberResidence Prelim. Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neotune The Tertiary Torrey Sandstone was encountered at depth below the Santiago (SEC, 1999a). This formation generally consists of a gray brown, dry, very dense sandstone. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE According to SEC (1999b), bedding within the Santiago formation is estimated to dip approximately 2' /z degrees in a northerly direction. Elliot (2001) indicates that bedding planes, within the Santiago formation, form an approximately east - northeasterly plunging shallow syncline which is approximately centered in the middle of the June 2, 1996 landslide. The subject site rests on the southern limb of this syncline where bedding dips approximately 3 to 7 degrees in a northeasterly direction (Elliot, 2001), or into slope. Numerous faults are exposed within the sea cliff of the Leucadia coastline. The subject site is located between the Beacon's and Seawall faults. According to Elliot (2001), the Beacon's fault trends N 5"E and dips approximately 75" to the west. Elliot (2001) indicates that the Seawall fault generally trends N20 "E and dips approximately 82" west. Please see the following narrative for a summary of regional1local faulting and seismicity. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY San Andreas Transform Fault Svstem The San Andreas transform -Fault system is a family of right - lateral faults that evolved along the continental margin of western North America since middle Miocene time in response to interactions between the North American plate and various oceanic plates to the west. Depending on the plate size, geometry, and boundary conditions, this motion produced either rotation or translation (e.g., the western Transverse Ranges), transtensional rifting (e.g., the outer borderland), or partioning of strain into nearly pure strike -slip motion (e.g., Baja California). As the transform system evolved in a simple shear environment (i.e., only the Pacific Plate is moving obliquely), a geometric relationship developed among fault structures, with the San GerberResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune g_ Andreas fault zone becoming the principal displacement zone. More northerly striking faults evolved (synthetic shears) and east- westerly faults evolved (antithetic shears). The San Andreas fault zone (the principal displacement zone) and the northerly trending faults that developed showed right - lateral slip, whereas, the east- westerly trending faults that developed originally showed left- lateral slip (Sylvester, 1988). A similar scenario may have initiated the easterly trending faults exposed in the coastal bluffs of Leucadia. Alternatively, these easterly trending faults may be a result of local extensional stress in a northwest - southeast oriented direction. This is discussed later in the text of this report. As summarized by Matti, et al. (1992), in central California, displacement has occurred mainly along the San Andreas proper. In southern California, however, the total displacement has been taken up by several discreet fault strands - including the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Punchbowl, San Gabriel, and Banning faults, as well as other structures (Matti and Morton, 1993), with some displacement being partitioned to the Elsinore, Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon, and Coronado Bank faults, among others. The California Continental Borderland is a complex part of the continental transform fault boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates (Legg and Kennedy, 1991). The region is underlain by numerous Cenozoic faults that are subparallel to the San Andreas fault. The Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone is considered a part of, or aligned with, this zone. Although, in general, these faults are mostly right -slip in character, conforming with the relative plate motion in the region, segments of the offshore fault zones show local convergence or extension associated with bends. In addition, regional variability in partitioning of the plate boundary strain across and among these faults also results in many fault segment showing oblique movement. These faults have the potential to generate uplift or subsidence during a major offshore earthquake which could result in generation of a tsunami, such as was observed in 1927 offshore of Lompoc, in Central California. GerberRestdence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune The Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canvon Fault Zone As summarized by Fischer and Mills (1991), the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone trends southeast from the east -west trending Santa Monica fault zone in the north, through San Diego Bay in the south, and is considered to be one continuous fault zone. The southern Rose Canyon zone may connect to the Pescadero fault near the International Border and become part of the Agua Blanca system in Baja California. The northern Newport- Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles basin is a narrow belt of discontinuous, dominantly left- stepping, en echelon faults and folds that is the result of movement along a major through- going, right -slip fault in basement rocks. The southern onshore Newport- Inglewood fault zone and the Newport- Inglewood - rose Canyon fault zone are in general less complex zones of linear dominantly left - stepping shears. The site is located approximately 3 miles west of the principal traces of the Rose Canyon fault zone. This zone consists of a continuous, northwest trending, broad zone of right lateral oblique slip faults. Recent studies at one location in Rose Canyon (La Jolla) have indicated Holocene activity along one strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Lindvall, et al., 1989). As a result of these studies, the State of California has classified a portion of the fault between Mission Bay and La Jolla Cove, as well as downtown San Diego, as active. Local Faulting As previously indicated, several northeast and east - northeast trending faults, including the Beacon's and Seawall faults, have been mapped within the site's vicinity (Kennedy and Tan, 2005; Eisenberg, 1983). These relatively short, synthetic strike -slip faults occurred in conjunction with movement along the Rose Canyon fault prior to between 85,000 and 125,000 years BY (Eisenberg, 1985). As such, they do not meet the criteria for active faults (i.e., movement within the Holocene epoch, or last "11,000 years "), according to the State of California (Hart and Bryant, 2007), and from the standpoint of location of habitable structures for human occupancy, should not pose a constraint . However, should a large earthquake occur GerherResidence Prelim Geotechrncal Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune 10 - on one of the nearby active faults, some sympathetic secondary movement on these faults may also occur, potentially resulting in some distress to overlying settlement - sensitive improvements. This potential is not any greater than for nearby already developed properties with similar geologic conditions. Probabilistic Horizontal Site Acceleration WSHA) A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000), which models earthquake sources as 3 -D planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo- relative velocity levels. Based on a review of this data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.27 g was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 -year return period). Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other GerberResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 94 Neptune i i- existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, significant tidal waves generated from a seismic event could affect the lower portion of the site and affect overall bluff stability, possibly even affecting the existing structure and proposed bluff retention system. However, we are unaware of any viable protection mitigation for tsunamis. 6.0 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER No observed groundwater seepage was observed at the beach or on the bluff face. We note that seasonal perched groundwater levels and conditions can fluctuate due to factors such as rainfall amounts, rainfall intensity, temperatures, or other factors. Changes in this perched groundwater condition can affect the stability of the upper bluff area. The runoff of surface water on the property appears to drain towards the east as sheet flow and also via a sump pump system toward Neptune Avenue. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The result of our geotechnical and civil engineering evaluation indicates that the primary residential structure may be impacted within the next twelve months by one or any combination of the substandard conditions on site. These conditions are: The ongoing mid bluff erosion is presently extending eastward intersecting the rear yard caisson system. The proposed project is an anticipated emergency repair to the below - grade, rear yard system at 794 Neptune. As the coastal bluff has failed to the east, the caissons have become exposed- Without remedial emergency maintenance, the bluff will continue to fail between, and potentially behind, the caissons, ultimately impacting the residential structure. GerberResidence 794 Neptune [2- Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 2. Loss of passive resistance if erosion extends below it current levels. The slope now appears to be at its angle of repose and probably won't erode more /flatter if the landscape recommendations provided below are carried out. Reviewers and users of this report should also utilize our engineered design calculations and plans when interpreting this report. The engineered plans and calculations are part of this geotechnical document. Design parameters utilized in our calculations are conservative are based on our extensive experience working on Encinitas bluff repair projects along Neptune Avenue and are not represented in this document. Based on the findings presented above, we believe that the conditions at the site pose a significant threat to the bluff top structure and it is recommended that immediate maintenance repairs, consisting of the installation of one row of tiebacks and grade beam along the base of the exposed caisson wall. In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed caisson for the full width of the property. Some trimming of the bluff immediately adjacent to and on the caissons will be necessary. It is recommended that this work be done carefully and by hand. Design parameters for this repair are presented in our design calculations. It is recommended that the bluff face below the proposed tied back shotcrete repair should be planted with drought tolerant coastal plantings. The new planting may be placed using a hydroseed mix. It is further recommended that the Owner perform supplemental plantings on a bi -yearly basis until substantial plant growth is established. The hydroseeding should be performed during the late fall to early spring periods of the year. As noted above, construction plans and calculations for the work described above have been prepared and are submitted with this report for review by the City of Encinitas Planning and Engineering Departments. GerberResidence 794 Neptune M Prelim Geolechnical Recommendations Rpt In summary, it is our opinion that in order to protect the residential structure at the subject site from potential damage / failure, the immediate construction of the recommended coastal bluff stabilization measures is required. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND CHANGING CONDITIONS This preliminary geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at 794 Neptune Avenue is based on our document review, our experience in coastal bluff projects, and our observations of the geological conditions exposed in the coastal bluff at this locality. This report assumes that the geologic /soils conditions do not deviate appreciably from those observed and/or encountered. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the subject site coastal bluff locality. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of this region can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man at this vicinity. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us. Attachments: Appendix A — References GerberResidence 794 Neptune 14- Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rot APPENDIX A Blake, T_F.,2000, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3 -D faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004. Eisenberg, L.I., 1983, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists (1985). 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, Plate 3, Scale: 1:26,510.5, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7. Fisher, PJ., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, WJ., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault - rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist- Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2, 1999. Kennedy, Michael P., and Tan, Saing S., 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey 1:100,000. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system." Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in southern California: A reconstruction based on a new cross -fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. II, and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the central Transverse Ranges Province, southern California, in Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds, Earthquake geology San Andreas fault system, Palm Springs to Palmdale. Soil Engineering, Construction, 1999a, Supplemental geotechnical information, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated February 18. 1999b, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation/request for emergency processing, proposed lower bluff seawall and upper bluff retention system, Mattingley residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated February 10. 1999c, Repairs to upper bluff, Mattingley residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Sheet 3 of 4, 10- scale, Drawing no. 794 -03, Project no. 99 -016, dated January 28. Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike slip faults in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666 -1703. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, landslide hazard identification map no. 4, Scale: 1:24,000 in California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 86 -8. Towill, March 14, 2006 revised November 29, 2006, Topographic map of Neptune Avenue for Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 20- scale, Job No. 12082 -101, no Drawing No. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The Geomorphology of Rock Coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., 1994, FINAL Beach bluff erosion report, RFP #93 -01, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California, PN 93181 -00, dated January 24. SOIL EnclnaE =lnc consc3ucclon., February 18, 1999 Mr. Lee McEachern, Senior Planner VIA MALL & FAX (619) 521 -%72 California Coastal Commission —San Diego Coast Area 3111 Camino del Rio North San Diego, California 92108 Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Information Nov 10 X09 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Dear Mr. McEachem: The following letter has been prepared to provide supplemental geotechnical information for the subject project. On February 17, 1999, SEC advanced a boring on the property to a depth of approximately 95 feet. The purpose of this subsurface exploration was to confirm information presented in our report "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation / Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Retention System, Mattingley Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", dated February 10, 1999. As noted above, our subsurface exploration consisted of advancing a boring, B -1 .794, to a maximum depth of about 95 feet. The boring location is shown on Plate 5. An engineer from this office logged the boring, collected disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples, and oversaw the drilling operation. The boring was advanced using a CME 75 High Torque truck mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8 -inch hollow -stem augers and a automatic trip hammer for soil sampling. The drill rig and operator were supplied by Tri- County Drilling, Inc., of San Diego, California. Subsurface soils were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D2488 -84 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the boring are presented on Plate I through 4 and are attached to this correspondence. As encountered in the boring, the site is underlain by up to about 3 feet of fill consisting of silty sands. Underlying the said fill are Terrace deposits to a depth of approximately 69.5 feet. Underlying the fill and the Terrace deposits is the Ardath formation. The Ardath formation was continuously sampled, using a continuous core barrel, to observe any clay seams and/or shear zones. No clay seams or shear zones were observed from the recovered samples. At a depth of approximately 93 feet, Torrey formation was encountered. A trace of groundwater was observed, perched over the Ardath formation at a depth of approximately 69 feet. 927 Arcue c :rreer Ze^:.000 Cir.• Ccufcr ^.,o 04063 - 1310'650) 367 -9595 •FAX :cSC) 36i -8139 Mr. Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission February 18, 1999 Page 2 Based on these findings, it is our opinion that the information presented in our February 10, 1999 report are appropriate for the purposes of recommending geotechnical design parameters for the design and construction of a lower bluff seawall and an upper bluff retention system If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. truly yo Jo iven P.E. C: Mr. Richard Mattingly nl I t1e. t Robert D. Mahony, G.E., C.E.G. 1, IMLLING COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRIL UNG BORING DIAMETER: 9 Inch Flabw Sena DATE 2J17= Auper NOTE SPi- Standard Penaadon Tat RINGS - 2.5' Dmm Semple Ma.un. Carart ( %) sod cMeea (U.3.C.3) 8011/q No- B-10794 301E DESCRIPTION Elerdon OM' -L M.S.L. PSF721 M 58 gD i SM SM 3P/sM W erernera ®H- 4' In.t FILL Brown eep aw4 nesK modern dersr RRACE DEPOSFfS: Onng@ br dfY md, mwt medium deae 1 V becomes YWOW down §W* �Y een4 edp * "MK me*= derrA ® X bemma Mgm grey t n>wn aMgbW wiry sand. Bhgt y morel, very dense 25' acme se above except bemmes dense 3P same as above 10 RINGS 15 ZD SPT 1 251 030 LOG OF BORING P4de No. 1 SOIL ENGNEERING CONSTRLICTION 500 N. NghwW 101, Soto 5, Enarbee, CA 02021 NOTE SPi- Standard Penaadon Tat RINGS - 2.5' Dmm Semple ) $ | I � § | P 7 2 K | | | s ■ � & a , � 2 § n a || § ¥ 4 ! ! � � I | � I | 7 | | ` f � r 7 2 K | | | fa i pIp COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRILLING BORING DIAMETER: a Inch Hollow Slant DATE 2M 7M Au NOTE SPT. Sbndard Peroration Teat RINGS - 2.5' dive Semple n::(Iq Cohan Derry mood" Cohort( %) Sad Cis (U.S.C.S) IBoring No. B•1Q7a4 SOIL DESCRIPTION Ebwoon 94'N-M.S.L. 00 125 for I 152 for 6 ti W GrounUwmlr over ArWlh 65 70 e9.5' ARDATN FORMATION: Gyq dborr n/ some earh4 dry to 811191 My mot very lard ow linden cmi g Q 70' no dry .seen a enter zones observed in htc .rrhple draw End Mnttnuorn =b Q 75 Sample recovery 3.5 Same as above ' Begin ,ntjnucrar oonng Q 75.5 no cloy sauna, or shear zones observed in rec. sample I Find cordtarou coring Q NY Sample recovery 3.3' Bs* OIPR COMB Q B(Y no day scams M sheaf zones obser ed tn rec. sample So w Above I I I End continuo- 004119 ® 85' Sample recovery 4' Been continuous coring Q 85 no day semis or Meer zones obseved in roc. sample Same se above End cominuous coring Q 90' Sample recovery 3' Begin cormnuoin coon 90' no semen or shear zones observed b roc. seen SPT 75 7 eg 95 90 SOIL ENGINEERING LOG C,ONSTRUCT)ON OF BORING plain No. 3 580 N. Nghey 101, Sub 5, EawYhar, CA 92021 NOTE SPT. Sbndard Peroration Teat RINGS - 2.5' dive Semple DRIU.ING COMPANY: TRI COUNTY ORIU -M BORING DIAMETER: B hr6 5 lo4ow SO,m DATE 2717/00 AoW NOTE SPT- SLntlrd PwWaon Tad RINGS- 2.5' DrW Sa pls Bbw Dry Mona" Sod Clw. r+-rh (1q Cmft Dwm* Caomm (%) (U.S.CS) Bw" NO. B-1 ®7W SOIL DESCRIPTION FJwsibn W'+L M.S.L 00 ourft r OMNI ® 00' w dry rrrrr a slwr zorw abomed n ne rmpb �W' TORREY F MA : Grry Erown aWodpbru, dry, wry ds 95 End conlYMrora OS Sam S BORING ENDED Q APPROXIMATELY 05 FEET GROUNDWATER OBSERVED PERCHED OVER ARDATH FORMATION @ •L 60 FEET LAG OF BORING PW No. 4 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 5W N. Hplwry 101, Sukm 5, Endn&W CA 02024 NOTE SPT- SLntlrd PwWaon Tad RINGS- 2.5' DrW Sa pls w 1` r• Zs��$6 a� 3 7 O a; z q fn r 1, c " I i,j j'j 'I `I 1 I REPAIRS TO LOWER BLUFF I PLAN, PROFILE MATfINGLEY RES`DENCE SECTION A —A 794 NEPTUNE A":NUE a ' 1 t ENCINITAS. CALF,-RNIA I AND Nr`TES Iffi kill rFF� "'F F6 [f i l l r 1 }# ` 1 �� 1�` i Z :at?� sltrj�trjir �� $F� �ppp�� 1 3' xy � Ji �1 � �fi� b1p] 1(� fr It t )<17ljjr f 'Ee F:i rlrF 1 js 1 gl i �l it JJ IT '1il 1+ 111 i ♦u [cw�,t SOIL R ENGINEERING SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION. INC. CONSTRUCTION, rt k^ p ima ...nr I SOIL i=_ncmiiFiunc coniziucclon- February 18. 1999 DUE] Mr. Lee McEachern, Senior Planner VIA MAIL & FAX (619) 521 -%72 California Coastal Commission —San Diego Coast Area 3111 Camino del Rio North San Diego, California 92108 6V l no Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Information 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California - Dear Mr. McEachem: The following letter has been prepared to provide supplemental geotechnical information for the subject project. On February 17, 1999, SEC advanced a boring on the property to a depth of approximately 95 feet. The purpose of this subsurface exploration was to confirm information presented in our report "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation / Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Retention System, Mattingley Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", dated February 10,1999 - As noted above, our subsurface exploration consisted of advancing a boring, B -1 .794, to a maximum depth of about 95 feet. The boring location is shown on Plate 5. An engineer from this office logged the boring, collected disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples, and oversaw the drilling operation. The boring was advanced using a CME 75 High Torque truck mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8 -inch hollow -stem augers and a automatic trip hammer for soil sampling. The drill rig and operator were supplied by Tri- County Drilling, Inc., of San Diego, California. Subsurface soils were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the procedures ofASTM D2488 -84 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the boring are presented on Plate I through 4 and are attached to this correspondence. As encountered in the boring, the site is underlain by up to about 3 feet of fill consisting of silty sands. Underlying the said fill are Terrace deposits to a depth of approximately 69.5 feet. Underlying the fill and the Terrace deposits is the Ardath formation. The Ardath formation was continuously sampled, using a continuous core barrel. to observe any clay seams and/or shear zones. No clay seams or shear zones were observed from the recovered samples. At a depth of approximately 93 feet, Torrey formation was encountered. A trace of groundwater was observed, perched over the Ardath formation at a depth of approximately 69 feet- 927 Arcue a rrec ?ec:.000 Cm., '_el iforn -C 04063- '.710'650) 367 -9595 • FAX c5Ci 367 -5139 Mr. Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission February 18, 1999 Page 2 Based on these findings, it is our opinion that the information presented in our February 10, 1999 report are appropriate for the purposes of recommending geotechnical design parameters for the design and construction of a lower bluff seawall and an upper bluff retention system If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. AVej iven P.E. C: Mr. Richard Mattingly Vc�•J Id(lle.t Robert D. Mahony, G.E., C.E.G. 1. I)RLUbIG COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRIUJNG BORING DIAMETER: B kWh HkAm Shin OATS 2l17= NOTE SPT- StanAW Pantrnmn Tat RINGS 25' Drive Samom DRILLING COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRILUNO BORING DIAMETER: 810 r 1 WM SWn DATE V17M AuW rl' (N Blow Coat Dry Own" � CMUKA ( %) SW aN (U.S.C.S) Off" NIL &10794 SOIL DESCRIPTION Bwf4on 94' FF M.S.L 30 90 52 100 SP SP/SM ft 0 40' becomes W Yeibw A 9W down, fk* tD med= land, "gt* mdat, dens ® 5U becomes iplrt yed— S. grey, firm to mecum sw4 Cry, very dens 80' ba brown 10 down drew 35 40 R04G5 45 50 9PT 55 RINGS LOG OF BORING PFatn No, 2 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 580 N. Highway 101, SW6e 5, Enanitas, CA 92024 NOTE SPT- SW Wrd PenmiDn Teat RING& 25 - DrIm Sample DRY.L@IG COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRILLING BORING DIAMETER: 8Inch Holow SLm DATE V17M rl:B(1q Blow CasrY Dry Drover Moiaeas Cor"t I%) Soi Ciale, (U.S.C.S) Boding No. 8-1®784 SOILDESCRIPTION Bevstlen 94'-P M.S.L. 80 85 175 for 152 Tor ML IEnd Begin eV Cro nditbsf parched over Arddh 70 40 8D.5' ARDATH FORMATION: Gray ailsorrs w/ some sand, dry towY ngNl, wry had Been wntlnous co" @ 70'M GaT cent or sheer mires obswred N rec, samTM herd d Mng End continue aorb 075' Sample recovery 3.5' Same as above Begin conenuow coring @ 75.5' no Gay seems or sheer zones observed In w. sample End contnuow conrmg Q 87 Sample recovery 3.3' Begin wrttinuoue coring @ ST no Car seams or attest zones observed in rec. eample Same as Above End continuous coring Q 85' Sample recovery 4' Seen continuous conng Q BS no Gay eeams or sheer zones observed In roc. sample Same ae above wminuous coring @ 99 Sample recovery 3' continuous wwg 0 90' no clay seam or shear zones observed N rec. sampje 9Pi 75 RINGS 80 85 go SOIL ENGINEERING LOG Plate CONSTRUCTION OF BORING No. 3 580 N. H- l 101, Sute 5. Enor*W CA 92024 - NOTE: SPT- Standard Pewmbr Teat RINGS- 25' Drive Sample DRRiJNG COMPANY: TRI COUNTY DRILLING BORING DIAMETER: Il Inch Hallow SMem DATE 2M 7= n-4ry (1q Blow CounY Dry DarYy lMOn6se Contort ( %) Sol al (U.S.C.S) BOAnp No. B-407114 SOIL DESCRIPTION EWnftn GI'H -LIS.L 90 msbove mng A YO' no dry eeanr. ar ehr zatr aoeaad In rc aampM Same as 0w+ r 95 A94' TORREY M End cantl ATION: Grry bwn san y, dgeDrW M wy donee nuore BS Sam S BORING ENDED A APPROXIMATELY 95 FEET GRO UNDWATER OBSERVED PERCHED OVER ARDATH FORMATION A •L 69 FEET i, LOG OF BORING Plain No. 4 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 500 N. Highway 101, Sulin 5, Endnkw CA 9=4 NOTE; SPT- SinrWwd Psrwmon Ted RWGS -25' DrW Sample of x V a of M o+ M J _a L cu cu '[ o co h r r - 0 ..�..� fTl •SP_4,�jTt`p' s Si� i k gi }a i 8 D r #q t ptss j` er � 1 is • s r t wa._ f3 �f�Ft ' �i tF r1( r G� !3 : t till w aPfB a; x '"t 6' 6 li �ji Z IF lE 11 � t ` REPAIRS TO LOWER BLUFF PLAN PROFILE o_ MATfINGLEY RESIDENCE SECTION A -A 794 NEPTUNE A "':NUE AND NrTES ENCINITAS, CALIFC'RNIA pplap, cr ENGINEERING SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. a� CONSTRUCTION— twr J1v14J1 .w•o.. s. ... .e n r r _ r T 4 > 7,; h� F M J _a L cu cu '[ o co h r r - 0 ..�..� fTl •SP_4,�jTt`p' s Si� i k gi }a i 8 D r #q t ptss j` er � 1 is • s r t wa._ f3 �f�Ft ' �i tF r1( r G� !3 : t till w aPfB a; x '"t 6' 6 li �ji Z IF lE 11 � t ` REPAIRS TO LOWER BLUFF PLAN PROFILE o_ MATfINGLEY RESIDENCE SECTION A -A 794 NEPTUNE A "':NUE AND NrTES ENCINITAS, CALIFC'RNIA SOIL aysJ+w+r��o c 0✓F► a ENGINEERING SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. p R^ Q CONSTRUCTION— twr J1v14J1 .w•o.. s. ... .e n 111— SEP 16 2009 _S �l consviucrion.. R5D L CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED AESTHETIC & ASSOCIATED STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO UPPER BLUFF RETENTION SYSTEM PROJECT ADDRESS: 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 PREPARED FOR: MR. RICHARD GERBER PROPERTY, 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 PREPARED BY: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 560 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 5, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEL. (760) 633 -3470, FAX (760) 633 -3472 MARCH 24, 2008 JOB NO. 07 -060 REVISIONS: 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, Colifornio 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 JOB 7 14 N E� I N E_ 'A vic SHEET W. ( OF 14 CALCULATED BY P+4 DATE 3 - 24 -•o 6 CHECKED BY DATE - _ •� b N E-- !'r- vE • €-4-4 4= [ r Trf -1 r cam} l ( 07�fi`r A 9 Zio LLi A'PN Z�i> - oll - oar S 2 %4- -rCA0, k y -a l. l. i• f -T--1 c7 4:; r - OI. 4r-MG7>sit � - T = � a 21-0 -F A S7 WE--f- I C- P Ut C- A-7TEt, S% To VYPf-�, i LtiJ F'F t�h�TF�t -/•T e N i : JIB pE--e- ?--� % C- C I A � tz!- G'=+-r H A-( rs A-+4- c-+, f_s�` — F.�NC I E:F� MS Ca STP L,�r I t+C ( Sf-G) A'be-lzl -Pfd I fi H S ELo Lv_j (-Y� 2./) ?j - f-L,(i7 I N Alt- C7f�oTE f f+ r u� t� C�T)T7F�+D A-T/ �rFSr (� J pAP �s F� T A I r.i7r-- + A-1-4 C-f- 'p*,7'A-r 2 .0 -To rr- I- IS Tl r� S ri�'f,:f tT I N S rr-.j 1 L� S V c- / i Z- Ojo -o B 3 .) NT- lSL ToPos L -A4. 4-1 C- S l 1✓�/ I7�� G 1 iil f-LA--, A-C, ,1S15c S C rP e-.C- rc-E�f Ar 1 7-P + b� s E ` 1 �� a -r T I ►tC� 1-fw Z: E rr'113F -4 Gf u r 1 u 04- �J � v T AI.r A-t. - p r- � n - 7, L (� o v� 5-F7Z. t3 •� A-I.l, A-vPP L�1 c-A-Z L.f, '6E S ( Cj N A-k-'b s l S E-C, 144 C;, E 1�1 Fib -9-C P Vim ) E cX ar N I: A- V e-A-4 .� %A-SNO- � �, 10 NO. C 18458 EXP. 08.30.11 I Sep 15 09 12:09p SOIL ENGMEFENC CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 fYddo 56eet REDWOOD CITY, CALFWM 94063 (650) 367 mss FAX (60 35 17! 650- 917 -0803 p.I +cs �91f 1+fiPT�t4Er I¢'V� Cy w "17 217 - =6 'llill'�� TIR IT 7N RISE NEA UNIONS MINES M IMEMNm mi !SEEM! ■ SENSE r, A IV IN Ha IN p A b �c 00 C tl r• 1 0 I oil 11111SOMARS rNi"i"o-OW" MEMEMEN man MENEM ENE W--�Smmmmmmm P,,..=Emmmm NoME w m ommmommmmm HE /�u��MEEMME`_ "\ no- l�n � �Am mommmmm ONE ME M 0 M M M E 00.1 M JIM T�,im� PROFlLE SECTION A -A' i wu: i^ GRAPMC SCALE uo IN na 100 N b 90 tl b tl as w +0 a w SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Sheet REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 `7-�l4 N fJ I; SHEET NO P o p� ' CMCUI TED BY "^-1 CHECKED BY A- c -C-Y-f -rV t4 3-24 -0� v S P P o p� ' �t -V-E,T7• Z I o E�1..E M- A-LL A A- c -C-Y-f -rV TA- = o o A Ac-/ I" C, k� s c co , IS C� S - i� Rya I N tom, - s>r.c�h1G (E)Ta -TH c a t,4 t'T" / 01.1 I t-7 G CN-lafA -?H, --�7 T TI T. + G 3 r� Z��.cH��JI TI} - jt.Ery �Trt -tit- Pt�T� LA E, Iy� s AS C�' , 4e q Th=jsE- a Gk-r_- G.-- A-e-r LA c-'+'6 LAr-- L � A`b F--y4 c-- -f X �) 1.4 {S + t, 3�'� / -�,� =2�I,4 MCI Ao.ctev 4-( �.�. 3 (1 . o\ +(I 4.f ExP a O98,1 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 Joe 7 Av]_ SHEET NO ,-� '1 OF Izf CALCULATED Br I DATE _ y _ 6 CHECKED BY DATE x- 2 7- O y PS +P* = SS,3L{5. -1 k- - ,6,L UsS � AIICG - Z13- I++S °N+✓ S � T� �iT -. C.o N cif -r-! T p n4 T L F T- .1 -1> o %Jf C / f'PN PA �1`VI - R•d 8•TS tie lo,s �� .��- L�•�I� =32,1 I� �� s-I- rP,•..r � I �� TI � =Y =� : �u'] •SJ�(r8.3i) = IG� 3 �I 1e s v?'-� (Ir=Yrs -it �-r7 rL-T.4c- - c -,^,-PA al-r`7 / . 4 ) o.k TPrc --r ✓M. _ !mil moo° T�sY I� f�� T , L • is 3 % � , L . � 3 3 Z , � fNCLC 16160 ,� o A� (1 � �o � . Z , ° I obao -11 'I Double Corrosion Protection DCP (Type C) Corrosion protection for the anchor tendon can be improved by extending the outer corrugated PE or PVC duct over the free stressing length. In this case, pregrouting of the anchor inside the plastic duct is riot recommended because of difficulties which might be encountered during transportation and placing. Double Corrosion Protection DCP (Type D) The ideal protection for strand anchors is one in which the strand is totally and permanently pro- tected from the time of manufacture throughout its life. Such protection is provided by epoxy coating the individual strands both externally and internally. Flo -bond Flo-fit* is a rugged, thermally bonded polymer coating that offers maximum corrosion protection, with a bond strength that exceeds that of bare strand. When two stage grouting is used, no additional corrosion protection is required even DSI in applications where the free stressing length will remain ungrouted 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 ultimate tensile strength. Corrosion protection provided by the epoxy is not compromised by the wedge. 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 Protection 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. Multistrand Prestressing Steel Properties - ASTM A416 Arrehor SUM Nominal Crave section Ares NornbW W*Wd (hare strand) 11W4 ns- SaWVM 4111'u An) prestressing Force 0.80 M 0.70 hu An 0.80 f u M In- mm PH kg/m kips kN kips kN kips kN kips W 3 -0.6 0.65 420 2.20 3.27 175.8 782 140.6 625 123.0 547 lo5.5 469 4 -0.6 0.87 560 300 4.46 234.4 1.043 187.5 834 164.1 730 140.6 626 5 -0.6 1.09 700 3.70 5.51 293.0 1,303 234.4 1,043 205.1 912 175.8 782 6 -0.6 1.30 840 440 6.55 351.6 1.564 281.3 1,251 2461 1,095 211.0 936 7 -0.6 1.52 980 5.20 7.74 410.2 1,625 328.2 1.460 2872 1,277 246.2 1,095 a,. OZ 1.74 1,120 5.90 8.78 468.8 2,085 375.0 1,668 328.1 1,460 2613 1,251 9 -0.6 1.95 1260 6.70 9.97 527.4 2,346 421.9 1,877 369.2 1.642 316.4 1,408 12 -0.6 2.60 1,680 6.90 13.24 703.2 3,128 562.6 2,503 492.3 2,190 4220 1,877 15 -0.6 3.26 2,100 11.10 16.52 879.0 3.910 703.2 3.128 615.3 2,737 527.4 2.346 19 -0.6 4.12 2.660 14.10 20.98 1,113.4 4,953 890.7 3,962 779.4 3.467 ,972 27 -0.6 5.86 3,780 20.00 29.76 1,582.2 7,038 1,265.8 5,631 1,107.6 4,927 37 -0-6 8.03 5180 27.40 40.78 2,168.2 9.645 1.734.6 7.716 1,517.8 6. 48 -0.6 10.41 6.720 35.50 52.83 2.612.8 12,512 2,250.2 10,009 1,968.9 8. 17071 459- 54 -0.6 11.72 7,560 39.90 59.3d 3.164.4 14,076 2,531.5 11,261 2,215.1 9. 61 -0.6 13.24 8,540 45.10 67.12 3,574.6 15.901 2,859.7 12,721 2.502.2 1113 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 iIF -,AC+. 'If 3 I!E� k4 .ae -7 '7 4- N>✓ -e 7 ✓"6- 04 ,/F— SHEET N . m 1 CuCULAWD By L--44 DATE Z - 2 C. - �e' CHECKEDBY rt-7 WE 3_Z • -<:)G I�oC,f, •JIB N GouTV�q -C�IZ f oYT�ov.� . g" �J�a � 1Z`I Dffl IN T> k U S I✓ 1 f� s i �1'a U''� Sal o a.( , 121,E 1 E€,•4 Ck- i -I" I T� - ro -n4-c ll-� 5T-14 TL I� 44 a I 1 z a� E- 7 H rA ->vib,� Slt-P�-w 1E- -Pn�� -- -ST 1 �+y aF A-LL Tf ESA Lk f 71 V l--n S-T A-1+ C-t�,=P, b �A `� i)c�t`b A � / � � �? L- A4, 7 S-T � s b• �, �I •A. .� �S A, l4iC / L7a kSI o. -7 -r �rL+ c ° o•Rr (�16g.8�j = 351, ��> 33L CSC Ste. �� Qo C->�a 4=4 7 : 7 = 3z , r� _ �/ 4q C I Lf oll "&r (c-#4 Z f(hI.I r , �- 4 - (I o`7 r A4lt7 NO. Cim" � os-9 P S z 7. 7 � j t = * S � e� I-, iQ , o ,r„ w, f 0 hZ SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 Shill! SN ®TCXt-f----T7F- cft4s = '7 -erg 1Z° C.0 { I/F.ic�T I E -1#CA4 si'14E✓ 1u —Tv- X-L L " 2- Li s: 16 = 9 G k SF--Ie i t c-E- t� a-4 // o ao (A z f = (� Za -47 c1-a ( r .T'/ = 7. 1 �i . (�:' L > `7. 1 L , k , ( (s-� i'TEc -t A-(- (rr ri cam/ —rr) / , (- o Ate- b> T Ya7� o f T- C-f H 5 3 0- DN Lk-t% LAi -TV -4Ff b GC => AS = x.31 ruZ(Z) 'F?s (olS f =Li•t kJi Lo =lL =Sn �4 S o.G2'IL4 (G� kr�) �f 7-7L-1= rf 6H -*k- I- @ (Zr� C -r`f SHEET NO OF_ ? 'I CALCOUTEDBY DATE n' CHECKED BY DATE Shill! SN ®TCXt-f----T7F- cft4s = '7 -erg 1Z° C.0 { I/F.ic�T I E -1#CA4 si'14E✓ 1u —Tv- X-L L " 2- Li s: 16 = 9 G k SF--Ie i t c-E- t� a-4 // o ao (A z f = (� Za -47 c1-a ( r .T'/ = 7. 1 �i . (�:' L > `7. 1 L , k , ( (s-� i'TEc -t A-(- (rr ri cam/ —rr) / , (- o Ate- b> T Ya7� o f T- C-f H 5 3 0- DN Lk-t% LAi -TV -4Ff b GC => AS = x.31 ruZ(Z) 'F?s (olS f =Li•t kJi Lo =lL =Sn �4 S o.G2'IL4 (G� kr�) �f 7-7L-1= rf 6H -*k- I- @ (Zr� C -r`f Sl}:1-. 9 Multi -Span Concrete Beam Pay° 1 Description Water grade beam at tieback location General Information Code Rat: ACI 31&02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 6000' Fy 00,000.0 psi Spans Considered Continuous Over Supports ACI Dead Load Factor 1.00 fa 4,000.0 psi Stirrup Fy 60,000.0 psi ACI Live Load Factor 1.00 Concrete Member Information Description Typical ,w L'.p" 3 v S F-� Span ft! B.00 p�� S €C I(�ar • Z. 1 Beam Width in 36.00 Beam Depth in 30.00 End Fixity Fa -Fa J Reinforcing Center 4.68in2 oear� 25.00in Left 4.68in2 ex oevx+ 5.00in Right AfB I 4.68in2 Hearn 5.00in _ Loads _ Point #1 DL ILL @X ReRe lsu( ts Mmax @ Cntr @x= Mn ' Phi Max @ Left End Mn 'Phi Max @ Right End Mn ' Phi No 332.500 4.000 ItAl 332.50 Ill 4.00 k -ftl 501,95 k -ft I - 332.50 k -ft: 501.95 k -ft '1 - 332.50 k -ft'I 501.95 Bending OK Shear Left k 166.25 Shear Right k. 166.25 Reactions 3 Deflections LL @ Left Total @ Left DL @ Right LL @ Right Total @ Right Max. Deflection @X= Inertia: Effective Shear Stirrups Stirrup Rebar Area Spacing @ Left Spacing @ .2'L Spacing @ .4'L Spacing @ .6'1, Spacing @ B'L Spacing @ Right kI 16625 k 0.00 k 166.25 It 166.25 It 0.00 k 166.25 inl -0013 It 4.00 in4� 33.318.38 12l 0.310 in 5.69 in 5.69 rir(EXP0640-11 in in in 5.69 inl 5 69 g*-r- - I o Rev 5 00 1 � - — Multi -Span Concrete Beam Page 2 ' Description Waler grade beam at tieback location Query Values - Location Rl 0.00 Moment k-ft -332.5 Shear It 166.3 Deflection in 0.0000 ' =4 ,vim � r Y - q- C _ .o.%:=�oT_ L �.�T- 6 = �- oZt yJ�oOj �'C�.G�04 •�r O. � fiZ-r--rA t-4�2C- tr-?A+`T- pF l - Yy IS `(7(P''(nA -(i l NO. C 1645! EXP, 06 -30 -1 i Mu. Max @ left = -332 49 k -ft DL Reaction = 166.250 k LL Reaction = 0.000 k Total Reaction = 166.250 k 332.TO k 8.0011 Me Max = 332 49 k -ft at 3.99 It from left Dmax = -0 0127 in at 3.99 It from left 4-T-, II Mu. max @ nght = - 332.49 k -ft OL Reaction = 166 250 k LL Reaction = 0 000 k Total Reaction = 166.250 k 166.25 133.00 99.75 66.50 33.25 0.0 t -66.50 -99.75 - 133.00 - 166.25 0 -0 -D -0 -D °- -0 Ti °1 •0 D -0 •D Location (ft) �� - -_- _= - fte c [►efl i Location (ft) Steel Column Base Plate Description CHECK PERM. TIEBACK HEAD PLATE -34T. V General Inforrnation Cove Ref : AM 9th Ed AM, 1997 UiBC, 2007 Ill 2003 NPPA 5000 Loads Steel Section TSatatafls ' Section Length 2.000 in Axial Load 332.50 k Section Width 2.000 in X -X Axis Moment 0.00 k -ft Flange Thickness 0.188 in Plate Width Web Thickness 0 000 in Plate Dimensions ' Plate Length 10.000 in Allowable Stresses Plate Width 10.000 in Concrete f 4,500.0 psi Plate Thickness 2.250 in Base Plate Fy 38.00 ksi Load Duration Factor 1.300 Support Pier Size Anchor Bolt Data Pier Length 38.000 in Dist from Plate Edge 0.500 in Pier Width 48.000 in Bolt Count per Side 1 Tension Capauty 5.500 k Bolt Area 0.442 n2 Summary Baswate OK Concrete Bearing Stress Bearing Stress OK Actual Bearing Stress 3.325.0 psi Allow per AC131 M2, Appx. Full Bearing : No Bolt Tension = 0.3' Pc - Sgrt(A2 /At) - LDF 3.510.0 psi Allow per AISC J9 4,095.0 psi Plate Bending Stress Thickness OK Actual it, 34,757.3 psi Max Allow Plate Fb 35,100.0 psi Tension Bolt Force Bolt Tension OK Actual Tension 0.000 k Allowable 5.500 k L it Z /u (T T 7�V k b % � ) NO. C 18459 EXP. 00 -30.11 X7-74 N r-PTv N C- A-vf- E7�cir+I -PAsI C^ IZ,o2Lf I C- t i-1 (-I f GA S- A S Il= WLA i A -&=� v E� '{dJCUS S� L 0 Y N C c y F L B � ten' �fIJ SI -+{? xa,a�S` q R a D A Cade � sere no NeJ' SA C �i L f- Union Si i2UCd��VC� 14 3 ' r m r L EL ? O A VlW1211S RiR oa N vi i0 E, P�M1a1S� '. 11ik� 8:Ya11aot2004W YC�MVIEQ7U06 S IL _�to ENGINEERING 10 31_5— 6r- CONSTRUCTIONmc. March 10, 2010 Mr. Steve Nowak, Assistant Civil Engineer City of Encinitas, Engineering Department MAR 505 S. Vulcan Avenue 2010 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Request for City Release of CD (7S %); Gerber Residence; 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Case No. 08 -087 MUP / CDP / EIA The applicants posted two (2) CD's in lieu of a performance bond. The total bond amount (attached) totaled $86,160.00. A CD in the amount of $21,540 was provided as 25% security in lieu of bonding; and A CD in the amount of $64,620 was provided as 75% security in lieu of bonding. The project is near completion and has received on -site inspections. Remaining work includes: Landscaping $ 6,888.00 (bid attached) Removal of Cantilevered Segment of Existing Concrete Deck $ 9,000.00 Demobilization & Scaffold Removal $ 2,000.00 Total remaining project cost $ 17,888.00 As an alternative to cutting a segment of the existing concrete deck, the applicant has proposed creating a thicker layer of hand - sculpted, color- treated shotcrete to eliminate any existing deck overhang (approximately 12" to 18 ". The applicant has filed a request for a Finding of Substantial Conformance on this proposal. SEC's cost to complete additional hand - sculpted, color- treated shotcrete sufficient to eliminate any cantilevered appearance of the existing deck is $12,500.00. If a Finding of Substantial Conformance is provided by the city, the remaining project cost would be increased by $3,500.00 (the difference between cutting the deck and providing the additional shotcrete treatment. The total remaining project cost would then be $21,388.00 Regardless of whether the applicants' request for finding of Substantial Conformance related to a construction change is approved, the applicant has completed sufficient work to obtain release of the CD providing 75% security in lieu of bonding. The remaining CD, in the amount of $21, 540, is sufficient for the city to retain. Thank you for your review and assistance on this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us a (760) 633 -3470. Respectfully submitted, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. John W. Niven, R.C.E. 57517 560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472 October 20, 2009 Mr. Richard Gerber 794 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Permit issuance requirements for: Application* 10315 -G Case #: 08 -087 MUP /CDP /EIA 794 Neptune Ave 256 - 011 -09 This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10315 -G. Your approved plan will remain valid for one year. If the permit is not issued within six months from the date of approval of the drawings, the plans will be subject to review by City staff for compliance with current codes and regulations before a permit can be issued, and changes to the approved plans as well as additional fees may be required. Please read through this letter carefully and contact the City with any questions you may have. It contains information about many requirements that may apply to your project and can make the process clearer and easier for you. In order to obtain the permits to construct the work shown on your approved plans, you will need to satisfy the requirements below. All of the items listed below must be submitted to the Engineering front counter in one complete package at the time the applicant comes in to pull the permit Partial submittals of any kind will not be accepted. Your project planchecker will not accept any of the documents listed on behalf of the Engineering front counter staff, all items must be submitted to the front counter directly together and at one time. The correct number of each of the requested documents must be provided, copies of documents submitted to the City during plancheck do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below. (1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10315 -G Provide 2 copies of "Preliminary Supplemental Geotechnical Information, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 18, 1999, Provide 2 copies of "Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report, Proposed Maintenance Repairs to Existing Retention Structure" prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 20, 2008. Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision for Planning Case #: 08 -087 MUP /CDP /EIA, to be routed by the City to inspector and file. (2) Post Security Deposits to guarantee all of the work shown on your approved drawings. The amounts of security deposits are determined directly from the Approved Engineer's Cost Estimate generated by your engineer according to a set of predetermined unit prices for each kind of work shown on your plans. You will be required to post security deposit(s) as follows: (5) (6) A General Engineering any & all C -8 Concrete a ron /curb! utterlram (sidewalk C -10 Electrical lighting/signals C -12 Grading & Paving any surface, certain drain - basins /channels C -27 Landscaping plantinglirrigationlfencing & other amenities C -29 Masonry retaining walls C -32 Parking &Highway Improvement signage /striping /safety C -34 I Pipeline sanitary sewer /storm drain Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies. This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and is exempt from the State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement. An erosion control plan shall be implemented per the approved grading plan. Preconstruction Meeting: A preconstruction meeting at the project site is mandatory for all projects. The preconstruction meeting may not be scheduled until the Engineering permit(s) have been issued, and the applicant/contractor must give the assigned Engineering inspector a minimum of 48 hours advance notice prior to the scheduled meeting time. Right -of -Way Construction Permit: A separate right -of -way construction permit will be required for any work in the public right -of -way or public easements. Typically, this work may include construction or reconstruction of a portion of the driveway within the public right-of-way, excavation, backfill, and resurfacing to install electric, gas, telephone, and cable television lines, or water and sewer connections A permit fee of 300 00 per application and a site plan, preferably the work order issued by the public utility, will be required. Contractor license and insurance requirements apply. Permits must be issued at least 48 hours in advance of the start of work. Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits: These separate permits may be required for your project and are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division. A fee of $250.00 is required for traffic control plans. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760) 633 -2704. Release of Project Securities: The partial or complete release of project securities is initiated automatically by the City after submission of satisfactory as -built drawings to the City and approval by the project Enqineerinq inspector. Applicant requests cannot be addressed without release approval from the project inspector. The processing and release of securities may take up to 4 weeks after the release process is initiated by the project Engineering inspector. Any cash releases will be mailed to the address on this letter unless the City is otherwise notified, and all letters mailed to a financial institution will be copied to the owner listed hereon. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection certified by the project Engineering inspector is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading Permit. A sum in the amount of 25% of the securities posted for improvement permits will be held for a one -year warranty period, and a release is automatically initiated at the end of that warranty period. Construction Changes: Construction changes prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required for all changes to the approved plans. Requests for construction change approval should be submitted to the Engineering Services Department front counter as redlined mark -ups on 2 blueline prints of the approved Drawing. Changes are subject to approval prior to field implementation. Substantial increases in valuation due to the proposed changes may be cause for assessment and collection of additional inspection fees and security deposits Construction change fees of $200.00 and $350 00 will be assessed for minor and major construction changes, respectively. Construction changes necessitating a new plan sheet will be assessed the per -sheet plancheck and NPDES plancheck fees in lieu of the construction change fee 552 Chats =a Ave isudscaoc Construcdor, Ialarn Ceusnce La JOl1E.. CA 9210:5 'S5i.1 Abe.fiq ::: Date -Ole Customer /I6- --V t Dear /�,1/'11- We are pleased to submit the following proposal to provide Landscape Maintenance for your home. Review the following proposal, sign and return it, if it meets your acceptance. LAIVDSCAPE SERVICE TO 3E PROVIDED; — 79 y 4i,1C- 1A/r77t St �9 . McCullough Landscape agrees to provide all materials and labor necessary to perform the Landscape Maintenance as indicated in the following proposal. For a brief descriptio of materials and labor costs as part of this contract, please refer to paae Z of this agreement /yr� � � �� BUFF ) �G . 3 Landscape Improvement Proposal TERMS & CONDITIONS: Prices listed herein assume the following: 1. All work to be agreed upon will be completed as part of a single -phase construction. 2. Any changes in the scope of services as directed by the owner shall be clearly agreed upon prior to beginning any work. 3. 10% material deposit required prior to commencement of work EXCLUSION: Building permits & fees, when applicable. Cordially, / Monty H. McCullough (Lic # 768409) Acceptance Date NOTE WE ARE LICENSED CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS, BONDED AND INSURED. INSURANCE CERTIFICATES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD, P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826 Page of D PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RENTENTION STRUCTURE 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Mr. Richard Gerber February 20, 2008 _ AUG 10 2009 ENGI 560N. Hwy 101, Sure S. Farni ms. CaliComo (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 6313471 ENCINITAS S8u CINMICTIUM February 20, 2008 Mr. Richard Gerber 794 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report Proposed Maintenance Repairs to Existing Retention Structure 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Dear Richard: In accordance with your request, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. has completed this Preliminary Geotechnical recommendation report of the coastal bluff and the existing structures below your property. This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed urgent maintenance repairs to an existing approved and permitted upper bluff retention wall. It is our opinion that the recommendations contained in this report are consistent with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and with all appropriate provisions of the California Coastal Act. The following report documents our findings and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning geotechnical aspects of the coastal bluff as well as the most appropriate engineering solutions for the needed onsite structure maintenance. The most significant geotechnical issues affecting the site are: The ongoing mid bluff erosion is presently extending eastward intersecting the rear yard caisson system. The proposed project is an anticipated emergency repair to the below- grade, rear yard system at 794 Neptune. As the coastal bluff has failed to the east, the caissons have become exposed. Without remedial emergency maintenance, the bluff will continue to fail between, and potentially behind, the caissons, ultimately impacting the residential structure in the near future. These areas that are subject to imminent failures that will likely result in failure of existing onsite retaining structures as well as the bluff areas above them which serve to protect the residential structures on the subject site as well as on the neighboring properties. As noted in the report, we believe that the conditions at the site pose a significant threat to the bluff top structure and it is recommended that immediate maintenance repairs, consisting of the 560N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Fackitig CWMwno (760) 633 -3470 Fa (760) 633 -3471 installation of one row of tiebacks and grade beam along the base of the exposed caisson wall. In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed caisson for the full width of the property. Some trimming of the bluff immediately adjacent to and on the caissons will be necessary. It is recommended that this work be done carefully and by hand. Design parameters for this repair are presented in our design calculations. It is recommended that the bluff face below the proposed tied back shotcrete repair should be planted with drought tolerant coastal plantings. The new planting may be placed using a hydroseed mix It is further recommended that the Owner perform supplemental plantings on a bi- yearly basis until substantial plant growth is established. The hydroseeding should be performed during the late fall to early spring periods of the year. As per the City's Aesthetic Appearance Policy, all of the existing retaining strictures will be covered with a structuml/aesthetic hand sculpted and colored shotcrete so that it will blend into the natural bluff conditions in the area. Accompanying this report are engineering drawings and calculations for the repair of the bluff and bluff retaining structures. We trust that this report meets your present needs. If you should have any questions or need more information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. %o N_ Hwy tot. Suie 5, Fnckikm Catikma (760) 01 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472 2 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RETENTION STRUCTURE 794 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PRIMARY REFERENCES: 1. Repairs to Upper Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction Inc., dated March 24, 2008. 2. Structural Calculations, Repairs to Upper Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated March 24, 2008. 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation/Request for Emergency Processing, Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Retention System, Mattingley Residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 10, 1999. 4. Structural Calculations for Repairs to Lower Bluff — Concrete Seawall at the Toe of Existing Bluff, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 8, 1999. 5. Structural Calculations for Repairs to Upper Bluff — Buried Drilled Pier Wall with Tiebacks, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated January 28, 1999. 6. Preliminary Observations and Recommendations, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated February 18, 1998. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) geotechnical evaluation of the existing approved and permitted upper bluff retention system at 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. A site location map is shown attached Figure 1. This report was conducted at the request of the property owner based on the owner's observation of the ongoing erosion occurring on the westerly facing bluff exposing some of the caissons for the retention system. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for the anticipated repairs to the previously approved and permitted structure located at the rear of the subject property. Elements of the report include a general evaluation of subsurface soil and geologic conditions, and a presentation of useful information relevant to the coastline erosion processes in the area. Based on site visits and geotechnical documentation, SEC, Inc. has determined that the existing conditions pose a threat that requires a more immediate response. This report outlines geotechnical considerations, findings, conclusions and recommendations pertinent to providing time- sensitive repairs to the existing permitted upper coastal bluff retention structure necessary for the long term stabilization and protection of the primary residential structure. Reviewers and users of this report should also utilize our engineered design calculations and plans when interpreting this report. The engineered plans and calculations are part of this geotechnical document. Design parameters utilized in our calculations are conservative are based on our extensive experience working on Encinitas bluff repair projects along Neptune Avenue and are not represented in this document. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this geotechnical evaluation includes the following: GerberResidence Prelim Geotechmcal Recommendations Rot -94 Neptune • Review of geological and topographical maps and literature pertaining to the sites and vicinity. (see Appendix A). • Geological reconnaissance to record, measure and map portions of the coastal bluff pertaining to the existing site conditions. • Preparation of the final draft of this report. 3.0 BLUFF / SITE DESCRIPTION According to the topographic survey prepared by Ciremele Surveying (dated March 21, 2008) and our recent field observations, the subject site is located atop a coastal bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Leucadia, San Diego County, California. The "building pad" portion of the site is located between approximately 92 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), and consists of relatively flat - lying to gentle ascending ground eastward from the top of bluff toward Neptune Avenue. A single - family, two story, residence occupies a majority of the "building pad ". The single - family residence appears to be a wood framed residential structure with appurtenant improvements. The project is bounded on the east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences on the north and south, and on west by and approximately 92 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea bluff. An existing approximately 50 foot long, 15 foot high, 27 -inch thick, reinforced concrete seawall was constructed in March 1999. The seawall incorporates two rows of tieback anchors approximately 45 to 55 feet in length and has been colored and sculpted to match the existing surrounding bluff area. Also in 1999, the construction of a below - grade, approximately 67 foot long concrete reinforced upper bluff retention system (50 lineal ft. parallel to the bluff edge and 17 lineal feet along the northern property line). The retention system was constructed in the rear yard of the residence approximately five feet east of the western bluff edge of its location in 1999 and consists of steel reinforced concrete caissons that have been drilled to a depth of 38 feet and placed 8 feet on center, with tiebacks and capped by steel and concrete. At this time, the bluff has eroded to the point that some of the vertical piers and the upper grade beam are now exposed. GerberResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A site reconnaissance was performed by a staff geologist under the supervision of our licensed engineering geologist. During the reconnaissance, the geologic conditions exposed in the coastal bluff were documented. The attached Geologic Map (Figure 1), which has been modified from the 10 -scale topographic survey and construction plans prepared by SEC (March 24, 2008), presents the general geologic conditions of the coastal bluff at the site. Soil and geologic units were noted to be very similar to previous sampled and tested soil/geologic units of this area of Neptune Avenue. I 1 IZl7 C�i1J►f�Ky1`►EZ.yI �ZiZ�II�lJf7_�l Regional Geology The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are generally underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre - Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous -age plutonic rocks and Jurassic -age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid- to late - Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. Geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2005) indicate that site geologic units include Quaternary marine beach deposits, Quaternary old paralic deposits, and the Tertiary Santiago Formation. GerberResidence Prelim. Geotechmcal Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune WPi FFR r14b . T, 99 -Ot O 7 BUILDING % RESIDENCEI Br.. u. F.— w crwMrM r w,,M w N A 10 0 10 scab Feet LEGEND QN Ouelernery beets depoWs Tsa Tertiary Sanllepo Formatlon, circled where bvhd Afu ArlWH W fA - indocvnenled —06066, Awox ate Iocabon of peobpic contact, d Hed a re bvled O Ouatxnery terrsce depooKs, " Approximate b 6 of scarp • cYded wMre tried BUILDING % RESIDENCEI Br.. u. F.— w crwMrM r w,,M w N A 10 0 10 scab Feet Regional bedding trends northeast and dips 5 degrees to the northwest. Kennedy and Tan (2005) have also mapped several northeast trending faults within the seacliff near the site. Regional and local faulting is discussed later in this report. A regional geologic map, modified from Kennedy and Tan (2005), is presented as Figure 2. Tan (1986) indicates that the site is located in Landslide Susceptibility Areas 2 and 4, which are respectively defined as areas marginally and most susceptible to landslides. Coastal Bluff Geomorpholozy The typical coastal -bluff profile may be divided into three zones; the shore platform, a lower near- vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff, and an upper bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 30 and 45 degrees. The bluff top is the boundary between the upper bluff and geomorphic surface of the coastal terrace. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area that extends to approximate elevation of -60 feet MSL, termed the near -shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near-shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near- horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (h:v). The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower vertical and near- vertical section of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff - platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near-shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all, or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In the case of a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. GerberResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune Emery and Kuhn (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982) designated this portion of the coast as "active" and "Type C (c)," as the surficial deposits are relatively thick with respect to the underlying bedrock. The letter "C" designates coastal bluffs where the sea cliff portion of the bluff is more resistant to erosion that the upper bluff portion. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is about equal to that of marine erosion. However, the presence of the upper and lower bluff retention systems are protecting the sea cliff from active marine erosion, and portions of the upper bluff from subaerial erosion. Site Geologic Units Based upon a review of SEC (1999a and 1999b) and our observations during the recent site reconnaissance, site geologic units include Quaternary beach deposits, undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary terrace deposits, and bedrock units consisting of the Tertiary Santiago and the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone. The Tertiary Santiago and the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone were not directly observed at the site during the site reconnaissance because of the present low relief sand berm, vegetation, and a lower bluff seawall that conceal the sea cliff. However, a review of SEC (1999a and 1999b) indicates that these formational units underlie the site. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest, and their limits are delineated on Figure 1. Quaternary Beach Deposits (Map Symbol Qb) A transient shingle beach composed of rounded, fine- to medium - grained sand and sparse cobbles exists at the base of the bluff. The thickness of the sandy beach deposits varies seasonally. During winter months, storm related surf and currents typically remove the sand from the beach and transport it offshore. The sand is typically re- deposited along the beach during the summer months when calmer seas and currents prevail. Previous beach replenishment GerberResiaence Prelim Geotechnlcal Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune efforts by SANDAG have resulted in a low relief berm near the rear of the beach. Undocumented Artificial Fill (Mai) Symbol- Afu) According to SEC (1999a and 1999b), undocumented fill soils, consisting of brown, moist loose to medium dense silty sands, occur within the upper 3 feet of the building pad, mainly on the eastern portions of the building pad area. Based upon a review of available topographic maps and information gathered during our previous subsurface exploration, the thickness of these soils may vary across the site. Ouaternary Terrace Deposits (Mao Symbol - Ot) Also according to SEC (1999a and 1999b), Quaternary terrace deposits comprise the coastal bluff at the site between approximately 24%2 and 91 feet MSL, and currently comprise the exposed mid and upper bluff areas. According to SEC (1999a), these deposits generally consist of orange - brown, yellow - brown, light gray- brown, light brown, and brown silty to slightly silty sand to light yellow, gray, and gray -brown fine- to medium - grained sand. The terrace deposits typically vary between thickly and poorly bedded to thinly and well bedded. Due to their generally cohesionless nature, the terrace deposits are considered highly erosive and are subject to sandflows and slumps when saturated. Rilling was observed within the terrace deposits at the site. Tertiary Santia¢o (Map Symbol - TO As indicated in SEC (1999a), the Tertiary Santiago formation unconformably underlies the terrace deposits at an approximate elevation of 24'/2 feet MSL. These formational sediments generally consist of a gray siltstone with some sand. Tertiary Torrey Sandstone (not mapped) GerberResidence Prelim. Geotechnlcal Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune The Tertiary Torrey Sandstone was encountered at depth below the Santiago (SEC, 1999a). This formation generally consists of a gray brown, dry, very dense sandstone. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE According to SEC (1999b), bedding within the Santiago formation is estimated to dip approximately 2% degrees in a northerly direction. Elliot (2001) indicates that bedding planes, within the Santiago formation, form an approximately east - northeasterly plunging shallow syncline which is approximately centered in the middle of the June 2, 1996 landslide. The subject site rests on the southern limb of this syncline where bedding dips approximately 3 to 7 degrees in a northeasterly direction (Elliot, 2001), or into slope. Numerous faults are exposed within the sea cliff of the Leucadia coastline. The subject site is located between the Beacon's and Seawall faults. According to Elliot (2001), the Beacon's fault trends N 5"E and dips approximately 75" to the west. fault generally trends N20 E and dips approximately 82 for a summary of regional/local faulting and seismicity. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY San Andreas Transform Fault System Elliot (2001) indicates that the Seawall west. Please see the following narrative The San Andreas transform -fault system is a family of right - lateral faults that evolved along the continental margin of western North America since middle Miocene time in response to interactions between the North American plate and various oceanic plates to the west. Depending on the plate size, geometry, and boundary conditions, this motion produced either rotation or translation (e.g., the western Transverse Ranges), transtensional rifting (e.g., the outer borderland), or partioning of strain into nearly pure strike -slip motion (e.g., Baja California). As the transform system evolved in a simple shear environment (i.e., only the Pacific Plate is moving obliquely), a geometric relationship developed among fault structures, with the San GerberResidence Prelim. Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune g. Andreas fault zone becoming the principal displacement zone. More northerly striking faults evolved (synthetic shears) and east- westerly faults evolved (antithetic shears). The San Andreas fault zone (the principal displacement zone) and the northerly trending faults that developed showed right - lateral slip, whereas, the east - westerly trending faults that developed originally showed left - lateral slip (Sylvester, 1988). A similar scenario may have initiated the easterly trending faults exposed in the coastal bluffs of Leucadia. Alternatively, these easterly trending faults may be a result of local extensional stress in a northwest - southeast oriented direction. This is discussed later in the text of this report. As summarized by Matti, et al. (1992), in central California, displacement has occurred mainly along the San Andreas proper. In southern California, however, the total displacement has been taken up by several discreet fault strands - including the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Punchbowl, San Gabriel, and Banning faults, as well as other structures (Matti and Morton, 1993), with some displacement being partitioned to the Elsinore, Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon, and Coronado Bank faults, among others. The California Continental Borderland is a complex part of the continental transform fault boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates (Legg and Kennedy, 1991). The region is underlain by numerous Cenozoic faults that are subparallel to the San Andreas fault. The Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone is considered a part of, or aligned with, this zone. Although, in general, these faults are mostly right -slip in character, conforming with the relative plate motion in the region, segments of the offshore fault zones show local convergence or extension associated with bends. In addition, regional variability in partitioning of the plate boundary strain across and among these faults also results in many fault segment showing oblique movement. These faults have the potential to generate uplift or subsidence during a major offshore earthquake which could result in generation of a tsunami, such as was observed in 1927 offshore of Lompoc, in Central California. GerberResidence 794 Neptune W Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt The Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canvon Fault Zone As summarized by Fischer and Mills (1991), the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone trends southeast from the east -west trending Santa Monica fault zone in the north, through San Diego Bay in the south, and is considered to be one continuous fault zone. The southern Rose Canyon zone may connect to the Pescadero fault near the International Border and become part of the Agua Blanca system in Baja California. The northern Newport- Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles basin is a narrow belt of discontinuous, dominantly left- stepping, en echelon faults and folds that is the result of movement along a major through- going, right -slip fault in basement rocks. The southern onshore Newport- Inglewood fault zone and the Newport- Inglewood - rose Canyon fault zone are in general less complex zones of linear dominantly left - stepping shears. The site is located approximately 3 miles west of the principal traces of the Rose Canyon fault zone. This zone consists of a continuous, northwest trending, broad zone of right lateral oblique slip faults. Recent studies at one location in Rose Canyon (La Jolla) have indicated Holocene activity along one strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Lindvall, et al., 1989). As a result of these studies, the State of California has classified a portion of the fault between Mission Bay and La Jolla Cove, as well as downtown San Diego, as active. Local Faultin As previously indicated, several northeast and east - northeast trending faults, including the Beacon's and Seawall faults, have been mapped within the site's vicinity (Kennedy and Tan, 2005; Eisenberg, 1983). These relatively short, synthetic strike -slip faults occurred in conjunction with movement along the Rose Canyon fault prior to between 85,000 and 125,000 years BY (Eisenberg, 1985). As such, they do not meet the criteria for active faults (i.e., movement within the Holocene epoch, or last "11,000 years "), according to the State of California (Hart and Bryant, 2007), and from the standpoint of location of habitable structures for human occupancy, should not pose a constraint . However, should a large earthquake occur GerberResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 794 Neptune 10- on one of the nearby active faults, some sympathetic secondary movement on these faults may also occur, potentially resulting in some distress to overlying settlement - sensitive improvements. This potential is not any greater than for nearby already developed properties with similar geologic conditions. Probabilistic Horizontal Site Acceleration (PSHA) A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000), which models earthquake sources as 3 -D planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo - relative velocity levels. Based on a review of this data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.27 g was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 -year return period). Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other GerherResidence Prelim Geotechnical Recommendations Rot -94 Neptune -11 existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, significant tidal waves generated from a seismic event could affect the lower portion of the site and affect overall bluff stability, possibly even affecting the existing structure and proposed bluff retention system. However, we are unaware of any viable protection mitigation for tsunamis. 6.0 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER No observed groundwater seepage was observed at the beach or on the bluff face. We note that seasonal perched groundwater levels and conditions can fluctuate due to factors such as rainfall amounts, rainfall intensity, temperatures, or other factors. Changes in this perched groundwater condition can affect the stability of the upper bluff area. The runoff of surface water on the property appears to drain towards the east as sheet flow and also via a sump pump system toward Neptune Avenue. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The result of our geotechnical and civil engineering evaluation indicates that the primary residential structure may be impacted within the next twelve months by one or any combination of the substandard conditions on site. These conditions are: The ongoing mid bluff erosion is presently extending eastward intersecting the rear yard caisson system. The proposed project is an anticipated emergency repair to the below - grade, rear yard system at 794 Neptune. As the coastal bluff has failed to the east, the caissons have become exposed. Without remedial emergency maintenance, the bluff will continue to fail between, and potentially behind, the caissons, ultimately impacting the residential structure. GemerResidence '94 Neptune 2- Prelim. Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt 2. Loss of passive resistance if erosion extends below it current levels. The slope now appears to be at its angle of repose and probably won't erode more /flatter if the landscape recommendations provided below are carried out. Reviewers and users of this report should also utilize our engineered design calculations and plans when interpreting this report. The engineered plans and calculations are part of this geotechnical document. Design parameters utilized in our calculations are conservative are based on our extensive experience working on Encinitas bluff repair projects along Neptune Avenue and are not represented in this document. Based on the findings presented above, we believe that the conditions at the site pose a significant threat to the bluff top structure and it is recommended that immediate maintenance repairs, consisting of the installation of one row of tiebacks and grade beam along the base of the exposed caisson wall. In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed caisson for the full width of the property. Some trimming of the bluff immediately adjacent to and on the caissons will be necessary. It is recommended that this work be done carefully and by hand. Design parameters for this repair are presented in our design calculations. It is recommended that the bluff face below the proposed tied back shotcrete repair should be planted with drought tolerant coastal plantings. The new planting may be placed using a hydroseed mix. It is further recommended that the Owner perform supplemental plantings on a bi -yearly basis until substantial plant growth is established. The hydroseeding should be performed during the late fall to early spring periods of the year. As noted above, construction plans and calculations for the work described above have been prepared and are submitted with this report for review by the City of Encinitas Planning and Engineering Departments. GerberResidence 794 Neptune 13- Prelim. Geotechnical Recommendations Rpt In summary, it is our opinion that in order to protect the residential structure at the subject site from potential damage / failure, the immediate construction of the recommended coastal bluff stabilization measures is required. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND CHANGING CONDITIONS This preliminary geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at 794 Neptune Avenue is based on our document review, our experience in coastal bluff projects, and our observations of the geological conditions exposed in the coastal bluff at this locality. This report assumes that the geologic /soils conditions do not deviate appreciably from those observed and/or encountered. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the subject site coastal bluff locality. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of this region can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man at this vicinity. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us. Attachments: Appendix A — References GerberResidence 794 Neptune -14- Prelim. Geotechnical Recommendations Rot APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T.F.,2000, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3 -D faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004. Eisenberg, L.I., 1983, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists (1985). 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, Plate 3, Scale: 1:26,510.$, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport - Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist - Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2, 1999. Kennedy, Michael P., and Tan, Saing S., 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey 1:100,000. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed, Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system." Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in southern California: A reconstruction based on a new cross -fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.I. IL and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the central Transverse Ranges Province, southern California, in Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds, Earthquake geology San Andreas fault system, Palm Springs to Palmdale. Soil Engineering, Construction, 1999x, Supplemental geotechnical information, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated February 18. 19996, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation/request for emergency processing, proposed lower bluff seawall and upper bluff retention system, Mattingley residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated February 10. 1999c, Repairs to upper bluff, Mattingley residence, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Sheet 3 of 4, 10- scale, Drawing no. 794 -03, Project no. 99 -016, dated January 28. Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike slip faults in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666 -1703. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, landslide hazard identification map no. 4, Scale: 1:24,000 in California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 86 -8. Towill, March 14, 2006 revised November 29, 2006, Topographic map of Neptune Avenue for Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., 20- scale, Job No. 12082 -101, no Drawing No. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The Geomorphology of Rock Coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., 1994, FINAL Beach bluff erosion report, RFP #93 -01, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California, PN 93181 -00, dated January 24.