2011-10808 GLine: o.3ryAq
SOIL
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
FOR PROPOSED
AESTHETIC & ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO UPPER
BLUFF RETENTION SYSTEM
PREPARED FOR:
MR. RICK SORICH PROPERTY
816 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
PROJECT ADDRESS:
816 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
APN: 256-011 -12 AND 256- 011 -04
PREPARED BY:
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC.
560 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 5, ENCINITAS, CA 92024
TEL. (760) 633 -3470, FAX (760) 633 -3472
MAA 1 2011
JUNE 21, 2010
JOB NO. 10 -038
REVISIONS:
NO. C IF45s
Ex.` os -sat t
927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 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 S> If� f4 6q�"7 j 7 f,VE .
SHEET NO. ( OF I.9
CALCULATED BY }I7'^�y1 ..y DATE c -e/j ^ /-
CHECKED BY 1_ _' 1 �! DATE
SCALE 1°_'& *- !,=1 — 3 -- — —
c(N,r�r� ti4
To viP 1;'/^!'�fc t2 TFir�7 /oN T:2
C�F�I� ......
S C rr { ?.c�-� % C-t C- f+ L ilk) E-k-(
A T1 '
GINSTr UCT
_.t._ ..... ,
- - -a I •() SSG �ticrsS . I �11�rs ,, f "OI, °�- � � �'�'� -� � - Zl - .lo •
— �._.... Z "Yu'�LN i_NftJZ*--) rj'T1��r cAj[.��7�nDa�ior+s
I { j Ir.� -rat L-r I ° t� �i'tw 'E a'A '' C" - f Z-r (° _
C- F- LE-
A-
C7lN
_( r�-�� rr1 � � b -� ' .r f 4- !I �,�I S�1✓c crt(- T'�s t l
_. i 3 0 �, vl i. J...... 7
f
GV l 3l
�1
f A'I�l 4-P7 L t a- ,4-S (.f -b><J cj N t� -FST7 . 1 = N
6-cl + I S FES
Ott C l N Lrt l/ or 14t TvM p,� Avl-* O � r
._ ' .. I I i _� ' 1 NO.C76g53•Z .
� � -i
rmarnm , Mwswn �, nr.e
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. JOB r >I f,;t 4E�M`rvr4•f, A—Vr—
927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. Z of
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY tIitF �� �_ ZI — I O
(650) 367 -9595
FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY zain DAB 6 — Zl — I c=>
T J{ + S I S T L B s i C7 r I { T� v�P F�2_ IL LEJF
>t4 t � s TF-Y1 r v T r cam( J-1 f4 c� S
1t5 o N o W.i 9=K t E p V--( LL-t� -P l
+f-S .o F ht�Lti�ZSfi(�i-j. 4�_, �rily (c� /r
q---f f ...
- -�--
ir� C-I Hc� (S 7-- R.c)c
J
- f -
I Ff rc k<sT1ff5 Stz -A- �E—A�M ue_/ Tr A ek f
L v E 7— rT V- Y— s �u7z+£. 6F
y
coc
t
{{
l .......� Ipt✓: Far- r >o-�-r4�'y ., i � i �
7 �o s s +i�–r Lri r-f -rp a +t a
5...�...t?
II i i
CO
GI
C +wT - -Z)
No. c 18459
ED(P. 08.90 -11
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. " t4 El
927 Arguello Street $HFET NO. � OF
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063
(650) 367.9595 CALCULATED BY DATE
FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECHEDW t� DATE
,
���- �?-�� • Z P KLVr, ojE�t.E )�- �1�(,� A -c_e�t i�� �RLV�S 'F�
T (B)
r f.
cr6klbr ="ti E If7,Q
AC714C,
ps
Ld
A car I
14 S_ +ter{ PI+ k�sv ,t'r �?a� LA "4 E.
f LA
I rr T a `� f. i 2_ �:Z -•� } I _. i
wr
14 r
—.l e,
re
{ r i_. O
t a "Q `1tAIt. Z%- vS loy?' c
i
CFC A IFOP
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC.
927 Arguello Street
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063
(650) 367 -9595
FAX (650) 367.8139
Joe &((� N Tuu� r4V�
SHEV NO. OF 17
CALQIIATw By DATE fe - L+I ` l�O
CHECKED BY 4T 7 oars
SuT r a
������ t t �T �Tl�l 1 ► T1 � �1.87kI8
I
=T
5.308 a
c> _ - "t sT
Mu:Max = 0.00 k -ft at 0.00 It from left
Dmax = 0.0000 in at 0.00 it from left
Mu:max a right a -13.18 k -ft
DL Reaction - 0.000 k DL Reaction • 22.813 k
LL Reaction - 0.000 k LL Reactions - 0.000.k
Total Reaction = 0.000 k Total React o -2 22'.813 k
T 2 2 u� S
NO. C 18059
D(P. 08.30-11
sW T i `7
1.87 k/ft 131 kA1
5.00 ft
Mu:Max • 39.88 k-ft at 4.89 ft kom left
Dmax - 0.0000 in at 0.00 ft from left
Mu:Max (gD left = -13.18 k -ft
DL Reaction = 22.613 k
LL Reaction = 0.000 k
Total Readio 4 22.613 k
I
83.011 k
�L T
-r --r -01= FfEq2-�
7
Mu:max @ right - 31.70 k -ft
DL Reaction . 74.589 It
LL Reaction = 0.000 k
Total Reactio = 74.559 k
T = 7"y 1 s 6C=1 or, -Q
s Hs r 8
3.31 kIR j 5.04 kM
Mu:Max Q left = 31,70 k -ft
DL Reaction - 74.589 k
LL Reaction = 0.000 k
Total Rea 74.589 k 1
q a
9.50 R
Mu Max - 31.70 k -ft at 0.00 fl from left
Dmax = 0.0000 in at 0.00 ft from left
II T `+ z /oS r S6
Mu:max @ right - - 210.00 k -ft
DL Reaction - 103.381 k
LL Reaction = 0.000 k
Total Reaction 381 k
Goo S
W'. � 16er;
EXP. 03-30 -11
S W7-, Gi
6A4 klk 1 4 j ♦ + 8.20 k1R
27.20 ft
Mu:Max . 0.00 k -ft at 0.00 it from left
Dmax = 0.0000 In at 27.19 ft from left
Mu:Max a left • - 210.59 k -ft
DL Reaction . 103.361 k DL Reaction = 0.000 k
LL Reaction - 0.000 it LL Reaction - 0.000 It
Total Reaction .361 k ! Total Reaction . 0.000 k
N2 C 18«; .r
EXP. OO -30.11
►/j
DYWIDAG- SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL -
SWIt-f
DYWIDAG Bar Rock and Soil Anchors
Presf weing Mmi Properties -ASTM A722
N.M. 0 16459
(11010030-11
_
size
U6MAD
SiAM.
p
Cn a
U
(4�
pmtketd" Fu ca
Nanimd
Wow
pw a*)
m
off
Ohr wwr
6.1111 L. A.
1 6.76 it 3,6
0A L. A.
In
I mm
tai
We
W
mW
tips
I kN
W
Idi
tips
M
i*
I tN
pN
W.
in
Nut Eftwm a
1
26
150
1030
185
548
127.51
567
1020
454
89.3
397
76.5
340
3A1
4.48
120
30.5
1
26
160'
1100
0.65
548
196.0
1 605
108.8
485
952
423
81.6
363
3.01
4.48
120
30.5
V.
32
150
1030
125
806
187.5
834
150.0
662
131.3
584
1125
500
429
6.54
1.46
37.1
IV.
32
180"
11001
125
ON
200.0
890
160.0
707
14(L
621
1200
534
4.39
6.54
1.46
37.1
1.7,
36
150
1030
1.58
1018
237.0
1.055
189.8
839
1165,91
738
142 -2
633
5.56
&28
1.63
41 -4
1 '1. 1
36
160'
1100
1.58
1018
2528
1,125
202.3
899
177.0
787
151 -7
675
1 51%
6.28
109
41 -4
1'7. 1
46
150
1030
2.62
1690
400
1,779
320
1423
1 280
1 1245
240
1068
923
19.74
200
1 51 -0
Steel Stress Levels
r Q
A, .• :1: 1
Hardware Dimensions
:1 M I it . .::. ... ./.
1 " •.h. ►' • ..: I •. : h N.
it . . ►b,•' .
Bar
In
am
in
mm
In
am
In
mm
Oar
1
25
125
32
1.575
35
136
46
AndrorPWCSm
5x5x145
4x051125
190x130x32
1Wx165x32
6x7x150
5x8x15
160x160x38
130x200x36
7x75x1.75180x190xt5.4
5x85x115
t3l)x240145
9x9125
-
230x230x835
-
Nut Eftwm a
1.876
50.0
2b
635
275
70
2.615
74
6fxt ON pload i 0
3
762
35
85.9
40
100
9.625
92
COOK LW O3. C
5S
140
675
1 170
8.625
1 220
1 625
1 173
Cow1w Dimft t
2
500
2375
I 60.325
2825
1 67
1 3.125
1 79
2111
ANpiOii PIl41f
Minimum AnchorQiameter
CerraMe
Uonanal
SIn61a
Dmdit
ow
0I0mOar
YAiWant
1
With
Wil M
IBb
wpm
Wuh _
CNOW
le -
b
nml
a
nln
to
sm
h1
ma
h
wn
it 6101
1
25
120
305
2009
IM
t.M
4128
2.155
0A0
2.015 0X
2500
t' /•
JL
IAa
37.t
LS79
agm
L=
41M
zma
a).Oe
2.879 13_W13
125 1"
3.'A.
36
IM
41.4
L76D
67110
2. 000
50.80
?315
nAj
2075 7300
3,125 79.38
W_�116zr_
EXR 06 -30-11
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-MO is a rugged, therruadly 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
in applications where the tree stressing length will
remain ungrouted for an extended period of time.
The Dywidag wedge anchor for epoxy mated strand
bites through the coating into the strand, developing
a minimum of 95% of its rtomutal 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 cast 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 tree stressing length of epoxy coat-
ed strand anchors can be coated with a lubricat-
ing grease and encased in a seamless extruded
PE sheath.
h4ultistrand Prestressing Steel Properties - ASTM A416
Anchor
sire
Nominal
crofts ftaeort
area
Nombgl
( snarwl
UNIrm6a
Jim Am)
pros"ealftForce
amfmA,
&70AwA"
GM§,uAn
tall
tmttt
pH
k9fM
kl'a
kM
M"
kN
rip&
hr4
hqn
kN
3 -0-6
0.65
420
220
327
175.8
782
140.6
625
123.0
547
105.5
409
4 -0.6
0.87 1
560
3.00
4.46
234.4
1,043
1875
834
164 -1
730
140.6
626
S '_OA
1.09
7011
3.70
5.51
293.0
003
234.4
1.043
205.1
912
175.8
782
6 -0.6
1.30
840
4.40
655
361.6
1,564
281.3
1,251
246.1
1,095
211.0
938
7 -0.6
1.52
ew
520
7.74
4102
1,825
328.2
1.460
2872
1,277
248.2
1,095
8 -0.8
1.74
1.120
5.90
8.78
468.8
2,085
375.0
1,668
328.1
1.460
2813
1251
9 -0.6
1.95
1.260
6.70
9.97
527.4
4346
421.9
1,877
3092
1.642
316.4
1,408
12 -Me
2.60
1,680
8.80
1324
7032
3,128
567.6
2,503
4923
2,190
422.0
1,877
15 -0-6
326
2,100
11.10
16.52
879.0
3.910
708.2
3.128
615.3
2.737
527.4
2.346
19 -0.6
412
2,660
14.10
2098
1.113.4
4.953
8901
3,962
779.4
3.467
668.0
2,972
27 -Me
5.68
3.780
20.00
29.76 -
1582
7,038
1,265.8
5.631
1.107.6
4.927
WA
4223
37 -0.6
6.03
5.180
27AO
40.78
2,168.2
9.645
1.734.6
7,716
1,5174
8,751
1,307.0
5.787
40 0.6
10 41
an
w SA
Sl.e3
-P.et4 a
t!! 512
2 2a0A
10,009
1.90"
6.790
i.e87J
7,807
54 -0.8
11.72
7,560
3990
59.38
3,164.4
14.076
2,5315
11,261
2,215.1
- 9,853
1,898.6
8.446
ii1 O.0
1,24
O,G40
4L.10
0T. 12
,Jd7n6
10.9u1
'L,tl'�4r./
72, P11
2=2
11,1131
1 2.144.8
9,540
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC.
927 Arguello Street
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063
(650) 367-9595
FAX (650) 367-8139
JOB 8l
B " MO.
C UUTED BY DATE
CHECKED BV DATE JAC)
L.- A
-T- I E-Z A C-k- '1L 3 1 C:� 1-4
EXP
--b) Ate. 1Z4 IN v !r
'p tk
tLA- -r'J Ei kc*4i
A-L
A- Z44
ZS Li
W-r. 4f)
p .
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC.
927 Arguello Street
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063
(650) 367.9595
FAX (650) 367 -8139
C516 R-Utq
SHEET ND. of
mcu"TED BY DATE — Z 1
CHECKED BY 12y1-h r DATE 49;:—Lt J,=�
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC.
927 Arguello Street
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063
(650) 367 -9595
FAX (650) 367.8139
" C31il�, A—%JE
SHEET ND. I I OF 19
CALCULATED BY DATE /� + Z4 - (c), CHECKED BY � DATE b' Z l` I-=
i
r
c_ I F+ 7e 6!) %4 r° (k ., ()L—
!/ Z- r
T7 2,
Gj \7 l�
/i � / /
� i �r'7�.� ((.w/ rt._C. -l. 4'�. r- l .C- l /•/
T',�`- F.� i..
' — -z'�
t_
�9
Dal
r C r t , ✓. F--'r
c l -Is' 'TG'u
La
f i
r
It
1
rLt,
i
Nrftd 76 JUN 2010,17'1?PM
Concrete Beam Design
File: c cDAW Glalsr pmp.ecli
9 ENERC4C, INC. 19832006, Ver 6.0.711, NAM
at tieback location
Materfat Pro —1,4 s
Location R I
calculation. per lac zoos. CBC 2007, ACI 31845
fc = 4.0 ksi
FIN Values Flexure:
0.90
1r2
ft = fc • 7.50 = 474.34 psi
Shear:
0.750
MMrnum RENDING Envelope
W Density = 145.0 pd
01 =
0.850
• • • • •
Elastic Modulus = 3,122.0 ksi
Applied Loads
q D(P. 06.30.11
Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Load Combination 2006 IBC & ASCE 7 -05
*
up
Span # 1 1
Fy - Main Rebar = 60.0 ksi
Fy - Stirrups =
60.0 ksi -
- --� —(
E - Main Rebar = 29,000.0 ksi
E - Stirrups = 29,000.0 ksi
A
•
Stirrup Bar Size #
# 4
Maximum Deflection
Num of Bars Cros" Inclined
Crack
2
• • • • •
D(160)
t
Section: 36'w x 18" h. Soan = 8.0 it
Cross Section & Reinforcing Details
Location R I
.e�.ry w ,.w k.,,r _
,1v
Rectangular Section, Width = 36.0 in, Height =18.0 in
Sagmant Length Span #
In Span
#i Reinfont ...
`4 to L
MMrnum RENDING Envelope
r UM r1
r -
i ri r
& am
Applied Loads
q D(P. 06.30.11
Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Load for Span Number 1
*
up
Span # 1 1
Point Load: u =1WUKrm4.0rl
C
- --� —(
DESIGN SUMMARY
A
•
Maximum Bending Stress Ratio =
0.888: 1
Maximum Deflection
D Only
Section used for this span
Typical Section
Max Downward L+Lr +S Deflection
.000 in
Mu : Applied
224.0k-ft
Max Upward L +Lr +S Deflection
0.000 in
Mn • Phi : Allowable
252.20 k -ft
Live Load Deflection Ratio
0 <360
Load Combination
+1,40D
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.031 in
Location of maximum on span
4.00011
Max Upward Total Deflection
0.000 in
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Taal Deflection Ratio
3124
Maximum Vertical Reactions - Unfiectored _
Support s Load Caml7ine8 support RoKliun
Support 1, (0O*Y— 80.000 k.
Support 2, (D Only) 80.000 k
Shear StirrupRRequirements
#4 stirrups (2 legs) M 7.50 in ok him 0.00 b 8.00 It along span, Cadftlm : PNVc -c Vu ,�(� FEf ESS /pN
Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations !D% . \l..
Location R I
.e�.ry w ,.w k.,,r _
,1v
Sagmant Length Span #
In Span
Mu : Max phi"Mnx Stress Rata
`4 to L
MMrnum RENDING Envelope
— --
- -- _ NO. C 1645;
Cpnn It 1 1
& am
"AM 757 70 0 R4
q D(P. 06.30.11
w1.40D
*
up
Span # 1 1
4.000
C
Ovarall Maximum Daflar2lons._
Untied_ n_rad Lnsds
A
Load Conbiroldn
Spin Max.'
-' Dell Location in Span Load Cmt*labm
�'•' in SP•n
D Only
1
0.0307 4.100
0.0000 0.000
SH-T. I C.
TIEBACK SCHEDULE -TABLE $'A":
MARK
DESIGN
TEST
LOCK -OFF
LINBONDED
BONDED
TOTAL
BONDED
TOTAL
TOTAL
TYPE
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
ZONE
ZONE
LENGTH
ZONE
LENGTH
TIEBACK
KIPS
KIPS
KIPS
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
ANCHORS
12" DIA.
12" DIA.
8" DIA.
8" DIA,
EACH
T1 -T6
120.0
160.0
70.0
15
25
40
40
55
6
- MULTISTRAND ANCHORS, OR BARS, TO BE BY DCI DYWIDAG, OR EQUAL,
DCP - BOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTED.
- MULTISTRAND ANCHORS ARE RECOMMENDED: USE (4) 0.6" DIA., 270 KSI ANCHORS.
- BAR ANCHOR: USE 1 3/8" DIA, GR. 150 ASTM A722, DYWIDAG BAR AND HARDWARE, DCP,
ALL TIEBACK ANCHORS TO BE PROOF TESTED, PROOF TEST ALL TIEBACK ANCHORS TO 133% D.L.
TIEBACK ANCHOR TESTING PROCEDURE TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH PTI MANUAL,
FIFTH EDITION, AND SPECIFICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
PERFORMANCE TESTING SECTION 4 -3.7.1
PROOF TESTING SECTION 4.3.7.2
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SECTION 4.5.6
LOCATION OF TESTED TIEBACKS /ANCHORS TO BE FIELD DETERMINED BY SOIL ENGINEER.
- LOCK -OFF ALL TIEBACK ANCHORS AFTER ACCEPTED TESTING TO 60% D.L.
- TIEBACK GROUT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS OF 3,000 PSI (MIN.).
- INCLINATION BELOW HORIZONTAL PLANE (BLUFF FACE): 15' TO 30' (MAX.).
- NON- PRESSURE GROUTED, DRILLED 8" DIA. ANCHOR HOLES USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES.
- APPROX. TOTAL TIEBACK ANCHORS ANTICIPATED (6).
- ADDITIONAL TIEBACK ANCHORS MAY BE INSTALLED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY SOIL ENGINEER'S
REPRESENTATIVE BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS.
N ,� .
ExP OS -3o -11
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. JO8 8l t4t--PT,-j $4 I✓ A-UE-
927 Arguello Street SHEET ND. OF 19
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY �} �� 6 — Ll iC
(650) 367 -9595
FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE
PROJECT REPAIRS TO COASTAL BLUFF PAGE :
AAA ADVANCED DESIGN I
CLIENT. 816 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA DESIGN BY: RH
J08 N0.: io-m DATE: wiri to REVIEW BY: RDM
IWF Base Plate Deslun Based on AISC Manual 13th Edition (AISC 360 -051
INPUT DATA IS DESIGN SUMMARY
AXIAL t-00%,D OF COMPRESSION
P. =
160
kips, ASD
STEEL PLATE YIELD STRESS
Fy =
36
ksi
CONCRETE STRENGTH
fc'=
4
ksi
COLUMN SIZE
a> - 132.5x2.5xlf4
(d +b,') J
BASE PLATE SIZE
N =
A
in
2,r llPP
B =
e
in
AREA OF CONCRETE SUPPORT
A 2 -
2304
in
(geometrically similar to and concentric with the loaded area.)
Where d a
USE
8 x 8
1 -1I8 In thick late
.YSIS
:K BEARING PRESSURE (AISC 360 -05 J8)
PP)S2� =f =AI MIN I0.85M,4X1 A2 11 1.7= 174.08 kips
L l Ai J J
Where A, = 64 in', actual area of base plate.
67, = 2.50
DETERMINE VALUES OF m, n, n', X, and X (AISC 13th Page 14 -5)
m -0.5(N -0.95 d) =
010
In
n- 0.5(B- 0.8bf) =
2.33
In
n'= 025(di5f)" a
1.44
in
X = Aj
4dby- Ira
1
I �
0.83
(d +b,') J
J
r
2,r llPP
Z_
li+
. lJ-
1 -X
1.00
Where d a
8.00
in, depth of column section.
bf a
4.17
In, flange width of column section.
REQUIRED THICKNESS OF BASE PLATE (AISC 13th Page 14-6)
F3—.33P. fmin -^' F BN = 1.12 In
Where l - MAX (m, n, An') = 2.33 in
01
E
v
6
n 10.8 b, I n
7
[Satisfactory]
0
P.
NO. C 1845:,
EXP. 06 90.11
\(I
C C.A LIc- %
Gta�tuSS�
A
CIdus
Ct
� dab
d
T.
F� �
o Z
Xle^O !1
CA
i�'naSt
'c
°
L w
"too
CVV6W2008paU*WVTEO2Os
sou
CoNSTBOCnoNK
STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
For
Sorich Residence, 816 Neptune Avenue
Prepared for:
Mr. Rick Sorich
816 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Project Site Address:
816 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, CA
SWPCP Prepared bv:
Soil Engineering Construction, Inc.
560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 633 -3470
SWPCP Preparadon Date:
June 14, 2010
MAR 1 2011
560 N. Hwy 161, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (769) 633 -3479 Fax (766) 633 -3472
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
1 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."
Sig t e Date
5ro;J W, I11410-A/
7�0- 633. 3'-170
Name and Title Telephone Number
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 he requirements set forth in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook.
RE' S' nature
W. IIiUA/
RE's Name (printed)
, (g; fyX,
Date of S CP Approval
7G0 • 633. 3 y70
RE's Phone Number
Page 1 -1
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 50 foot
long concrete reinforced upper bluff retention system. The existing retention system was constructed in
2001 and consists of steel reinforced concrete caissons that have been drilled to a depth of 36 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 caissons for the full height and width of the property. The new shotcrete facing will be
drained by the means of drain panels with weep hole pipe at the bottom. The proposed shotcrete
wall /facing will be hand sculpted and colored to match the adjacent bluff and to satisfy the City of Encinitas
aesthetic appearance policy.
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. A single family, two -story residence occupies a majority of the
building pad. The project is bounded on the east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences on the
north and south, and on the west by an approximately 92 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea
bluff. 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 first item of work is to access the site from the bluff top above & erect temporary
construction scaffolding. The next step is to install a grade beam /tieback system along the base of the
existing drilled pier /caissons. Construction crews will then install dowels into the exposed drilled piers, tie
the structural steel, and finish with the shotcrete application. Lastly, all existing concrete deck overhanging
sections will be removed. It is expected that this work will take approximately two to three months.
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
M
TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION BNI I's
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
1:1
®
Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing
activities.
EC4
Hydroseeding
Necessary after finishing wall repairs.
EC -5
Soil Binder
1:1
®
Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing
activities.
EC -6
Straw Mulch
1:1
®
Not necessary. Minimal soil disturbing
activities.
EC -7
Geotextiles, Plastic Covers, &
Necessary at the base of the shotcrele area,
Erosion Control Blankets/Mats
®
El
and 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 Dikes/Drainage Swales &
Lined Ditches
®
❑
Silt fences will be installed below the work
areas in the mid bluff area and along top of
seawall.
EC -10
Outlet ProtectionlVelocity
Dissipation Devices
❑
®
No outlets on project site will require to be
protected.
M
3.2 SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES
Typical temporary sediment control BMPs during construction activiti
implemented as necessary. Sediment controls BMPs that will be implem
project site include broom sweeping, wetting to control dust during the
necessary. If necessary, sand bags will be used to control off -site runo ff
control BMPs that will be implemented at the site.
Table 3 -2
es are applicable and will be
ented during construction of the
concrete removal operations, if
. Table 3 -2 identifies sediment
BMP
No.
MM I M I ILI] Mil M
BMP CHECK IF
USED
MIM9111111111311
CHECK IF IF NOT 7USED,STATE REASON
NO T USED
SE -1
Silt Fence
®
Silt fences will ctly below the
work areas.
SE -2
Sediment Basin
Not Applicable
SE -3
Sediment Trap
Not Applicable
SE4
Check Dam
Not Applicable
SE -5
Fiber Rolls
As required.
SE-6
Sand Bag Berm
®
Sand bags may be used if excessive runoff
s observed to be problematic.
Sweeping, vacuuming & 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
®
El
the public roadway, accumulation of
sediment on the public roadway adjacent to
the project site entrance/exit points, and /or
during ground or concrete disturbing
activities. (e.g., if a release occurs and
requires soil removal).
SE -8
Sandbag Banier
Not Applicable
SE -9
Straw Bale Barrier
Not Applicable
3 -3
3.3 TRACKING CONTROL AND ENTRANCE /EXIT STABILIZATION
The project site entrance /exit location is located 816 Neptune Avenue, 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
3 -5
BMP
BMP
CHECK
CHECK IF
Notes
No.
IF USED
NOT USED
NS-1
Water Conservation
❑
®
Minimal onsite water will be used and will be managed
Practices
so that no runoff into the Ocean.
NS-2
Dewatering Operations
❑
®
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
NS4
Temporary Stream
1:1
®
Not applicable
Crossing
NS-5
Clear Water Diversion
®
Not applicable
NS -6
Illicit
❑
®
Not applicable
Con nection /Discharge
NS -7
Potable Water /Irrigation
F1
®
Not applicable
Vehicle and Equipment Operations
NS -B
Vehicle and Equipment
❑
®
No vehicle or equipment cleaning will be conducted at
Cleaning
the project site.
NS-9
Vehicle and Equipment
Fueling
®
Limited equipment fueling will occur and it will require
that secondary containment around the fueling
operation.
rio
V ehicle and Equipment
®
No vehicle or equipment maintenance will be
Maintenance
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
WASTE NIANA(A'NIENT 1
BMP No. BMP CHECK CHECK IF Notes
IF USED 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.
WM4
Spill Prevention and Control
®
❑ Plastic tarps andlor 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
®
❑
Leaked fluids from parked vehicles /equipment will be
Management
properly cleaned and disposed.
WM -7
Contaminated Soil
®
❑ Any soil contaminated by leaking vehicles will be
Management
removed and properly disposed.
3 -6
WM -8
Concrete Waste Management
WPCP
AND REPAIR PROGRAM
Containment of concrete delivery truck clean outs will
BMP
®
Elconcrete
be performed using a suitable containers. Stockpiles of
debris and/or soil will be maintained for short
(Oct.1 — May 31)
(June 1 — Sept. 31)
periods of time and in the event of rain or wind the
NA
NA
NA
EC -2
piles will be protected with plastic sheeting.
WM -9
Sanitary/Septic Waste
®
and prior, during, and
❑
Removal of septic waste from portable toilets will occur
events
Management
EC -7
Weekly, and prior,
Every two weeks,
on a regular basis.
BMP -032
Dispose of Obsolete
and prior, during, and
Obsolete equipment and vehicles will be removed and
events
Equipment, Inoperable
®
El
disposed.
Every two weeks,
Vehicles, and Surplus
during, and after rain
and prior, during, and
Materials
events
after rain events
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, MAINTENANCE,
WPCP
AND REPAIR PROGRAM
Inspection Frequency
BMP
Maintenance /Repair Measures
Rainy
Non -Rainy
(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 prior,
Every two weeks,
If gravel bags are used then inspect and maintain them in accordance with the
during, and after rain
and prior, during, and
specified frequency. Replace any damaged gravel bags.
events
after rain events
SE -7
Daily when active
Daily when active
Sweep or vacuum any tracked material.
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 -7
3 -8
INSPECTION, MAINI'I:N.XN('[',.XND
Inspection Frequency
WPCP
REPAIR PROGRAM
Replace gravel to stabilize exit as needed.
TC -1
Daily when active
Daily when active
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,
ingress and egress,
otherwise weekly;
otherwise every two
Prior, during, and
weeks, and prior,
after rain events
during, and after rain
events
WM -2
Daily when active
Daily when active
Maintain 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
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
WPCP
Inspection Frequency
WMA
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
Remove any soil contaminated from leaking vehicles and property 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
SOIL
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONt.C.
UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RETENTION STRUCTURE
816 NEPTUNE AVENUE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Mr. Rick Sorich
June 14, 2010
(Revised /Reissued November 3, 2010)
560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472
SOIL
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONINc.
June 14, 2010
(Revised /Reissued November 3, 2010)
Mr. Rick Sorich
816 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report
Proposed Maintenance Repairs to Existing Retention Structure
816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California
Dear Rick:
In accordance with your request and the comments of the City of Encinitas planning department
(review letter dated September 8, 2010), Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. has completed this
Updated Preliminary Geotechnical recommendation report of the coastal bluff and the existing
structures at 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 816 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. The subject area faces imminent danger that will likely
result in the failure of the existing onsite retaining structures, as well as, the upper bluff which
serves to protect the residential structures and neighboring properties.
As noted in the report, we believe that the conditions at the site pose a significant threat to the
560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472
SOIL
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONINc.
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
subsurface caisson wall.
In addition, it is recommended that a structural shotcrete skin be installed across the exposed
caissons 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. It is also recommended that the existing deck overhang which was not a part of the
retention system be removed and disposed off -site. It is anticipated that the minimal overhang
which is a part of the retention system will be encapsulated within the shotcrete skin and no
overhanging concrete will remain. Design parameters for this repair are presented in our design
calculations.
Upon completion of these repairs, it is recommended that the bluff face below the proposed
tied back shotcrete repair 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, the existing upper bluff 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.
Jon . Niven, P.E.
560 N.
Nk
Robert D.
(760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472
UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS TO EXISTING RETENTION STRUCTURE
816 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
This review utilizes, as a base for substantiating our analyses, information presented in the
following previous reports:
1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report, Proposed Maintenance Repairs to
Existing Retention Structure, Richard Gerber, 794 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca.
92024 ", prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC), dated February 20, 2008.
2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Lower and Upper Bluff Repairs, Sorich
Residence, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca. 92024 ", prepared by SEC, dated October
18, 2000.
3. "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Mr. Rick Sorich, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA. 92024 ",
prepared by SEC, dated October 13, 2000.
4. "Repairs to Lower Bluff, Mr. Rick Sorich, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA. 92024 ",
prepared by SEC, dated October 13, 2000.
5. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Lower and Upper Bluff Repairs, Brem
Residence, 808 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", Prepared by SEC, dated August
6. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Lower and Upper Bluff Repairs, Sorich
Residence, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", Prepared by SEC, dated August
7, 2000.
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 816 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
Sorich - 816 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
1
3T
3T
\P BLVD
S
BEACONSggs
BEACH o
0
0
m
PACIFIC
OCEAN TF ENA ST
N �
STONE
STEPS
7
°o
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
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 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:
• 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.
+OhCh 8l6 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
3.0 BLUFF / SITE DESCRIPTION
According to the topographic survey prepared by Ciremele Surveying (dated May 24, 2010,
updated September 21, 2010), as well as 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 95 +/- 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 the west by an
approximately 95 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea bluff. An existing approximately
50 foot long, variable height (20' on the north end, tapering to 16' on the south end), 27 -inch
thick, reinforced concrete seawall was constructed in March 2001. The seawall incorporates
one row of tieback anchors on the north end (soldier beam portion), approximately 80 feet in
length, and two rows of tiebacks on the south end, approximately 55 to 60 feet in length. The
wall has been colored and sculpted to match the existing surrounding bluff area. Also in March
2001, the construction of a below - grade, approximately 50 foot long concrete reinforced upper
bluff retention system. The retention system was constructed at the base of an 8 foot high tied
back retaining structure below the rear yard area of the residence and consists of steel
reinforced concrete caissons that have been drilled to a depth of 36 feet and placed 8 feet on
center, with (6) tiebacks, approximately 40 feet in length, capped by steel and concrete. At this
time, the upper bluff has eroded to the point that the vertical piers are now exposed, and an
original concrete pad is severely undercut.
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 2) and Geologic Section
Imrirh - Rt A Nepkme
h :d I, o hrlu n. Geolech. Recommendations Rpt
(Figure 3), modified from the 10 -scale topographic survey and construction plans prepared by
SEC (June 18, 2010), 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.
5.0 GEOLOGIC UNITS AND STRUCTURE
Regional Geoloev
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.
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. Tan (1986) also 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.
Sorirh - 916 Neptune
I pdeted Prelim t,eotech. Recommendations Rpl
\ DENSE
\\
t' �
�_ 9s
CONC 2 J
H 0 \
64 . \ \ BRUSH
\'• CONC
....... .. \
\
\
\. DENSE
X1318 \z
�
�. TREES 301.'
14'16
5 5 9
CptV
\
N
o
1 A+c/a.
\�
816
! x
J \
SCATTER,D
` \\
a94. NEPTUNE
1 K
.�
ROCKS�`I \.
n AVENUE
95.1
..
:.
u
p6
106 \
� q,
obl ""fie"
i
E
9 x .5
n A�. \ t
7 94. N 74'1630'
\ `\ �, •
X
EL: .17
\
- -""
000 4 0
� DENSE
At S ��O
TREES 5
�/
T1
�Ebr
5.5 b/
CONC
NOTE: ALL DDA ENSIONS R
LEGEND
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXMATE
Af ARTIFICIAL FILL
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING (SEC 2000)
Afg ARTE•TCIAL FILL (GRAvEUFH.L)
Qb QUATERNARY BEACH DEPOSITS
r
APPROXMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
Qt QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS
APPROX LOCATION EXTG. SEAWALL
QIS QUATERNARY LANDSLIDE MATERIAL
Tt
TERTIARY TORREY FORMATION
L
Qt/ DENOTES UNDERLYINGFORMATION ISOB.MATERIAIS
Ebr
EOCENE FORMATION ° GEOLOGIC MAP
Ebr (LISTED BELOW)
1 INCH
= 30 FEET FIGURE 2
A
1201
100
80
60
40
EXTG.
SEAWALL
EL.: + 17't
M.S.L
20
OUARTERNARY
BEACH
DEPOSITS
0
SECTION A -A
A'
120
UPPER CONC.
DECK (EL. 94.8') !,
EXTG. UPPER BLUFF
RETG. WALL (VARIABLE
AORICH RESIDENCE
7' -6" TO 8' –O ")
816 NEPTUNE AVE
100
OVERHANG CONC.
SLAB ELEV.
/
86.4' – 88.1' T
ESTIMATED J
VERTICAL SCARP -- -
-
80
AVERAGE j
HEIGHT
HEIGHT Ji_
36't (OI)
60
/
EXTG. BELOW GRADE
Afg
RETENTION SYSTEM
'
(GRAVEL /SOIL ANGLE OF REPOSE 35'
_
/
FILL OVER SLIDE DEBRIS)
_ _ _ _ _
OUARTERNARY TERRACE
40
.S'' (Qf)
DEPOSITS
.Ols
(DI p 7—
EL.: 23' t M.S.L.
7— 7
APPROXIMATE
20
FAILURE LIMITS APPROXIMATE
EOCENE FORMATION
(Af)� (1996) LOCATION OF
(Ebr)
0
t - EXTG. TIEBACK
1 INCH =, 20 FEET
0
\
TORREY SANDSTONE
(TO
\
SECTION A -A'
FIGURE 3
Coastal Bluff Geomoroholo
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.
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
iOrirhh - 816 Nephme
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Apt
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 (2000), and our observations during the recent site reconnaissance,
site geologic units include Quaternary beach deposits, Quaternary landslide materials,
Quaternary terrace deposits, and bedrock units consisting of the Eocene Formation and the
Tertiary Torrey Sandstone. The Eocene Formation and the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone were not
directly observed at the site during the site reconnaissance because of the present low relief
sand berm, existing beach deposits and vegetation, and a lower bluff seawall that conceal the
sea cliff. However, a review of SEC (2000) indicates that these natural 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 2.
Artificial fill /Artificial Fill (Gravel) (Mao Symbol Af, Afg)
As part of the bluff repairs performed at the project site and within the bluff to the north (828
Neptune Avenue) in 1996, artificial fill soils, (gravel and soil) were placed within the bluff face.
These fill soils consist of /." crushed gravel topped with select topsoils. These materials were
placed to provide an erosion resistant surface blanket, within the bluff repair areas.
Quaternary Landslide Deoosit (Map Symbol - QIs)
Though not readily visible during our field reconnaissance, landslide debris materials (mapped
as QIs) are present within the bluff area of the subject site. These slide materials were left in
place and stabilized during the installation of the existing lower seawall, installed as part of
bluff repairs performed in 1996. As such, landslide debris materials locally underlie artificial fill
(gravel soil materials) placed within the northwesterly lower bluff face. The slide materials
Sonch -816 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
I
generally consisted of firm to stiff, blocky, gray to gray - green, clay /siltstone, with a soft basal
failure surface at varying depth. These landslide debris materials are retained with the lower
bluff by the existing seawall and tiebacks, and covered with artificial gravel soil fill materials
(See Geologic Map — Figure 2).
uaternary 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 efforts by SANDAG have resulted in a low relief berm near the rear of the beach.
Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt)
Also according to SEC (2000), Quaternary terrace deposits comprise the coastal bluff at the site
between approximately 23% and 95 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.
Eocene Formation (Mai) Symbol - Ebr)
As indicated in SEC (2000), the Eocene Formation unconformably underlies the natural terrace
deposits materials at an approximate elevation of 23%: feet MSL. These formational sediments
generally consist of a stiff, gray to gray - green, silstone /claystone with some sand. These
;nrich - 816 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geolech. Recommendations Rpt
materials have also been described as Ardath Formation (Lockwood Singh 1996), as part of the
of the original landslide investigation to the north. Additionally, a generalized geologic map
prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2005) uses the more generic description Santiago Formation.
For the purposes of this report, we have used Eocene Formation (Ebr) to describe these natural
formational soils.
Tertiary Torrey Sandstone (Mau Symbol — TO
The Tertiary Torrey Sandstone was encountered at depth below the Eocene Formation. This
formation generally consists of a gray brown, dry, very dense sandstone
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
According to SEC, bedding within the Eocene formation is estimated to dip approximately 2%
degrees in a northerly direction. Elliot (2001) indicates that bedding planes, within this Eocene
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 minor faults are exposed within the sea cliff of the Leucadia coastline. The subject
site is located between the Beacon's and Seawall faults. Based on the landslide hazards in the
Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, the subject site is also located just north of
several minor faults, which trend through the bluff in this area. One of these minor faults trends
northeast, and is mapped with vertical displacement (downward displacement along the north
side of the fault features). The trend of these fault features and the related fracturing, may
explain the composition of nearby bluff exposures, and the general susceptibility to past failure.
Sortrh - R16 Neptune
Updalt0 Pir hvii ueoterh Re[ommendation< Rpt
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
San Andreas Transform Fault System
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 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).
Sowl, - 816 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geonecn Recommendations Rpt
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.
The Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon 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.
So, id, - 816 Neptune
Updated P'rclim. Geoted,, Recommendations Rpl
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
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:
Sorwh- 816 NePlune
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
• 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 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.
Runoff collects in the southwest corner of the rear yard and is directed toward Neptune Avenue
via a sump pump system.
Sorich - 816 Neptune
Updated Prelim. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
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:
1. 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 816 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.
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.
Snrich 81F Neptune
Updalecl Prelnn. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
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.
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 816
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.
Sanrh - R16 Neptune
Update 0 P�ehm. 6eotech, Recommendabom Rpt
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
Appendix B — Boring Log
%ori;h - 816 Neptune
Updated PiPhm. Geotech. Recommendations Rpt
.Is-
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: 1:26,510.5 ", 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, 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, 1.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, 1.C., eds, Earthquake
geology San Andreas fault system, Palm Springs to Palmdale.
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, lob 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.
APPENDIX B
D,Mm m wy 7M1Gaum' DNN q BORING DIAMETER' B Im h I"m SNm DATE. 061mm
`A IN
BK -
CaMb
Du
Malelum
SW cYn
- -
_
DmYy
C Hwd (%)
(u S c.S)
Boring No- 7 SOIL DESCRIPTION
EMSew1 02 IL. u-
0
_
Be
46
63
SM I6P
SM I SP
SM
I
SP I SM
-
PCC PAVEMENTQ 2I0 N- THICKNESS
@ 7 in IERRACE DEPOSITS: BROWN, SLrKTLY SILTY FINE. SAND. DAMP 70 SLIGHMY MOIST
MEDIUM DENSE
® 1011 SAME AS ABOVE. MEDIUM DLNSE
0 2011 LIGM BROWN AND GREY, SIL TY FINE SAND, DRY. DFNSE
0301 LIGHT BROWN. SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND, DRY. DENSE
5
RING6 lo
Is
SPT 20
RINGS
LOG OF RORMG
PIMe No 1
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRICTION 927 Arpuelb Strtel, Redwood City. CA 94063
RMIG6: SPLITBARRFL SAMPLER
aPT: STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
BLOWS UST 17
.0 COIYTINAIDUS CORE BARREL
D011lrgcompany TICounly Onaug BORING DIAMETER Bin. HNICw Siam DATE oemim
Oepin (5)
Blow
Counts
Dry
Density
Maswle
Content (%)
Stll Clesc.
(U.S.C.S)
Bmd No. cont'd SOIL DESCRIPTION
Ele ulim 92 it H-
30
LB
89
88
EPISM
8P
SM
'SEE PREVgUS SHEET
'SAME AS ABOVE
LIGHT BROWN AND GREY, FINE SAND, DRY TO UAW. DENSE
BROWN, SILTY SAND, DAMP, VERY DENSE
35
E SPT
45
RINGS
55
SPT BO
LOG OF BORING
Plate No. 2
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCT" 927 Arguello Street Redwood City, CA 9495?
^'NGS: SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
BLOWS LAST 12"
C.C.: CONTINUOUS CORE BARREL
Drilling company Trl-County Dril ft Inc. BORING DIAMETER 8 Inch Holm Stem DATE: of ffilm
(A)
Blwr
Counts
OrY
Denely
IWO
MdAfure
CorRenl (°A)
Soil Cba.
(U.S.C.S)
Boeng No. cont'd SOL DESCRIPTION
6eW60n 928.•1
80
• SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
86.5 It $At(TNGO FORMATION: GREY AND YELLOW/ BROWN. SANDY CLAYEY SLTSTONE, HARD
85
RINGS
125
far r
HO PERCHED OVER SANTIAGO
089 -74 R C.C. RECOVERY, 32 RECOVERED, YELLLOW I BROWN. SILTY FINE SAND STONE 2 R
RECOVERED, DARK GREY, SILTY FINE SAND STONE, NO CLAY SEAMS
074-79It. C.C. RECOVERY, 4 I RECOVERED, GREY, SILTY ENE SAND STONE, SHELL FRAGMENTS
VERY DENSE
079-84 IL C.C. RECOVERY. 5 R RECOVERED,' SAME AS ABOVE: HARD COS
0 94-99 R C.C. RECOVERY, 4 L N- RECOVERED, ' SAME AS ABOVE
89.94 It - SEE SUBSEOUENT SHEET
79
75
so
85
W
LOG OF BORING
PYY NM
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIOt 927 Arguello Weal, ReWr000 City, CA 94093
—'W SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER
(: STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
«: BLOWS LAST 12"
C.C.: CONTINUOUS CORE BARREL
Dnllvp company T6Zotery Dn7Bng. IIC BORING DIAMETER: 81n. Hollow Stem DATE'. 011101M10
-RIGS: SPLR BARREL SAMPLER
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
-. BLOWS LASTIT
C.C.: CONTINUOUS CORE BARREL
BDry
Mdaert
SaI CtenDe
O6IM6y
ConterK (%)
(U.S.C.S)
Borkg No. corWd SOIL DESCRIPTION
Elewa6on 02 R. -A
0 W94 R, C.C. RECOVERY. 5 +4 R RECOVERED; • SA6IE AS ABOVE W/ EXCEPTION OF BOTTOM
1 M1. CLAYEY SILTSTONE. VERY HARD
91-97 TORREY FORMATION' RECOVERED 3.1- FT.. GREY. SLIGHTLY SILTY SANDSTONE VERY
DENSE. HARD CORING
100
BORING ENDED ® 9711.
GROUNDWATER PERCHED (B 66.51L
105
110
116
120
LOG OF BORING
Plate No. t
SOL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIDI 927 Arguello SVeel ReKwcod City. CA %063
-RIGS: SPLR BARREL SAMPLER
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
-. BLOWS LASTIT
C.C.: CONTINUOUS CORE BARREL
SOIL
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONIxc.
February 14, 2011
Steve Nowak
City of Encinitas - Engineering Department
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate
Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Shotcrete Facing & Tiebacks
Across Exposed Caisson Structure
Sorich Residence, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California
Case No: 10 -104 MUP /MOD /CDP
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 19 feet high.
Construction of Aesthetic /Structural Hand Sculpted Facing & Tiebacks
Mobilization & Install Scaffolding =
$10,000.00
Installation of Steel, Shotcrete & Hand Sculpting (950 SF @ $70 /SF) _
$66,500.00
Installation of 6 Tiebacks (1 Row of 6 @ $3,500 each) _
$21,000.00
Installation of 1 Grade Beam (50 total LF @ $250 /1-F) _
$12,500.00
Landscape & Irrigation =
$2,500.00
Demobilization & Scaffold Removal =
$8,000.00
Total Estimated Construction Costs =
$120,500.00
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,
SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Incr&N N/
5i7 a John W. Niven R.C.E. 57517 .n * LIAR 1 2011
560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 633 -3472
Richard Sorich
816 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
March 1, 2011
10: Peter Cota- Robles
Director of Engineering
FROM: Rick Sorich, owner
816 Neptune Avenue
RE: Request For Final Plan Check
Application #10 -104 MUPMOD /CDP
816 Neptune (Emergency Upper Coastal Bluff Repair Project)
1 am writing to request that the city initiate final plan check on my project (# 10 -104; Approved
on 2/17/11).
I understand that I am assuming the risk of paying for final plan check in advance of the
expiration of the appeal period following Planning Commission approval and am submitting this
letter to acknowledge and accept that risk.
Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
d*4L V
Richard Sorich
cc: Jim Knowlton,
GeoPacifica Inc.
Roy Sapau,
City Planning Department
GEOPACIFICA, INC.
REVIEW MEMORANDUM
August 4, 2011
To:
Mr. Steve Nowak
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024 -3633
From:
James F. Knowlton, RCE/CEG
Geotechnical Consultant
Subject: Third Party Review, Case No: 10 -104 MUPMOD /CDP, 10808 -G
Review of Responses
816 Neptune Avenue
Richard Sorich - Applicant
I received and reviewed the following documents:
1. Aesthetic & Associated Structural Repairs to Upper Bluff Retention System, Rich Sorich
Property, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Soil Engineering Construction,
dated 6 -21 -2010, 10808 -G
2. Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report, Proposed Maintenance Repairs to
Existing Retention Structure, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA, by Soil Engineering
Construction, dated June 14, 2010
3. Structural Calculations for Proposed Aesthetic & Associated Structural Repairs to Upper
Bluff Retention System, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA, by Soil Engineering
Construction, dated June 21, 2010
4. Third Party Review, Case No. 10 -104 MUPMOD /CDP, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas,
CA, by Geopacifica, Inc., dated August 16, 2010
5. Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report, Proposed Maintenance
Repairs to Existing Retention Structure, 816 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA, by Soil
Engineering Construction, dated June 14, 2010, Revised November 3, 2010
My review has been performed to see if the submitted documents provide adequate soil/geologic
data/information to meet the standards of practice within, and the requirements of, the City of
Encinitas. The property is located within an area of coastal bluff and subject to criteria required in
the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020, B, C, and D, as amended by Ordinance
91 -19 and Resolutions 95 -31 and 95 -32. The submitted documents do provide the required
soil/geologic and other data/information. I have reviewed the Geotechnical recommendations and
the structural calculations prepared by Soil Engineering Construction and have found they meet
Cients and the professional standards of practice for the industry.
James Knowlt
Presiden t
rr(t,
October 7, 2011
Rick Sorich
816 Neptune Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Permit issuance requirements for:
Application 10808 -G
Case # 10 -104 MUPMOD /CDP
816 Neptune Ave.
APN: 256- 011 -12 & 256- 011 -04
This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10808 -G. Your
approved plan will remain valid for six months. 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. Additionally, work covered by an Engineering permit shall commence
within 90 days of the permit issuance or the permit shall become invalid. Engineering permits expire
following 90 days of inactivity on the work covered by the permit.
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 10808 -G
Provide 2 copies of "Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Report, Proposed Maintenance
Repairs to Existing Retention Structure, 816 Neptune Ave..." prepared by Soil Engineering
Construction and dated June 14, 2010.
Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision
for Planning Case #10 -104 MUPMOD /CDP, 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:
(a) Security Deposit for Grading Permit 10808 -G: in the amount $120.500.00 to guarantee
both performance and labor/ materials for earthwork, drainage, private improvements, and
erosion control.
(b) NIA
(c) N/A
(d) N/A
A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of
cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 80% of the amount
listed in item 2(a) may be in the form of auto-renewing Performance and Labor and Materials
Bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Up to 100% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(b), 2(c), and/or 2(d) may be in the form of auto-
renewing Labor and Materials bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Cash, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, and assignments of account are also acceptable
financial instruments.
If a certificate of deposit (CD) will be obtained to secure the entire amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a)
and /or 2(b), two separate CD's for 25% and 75% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and /or
2(b) should be obtained in order to facilitate any future partial release of those securities. CD's
posted may be of any term but must be auto-renewing and must specify the City of Encinitas as a
certificate holder and include a clause that until the City of Encinitas provides a written request for
release of the CD, the balance shall be available to the City upon its sole request.
The format of any financial instrument is subject to City approval, may be in the owner's name
only, and must list the City of Encinitas as a Certificate Holder.
For any questions regarding how to post securities, bonding, or the required format of securities.
Please contact Debra Geishart at 760 - 633 -2779.
(3) Pay non - refundable fees as listed below:
Fee Type Amount
Grading Inspection $5,615.0 0
NPDES Inspection (Grading) $1,123.0 0
The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of
the approved Engineer's cost estimate dated February 14, 2011 and 3% of the cost estimate over
$100,000.00. The NPDES inspection fee is assessed as 1% of the first $100,000.00 of the
approved Engineer's cost estimate and 0.6% of the cost estimate over $100,000.00. The flood
control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 per square foot of net new impervious surface area for
driveway and parking areas as created per the approved plan.
(4) Provide the name, address, telephone number, state license number, and license type of the
construction contractor. The construction of any improvements within the public
right -of -way or public easements is restricted to qualified contractors possessing the
required state license as listed in the table below. The contractor must also have on file with
the City current evidence of one million dollar liability insurance listing the City of Encinitas as co-
insured. Additional requirements are described in the handout "Requirements for Proof of
Insurance" available at the Engineering front counter.
Type
Description
I Work to be Done
A
General Engineering
I any & all
C-8
Concrete
a ron /curb/ utter /ram sidewalk
C -10
Electrical
li htin isi nals
C -12
Grading & Paving
any surface, certain drain -
basins /channels
C -27
Landscaping
planting /irrigationHencing & other
amenities
C -29
Masonry
retaining walls
C -32
Parking &Highway
Improvement
I
signage /striping/safety
C -34
Pipeline
I sanitary sewer /storm drain
(5) 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.
(6) 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
proiect 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.
Construction changes not previously approved and submitted as as -built drawings at the end of the
construction process will be rejected and the securities release will be delayed.
Change of Ownership: If a change of ownership occurs following approval of the drawing(s), the new
owner will be required to submit to the City a construction change revising the title sheet of the plan to
reflect the new ownership. The construction change shall be submitted to the Engineering front counter
as redline mark -ups on two blueline prints of the approved drawing together with two copies of the grant
deed or title report reflecting the new ownership. Construction change fees apply. The current owner will
be required to post new securities to replace those held by the City under the name of the former owner,
and the securities posted by the former owner will be released when the replacement securities have been
received and approved by the City.
Change of Engineer of Work: If a change in engineer of work occurs following the approval of the
drawing(s), a construction change shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department. Two copies of the forms for the assumption of responsibility by the new engineer and the
release of responsibility by the former engineer shall be completed and submitted to the City.
Construction change fees apply.
As- builts: Project as -built drawings prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final
Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Changes to the approved plans reouire a construction
This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations. If there should be a substantial
delay in the start of your project or a change of ownership, please contact the City to request an update.
Should you have questions regarding the posting of securities, please contact Debra Geishart, who
processes all Engineering securities, at (760) 633 -2779.
Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2867 or visit the Engineering
Counter at the Civic Center to speak with an Engineering Technician.
Sincerely,
Steven Nowak, PE
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc John Niven, Soil Engineering Construction
Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician
Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer
Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer
permit/file
Eric Application
Requirements for Proof of Insurance
Security Obligation Information
C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
I 505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT
PARCEL NO. : 256- 011 -1200
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 816 NEPTUNE AVE
APPLICANT NAME RICK SORICH
MAILING ADDRESS: 816 NEPTUNE AVE
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE:
CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONST.
LICENSE NO.: 268082
ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONST.
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 10/24/11
x
PERMIT NO.: 10808 GI
PLAN NO.:
CASE NO.: 10104 / CDP
PHONE NO.:
CA ZIP: 92024-
PERMIT EXP _ 1/12 PERMIT ISSUED BY
INSP RON BRADY
-- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
PHONE NO.: 760 - 633 -3470
LICENSE TYPE: A
PHONE NO.: 760 - 633 -3470
ca
---------------------- - - -ir-
1.
PERMIT FEE
.00
2. GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
5,615.00
4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
1,123.00
6. SECURITY DEPOSIT
.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 BOTH PERFOMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK,P
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN
TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR APPROVED PLAN.
LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7, 2011 APPLIES.
- - -- INSPECTION ---------- - -- - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION $
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT
SIG TURE
C HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
TO THIS APPLICATION.
/04z 'A
DATE SIGN 9D
s % /�/ 633 3�7b
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3.
CITY OF ENC TA
=_ INSPECI SON REPORT
Storm Water Quality Inspection for Construction Activities
505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 • 764633-2770 • FAX 760- 633 -2818 • TOD 760-633 -2700
Property Address:
IU6 r y tiC
Inspection Date: 3 — Z 0
Contact Person: J �
I& ' (
Permit No: I U 6 0 a
Phone Number: 7
Silt Fencing
Project Size:
Site Status:
Active 13 Inactive
/ QC CCG
/First Inspection ❑ Final Sign -Off Date
Inspection Frequency:
❑ Bi- Weekly ❑ Monthly
❑ Bi- Annual ❑ Post -Rain Event
State General Construction Permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
WDID #
Is Project SWPPP on Site?
❑ Yes ❑ No
SWPPP Maintenance Required? ❑ Yes ❑ No
INSTALLATION MINIMUM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) BMP • OTHER CORRECTIVE
• • . MAINTENANCE ACTIONS REQUIRED
A. Erosion Control Bill
1
Slope / Soil Stabilization
2
Silt Fencing
3
Check Dams I Rip Rap
4
Fiber Rolls
5
Permanent Landscaping
6
Preserving Existing Vegetation
7
Diversion Channel for Run -On
8
Other:
B. Sediment Control BMPs
1
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
2
Detention Basin / Desilting Basin
3
Perimeter Protection
4
Stabilized Construction Entrance I Exit
5
Other:
C. Materials Management BMPs
1
Stockpile Management
2
Material Washout Area
3
Equipment Storage
4
Trash, Litter, Debris Management
5
Designated Washottt Area(s)
6
Sanitary Waste Area Management
7
Fuel I Chemical Storage
8 1
Other:
Corrective Actions: 71 Correct Work (See Comments)
y /�� D Refergedd to the Clean Water Program
Corrective Actions identified above must,fie adofes , to
predicted rain event. Failure to com // y dpi d re
Inspector (Signature)
Received By (Signature)
O No Follow -Up Actions Required
_ O Stop W k/NOV
of the City Inspector, within days from the date above OR prior to the next
further enforcement action by the City of Encinitas.
3 ?�iL
Date
COPY DISTRIBUTION While - Responsible Parry Yellow - City Inspector
Date
Pink - File REVISED 10/0101
_= CITY OF ENC),vITAS
CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 • 760. 633.2770 • FAX 760 -633 -2818 • TOO 760633 -2100
CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL
All construction projects in the City of Encinitas are required to implement minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
necessary to comply with the current State General Municipal Stormwater Permit, State General Construction Permit, the City's
Watercourse Protection, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (EMC 20.08), and the Grading Ordinance (EMC
23.24). Construction is a dynamic operation where changes are expected. Stormwater BMPs for construction sites are usually
temporary measures that require frequent maintenance to maintain effectiveness and may require relocation, revision, and re-
installation, particularly as project grading progresses. If minimum BMPs are infeasible or deemed inadequate at any specific site,
the City will require the implementation of equivalent or alternative BMPs in order to minimize and /or eliminate non - stormwater
discharge.
DEFINITIONS
Best Management Practices or "BMPs" means schedules of activities, pollution treatment practices or devices, prohibitions of
practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, operation and maintenance
procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to
Storm Water, Receiving Waters, or the Storm Water Conveyance System.
Illegal Discharge is any discharge to the Storm Water Conveyance System that is not composed entirely of Storm Water.
Inactive Construction Site means that construction activities have ceased for a period of 7 or more consecutive calendar days. At
any time of the year, an inactive site must be fully protected from erosions and discharges of sediment.
State General Construction Storm Water Permit means State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 99 -08 -DWQ,
Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities, and any amendments
thereto.
Storm Water Conveyance System means private and public drainage facilities within the City of Encinitas by which Storm Water
may be conveyed to waters of the United States, including but not limited to, streets, roads, catch basins, natural and artificial
channels, natural and artificial drainage features, aqueducts, canyons, stream beds, gullies, curbs, gutters, ditches, and storm
drains.
Wet Season means October 1 thru April 30 of each year,
EMC 20.08.040 • ILLEGAL DISCHARGES
A. Discharge of Storm Water. No person shall discharge Storm Water directly or indirectly into the Storm Water Conveyance
System or Receiving Waters, unless discharged in compliance with this Chapter.
B. Discharge of Non -storm water Prohibited. No person shall discharge non -storm water directly or indirectly into the Storm
Water Conveyance System or Receiving Waters.
EMC 20.08.050 • NOTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF ILLEGAL DISCHARGES
A Discharger shall immediately notify the City Engineer of an Illegal Discharge and take immediate action to control and
contain the Illegal Discharge. The Discharger shall also mitigate any damage caused by the Illegal Discharge.
EMC 20.08.070 • LITTERING & SWEEPING
No person shall throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained, any refuse,
pet waste, rubbish, garbage, or other discarded or abandoned objects, in or upon any street, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, curb,
gutter, storm drain, catch basin, conduit, or other drainage structure or lot except in receptacles maintained for the regular
disposal of garbage. Impervious surfaces which drain directly or indirectly into the Storm Water Conveyance System shall be
kept free of dirt and debris by regular sweeping. The sweepings shall be placed in garbage receptacles and shall not be
allowed to enter the Storm Water Conveyance System.
EMC 20.08.080 • COMPLIANCE WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
No Discharger shall fail to implement, install, use, or maintain Best Management Practices established by the City Engineer
pursuant to this Chapter.
COPY DISTRIBUTION White - Responsible Party Yellow - City Inspector Pink - File REVISED 10101/08
CITY 01 I NC'INII AC ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAI. - 2009
ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION
Date: May 17, 2013
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Final Grading Certification
For Project No:10- 104CDPTM /T1PM and Grading Permit No.: 10808 _G
The grading under Grading Permit 10808G has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached As- Graded
Plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the
approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/
or an appropriate drainage system.
All the Low Impact Development,
Management Practices as shown
Management Practice Manual Part
Maintenance covenants
ue /a/r/]e /iJ� /p la /J�e,
Robert D Mahonv
Signature
Printed Name, Engineer of
Verification by the Engineering I
the inspector's signature here� /
stamped; this does not reli: e,t
Source Control, and Treatment Control Best
in the drawing and required by the Best
II were constructed and are operational.
'F
tjiUred.
P
-,:; May 17, 2013
Date
Ci4g59 II
.,fin,. • ,, - ?�,' :.�
fctor'1!f, the,abilve statements is documented by
will take lace only after the above is signed and
gin e ecord of the ultimate responsibility.
2-1
/
Eng1n ring Inspector D e
The above information shall be printed on the letterhead of the Engineer of
Record and then signed and sealed by the Engineer.
11'1'I:\DIN 2 if' V'i .,-r.
SOIL
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONIIte.
Date: May 17, 2013
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Final Grading Certification
For Project No:10.104CDPTM /TPM and Grading Permit No.: 10808 -G
The grading under Grading Permit 10808 G has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached As- Graded
Plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the
approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/
or an appropriate drainage system.
All the Low Impact Development,
Management Practices as shown
Management Practice Manual Part
Maintenance covenants aye in place, a
Signature
Printed Name, Engineer of
Source Control, and
m the drawing and
II .YrW7&-- ;constructei
C15 9 40,,
Treatment Control Best
required by the Best
and are operational.
2013
Verification by the Engineering Inspector- '61f-fiM1 a statements is documented by
the inspector's signature hereon an ill t e place only after the above Is signed and
stamped; this does not reliev ngine r Record of the ultimate responsibility.
engineef g Inspector - Date
The above information shall be printed on the letterhead of the Engineer of
Record and then signed and sealed by the Engineer.
560 N. Hwy 101, Suite 5, Encinitas, California (760) 633 -3470 Fax (760) 63 3-347 2