The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-2628 CN/G/TE Street Address _QC~5 Category j/IG::¿ Serial # I Qt/l-O7;? Name / 1\1 U P , Description ----------- Year Plan cK. # r~,",rlr"-,",\I , 8 .. -- -- .- ~'",,",' ~ ",~.:"- -,'-"--' ,-~,-,';~\.'¡ ~- ... ç--- "...... 11,' ,\ \I,) \ I \ j \ \ . "j~\ ~ . 2' I-.J l ~I~OF EN~,A :17 fi1: ();,,) / March 18,1999 Lee J. McEachern, Coastal Planner California Coastal Commission San Diego Coast Area 3111 Camino Del Rio No, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92108-1725 ~-61 ;Lb~ 0 RE: Further Deterioration of bluff at 560 Neptune Ave & adjacent property at 574-576 Neptune Ave Dear Mr. McEachern: Thank you for responding to my recent telephone call. Since we last spoke via telephone on March 9, 1999; we have had two additional bluff failures at the property to the south of us at 560 Neptune Ave. The mid-blutTlost approximately 5 feet, and the bottom-middle portion of the bluff has lost at least 6 more feet. When I examined the bluff on March 16, 1999; extensive sand streams were flowing off the bluff to the beach below ' As I mentioned in our conversation last week; Mrs, Bradley, the owner of 560 Neptune Ave.; had a bluff failure on January 1, 1999, At that time she lost 5-10 feet of bluff stretching from the bottom to the middle portion, Since then, she has lost approximately 20 feet of her bluff. Her erosion now threatens !llll: upper bluff. I understand that she has had a permit pending since 11/97, I hope that the Coastal Commission can expedite her permit process as to avoid a major disaster not only her property; but now to our property, which is now in danger of falling into the ocean if nothing is done in a timely manner. The construction of our property at 574-576 Neptune Ave., was approved of by both the City of Encinitas, and the California Coastal Commission, We were not aware that we needed to protect our property from our neighbor when the property was purchased, We have had geotechnical people here on site to examine the conditions and they are of the opinion that we- have a severe bluff erosion problem. The engineer informed us that we will lose all of our southern point which has thus far protected our mid and upper bluff. We are in the process of getting reports to substantiate our need for an upper bluff retention system. We will be petitioning shortly for an emergency permit from the Coastal Commission. The cooperation of the Coastal Commission will be greatly appreciated We are aware that a final permit will have to be obtained after the emergency permit work has been completed It is our hope that ifMrs, Bradley at 560 Neptune Ave, builds her seawall in a timely manner; perhaps we won't have to build such an obtrusive structure. We will be in touch through our representatives in the near future. Please feel free to contact us at anytime to help resolve these problems, Sincerely, )j c~7?J ~ Gary Martin cc Gary Canon, California Coastal Commission Ludmilla Bradley Diane Langager, City of Encinitas . --"':""""""".-. """"-- II II SERVING OCEANSIDE, VISTA, CARLSBAD, ENCINITAS AND CAMP PENDLETON un or THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1997 "At our age, we don't worry .- we rely on faith." . FATHER BASIL KONSTANTINOVICH, CO-OWNER OF BLUFF-TOP HOME HOWARD LlPIN I Union,Tribune Disputed: Ludmilla Bradley looks at a sea wall that is at the center of a battle with city and state officials. Ne the brink Bluff-top residents face showdown with coast panel By Dwight Daniels STAFF WRITER ENCINITAS - Inside their bluff-top home, the Rev. Basil Konstantinovich and Ludmilla Bradley are relying on God's help in their escalating 6-year-old battle with the city and the powerful California Coastal Commission. In the latest salvo, commissioners - us- ing rarely called-upon powers - have issued a cease-and-desist order against the pair's construction of a sea wall on the beach below the Neptune Avenue property that also serves as a chapel for the Russian Orthodox priest and nun. Bradley, who is trying to sell the house and an adjacent vacal1t lot she has owned for 30 years, could face a fine of as much as a $6,000 a day unless she obtains final permits for the barrier, commission spokeswoman Nancy Cave said, The tough action is being taken because Bradley's wall is an "unengineered sea wall (that) appears to have been constructed without keying it into the bluff," Cave said. This increases the land's potential for ero- sion and could cause instability for the home and neighboring properties. "It's not built to any standards we would approve," City Engineer Alan Archibald ad- ded. "It had no design, no plans or specifica- tions. Nothing." But the residents dismiss the allegations See BLUFF on Page B-8 § l j ~¡ ,? :1 ff '.:.4~'ìr st and qJJn;~~ge g to truitiaGod' , ',"~i. 'ght, Bradley saiêt slìe and Kon- tinovich are ~~IYbeing bul- and harassed~:bY'tate and local ials." , . he and Kons~tiftoVich had no ice but to blbck'$éIfk\ pouring the base of their bluff, Bradley' ~.,';: ;:-'t was the only w~'to save our '. e," she said. jJ{ yQ&¡tre bleeding eath, you do~iJ ~Iround for ctor. You appJt a~o11I'niquet. & .lP[he city and¿!~q>mmission ;"'~ bounced uSItJ~ like ping- '~þg balls and caÏft Of~n't try to ,.'.'.,,:'1*.',,".'," ".'.'" rstand our *."'.' u~, ::"," Bradley lIged from the NdWöoØ home she ....,:.'..'..,Ii,.'.'....'.'inallY bOUghti::fO. r,' $)," 7,000. It ft, assessed at $:JM.7,GOO ,last year. \!,i~he .and KoI1flJ.q~~v,~ch, 68, : ' gOIng to trullqj~ to help Ive the situa*n Md¡tre trying to fret abottf4tbêìr-bmediate e, she said. ' . - ';-..,.. "At our af we don't worry ~ we rely on fé. ," said Father Basil, as he prefers to be called, standing in), the home's yard on Neptune, a ~ow road that runs parallel to the coast. "We are working hard to save the house, but we believe in the will of God," said Konstantinovich, who oqce ministered at San Diego's St. John's of Kronstadt Russian Ortho- . dox Church. "Things happen for a I>t~' reason. We are in his hands." At ~radley, 70, a retired teacher, . .,'.' sQJDetimes shows visitors to the st ,. báÏ:k yard,where, only feet from the Muse,' the bluff plunges 90-plus felt to the Pacific - illustrating ute peril the house faces, "We've only done what any nor- mal property owners would to do save their house," she said. "I don't haVe another house. This is it." It was in June 1996 that a neigh- lxt's den fell down the bluff, Father B$il pointed out. Chunks of the cliff still routinely faD off after every storm. ' ."Without our wall, this house lile' wquld be in the ocean," Bradley sil argued. "Why can't the commission wait until the house is sold? What- evér needs to be done can be com- pleted by a new owner." , The nun said she has received estimates that additional work to improve the wall could cost more than $100,000. That's money the' pair doesn't have. City Engineer Archibald said he and his staff have not bullied the ,. ' r/ ~ G ¿<:,-::.:. . -- February 27,1995 :Mr. Hans J ens en Engineering Department City of Encinitas Re: Third request for Lower Bluff Protection Emergency permit. Dear Mr. Jensen, We are pleading with you again for an ~ergency pe~¡dt allowing us to place rip-rap at the foot of our bluff located at 560 Neptune Ave. As we are corresponding, more errosion too]c place at the foot of the bluff making it top heavy and subject to collapse. OUr cove below the bluff is at least 30 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Placing rip-rap in the cove at the foot of the bluff to break the force of the waves, will not in any way encroach on the useable beach area and will not violate the policy approved by the City Council. Not allowing us to protect our property and also the big money invested in the upper and mid walls, will force us to hold the City of Encinitas responsible and liable in the event the bluff collapses or even worse-- if someone will be crushed to death below the rubble, as it has already happened. Rip-rap is a natural and attractive protection against the force of the ocean and is used along the entire seacoast. Kindly respond. ./- // 42;f.¡y , L.ft:. - radley 560 Neptune Ave. / Encinitas ,Ca. 92024 í 436-0778 ~ r oj ~ ~ ~ U@ Œ rID .. fEB 2 7 1995 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS r 8 8 January 30, 1995 ,,' "\ID rõ1~Œ\~~I1Jß~ uru 'J~" 30 \995 SER\J\CES EN~\~~~~~C\N\\ ",5 Mr. . Hans Jensen Engineering Department City of Encinitas Dear 1~. Jensen, This is a second request, in writing, applying for an emergency permit to place rip-rap below our bluff. (560 Neptune Ave. Jmcinitas). The high tides are hitting our bluff with such force, that the house shakes and the doors and windows rattle. Without the rip-rap below our bluff to break the waves,not only will we loose the mid-section of the bluff and endanger the upper retaining wall, but also jeopardize the property of our neighbors. The rip-rap would be placed right below the bluff, in the cove, and will be out of the way of the public and beach access. As I mentioned to you over the telephone, several contractors and engineers highly recommend to do just that. Requesting for a prompt response. ..... " u"" <.., , . ' undcr a threa8 the federal Envi- tal and water quality standards did the strUgg.f, ~nvironmentalists present water users. Storm: 'Monster' expected to pay repeat call ;', , Continued 'from A-1 precipitation in March has been 250 percent of normal, Davis said. But precipitation for this yearlong season is only /60 percent of normal, he said, ~nd several major reservoirs remain half-empty. The hub of that great storm is ex- pected to pass over Southern Califor- r¡ia today, bringing more rain and ~' then making way for clear through Sunday, said Frank ary, a forecaster for the Nation- al Weather Service. , "This thing has been a monster," O'Leary said. , The storm spawned a tornado at Vandenberg Air Force Base, resulted in avalanche warnings from the U.S. Forest Service for backcountry areas along the eastern Sierra Nevada, and closed mountain roads throughout the state. The storm yesterday was blamed for the death of a Tijuana man killed whèn a rain-weakened wall collapsed ón his home. The man's name was not available. ..n Mount Laguna, a b.lizzard-like W"',storm left mountain dwellers without power or phone service yes- terday. ' The harsh storm cut electricity to the area just after 5 a.m. As nightfall neared, residents were looking to spend the night warmed by the glow of a fireplace or woodburning stove. , Because of the heavy snow, which reached depths of 12 feet in some drifts, the California Highway Patrol was requiring all vehicles in the La- gunas to use chains. Patrol officers were turning away all drivers except local residents because of poor visi- . The San Diego Union/Charlie Neuman Encinitas City Enginner Lloyd Holt inspects, the crumbling bluff near Neptune Avenue yesterday. The home's occupants were evacuated. river rescues that seem to rise and , SAN DIEGO RAINFALL fa~l with the flow of the river, police (Measured at Undbergh FJeld) l....-.!ald.,. . 24 hours ended at . "- In Leucadia, two residents were 10p.m.yesterday...............l.0l evacuated from their Neptune Ave- Storm total............,...... .1.58 nue ho~e.after the oceanside cliff Season to d.ate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 10.74 und~rpmmng the house gave way. . Normal to date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 Enclmtas city officials asked the Excess., . . o. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... ..2,73 man and woman to leave shortly be- This date last year. ......... 0..5.57 fore 7 p.m., after surveying the toll Normal entire season. . .. .. . . . . .9.32 e'Xacted by storm surf 100 feet below;, . (season: .II/lVI-June 31' Dirt slid down the bluff yesterday exposing wooden beams and steei tiebacks used in previous efforts to , shore the cliff. ' The general area is receding up to th~ee-tenths of an inch each year,;' said Martin Owen, president of the, consulting firm which did an exten- sive study of the bluff for the proper- bility and hazardous driving condi- tions. San Diego lifeguards rescued Ger- man Aceves, 23, from the San Diego River near Fashion Valley yesterday afternoon, the latest in a series of ty owners. "It doesn't go uniformly, but in bits and pieces. And this is one of the pieces," Owen said of the scooped-out front yard of the home. ; In North Park, overnight rains caused the earth to give way in front of an apartment building in the 4600 block of Bancroft Street, exposing a hole at least 15 feet deep and 5 feet wide. The hole was repaired. In the North County, construction crews reburied imperiled water pipes Monday morning, as the latest storm hit. Erosion caused by this month's rains had exposed the metal pipes running beneath the San Luis Rey River bed and County Water Au- thority officials were scrambling last week to rebury them before they ruptured. The usual 20-foot layer of soil was eroded to 3 feet from the swelling river and gushing runoff. Since ex- posed pipes can easily burst, water authority officials said they would have had to shut off deliveries if they couldn't get them repaired before the next rough weather arrived. . While farmers are "thrilled" with the recent storms, the unexpected moisture. has damaged the straw- berry crop, said Mike Horwath, pres- ident of the San Diego County Farm Bureau., . Low temperatures tonight also threaten crops with frost damage, of- ficials said. ' Staff writers Dick Weber, Ernesto Portillo, Maura Reynolds, Darlene Himmelspacb, Jeff Rose, Graciela Sevilla and Mei-MeJ Wang contribut- ed to tbis story. Wire stories also were used. Police say 2 teens took turns fIring shotgun at girls thy E. w.830, and Ted Brisen- are cha with assault wi! deadly weapon under the color 0 thority for the attack. Koon, who the supervisor at the scene, and J ell, also have been charged witl ing a false police report. Following the court appear; defense attorneys said they pia to review Klausner's rulings to d mine whether they would file al peal before proceeding to trial. CO," LaWyers should, b~ , " By Lorie Hearn Staff Writer A San Diego hearing on the nE twist in the appeal of double-mu er Robert Alton Harris has beel and attorneys: f~r the conde! man insisted y~sterday tha should attend it. ...' , , . U.S. District Jupge William B right yesterday scheduled' May the start of the hearing on asser by Harris's lawyers that his r were violated in 1978 by a jam informant who allegedly lied tria!;" ' " Defense lawyers said the he, - which was ordered last Frid. the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Ap , - could take a week.' ,. . Investigat,ors, the prosecutor witnesses from Harris' murder in 1978 and 1979 are expected questioned about an alleged arr, ment the government had wit informant to coax statements Harris about the shOQting deaf two Mira Mesa teen-agers. Harris, who is the furthest thr the appeal process of any of th people on California's Death was convlcte . - - , - . ' ing 16-year-olds John - Mayeski Michael Baker in a remote wa: . 81. .,".~;¿' To: enlOrnndUlll b&~~ Ð y-z- t:;\W I ';G.-~'-~'--' - tJ~ \\ ~ Š-r(W~BD J \r ~~F1J Masih Maher, Senior Civil E cc: From: Jeff Garami, Engineering Te Date: 01/18/00 Re: 99-078 MUP/ Dwg 2628-G "Coastal bluff protection . Attached please [md a proposal from the Engineer of Work retained by the owner of 560 Neptune Avenue for middle bluff repairs. The upper bluff wall, constructed in 1992 per a California Coastal Commission Emergency Permit, is being undermined, The lower wall is currently being constructed per a separate California Coastal Commission Emergency Permit. The owner has filed for a new Emergency Permit that will authorize the middle bluff repairs. As a condition of Emergency Permit issuance and as has been the practice in the past, the City Engineer/Director has been asked to "approve" the engineering plans. Traditionally, the Director has cursorily reviewed then signed, with the understanding the concept has been tested and the Engineer of Work is solely responsible. A Beach Encroachment Permit has been issued to control the access to the jobsite across public lands. Construction affects only privately owned property. All construction will be self-certified and may be subject to third-party review by the City's geotechnical consultant as part of the Major Use Permit process. The Major Use Permit is processed to completion after the Emergency Permit(s) is issued and construction commenced. The Beach Encroachment Permit allows unofficial observation of the project in the meantime. The file for 95-137 MUP, attached as an example of a complete seawall project, was not permitted as an emergency. Also, attached, please [md the file for 99-078 MUP, The organization is similar to that of95-137 MUP with some exceptions because of the tenuous history of the site. The Coastal Commission has its own leaf, and unofficial correspondence is segregated. New items for the file are included in the Engineer of Work's proposal: a)cover letter, b)structural calculations, c)blueline plan. The plan, if approved, will be added as mylar sheets to the current set of approved Drawings for the project, 2628-G. The addendum will be numbered . as 2628-G-3B. Please review the proposal at your earliest convenience. Any questions, please ask. Please return everything to me for routing and/or filing. . . . . . . 1 . . emorandum ,~,' , " "'. To: Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer cc: Diane Langager, Associate Planner Jeff Garnmi, Engineering Technid~ 01/18/00 From: Date: Re: 99-078 MUP/ Dwg 2628-G "Coastal bluff protection walls" . Attached please find a proposal from the Engineer of Work retained by the owner of 560 Neptune Avenue for middle bluff repairs. The upper bluff wall, constructed in 1992 per a California Coastal Commission Emergency Permit, is being undermined. The lower wall is currently being constructed per a separate California Coastal Commission Emergency Permit. The owner has filed for a new Emergency Permit that will authorize the middle bluff repairs. As a condition of Emergency Permit issuance and as has been the practice in the past, the City EngineerlDirector has been asked to "approve" the engineering plans. Traditionally, the Director has cursorily reviewed then signed, with the understanding the concept has been tested and the Engineer of Work is solely responsible. A Beach Encroachment Permit has been issued to control the access to the jobsite across public lands. Construction affects only privately owned property, All construction will be self-certified and may be subject to third-party review by the City's geotechnical consultant as part of the Major Use Permit process. The Major Use Permit is processed to completion after the Emergency Permit(s) is issued and construction commenced. The Beach Encroachment Permit allows unofficial observation of the project in the meantime. The file for 95-137 MUP, attached as an example of a complete seawall project, was not permitted as an emergency. Also, attached, please find the file for 99-078 MUP. The organization is similar to that of95-137 MUP with some exceptions because of the tenuous history of the site. The Coastal Commission has its own leaf, and unofficial correspondence is segregated. New items for the file are included in the Engineer of Work's proposal: a)cover letter, b)structural calculations, c)blueline plan. The plan, if approved, will be added as mylar sheets to the current set of approved Drawings for the project, 2628-G. The addendum will be numbered as 2628-G-3B. Please review the proposal at your earliest convenience. Any questions, please ask. Please return everything to me for routing and/or filing. . . . . . . 1 -----'-', . . City of Encinitas September 14, 1999 Mr. Greg Karen Anthony- Taylor Consultants 2240 Vineyard Avenue Escondido, CA 92029 SUBJECT: Case No. No. 99-078 MUP/CDPÆIA Dear Greg: This is a follow-up to our phone conversation today in which you informed me that design changes are required for the above-referenced project due to existing field conditions. The design changes are required due to additional bluff failure, loss of mid bluff walls (or portions thereof) and undermining of the upper shotcrete wall. As we discussed, additional time is required to review site conditions and complete the design changes. Additionally, documentation shall be submitted which assesses current site conditions and proposed design revisions in conformance with Chapter 30.34 of the Municipal Code. Upon submittal, the revised plans will be subject to Third Party Geotechnical Review as well as Environmental Review. Due to the design modifications and additional project review, the public hearing for the subject project will not be scheduled for the September 30, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me at (760) 633-2714. Sincerely, 'CÞ/~ ~s.-- Diane S. Langager en Associate Planner cc: Bill Weedman, City Planner Blair Knoll, Senior Civil Engineer Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer ee McEachern, John Niven, SEC DLf: 99-036 (9/14/99) ; ,:1 -'¡"I¡,i'--è¡,I;[J ¡:,\X -"I) ".i_\-è"è~ 'iiJ'i S, \'ulun ,-h<:nut:, Ln.:inirJs, cJlit'ofl1l:1 'J-,iJ2+J(,j,\ ['[)[) ;bO-b,)J-rOO ~; ~ recyc:ed paper From: To: Date: Subject: Diane Langager Jeff Garami; Ron Brady 7/23/995:20PM Bradley emergency permit Gary Cannon called this afternoon to inform me that Coastal extended the Bradley emergency permit to 9/8/99, Gary noted that upon initiation of the work the permit is vested. FYI: The work completed by Niven should be in conformance with the emergency permit which does not include all improvements proposed, C I T Y 0 FEN C I NIT A S EN~EERING SERVICES DEPARTME. ,., 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 2628TE -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCEL NO. : 256-084-0700 PLAN NO.: 2628-G OB SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE. PPLICANT NAME: BRADLEY (LUDMILLA ORLOFF) AILING ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE. PHONE NO.: 760-436-0778 ITY: LEUCADIA STATE: CA ZIP: 92024- ONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: ICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: NSURANCE COMPANY NAME: UNITED CAPITOL INSURANCE CO. OLICY NO. : GLA1002862 POLICY NGINEER : ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ERMIT ISSUE DATE: 7/20/99 ERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 NSPECTOR: RON BRADY 760-633-3470 A PERMIT ISSUED BY: 7/01/01 760-738-8800 , -- ---------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT .00 700.00 7/500.00 -- ---------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- CCESS TO JOBSITE ACROSS MOONLIGHT BEACH STATE PARK/SEASIDE GARDENS PARK STATE LANDS W-LY OF MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. DOCS ATT: AGENDA REPORT JUN 23 999/ COVS RE GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS/HOLD HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE, STD SPL CONDITIONS, CONTR LIABILITY LETTER, WORK SCH, BEACH ACCESS/BARRIER EQUIPMENT PLANS, SPL ACTIVITIES SCH. MUP APP 99-078/CACC PMT 6-99-41-G. INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE NITIAL INSPECTION INAL INSPECTION -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER ENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. ...... DAT' i~J55 tJ W. tJ I J€ TELEPHONE NUMBER contractor IRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER 8 . City of Encinitas COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2628TE 1. Permittee's Construction Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Public Liability Insurance, naming the City ofEncinitas as an additional insured, in the amount of$l,OOO,OOO. 2. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a Financial Institution approved by the City, in the amount of $7.500.00, prior to Permittee's Construction Contractor entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the Permit are fully met. The Security Deposit is refundable minus any outstanding charges due for plan review and field inspection. 3. Permittee shall pay to the City the sum of $700.00, subject to full cost recovery, for the use of City Property. The Inspection Deposit will be charged against to help recover the actual costs of inspecting the City Property. 4. Construction Contractor shall provide a detailed plan, which must be approved by the City prior to the Contractor entering upon 9ty Property. The plan shall include times the City Property will be used, types ofvehic1es which will be used, and the number oftrips vehicles will make. Tentative Work Schedule received July 21. 1999. Equipment List received July 20. 1999. Beach Access Plan received July 20. 1999. 5. A Notarized Letter shall be provided, indicating the Construction Contractor will be liable for any costs to correct damages to the Public Beach or adjacent areas resulting from the Contractor's work. Also included in the letter shall be a statement of understanding that debris washing onto the Beaches within one mile north or south of the job site is assumed to be construction debris and shall be removed by the Contractor at no expense to the City. Construction debris is defined as lumber, piling, poles, crates, boxes, containers, and other objects, all of which could be used for construction similar to that being used on the site. Debris also includes any pre-existing items excavated at the site such as re-bar, concrete and bricks. Document received July 20. 1999. 6. Contractor shall present a Beach Barrier Plan to protect the public from equipment movement, construction activity, and the construction site. Document received July 21. 1999. The Engineering Inspector may request changes to the Plan on as-needed basis. 7. An approved copy of the Coastal Commission Permit, other appropriate City permits, and letter authorizing the Contractor to proceed on the project shall be provided. CS/ES/jsg/te2628s.docl EL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633.2627 505 S, Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras, California 92024-3633 TOO 760.633-2700 ~ recycled paper /1 . 8 8 17. Prior to placement of any concrete product at the base of the coastal bluff, the Contractor shall indicate to the Engineering Inspector what methods are to be used to de-water the job site. 18. Staging or repairs of equipment or supplies is prohibited on City Property or right-of-ways. Parking of personal vehicles on the Public Beach will not be allowed. Offending vehicles will be cited and towed. 19. Any entrance gates used to gain access through the Public Beach area shall be immediately locked after access. Any ruts or berm damage to sand areas shall be immediately and repeatedly repaired to remove any public safety hazards. 20. Contractor shall restore or replace on a daily basis any signage regulating handicap person's access, or any other signage, disrupted, damaged or destroyed by Contractor's operations. Contractor shall repaint and restripe pavement markings as needed. 21. The winter season berm and drainage system, when present, of Moonlight Beach State Park shall be maintained in good working order on a continuous basis, and any breach to the berm due to the operations of the Contractor shall be properly filled or sandbagged before the end of the current low tide period. Any sand loss or damage resulting from the failure to maintain the winter berm will be at the expense of the Contractor to restore or repair, respectively. 22. Contractor shall remove debris from the Public Beach on a daily basis or within the maximum period of twenty-four hóurs from when requested to do so by the Lifeguard Supervisor or Engineering Inspector, whichever occurs first. 23. On Fridays preceding weekends when Special Activities are scheduled at Moonlight Beach State Park, Contractor shall cease operations and remove all equipment and personnel from the Public Beach by 5 :00 A.M. All roadways, ramps and walkways shall be swept clean. 24. Prior to final inspection approval of this Permit by the Superintendent of Parks and Beaches, Contractor shall regrade the Public Beach to the contours existing prior to issuance of this Permit. Contractor shall also repair damage to and thoroughly clean the asphalt pavement along the access route. 25. Prior to final inspection approval of this Permit by the Superintendent of Parks and Beaches, Contractor shall either replenish all Public Beach sand lost due to Permittee's operations or compensate the Parks and Beaches Division by contributing to future sand replenishment projects. 26. Contractor shall direct all communications regarding this Permit through the Engineering Inspector, except as otherwise stated in these Conditions. City shall assume no responsibility for instructions received or given outside this "chain of command". CS/ES/jsg/te2628s.doc3 From: To: Subject: Jeff Garami Greg Shields; Mel Chappell; Mike Valles; Ron Brady; Ron Quigg; Todd Baumbach Call for Volunteers-Beach Encroachment Permit I have a future permit to be assigned an inspector, Soil Engineering Construction will be constructing a lower coastal bluff protection wall supported by caissons and tiebacks and a net of chain mail stapled to the face of bluff, all designed by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, all at 560 Neptune Av, An emergency permit has been issued by the California Coastal Commission, A beach encroachment permit is required from the City, Our capacity will be to fully and rigorously inspect the use of our beach as an access. However, we are observers of the actual construction, which will be entirely on private property; no grading permit will be issued. The work will be as-built certified by the consulting engineers who designed it. You will be equipped with a full set of approved plans, historical plans, and the library of geotechnical reports, all in addition to normal beach encroachment attachments, The work and its access has been approved by the City Council for late evening and early morning hours all during the summer with the exception of holidays, weekends, and, obviously, the peak hours of any day, This job will require the inspector to work extraordinary hours, alone, and under difficult conditions.. ANY VOLUNTEERS, PLEASE SIGN-UP AT YOUR LOCAL FOREIGN LEGION RECRUITING OFFICE, YOUR PAST LIFE WILL BE FORGIVEN, -\~l ~-¿ ~ ....~ \--- w~~þ\ 1) P -\---1- i EF P-c~ ~~fJ1 t- \ ~L- C'-+\'n- ~ ,') ~ L-L 8 8 City of Encinitas Mr. Drew Gordon Landscape West, Inc. 950 North Tustin Avenue Anaheim.. CA 92807 Dear Drew: Please be advised that the following park or beach facilities have been reserved for special activities. These facilities should receive priority maintenance scheduling to prevent any inconvenience to the public. Please evaluate the scheduled event for maintenance impacts. If the event increases maintenance services or frequencies (such as restroom cJeanings. trash pickups. etc.). notify my office of recommended services and costs. In most situations. only priority maintenance scheduling will be necessary. To ensure that you have updated listings. a new letter will be used when additions ~re made. If the time frame for a new addition is short. you will be notified by telephone for support actions. Please note that the Private activities as listed in the Site row are for Community Services purposes ONLY. Please also note that the Sport Camps and Day Camps are -in full swing at all Sport Parks and Glen Park. Sincerely. r~t~ Phil Cotton Park and Beach Superintendent cc: David Wigginton. Community Services Director Pam Alexander. Recreation Superintendent Tom Buckner. Lifeguard Supervisor John Frenken, Park Supervisor Mike Wells, Park Supervisor Larry Giles, Senior Lifeguard Gus Castillo Bob Keeley-Landscape West, Inc. Dan Jensen-Landscape West, Inc. - T lL"L" f"arami, City Engineering Dept. File/Originator TEL 760-633.2('()O ! fAX 7('()-63,)-2627 ')05 s. Vulcan Avenue, Encinira" California 92024-,1633 TDD 7W-(,.13-2700 ~ recycled paper ""....,b, -' ,-,.,---..'--_.'-,,--,._---- ,-..' ....,. ",.__.,------ .-- Date Times Site Location Activity No. of People 7/10/99 7AM-9PM Glen Park Glen Park/Carolyn Switzall//Cvrd.Picnic Wedding 50 7/12/99 9AM-12:30PM Oak Crest Park OakCrest Pk.V-Ball Camp (City of Encinitas) V-Ball Camp 45 7/12199 6:30PM- 7:30PM OakCrest Pk. Oak Crest Pk.lBasketball Ct./Laura Christiansen Dog Training Class 10 7/17/99 9AM-6PM OakCrest Pk. Oak Crest Pk.lEast/Jennifer Ledfors Family Gathering 25 7/17/99 1-8PM Glen Park Glen Park/Wedding/Cvrd.Picnic Ara Wedding 40 7/19/99 9AM-2PM Glen Park Glen Park/Basketball Ct./Skyhawks Sky hawks 30 I 7/21/99 5PM-9PM MLB NCPC Church Social/Kevin Stanfield Church Social 50 7/30/99 IOAM-IOPM Private Private/Fiesta de las Flores/St.John's Church Church Fiesta 5,000 7/31/99 1O:30AM- Glen Park Glen Park/Cvrd.Picnic Area/V-Ball Cts.' B-day Party 35 5:30PM 8/1/99 9AM-8:30PM Glen Park Glen Park/Adrian Dominguez/Pic.Area B' day Party 20 817/99 5PM-8PM EVP EVP- Viewpoint/Larry Pink Wedding <100 817/99 10AM-6PM Glen Park Glen ParklC'vrd Picnic Area/Regina Bell Family Picnic Area 80, 817/99 IPM-3PM Encinitas View Encinitas Viewpoint Pk.lJoe CorderNiew Pt. Wedding 150 Point Park 8/8/99 lOAM-5:30PM, OakCrest Park OakCrest Park/Elks LodgelEugene Quigley Elks Picnic <100 8/8/99 IOAM-3PM Glen Pk. Glen Park/S.D.Class Reunion/'69/Kathy Smith Class Reunion '69 50 8/14/99 10AM-6PM OakCrest Pk. OakCrest / East/Priscilla Rojo Picnic 50 8/18/99 5PM-9PM MLB MLB/Beach AreaINCPC-Kevin Stanfield Church Social 50 9/1 0/99 3:30PM-8:30PM OakCrest Pk. OakCrest Pk.lEast/HorseShoeN'balll Ackerman School Picnic 150 9/11/99 6:30AM-2:00PM MLB MLB/No. Coast Calvary Chapel Beach Area Surf Contest 150 9/12/99 8AM-5PM MLB MLB/V-Ball Clinic/J.Tuyay V IBall Clinic 30 7/6/99 11:58 AM NoText < SUN: \J' .. ". .t' . Y..' L- ::J.. ~ :J... '... ii"". ~.. ' , . : "'. ..~, . , . ' ,~ . FacL I: iitg Use/F=ve:t:d Use MaN; TIlE tJED; THU: FRI 1: ~ TOve"'AME'l\Jí ~U.E'Ov(.. e: ~ 1.1 c..~p 131 say $0)( ;='1 -r='t ~ -- -c1r- 1 S,,<:.? !3bG6" SO1< ~ I - ¡:: '1 ~...- -4:\ i'- 5 fi 12 c..~1' 8oE5BV 50)<. F=/-E:'1 13 I r- - q ¡- 19 20. c.~p ßøB6Y 50)( FI - r- -i I {"'" - 'f ¡.- -~~ ~'!a~ 25 C:::IT'\¡ 50~ . ~4"~ ~4- -"1 (- - ..... I "1.- I 27: t , . 7; 14-. 21; ".. 2& . - June $ M' 'r w: 1: 1: S": 1. %. 1: ~ =- ã ï a: 9- m J:J:. :tZ U I.4r :tS 1.67 I.ï l.8. ~ %a U %Z n 24- 25' 26""- 27 28 %S' :IO 8: 15. 22 . 29; ; 9 16 23 - 3Q SAT 3. 10 CoSt=' I3.ßß"f )0 '" ¡::1-F1 ß --&fr- 17c.~~ ëø6í5Y $'0 'a( Î-I -F'i 9 ...- - c::¡ r- 2'+ c!.? . C I rv Sò': ï¡J.ic... ToJufl.NMtitJr Ft,"Z.. g - -'if"- . 3t Rugu.stt ,~forrW:1:c~ :to Z J: 4it s: ã ï 8. 9: La :t:t. L2 1.3. 1..4-. IS. J:ã LT U. J..9' 20 2:t. 2% 23: 24. 25: 26' 27 28 29; JO- 31.. . 01:/ 04/U99' ío ,,"-IVA,.,e-...T . SUN, .. ~[ ~5 ~v c.,., , ï~ .s lZ.oT'.AL'I Cu~ <¡p 1=/-'f g-., ~..P r: " z.., ~ S -,~ lJtP ~.<:...~., Q -7 I.~ ~ . ft. U. U, U-::i ' .... J:.. :l ;:¡.. ::1 S""",£Dw,,," ... .. - - .- Fcc 11 t I. tYl Use/F Ii e I.d. Use MO~: rUE WED THU: FAr 2 a 4--. 5 6 9: 10. 16: 17 Evc".,¡ IT AS Il..O-rA/..Y clÁ' (;.~? C:I-'t 8-0, esp ;::',2., ~ 6'-1 " ,./"Ip S -'"-II!"'" g-'7 23. 2.Lf. 30 3"' ,: cJi.c[y: s: for. 1: w= '1:' ë"' s: J:. Z 3 ... !:t ë=. í ~ 9 I.O U :LZ U. :tot. I.S: :tã 1. ï 1.8' 1:.9' ZQ n. 2% D 24- :zs 26": 2, 28: %S' 3Œ 3:1. 1 ,. 12 13 18. 19 20 2~ 26, 27.. S-ep"t~mb~r. :5 ~ ~ ~ '1:' : s: 1:. Z. 3. 4r S' 6' í S" 9- 1:0 IJ:. J.Z D. 1.4 1.S I.ã l.í :ta log 20. 2!. 2:2. z:1. 24. 2S 26 2, 28. 29 30 SAT 7: 1.4- e-tvCI~ IT"A S. ;2l1T'l: {I.., C. 1J \' c:.p :, - .., i -q E~P :', 1., ~ ß-IO '-"" ,. or.. ., ".. 8-7 2,. 28 - 0:t/a4/!..99G; I ." . . CITY OF ENCINIT ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 þ , . TO: p, VIA: ,'~¡) Robert T, Acker, City Manager FROM:~ Alan D. Archibald, Director of Engineering Services City Council FOAVOlJRRECOR OS r:",11'1 CitvCterk SUBJECT: Grant of Permission to Property Owner at 560 Neptune A venue, Ludmilla Bradley, to Access Across the Public Beach to Job Site on Private Property, and to Work Extraordinary Hours BACKGROUND: Pursuant to City Policy No. CS-PO08, originally approved in July, 1991, granting of beach encroachment permits during seasons, ,dates, or times of heavy public use should be normally disapproved. Such a season occurs between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Also, physical limitations inherent in working on any beach include confinement to work hours associated with low tides. Such periods of low tides may occur during the late evening and early morning hours. Pursuant to Chapter 9.32, construction equipment may be operated during those extraordinary hours as defined in Section 9.32.410 if the work can be defined as an emergency per Section 9.32.401H. The proposed work has been permitted by the state Coastal Commission as an emergency and clearly meets local criteria. Similar access and timeliness of work, but at different locations, had been approved by the City Council for the same season in 1994 and 1995, and no complaints of noise or obstructed beach access were received. A request for a Beach Encroachment Permit by the property owner at 560 Neptune Avenue, through her consulting engineer (Attachment "A") and by submittal of a formal application (Attachment "B"), has been submitted. The request includes access during a normally prohibited season and operation of construction equipment during extraordinary hours (7:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M.). The affected public beaches would be Moonlight Beach State Park, Seaside Gardens Park, and those state lands westerly of the mean high tide line. ANALYSIS: An emergency condition exists at the subject property. The bluff has experienced past failures and has potential for continuing failures. The owner proposes to armor the bluff with a lower bluff wall, per plans acceptable to the Coastal Commission and Engineering Services Department. The most practical method of construction, per the consulting engineer, involves access from the beach. The beach is only usable during periods of low tide which occur mostly during nighttime ADA/jsg/99-078be.doc 1 hours. Therefore, construc8 equipment will have to be operated &e public beach during late .'eyening and early morning hours, . , , The Beach Encroachment Permit always includes conditions governing the operations and conduct of the construction contractor which are more restrictive than a typical encroachment permit granted for work in the public right-of-way. These conditions include as follows: a) execution and recordation of various covenants encumbering the property of the applicant, which minimize the liability to the City and concur State Lands Commission authority upon the City, b) submittal by the contractor of proof of liability insurance, additionally insuring the City, c) submittal by the contractor of a work schedule, access and barrier plan, equipment list, and written acknowledgement of responsibility for debris removal, all subject to approval by the City, and d) proof of Coastal Commission emergency permit. All access shall be inspected on a continuous basis by an inspector specifically assigned for this purpose and in cooperation with Lifeguard Services. Additional miscellaneous conditions are imposed upon the contractor at permit issuance and as needed during the course of the project. All effort will be made to ensure the safe separation of the job site and construction equipment from the normal users of the public beach. No access is proposed, nor will be allowed, during weekends, holidays, and during those hours of any day, typically late morning and all of the afternoon, which are considered the peak hours for usage. Permission is subject to rescission for non-compliance, and enforcement assistance is available from the County Sheriff. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS All staff and contract time and materials, including overtime, will be reimbursed by the property owner. An initial deposit of $700.00 has been paid. A security deposit of $7,500.00 has been posted to help enforce damage and any other cost recovery. Liability has been minimized as previously mentioned. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council allow Ludmilla Bradley to access the job site on her property across the public beach, given compliance with all conditions pursuant to issuance of a Beach Encroachment Permit, during the season between Memorial Day and Labor Day, 1999, and to work extraordinary hours, :fÞ-~ Wta) ~ AD A/j sg/99-07 8be, doc2 ITTACHMENT fI" ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 2240 Vineyard Avenue. Escondido, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax City of Encinitas City Manager's Office 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Project No 98-1055 fõ) IECIH WI ~ fR1 tn1 JUIf II 1999 ~ June 9, 1999 Attention: Mr. Bob Acher CllY MANAGER'S OFFICE Subject: Request for Placement on Council Agenda- June 16, or 23, 1999. Discussion of Emergency Seawall and Mid-BlutTRepairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Dear J\1r. Acher: In accordance with our discussion with your office, we have prepared this letter as a request to be included on the City Council's June agenda. At present, an emergency condition exists which poses an irIlWjnent threat to the subject residence, property improvements, and neighboring natural bluff. The present condition also poses a potential hazard to the beach going public which may use the beach area immediately below the subject bluft~ As of this writing, we have received an emergency coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission, including the approval to construct a concrete seawall and perform other bluff stabilization measures. Additionally, Mr. Hans Jensen and Mr. Jeff Garmi of the City of Encinitas Engineering Services Department, have verbally indicated their approval of the construction repair plans designed to mitigate the conditions of on-going bluff collapse and instability, Based on a recent conversation with Mr. Garmi, it is our understanding that the repair plans submitted, are acceptable and will be signed by the City Engineer - Me Alan Archibald, upon the delivery of the plans set printed on Mylar, and imprinted with a City Engineer's signature block. Mr, Garrni, has also reported that the City has restrictions regarding beach construction, between Memorial Day and Labor Day, As such, this blanket restriction would apparently prohibit the emergency construction and repairs, necessary to mitigate the present threat from bluff instability, We therefore, request your prompt consideration, to request inclusion on the Council's June agenda, so that we may explain the need for the emergency construction, and request the Council to consider the approval to proceed on the necessary bluff repairs, and mitigate the existing threat. Escondida, CA . Orange, CA . Livermore, CA . Las Vegas, NV . Houston, TX 8 8 ., Requnt fof CUy Connell Agenda S60 Neptune Avenue, Enelnlta., CL ,June 9, 1999 Page Z Project No, 911.Iß5~ We appreciate your prompt assistance with regards to our request. If you have questions or need further information, please call Mr. Greg Karen, at (760) 738-8800. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company 1 Cp //lltdl /' Jeçty L. Mi al ( ~nior P,t ect Engineer RCE No. C42590 Gr(g:r;- 2J Æ,~ Project Geologist Distribution: (1) (1) (1) Addressee Addressee via Fax: No. (760) 633-2627 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 #TTACHMENT ¡e" 08: 4~ CITY r;y¡ ~MÇINlTA5 " TELEPHONE NO- P.2/2 2628T.t: APPUCATION NO. ENGINEERING SERVlCfS DfPARTMENT ENGINEfRING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASsmOIJ 'A!ŒL NO. Avenue 256-084-07...00 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION NAME AOOIŒSS CllY. STAff" 7JP COD£ ST A'a"! LICENSE NO. " TYPE ~ILS ENClNW( INfORMATION ~-"". ÚÞI-,t'" NAME ,,- ~ ,þC " IJA/ A IIUI Þ'C. AOOAESS I - . ø V'GaM'd.;¿; - CA--.f.202'9' L-' ~fTY. ST^~ '; o. . ~~)~.:..~,. ~"':t~."" b::iP!ir¡;.~~.o RtGISTRA'nON'-. " 'f '" , " REGISTRATION NO. '., ". . II, ' 2";'~ a. AI,' "'<; c' PC{ b( /~ I:> eaCÁ'l 'to' -To h Ç. ¡ +-1.? .£<)f), 'If c.... c.. . L.-;> DESCIUP'IION Of WØIk ~ . ';M .Ala a.'¡'.. ~ "..i x~~~ If /.771 MQ, X L", rn,'/ i . I3rad I€. " .liD If36-0rrf: ~'~N~~+!~_-,,-_._---- -______TELEPHONENO~__~_. ---------- ,! {lOa OfFICI un ONl'" TYPf Of APft.. DAn CQMPJøw Qf.POsITs AND fffS fðm ( I ^GREEMENT, OV.. ODC. --1.-.1- PERMIT/APPlICATION FF..E~ -- ( ) BEACH I!NCft OiM!NT ~-1- Pl.AI'I CHECK F£E ¡DEPOSIT: -- ( J CONS TRU --1--1- ADDmONAl PlAN CHECK -""- . I J fIN^,- MAP' ¡ -.1--1- FLOOD CONT"OL FEE: -'- ( ) ANAl P^RC ,MAP --1--1- INSÆCTlON fffjDEPOSIT: :liW.....o..o. ( ) GRADING i ....J--1- SECURIlY DEPOSIT: _._, . 500 .00 [ IIMPROVEM£ --1--1- (CIRClE ONE Of EACH) ( J OPERA no RMIT: N¡WSRACK --1--1- ASSIGN/80ND ASSIGN/BOND [ 'I P£RMAN£N ,.' CROACt-iMENT --' --' - CASH/CD/LOC C\SH/CL>/LOC [')5EWERCON ~~UÇTION ---1--1- MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT: =-- I 1 STREET NAMt<:Hl\NCiE -.-J--I - RN EXCESS DE' IT T : [ JSTRUTVA~tION --1--1- OWNER DATI:---1--J- rc I TEMPORARY ~NCROACHMfNT --1.-J - f ) CONTAACTOR AMOUNT: S ~b~~~~~RUCTION --1--1- : :~~~ttR . ¡' ~ l -d v.lO~.::I v.ldGl:Gl666l-Vl-9 f( Gå rarnj:=:R:eLBr~dleL~~a~all,~ò51~ë£>.~~~~!\~=~~-,-_c_. . m_'~~~=:",m,~:.. ~m:::: . em. ..._-~. - . Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Diane Langager Jeff Garami Tue, Jun 15, 1999 9:48 AM Re: Bradley seawall @ 560 Neptune Av 99-078 MUP/CDP/EIA I requested a copy of the emergency permit from Gary Cannon, Upon receipt I will give you a copy, " . 8 2628TE /~'-" ~ / " ENGINEERING. SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION NO. \~~ ";' ..' ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ~- I hø SITE ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 560 Neptune Avenue 256-084-07-00 ~ IrREET ADDRESS J ROPERlY OWNER INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION ~ AME NAME r ~AILING ADDRESS ADDRESS ( ITY, STATE, ZIP CODE CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO. 1 ELEPHONE NO. STAlE LICENSE NO. & TYPE ( IVll ENGINEER INFORMATION SOilS ENGINEER INFORMATION ~ AME NAME I DDRESS ADDRESS ( ITY, STATE, ZIP TELEPHONE NO. CITY, STATE, ZIP TELEPHONE NO. f EGISTRA TION NO. REGISTRATION NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE CASE NO.: MUP - ( IGNA TURE DATE SIGNED F RINT NAME TELEPHONE NO. ----------------------------------------- (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) l~PE OF APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED DEPOSITS AND FEES PAID [ I AGREEMENT, COV., DOc. --! --! - PERMIT/APPLICATION FEE: -- - [ I BEACH ENCROACHMENT --! --! - PLAN CHECK FEE /DEPOSIT: -- - [ I CONSTRUCTION --! --! - ADDITIONAL PLAN CHECK -- - [ I FINAL MAP --! --! - FLOOD CONTROL FEE: -- - [ I FINAL PARCEL MAP --! --! - INSPECTION FEE/DEPOSIT: 211iL.Q..Q. - [ I GRADING --! --! - SECURITY DEPOSIT: _._7, 500 .00 [ I IMPROVEMENT --! --! - (CIRCLE ONE OF EACH) [ I OPERATIONS PERMIT: NEWSRACK --! --! - ASSIGN/BOND ASSIGN/BOND [ I PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT --! --! - CASH/CD/LOC CASH/CD/LOC [ I SEWER CONSTRUCTION --! --! - MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT: =--'- - [ I STREET NAME CHANGE --! --! - RETURN EXCESS DEPOSITS TO: [ I STREET VACATION --! --! - [ I OWNER DATE: ---!---!- ~ I TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT --! --! - [ ] CONTRACTOR AMOUNT: $ - [ ] UTILITY CONSTRUCTION --! --! - [ I ENGINEER (OMMENTS: [ ] OTHER ~?~ -h '11-)ø ~ -+ ow Þ -¡.J. '17 " -«r-P )t?~(1/þ -oJ:dhw 1j}-IV/ ~"7J~ Þ t~ì~ (~,d)¡'1 c;11{Y¡ '1$ -~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~j)~- ~ a/ ¿~ -7-J"T17 ~ ""! s if/' t >¡) ~Q', '1 1'<h1 -4;.- 7'. ' t 'J"!T-r r;r¡'7 f -w/ 7,~-:n'4 ~ tÞ1ø 7'71 ~ --.¿} f-r¡o~~ ~ _I \1 ð' rf cfl;¡ 7:?1f ~ ~:I""1.'S$,J "'It-rryt- r,'17JdJ->ð-;r".2'~11'5i-j -;)-7 ¥l-þ ~ .ç.~111 ~11 V1 ~ 0-.1 ~YV/ '1f- r 1ft t ðdo ï ~ V ('g f\1 ~ r~'~~ () f -:K~?7) 5"í*t-I -' VfA err¡ 5 : -.J-rt¡ fl. H'Y1 1- I i7 1cJ/g;;J f} 5p ~ Y ÿ' -g'1 57 P Vþ ¡::L . ~ dì::flv . "l f"-~'ls~ ~~FJ :!PJol~ t2f 6'~1 ~ s.J ~/lvf7 n ~ 71...~ 1-?1?j~;:J "1-,,1 'IJ...'" -rf'.1 s 14t- ~.Y117cJV4(j- 4f?:JJ«j 't1J vr \. ~(I, éf ~~ 4prp 7 ¿6-,,-C -()j -...¿ ¡Pü ~ r~~~ ¿ L -b-LI--c;J! 'v\O ~ ~rfr~?J c,5W . 8~¿ Q - ~fh [lo--ZZ-O/ .r 8 . ..... - ~ (.. (.- OJ (; City of Encinitas Mr. Chris Kern California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Fransisco, CA 94105 Re.: Ludmilla Bradley, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca 92024 Dear Chris: The enclosed photos were taken on April 22, 1996 by a City of Encinitas employee at low tide. The pictures are of the lower wall as constructed by Ms.Bradley on the beach in front of 560 Neptune Avenue. (APN 256-084-07). Please note that the wall is not cut into the foundation sandstone, but is just sitting on the beach shelf. This wall will not last. The negatives of these photos are here at the City of Encinitas. If you have any questions, please call me at (619)633-2776. Sincerely yours ~tl Hans Car~ Subdivision Engineer TEL 619-633-2600 ! FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 619-633-2700 r!:;\ recycled paper II1II III III I OF ENCINIT AS MEMORANDUM of III III r . 8 8 CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT On June 24th at 0815 hours, Lifeguard 711 was contacted by Lifeguard 710 for a sea wall project under construction without a permit, at 560 Neptune in Leucadia. At 0830, Lifeguard 711 arrived at 560 Neptune and found two cement trucks from Palomar Transit Mix on the vacant lot. One truck was staging while the second truck was depositing concrete into a cement pumper, from Russ Witt Pumping, which was located at the top of the sea cliff. The resident of the property had contacted Lifeguard 711 on Neptune Avenue and stated that he had an emergency permit to build a seawall. Lifeguard 711 stated that the permit needed to be handed over to Lifeguard 711 for authentication. He stated that he didn't have it with him. Lifeguard 711 stated that he must shut down the construction project immediately. Construction did not stop and the Sheriff's Department was contacted. Deputy Sheriff #2046 R. Stevenson, arrived on the scene, was briefed on the situation and spoke with City Engineer Greg Shields (via cellular phone). Deputy Stevenson is fully aware of past problems with the construction of this sea wall. The Deputy had the cement trucks shut down and the concrete pumper as well. There were two more cement trucks scheduled for the sea wall construction and they were cancelled. The property resident was ordered to stop all construction until he had obtained a permit from the City of Encinitas for construction of this sea wall. Note the photos for this report were taken at 0930 hours on site on June 24, 1995. ~~~ ~\JOß~ . ~ , . . 0'1 - '2-3 ' t:) 1 . ~Q~f' IKJi Reported by Senior Ocean Lifeguard Larry Giles ~~-~~::..~.~J.1.L._.....~"~8'..~-..__.".'" ~~Ù '~~ð~ SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BiD Kolender, Sheriff ENCINITAS SHERIFFS STATION 175 N. EL CAMINO REAL' ENCINIT AS, CA 92024 . (619) 966-3500 FAX (619) 942-5093 R. Stevenson Deputy Sheriff #2046 -, . ~\.)~ \)J\\\Ç\J~ ~l 5 ~..~L£""'~) . ~4:()1J~ \t),) , ~ .. Z-¿L- -1.l-ta - it;,ç to . , ""," ". ':.: -~ ,;: ~ ~:::;:.:{~: :~:h:,);~:ö'i :~::t;< \::{J\ ::'.' :¡:~: <;:: ~:<{ié=:::::) :'Y;:: ::>L ,:;: :.;:;; ':;;:«:I:;i; :;~ ". .' -, ,','.'.-. -"'&'..""~,"~4It_.".,."._."......,._~ .....,<t,_h", ..,_. '. .....'... ..,;.- ". -'. "".".'-."-'..~ .,..'.'ø_.".'.""',-".".". ."\.'.-.','.'.. ~.' ."' ",' '..;.' :- ;:::'<J -, " ~ . ", . '. . , '." ,,<:::0-1 .-. : j " ' ..' , .., ).;:~:-::::.:::: ":-::: 0'~'~-'1 " , . . - - . , . , . . . . . . , - , - - . .. ..' ", . " ;~:-<;:; -~:< '-.' ;: -:-,;.;. ~;~:};~!~~;~ " .~ -.;; . '. '. . . " :.' ., ' , . '~ ""'<""C\.~ ]0\" . "'\ ....... .. 8 .' . " 0" ':::'::'~' .' " 0 ". ::~:~.:::~ .' ,,-. .'. o. . , , . 0 - 0.. . . .- . ~ " ~ ! " ~, . - '0 .~ ,: ---:, ';<. <I 1 t " '~ { . ;¡ ~ .' . . . . '. .' '. ." . - " .", '::<~~J ,"." ..,.0( .;-,..;"... .:>:'~~I . ",,- , t "-:-..',': . -': ... ~:.;- : .~.::... ' ",",~,=,~,:'::""",:~~~.~-:~:~:~,,:'<:r:.:';'::~'~":";~~'~";:~~-:;~~~;"Z~~°'r-~":"':~"""';;;-:.;~':: ,',' ,; ",' . . , . , ; ! j .. 5Go k ÇVCft P íft N~?TVNt 2yll7 \ ~~.ç' :r U Nt¿ ",,--. (\W\f.. 0'100 \4oui2-5 " , ' , . . ,;'., " " . .. ;', '" . " "', " . 8 -. " " '. . . . : ,;::' ,;':: :~:: :::~¡:~i;;:;:!.::::: ~::.LX:::::,: ~d:;:: - ¡ . , - -, . . e , - .. . " , . ,e, ,,:; i .' '.-: ."~',.:, ,'" . ,. .,:.::_'::.:'-':~~'<.::,.!' .:::~:~~ - - -:. -. . - , , , - . - - , . . " . , . - ~ ' , . . ~:: - ~ - . :~.;< . .. -. . .. - . . , . . . ,,- - -..... , ...;; .~;': ~~t;H:~I~~~/H~ .,.' ~ -'-;:-.:_~.,:-< e. .'. . . . . .' . . ~;~:~:~: >:_~~~ <~~::<'. e.;. .~; .~~ ~.:~:.: :~~~~ ~ :~.::::~~.:~;~:~:;~:~~:::~ ':,,;~ ~~':" ~Coß }j (~t. l tVCA ~{A' ~UJ£.. ;t y11l Iq q~ Ii fYl €.. 0'100 -H cues i ::';:::';,:~:: '::::":,., '?7;:~' :~]n;:::mv:T¡}:':::'F:;7;:-: :7;:~:' '~;::Y:;';; ~ 'T;~'?::?~::.~:' ~ .~~r:;: "?-:.: 1 . -0.. . -::",-,;'...', ',"',' "" ','. -.". . ".'.0' '." . , - ,",' " ' . " ' . - ,.. , £ , . . . . ' . ' . . ':', '. - . , ~' . " . ' {f :::::::~~ >: ~:~~~f{:;~~ Lt::tLL~~¡h'~ L-~: ~~ ~'L: :::' ': ' , , I - -. '.~ '1 , , . - '~" . '~'~-.:>-:j ::?i, ~;~~~:~~~1 , ~. -,¡ -.' ~ 1 - .' "-j , ~ . ~. . - , .< ~ . i 0, . . , . . . . . .' . .:'~ ' . . . , , . " . . . . ... . 0 "". . 8 .' >< ¡¡¡ '. " :.' :::: ~)::::'~' ::~;jt:::.:q:~:~: ': :,~;:::~ :j)::" . . " ',: " .' , ,'. --.' ..' -, . - . , . . ,-,,' ....::,;.;::~.;~.; '. ~ :~~:~:::...:~.;~?~~~~~ /:;: , .. , , ' . .. ' . ,: I:',~ "~':':'" .' :~" ,,; 1íM t O~OO ~O()12 S ,;'; .', . -, .' ¡t... ,'. ;:~.::::.;-: :.;: >-r;.~:::-:~: ~;~':"~'~~?~~;-?:."".::.'~,~.~:,"::~:.: ..,:*:.",:7~~~:.~:~:"': ~'~"'~:";:~::";"~ "¡,:~:~::'!~:~~~~: .:':~"::': :~~~: :"~;.:-=;:'4(~ :~.,~.1' , ,'. :':-., ,.. .' ""'- """,;"'," "',' . " -""""""¡.. ' , .' ':. " .' ; "',;~'.:'." " ,,~",: -. " .. j .. I .j I .. \ -. - , ~ f .; '. ;r ; t J ~ f' ¡¡... f f: , . " :rÙNf. ~£Prv)J~ ~'11) , h t Uc.A1)lfT 11 qç :: " .' '0" , '. .'. , .;:: :': i::::::::?':: :;~:;:? ~;:;' t~l: :L;~::tt]i:.~ ~~\t_/ -0: :'.: ::~.~ ~ -~:.~; -; :;-~:. ~::: ~.:: ::.;::~ ,. .:_:~;.; ..:. ~.: ~~~ t.:~:~:~: ::~'. \~.:.;::::: ::.;:~;::: ~.U;¡~j.-1: ~ -.'.:. ,:-:_0 '.: .:~:'-':'::'::'::::~'# '- , -~, - . ' '1 . ,~ "". ,-1 , - i j , :-:-,,:-: . ì . -t -, - - " " ~~:':. ~ . ' :' ':- - , . :;,<~'::':' :~~::<~ ).;:~:::::,: " - ~ ,.;::;~;,;" " .', , . , ,:,' . ,.,'.",',',;,,-, . '.', " ',' '. ' ,', ~ :;:~: ::>:;::~:: , , , "," ,,' . 8 .- " ¡ Î -, t . ! ~ 5~o ~vtJL tJa>T\J~{.. LW~"Ol~ 2.~ T-H \ '{ '\ 5 'fi ~(. Oq 00 '\4OuQ..5Þ ~,.s Lu'Trt:ÞUN\-Þ'kJl., }-; , ~ . , - . , - -. , . 4 - - ",' ;;; ,. '4 ... ~ ... ¡ ,~ . . ' - -. ; :' ~:~ " 'ii- ..~ , '.' ," ~ " . <: '.. :~~~ :':~~:~~;~.'; ;~~:f""~~-:-:' -,: ' :¡ ",. . . . oJ, " '---"'-"""'~_"',--i"""'." """t ..",..(""",.*......,.~t,...........,....,.,....,.....1t..""...."""""'_"-. ,.~: ".;,/:.~..:-- -:;'~:"':""',;";~,,:~:'~(""'-" ',..'- ',0; ':"~7,::.:":..-":': ',':" . .. , .0 . -'. . , , . .' '. .', "- .', ,"O ..... ,". , , " --' , - - . . , . 'O--',-'O' """';,"""'" - 0,-:':-.<':':"'."'." -",..- .:-.",,:"..,¡ :~~. 0'<':-<::', '.:, 'ì . . .':; " j .,' 'j .. , ' . , . , " . ¡ , . ¡ ¡ " . , , , " . , '. - , . . ;:':. , . " ' . . . ~ , " . , . '. " ., . - ., ..' .. ;:~i:i{. :;::~;~~~~U~;{ ,. .>. :::.;::':;:~:: '. . ,'," " . .' . . ;': 8 8 .' " . . , . . ~ . , , ,- ,,' -:,:<:....' .,:- , - . . .' . , .' , . '- - . - .. . .:.- ,.~--~...' . ~ ~ . ì j [ ~ r. l' 6bð hf\)~j)I~ N~\rùfv£. ':rutVf 2 4 '-¡-H- ~ ' ,~'5" : ;.,' ',' <. .. ~}~~ H ov i.$ ~C{oo - . . ,,' . .' . . . '.',' '.' '.' .~ ~: ",' , ,,"';;"':',"':':' ::::': :.' 'O,':', ;,;~: :~' ?~.~ .;""or:.."":,,:,'~"'~,::,.! :::~'.":'~"':":-:~'.:"'~":-:~~"""7..~",~.-M,....~"'"\¡:"'~d:"", -.";"'JI*,.:"':'"'.'..-.";".' -:~'" "..,.-<.>.:,::~~;::;-.<.~~:",.~<~./-:~:,,<:~' .: ,.:,.,':-. -.,,",,: :~,". " ',.".-,;- ';.>::. ' ~.. '..~ ""~.'_" '," ","-,7>"."". . , . . . . -..':.~""... ..',::. ..', .', . ,'.. . ',',' " 'l " , if . ' . ' . 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMORANDUM Date: June 8, 1995 To: File, 560 Neptune From: ~ans Carl Jensen, Senior Civil Engineer This date I called Lee McKettrick of the California Coastal Commission. I informed him of the illegal construction of the Bradley seawall at 560 Neptune Avenue, and that the City had not issued any permits for the wall. He said they will investigate. 8 8 City of Encinitas February 3, 1995 Repeated March 20 I 1995 Ms. L. O. Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re.: Request for Lower Bluff Protection. Dear Ms. Bradley: When you began your emergency repairs of the failed bluff in 1991, the plans submitted included lower bluff protection. As part of your Coastal Commission Emergency permit, you were required to proceed with the City of Encinitas Major Use Permit applica~ion. On January 14, 1993 the City Council approved a policy of not allowing rip-rap bluff protection which would encroach on the useable beach area. The Council at the same time approved as a solution the installation of lower bluff walls constructed with concrete textured to blend in with the native rock. I have visited the site, both at the top and on the beach, and I believe that the immediate need for protection can be met by you proceeding with the required major use permit application for the work which is partially completed, as well as the lower bluff protection, required by your Coastal Commission emergency permit. Your property is included in the recently established Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD) and that entity may provide some aid in the process. You may contact the GHAD Board of Directors directly or mail can be delivered to the GHAD through our office. The City of Encinitas require that you proceed with the Major Use Permit application at this time. Sincerely yours, X~CI Hans Carl'~ Subdivision Engineer cc.: Coastal Commission Staff. Ref App. 6-91-233 Community Development Dept. L 619-633-2600 / FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 roo 619-633-2700 @ recycled paper ~ IIJi'i! 8 8 City of Encinitas February 3, 1995 Ms. L. O. Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re.: Request for Lower Bluff Protection. Dear Ms. Bradley: When you began your emergency repairs of the failed bluff in 1991, the plans submitted included lower bluff protection. As part of your Coastal Commission Emergency permit, you were required to proceed with the City of Encinitas Major Use Permit application. On January 14, 1993 the City Council approved a policy of not allowing rip-rap bluff protection which would encroach on the useable beach area. The Council at the same time approved as a solution the installation of lower bluff walls constructed with concrete textured to blend in with the native rock. I have visited the site, both at the top and on the beach, and I believe that the immediate""need for protection can be met by you proceeding with the required major use permit application for the work which is partially completed, as well as the lower bluff protection, required by your Coastal Commission emergency permit. Your property is included in the recently established Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD) and that entity may provide some aid in the process. You may contact the GHAD Board of Directors directly or mail can be delivered to the GHAD through our office. The City of Encinitas require that you proceed with the Major Use Permit application at this time. Sincerely yours, 1tf: Carl Jensen Subdivision Engineer cc.: Coastal Commission Staff. Ref App. 6-91-233 Community Development Dept. TEL 619-633-2600/ FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 619-633-2700 @ recycled paper 8 - City of '-~ /0/ Encinitas August 17, 1992 Ms. Ludmilla o. Bradley c/o Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Project Expenses for Processing Permit # 2628 GI for Gradinq Inspection A.P.N. 256-084-07 The following costs have been incurred by the City of Encinitas for processing the above referenced project. Project processing costs have exceeded the dollars deposited at the time of application. Deposit (Plan Check and Inspection) Expenses as of 8-12-92 $ $ 9.650.00 12.072.64 Inspection costs not covered by the deposit: $ 2.422.64 Additional deposit for continuation of work: $ 600.00 Total owed at this time: $ 3.022.64 The City of Encinitas operates on a cost recovery basis, therefore, in order to continue processing any permits, this account must be cleared at this time. Payment is due thirty days from August 17, 1992 or prior to release of security, whichever comes first. Inquiries regarding financial matters should be directed to the Finance Department (619) 944-3391. Inquiries as to the status of the proj ect or services performed should be directed to the Engineering Department (619) 944-3370. All checks must be made out to the City of Encinitas and submitted to the Engineering Department. Please identify the Permit # 2628 GI on your check. Thank you for your cooperation. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, /2-J ß -& Rich parz~, Finance Manager cc: Toni Richard, Sr. Accounting Specialist gc2982 "::!~ Fn,'ínit:h l\()I!!,'"r.l 1""""""" (',I,i <.)1" , "',I'i",,;.,'),I\\(I"',""',, rÇ1Y", ."....I"d On" "," " ,,~..,..,..,.--'~""""""""""- r~_.....~~--' ,* è:" '" ~, :, ' ,'.-' , ,rT ," CITY OF E8:INITAS ENGINEERI. PERMIT APPLICANT TO COMPLETELY FILL OUT LEFT HAND COLUMN JOB ADDRESS ~ t'iI ¡ (, 'NE- ':\V'~ (j') ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. ID Q. ---, "'j .4." ':'¡' 0: NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) w z ~, ",,\ìll'\ 0 MAILING ADDRESS i k-~/\ t, l.. i. '/ >- h: t"\l \ \,;\it l\\jC ~ CITY, STATE, ZIP 0 g: ¡ ": :, i /\'" : í \ ("1.o2..i1, TELEPHONE ,j "! 77 C"" NAME ( " C d'C' ., 0:':'.( i.'¡\.,.."\",',..ìl 0 ADDRESS ~ ~ ;, f,\.6,(I¡.....jí, 1_\¡"\ .,\\jc ~ CITY, STATE, ZIP z 8 \~ \( ¡ ,1\. D (t\ /[AO"'" STATE LICENSE NO, AND TYPE ! :(;) L ,\ NAME \ t-I (.. TELEPHONE 71,1 \ I. C ~ ¡" \; !--t I : ~l.: I ADDRESS 0: W . , t, 1'( ~ I.. j ¡-.I fI 'd , (! CITY, STATE, ZIP z w I ',' 1 I r n \ [ . ," rE r.... \ TELEPHONE 4,!h1 Î"" (;;b Ll\ ,.J " \ U, .v \ ì . (AI i I 1(: REGISTRATION NO. F.C t "2'12'" DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE ,. I' ¡ , ' " ,:¡ . ¡ I,. \ h~ ; , \ .- '. .'\ , ". ( r . " , . .' '< \ ",,' ¡<.II /"~ ,',: \ ,,~ ). ¡ \" (, ....... .', "'I'" ¡ \ i D..: ':. I f--. SIGNATURE (OWNER OR AGENT! DATE SIGNED , ' : ¡ ¡ '¿"'/ ¡ I I TELEPHONE PRINT NAME ,I """ \ " " b '. ',' ~. CHECK IF: 0 OWNER i 1 OTHER, ~----"'.._-- 1) \ ¡:", E:J AGENT " EFFECTIVE DATE \"Z ~ 11- --t\ EXPIRATION DATE \"2:.. 'Z-1' '{Z- PERMIT NO. -7 (ç. '2. ~ q..) COASTAL ZONE -'$0 TYPE OF PERMIT I 0"CON STRUCTION 0 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT 0 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PLAN OF WORK I RECEIVED APPROVED \"Z. - (:~~ "1\ PLAN # 1.J.¡.7.f::f.:; COST ESTIMATE I ~ 'Z4'Z{*' f1~ RECEIVED APPROVED VALUATION $ INSURANCE CERTlFICATEI COVERAGE $ \ iC' <.a . t'^ t~f.'(:~: COMPANY (:::.",\-0"'"" '£cAn.t' \.f>"~t\\.:<,!,, \.'(. ",,:,'LtC'1Z POLICY NO. ,.:¡;p\o1"%"Z.&-3 SECURITY I AMOUNT $ TYPE: [J CASH 0 LETTER OF CREDIT 0 COVENANT ~-ft. ~D~U~t1\T ~ .;;,t.iZ~(::. ft\.E 0 OTHER PERMIT CHARGES APPL. FEE ( 3310.0000 I OTHER ( S R.N. $ ::7¿. , U' R.N. Cì\4'\3\ INSP. DEPOSIT ( ) $ R.N. ) ) TOTAL FEES DUE $ SECURITY AND DEPOSIT EXCESS RETURNED TO : 0 OWNER DATE: 0 CONTRACTOR AMOUNT: ~ OTHER ,",,-,.:r~~"iS~ COMMENTS: 12~-DY ~~ f5~ ~tJ\ If (J:f- V-Ny I bATE.ISSUEÒ ... PERMIT ISSUED BY ,,/ " ! . , INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE & DATE: 1ST INSPECTION (Forms, etc,) \ ( SIGNATURE) !DATE) FINAL INSPECTION -- (To Release Security) (SIGNATURE) (DATEï- IMPORTANT! PRESS FIRMLY WHILE WRITING APPLICATION f!\Í:í"'i~;L~' "'.Ú:}L;~~\,¡j¿J~~~\'~/if~f;\f;\:¡~F.'t ' ".;J{;~lif,'f¡~¡:¡;"rð'\ìi'L)':~1Yíì~~.~~~1R~~~BI1!~_~¡.... r.1'fY.T~"1J]ÞiiII CITY 08 ENCINITAS GRADIN. PERMIT' , APPLICANT TO COMPLETELY FILL OUT LEFT HAND COLUMN 1&1 JOB ADDRESS ; ---." ,,: ','.' ~ ASSESSOR'S ~ARCEL - NO. I \~~p N~~~ ,< 15 NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) Z ~ L ;\ MAILING ADDRESS >- ~ 15 -- ,I ! ¡ A. CITY, STArE, ZIP 0 a:: A. LOT NO. .... -' . ¡. ./\ I 1 ~ f TELEPHONE t ( / I. { \ ! . " d NAME , J I , ¡..'v It' { ; ~'.j >: 0 a:: ,d'" ~ ADDRESS (.) ~ ! ,". ',;'.t" ~ CITY, STATE, zip 0 (,) L \. 1\ " 1\ If -,--- TELEPHONE r' ¡. j f'¡ , ! \, ", ~ , .r.i,':¡'" .\ 1/(( STATE LICENSE NO. AND TYPE ¡. ¡ ~ 1 ¡ i, NAME a:: : ,; 1&1 --, 1&1 ADDRESS z e z 1&1 .J s: (,) :., 1'.. ¡ ....,¡þ "¡ -_. t '. '. l I ¡ , f \ \ , '; ¡ t ( , TELEPHONE ,,-It. -1:- \--! ': Ll " CITY, STATE, ~P /£ ... '\-J/\ . ; \( \i REGISTRAtiON NO. " ~ ¡'." /,1 L ." , NAME a:: \ \ l t 'j ::I ADDRESS z ~ ; . ¡ ¡,i 1&1 CITY, STATE, ZIP U) .J . Õ . \~. i . \ .' ; U) REGISTRATION NO. J. .\ " ¡ It no\... Number 01 cubic yards I i"J.. 'l, 1\ ~,¡I - 1}-- '4 C k - f\ í TELEPHONE .. ¡ ~ l )1-<11 .. .." \ ." \ ,t .".' I, Cut Import Fill Export ) ¡ I '" I I I hereby acknowledge that I have read the application and .tate that the Inlormatlon I have provided la correct and agree to comply with all City ordinance. and State law. regul.tlng excavating and grading, and the provl.lona and condition. 01 any permit I......d p...uant to this application. SIGNATURE (OWN~R OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED I PRINT NAME " (, ., I 7" , . 'i ¡, ¡: i\ CHECK IF: OOTHER \, y- ,t ¡ DOWNER TELEPHONE " l I '0' ' [DAGENT APPLICATION DATE i \1 .0 EFFECTIVE DATE It' : II EXPIRATION DATE, -,- ¡ 1'2. PLAN 011 WORK I RECEIVED APPROVED PLAN # ; I " I COST ESTIMATE I RECEIVED APPROVED ,; . t, VALUATION' I PERMIT NO. o. '" ..'.. 1'1 ..- CAB, ",.., ' ,,:',', ,!,.,,'t'; ,t\,q. "'," ¡ COASTAL PERMITk"'h .,¡ ';" ",\. , ,.. ",'j " ~ J AMOUNT ,I' , " . Þ "" ~ SECURITY TYPE: 0 CASH 0 LETTER OF CREDIT 0 "cOVENANT 0 OTHER ",1>,,- I PERMIT CHARGES APPL. DEP. ( '), rL\ , .' 'k \ ¡ ) ;.- iii'.', \..-~,.. I It I S \.' ¡ of L INSP. DEP. ( - r ) S '.,c'.... ,~< (':r R.N. 'y,\\ I R.N. .. ',' '" ,\ ( , .. ,.\. "', . '. OTHER (~"~),,d,ft,,) , R.N. '. .1 TOTAL FEES DUE' SECURITY AND DEPOSIT EXCESS RETURNED TO: ". B OWNER 0 CONTRACTOR 0 OTHER The lollowlng document. are requlrad and shall become a part 01 the grading permit when they are approved. ..,/' ,/ Grading plan. Final Ero. Cntl. Plan ",. Soli report ../' Drainage Study DATE: AMOUNT: /'" Interim Ero. Cntl. Plan Inltlal-.lte prep. /'"". ') ~~". Rough-prlor to drain. ,~~ ""':"""""/'\1/':£-\)- 5:'- \ ,'- ,.. .j.,,/<....J. oJ ~ Compaction Report. Re~J \ ~j¡o! 'iff '\' '1"f'""\L-- Private Engr. Cart. Re~ V\ ~ ~:~~æ. y ~-~.^ ~ floal-Slop.. Planted t--~# ~ {/ vv "í 1 Cople.: White-OIllCe;~~.Jllr~IfI'I~~.-r] ¡'J. YeIlOw-ln.p€t°9"f1I1K-P~~., y, "_,,rod-Flnance IMPORTANT I PRESS FIRMLY WHILE WRITING AP.PlICATION , PERMIT ISSUED BY INSPECTION DATE ,......' Geologic Report Work Schedule ../ ......." LncI.cp.'hTt..,Pta1t DATE ISSUED I ! INSP. SIGNATURE .. " . . . 8 1£' q-Cf2 '. -- ,.. ~....._._...._---- -.-.-. ..._- .--. .. CK'O SUBJECT DATE L.OCATION .1iét3ACK A!f;t..'- aSB S. WEST STREET. SUIre 300, ANAHEIM, CA 92802-'846 (714) 563.3200, FAX \714) !5f!3-329S ~ (:!' ~()'" SHEET I 01" I (,1 o!€1--I14 JOB N2. rv-.J WILLDAN ASSOCIATES -.-. ENGINEERS. PLANNERS. . 8Y,RC DATE II-/d-'fl PROJECT We H',4¡/~' ;&:V/ew'!::o p¥t!' ;.t:;'0171"""'~¿ ¿p;~ C'4'~ílo,A.lf' .¿;;,A,jJ:' Ot:r41(,. ~ rOle TtIIe AA¿¿ 4,g~~ ~ ~¡O Æ'ow ~ T/Eß.oGl:!.f' '¿;"'¡O ///6- hØ¿L ¿¿¿ow)7/E L3::>r~ Row q.c: TlLE-ß~ (, AA¿L 4T Tbr' . ,IV2.::!.r¿'€ CoØJ'-ÆCí/(),c/ò ~TE-O ON C4t.C(/t.~!7~AI~ . . ON ap:1I¿ /tot? "c¿.e"',.-o ¡j'" o/;v¡~r/o""" r°,i!! JÆ:;er- Æ'£/¡J;=: O,N ~rø ~~. 2. W4 t. L. JI1+T éh T/bM .. . IF ¡,if,i:¡{J- /~.¡t; ~e. /N/O T#~ ¿P~t:f!: ¿954".,,-, 4T" TN.!!! ðoJ71;YY!) jor/ N'ÆÆ&J TÞ PRolI';'OE A c¿;¡(..~. S1""oWr'v~ P/~T 7$ t;:'~&. ,864M It' ¡.t;10éOvI'?TE-q' R~!'TA/?A/N£.O (By ..r"o/L oe ~6" o~ ~.sav~) Tb' ~~/ff tA~'- t"1/6ti/2 ~r~o ¡7IRO(/~H ~ C)!:;>Wét.~ . ~¿T.Eø.l4íiýé¿Y: fM/ AÆr r..JÞ.;T'lcG;/£;e G!b~ ~tC: , ~~/r..AÆ TO ~A,(,.,4r ro¡,J:> .. ,R.é v'l s-e ¡t( N t7 ~ S'vlS M IT C¿;(.. Co { 0!Æf?J I C. e 6b T~~ OF W ¡t; /,. L. 7 ~'na~Tn MWC Mwn'1TM ~ RII7.f€9~ flL ! LO:ll: l6-0l-ll: 09310 N~S N~011!m:Á8 ^~~ - . 'e . 8 8 . SENT BY;WILLDAN SAN DIEGO :"-15-9\ : 16:24 : WILLOAN SAN OIeGO~ " ! 10( ~~g:¡J ~t.'I1l~.w~ œ...~ Jtg, '...~ I , 7 use 33299 :,# 4 eMf ~t~ \ ~ ~"'¡rta (,,/riJ f' \.' ~'Ì,rt k.1\"~ c¿ ~ a;1~ W~ I,. . , ,....~ . " c.-F ~' . C.I~:: tl; --r ---1!..1. I - ~I I , ,I I, t " '. í.::tl- M ¿~.&<f' "- ~ I 7pA~ tl-,.to,f, rJ.b ~ (Pl(#- ~h ':1 . "'-M_- --.-,............-.' .~..;:¡.. '! ~C'I'I'\", @ ~p ,Þ.Wc:.H~ ':l.""J! ì ~ $u,....Ao.,.., e II 0 p$" "..... .".' ,." ,..,-".. --.,..-- 4ð ,~'12. .'.', , I I I I ", . i tPl.('.o"2.& ",c.~,t~il1.6, . ",(",:,1.{1. ::= t"to~ "f" 1+tÞ1 or S-ø e ~~1" /...... .,,:'~;;;' ,.,:::'!i ~I~. rfl.( _\.'1 0/ ~.tÞ1- "i.'T4- ~M' ' bl!l~}' , g.IZ K: ',"4-4r2D~O = fj~e~ ~~.. 2~ '~~ Âc5ïfit;J.4-i /2 (4 ,i 5)f.. ~ / , u.e,- ;;. ~'c! ¿PH ./ ',i = -- Þøp 6.....,.0( (l ~ tHS þII, ~~ÞNJ J ) ~ð <:::-AN T"""'I'I!;~ ~ ,øl-!.. C~(A!>'S"'~ 1>t I ~fA"'e,. -:.1 ' ,~,..It- ¡.A~ OJ 1..1 " c:it(,04-4b) ~'? 18 -=c ~o~ !~~ t' fbø-r:r,,~ ð F ~tJ.. ~~"'I ~,...s ~' J.. ~.-stl 4: ¡,&f4 11 0,41 4.,f.C ,1S) t?ë:/2.11 ,~~.~.~It. ~ ~ 11t.. ". A'"':1'('ðî~- '.18' .t~/~ ,~Q~æ' C4(..c.7:~ Ar,;~JctI::'¡I!~" 90 . 'T .¿1 "'¿6~/S"rsr 1ftIÝ~'(, #'¡;LJr:."I^~ I ' ~ 66~££99 t~¿ : ¿a: ~~ : ~6-0~-~~: OÐ3IO N~S NYO"IM:Á9 ^O~ ; ,.-. e #:OÐ3TO N~S NYO"IM 't'.",- 4:~1 . 8 ". .; SENT SY:~ILLDAN SAN DIEGO ;i1-~S"'S' 14:33 8 '-[, ~ - It ~,;" : WILLDAN SAN D¡EG~ " .., { . ,12' t,' " , .. . ' ,.. - ,; ~ "f:! '.i ", ", , . ", : "':',""':" . ¡~~, , ,.:),' ,:",:.. "","t. , .. ",; ':', :'il~ , ",::'~~"¡¡1"'~~~ "w" ""~'-",:,:?;,;r!, ',I , ' ,', '-r~;.:.~ , ' . ';, '," "," .\~,1,:~ ': ' " "~"., f ,'t:' ' 'ð, :", r "', "i ""~ni,: '.. ::: :,~:.: -': ~'ð.'" ~," ,w~, ""Ii: ,', " '" Vf, '.""."-', ":-', " , ' " ,,' '"" " " ,", :,', '." ',", . , " ,~' 'f': ' ,,'::' " .' " " " " " +#' 'J. QIt : 1;.1 ¡ , " J!:' ",' ~ /VJqØð ~cr/ð/J~I At' Mí.øO: j /. 400 CtIl ¡rõ ~ t?ØJ6N.r~"'¡, -5 ....,// ~ . , ~'4---",' '----..- '.-------1.------- 8B~er9~ tl¿ eo: LL Le-O~-LL! OÐ3Ia NVS Nva111M:A9 ^O~ 0\. "',. ;' I , " ". "l~t~{\.(:~ ;,,:;,::~,;,,' ". ,~:;o:'.~,: ~t,:,,' ,....,','t, .. il",iJ!J."-:,.,:~:,,:\ '. "',",.. .. -o/'I:-.r:.:¡:~':"""(""""';"" t _!n~~~n MV~ M~""TM ", .. " . . '~"",: ' RCV BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO ..-.., w. '.....-....,. .."" ...-,..., '. ..' ' " " " "'\ " "'" , , '0' ' , , ,\.;~.. '.. " " ~, :' " ~, .': , ' " ;;" ,:' ; " " . ,- , ' .~'" . , , , I'" a ~ . J'" ;" , ,. J, , " '" ':' ", , , , '", " , '". '~-;-'" ;', "," , , :"" " '\. ' \~'" \ ~, 1.~ '.~, . '~.. ~'" ~\ ,""'~~",~,~' "'" ,,\\ ,'¡:,,:~'¡"~, I'.""",'" ' ,}';o ~IiI"."1:\'~)'K" :~+i~~.~~:~ ..,' '......, -v-:..;", ,~.:~:'~t" " ¡ ¡ 't ! ; ,">~f!-{:,:::':,::"~"':: ,!,:'-;:~'. ',~" .." '. ,',". .' ,,"" . 8 8 .CITY OF ENCINITAS - ""ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT " PROJECT NAME: p) fUt [) 1.{'L 'f l(ó¿. ~ ' - DATE: lo-U-cr\ PROJECT NUl1BER: 2.J.c,7-AGR- STREET LOCATION: 5(çD ~\ fLPT/ )U ~ - R.O.W. NUMBER: ." CONTRACTOR: PHONE: CD h'S LJ ~ 'S> ; À) \/t þ. ù C-l-ItI? r ~ B') (hÞ- S\Þ<: l ~ C-) Of)()C= ,\¡"C...oI'.I'St::>t.--' - P.lt:. brz¡,..., (~t.lJ¡~ k~ -~~) lù "H,~ C~ - Sç. fL ß I \...L- Ùe~~ é, p. ~~OJI.; \'t"~ C:)ð-~\, -:-' (C- .tl 0114. tJ (p I ~D FrJ...ùl-\. ç c.", oJ ...> 4 Ñ ~ f'Dl2- ~ fz-(2.~þWC'-( p~ (,. l.if\ ~~);;X'¿LD:~~ lQ~t:':':~;;:*-' y." I' UP! po. l;f '0 ~S ( (") ~\ U tt~ Tí c þ. l'" Cù p. LA- I~O-O ~ íb fz.- b f ç l-1)t>L --0_° ---'" (Î) ~ \J? ' (1.) 'C bJ...'~(/u 'c."í \O~~ (f) ~(Æ-\ð7])()LJi'~ / "'-C~.LHd ({ù Ùfl- DtV/OIJ/t1S1-]Olwp (,1-,\-[3[3) j ",rv ~ ,~;~ ¡ , .,¡ . \J- ",;.\) ~ ,\!i \~ ~ -- ~~ ~ '" .~ { '-I '-'~'~ ¡ ~. íl ,.¡) J ~~ 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING PROJECT MEMO 7 z J ç~-(ì ç- /)OU iff ,~~ CO { ':0"'-":> ' I PROJECT NO. :þedl~ RE: DATE: ¡, ~'4""(J- lilA--:).. : ! J/) hib.... !1,y~/' br., "1"" (j~i(1t - StM'? * r /1'1 ¡.', ,'J] ';1 !r f) u. d t.4JL(~-=> filL. '£.4"'--"- 'I.?'" ~ Or ¡~i1Lb" .-- ,/ 0 (' i '---- ~/ {rð;-i~.O /)cu-t /~ ~,L" 4-. ;;('\,.",,"/- (~-J / (V_cßJ. n (ú..(t..'t ;.c : (Oð~~-~_.J ~l ¿...~r,--/ ¿ !. ., !(Q. J-.' l' lL'<\ < c Ii c.,{ , ,;:.. j" .' .. ,',l!Y'" ,+- -1. .1,' . ~ (1 >¡ , A / ) '" :; ¡'\ cl..,.' '<"", \ , , ,. i/I' . d- / , (, ' ,//,- I, !"'ð.¿ -'(I> , 'J~' eY. ,,>,' ( C' Co" '( 'v J f " / , ( (it!'); . , ' , 7üa?á-;;t~:,< h.u--tJ tle~.1 I .. I , ,r --L ~ (-" 'vk: 'T--' (1[1, 01 _. ~ (0 c.r6J.~ ~, f- ;9, 1---- . '..f (C'Úr t/ t'éJA."Cè<-.< ..'~ JT~ 'Ln.. t J ",t, ,-' ' ---r- (" I .c( ."--,,,,',....JZ.... . ¡ /, "..L--.... /' i (,C, , if 1 ,1 .l- "..,,' c. ..' ,...:> . (' ,- L. ' ',.",.,-U,'~Q'Ç,. l-J Po' ,(- ÙJð I.. --r¿ ,+ .0 .¿ p¡.l~ ----_.-"'- ' J ,....:-- /' .~ (( ó ¿ t / " .r' 4 [, ' ,. /\1 '.1. l.~.< /" "", ( k>5 , / Cl é(;. I 5. 'f t::,( ""; I, ¿ "",,'-' / r St,. _. of-> )1.---' I. r.:..e..- .- ..' 8 8 City of Encinitas October 7, 1991 52..\ -., lolL FAX ;!;j U SS§~ California Coastal Commission 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 Attn: Paul Webb Sherilyn Sarb RE: 560 Neptune Emergency Permit Request I have enclosed a copy of the first page of your preliminary conditions for the subject project. Would you forward a complete copy for my files. Thanks ~t~ Greg L£.{l:ldS Sr. ~Cil Engineer 527 Encinitas Boulevard, Encinitas, California 92024 TEL 619'944-5050 I FAX 619-632-9836 @ recycled paper . . 8¡' ! ANCHORS W/ .:. ROCK/SOILREINFORCED ~ --r------~ 6" THICK COVER SHOTCRETE . . I I I I I I Il ..~~-,~-~_. . ---u-- ...JL---U.--U~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I" :..- -).... - L ), -' \~. j'~. .-,,>r '-1.....- :,-_7'_"-_1'-__- ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1" = 1 0 ' ~OROC- ¥-, BRADLEY RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE, BLUFF STABILIZATON OPTION 1 PHASE 1, PHASE 2: PHASE 3, ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA H--BEAM RETAINING WALL ROCK/SOIL ANCHORS WITH SHOTCRETE RIP-RAP SEAWALL I I I I Il H--BEAM STEEL ~ILES W/ 4' x 10' x 6" THICK COLORED CONCRETE ~ANELS REINFORCED W/ EPOXY COATED REBAR Co-S-fO..r RUBBLE MOUND OR RIP-RAP SEAWALL ~ ~ ~\:; \1- 1Ct1 \ ~L\ \. ---- GRAVEL BACKFILL 100 I ~t~ ~~~I<:'- . 90 STEEL PILES 10' o.ç.'" EMBEDDED IS' INTO ---- FORMATION BO 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 CROSS-SECTION SCALE: I" '" 1 0' 0 ZO 40 L- -'---.1 . I . I . I CONTRACTOR: PACIFIC GEO SERVICE, INC. Il,e "*OMeLIA AV'NUI CARLSlAO, CA stetl LI C. . 1tS07t52 SOIL ENGINEER: OWEN CONSULTANTS, SAN DIEGO WAN k, YOUNQ, S.E. UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES, DEL MAR A-\..-I '2-. (PI Slê~('"...... \~"'K\bSí ~\)..,..;') Lo ... ,.. GENERAL NOTES 8, 1. All reinforcement ehall be grade 10. All tieback reinforcement shall be grade 150. 2. All concrete reinforcement shall be epoxy coatad. 3. All tieback tand08a ehall be do ubI a corrosion protected. 4. All rock/soil ancK~s shall ba epoxy coatad. 5. All shotcrata ahall attain minimum 3000 psi' 28 days. 6. All shot creta ahall ~ colored when placad to Match existing soi 1. 7. Staal pilas shall ba epoxy coatad. I I , I It : I ~ ---- TIEBACK ANCHORS AND I" - 12" THICK REINFORCED SHOTCRETE W/ COLOR T,O MAT, CH EX I STI,NG" 8LUf, f ~ (LD~'> 5'(~.YT 'o/"I"PU-"~"~)- -, . , 'L_-' r -, ,. , L. " r -, ,. , L_" C., ,. I L_-' C- I' r-, ,. , L." C-, ,. , L-" r-, , ., L-I r-' ,. , L--' CO" I. I Lo 1 r-" ~:~ r-, L:; r ., ~ :; r-' ,. , L_" r-' '" L_-' r 0, I' , C-, ,. , L_J r-, ,. , L_I r-' ,. , L_-' r-' ,. , l.J CO, ,. , l --' f:-~ LJ -, . , 0" r', , ., L .1 c-, , .' LoJ c- , ,. , L -, REINFORCED SHOTCRETE COLORED TO MATCH BLUFF AND ANCHORS COVERED W/ BOULDER FINISH OR LEFT EXPOSED FOR RETESTING '. C" L:J c-, L:J c-, I. , L - J c-, L~~ r -, L:) C', I. , l- ... r' , L:; .:J."," - " '.' ~) (.) ,', " (.) C.) (.) (,) 8 " (.) ::-> (.) ,:. ~.) ~.) J.' r.' " ""~,"'/'" . "/~',/', 0 ~)C:"'~~>. ' ~"~f:.~:;. (-) ',"" " ù e ROCK/SOIL ANCHORS W/ 24" !II ~--------ANCHOR PLATE (SEE DETAIL) OVER PVC-COATED CHAIN LINK MESH '.' --- ~ ,. --- (.) (-) (.) ~.) c.: Cst.¡.')lth ß~~ þ..f'~'; BOLSAC~ETTA WAVE DE-ENERGIZER /" MADE ENT I REL Y OF COLORED CONC (4000 PSI MINIMUM) ~ ~ --' --- ' - ---~- ,~- -- , , '" '. ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1" = 10' CROSS-SECTION lCAlEI 1" = 10' 0 2.0 40 [,-,__J-,-I.I.I 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR: PACIFIC GEO SERVICE. INC. 1 1.. tUGNOL I A AVI- CARLSIAD. CA 920tl LIC. . A507952 SOIL ENGINEER: OWEN CONSULTANTS, SAN DIEOO' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: WAN K. YOUNG, S.E. UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES. DEL MAR, 8RADLEY RESIDENCE 510 NEPTUNE AVENUE. BLUFF STABILIZATON PTION 2 PHASE 1: PHASE 2: PHASE 3: REINFORCED SHOTCRETE W/ TIEBACK ANCHORS ROCK/SOIL ANCHORS WITH PVC COATED CHAIN LINK COLORED CONCRETE WAVE DE-ENERGIZER " . c 3 l I 0 [ïmJ 0 Bd 18ANO) I I I I \ \... '-.... ..", "," - /' I Bd ORAVEL I I I I I I I I I I Bd GAil VEL I /' /' /' I I L_- ,/ ., ... ~~ 0 ., f2B TOP OF SEAWALL LEGEND NOTE: LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE 3, STEPPE!>'FACE SEAWALL. APPROXIMATELY SAME AS FOR RUBBER MOUND 6EAWAll FACE OF RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL (ALTERNATIVES 1 AND ::!) ----~ PROJECTED BASE OF RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL UNDER BEACH ,.;' ';.""'" <,,' ." ' i , ..tii""""..:.LOCATION OF TIED-BACK RETAINING WALL (REPAIR ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 3 O~LY) IL PAD ELEV.= 98 FT.:!: PAD-ËLEV.=98 FT.:!: LOT 4 ROOM ADDITION ~ -- '1 ¡ ,\ ~ 100 It II[ I c' W ::J B' Z w > « w Z ::J I- a.. W Z A' ~ IV I 0 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 40 I j 20 . , "..\ ,'..,;.:' , r:)[::, 0 ^ 'D','r::)J::ti"""".U::'t..ln ^ ïlr r ~, ~ \ . , 8 8 .. U:, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. PlANNERS t ran s mitt a I TO: 6 ¡"\ of ttJú i ~, TA6 ~~ I ~ æ-tZ-\fj~ p~f'A?:r~áJr ATTENTION: ~u~ ~~)~lP~ DATE g - 2ß - 9 / JOB NO. (),?°C:J] F\Ut ~fo~~-~R- We are forwarding 0 By Mall 0 By Messenger Description \ ~ 1" f ufçJ ems ûK- 6f ~~D\~ ~ f~ ~ D -?1fZ-Ù ú-ru~L- úkL,ú) vA: II D Ñ ~ fe )2- éa 'éA v.JA LV fe~ ~D Lk,i ~f:,\D~~æ Remarks This Material Is sent for 0 Checking 0 Your Flies 0 Approval 0 Information 0 Other 0 Ple<?se sign Copies and return to our office. COPIES TO: VERY TRULY YOUR$ WI DAN ASSOCIATES / ,/) ,/ j , () /< )/ 63ô3 GREENWICH DRIVE. SUITE 250 . SAN DIEGO. CA 92122 . (619) 457-1199 ) j , 8 \'t7 WlLLDAN ASSOCIATES \AI ENGINEERS & PLANNERS 8 transmittal TO: W/¿,t-ll,,9A/ HSfOC-, S~N D/~ DATE 8-/6.9/ JOB NO. 0506 9 ATTENTION: clare" ~g=b- We are forwatding 0 By Mail ~ By Messenger Description oS ?;e (X..; 7V /V; L, R ¿ -9 Å/ f ~ C /X- c.f' .t 0c.J n- ' .e. G:7/ I ØA/ CO /Y) m t:Ð v Z ... ~ 8/2/9a~ £e:J"/I/lJ?Vci!:. 8¿u/:r::,c P/20~e--N. Remarks PC,87v,J ,! C-9-c.CJ NW]'} 70 I!I~ Æt5Y/./è:f"O t Æ$l.IJJp?/~. " . ,0 ¿ G: /I:f tC /2 l:DV ~ AJ I J:t:. c ~ .f r:rr úJ' / .z,::::::d f C/ d M I rrr ~ ./ This Material is sent for 0 Checking 0 Your Files 0 Approval 0 Information Dr{ Oth e r LV ~ 0 Please sign Copies and return to our office. COPIES TO: VERY TRULY YOURS WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ~/~ 88 RRR~ '^,¡:~TC:TQ¡:¡:T C:"'T¡:~rv'\ """'I-J¡:I~~ r",o')p('\'),'PL\1:; DI-Jf"'\"'¡:I-"A\C:C~~,)f'\f'\ ¡:"VI-"A\C:C~~"'oo 8 8 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BRADLEY RESIDENCE BLUFF PROTECTION ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA STRUCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW AUGUST 15, 1991 We have reviewed the structural plans and calculations submitted by Universal Structures for the bluff top protection located at 560 Neptune Avenue. Any comments or questions that we had, as we reviewed the plans and calculations, have been marked in red. We suggest the Engineer review our comments and respond to them accordingly with either a checkmark for agreement, or a brief explanation. we will require another submittal to include calculations and a fresh set of prints incorporating any changes made to the plans. Also, send back the first plan check prints and calculations complete with responses. Following is a summary of main review comments. calculations for complete review comments. Refer to plans and l.Location of tieback wall on plan does not match with recommended location per geotechnical report. Explain discrepency. 2.For 2 or more rows of tiebacks pressure distribution is normally assumed to be trapezoidal. Explain reason for using triangular loading or revise calculations for trapezoidal loading. 3.Elevations indicated on plan show that a 18 feet height design should be provided instead of 16 feet. 4.Any adjacent surcharge loading, such as building or live load, should be considered in wall design. 5.Performance testing and proof testing are normally done at 1.50 x design load. Refer to sample spec. attached from FHWA Tieback Manual. ) , t ' t' {..' ,C f'/ 18'" ,-'1'.\ ~: r ( /" ~i,\ þ' , ~'.:-~" ,v - -(¡:,t/A";- . " (. ... h ;... I C ..' ¡ - v I . ',~ '-'jÍ.. ~ . i~'4- , í .... of either material replacements and/or resulting time delays. The bond length of strand or wires shall be de greased prior to instal- lation. No solvent residue shall remain on the tendon. The holes for anchors shall be drilled at the locations shown on the approved design plans. If water is used in the drilling operation. the contractor shall be responsible for controlling and disposing of the water in such a manner that is not harmful to the site or adjacent property. Any damage caused by such actions shall be repaired imme- diately by the contractor at no cost to the State. The hole diameter in the free length shall not be less than 3 inches nor greater than 12 inches. The hole shall remain open until grouting begins. Casing may be necessary to maintain a clean open hole. The holes shall be drilled to the inclination shown on the plans within a 3 degree tolerance. The free length of each anchor shall equal or exceed the length listed on the plans for that anchor. The contractor shall be responsible for determining the anchor bond length necessary to develop adequate load capacity to satisfy anchor testing acceptance criteria for the design load shown on the plans. However. the drilled anchor hole shall not extend outside the right-of- way limits shown on the plans. The contractor shall use his expertise to determine tendon type, drilling method, grouting pressures, multiple grouting techniques, and bond length variations such as underreaming or belling. Subsidence or physical damage to existing site conditions caused by such operations shall be cause for irrmediate cessation of operations and repair to the satisfaction of the State or adjacent owners directly impacted. The contractor will immediately revise his operations to prevent recurrence of such damage. The anchor hole shall extend a mini- mum of I-foot beyond the tendon length to be installed by the contractor. Grout shall be injected at the lowest point of the drill hole. Grouting shall proceed such that the hole is filled to prevent air voids. the hole shall be filled with grout progressively from the bottom to top. Grouting of the free length shall be done at low pressure. The final top of the free length grout column shall not contact the wall or the trumpet. Voids at the top of the free length shall only be filled with weak grout or grease after stressing is complete. If the grout is to be placed in two stages, the initial stage must completely fill the hole to a point 2 feet above the bond length. The grouting equipment shall be capable of continuous mixing and shall produce a grout free of lumps. The grout pump shall be equipped with a grout pressure gage at the nozzle capable of measuring at least 150 psi or twice the actual pressure used by the contractor. ;, Anchor Testing and Stressing: Each anchor shall be tested. All production anchors shall be sized so that a test load of 150 percent of the design load may be applied without exceeding 80 percent of the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength 73 8 8 of the prestressing steel elements. No testing shall be performed until the grout for the anchors has set for 7 days, unless approved otherwise by the engineer. During all testing. the movement of the tendon shall be recorded at each load increment to the nearest 0.001 inches from a fixed reference point. The jack load shall be monitored with a load cell. Each load increment shall be fully applied in less than 30 seconds after the jack pump is started. All observation times begin when the jack pump is started. The first two production anchors shall be installed at locations shown on the plans or designated by the engineer and a perfor- mance test made. In addition. at least 5 percent of the remaining anchors shall be performance tested. The PERFORMANCE TESTING shall proceed by placing and recycling test loads as follows: P = design load for production anchor. AL = load necessary to maintain alignment of stressing and testing equipment. AL. 0.25 P, 0.50 P. AL, 0.50 P. 0.75 P. 0.50 P. AL. 0.50 P. 0.75 P. 1.00 P, 0.50 P~ AL. 0.50 P, 0.75 P, 1.00 P, 1.25 P. 1.00 P, 0.75 P. 0.50 P, AL, 0.50 P, 1.00 P, 1.25 P. 1.50 P. Each load shall be held until movement stabilizes, but a mi~imum of 1 minute and the final 1.50 P load shall be held for 50 minutes. At the 1.50 P load, a creep test shall be performed by holding the load constant and recording readings at 0, 1/2, 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40. and 50 minutes. All remaining production anchors shall be PROOF TESTED. The load increments are: AL, 0.25 P, 0.50 P, 0.75 P, 1.00 P, 1.25 P, 1.50 P. Each load shall be held for a minimum of 1 minute and the 1.50 P load for a mi~imum of 5 minutes. At the 1.50 P load a creep test shall be performed by holding the load constant and recording readings at 0,1/2.1.3, and 5 minutes. If the difference between the 1/2- and 5-minute reading is IOOre than 0.08 inches, the load shall be maintained for an additional 45 minutes. At the completion of a successful anchor test, the anchor load shall be reduced to 1.0 P and transferred to the permanent stressing anchorage. Actual lock-off loads may be varied by the engineer to account for mechanical losses or project conditions. Acceptance criteria at the maximum specified test load are as follows: 1. The total movement measured at the anchor head shall be greater than 0.8 of the theoretical elastic elongation of the stressing length. 74 J , I ' 8 8 2. The total movement measured at the anchor head shall be less than the theoretical el ast ic elongation of the tendon length measured from the head of the jack to the center of the installed bond length. 3. a. Performance Tests - The creep movement measured at the anchor head shall be less than 0.04 inches elongation occurring between the 1 minute and 10 minute readina or the test shall be continued for 50 minutes with the accepting criteria of l~ss than 0.08 inches elongation occurring between the 5 minute and 50 minute readings. Proof Tests - The creep movement measured at the anchor head shall be less than 0.08 inches between the 1/2 minute and ~mi~ute readings or the test shall be extended to 50 minutes and 0.08 inches criteria used between the 5 minute and 50 minute readings. The stressing length shall be measured from the stressing anchorage to the bond 1 ength top. I f any anchor fail s to meet accep tance criteria 1, the contractor shall remove or detention the anchor and provide an additional anchor at no cost to the State. b. If any anchor fails to meet acceptance criteria 2 or 3, the contractor shall retest the anchor and determine the actual capacity which will produce the acceptance criteria. An additional anchor would then be in$t~led in accordance with this specification at a locatio~ specified by the engi neer and tested to v~rify if the total capacity of the two anchors exceed the 1.50 P load. No payment shall be made by the State for this additional anchor, testing or structural wall connections. Method of Measurement: ------.---..--- ..--- The unjt {)f '11easurement for all work connected with furnishing, drilling, placing, grouting, proof testing, stressing, and protecting each anchor will be per each. The quantity of performance tests to be measured will be the actual number of tests authorized, performed, and accepted by the State and shall include all personnel, equipment, and materials necessary to perform the tests. Ba~5_s. _~_f.!_aJ-",-e_n.t: The quantities as determined above will be paid for at the contract unit price bid per each. Such payment shall be full compensation for furnishing all work necessary to produce acceptable permanent anchors in accordance with the plans and specifications for this project. ;. 75 'h 0 - 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: Co-'7-tllf\ PROJECT NAME: 6(po "I -- \J' \, (' \" "u..', (, PROJECT NUl1BER: STREET LOCATION: CONTRA~TOR: l;{\t\6 ,\ e~¿rt/\rè(, \. \ R.O.W. NUMBER: PHONE: ~/( 0 Ii ", . r ~ ~\t; - ~r n-1J \ " locI, c) \-~: P \ f " "~\Àj\ iJ_)f'{þ t: I '/. I". "'. 'i 0, I , ( i , "'\ / ' " k () r t.',,' \~ . ,.' (-f:1 , /' \: ¡, I,.: 'f¡ \ \ \ " ('" f J .' n ,/ , '\ :,¡ , I I' '1)0",'( ,',,- . Co' \' V\',4 , Þ)Il;þð( ~ 0" It: i) 0', V nil ¡/ . ¿ ,) ! ~ !,O: (/' OJ. I ,~, o. ' " - .. 0" Î' j ~ ~ ; \. l "",,! , I ~. -fv,},,' ,)co (~f)~C ,)'~: "Yr", ~" t'. \ ,^ , \ " , \ . i,/\ \ D\\1/01l/MS1-JI31wp (.1--1-88) . . 8 8 City of Encinitas May 29, 1991 California Coastal Commission 1333 Camino Del Rio South, suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 Attn: Sherilyn Sarb RE: 560 Neptune Emergency Permit Request Gentlemen: This letter is in response to your letter of May 14, 1991. The City of Encinitas will process the required grading permit application as stipulated by City Ordinance 88-16. Please be advised that the City Ordinance also states under 23.24.110 - Environmental Protection Procedure, b. California Coastal Commission Review - No grading permit shall be issued for a project or development within the California Coastal Zone until the applicant has presented an approved Coastal Act permit or a certificate of exemption from Coastal Act permit requirements granted by the Director of community Development. Coastal's request that the permit not be considered emergency is based on the nature of the proposed work rather than the severity of the bluff failure and it's proximity to the residence. The site was deemed by City Officials to be an unsafe situation and considered in need of emergency repair to save the structure on March 26, 1991. The determination was made by the City Engineer, the Director of the Building Dept. and by the president of Owen Geotechnical Consultants, Martin Owen. The City is anxious to assist in the execution of the permits for this project but can not proceed until the Commission issues either an emergency permit or a regular coastal development permit. sincerf;y, (/ '~ G~ ields Sr. civil Engineer . ~q (,1(Ll)~4-~()~() F-\Y (;lC1",I'I' OQ ('ì~ S> r('(Cvcled D3(J('J <~- Fncinit:F Rnl1!"'c-,,-,1 Feu-ini,.",- í"!i',,-n',, C)()'" 8 8 5/fJ/11 Lk~' ~CVL-~- Uort ~J l~'yV'~"~.) '} ~(' . 0 \ H ~' ,t '\. I\~ ~.\ ,,'to ~, (\~ ~ (J C './i';'<J-A"'<¡:~ \ . ¡ LY C\J"'~ \¿ \.)l'C' \. ~ V~ ~ "' . \. (.;,.--- .", i VYv'.tAl:éà ~ -lie... 'C",,",)c-v..uÖ VLv'",,' ~,et'5~ I?-¿ 6JJoldQJ . . 8 8 ~ - ~'LPn>'<' L. ~r(, 5-(-1\ ~ ~~~~t...\ "?(.::, s ') \~c. . r¡ 'T H llfL '~~<;;, L rt <':, r) Cûo:')Lf:.-'-1' Wt.- ~~\Uç>'~)(Þ'TÞ\. 'PJLLl.., (ù~",.4,\ Gu.G,. <;" ~ ~U) S Dt.... of (J ~ "- 0 ~. oJ,zLU . c.("í'~ 9u,~-~~ <'"'1 /' J"-- J.......,,"i' \.- ) \ I ~ T¡-HL- ?) l..l) (; F PAiL 'f Or PQ..o(~Fü'c..'\'i ( '2.. \)otL~ 1"ò L B~,aLð~ c ~ ~fo ß ~Q+ . ? 3. '5~ to~~1'tv CO""4^I')~!OJ .-/ ~') ') Wf) P~"~l. 'it' ~A.'~~' \",)lç~. (y~Y'" ß) I Û ~O¡<-4'f\ í..b Î.):,\XÞ T\J, ff\ F\(;,..'\". ~~fd:" 1'1 ~ '7"'0 c...o,", S"'ï'p.., '- . 4. 1) lS I (Q "I of ~ v'Íll.Q.tJl..!,\ ¥ t~ 'þ~~ ß<i 'OO<..X;..t ço~~ u>&-.)~)ft(L - ~(~'\? í~úL (<.JL.~LH~e-""~f <;:èo R.. ~~E-\LR...\Lb. þ('a.,\JJ,t-\tö ~ . f w....,.;, ~ to ^,-J~" '\ r ~1 " ~f Q ,~..i-'., ~ ~ ~ :....... ~ . í,.l, ~ f V~. 4-.) { s ~.uJ> r\ Q. ~ ~~ lJ~,;¿. P'OA'v~.j-: \" D c:,o La.) (i \.4 It,,,,)'í~v VtJz,.Il-k-. \'\ c . . 8 e r 6"",Jle'} .\, ') . r r. l_tri\-\-tA.~L ~, ~... j9-c..-r.> V)')Or- -. V(L~L\' e,... ~ -eo ..:.e)'~".I.'!',(':"C' S . ( , I \ L ':'-'""~\" \ \. \ ~\,<tf'r\lo..:\.-, ÌCb ~\A~ð",^,'-"'-S) 12..~-~s-b~--- 0 r' ( ( t ! Ju.. \ L"""--ú"';':j f\.~ ""<\ ~. Lò~~ f ~ð\' . . 8 8 City of Encinitas March 27, 1991 I do hereby acknowledge that I have read and I understand the letter from Martin Owen of Owen consu. Itants .~. a.....t.....?..d.....¡.,.~.a~Ch 2"1', 19 9. 1~.~/? I "Jill / Î I'~ ~ It¿zI¡ /) ~ ¿<iF ~VJ Ms. ~dmilla Bradle~ I do hereby acknowledge that I have read and I understand the letter from Martin Owen of Owen Consultants dated March 27, 1991. lelL, D~.t k~~~,~~~Jl rATH-U<.. ~"S \k \<'0 t-.i S í Þ\I--.\T \ N,o V l C. ~ / I I do hereby acknowledge that I have been premises by the City of Encinitas. I do hereby acknowledge that I have been requested to vacate the premises by the City of Encinitas. t 21¿ . ß ~ e K-e ~ Jtll\<--rV4 /l R\TH~..jL.. f:Jf\ SlL ~1-.l:srt\tJTI k! ov tcH . . 527 Encinitas Boulevard, Encinitas, California 92024 TEL 619..944..5050 / FAX 619-6.'>2-98.'>6 ro í!:Je:J recycled paper 8 8 .CITY OF ENCINITAS - ""ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: ~ ¿ 2- 7 -9...L- PROJECT NAME: ~1"6 PROJECT NUI1BER: J'i'PtBET LOCATION: ~~yt"}¡n.: ~ .,. CONTRACTOR: I()~rt¡~. CD"-lr-€(L~'t... R.O.W. NUMBER: PHONE: ,\\Po;'(hlt ((l>~\D ~ I\/'- r") tM"')O"¡ ~ "ft" ~ (4>.{<.\'~ fL- ko't 1.\ \~lof.- I ~h ~ ~U:)Ò ~ ~)\ LL FDSS>' r3tw ~'f}V\t-.~ ~ I¡'S~) fi...- t'~l. )¿H -1~~/~ ~ lA'£- HJ>..u«..D lù~TH~ ~~ ~'~: ~)i . 1\ LC1Z; S "'" I?T'( t.1í-"?> II; 1./ \<Jls;f ()~ \Ii. ¡ \ LIT \ ~~ . . ,- " {()V. ~ TlJ h \ \I "- Q.. Þ< lA2.íí]dL- P ('1T I cI (., I'J I1A D L ~,[ " b"" \-) '" (Cole.-- C lL~u '2t' ~ ~ Lo~b 2, Ou...?Clh-i l/ifftfL.. -ío t\'(J)íL.é.~\ ~LO\>¡~ 1)TPrf")(LAT'( ~ t-li'J 5Ai~Ty LLo\,þ ~, ~l.,~ ,,\0 kc~f'-(t- / J () ïJfi...fz.Ff¿\...S 1(o~L.. """"~¿IT6~ L.o~n_. / ((0>-'\ por! F""( \'I1\\}.{f<M\ ~~~'q,\ o,..>~\ ri'lL;) \}JILL ~ ~ LÙ LcA...- WI L-L-- ~o<;\. JI1SSL (" PCY"T 'S(C,h.)f'- eø\L tùþ.;k~(\-J(,.., c£~' DÛ";T'fd"} LJ;- CL(FFÇ D"/O~/I<Sl-)ßlwp .-"-88) . , , 8 8 CITY OF ENCINITAS INTEROFFICE MEMO Date: 26 March 1991 TO: Warren Shafer, City Manager VIAna'L1OYd Holt, City Engineer ~"Ron McCarver, Fire Marshall Will Foss, Dir. of Building Bill Weedman, City Planner Jesse Tench, Park and Beach Dept. Superintendent FROM: Greg Shields, Field Operations BLUFF FAILURE 560 Neptune Ave. On the afternoon of 26 March 1991 at 3:30 PM, I received a call from Jesse Tench, Park and Beach Superintendent, and he told me that one of the life guards had reported a bluff failure had occurred at 560 Neptune Ave. and he was going to the site for inspection. Jesse picked me up at about 4:30 PM and we went to the site. RE: We went to the residence and introduced ourselves to Ms. Bradley and later her brother. We then asked if we could view the bluff behind her house. She agreed and we walked around the house to the bluff area. The pictures taken at this time are attached. After looking at the failure I talked to Ms. Bradley and informed her that I would call the Coastal Commission tomorrow and tell them that the structure is in imminent danger of collapse should another slope failure occur. The weather' forecast is for more rain and the. risk of slope failure appeared to be very high. At this time Mr. Holt arrived and conducted an inspection of the site. After a discussion of the informatio~ gathered, I indicated that Ms. Bradley had told ~hat she had a recent geotechnical report performed on this property by Owen's Geotechnical. I went back to the house and asked Ms. Bradley if I could see the report. Ms. Bradley retrieved the document and allowed us to review it. A brief scan of the report, Project No. 959.1.1, dated June 30, 1989, revealed the following: "Based upon our investigation, it is our professional opinion that the failure of the retaining wall system and subsequent erosion of slope base materials by wave action presents a demonstrable hazard to the existing up-slope retaining structures and, thus, adjacent princip~,~' structure. For this reason, we recommend the design and construction of a shore protection structure at the base of the bluff, and slope protection measures for fill slopes above the existing failure area." ~ VIA-"- . . . . .' 8 8 At this time, Mr. Holt suggested I call Owen Consultants and get them out as soon as possible for a site investigation and opinion with respect to the relative safety of the house. I called and Owen Consultants met me onsite at 5:45 PM. The other people onsite were, Lloyd Holt, Ron McCarver, Bill Weedman, Will Foss, also Martin Owen and Greg Karen of Owen Consultants. Within minutes, reporters and photographers fron the Union and the Blade arrived. Bill Weedmån introduced me to the next door neighbor, Mrs. Maxine MctAllister. She said her son told her the bluff failed yesterday prior to 5 AM. She also told me that she had just now offered Ms. Bradley and her brother the opportunity to stay at her resi~ence. Bill Weedman also offered to allow them to stay at his home. Will Foss, Ron McCarver and I went back to the house and I told Ms. Bradley that it was our collective opinion the house was in danger of falling with the next slide, which appears imminent. Earlier, when I spoke to Ms. Bradley, they were reluctant to move out. When I mentioned that it would be in their best interest not to stay in the house, they looked crestfallen and the brother indicated that I had frightened his sister. I told them that I would not stay in the house overnight and I felt they were in danger by staying there. With the agreement of Will Foss and Ron McCarver that the structure was in danger, they indicated they would take Mrs. Mc'~llister's offer and stay at her house. Bill Weedman left his card with his home phone number and instructions to call him if they needed his assistance. I I . i iJ. tvv' h Will Foss told them that he would have to post the property as unsafe and Ron McCarver the~ went about taping off the property. At this time, Lloyd Holt and myself left. ! A) , ! ~-1-1J . . L ' 0((') .-/I./¡ , l,. (', , ~-. r---- L( 8~6) . ,CITY OF ENCINITAS - ~ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT '. DATE: 3 ~ 2-lo - 1 ( PROJECT NAME: ~ ehA'J--r' ~" t, ¡ d PROJECT NU11BER: STREET LOCATION: .,. R.O.W. NUMBER: PHONE: 1-310- 0776 3~ 1ð PM. CONTRACTOR: .-!!JA;DA. Ôf..,UfZ~ F/Jit..-uflJ¿ ~ 0 'Ai ep-,VAJf- ,~ !l{.TAI;.J ItV'- 6.-> A-L-t.. (~o I fJlt.cL +- LvM.I/Ø~) f'4-U~LI êÆ l1/ P I)U 1.--/ w~~ .l:f1x «;v ( L/) Il/iPDkT f/ZDf1. 1JA.(, í 1',,1 () ¡¿L (¡j (p ~'L- (.)..'" '> ¡¿,I CQe C' u) LvV Vif:)<) t)D~) ,- " ~ wr~/ fÞ>\;tv/I\) ~ \L \b \( ../ -(") ~) ~ ~\ \ - ~i-j¿' "'11 fJ "( K-{J~'?::; ~ I ~ ~fi J£ L~~nÁ~:: t ," ) ! j f: '. r " ~", '. A. , , ( I "'- \ 1.,,' '-Í".ì /,,\' Lð.~ 0..... ./V', C' Q..lJ"",- ':!>-~.J.-)(' ("or."" ::'.,J-'I<>-,'-., \a v. ':, I..,'" ~'. '. (},;. "\ 1:' .,t',~.... \.~ '<... .. DlvjO<1jt1S1-JOlwp (-1-<\-88) . . (() >- < c 0 C') (() >- < c 0 C') . 8 COASTAL BLUFF PERMIT PROCESS OWNER BILL WEEDMAN PH 944-5064 GEOLOGICAUCIVIL ENGINEER. CONSULT. SUBMIT COMPLETE APPLICATION PLANNING REVIEW (() >- < c 0 co I 0 C') BUILDING DEPT. 3RD PARTY REVIEW OF GEOLOGICAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ; PLANN ING COMMISSION 30-60 DAYS APPEAL NO APPEAL STUDY TO MAKE FINDING PER 30.34020C FIRE DEPT. ENGINEERING DEPT. CITY COUNCIL OK 6-8 WEEKS COASTAL PERMIT ENGINEERING PROCESS PERMIT CONSTRUCTION START COMMUNITY SVC. DEPT. NOT OK it WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES .., REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE 92-016 PROJECT NO. PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT ¡ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. JUAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. N/A PLAN FILE NO. N/A SAMPLE DATA TIE-BACKS REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N / A SLUMP N / A TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 OTHER PRESSURE PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH 0 GROUT CONTRACTOR MADE GROUT FOR 01-13-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS N/A REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) CUN'l'KAC'l'UR SAMPLES MADE BY 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 01-17-92 LABORATORY DATA LAB COMPRESSIVE FIELD CONTROL DATE DIMENSIONS TEST AREA MAX LOAD STRENGTH IDENTITY NUMBER TESTED INCHES SQINCHES POUNDS PSI 9 8 01-22-9 3 X 6 7.917 * 21,000 2650 9 9 01 22 9 3 X 6 7.917 * 21,500 2720 I X 411 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS :u:. DISTRIBUTION ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C3'-69, C39-80, C78-75, C617- 76 /) REVIEWED BY: ~ @?-~ / ß6-- DATE 2-rl-~2.- - q------------..------- - -- ---- ----m---_- - --- - - - ------------------------ ------- _un__- ------- -------------------------------- - - _m--__..__----------- --- -------- - ------------------- ----------------- ------__nu- ----- --- 8 &fJ &-. .jJJ ~ 13230 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. 92-016 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. JUAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. N/A PLAN FILE NO. N/A SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N/A SLUMP N/A TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 GROUT . OTHER PRESSURE GROUT PLACEMENT DATE 01-11-92 TICKET NUMBER N/A TIME IN MIXER N/A ADMIXTURE N/A AIR CONTENT N/A DESIGN STRENGTH N/A TIE BACKS CONTRACTOR MADE SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) N/A CONTRACTOR SAMPLES MADE BY PSI AT 28 DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 01-17-92 LABORATORY DATA FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES TEST AREA SQINCHES MAX LOAD POUNDS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 7 1 01-20-9 7.068 29,000 4100 7 2 01-20-9 7.068 29,000 4100 7 3 101-20-9 7.068 28,000 3960 28 4 02-10-9 7.068 44,000 6230 28 5 02-10-9 7.068 39,000 5520 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C3,-69, C39-80, C78-75. C617-76 ~ REVIEWED BY: ./~ DISTRIBUTION DATE 2.-/$1'-5"1-- -. - ------ _____n- --------.---------- --- -_no --------- -----u-___n -.-- ---------------------------- ----------------- ----..--------------------.- _... _____nO .~ WYMAN T--" , / ~~ ) -\- '(ì' à' (~ ,c' \' ~ ~þQ<') J::;-- '".-1($ ~ ¿'/~ ~. \ðt5c' ;. !>c,~" ,,- <:c ,,' LoV' (;~. ~\~ ,.~~ ~., tÇY'" ~\,,;Y l ¡::~.-:.:¡/~~ (( JS-- \ PROJECT PROJECT ADDRES: CONTRACTOR - ARCHITECT/ENGIN TO BE BILLED - BLDG. PERMIT NO. REPORT OF 0 CON SUPPLIER MIX DESCRIPTION MIX NUMBER SLUMP TYPE CEMENT UNIT WEIGHT LOCATION OF PLACEMENT PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH N/A N/A N/A II N/A e=~ 13230 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 I. 92-016 ~ e¡f ~~. 01-31-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A TIE BACK #14 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (fc) CONTRACTOR SAMPLES MADE BY 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 02-07-92 LABORATORY DATA FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES TEST AREA SQINCHES MAX LOAD POUNDS COMPRESSIVE . STRENGTH PSI 11 13 )2-11-9~ 7.068 * 15,000 2120 28 14 )2-2 8-9~ 7.068 * 29,000 4100 28 15 )2-28-9~ 7.068 * 29,000 4100 * ACTUAL M..' '..: JJ.""":JJ. LABORATORY DATA REMARKS DISTRIBUTION ~ REVIEWED BY: /~A-- DATE E - c¡ --71.- ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69, C39-80, C78-75, C617-76 , 'u..,..,.-. n .. ""'.. u.".. ."..-..--. ,"--. ---....-. --.._--- .-.'-' -".._.,..'- -"'--'-""'-"'-"'-""'--""'--'---- ,~ WYMAN TE=G LABO¡;;¡TORIES ~ "------' ~~ 13230 Evening Creek Dr, Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. LUDMILLA RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. JUAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. NjA PLAN FILE NO. PROJECT NO. 92-016 '. NjA SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION NjA MIX NUMBER NjA SLUMP NjA TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT NjA LOCATION OF PLACEMENT . GROUT 0 OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH 01-31-92 NjA N/A N/A N/A TIE BACK #16 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (fc) CONTRACTOR SAMPLES MADE BY PSI AT 28 DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 02-07-92 LABORATORY DATA 11 17 b2-11-92 7.068 * 27,500 3890 28 18 02-28-9~ 7.068 * 33,000 4670 28 19 02-2 8-9~ 7.068 * 39,000 5520 7i ACTUAL Mk' !ï-¡;>W'n FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER MAX LOAD POUNDS DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES TEST AREA SQINCHES LABORATORY DATA REMARKS DISTRIBUTION ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69. C39-80, C78-75, C617-76 ~ ~D BY: ~ 6Írw:. /' DATE E-'I'-9z- "-"'-'-"'-'-"'-'-_-0""- .. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 8 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES ~ €I¡. .1 323. 0 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 '1 San Diego, CA 92128 " CEIVWS4 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS APR 2 3 1992 LUDMILLZl. RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. 92-016 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS CiTY OF ENCINITAS BUILòrr~L 11ìI;;Jt"U, IIUN OIVISIO~J PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. Wþ~ YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. N/A PLAN FILE NO. PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT /ENGI NEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. N/A SAM PLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB HIX MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N/A SLUMP N/A TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 GROUT 0 OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH TIEBACK #7 03-10-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4000 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) SAMPLES MADE BY 4UUU CU.N'l'KAL'l'UK 03-20-92 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB LABORATORY DATA LAB COMPRESSIVE FIELD CONTROL DATE DIMENSIONS TEST AREA MAX lOAD STRENGTH IDENTITY NUMBER TESTED INCHES SQINCHES POUNDS PSI 14 45 03-24-9~ 3 X 6 7.068 * 26,000 3680 28 46 04-07-92 3 X 6 7.068 * 29,000 4100 40 ~n~~eT9§~ßé~ò~~ DAY BREAKS TO FOLLOW DISTRIBUTION ;L.L- S.':"\"?LiNG hND TESTiNG /--; . _,REVIEWED BY: I ..",~>êr:--:.Ç_/ /,.t::/--- CONDUCTED IN ACCOrìDANCE WITH AS7rJ. ST hNDARD DESIGNATIONS DA TE '7- '- ,.:;--- ;; L :~--~~. C~S-50. C75-75. CE-;ï-76 ~r";t'CC'/.' ,... \,'~'..,h !.':"',;Jf~'" fß ~%'\~. ~--~'I'¡I ~ ~,., .-. (~ '.. "~ J..~. ~ . .. '-' t{ ,0 ,'.'~. /è-'-/-""'" '\~.':~\\ ,.,.~/<,' 'r'~'\';';::;'\i 1."'--' ~ ';.-' r<",~.' : ::::::~[ 0:':":' \ -.. :' t' -- - r:" r.... >. >, --.J, -'ff \ ,-- ',.),\"':,."-_1.. -"/" ~ r .. .. ((., ~..¡>\ ~r;J~"::.;;!.fl ,I> j~1 \- .,,¡'¡- <, / ~ \\ t.:);'-.:' I \! \""/. ~ /. '~~1- ~{\~ ~ 8 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES ~~"-,- '1 id 13230 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS PROJECT FROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER LUDMILLA RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. Wþ~ YOUNG UNIVERS.~ STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. Nj.!!:. PLAN FILE NO. NjA 92-016 SAM PLE DATA Sc.:FPLIER AEPOAT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR. GROUT 0 OTHER PLACEI/,ENT DATE PRESSURE GROUT 03-13-92 MIX DESCRIPTION MIX NUMBER SLUMP TYPE CEMENT UNIT WEIGHT LOCATION OF PLACEMENT J03 :.:!X NjA NjA Nj.!!:. II NjA TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH (HOLE) NjA NjA NjA NjA 4000 TIE BACK #17 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) SAMPLES MADE BY 4000 L:U.N'l'KAL:'l'UK 2~ PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 03-16-92 LABORATORY DATA DATE TESTED 03-27-9i2 04-10-92 I 104-10-9~ I I DIMENSIONS INCHES 3 X 3 3 X 3 X , TEST AREA SQINCHES 7.068 *1 7.068 */ *1 MAX LOAD POUNDS 26/000 32,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 3680 4530 .h..I.'I.i.'"'.~ .'"':'.ti.:;u!'\..::.' FIELD IDENTITY 14 28 2 LAB CONTROL NUMBER 49 50 51 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS DISTRIBUTION ~L.L S':'.!/.P!...:\:3 ,::-::) ~=ST:'~3 ~ / ~7'EWED BY ~~- BJ< -- I/' /1 c;., CÞ,ì:=: y - ~ - I (;.- CC~-..!DUCTE::; INl,CCC;;DANCE Vi¡~:-i :;--::9. C:;~-EO, C-:-5--:-:;. CE-ï.-6 ASTr..., STANDARD DESIGNß,TIONS PR FESS¡ONAL REGISTER INSP..TIONS, INC, '78 5'Convoy Court 115 ~ Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 4871 JO : SEA WALL AD RESS: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE OW ER: CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRsr PHASE ENGINEER AR HITECT: BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: MI NO.: 1-69RAE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: INTERMEDIATE ENERGY ABSORBER BLOCKS MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON' FI LD SA PLE OF: CONCRETE PR PORTIONS: 9 S.A.CK SLUMP: 6" AD IXTURE: POll DATE MADE: /+/10/92 4/13/92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 226304 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90466 90lf67 90468 DA E TESTED: /+/17 5/08 5/08 AR A-SQ. IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 120000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 4245 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: lf 000 DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ¿,M~~ ENGINEER .,-~ec.~ 8 PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED 8 INSPECTIONS, INC. INSPECTORS WEEKLY REPORT 2#-/ 7895 Convoy Court San Diego, California 92111 Phone 2g2-QOOO ,.5è. , , 19, , , . COVERING WORK PERFORMED WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR OF JOB ADDRESS ~6 - &¿,c> ~ REINFORCED CONCRETE [j PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE [j REINFORCED MASONRY ~ ~/?~ /ÎVI( FOR WEEK ENDING ON , Q STRUCT. STEEL ASSEMBLY Q REINFORCED GYPSUM [j PILE DRIVING , , . , . , . . . , , , , . , , , , , , , . , . , BUILDING PERMIT.~'iU-M. B~ILE NUMBER 4& -9/ - 3/~__-:-_§~- ARCHITECT OWNER OR PROJECT NAME CONSTR, MAT'L. (TYPE~ADE, ETC.) DESIGN STRENGTH SOURCE OR MFGR. ~ r e.- 7< -?' C/O(!) l5c - ..e ø DESCRIBE MAT'L, (MIX DESIGN, RE-BAR GRADE & MFGR., WELD.ROD, ETC.) d)¿ 7' SA:' ~/.,L¿ pO 33 ,. ¥';~ ENGINEER hr$ z! 740~e -- /.-;'("r'r- GENERAL CONTRACTOR - ./ /~4 5~¿/e~s CONTR, DOING REPORTED WORK LAB. RECEIVING & TESTING CONSTR. MAT'L SAMPLES INSP'N. DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED, TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED, JOB PROBLEMS, PROGRESS. REMARKS. ETC INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT. AMOUNTS OF MATERIAL PLACED OR WORK PERFORMED; NUMBER, TYPE, & IDENT, NO'S, OF TEST SAMPLES TAKEN; STRUCT. CONNECTIONS (WELDS MADE, H,T. BOLTS TORQUED) CHECKED; ETC, -------- _.._----~----- /hA ~- SIGNATURE F GISTERED INSPECTOR :t8ø /9.92.. ,PR ,F~SS!.ONAL REGISTERED INAECTIONS, INC. 78 5 Convoy Court #15 ,., Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 -:#:.,;z. 8 ,JOB NO.: 4871 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JO NAME: ',3 E ,0, \011 ,6, L L ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER ADDRESS: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE ARCHITECT: BL G AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS GEN CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CO STR. MAT'L: CONCRETE CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS PL N FILE: DE'CRIBE MAT'L: MIX D1-69RAE, REBA~ A615 INSPECTION REPORT : I¡ /n:5 lnsp",:tec! ,'einf()I'cin'~! steel and the placement of concr'ete in south 1¡::1!f ,:\f cut..,:,tf wo!ll: 30'1 .': 61 deep. ~1ade ,3 set of thr'ee . 'st ::'p,:,:r::i,r!~,!'1:5 fr c'm c :!'){_I et",-; :)ei!l'J used. w'or'k W,;jS per't'or'med in .:; (-'I'.o!IIC.:: 'Nit!! p"=!!~; '::1!1(: :::pec,";. :! . [iI:::p,:,:,:ted ,'e1f!to!'cin',',': :;:tee '::=Ind the p1'3cement of concr'ete in lower' :.:,~,:'t. tun (,,:1 I.e, I] e1ev.3tion) of ener"JY absor'be,", nor'th block; 'JI':I\".in'J 1*:3, C'!'-jwin'Js beinrJ r'evised to 'incr'ease ener"]y absorber' 1,,~!,¡I)t tC)3pr:,ro>imately 101 ('-3 elevation to +71 elevation) due to ';:,d,¡d er'a';ò ion. Made a 3¿i. of thr'ee test specimens from concrete L,ein'1 used. I,.'/ol'k wa~; pEr'fol'ITI~(j in aecor'dance with plans and specs. 1,./09 I~!=,pect¿d 1'~ìnfol'cin'J ::::teel ':1iìd the plar.:ement of concr'ete in ìower se,_t:on (--3 to 0 elE'vat;on> ot ener";1Y absor'b~r'\ south block.' Made .01 set c' f t h r' e e t est s p e c i mE' !1 s f I' U m con c r' e t e b e i Iì C¡ use d . W 0 r k \oil a s pel t'ol'['lled;n decor'dene.,:. I.-lith p13ns and specs. 11/ j 'J Inspi:::::ted l'einf')!'cin'J stee'1 and the placement of concr'ete in ìnter'!!led:,ate en¿r',],/ a!)sor'be!' blocks (-3 to 0 elevation). Made a s ,~t 0 f t h r' e e t est s p e c i rn ens f t' 0 m r2") n C 1" e t e b e i n 'J IJ sed. 1,.,1 0 r- k was p.,:.,ful"rneci in aceol'danee with plans and specs. Ca) ¡for-nia Coastal Commission Ener-gency Permit #6-91-312-G dbA~ . r'th. 'I~ . ""LE ~.E..1L INSPECTOR :3UPERVISOR : 11/16/92 DATE 280 REGISTER. PR FESSIONAL REGISTER INSPj¡TInN~ INr ,78 '5.Cor'tvoy Court 115 . - -, -, Sa Diego, Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 1.1- 8 7 1 JO : SE.l~, WALL AD RESS: 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE OW ER: CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER AR HITECT: BLDG AIJTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: MI NO.: 1 - 6 9 P.6., E LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: ENERGY ABSORBER BLCOK, SOUTH END MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON FI LD SA PLE OF: CONCRETE PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 6" AD IXTURE: POll DATE MADE: 1,/09/92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: 1+/13/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO PEADY MIX SOIJRCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 13281/12 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90381 90382 90383 DA E TESTED: 11/16 5/07 5/07 AR A-SQ. IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 115000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : h06S SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: 11000 01 TRIBIJTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ~¿;~ ./ ¿ /- ENGINEER PR F~SSJONAL REGISTER INSP~TIONS! INCt 78 5 Convoy Court #15 ~ Sa Diego! Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: 11871 JO : SE.Þ.. WÞ.LL AD RESS: 656-660 NEPT~NE AVENUE OW ER: CONTRACTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER AR HITECT: BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: PERMIT NO'.: PLAN FILE: FI LD SA PLE OF: CONCRETE I MI NO.: 1-69R.A.E LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: LOWER PORTION OF ENERGY ABSORBER, NORTH END MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON' PR PORTIONS: 9 SACK SLUMP: 6 1/2" AD IXTURE: POZZUTEC 20/POZZ DATE MADE: 1../08/92 TY E OF CEMENT: II DATE RECEIVED: 1+/09/92 CO C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDO READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 1327973 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90309 28 DAYS 28 DAYS 90310 9031 1 5/06 5/06 DA E TESTED: 4/15 AR A-SQ. IN. : 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 135000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : /..775 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: /+000 DI TRIBUTION: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS C~A/4L ENGINEER .PR( fESS:rONAL REGISTER INSP8rIONS. INC. 18c 5 Convoy Court 115 ,., Sar Diego. Ca. 92111 8 JOB NO.: l~871 JOI : ADI RESS: S E ,6, W.6. L L 656-660 NEPTUNE AVENUE OWl E R : CONTRAéTOR: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR CL ENT: GILHOLM-STEVENS CONSTR ENGINEER: FIRST PHASE ENGINEER AR~ HITECT: BLDG AUTH: CITY OF ENCINITAS IN PECTOR: PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE: FII LD SAI~PLE OF: CONCRETE LOCATION OF SPECIMEN IN JOB OR STRUCTURE: CUT-OFF WALL SOUTH HALF MI NO. : 1-69R.A.E MADE BY: DENNIS OLSON ", PR~PORTIONS : 9 SACK SLUMP: 6" AD~IXTURE: POll DATE MADE: l~/06/92 TY PE OF CEMENT: I I DATE RECEIVED: 4/07/92 CO~C. SUPPLIER: ESCONDIDa READY MIX SOURCE OF ROCK: TI KET NO.: 1327699 INSPECTOR SIGN: LABORATORY TEST DATA 7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS 28 DAYS SP CIMEN MARKINGS: 90156 90157 90158 DArE TESTED: /+/13 5/0/+ 5/0/.~ AR A-SQ.IN.: 28.28 UL IMATE LOAD-LBS: 98000 UN T STRESS-LBS: : 3'+65 SP CIFIED STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS-PSI: I.~ 000 DI~TRIBUTION: GILHDLM-STEVENS CONSTRUCTION CITY OF ENCINITAS ~Af.4 /' ¥I:- ENGINEER 8 ~~ 1flJ~ ~ 13230 Evening Cree~ Dr. Suite 218 . San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCH ITECT /ENGI N EER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE' 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. WAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC N/Þ PLAN FILE NO. 92-016 PROJECT NO. SAMPLE DATA N/A REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE SUPPliER JOB MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N/A SLUMP N/A II N/A 0 MORTAR. GROUT 0 OTHER MIX PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE TYPE CEMENT UNIT WEIGHT LOCATION OF PLACEMENT AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH TIE BACK NO.4 (DUCT TUBE) 03-27-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4000 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS recieved 4000 REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'e) CONTRACTOR SAMPLES MADE BY 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB LABORATORY DATA 7 57 4/03/9 3 X 3 7.068* 31,500 4460 I 28 58 4/24/9 3 X 3 7.068* 52,000 7360 28 59 4/24/9' 3 X 3 7.068* 51,000 7220 , FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER MAX LOAD POUNDS DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES TEST AREA SQINCHES LABORATORY DATA REMARKS * ACTUAL MEASURED AREA DISTRIBUTION ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69. C39-80. C78-75, C617-76 ~ REVIEWED BY: ~~./~ DATE 5-7-7' L. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI --fi ¡ {1J.¡J' ; 13230 Evening cr~ek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 -"I 8 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG, PERMIT NO. REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. WAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES &'ÄIFIC GEO SERVICES, TN~ PLAN FILE NO. 92-016 PROJECT NO, NjA SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N/A SLUMP N/A II N/A . GROUT 0 OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT TYPE CEMENT UNIT WEIGHT LOCATION OF PLACEMENT DESIGN STRENGTH rrIF'. RA~K #: lS, HOTrF'. 03-26"':g?, N/A N/A , PLASTIMENT N/A 4000 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS PSI AT 2 8 DAYS REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) 4000 SAMPLES MADE BY CONTRACTOR DATE RECEIVED IN LAB LABORATORY DATA 04-03-92 FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER TEST AREA SQINCHES MAX LOAD POUNDS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES LABORATORY DATA REMARKS * ACTUAL MEASURED AREA DISTRIBUTION ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69, C39-8Q, C78-75, C617-76 Q.. / ~ED BY DATE 5-7-92- tN~ -it ~' . ~'- 13230 Evening Cree Dr:~;~ 'Suite 218 ,/ San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 8 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. WAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. N/A PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. PLAN FILE NO. N/A 92-016 SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N/A MIX NUMBER N/A SLUMP N/A TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 GROUT . OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH (HOLD) TIE BACK #8 PRESSURE GROUT 03-03-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4000 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) SAMPLES MADE BY 4000 CUN'l'RAC'l'UR (RDA) 03-13-92 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB LABORATORY DATA 14 41 03-17-92 3 X 6 7.068 * 22,000 3110 28 42 03-31-92 3 X 6 7.068 * 24,000 3400 28 43 03-31-92 3 X 6 7.068 * 24,500 . 3470 56 44 04-28-92 3.X 6 7.068 * 33,000 4670 ^ ¿ 0 lJAY ;:¡. JJU ~U' .LVl~~'.L' u.t:S1,,; FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER TEST AREA SQINCHES DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES A~2~TP~~ðc~ó~~ ENGINEER TO ADDRESS 56 DA1 DISTRIBUTION ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69, C39-80, C78-75, C617-76 c;¿/ ~~D BY: DA TE '1-7-' 1- MAX LOAD POUNDS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI BREAK TO FOLLOW 8 ~ (W'""""" "'.. .. ; ;..-.. 13230 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS LUDMILLA RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. 92-016 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. JUAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. NjA PLAN FILE NO. NjA SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N j A MIX NUMBER NjA SLUMP NjA TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT NjA LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 GROUT . OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH (FROM HOLE) 02-12-92 NjA NjA NjA NjA NjA TIE BACK 22 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS NjA REQUIRED STRENGTH (f'c) CONTRÞ.CTOR SAMPLES MADE BY 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 02-18-92 LABORATORY DATA FIELD IDENTITY LAB CONTROL NUMBER DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES TEST AREA SQINCHES MAX LOAD POUNDS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 7 21 02-19-9~ 7.068 * 13,000 1840 28 22 03-11-9 7.068 * 27,500 3890 28 23 03-11-9 7.068 * 28,000 3960 A4 '4 n~-OS-9: 7.0nA * ~7.000 I)?~n ,.. Al,;'l'UAL l".I.l!; /.1h'W/.1 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS DISTRIBUTION c2". ~ ~ BY DATE3-lf"-fL ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-69, C39-8Q, C78-75, C617-76 . .-r AN TESTING LABORATORIES ~ 8 WYMAN ENTERPRISES 15910 Bernardo Center Dr. San Diego, CA 92127 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TEST JECT BRADLEY RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. OJECT ADDRESS 560 NEPTUNE AVE, ENCINITAS NTRACTOR PACIFIC GEO SERVICES 92-016 RCHITECT/ENGINEER UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES TO BE BILLED PACIFIC GEO SERVICES PERMIT NO. PLAN FILE NO. SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF L..J CONCRETE L...J MORTAR L...J GROUT - OTHER SUPPLIER SUPERIOR READY MIX PLACEMENT DATE MIX DESCRIPTION 6.5 TICKET NUMB~R MIX NUMBER SH~ 665 TIME IN MIXER SLUMP 2.0 ADMIXTURE TYPE CEMENT II AIR CONTENT UNIT WEIGHT N/A DESIGN STRENGTH LOCATION OF PLACEMENT SHOT CRETE WALL - NORTH END @ TOP SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS REQUIRED STRENGTH(f'c) 3000 SAMPLES MADE BY DONALD WEBB 5-13-92 227194 75 MIN. 'N/A N/A 3000 PSI AT 28 ¡DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 5-22-92 LABORATORY DATA FIELD IDENTITY LAB NO. DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHES COMPRESSIVE TEST AREA .MAX LOAD STRENGTH SQ. INCHES POUNDS PSI 14 5 5-28-92 3 X 6 6.045 * 19,000 3140 28 6 6-11-92' 3 X 6 6.048 * 24,000 3970 28 7 .6-11-92 3 X 6 6.065 * 23,000 3790 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS * ACTUAL MEASURED AREA DATE: . ~-//~9l- DISTRIBUTION All Sampling And Testing Conducted in Accordance With ASTM Standard Designations C31-69, C39-80, C78-75, C617-76 .. . -i7:~ WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES 1K 8 WYMAN ENTERPRISES 15910 Bernardo Center Dr. San Diego, CA 92127 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TEST PROJECT BRADLEY RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. 92-016 PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. 560 NEPTUNE AVE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES PLAN FILE NO. SAMPLE DATA L..J MORTAR L..J READY MIX REPORT OF L...J CONCRETE SUPPLIER SUPERIOR MIX DESCRIPTION 6.5 MIX NUMBER SH 665 SLUMP 2 1/2 TYPE CEMENT II UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 8' FROM BOTTOM REQUIRED STRENGTH(f'c) 3000 SAMPLES MADE BY DONALD WEBB SHOT CRETE GROUT OTHER PLACEMENT DATE 5-14-92 TICKET NUMBER 227162 TIME IN MIXER 40 MIN. ADMIXTURE N/A AIR CONTENT N/A DESIGN STRENGTH 3000 WALL @ APPROX. THE CENTER - ELEVATION PSI AT 28 ¡DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 5-22-92 LABORATORY DATA FIELD IDENTITY LAB NO. DATE TESTED DIMENSIONS INCHE S- TEST AREA SQ. INCHES . COMPRESSIVE MAX LOAD STRENGTH POUNDS PSI 14 1 5-28-92 3 X 6 6.045 * 20,500 3390 28 2 6-11-92 3 X 6 ' 6.030 * 28,000 4640 . 28 3 6-11-92 3 X 6 6.078 * 26,500 4360 -- LABORATORY DATA REMARKS, * ACTUAL MEASURED AREA All Sampling And Testing Conducted in Accordance With ASTM Standard Designations C31-69, C39-80, C78-75, C617-76 R~WED BY: ~ ---t' ;t/~ DATE: ~-//-9z- DISTRIBUTION 8 ~ - -1. - ,-- WYMAN TESTING LABORATORIES 13230 Evening Creek Dr. Suite 218 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 486-0354 REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT /ENG I NEER TO BE BILLED BLDG. PERMIT NO. LUDMILLA RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. JUAN YOUNG UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES PACIFIC GEO SERVICES, INC. N/A PROJECT NO. 92-016 PLAN FILE NO. . N/A SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF 0 CONCRETE 0 MORTAR SUPPLIER JOB MIX MIX DESCRIPTION N / A MIX NUMBER N / A SLUMP N/A TYPE CEMENT I I UNIT WEIGHT N/A LOCATION OF PLACEMENT 0 GROUT . OTHER PLACEMENT DATE TICKET NUMBER TIME IN MIXER ADMIXTURE AIR CONTENT DESIGN STRENGTH (FROM HOLE) 02-12-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TIE BACK 22 SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS N/A CONTRACTOR 28 PSI AT DAYS DATE RECEIVED IN LAB 02-18-92 REQUIRED STRENGTH (fe) SAMPLES MADE BY LABORATORY DATA LAB COMPRESSIVE FIELD CONTROL DATE DIMENSIONS TEST AREA MAX LOAD STRENGTH IDENTITY NUMBER TESTED INCHES SQINCHES POUNDS PSI 7 21 02-19-9 7.068 * 13,000 1840 28 22 03-11-92 7.068 * 27,500 3890 28 23 03-11-9 7.068 * 28,000 3960 LABORATORY DATA REMARKS . DISTRIBUTION ~¿:~BY DATE3-/f-fL ALL SAMPLING AND TESTING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARD DESIGNATIONS C31-S9, C39-80, C78-75, CS17-76 NOY 21-Z~~1jD rUt:. 1Ot:J:...~ ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6187672884 P:0Z ~,.. OIl CALIf'OIINtA- TmlIUlSOUA.CIIS I\OIINCY ALIFORMA COASTAL COMMISSION AH DIIIOO AIIBA !75 MJn'ROI'O¡n'AH DJUYI, sum ICD N DUiIJO. CA 02108-4W ~119) "".2.310 OIAY DAVIt, C-- it EMERGENCY PERMIT Applicants: L~dmilla Bradley Agent: Greg Karen Date: ~x~mbBr 17. 2000 Emergency Permit No. e-oo.152-G LOCATION OP EM&RGINCYWORKI Bluff face below 560 Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas, San Diego County. (APNs 256-084-07) WORK PAOPOSID: Con8ttUctlon of 8n approximately 14 foot.hlgh (above grade), 80 100t-lonl 8t8el beam and wood lagging retaining well to be located approximately !I feet a..terly of the exIstIng 88awall. The new W8U will con.l8t of 8tee1 vertical beams placed wIthIn 18-lnch diameter hol.. po81tloned at 8-f... on-o.nter extending approximately 8-f8et deep Into the exl.tlng concret8lcement till behind the canerete ...wall. An .pproxlmetely 24" x 38" reinforced concrete Bt-grade beam will erM" acro.. t.... vertical beams and be anchored with Intermediate drilled tieback. extending approximately 20 f..t Into the bluff. In addition. pre88Ure Irested dougt.e fir wood lagging will b8 Inatalled to span between the vertIcal .eel beam. and will Include a layer of tllter fabric to enhance dratnage and prevent tranaport of backfill materia' through the wall. Backfill behind 1he propo..d wall will oon8l. of gravel to b8 placed on an Incline of approximately 1.2~1 (horlzonta. to vertical) and where avent..paned will b8 oontalned wIthin gablon ba.leetl. FollowIng Inat.llallon, the grevel materl.' will b4I colorized to blend with the .urroundlng natural bluff lind will Include landee.plng with temporary Irrigation. This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your Information and our site Inspection that an unexpected occurrence In the form of contInued bluff collacse an~ it'Oslol1 requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate 1088 or damage 10 life, health, property or ess8ntla8 public services, 14 OBI. AdmIn. Code Section 13009. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the 'e""8 of this permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action haa been reviewed If time allows; (c) As conditioned, the work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The work Is hereby approved, 8ubject to the conditions listed on the attached page. Sincerely, PETER M. DOUGLAS Executive Director r.XYk dÅ It. rÞ-- By: DEBORAH lEE Deputy Director NO -:21-2000 TUE 08:48 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:618767 :2884 P:08 8 8 Emergency Permit 6-0o-152-G November 17, 2000 Page 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The enclosed Emergency Permit Acceptance form must be signed by the PROPERTY OWNER and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within eo day. of the date of this permit (i.e., January 17, 2001). Only that work specifically described In this permit and for the specifIc properties listed above II authorized. The construction. placement. or removal of any accessory or protective structure. Including but not limIted to, stairways or other access structures, walla, fenceB, etc. not described herein. are not authorized by this permit Any additional work requires leparate authorization from the executive Director. If during construction, site conditione warrant changes to the approved plans, the San Diego District office of the Coaltal Com mission shall be contacted Immediately prior to any changes to the project in the field. 3. The emergency work carried out under this permit Is considered TEMPORARY work done In an emergency situation. In order to have the emergency work become a permanent development, a regular coa8tal development permit must be obtained. An applicatIon for a regular coastal development permit shall be submitted to the City of Enclnltaa within 60 days of the date of this permit (i.e.. by January 17,2001), If a regular coastal development permit is not received by the City of Enclnltas, the emergency work shalt be removed In ita entirety within 150 days of the date of this permit unless this requirement Is waived In writing by the Executive Director. 4. In exercising this permit, the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any Ilabllltlea for damage to public or private properties or per80nallnjury that may result from the project, 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations andlor permits from other agencies (e.g. Dept. of Ash & Game. U.S. Fish & Wildlife. U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, City of Encinitas.) 6. Prior to the commencement of the construction, the applicant shaff submit to the Executive Director. for review and written approval, final plana for the proposed bluff retaining wall that have reviewed and approved by the City of Enclnltas Engineering Department. Said plans shall be In substantIal conformance with the plans submitted with this application dated 9/19/00 by Soli Engineering Construction, Inc. If you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency permit. please call ßID£ Cannon at the Commission's San Diego Coast Area Office at the address and telephone number listed on the first page. NO -21-2000 TUE 08:48 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:61S7672884 P:04 8 8 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN CRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619) 787-2370 RE: Emergency Permit No. 8-00-1524 INSTRUCTIONS: Aftar reading the attached Emergency Permit. please sign this form and retum to the San Diego Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the permit's date, I hereby understand all of the conditione of the emergency permit being Issued to me and agree to abide by them. I also understand that a regular Coastal Permit 18 necessary to permanently authorize the emergency work. I agree to apply for a r8gular Coastal Permit within eo days of the date of the eme.-gency permit (I.e., by January 17, 2001). I also acknowledge and understand that a regular coastal d8velopment permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the City of Encinitas Local Coaetal Program and may be conditioned accordingly. Signature of property owner Name Addre" Date ~ Signing Oö'SMn DI'IO\BraarpllCl~\ð.oo'I~.(I.RdIIy En,p"", Pcnni"lIoo REP AIR PLAN SECTION A-AI A lOOKING NORTH A' - C IT IS II '" '" : IIIl IN9I' S4iNo SliØ'! : IBllCICF1I,¡L : \ ~ i EDrntc . 9C -~I( ! ; ! (UNŒYELOPED) ==-.J ~;ts ! .----. 1 ~, ! at . ; ! ~- ':? 0 Tt SECTION A-A': . . VEñf: 1j=2C' ,. ... 1~ 140 160 20 100 . ! 1BO I -~ it I at ~ ? i 220 - ~ I N .... I 1\ IS IS IS 'I NIPTUN E AVENUE' . ... t] n c 1> ~ 1> r n c ::¡ :I .... (/) (/) .... 0 z :1<: ! .C .... '~ 3D ~ '~ ~ -I f1l r .. -It () 2!.0 ; ... 240 ~ "" &i m .þ " m z 0 REPAIR PLAN - SECTION B-B' I N -> I N IS) IS) IS) B l:)OKING NORTH e' -i C '" IS) œ .þ .þ lIt; ut ~, ¡ i : I i I .' I . I! , I I ! i i E%I5":1NG ' ; i SHOJ::HE1f/Œ-IØ \ ~ ' .' ([3 CÒNC; S'IN..:: ' ?~? tSi ...~ J.NQ.[ Œ RÐ'OSt Fim 'lE:iRfE ~~ ¡ i ! I ! ¡' '"7~' .... ... tI 0 0 þ () -i Þ r 0 0 :t :I ... () () - 0 z .y I ¡~ I i 10( I : , Oí ;04 ~ ! ¡ " Tt . I Tt ¡ ,. -? c 20 40 fin ,", eo 100 1~ 140 16C 190 21IIi ê2D 241: 26C -i '" r OJ -> W òf " N () œ .þ 11 .. æ , ' ':1,-'-, ' / ,..-~- '.,' . I \ .,1 \ - \ " , \ , ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:818521 8872 /Jj~~~ 8 8 / -~ California Co as tal Co mmis si 0 Py)~ San Die 0 Coast Area. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200, San Die 0, 92108 FE -14-2000 MON 18:12 1 1 FAX Date: 2// '-f /0 0 Number of paa" including cover sheet: 9 To: ; . c..'Y- EiV c..f"-" , 'TCI ~ II "IV.. :h ; ,"'~ J-~ ¡" .s ~ , . II/þft/ Þ1"~.\h C\ L- '!) Phone: From: ~. /Jt1 (¿ t.4. c- ~ ----- Fax phone: ì¿'O-~ 3 ~ - z. ~ I 8 cc: Phone: Pax phone: (619) 521-8036 ' (619) '21.9672 REMARKS~ 0 Urgent ~or your review 0 Reply ASAP 0 . Please comment { ~ q - Ute, I-'\vp \ I, FE -14-2000 MON 16:12 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6185218672 P:02 8 8 8TATI 01' CÁUFORNIA-THE RUOUACU AOENCY GRAY OAVIS. fJoQmør >- CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION IAN DllGoO ARIA $111 CAMINO OEL Ala NOfITH, aulTZ 200 IAN DlIGoO, CA 921aa..1721 (818) 821.1031 . EMERGENCY PERMIT Applicants: Ludmilla Bradley Date: Februarv 1 1 . 2000 Emergency Permit No. 6.00-7.G Agent: Greg Karen LOCATION OF EMIRalNCV WORK: Bluff face below 560 Neptune Avenue, Enclnltas, San Diego County. (APNs 256-084-07) . WORK PRoposeD: Construction of bluff protective mea. urea conllstlng oUhe following:. 1) an approximately 8 to 11 foot.hlgh (above grade), 55 loot-long upper bluff ateel beam and wood lagging retaining wall conalatlng of ate.1 beams placed within 24-lnch diameter concrete pileI extending 8pproxlmately 20-Ieet below grade with horizontal concrete beama spanning the vertical beam. and tl.back anchora extending Into the bluff (to be located Immediately below an existing tied-back shotcrete upper bluff structure), and backfill behind the retaining wall consisting of lightweight cement grout material; 2) con8tructlon ot an approximately 3 to 4 foot-high, 60 foot.long upper erosion control retaining wall located approximately 13 feet west of the proposed upper wall conalstlng ot approximately 15, 2-lnch diameter pipe. extending approximately 1 & teet below-grade wHh horizontal wood lagging placed behind the upper expo..d pipe and backfill conaletlng of non-expanalve aand placed behind the wood lagging; 3) construction of approximately 3 to 4 toot-high, 5.0 toot- long lower ero.lon control retaining walllocmed approximately 27 to 32 teet below the proposed upper retaining wall and conalatlng of approximately 12, 2-lnch diameter pipes extending approximately 15 fMt below ground with horizontal wood lagging placed behind the exposed pipe and backfill consisting at non..xpanalve sand placed behind the wood lagging and; 4) construction of an approximately 625 sq. ft. heavy equipment platform to be located approximately 12 to 18 Inches below grade on the blutftop approximately 16 feet Inland of the bluff edge, The wood beamed platform will reat on top of two, 2 foot-diameter calsaona that extend approximately 22 'Ht below ground on the western tide and two, 2 foot-dlameter cal88on. that extend approximately 10 'eet below ground on Ita eastern side with grade beame cønnectlng the caI880nl. . . Upon completion of the proJect, the work platform will b. dlemantled, the grade beams and concrete cal.aona decommla810ned (utilizing expansive demolition . powder placed Into plaatlc al.vea) and the aurface ar.. r..tored to preconatructlon grade. This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the locatIon listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence In the form of bluff collapse requires Immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to Iffe, health, property or eHentlal public .ervlces. 14 Câh AGt'ntn. Codeleotton 1300Q. The executIve Director of the Coaatal C0mnú881on hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists whiçh requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development c:an and will be completed within 30 days unleaa otherwise specified by the terms of this permit: FE -14-2ØØØ MON 16:12 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6185218672 p:øa 8 8 , Emergency Permit 6-a0-7-G February 11 2000 Page 2 . (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed If time allows;. . (c) As conditioned, the work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The work is hereby approved, subject to the conditions liated on the attached page. . Sincerely, PETER M. DOUGLAS executive Director ~ rJibt ~ ;£ By: DEBORAH LEE Deputy Director FE -14-2000 MON 16:12 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6185218672 P:04 8 8 .. Emergency Permit e-OO-7-G February'11,2000 Page 3 1. The enclosed Emergency Permit Acceptance form must be signed by the PROPERTY OWNER and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. The work authorized by this permit must be completed withi" 80 days of the date of this permit (I.e., April 11, 2000). Only that work specifically described In this permit and for the specifIc properties listed above is authorized. The construction, placement, or removal of any accessory or protective structure, including but not limited to, stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc. not described herein, are not authorIzed by this permit. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. If during construction, site conditions warrant changes to the approved plans, the San Diego District office of the Coastal CommIssion shall be contacted Immediately prior to any changes to the project in the field. 3. The emergency work carried out under this permit Is considered TEMPORARY work . done In an emergency situation. In order to have the emergency work become a permanent development. a regular coastal develøpment permit must be obtained. An application for a regular coastal development permit shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of this permit (I.e., by April 11, 2000). The 'application shall Include detailed landscape plans that will serve to reduce the visual Impact ofthe proposed structures. If a regular coastal development permit i. not received by the City of Enclnltas, the emergency work shall be removed in Its entirety within 150 days of the date of this permit unless this requirement Is waived In writing by the Executive Director. 4. In exercising this permit, the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmle88 from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal InJury that may result from the project. 5, This permit does not obv.late the need to obtain necessary authorizations andlor permits from other agencies (e,g. Dept. of Fish & Game, U.S. FIsh & Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, City of Enclnltas.) 6. Prior to the commencement of the construction, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director, for review and written approval, final plans for the proposed bluff retaining walls and construction platform that have reviewed and approved by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. Said plans shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted with thla application dated 1218199 by Soli Engineering Construction, Inc. If you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency permit, please call Gary Cannon at the Commission's San Diego Coast Area Office at the address and telephone number listed on the first page. FE -14-2ØØØ MON 16:18 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION I I I ~ ¡ 8 TEL:6185218672 P:Ø5 8 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: 'CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.1725 (~19) 521.8038 RE: Emergency Permit No. 8-O()"7.G INSTRUCTIONS: After reading thG attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and return to the San Diego Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the permit's date. . I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued to me and agree to abide by them. I also understand that a regular Coastal Permit Is necessary to permanently authorize the emergency work. I agree to apply for a regular Coastal Permit within eo days of the date of the emergency permit (I.e., by April 11 , 2000). I also acknowledge and understand that a regular coastal development permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may Include provisions for long term maIntenance and monItoring of the bluff fac.., a sand mitigation fee and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property assuming liability for damages incurred from bluff failures, and restrictions on future construction of addItional shore or bluff protection. I I I . I , I ! , ! I I , I (0:\1811 DIe8Q\8MRa~w.oo.'.o"d", ..fIIIII1&cIac) Signature of property owner Name Addr8.. Date of Slg(llng FE -14-2000 MON 16: 18 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6195219672 '" "" .~ ~~r ~-" ,,"', ,; .' " , " ':,"'" , '0 :\;~)"~,'" , P:06 .. .. "I ( . ~ J: "¡ . ~ ~ I .I ~~ . 'R I ð:t,JI~11~' ! i¡' 'I~ICA i 1Ü I Cf! . .,..., , , CALIFORNIA COA,STÂL COMMIS ION SAN DIEGO COAST ISTRJCT , I , . 'I, '0 "" I,~ ,,¡ ':, ~'"" "1':"',w';'i""." ..,. "I"'" r '.... ' "I ' ,:.' :' ',,' II ,', ' f',tla~i ' ,11,þl"" "oX".." , ,,' ,::t ": 01( ,," - , -.'1f:7vY}'to l' '.,-...--..,-------- --,--- ....:~--,-" ",", r f f í ", , ( t} ~~ h . P !~ ,t dl ~'I' r.~~.' '. \ , v. ~ II. L ) ¡) ~ ~ ~ ! J ". ~ ~! i I I I I TEL:619521 9672 P:07 .".. 'I '. r 11 ! II. : t I '~ II ~ I ¡ q ," , -. 1 ~{¡ III~ ~ 1;¡ I : J JE<GI!: IIWlt~ . -... JAN 1 3 2000 ' CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT FE -14-2000 MON 16: 14 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION . '.'::~ ,::'-' :,' ",", , ~,:::~',~,~ 'f~:;::~:;::¡:-';":':':"I~,,;J\,:,:,~;~'~';?'}~:!ilN:\ ~;;(:~ I "'ll ~:~ !,::,~ ;~!~ ':,~~~ ,:: ;/'~ ',~~~, ,:i; ~~~ ;~Y?; ,', ':," ',: "',.',, ,:: " "',; "~: ,,"j;!'~ ';':~: ; ,:,{:'::, " "~:;"'~'::"',i"".i":'k~'~.J;..'" "I,,' ", ',' - ":<"'!"":"':':"'\~'~'&""f',~"':~':"~'~':'::~.'~ ~".,:.'.:.',::;' ':'" -.. - -' '~~"~"'~:~':':';""" .: ;,;::" f "<' '., ' :~";,- -"-'c,, . -~;f; '~~::~~u.ti;; ~-"",,'J ' ","Y'~ ',õ' ""..",.þ~,~-:j,f'^" -'-"'~~,,',;:;: ,~",-",I.. . I,' "', £"0 "".X"";,?':'-";~::':~:::""',' .. "",::,::,'-: '~,-~,.~,:"",':~~,:~~',"~.;,:",~.,",,(, " ¡:i I, ", ¡'~;:'; ,,' ; Co" ~, : ....;~. r-,"" ~' ,,"' II 'X' 51,t, .":,!,,;,;~,, " ",' '" , ',' ,,' "".:;:, ,:' "" IG:!.:r~"':'\'(I", i(f,;"¡:;',,',',:: . ',:\ """11'1 ',',' "t,' ..¡';" ~ ! 'I.;' 1';" ,f , ,'" , ' ...'. ',,', ",I ~ ~~,' 0, ,.,'::t. 'I ,,"'; ','" J,' ':f' 'r " ," ,:'i~': "',/"~~"":,,,':T - """'1" ",",,~ìI~'~ ,';::~~J: ,;1'" ,.'" ~if~ '"", I ,ft, ",',',',;'"~~,::,:",,,,",',,..,:~,"""'.:',~,.,::'";,~:",,,:"'"',:,::~'::,.:,,,"'.,,,,""i:>"I:',.'O':';;"':'~,:,",:,: :'¿/';h\;~ ~ -' ;"¡, " c j! ~ ""'. , " ",,',:,,' ,~,: ., ' " ", .. ":,-,,, ~,,::,:; ,J',,"'~' ::::':,::f~ !"~" .Y','. ,:I,:,~ '-, , , , ';, ;1:~:'ß\ ~~¡:}1 ;~I~'\: '~~ ,7* Vf\!it"', :'~. ;¡ '" """ , ' " t::: ¿ ~~' t',:,.' :,' :. :',.~!¡' ;,;ir;, it"t:, ~.,,',,'."""" ~ l!':,-;,~lj8',":" ,,;,¡ H,::" ':;,ËIf:.;,",,',,~,~j~,:';~'~" ':)<:, '"",:':,' ::'; t,', :tJ.':~,>:;: I~". ,"'~:,~.:'-,,',: ,,':',~""". I~:S" ,:",-,'¡,f ,,~~J' l~;.I~:: ~F-1': ',~~;;;' "I~ " ~: ,ar., f'lI , ' \ U --i-'~, '.,1 ", ',,', ' - ""':" '1,; - - ~.. ""-~J:.:-.,. ,. ~ "...:,.:.." \',-- . ,.J"'::~"'~Ô'~~.'o J~ {i - ..-- . ' ,~, ' -"" "" ~ - ~ .'~ ~tit.J >~ . ,==...- WI ' " . .. ',~~'-':-:~--:IL ~I, ~..;, ' , "'..' ~'",::"" ';'" , ,,' '~..' ,., '~" ~ -1--- .. '.. "'.. '", , , .c ~! ï I I " 'i-'," !. ~ I :::~t~~' , (~,..:.'A I'-'~ ¡~ """,:,':1 :~;~~r~\l '.':[fr~i~ , :..,:~;= ":1 " ',:~ ~ ,~ ,', ~ ! .... ~ i ;i ß { 11 .1 ,~ ' ï n : I " . ~ Ii . ,;".""~ " , " .. ,- ",' ," ìlj~ ~¡;:;'¡:;i;;;;,.;;> ; '>i ""'!"'iP'f"~':"""'",',""r"",."",1 ~i~'~ ~ i~:~ ';::' ,: ?; t,~ ~':,'. ""'I-::! I ' ,,' '" ,0 .' ,"L..: ~ I :}i<~f~:,::~;c : : 1~~: , , '~.." " , , " ,.. ..' , , " ,~:Y<:<:) ~~',K , ' '[~," :', ," ',' ø , ,,' :,,' 'if ~" . J " 0': ¡r";' ~'".. , -. ," ,H '" - ¡¿ -,~ ~!~_.., ' ' "'"1 .. ,~" -" -, . " '- - ~ -, Iii] ./ 'i'V;r ~~' " I " /IF ' "' , 0, 'I" ',-. " ~dlo .. ¡ ' , '" :,' ..,::' , -.. : , . " " ,, ', , ,', ':' ',- ,: " . : " ," " ';- ,,! ,-:1 ; II 'f' . . I I ,', " "" :;',':, " " . _i, r~ -.-....------------------ _OH" F -14-2000 MON 16:15 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6195219672 -- i.. I:' . . I ¡hllll! I ; IIII !ilili IIIII I. I - ~H ~ ~ ì ~ - i \i . i d .. J~~ IlWftIID JAN 1 3 2000 . ~::~':"::1' 'II . '0 '0 ~ . . . -:. ... '.' J" ' " J: : .:;4 Et-Z~~rLt ,-"""- I ~ - J J II . 'I °r'_"""", '~".,'I. I Irf', .. , ¡li-~ f .~. :i "t t l .J "- fiR lJ ~ Iti . JI d~h H~~ ¡U~ ~ ~. ~t~~~ ~~ rl! S Hi J fj ,¡~ t¡ fl11~ .j~~, 11 ~\ ~I ~h ~jifH .ji~Pl! If u' .¡~gs,1q., ~Qt'ï".E~ ~ I ¡ I JR~~I ¿f~l&;ti;U~ f J -j . 'f 'i. jl~ J ~f~ ~ ~tf .tl" '.1 J~ 1St " Ai .,;. ;1 :~;gt i -:,- tI ~ . :..~ S 1 !s ~il.:J' ~.t:'!' ~~ H!r; ,1 . ~ll!dt~ J,.! - ......t ; 1~ J3 t.. !, ;$1J! ..- j-.' 'i""~j.'; ,- 'tu hi ; '- .:..:: ~~ ;- _~r £ ~-- . ( . I . . ì-- . :-:- ---wI '1""" P:0S '0 i~ ~ j ill . FE -14-2ØØØ .. MON 16:15 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6195219672 ~p IIWltlID JAN 1 3 2000 .( J ~ž i ~~ ¡r " .\ ~ .. ~ ~ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSiON SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT ~ , . 1 ;';' - ., . ,; ~ D ¡ :! ! , ! . , 1 l' J I ! f . :;-1 ..fl '. ! Ïf II J~ ,\ :z J: t Q & It ~ !: ~ ¡ ~ 'I t..I. .U g "J j. d..- ~t L - l j " ~ P:Ø9 ~ ~![f!-I . . I Ii ~ .. ~ f ,. .. . I ':II§ i ~ ~... ... I I OF CAUFORNIA - THE RESOURCes AGENCY PETE WILSON, GOV8lllOl' ALiFORNIA COASTAL COM I~SION '8 NDIEGOAREA 3 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, 8UITE 200 8 N DIEGO, CA 92108.1728 ( 19) 821-8036 8 Greg Karen Anthony-Taylor Consultants 2240 Vineyard Avenue Escondido, Ca 92029 Re: Emergency Permit #6-99-41-G Dear Mr. Karen: Commission staff has reviewed your request for an extension to the above-referenced emergency permit that was approved by the Executive Director on May 21, 1999. Your letter of July 18, 1999 indicates that you were unable to complete the construction bid process and have construction materials delivered to the site prior the initial expiration date (June 21, 1999) of the approved emergency permit. You had also. indicated that the required encroachment. permits for work on the beach during the summer had not yet been received ITom the City ofEncinitas. Subsequently in your letter of July 22, 1999 you have documented that contractors and materials are now available to commence construction, that the City has approved the necessary encroachment permits, and that many of the special conditions of the regular coastal development (6-99-41) approved on June 10, 1999 will soon be satisfied. As you know, the emergency permit process is intended to allow work to occur when an emergency situation eXists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the normal permitting process. In a phone conversation this morning with Commission staff, you estimated that compliance with the special conditions of the regular coastal permit should be completed within 3 to 4 weeks but that the emergency condItions continue and that any delay in the commencement of construction could threaten the residential structure. Special Condition #9 of the regular coastal permit (CDP #6-99-41) requires that the applicant fulfill the special conditions of the permit within 90 days of Commission action of June 10, 1999. Therefore, your request to extend Emergency Permit No. 6-99-41-0 is approved for an additional 79 days, until September 8, 1999, by which time the applicant is expected to have complied with all special conditions of the regular coastal permit such that all subsequent work will occur in reliance upon that regular permit. If you have any questions regarding the terms of the emergency permit or the required follow-up permit, please contact Gary Cannon. Sincerely, ~71.~ Deborah N. Lee Deputy Director cc: City of Encinitas (6-99-41-GlExtension) ~ MA -Zl-lSSS FRI 14:06 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION . '.' 8 ß B 'oft QAIJFOIUIIA - 11t8 RIIOUftCII AIINCY C LIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SA OliGO "REA au CAMINO all. RIO NORTH. IUr1'8 - al.GO. CA 8210..,73- (11 ) 131'" TF..L=61S5Z1 S67Z . P:0Z ..I,y aAYII. Glo~ . fj EMERGENCY PERMIT Applicants: Ludmilla Bradley Agent: Greg Karen Date: May 21. 1S~;¡9 Emergency Permit No. 6-88"1-.~ lOCATlON Of EMERGENCY woRK: Bluff face below 560 Neptune Avenue. Enclnitas, San Dle~p County. (APNs 256-084.07) . . WORt( PROPOSED: Construction of an approximately 13.5 to 11.I-toot high, 107-foot.lo ~1g colored and textured concrete 8.awall. with cals.ona and tle-back .upports ;al'lll bac:kftll b.hlnd the .eawall conal.tlng of concre. slurry covered In earth; : Installation of steel reinforced colored and textured .hotc:;rete on the lower blu'" face betw.en the propoa8d ..awall and an exlallng .botere. application on the "1".11 to the north; repair the upper two tie,. of existing wooden retaining walla on ",e I nld- bluff area by In8talilng a .erle. of concrete e"cued ..el plpa to . depth 0' approxlmB.ly 10 ft,4 ft. on centll, and attaching them to the exl.Ung wooden '.vana; and, Installation of three (3) Inclined water collection wells Into the bluff .b~vt the proposed .eawall. : This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has rec~ ueated to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our sit. inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the fomi of continued undercutting and C9111' pse requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate Iou or damage to life, health, property. r essential public services. 14 Cal. Admin. Code SecUon 13009. The Executive Directqr..r the Coastal Commisaion hereby finds that: ¡ (a) An emergency exists which naquires action more quickly than permitted by U 8 procedures for administrative or ordln_ry permitland the development ca" 81 ,d will be completed within 30 days unless othlrwile specified by the terms of this: I8rmit; (b) PubUc comment on the proposed emergency action hat been I1IvI~d ¡,rtime allows; . : (c) As conditioned, the work proposed would be con8istent with the requlrelllents of the California Coastal Ad. of 1876. The work is hereby approved. subject to the condltlon8liated on the attached page. If.yc'J have any questions about the provisions of this emergøncy permit, pie.. call Le. McEachen', 8t the Commission's San Diego Coast Area Office at the addrel8 and telephone number lI.t~ above. Sincerely, PETER M. DOUGLAS ~ft.~ By: DEBORAH LEE Deputy Director ! '. .. I. 11 HA. -Zl-17~9 FRI 14:08 ID:COAST4IÞCOMHISSION TEL:8195219872 8 p:0a . I '> Emergency Permit 6-99-41-G May 21, 1999 Page 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The enclosset Emergency Permit Acceptance form must be signed by the PROPERlY OWNER and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. The wort< authorized by this permit mult be completed within 30 days of the date qf this permit (J.e., by June 21 ~ 1999). Only that work specifically described in this: permit and for the specific property listed above II authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization tom the Executive Director. 3. The emergency work carried out under this permit Is considered to be TEMPORARY work done In an emergency situation. In order to have the. emergency work become a permanent development, a regular co.taI development pennit must be obtalne~. The permittee has applied for 8 regular Coastal Permit to both the City of Encinitat and the Coastal Commission to have the emergency work be considered permanent ~f these applications to have the work retained permanently are not approved. a : pannit to have the atructures removed in tMlr entirety shall be required within 150.. . days of the date of thia permit (I.e., by October 18, 1999), unle88 this requinlment;is waived In writing by the Executive Director. ' 4. In exercising this permit, the, applicant agrees to hold the Califomla eoastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private propertle, or personal injury that may result from the project. ¡ . 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necenary authorizatlonl and/or: permits from other agencies (i.e. Cept. of Fish & Game, U.S. Fiah & WIldlife, U.S. ; Army Corps of Engineers, City of Encinital). 6. Prior to the commencement of constructIon, the permittee than lubmlt to the ¡ executive Dlredor, for review and written approval. final plana for the seawall, shoterete and drainage wells that has been reviewed and approved by the City of ¡ Enclnltas Engineering Department. Said plans shall be In conformance with the ¡ attached plans dated 5/6199 by Anthony-Taylor CoMultantl and Include the following: a. No staging or storage of equipment shall be permitted within any public parking lot, including on-street parking, and all equipment and materiall must be removed from the beach nightly. , b. No local sand. cobbles. shoreline rocks, or exlltln; debris (concrete. conctet' I columna and gunite) a..oelated with the unpermitted lhorelin. protective ' devices, shall be used for backfIll or for any other purpoae sa corwtNctlon material. In addition, all existing conerltelgunlte deb';, ,hall be removed from the beachlbluff within 15 day. of completion of construction of the seawall an~ deposited at an approved disposal site. ;, .' . , I :1 , I M~ -21-1888 FRI 14:08 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION 8 TEL:8185218872 8 P:04 Emergency Permit 6-~9-41-G May 21, 1999 Page 3 7. This emergency permit Is only for the above de.cribed ,e.wall, shotcrete application, retaining wall repair and water collection wells. No other work Is approved by this emergency permit. The construdion or plàcement of any. aCC81Sory . or protective: structure, including but not limited to, stairway. or other acces. structures, dl'8in'age structures or pipes, walla fences, etc., a... not authorized by this permit. If during construction site conditions wirrant çhanges to the approved plans~ the San Diego, District office of the Coastal Commission shall be contacted immediately prior to a~y changes to the project In the, field. . : . 8. Prior to the commencement of the construction, the applicant shall submIt to the executive Director, for review and written approval, a written statement from the CI~ of Enclnltu documenting the proposed development approved under this emergen,CY permit has received third party geotechnical review and approval. As noted in Condition #3. the emergency work carried out under this permit is considered to be TEMPORARY work done in an emergency situation. Aa 8 follow-up to the emergency permit, a regular Coaltal Permit mUlt be obtained. A regular permit : would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and/or the certified City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program and may be conditioned accordingly. Theee : conditions may Include provisions for long term maintenance and monitoring of the blu" face, a sand mitigation f8. and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on Ü)e property as8':1ming liability (Qr damages incurred from storm wav.., and reltricUona on future construction of additional shoreline protection. ¡ ~ ' . , . , , , " MA. -21-LS88 FRI 14:07 ID:COAST4IÞCOMMISSION . . 4iÞL:818S218872 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: CAUFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION' ~--~-~ ~~~- SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 RE: Emergency Permit No. 8.81-41-0 --_._~_.__. INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, ple..e Ilgn this: . form and return to the San Diego Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the! permit"s date.' : I hereby understand all of the conditions of the em.rg.~ permit being iIIued to me . and agree to abide by them. I also understand that a regular Coastal Permit i. necessary to. permanently authorize. the emergency work. I agree that If the application to have the work retained . permanently (I not approved by the Commission and/or the City of Enclnltas, a permit !to have the seawall removed In Ita entirety shall be obtained within 150 day. of the date of this permit (I.e., by October 18. 1999), unless thil requirement 18 waived In writing by the Executive Director. In addition,.1 acknowledge that if it II determined through the regu~al permit proC888 that other feasible le88 environmentally-damaging altematlv.. ar. . : available to address the mld-bluff area, that approval of this emergency permit will not: prejudice the ability of the City of Enclnltal to approve such an alt.maUve. : ~f property owner Name Addrell Date ofšiQñìng (Ct\\8a ~~ I.....,"""""") . ,.,,' . '. P:0S -- _u_---- -- . . I II M~ -21-1a88 FRI 14:07 ID:COAST1IÞCOMMISSION TEL:8185218872 P:08 -- ~]~ ~- --------- .- '" 'W!*118 : bjl 811M. 8ft... - . "[1181 A8'1CIW8 -. I ~ . WW ... ¡'u." I .. -- th I I I \D , § II -- I 0.:' -. - - - c Þ . ~~ - - - I! ~~ u ~ij G : :¡ t II~ I, ,. :H III . Ii! 1'1 I , I 'ti j 1 ' It'iÆ~ 1~I~p . ~I' ~Iil < rl ¡' Jb :]Im wIlt I, ŒI,~I. .. '. L I ,I .. .. ~~ :I..~ III~ . '. I. ~I ~I: t '0:1 "Ii I!¡ 81:1 { ~I.! II; Jilt: . II I II teal e ~ 1f!;11 t ~tD:I'. t I ' I ! I ; ill, IIi nil: 4 HI... : I II .- MA -21-~999 FRI 14:ØS ID:COASTAL COMMISSION 8 TEL:618S218672 8 .... liD ....1HIIM8 i3t ...... 8W" .. , 1£IWCIt8t AI1GW8' . II . . . 8HOIJ,Oa8 8'0"0 ....;: I to ..- _I -"' - --. -- .. m:RVmltlAOa-lID"1~oL.ANS II P:Ø7 (1) ~UII 4( lIlli' 611 I ~ 1";1 ! w. t: Ilil ! 0., !II III. : I i'. I ~ :11'11 , i i.'I; I i II :. . I "'8 ,.':: I t I " ~ [,'ilIA , :. ~~ItG1 r I I ! I --"'" ID:COAST4IÞCOMMISSION TEL:8185218872 - 8 ;~ .... ~ 'þ.1lØ8 œ . -, --ø- 1I'I8A'f.-u..." -= ,...... -, --~. -- LIJ,\JI'1IIWØ8 - _..0. . :~ -..'".:: ""-' ...~ ~øo"11YM .;~. I'" M~ -~1-~889 FRI 14:08 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ii! b] .J! . I ~C~ ..8"j!f- p:0e I I-" 'n Iled~t 1'1 ' §ä~;~ il 11..Ia~1 ! PI; U ¡'Iuä;¡ lal ilil !i~1 ;I..:,.II.ZI . .. I : - I I t d ¡I t - ¿;k-¡!i ~ !::!k ~ ~ all. ~'}1 t I, I '¡ 1 ! Ð:. I ~ It-!t I ,~; ~ - : I I II II. -0 }:~ =! 1 ~ :e_&¡ i & ..J .. I~ I It :>: .1 ,; ø., ~ ¡; I t:: ' . ;8 i I- ~ - ~ -- - - i_.', I II P:09 TEL:6195219672 ~~~2~-~9:9 FRI 14:09 ID:COAST4IÞCOMMISSION .... YO 'IVUDII ~ 8'NIA'W 8NoI8t OR ~ .... -) . 9TiJ.8G T8 ~G rlllÞlI INoNy,¡¡lnlllNOg JleTl" V..."AND.....,.Y ~ ~ Iin diD II .. d i I! It! I. illl :.1 I III I. I,f : II ì~ I I" : ~ bl . I:q 51! I ,I. lib I ilil II! II 'I' II ~g ~ Ilil .,ul ;~III ~1I11' 'i"l. . IIIIU I I I JII: ;'!II!i i I . IIli. ; I I ~ I- II! I ~II :11 Ifni De ~ft 1'1' e' III I'r II !;. ilD :II !ilill Iii :III !~ II ~I II I~ 1;11 Ie 115.! i II II ' II ; ~,:I II ~iI il"l8I lüdl I . I ' -,-_....,".' -----.. '___0'- J -04-1998 THU 10:02 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:6195219672 8 8 Cali f ern ia COdS ta 1 Com miss ton P:01 '\ a ~o District 311 J Camino Del Rio North. Suite 200, San Dicfo. CA 92108 FAX Date: (p ~tt/Ý~ . Number of pages inc1udin¡ cover sheet: ; To: H".v~ - :r Ov'~~A/ 'rom: ~ /}t 'fZ:"-C- W N Phone: Fax phone: ?CøO .. CA ~ ? - Z. 'ií I <j( Phone: Fn phone: (619) '21.8036 (619) 521.9672 CC: REMARKS: 0 Urgent [J Por your review [J Reply ASAP 0 Please comment JU -Ø4-1998 THU lØ:Ø2 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION 8 TEL:6195219672 8 P:Ø2 STATe OF OAUFOANIA-~II AI!80UACE8 AGIiNCY pm WILSON. Gø-- CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN 01&00 AReA :5111 CAMINO 011. RIO NOATH, 8UtTE2GO SAN )II!GO. CA 02108-17211 C118) 521..038 8 February 11, 1998 . Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitu. CA 92024 Re: Bluff Protection - 560 Neptune Avenue Dear Ms. Bradley: 'This is in response to your January 22, 1998 letter in which you have requested written confinnation of information exchan¡ed during a meeting in early December with you and your en¡ineer. Mr. Aleksander Pantich regarding the above cited property in Encinitas. To begin with. the reason for the meeting was to review your propOKd ideas regarding bluff protection altematives for your property to respond to the Commission issued cease and desist order and the recent seawall failure at the base of the bluff fronting your property. At the meeting on December 11, 1997, Mr, Pantich reviewed plans for interim. protection measures and also discussed ideas for permanent shore protection. At that time. I agreed to review the presented ideas with other Commission staff and management and then call Mr. Pantich with commentS. Subsequently, after reviewing your ideas with other Commission sraff, I called Mr. Pantich on December 12, 1997, with our general commentS. Because you are now requesting confirmation of our comments in writing, the followine is a summary of those comments. Specifically. relative to your ideas for interim protection measures, Commission staff agree that placement of riprap on the beach is an acceptable means to address on an interim basis, the immediate problems affecting the base of the bluff. While the plans we reviewed (Encinitas Drawing No. 2628-0) were used only for discussion purposes, they are several years old. were not prepared by Mr. Pantich and do not reflect existing conditions. As such, before this type of protection can be approved, you would need to provide plans that have been designed by a licensed engineer and which reflect current site conditions. In addition, the riprap would need 10 be placed such that impacts on public access would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible, Additionally, it is likely that you would also be required to submit proof of bonding or some other means to assure that the riprap will be removed when the immediate danger has passed. Because of the recent failure of the seawall and the onset of the winter storm season,. in discussing these comments with Mr. Pantic:h, Comnùsaion staff urged him to sublIÚt an emer¡ency permit request for the jnrerim protection as soon as possible. To date, no such request has been made, Relative to permanent sh,?re protection. Commission staff agree that it makes sense to align a new seawall so that it wi11 connect with the seawall structures on the adjacent properties to the north and south. However, any such structure would need to incorporate the recommendations of a geotechnical report and be designed by a licensed engineer. In JU -04-1998 THU 10:02 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION I. 4Þ TEL:6195219672 8 p:0a .- .. Ludnúlla Bradley February 11. 1998 Page 2 addition, because such a wall would be placed on the beach, you wm also need to contact the State Lands Commission to determine any authorization or permit requirements they may have. In response to your idea of incorporating any temporary riprap into an engineered fill slope behind a permanent seawall, Commission SEaff cannot guarantee that all or any riprap could be included. This wiU depend on a number of factors that must be addressed by your engineer when designing the permanent shore protection. Based on our previous conversations. with the above direction from Commission staff, you should noW be able to actively pursue the necessary measures to address both interim and long-term protection of your home and stabilizaåon of the bluff. As you are aware, pursuant to the Commission's Cease and Desist Order #97-CD-O2, you were required to have a completed permit application to this office by no later than November 6. 1997. While you did submit a permit application (CDP Application #6-97..116), the application was incomplete. You were notified in writing of the necessary remaining filing requirements on December 5,1997 and given until January 6. 1998 to submit the required information. In addition, because your submitted permit application requests retention of a seawall that has now collapsed. you were requested to specifically address any necessary changes to your proposal to reflect the change to the existing seawall. To date the requested information has not been received and you remain in violation of the cease and desist order. As a means 10 expeditiously resolve this matter, this office is requesting that you submit all the necessary information for compliance with the requirements of the cease and desist order. This includes thé necessary approvals from the City of Encioitas and the State Lands Commission. Please note that you could be liable for daily penalties effective January 7, 1998, for violation 01 the cease and desist order. Hyou have any questions regarding the above commentS or necessary filing requirements, please give me a call at the above listed number. If you have any queadons regarding the cease and desist order, please call Ravi Subramanian at (415) 9O4-S29!. Lee McEachern . Coastal Planner' cc: Ravi Subramanian Nancy Cave Sherilyn garb (dIO.'IbnII"",....,I'.IIac) - ~ OF'.CAUfORNIA - THE RE8OURCEII AGENCY 8 8 FE"!£: W¡t,.;:J;j\", LlFORNJA COASTAL COMMISSION DIEGO AReA 31 1 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH. SUITE 200 DIEGO. CA 82108-17211 8} 52'1-8038 W.. ;.~.'~;¡"1~'1......... . " ,'{" " December 5, 199.7 Q'.'/"'----- ". Ludmill radley S60 Neptun Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Coastal Development Permit Application #6-97-116 Dear Ms. Bradley: Commission staff has reviewed the above cited permit application in which you are requesting after-the-fact approval of a concrete ~wall on the public beach fronting your property at 560 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas. As you are aware, pursuant to Coastal Commission Cease and Desist Order #97-CD-02, you were required to submit a complete permit application to this office by November 6, 1997, to authorize either removal of the existing unpermitted seawall and restoration of the site or for after-the-faç\ authorization to retain the existing seawall as permanent development. While you have submitted a permit application to retain the existing seawall, based on our review it has been determined that the filing requirements, as outlined in the Cease and Desist Order., have not been met and additional information is necessary in order for us to adequately review your permit request and complete the permit me. In addition, you recently contacted this office toreport that on Sunday, November 30, 1997, approximately two-thirds of the existing seawall (that you are requesting to retain) collapsed. As such, if you still wish to pursue approval of the existing partially collapsed wall, you will need to modify your project description to reflect this change in circumstances. The revised description should include the measures required to remove, repair or replace the damaged and still standing portions of the wall. Relative to other informational needs, regardless of whether you propose a new seawall to replace the existing partially collapsed wall or retention of the existing wall, staff needs the following information in order to complete the file. As discussed with you and your engineer previously, you need to provide a current geotechnical analysis of your site. While your application does not include a geotechnical analysis to support your proposal. a number of geotechnical reports for the site have been completed and submitted with previous permit applications. As such, you need not provide a new geotechnical analysis, but need to provide an update based on the previous reports to reflect current conditions. You also need to submit engineered plans prepared by a licensed engineer familiar with coastal processes. The plans must also include a certification from the engineer that the . .' ~ 8 8 Ludmilla Bradley December 5,1997 Page 2 structure is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter stonns of 1982-83. Although you did submit plans with your application, due to the recent failure, these plans are no longer accurate or valid. You will also need to submit a detailed alternatives analysis, that includes. but is not limited to, constn1ction of a new seawall, mid-slope protection. relocation of the . ttu'eatened structure. beach sand nourishment, etc. Although we recognize that you wish to retain the existing seawall, due to the recent failure of the seawall, you will need to !ook at other design alternatives for shore protection that will provide the necessary site protection. Because of the recent seawall failure. it does not appear retention of the existing seawall (even if repaired) will provide the necessary protection. As such your consultants should look at alternative designs that mininúze encroachment onto the public beach, address the geologic problems. affecting the site and address any adverse impacts :11(:. protection may have on beach sand supply. To help facilitate this matter. you may want to have your consultant(s) contact me directly to explain our needs and concerns. Finally. because the seawall is on the public beach, you need to also contact the State Lands Commission regarding their pennit requirements. You can call Jane Smith at (916) 574-1892. Again. as stipulated in the Cease and Desist Order, all of the all of the above cited ¡ nfonnation is necessary in order for us to complete our review of your request. As such, the application is incomplete and remains unfiled at this time. Because the Cease and Desist Order is still pending, the above requested information must be submitted to this office as soon as possible. but no later than January 6, 1998. If you have any questions regarding the above stated filing requirements, please give me a call at the above listed number. If you have questions regarding the Cease and Desist Order, please call Ravi Subramanian at (415) 904-5295. s£ Lee McEachern Coastal Planner tc: Ravi Subramanian Nancy Cave 8 8 ST TE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, GOVtImor C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION @ 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 SA FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 YO CE AND TOD (415) 904-5200 CEASE AND DESIST ORDER CCC-97 -CD-O 1 Public hearing and Commission action on proposed Cease and Desist Order directing Ludmilla Bradley to refrain from: 1) engaging in any development activity without obtaining a coastal development pennit; and 2) continuing to maintain any development at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, and on public beach in violation of the Coastal Act. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION DATE: TIME : PLACE: Thursday, July 10, 1997 Meeting begins at 9:00 a.m. Item # 6 a Holiday Inn - Ventura 450 East Harbor Blvd. Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 648 7731 HEARING PROCEDURES People wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission if received at least three working days prior to the public hearing. Written comments may be of any length; oral testimony may be limited to 5 minutes or less for each speaker, depending on the number wishing to be heard. The time taken by the Commission to complete agenda items or the number of items to be postponed to a later date cannot be predicted. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers each item in order, except in extraordinary circumstances. Staff at the appropriate Commission office can give you more infonnation prior to the hearing date and they can also be contacted at the hearing location for last-minute infonnation. Questions regarding the report or the hearing should be directed to Ravi Subramanian at (415) 904-5295 at the Commission's San Francisco office located at 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105. ~ \ 8 --~ r ~ ~ ~ . "";:°. \~~ " \.'\~..' \.. .. -, i L \.; .... i.'- i \_~ ~\\w£[. PETE WILSON, ~ STA OF CAUFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 46 F EMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 114105-22111 VOl AND TOD (415) 1104-5200 e k \ -.- Th. 6a ADDENDUM DATE: June 30, 1997 TO: Commissionen and Interested Penons FROM: Peter Douglas, !:v""l1t:v~ Director Ralph Faust, Chief Counsel Nancy Cave, Supervisor, Statewide Enforcement Ravi Subramanian, Analyst, Statewide Enforcement RE: Addendum to staff report for the issuance of Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-02, Ludmilla Bradley Hearing Date - July 10, 1997 The purpose of this addendum is to modify the staff recommendation for the above referenced Cease and Desist Order. Modifications were made to the following sections to clarify ambiguities and reflect revisions pursuant to documents received after mailing of staff report: I. UI. SUMMARY PROPOSED FINDINGS D. Staff Allegations CEASE AND DESIST ORDER IV. Exhibit # I 0 was added to the staff report. I. SUMMARY Rp,place the Section I., titled Smrmary .'vith the fonewing: The subject violation consists of I) failure to comply with conditions of the Commission's emergency authorization of construction of bluff stabilization devices in the coastal zone and 2) installation, without the benefit of a coastal development pennit, of a concrete seawall at the base of the bluff cove on a public beach. In carrying out these projects the property owner perfonned grading, excavation and removal of sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks, placement of construction debris, and importation of beach sand and solid materials as fill. After significant bluff failure on her property, Bradley submitted CDP application #6-91-233 for stabilization of the bluff. The Commission denied the request, finding that feasible and less damaging alternatives to the proposed project existed. The Executive Director then issued to Bradley emergency pennit #6-91-312G for the same development. Subsequently the Executive Director granted two extensions to the penn it. Since the expiry of the second extension period on June 13, 1992, Bradley has not complied with the emergency pennit conditions and has undertaken additional unpennittett~.ment on an adjacent public beach. Bradley has not complied with numerous requests by Commission staff to comply with Conditions No.3, 8,9 and 10 of the Emergency Pennit No. 6-91-312-G (Exhibit #3, pp. 8-11), and apply for a coastal development penn it to either authorize after-the-fact the development (on the beach) or to restore the beach to its pre-development condition. The proposed order would require Bradley to cease and desist from I) engaging in any further development at the property without first obtaining a coastal development pennit and 2) maintaining on the property development !~a\ violates either the pennit requirements of the Coastal Act or the tenns of any previou~ly' issued pennit. The order specifically directs Bradley to submit timely applications to: a) the City, as required by Conditions No.3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Emergency Pennit No. 6-91-312-G (Exhibit #3, pp. 8-11), issued by the District Director of the Commission office in San Diego on May 13, 1992, ::nd b) the Cû.nmission, as required by PRC §30519(b) and §30600(a), for either: I) removal ofthe unpennitted development and restoration of the site, or 2) for after-the-fact or penn anent, as the case may be, authorization to allow retention of the development. III. PROPOSED FINDINGS Replace the Section III. Proposed Findings, subdivision D, titled Staff Allegations with the following: D. Staff Allegations The staff alleges the following: 1. Ludmilla Orloff Bradley is the owner of the property located at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, CA 92024, APN 256-084-07-00. The bluff of the property is within the City of Encinitas' jurisdiction and the public beach abutting the bluff is in the Commission's retained penn it jurisdiction. 2. Bradley has undertaken development, as defined by Coastal Act §30106, which includes the construction of bluff stabilization devices at the property, and a concrete seawall on the public beach at the base of the bluff. 3. Bradley has maintained on the property bluff stabilization devices which violate the tenns of Conditions No.3, 8,9 and 10, of Emergency Penn it No. 6-91-312-G (Exhibit #3, pp. 8-11), issued by the District Director of the Commission office in San Diego on May 13, 1992. In order to resolve this Coastal Act violation, Bradley must comply with the conditions of Emergency Pennit No. 6-91-312-G by obtaining from the City a regular coastal development penn it. 4. Bradley has constructed on the public beach a concrete seawall in violation of the penn it requirements of Section 30600 of the Coastal Act. In order to resolve this Coastal Act violation, Bradley must obtain from the Commission a coastal development penn it for 2 ~ 8 8 either: I) removal of the unpermitted development and restoration of the site, or 2) for after- the-fact authorization to allow retention of the development. Bradley has not obtained Commission approval of a CDP. IV. CEASE AND DESIST ORDER Replace the Section IV., titled Cease and Desist Order with the following: Staff recommends that the Commission issue the following Cease and Desist Order: Pursuant to its authority under Pub. Res. Code §30810, the California Coastal Commission hereby orders Ludmilla Orloff Bradley, all her agents and any persons acting in concert with any of the foregoing to cease and desist from: I) engaging in any further development activity at the property (and adjacent public beach) without first obtaining a coastal development permit which authorizes such activity; and 2) continuing to maintain any development on the property (or on adjacent public beach) that violates the California Coastal Act. Accordingly, all persons subject to this order shall fully comply with paragraphs A, B and C as follows: A. Refrain from engaging in any development activity on the property (and adjacent public beach) without first obtaining a coastal development pennit which authorizes such activity. B. (I) Within 120 days of the date of this order, submit for review and approval complete coastal development pennit application to: a) the City, and b) the Commission, for either: I) removal of the development herein below specified and restoration of the site, or 2) for after-the-fact or penn anent, as the case may be, authorization to allow retention of the development. (2) The application to the City shall include the filing requirements stipulated in Chapter 30.34.020(D) of the City of Encinitas' LCP. In addition, the application to the City and the Commission shall include documentation providing for: a) infonnation sufficient to penn it analysis of feasibility of possible alternatives to the retention of the subject shoreline protective devices, including but not limited to relocation of the threatened structure to a safer location, b) construction methods that minimize disturbance to sand and inte¡1idal areas, c) :-e-deposition on th~ beach of ~xcavated bea\:h sand" d) no use of local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks for ~ack-fil1 or construction material, e) confonnity of the proposals to the contours of the bluff, f) incorporation of surface treatments that resemble the color and surface of the adjacent natural bluff, and g) completion within one year of the date of the City or Commission action on the application of all work/restoration authorized by the penn it. (3) Within 120 days of the date of denial by the City or Commission, in whole or in part, of an application for after-the-fact or pennanent, as the case may be, authorization and retention of the development, submit a complete coastal development penn it application for the removal of that portion of the development for which authorization has been denied and restoration of the property to its pre-violation state. Within one year of the date of City or Commission action on the coastal development pennit application, the work/restoration authorized by the pennit shall be completed. 3 C. Fully comply with the tenns, conditions and deadlines of any coastal development pennit for the restoration and/or development of the property and public beach as the City or Commission may impose. Person subject to the Order Ludmilla Orloff Bradley and her aients. Identification of the Property .. . The properties that are the subject of this cease and desist order are described as follows: 1) 560 Neptul.e A\iênüç, EncinitÃS, San Diego County, CA 92024. AFN 256-084-0i-OO 2) Public beach abutting the bluff cove of the above property. Legal Authority The property identified under cateiOI)' 1) in the precedin~ section is within the penn it jurisdiction of the City of Encinitas' LCP. (Exhibit #10) By letter dated June 20. 1997. the City of Encinitas requested the Commission to assume primal)' responsibility for issuin~ a Cease and Desist Order to Bradley. Accordinily. the Commission is issuini this order. in part. pursuant to Pub. Res. Code §30810 (a)(). Description of Unpermitted Development Unpennitted grading; disturbance of sand and intertidal areas through excavation and removal of local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks and placement of construction debris; installation of beach sand and imported solid materials as fill; and construction of shoreline and bluff protection devices. Description of Development Being Maintained in Violation of Terms of Previously Issued Permit Shotcrete upper bluff stabilization devices with tie-back. and mid-bluff stabilization consistin~ of soil nails and shotcrete. Term of the Order This order shall remain in effect pennanently unless and until modified or rescinded by the Commission. Findings This order is issued on the basis of the findings adopted by the Commission on July 8, 1997, as set forth in the attached document entitled "Adopted findings for Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-02". 4 8 8 Compliance Oblieation Strict compliance with this order by all parties subject thereto is required. failure to comply strictly with any term or condition of this order including any deadline contained in this order or in the above required coastal development permit(s) as approved by the Commission will constitute a violation of this order and may result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000) per day for each day in which such compliance failure persists. Deadline s may be extended by the Executive Director for good cause. Any extension request must be made in writing to the Executive Director and received by Commission staff at least 10 days prior to expiration of the subject deadline. Appeal Pursuant to Pub. Res. Code §30803(b), any person or el1tity against whont this order is issu~d may file a petition with the Superior Court for a stay of this order. EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. Location of the property. Photocopy of grant deed. Photocopies of Emergency Permits. Photocopies ofletters dated February 27, 1995, from Bradley to Jensen and dated March 20, 1995, from Jensen to Bradley. Photocopy of violation letter dated June 28, 1995. Photocopy of page 5 ofreport from Soil Engineering Construction, Incoo Photocopy of documents pertaining to microtunneling and letter dated April 15, 1996. from Jensen to Bradley. Photocopy of the Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings dated March 31, 1997, and return receipt. Photocopies of photographs of the subject site. Photocopy of letter dated June 20, 1997, from the City of Encinitas to the Commission. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 5 .fllhl/ f)(//'i~ ~!J~'or /,11/1 .'lsfl!'11 I kl""" ~.:.,...r .lllIIlt'S / /. /ItJlul (.IIIIn"iI ~1crnh", Shcllo CÚ/I/('ml/ Cound ~krnbrr ChI/d' /)1/ I 'Wit'/' l..oun,.l :>lcrnl,cl , ((l/n'II If 1\,(¡.¡..t'rll1(/II Cir~' :-.t.'n;¡~c' .f,IIIII'S ¡: n,'I/,\I 11/ As"'!Jor Cir\' :\ t.lnJ~cr Cítyof Encinitas \.:J'" "[Ï\:: ;- ,--:, \-1-; (¡,; I: ,'. -- OJ, 'I ; : : ¡ i~' ; I ;, - ;. 't. 'L 'I i \ ~Ú ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 1~9; U: CALI f ORl'lIA COASTAL COMM!SSION om~'C of Cil" ,\IJI1J!:cr June 20, 1997 Peter Douglas " ' Executive Director California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San F:-arH:i~co, C.^. (}1 105 Attention: Ravi Subramanian, Analyst, Statewide Enforcement RE: Unpennitted development at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, APN 256-084-07-00 Property Owner - Ludmilla Orloff Bradley Our File No.: CE95-446 Dear Mr. Do~glas: The Community Development Department of the City of Encinitas has detennined that Ludmilla Bradley has undertaken activities, on her property at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, that are in violation of Chapter 30.34.020 (Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone) of the Commission certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the City. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 30810 (a)(I) of the Cal. Pub. Res. Code, the City of Encinitas hereby requests the Coastal Commission to assist with or assume primary responsibiiity for issuing a Cease é1I1d Desist Order to Bradley, directing her to refrain from further violations of the City's LCP and obtaining pennits to authorize the retention and/or removal of the existing unpennitted development. The City's Code Enforcement Coordinator has previously taken the following enforcement actions against Bradley which had the indicated result: On June 8, 1995, the City ofEncinitas issued a citation (Notice to Appear) No. EN 0869, to Bradley for violation ofEncinitas Municipal Code Sec.23.24.080 for illegal grading without a grading permit and Sec. 30.34.020 (B.2.) for construction of a seawall on bluff face. TEl -hlJ-(o.I\,~(,CI. I \\. -.."".;;,~,,~- Exhibit # 10 "" , \ "k.ln\n:nUl', l'Ulilllt,l', \ ,'¡iIClrnl.l "~()~'I CCC-97-CD-O2 Page 1 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 On June 28, 1995, the City ofEncinitas issued another citation (Notice to Appear) No. EN 1626, to Bradley for violation of Encinitas Municipal Case Sec. 30.34.020 (B.2.) for construction of a seawall on bluff face. Both citations were consolidated to one case by the North San Diego County Municipal Court. On August ll, 1995, Bradley pled nolo contendere and was fined $200. . The citations issued to Bradley do not prevent her from seeking authorization and permits through an application to the Cìty for me retention amI/of removal.:;fthe unpermitted development. Bradley must comply with the filing requirements stipulated in Chapter 30.34.020 titled "Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone", of the City's LCP. d?4, Lauren Wasserman City Manager Exhibit # 10 CCC-97-CD-02 Page 2 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley NoText , e TATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY . . ALiFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION PETE WILSON, Governor 5 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 AN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 OICE AND TOD (415) 904-5200 Q Th.6a Staff: Staff Report: Hearing Date: RS - SF June 20,1997 July 10, 1997 STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CEASE AND DESIST ORDER CEASE AND DESIST ORDER: RELATED VIOLATION FILE: PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNER: VIOLATION DESCRIPTION: SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: CCC-97 -CD-02 V -6-95-008 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, CA 92024-2019 APN 256-084-07-00 (Exhibit #1) The property consists of one parcel with two legal lots, west of Neptune Avenue. The southern lot contains a single family residence built in 1956, and the northern lot is vacant. The coastal bluff is approximately 100 feet high from mean sea level (MSL). The bluff at this property consists of a near vertical sea cliff of moderately resistant Torrey sandstone fonnation which extends to about 25 feet above MSL. Above the Torrey sandstone fonnation, extending to the top of the bluff, are Quaternary-aged marine terrace deposits of eroded sands and sandstone. Abutting the bluff owned by Bradley is the public beach of Encinitas, on which part of the illegal development occurred. Ludmilla Bradley (Exhibit #2) Construction of: 1) bluff stabilization devices, and 2) shoreline stabilization device (concrete seawall) at the base of the bluff on public beach, either without a coastal development pennit or in violation of the tenns of a Commission pennit. Coastal development permit file No. 6-91-233 Coastal development emergency permit file No. 6-91-312 G Violation file V -6-95-008 I. SUMMARY The subject violation consists of construction in the Coastal Zone of bluff stabilization devices and installation of a concrete seawall at the base of the bluff cove on public beach in each case Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 July II, 1997 without the benefit of a coastal development permit. In carrying out these projects the property owner performed unpermitted grading, excavation and removal of sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks, placement of construction debris, and importation of beach sand and solid materials as fill. After significant bluff failure on her property, Bradley submitted CDP application #6-91-233 for stabilization of the bluff. The Commission denied the request, finding that feasible and less damaging alternatives to the proposed project existed. The Executive Director then issued to Bradley emergency permit #6-9I-3I2G for the same development. Subsequently the Executive Director granted two extensions to the permit. Since the expiry of the second extension period on June 13, 1992, Bradley has not complied with the emergency permit conditions and has undertaken additional unpermitted development on her property and on an adjacent public beach. Bradley has not complied with numerous requests by Commission staff to apply for a coastal development permit to either authorize the development after-the-fact or to restore the property to its pre-development state, The proposed order would require Bradley to cease and desist from engaging in any further development at the property without first obtaining a coastal development permit and submit timely to the City or the Coastal Commission, as appropriate, applications for either: 1) removal of the unpermitted development and restoration of the site, or 2) after-the-fact authorization to allow retention of the development. Staff Note Shoreline erosion along the coast rarely affects one individual property. As a result of the decrease in sand supply from coastal rivers and creeks, as well as armoring of the coast, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This, in turn, will decrease the public's ability to access and recreate along the shoreline. Keeping these issues in perspective, in reviewing shoreline protective device requests, the Commission has raised concerns with their construction with varying sized gaps between seawall segments on coastal upland properties. The subject development is located on a coastal bluff and beach within the City of Encinitas. On November 17, 1994, the Commission approved, subject to suggested modifications, the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP). The City accepted the modifications and on May 11, 1995 the LCP was effectively certified. Subsequently, on May 15, 1995, the Commission transferred coastal development permit authority to the City. Although the site is within the City of Encinitas, the beach remains within the Commission's area of original permit jurisdiction. Based on policy (Section 1.7, page PS-5, of the certified Land Use Plan) and ordinance requirements in Section 30.34.020(B)(9) of the LCP, the City of Encinitas is in the process of developing a comprehensive program addressing the shoreline erosion problem in the City. The intent of the plan is to study the shoreline issues facing the City and to establish goals, policies, standards and strategies to comprehensively address them. To date, the City has conducted several public workshops and meetings on the comprehensive plan to identify issues and present draft plans for comment. However, in reliance upon assurances from the City that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) was actively being pursued to address long-term seawall maintenance, funding for exceptionally large seawalls and the gap issue, the Commission has approved several seawall 2 . Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 July ll, 1997 8 8 development requests. Additionally, as an accommodation to allow the applicants to begin construction ofthe walls ( which were documented as necessary to protect existing development) while the GRAD was being formed, and as an incentive to homeowners to actively pursue formation of the GRAD, the Commission allowed, for a specified period, extensions to deadlines, for compliance with conditions of approval of the permits, The applicants signed declarations certifying they would meet conditions of approval within the time frame set by the Commission, After the GRAD was formed, due to various reasons, the GRAD never became 'viable' and the City Council approved a resolution to dissolve it in 1996. As such, even though the comprehensive plan is still in draft form, one of the long touted means of implementing various components of the plan is now not available. It is not anticipated that the comprehensive plan will come before the Commission for review as an LCP amendment until the end of 1997. II. MOTION Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: I move that the Commission issue Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 as proposed by staff. Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is necessary to pass the motion. III. PROPOSED FINDINGS Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following findings in support of its action: A. Site HistorY In 1978-79 a concrete wall along the top of the bluff, probably pre-dating the Coastal Act failed. In 1979 a gunite surface was constructed and in 1981 it failed. Around 1982, a low concrete and rock retaining wall at the base of the bluff failed. In 1983, a post and board (timber and tieback wall common along the northern San Diego shoreline) upper bluff retaining system was constructed. In 1988 small sections of this wall began to fail and major portions of failed in March 1991. No coastal development permit (CDP) authorization for any of these structures was sought by the landowner or received from the Commission. B. Seacliff retreat. Geologic conditions and hazards Seacliff retreat is a result of wave action at the foot or base of the bluff as well as chemical and mechanical non-wave process in the upper portions of the cliff. The latter process includes surface and sub-surface drainage, and salt crystal weathering. The reports submitted by Bradley in 19912 indicate that the site is located on bluffs composed of Tertiary-age Eocene Torrey Sandstone, which forms the lower portion of the bluff, and I From CDP file No.6-91-233 3 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 July 11, 1997 Quaternary-age marine terrace deposit of fine to medium grained, poorly cemented sands. Bluff failure in these formations occurs through the undercutting of the base of the seacliff and subsequent block falls. Bluffs also fail through the undercutting of the terrace deposits initiated by ground water seepage and through deep-seated rotational failure involving both the Torrey sandstone and marine terrace materials. The failures that have occurred at Bradley's property are due to block falls caused by erosion along the fractures and joints of the Tertiary-age sediments, sloughing of the Quaternary terrace deposits and by the infiltration of groundwater. The block falls lead to indentations at the base of the bluffs with the potential for the cliff above the indentation to fail. In addition to this, the pre-existing upper bluff structures were weakened by the slough of the materials supporting their foundations. When these structures failed, additional backfill material spilled down the bluff, and more bluff material was lost when the concrete tiebacks holding the structure pulled away from the bluff. The terrace deposit failures are the result of the general flattening to a stable angle of the loose, unconsolidated terrace deposits. The failure has created a 'cove' at the base of the seacliff formation, widening into a much broader failure in the marine terrace deposits. Topographically, the effect is that of the bluff having been scooped out into a bowl-like formation. The existing residence sits at the top edge of a portion of the bowl. The conclusions of the geotechnical investigations state that the toe of the bluff is subjected to storm wave activity and ground water seepage, causing undermining of the seacliff toe, and initiating failures of the terrace sand deposits. Thus, the bluff retreats in response to wave action. c. Baclq:round On March 27, 1991, Commission staff received a telephone call from Greg Shields, Field Operations, City of Encinitas, stating that significant upper bluff failure had occurred due to rains at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, and that the City Engineer had determined the existing residence on the property to be uninhabitable3, at least temporarily. The same day Commission staff visited the site and determined that a pre-existing concrete and rock wall system had collapsed at beach level. The majority ofthe upper wall had been destroyed. The lower wall had failed due to block falls in the Torrey sandstone formation and upper bluff sloughing. Commission staff noted that there had been a timber and telephone pole wall at the top of the bluff as an erosion control measure4, and a large amount of the rubble, consisting of both bluff materials as well as concrete "tiebacks", concrete rubble, timber and poles were evident on the beach and at midpoints on the bluff. At the extreme southern end of the failure, the remnants of an existing beach access stairway, previously serving the property to the south of 560 Neptune Avenue, clung to the bluff. A search of the permit records of the Commission staff office 2 With her CDP application No.6-91-233, Bradley submitted documents regarding the geologic hazards and seacliff retreat at the subject site, including "Geotechnical and Geological Study 560 Neptune Avenue" prepared by Owen Consultants, "Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance Proposed Bradley Residence Model" prepared by William Elliot, and "Geotechnical Investigation for Bradley Residence" by Buchanan- Rahilly Inc.. 3 The failure encroached to within approximately five feet of the residence. 4 Around 1991, in the subject area, walls (without permits).ofsimilar design and construction were prolific. 4 8 8 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97 -CD-O2 July 11, 1997 indicated that no permits had been issued for the rubble and mortar wall, or for the timber and telephone pole wall. Around May 2, 1991, Douglas Jacobson, Bradley's agent at that time, applied for an emergency permit for an upper bluff stabilization project for the property. Commission staff recommended to Jacobson to begin the regular permit process through the City of Encinitas for their proposal because of the absence of an engineer's report confirming effectiveness of the upper bluff structure in the absence of lower bluff stabilization measures. On September 23, 1991, Commission staff received CDP application No. 6-91-233, for emergency upper bluff (top 30 feet) stabilization work, construction of a seawall at the base of the bluff and installation of soil nails at midslope. On October 8, 1991, the Commission denied the project, after voicing concerns as to whether the Bradley site could be stabilized with the upper bluff structure alone, as plans for the lower bluff were part of phase 2 which were not definite. The Commission was also concerned about large protective structures along the Encinitas bluffs and their influence on the overall character of the coase. On November 21, 1991, Bradley submitted to Commission staff an emergency request from to construct upper bluff stabilization. On December 23, 1991, the Executive Director issued an emergency permit No. 6-91-312G for the construction of a shotcrete upper bluff retaining wall with tie-back, and mid-bluff stabilization consisting of soil nails and shotcrete. Bradley never satisfied the conditions of approval. (Exhibit #3) On March 30, 1992, Commission staff received a request from Bradley to extend the emergency permit beyond its 60 day term. On April 6, 1992, the Executive Director re-issued emergency permit No. 6-91-312G with a condition which stated that failure to submit in 30 days an application for a regular CDP would cause the permit to be null and void. On May 6, 1992 Bradley submitted a CDP application for upper bluff work,. The same day Commission staff, after determining the application to be incomplete, sent a non-filing letter. Bradley requested an additional extension of 30 days to emergency permit No. 6-91-312G. On May 13, 1992, the Executive Director re-issued emergency permit No. 6-91-312-G for 30 days. On July 14, 1992, Commission staff received a letter from Jacobson, Bradley's agent, stating that work on the upper bluff wall was almost complete, but the project had been put on hold for financial reasons. As of the date of this report work on the upper bluff wall is still incomplete. On January 30, 1995, in a letter to Hans Jensen, Subdivision Engineer, City of Encinitas, Bradley requested an emergency permit to place rip-rap below the bluff. No similar request was made to Commission staff. In a letter dated February 3, 1995, Jensen stated to Bradley that the City would not allow the placement of rip-rap bluff protection on useable public beach area. In the letter he also stated that Bradley could achieve the intended purpose by meeting the requirements of the Commission's emergency permit and by applying for a Major Use permit with the City. 5 Due to the height of the Encinitas bluffs and their apparent instability, bluff protection structures are usually massive, full bluff armoring. At that time, as there was no regional or comprehensive program for coastal hazards, the Commission was concerned whether it was possible to safely stabilize all the bluffs along the Encinitas coast through a regional solution. 5 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 July 11, 1997 In a letter to Jensen dated February 27, 1995, Bradley reiterated the earlier request. On March 20, 1995, Jensen sent her the same reply. (Exhibit #4) By a telephone call on June 9, 19956, Jensen informed Commission staffthat illegal grading had been done and construction of a concrete seawall had begun the day before, on the beach in front of Bradley's property7. By June 28, 1995 the seawall had been erected8. On June 28, 1995, Commission staff sent Bradley a violation letter stating that the construction of the seawall and fill was undertaken without the benefit of a coastal development permit, in violation of the Coastal Act. (Exhibit #5) On August 2, 1995, Commission staff received a telephone call from Jensen, the City Engineer, stating that work on the seawall at Bradley's property was continuing, Commission staff telephoned Bradley and left a message asking her to return the call to discuss the matter. On August 10, 1995, Commission staff received a telephone call from Marlene Thomasan, Bradley's attorney. Thomasan agreed to submit an application for the work within a week. Since that telephone call no application has been submitted by Thomasan to the Commission staff By letter to Commission staff, dated August 24, 1995, Bradley acknowledged the construction of the bluff stabilization device in June 1995. She also stated Commission staffs requirement of removal and restoration of the unpermitted work was not acceptable to her. On September 29, 1995, Commission staff sent another violation letter to Bradley asking her to submit an application for a coastal development permit before October 21, 1995. By letter dated October 18, 1995, Bradley stated that the seawall erected by her did not encroach upon the public beach and she was unable to find an engineer. She also asked whether she could apply for an after-the fact CDP without geotechnical information. On December 16, 1995, Commission staff received a copy of a geotechnical report from Soil Engineering Construction Inc., dated December 11, 1995, for the property immediately south of Bradley's property. Page 5 of the report, in relevant part, states: ... the recent construction of the illegal seawall and midbluff structures on the property north of the site presents, in our opinion, a severe detriment to the subject site. Our opinion is based on the fact that the ends of the illegal seawall appear to have been constructed without keying into the bluff. This condition increases the opportunity for erosion to occur at a faster rate than other portions of the bluff. Further, no wall drains were observed in the illegal seawall or 6 Commission transferred CDP authority to the City on May 15, 1995. 7 On June 8, 1995, the City of Encinitas issued a citation (Notice to Appear) No.EN 0869, to Bradley for violation of the Encinitas Municipal Code §23.24.080 for illegal grading without a grading permit and §30.34.020 (B.2.) for construction of a seawall on bluff face without the required coastal development permit. 8 On June 28, 1995, the City of Encinitas issued another citation (Notice to Appear) No.EN 1626, to Bradley for violation of Encinitas Municipal Code §30.34.020 (B.2.)for construction ofa seawall on bluff face without the required coastal development permit. Both citations were consolidated to one case by the North San Diego County Municipal Court. On August 31, 1995, Bradley pled nolo contendere and was fined $200. 6 8 8 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97 -CD-O2 July II, 1997 behind the shotcrete placed on the bluff along and adjacent to our referenced site's northern property boundary. The potential effects of increased pore pressures in the bluff will be detrimental to the overall stability of the site. ... (Exhibit #6) On April 15, 1996, Commission staff sent a violation letter notifying Bradley of the violations of the Coastal Act. By reply dated May 27, 1996, Bradley acknowledged that the lower seawall was temporary, She also asked what she would need to do to get the work permitted, As of the date of this report, the City of Encinitas is in the process of designing a drainage system to control the drainage waters from the area along Highway 101. As a part of this drainage system, an outfall pipe is proposed to be located at a depth of more than 60 feet below the surface. This pipe was to be located under Bradley's property. On April 15, 1996, the City of Encinitas wrote to Bradley seeking a drainage easement. Apart from microtunnelling and installation of a drainage pipe under the property, the City might need to construct a seawall at the bluff face to terminate the outfall pipe (Exhibit #7t In a letter dated May 17, 1996, Bradley refused the City's request. On May 29, 1996, Bradley submitted to Commission staff a coastal development permit application from. Commission staff determined the application was incomplete and as the proposed development would have included shorelbluff protection measures, additional filing information (from the City) was necessary. Staff returned the application to Bradley on June 21, 1996. By letter dated March 31, 1997, Commission staff sent to Bradley a Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings (Exhibit #8). In the letter, Bradley was asked to complete a Statement of Defense form and return it to Commission staff before April 27, 1997. Receipt of the Certified letter was confirmed by Bradley's signature on the "return receipt", which Commission staff received on April 7, 1997. D. Staff Allegations The staff alleges the following: 1. Ludmilla Orloff Bradley is the owner of the property located at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, CA 92024, APN 256-084-07-00. The bluff of the property is within the City of Encinitas' juridiction and the public beach abutting the bluff is in the Commission's original permit jurisdiction. 2. Bradley has undertaken development, as defined by Coastal Act §30106, at the property, which includes the construction of bluff stabilization devices and a concrete seawall on the public beach at the base ofthe bluff. 3. This unpermitted development constitutes an ongoing violation of Section 30600 of the Coastal Act. In order to resolve this Coastal Act violation, Bradley must obtain a coastal 9 The City's proposed drainage system was not designed in consultation with Commission staff and has not yet been approved by the City Council. 7 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97 -CD-O2 July 11, 1997 development permit and submit timely to the City or the Coastal Commission, as appropriate, applications for either: 1) removal of the unpermitted development and restoration of the site, or 2) after-the-fact authorization to allow retention of the development. 4. Bradley has neither obtained Commission or City approval of a CDP authorizing the development nor restored the property and the public beach to its pre-development state in accordance with an approved CDP . E. Alleged Violator's Defense As of the date of this report, and without excuse, Bradley has not responded to staff s allegations as set forth in the March 31, 1997, Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings. Furthermore, Bradley never requested an extension of the time limit for submittal of the statement of defense form. (See Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 13181 (b) [where Executive Director "may at his or her discretion extend the time limit ... upon receipt within the time limit of a written request for such extension and a written demonstration of good cause"].) The mandatory completion of the statement of defense has significant bearing to its purpose. (See, e.g., Horack v. Franchise Tax Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 363, 368) ["When administrative machinery exists for the resolution of differences ... such administrative procedures are [to be] fully utilized and exhausted"].) Bradley has failed to avail herself of the opportunity afforded by the Statement of Defense form to inform the Commission which defenses she wishes the Commission to consider before making its decision on whether or not to issue a cease and desist order. JO The Commission should not be forced to guess which defenses Bradley wants the Commission to consider. Section 13181(a) is specifically designed to serve this function of clarifying issues to be considered by the Commission. (See Bohn v. Wa/son (1954) 130 Cal.App.2d. 24, 37 ["it was never contemplated that a party to an administrative hearing should withhold any defense then available to him or make only a perfunctory or 'skeleton' showing in the hearing, ... The rule is required ... to preserve the integrity of the proceedings before that body and to endow them with a dignity beyond that of a mere shadow- play"].) IV. CEASE AND DESIST ORDER Staff recommends that the Commission issue the following Cease and Desist Order: Pursuant to its authority under Pub. Res. Code §30810, the California Coastal Commission hereby orders Ludmilla Orloff Bradley, all her agents and any persons acting in concert with any 10 The Statement of Defense Form has six sections of information that Bradley should have provided to the Coastal Commission: I) Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or the notice of intent that are admitted by respondent; 2) Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or notice of intent that are denied by the respondent; 3) Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or notice of intent of which the respondent has no personal knowledge; 4) Other facts which may exonerate or mitigate the respondent's possible responsibility or otherwise explain the respondent's relationship to the possible violation; 5) Any other information, statement, etc. that respondent desires to offer or make; and 6) Documents, exhibits, declarations under penalty of perjury or other materials that the respondent wants to have attached to the form. 8 8 8 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2 July ll, 1997 of the foregoing to cease and desist from: 1) engaging in any further development activity at the property (and adjacent public beach) without first obtaining a coastal development permit which authorizes such activity; and 2) continuing to maintain any development on the property (or on adjacent public beach) that violates the California Coastal Act. Accordingly, all persons subject to this order shall fully comply with paragraphs A, Band C as follows: A. Refrain from engaging in any development activity on the property (and adjacent public beach) without first obtaining a coastal development permit which authorizes such activity. B. (1) Within 120 days oftþe date of this order, submit to the City or the Commission, as appropriate, for its review and approval complete coastal development permit applications for either: a) removal of the unpermitted development and restoration of the site, or b) for after-the-fact authorization to allow retention of the development. (2) The application to the City shall include, but not limited to, information sufficient to satisfy analysis of feasibility of possible alternatives to the retention of the subject shoreline protective devices, including but not limited to relocation of the threatened structure to a safer location. The application to the City shall also include the filing requirements stipulated in Chapter 30.34.020(D) of the City of Encinitas' LCP. In addition the application to either the City or the Commission shall also include documentation providing for: a) Construction methods that minimize disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized, b) Beach sand excavated shall be re-deposited on the beach, and c) No use of local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks for back-fill or construction material. Plans shall indicate that the proposals shall conform as closely as possible to the contours of the bluff, and shall be designed to incorporate surface treatments that resemble the color and surface of the adjacent natural bluff. Within one year of the date of City or Commission action on the coastal development permit application, the work/restoration authorized by the permit shall be completed. (3) Within 120 days of the date of the City or Commission denial, in whole or in part, of an application for after-the-fact authorization and retention of the development, submit a complete coastal development permit application for the removal of that portion of the development which remains unpermitted and restoration of the property to its pre- violation state. Within one year of the date of City or Commission action on the coastal development permit application, the work/restoration authorized by the permit shall be completed. C. Fully comply with the terms, conditions and deadlines of any coastal development permit for the restoration and/or development of the property and public beach as the City or Commission may impose. Identification of the Property The properties that are the subject of this cease and desist order are described as follows: 1) 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, CA 92024. APN 256-084-07-00 9 Ludmilla Bradley Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97 -CD-02 July 11, 1997 2) Public beach abutting the bluff cove of the above property. Description of Unpermitted Development Unpermitted grading; disturbance of sand and intertidal areas through excavation and removal of local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks and placement of construction debris; installation of beach sand and imported solid materials as fill; and construction of shoreline and bluff protection devices. Term of the Order This order shall remain in effect permanently unless and until modified or rescinded by the Commission. Findings This order is issued on the basis of the findings adopted by the Commission on July 8, 1997, as set forth in the attached document entitled "Adopted findings for Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-97-CD-O2". Compliance Obligation Strict compliance with this order by all parties subject thereto is required. failure to comply strictly with any term or condition of this order including any deadline contained in this order or in the above required coastal development permit(s) as approved by the Commission will constitute a violation of this order and may result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000) per day for each day in which such compliance failure persists. Deadline s may be extended by the Executive Director for good cause. Any extension request must be made in writing to the Executive Director and received by Commission staff at least 10 days prior to expiration of the subject deadline. Appeal Pursuant to Pub. Res. Code §30803(b), any person or entity against whom this order is issued may file a petition with the Superior Court for a stay of this order. EXHIBITS 5. 6. 7. 8. Location of the property. Photocopy of grant deed. Photocopies of Emergency Permits. Photocopies ofletters dated February 27, 1995, from Bradley to Jensen and dated March 20, 1995, from Jensen to Bradley. Photocopy of violation letter dated June 28,1995. Photocopy of page 5 of report from Soil Engineering Construction, Inc.. Photocopy of documents pertaining to microtunneling and letter dated April 15, 1996, from Jensen to Bradley. Photocopy of the Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings dated March 31, 1997, and return receipt. Photocopies of photographs of the subject site. 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. 10 .,..u,.. l. ¡: \.. ~ i )"'~ ~- ~ ""'0 ...~.._.- ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ } 1 , ~ ¡. ~. .,. 8 I I I :---.-~--i : I l'T~ ~ c , \ \ , \ '\ \ '- ... ~, ~ ", 1" ,~ '\ ~ , @ ..., Exhibit # 1 ~- CCC-97-CD-O2 Page 1 of 1 Ludmilla Bradley . , \ :"Sn, , 7- 1391333 VC 168 / 84-.r;42S9? ~RECORDED IN~ OFFICIAL RECORDS Of SAle DIEGO COUNTY. CA. Order No, E5Crow No. LoIn No. ~ IIfOØI Of fllSl AllUIC;M TITL£ co. WHEN ReCORDED MAIL TO: 1984 NOY 28 AM8:00 I _VERA L LYlE. I LCOUNtY I£COID[I ---l Hr.. Lud.illa Orloff Bradley 560 HeptW\e Way Encinitaa, CA 92024 RF MG UF po. 1'xPO SPACE ABOVE THIS !.INE fOR RECORoeR' USE MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: SAME AS ABOVE AI 110. 25~084-07 GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIOERATI0f:4, receipt 01 which is henby acknowl&dged, Fenton Joaeph Bradley hereby GRANTISI to Luda11la Orloff Bradley, a married woman aa her sole and separate property the real ll'opefty in the City of County 01 Encinitaa San Diego , State 01 Californ~, described IS Þn undivided 1/2 inl~re.t in and to the following; For coaplete legal description see Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein .' "'\ fit. ~ "E~" (1 Olt'" October 8, 1984 I I'" J \':. ~ I I 1>81.... -. ... -188gned. 8 Noialy PuÞIiC ill and tar Mid Stat8, per- ~ , - '", '- ' -"Y-""" -"',n,'11 ....)~\c~,....- ",t:r.I.,.t:-' STATEOFCAUfOANIA iI,'", ,""- COUNTY OF ~ - b 0- ; I ~", '-' ~ I-J":-"" - Ie ~....6~~::,:,:~:".~ , ( , -::::' ", i~~' ',-::,/::'~'!'" ill petIOII8IIr_tom8(arpr_tomeon..........oI.....,aetorv.' ,- ': ..:,' '. ..',"" ~i ..,. .' " ,', '.' 'L. f' ~IIO lie ... person¡" -- nom." 101"8 auÞoCI1Þ8d 10 IIIe :. ," ' ' , ' ," , ' " ., ,,'~ '--' 8d ¡ "".,-' ',1".., "",""'¡'!:'~c ....... -- -ac""""'r 10 me /Iat 1le/-/III8Y eøcut ~~,:)~~,,:, ,=~:;'C-::;~Q ...- '\ WITNESS MY - - oIIiciai aL ( , '........ . "'1: J}-,-,¡U-' Ë IThi. .... to. oU..I" not..I" _II SignaIunO 1002 16182) " MAIL TAX ATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE " '~?!;'~ ,.' .,' ,,~'. ," .. ,;.':-' ' , , c ' ",', ~~~~, ,..', ,-~ ~~<.;-:::.. - ~,';:,:, '~ "."..~, ' ~;::'<, '. , '-¡"" " '- '.' -, " '\f"': """<""" ,i:~~~~X ;";"':,',, :;J2ç!: Îi , '~:,":",'" }:<-:"::,:> ""," . ,,:;., " ,;,.: ' " Exhibit # 2 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 1 of 1 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 fATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY AliFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AN DIEGO COAST AREA 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 AN DIEGO, CA 92108.1725 19) 521.8036 PETE WILSON. Governor @ EMERGENCY PERMIT Ms. Ludmilla Bradley (name) 560 Neptune Ave. (street name & no.) ~ŒilWŒIDJ DeCemb(~a~~j 1991 JAN 1 6 1992 Encinitas, CA 92024 (city, state, zip) 6-91-312-6 Emergency Permit # CAW"ORNIA COASTI-L CO^,,^\ISSION SAN D¡¡:Cù CO/..;jr DISTRI;:::r 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. Location of Emergency Work Construction of tie-back and shotcrete upper bluff retaininQ wall and construc- tion of mid-bluff stabilization consistinq of soil nails and shotcrete as de- picted on project plans dated December 4, 1991. work requested Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the fonm of failure of the coastal bluff and bluff retreat requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health. property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of the permit; ( b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Coast 37: 9/81 Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 1 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley The work is hereby approved. subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the property owner and returned to our office within 15 days. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above ;s authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. 3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days of the above date. Within 60 days of the above date, the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received. the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the above date unless waived by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 4. 5. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. 6. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 7. OTHER: See attached Exhibit A. Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development. a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. . If you have any Questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: ~~~ Charles Damm, District DirectQr Exhibit # 3 CCC-97-CD-O2 Page 2 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 EXHIBIT A Additional Conditions of Approval a. Construction of the upper- and mid-bluff structures shall occur consistent with plans entitled -Grading Plan - 560 Neptune Avenue,- dated 11/21/91, and shall generally consist of construction of a tie-back and shotcrete retaining wall structure at the upper bluff and soil nail and shotcrete structure on the mid-bluff area. b. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans deleting the engineered revetment proposed for the lower bluff area. Construction of lower bluff improvements shall be approved only under the action on the regular coastal development permit application required under Standard Condition #4 of this emergency permit. and shall consist of a vertical seawall constructed at the toe of seacliff formation. c. The project engineer shall certify, in writing, that it is feasible to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seacliff formation, even if such a seawall is built subsequent to completion of the upper bluff and mid-bluff stabilization allowed pursuant to this emergency permit. This certification shall be submitted to the Executive Director prior to work commencing in reliance upon this emergency permit. d. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall state that by accepting this emergency permit, the applicant and any successors in interest hereby agree to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seacliff formation and as approved by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the application requirements of Condition #4 of this emergency permit. Failure to apply for the regular coastal development permit shall cause this emergency permit to be null and void. e. The construction or replacement of any accessory structure, including stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc., are not authorized by this permit. f. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be be used for backfill or construction materials. g. Construction is authorized to continue for a total of 60 days from date of issuance of this permit. Any additional construction shall be the subject of a future emergency permit request. h. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval in writing a detailed construction schedul~ for the proposed development. Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 3 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley -, 'J STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENI PETE WILSON. Go\l'l!mor - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO Del RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO. CA 92108-1725 (619) 521.8036 FILE COpy @ EMERGENCY PERMIT Ms. Ludmilla Bradley (name) April 6. 1992 (date) 560 Neptune Ave. (street name & no.) Encinitas. CA 92024 (city, state, zip) 6-91-312-6 Emergency Permit # 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. San Diego County. Location of Emergency Work J Construction of tie-back and shotcrete upper bluff retaining wall and construc- tion of mid-bluff stabilization consisting of soil nails and shotcrete as de- picted on project plans dated December 4. 1991. work requested Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your represe~tative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the form of failure of the coastal bluff and bluff retreat requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of the permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Coast 37: 9/81 Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 4 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 The work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the propertv ~ and returned to our office within 15 days. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. 3. Within 30 days of the above date, the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the above date unless waived by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 4. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 6. OTHER: See attached Exhibit A. Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development, a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicat~ sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commission1s San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: ~~~ Charles Damm, District Director Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 5 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley EXHIBIT A Additional Conditions of Approval 7. Construction of the upper- and mid-bluff structures shall occur consistent with plans entitled "Grading Plan - 560 Neptune Avenue," dated 11/21/91, and shall generally consist of construction of a tie-back and shotcrete retaining wall structure at the upper bluff and soil nail and shotcrete structure on the mid-bluff area. 8. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans deleting the engineered revetment proposed for the lower bluff area. Construction of lower bluff improvements shall be approved only under the action on the regular coastal development permit application required under Standard Condition #3 of this emergency permit, and shall consist of a vertical seawall constructed at the toe of seac1iff formation. 9. The project engineer shall certify, in writing, that it is feasible to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seac1iff formation, even if such a seawall is built subsequent to completion of the upper bluff and mid-bluff stabilization allowed pursuant to this emergency permit. This certification shall be submitted to the Executive Director prior to work commencing in reliance upon this emergency permit. 10. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall state that by accepting this emergency permit, the applicant and any successors in interest hereby agree to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seac1iff formation and as approved by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the application requirements of Condition #3 of this emergency permit, to complete the regular coastal development permit process for the proposed work, as required under Special Conditi~n #3 of this emergency permit, and the local discretionary review process, including, but not limited to, review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Coastal Bluff Ordinance of the City of Encinitas. The restriction shall further acknowledge the following: a) That the applicants acknowledge that failure to apply for the regular coastal development permit within 30 days of issuance of this emergency permit shall cause this emergency permit to be null and void. b) That the applicants agree to provide bi-week1y monitoring reports on the status of processing all City-required discretionary approvals and on the status of construction activities. c) That the construction or replacement of any accessory,structure, including stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc., are not authorized by this permit and may not be authorized under future regular coastal development permits. - Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 6 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 d) That the applicants recognize and acknowledge that any structures built under the emergency permit are considered temporary and that their removal may be required if all local and State approvals are not received. 11. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be be used for backfill or construction materials. 12. Construction is authorized to continue for a total of 60 days from date of issuance of this permit. Any additional construction shall be the subject of a future emergency permit request. 13. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval in writing a detailed construction schedule for the proposed development. " Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 7 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley ~TATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gol'emor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.1725 (619) 521-8036 EMERGENCY PERMIT Ms. Ludmilla Bradley (name) Ma" 13. 1992 (date) 560 Neptune Ave. (street name & no.) Encinitas. CA 92024 (city, state, zip) 6-91-312-G Emergency Permit # 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. San Diego Count". Location of Emergency Work Construction of tie-back and shotcrete upper bluff retaining wall and construc- tion of mid-bluff stabilization consisting of soil nails and shotcrete as de- picted on project plans dated December 4. 1991. work requested Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the fonm of failure of the coastal bluff and bluff retreat requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary penmits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the tenms of the permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Coast 37: 9/81 ~:. . - .. . , . Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 8 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley . " 8 8 The work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the DroDertv owner and returned to our office within 15 days. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 2. 3. Within 30 days of the above date, the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the above date unless waived by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 4. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 6. OTHER: See attached Exhibit A. Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development, a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditiQns may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: ~ s»-~ Charles Damm, District Director Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 9 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley ,I EXHIBIT A ¡" , , Additional Conditions of Approval 7. Construction of the upper- and mid-bluff structures shall occur consistent with plans entitled "Grading Plan - 560 Neptune Avenue," dated 11/21/91, and shall generally consist of construction of a tie-back and shotcrete retaining wall structure at the upper bluff and soil nail and shotcrete structure on the mi d-b 1 uff area. 8. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans deleting the engineered revetment proposed for the lower bluff area. Construction of lower bluff improvements shall be approved only under the action on the regular coastal development permit application required under Standard Condition #3 of this emergency permit, and shall consist of a vertical seawall constructed at the toe of seacliff formation. 9. The project engineer shall certify, in writing, that it is feasible to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seac1iff formation, even if such a seawall is built subsequent to completion of the upper bluff and mid-bluff stabilization allowed pursuant to this emergency permit. This certification shall be submitted to the Executive Director prior to work commencing in reliance upon this emergency permit. 10. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall state that by accepting this emergency permit, the applicant and any successors in interest hereby agree to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seacliff formation and as approved by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the application requirements of Condition #3 of this emergency permit, to complete the regular coastal develo~ment permit process for the proposed work, as required under Special Condition #3 of this emergency permit, and the local discretionary review process, including, but not limited to, review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Coastal Bluff Ordinance of the City of Encinitas. The restriction shall further acknowledge the following: a) That the applicants acknowledge that failure to apply for the regular coastal development permit within 30 days of issuance of this emergency permit shall cause this emergency permit to be null and void. b) That the applicants agree to provide bi-weekly monitoring reports on the status of processing all City-required discretionary approvals and on the status of construction activities. c) That the construction or replacement of any accessory structure, including stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc., are not authorized by this permit and may not be authorized under future regular coastal development permits. Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-02 Page 10 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 d) That the applicants recognize and acknowledge that any structures built under the emergency permit are considered temporary and that their removal may be required if all local and State approvals are not received. 11. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be be used for backfill or construction materials. 12. Construction is authorized to continue for a total of 60 days from date of issuance of this permit. Any additional construction shall be the subject of a future emergency permit request. 13. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval in writing a detailed construction schedule for the proposed development. Exhibit # 3 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 11 of 11 Ludmilla Bradley !~ ~. "" , !;.. ....,. ." ...-- ... , - ;to Çl ~ f- \;,\' Jebruary 27,1995 Mr . B8D8 J 8D8 en !Dc1neer1ng Department . - .- OiV ot Inc1n1taa Ret !b1rd reque8t tor Lower Bluff Protection. lllerpncy p8%'ll1 t . . Dear Mr. Jensen, We are pleading with you again tor an Emergency pern..it allowing us to place rip-rap at the toot ot our blutt located at 560 Neptune Ave. 0 As we are corre8ponding, more erro8ion took place at the toot of the blutt w-1Ml"Ig it top heavy and subject to collap8e. Our cove below the blutf is at leut 30 teet deep and 40 feet wide. Placing rip-rap in the cove at the toot ot the bluff to break the torce of the waves, will not in any way encroach on the useable beach area and will l!2! Tiolate the policy approved by the Oi ty Council. Not allowing us to protect our property a."ld a180 the big money inTested in the upper and mid walla, will torce us to hold the City ot Enc1n1 t&8 responsible and liable in the event the blutt collapse8 or even wors&-- it 80meone will be crushed to death below the rubble, as it has already happened. Rip-rap is a natural and attractiT8 protection against the torce of the ocean and is used along the entire seacoast. Xind1¥ respond. ~ Œ (Gj .~ U W ~[ID . fEe 27 1995 ENGINEERING SERVICE~ CITY OF ENCINITAS Exhibit # 4 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 1 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley 8.,- , ,,' I \. , -'~L';' 1".- ~i-' I' ,-- \:.~ ~... \~~tv.,r~ " - 1r'í"".... ,~ ~\.~.,';¡~ City of ! Encinitas ",I ,., , ~.~ February 3, 1995 Repeated March 20, 1995 Ms. L. O. Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re.: Request for Lower Bluff Protection. Dear Ms. Bradley: ~. When you began your emergency repairs of the failed bluff in 1991, the plans submitted included lower bluff protection. As part of your Coastal Commission Emergency permit, you were required to proceed with the City of Encinitas Major Use Permit applica~on. On Janua!)' 14, 1993 the City Council approved a policy of not allowing rip-rap bluff protection which would encroach on the useable beach area. The Council at the same time approved as a solution the installation of lower bluff walls constructed with concrete textured to blend in with the native rock. . I have visited the site, both at the top and on the beach, and I believe that the immediate need for protection can be met by you proceeding with the required major use permit application for the work which is. partially completed, as well as the lower bluff protection, required by your Coastal Commission emergency permit. Your property is included in, the recently established Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD) and that entity may provide some aid in the process. You may contact the GHAD Board of Directors directly or mail can be delivered to the GHAD through our office. . The City of Encinitas require that you proceed with the Major Use Permit application at this time. . Sincerely yours, ~~ C I--'~-A~ ; Hans Carl~;;;-- Subdivision Engineer , :' cc.: Coastal Commission Staff. Ref App. 6-91-233 Community Development Dept. TEL 6JC)-6~3-2600 I EA..'< 619-ó33-2627 50S 5 Vulcan Avenue. Encinilas. Cali Exhibit # 4 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 2 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley STATE Of CALifORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY " ;'e" '" " PETE WILSON. Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION IAN OliGO COAaT AMA 1111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, 8U1T1200 lAM OliGO, CA "10.172. (111) 111'- ~ ~ ~ - ;1 <' ~ ~ ~ . June 28, 1995 CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL P 548 094 395 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PROPERTY LOCATION: VIOLATION FILE NO.: 560 Neptune A venue, Encinitas, San Diego County V -6-95-008 Dear Ms. Bradley: " Staff of the California Coastal Commission has confirmed that development consisting of construction of a concrete seawall and fill has been undertaken on the beach fronting the above described property, which is in the coastal zone, without a necessary coastal development permit in violation of the California Coastal Act (PRC §30000 et seq.). Pursuant to Coastal Act section 30600, any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone is required to obtain a coastal development permit authorizing such development. Development is derIDed under the Coastal Act as: ,il , "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous. liquid, solid. or thermal waste; grading, removing. dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or ÎJ1tensity of use of land. including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code). and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction. demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public. or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511). Exhibit # 5 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 1 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley , ) Ludmilla Bradley June 28, 1995 Page 2 .< 8.: " As used in this section, "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line. (PRC§ 30106) } ) In most cases, violations involving unpermitted development may be resolved by completing an application for a coastal development permit for either the removal of the unpermitted development and restoration 01 any damaged resources or for authorization of the development "after-the-fact". In order to resolve this matter administratively, you must immediately stop all unpermitted development activities and submit a complete coastal development permit application to the Commission's San Diego Coast Area office for either the removal of the unpermitted development and restoration of any damaged resources or for authorization of the development "after-the-fact" by August 27. 1995. For your convenience, a permit application form is enclosed. Although you have the ability to request after-the-fact approval of the development, based on our review of the facts, it is not likely that Commission staff would recommend approval of the unpermitted seawall to the Commission as a development that is consistent with Coastal Act policies. Therefore, we do not recommend that you apply for the after-the-fact approval, but submit an application for removal and restoration. Coastal Act section 30820(a) provides that any person who violates any provision of the Coastal Act may be subject to a penalty not to exceed $30,000. Section 30820(b) states that a person who intentionally and knowingly undertakes development that is in violation of the Coastal Act may be civilly liable in an amount which shall not be less than $1,000 and not more than $15,000 per day for each day in which the violation persists. Please contact Lee McEachern at our San Diego Coast Area office, (619) 521-8036, immediately to discuss the resolution of this matter, Failure to comply with this notice will result in the referral of this file to the Commission's Statewide Enforcement Unit in San Francisco for further legal action. Sincerely, ~þ Sherilyn Sarb San Diego Coast Area Office Enforcement Supervisor ( (, enclosures: Coastal Development Permit Application Form cc: Nancy Cave, Sta~wide Enforcement ~upervisor Lee McEachern, San Diego Coast Area Office (v695O1.dac) Exhibit # 5 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 2 of 2 Ludmilla Bradley .......- I. J -7 "\ SOIL ¡nGln¡¡=tlnG conSAurnon.. - I J r; ) " Mr. Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission December II. 1995 Page 5 to the residential units at the referenced properties. Our engineering analyses. supponed by' recent survey data. indicates that the recommended construction of the lower bluff seawall proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structures on the site. In addition. the recent construction of the illegal seawall and mid-bluff structures on the property nonh of the site presents. in our opinion. a severe detriment to the subject site. Our opinion is based on the fact that the ends of the illegal seawall appear to have been constructed without keying into the bluff. This condition increases the opportunity for erosion to occur at a fasrer rate than other portions of the bluff. Further, no wall drains were observed in the illegal seawall or behind the shotcrete placed on the bluff along and adjacent to our referenced site's nonhero property boundary. The potential affects of increased pore pressures in the bluff will be detrimental to the overall stability of the site. If the proposed seawall project is delayed, we recommend that the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission provide SEC and the owners assurance that these conditions will not adversely effect the subject property. REQUIREMENTS OFmECTrY OF ENCINrrAS MUNICIPAL CODE. Sections 30.34.020C&D In order to satisfy requirements of the "City of Encinitas Major Use Permit Chapter 30.34.020C. Development Processing and Approval" and the "City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program", adopted by the city in March, 1995. the following geotechnical findings and recommendations related to the proposed project are provided in response to applicable sections of these adopt~d regulations: I. Based on the results of the bluff stability analyses, it is recommended that the lower bluff seawall be constructed to increase the overall stability of the site. 2. We certify that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the stability of the bluff, and is intended to prevent further degradation and extend the usable life span of the bluff portions of the property. Based on the nature of the design, we also ceni(y that the proposed development will not create an unsafe condition that might endanger life or property, and the work is intended to lessen the existing impacts toward life and property. We expect the proposed development to be reasonably safe from failure ov~r its lifetime. 3. It is our professional opinion that based on the slope stability analyses and our experience ~-- 3220 South Standard Avenue. Santa Ana, CA 92705 . f- Exhibit # 6 General Engineering Contractor Ute! CCC-97-CD-O2 , I ~~ ~ I I ! I ~ Page 1 of 1 Ludmilla Bradley ~' fR' ",\ ~I, \., ¡ \ ----'~'-~-'" -, : , ..':-!, ~~ , ~ 'æ'~~ ~,~~~~' " ~ -' " ,iJ.. 8,~; 8;;; ','" """. ", , "," City of Encinitas 7'; -w--' ,. '--' , ~\ ,," April 15, 1996 I;: " " , .. -..' Ms. Vui~ma. O. Bradley S6O Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Ms. Bradley: The City of Encinitas is in the process of dcsi¡J)1ng a drainage system to conttol the drainage waters from the area along Hi¡hway 1 01. As part of such drainage system, it has been detcmùned that an ou1fa11 pipe is necessary. Sudl pipe is considered for the area of your property in the 500 block. of NcptuDC Avenue, also identified With Tax parcel Number APN 256-0a.¡.Q7. The desian of the DlÍçrotJmN!1ing UDder the property is auch that DO surface distmbace will occur, and the use of the jUoperty will DOt be modifieð 11ac City ofEDctnitu wiIh to obtain a draiDa¡e easemart for the rod_nAtion of a draiœ¡c pipe under your pmpat)'. The easement will be dacribc4 u a ~1memioDl1 volume DOt ~b'l the suzface, and thcrcfOIC will not iufCõL£e¡e with the uscoftbe propaty. the ~.hM s1œtd1 of your property shows the location of the proposed pipe, at. depth of more than 60 feet below the surface. At the bluff ~ the caseœ~ willlClda the sudicc. but IÏDœ cal1 U\;n;ma1 use can be made of the blu1f face, this will DOt iDtelfeœ with your enjoyment of thê PropertY. As part of the tcrmimJs for the pipe it may be necaury for the ci1¥ to construct a seawall. f Please contact me at 633-2776, such that we can furthez' discuss this projcá. Sincerely yours Hans Carl Jensen Subdivision Fngjneer Exhibit # 7 ._-. '.A,"~~ A"~A ,....... "',,' ¡{..~ "'Il"" .:f\C': ,'..1....- ...........- ~...,.¡..;..... r,,1I1 CCC-97-CD-O2 Page 1 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley I' . .' "., 1:,' JI8.7 17,1996 1tI:' . mwt CU 1 J f118 m subc1:i:ri.å1cm 1r:I¡ûLe8Z" Dear :Mr. Jensen; ).1 ., , , , , ' 0, ;~... '" , ..' ,", . 0,' I,: I~' . . . 114,. 2 I .' I~:~... , . ... . 100.. ... ~, ',.. ",.. ':"r..','!H'r.." . .. , '0,; ...:J:'j:\ ':"""""'" .., , . """,'1'II.."I,',,:,,,~ '.. '...:.,.z~i~~~-' ..," A c, ~.~Ko'..\' I " .' ' '.. ; . ""'~' ~ po81t1on en the dramage syatem is at:1ll the 8ame. ¡].ease r~er to JS11' letter to the City December 6, 1995. The City is not cml7 1II9~g l.t cUt'.t:icu.l1; to 8ell 7q property' bT.;~ÜC,:11;¡;bU:t al8o torc1n¡ me to .elk legal ac1v1oe. I .tron&17 reoc=nenQ. :tor the City to use ~ own proparl7 to solve the cl1'&1œB8 problem. L 5601lept1me Ave. Eno1n1 ta8 , Oa. 9202 4360778 , 01 i , ' J ..' Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 2 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley .. . ..' 8,. 8,.. December 6,1995 . . '. t;.;, .>, . Mayor Chuc-l( Du Vivier City ot EiD.cin1 tu 505 south ?ulgen ATe. lbo:1n1 ta8, Ca. 92024 ~ :Ë ~ 113> J>ear 1fr~~~tÞ, It offends me to the core to ~~ out that the City of :2:nc:m1tas :1.s pJ.~"'ing to so1.ve a c1ra1.na¡e problem. by' bor1ng right through and under "I1!Y bluff property at 560 ~.:pt1m.lt.v..' It 121 very disconcert~ to me tbat I W&8 not consulted or made aware of: the tact that the City of Encitdtas was mald.ng pl8n8 to use m::¡ pnvate property tor a drainage project. Th18 is not a Communist country - yet! The plan is outrageous, inSD.J1e and down r1¡ht 1rrnpons1ble: 1. æhe bluff is a foundation for all the þome8 on the blutt. To bore through end. under the bluff is to 11 teral1y \1Dderm1ne and. weaken the Vlltry toundation o~ the structures. 2. At 560 Neptune and the adjacent 1ot, the upper retaining wall, reinforced b7 tiebacks, would be \m4erm1ned. !he m1dd1e portion of the bluff would begin to erode ~. !he lower free-stand11'g _11 woW.4 be weakened. The potent1&1 ca.," in would be 1mm:1.nent 8Z1d th1'eaten1:DC 'IIf1' ne1gbborla property. ,. œhe property is for 8ale. D1øc1o81D&' the proposed dra1na&8 pro~ect (which ~u1cl also foul up the beach) not o~ would 'd.ter an intere8ted buyer but would . also depreciate considerab~ the valU8 ot the property. ¡. 4. ~e City ot Enc1D:itu 88, a publ1c servant, baa no mcœ.l or legal rigbt to put the homeowners through 80 mI1oh &DI\rl:8h, 8tr.S. and ooncern aM aberte all oaU88 the bl\1ftowners lDo...a1l coD:ti4enoe m the City'. adm~....19trative good ~~8J"AUt and iDtenti.on8. 'Wbat would you do U- it were your home and lour proPertTl 5. It is bard :tor me to fathom the :tact that b7 trying to Bol,,-. one problem the City 1.8 creat1I1g another probl- and a bigger one. 6. I do hope that th~ City .of Encinitas will make amends and not :torce I!1e to seek legal advice. Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 3 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley .. '\:, ,'.,"; ~: ~¡ . ... CITY OF EN CINIT AS CITY CO UN CIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 29, 1996 -. ._-- ..-..-. ... -- TO: Mayor and City Council 'i. '" ,:¡ . ~ VIA: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager CALIfORNIA COAST AL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO ,COAST DISTRICT FROM: Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Hans Carl Jensen, Subdivision Engineer SUBJECT: Progress Report for Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plans (Project CMD95A). ISSUE: Whether to proceed with easement acquisition, and authorize additional expenditures to finance the project. , ¡. ", BACKGROUND: On October 18,1995 the City Council certified a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the drainage project known as Highway 101 Corridor Drainage project, and at the same time selected the alternate which include ocean outfall pipes at Basil Street and at Avocado Street. Subsequently, the consultant and City staff have refined the plans fOf the construction of the drainage facilities west of the railroad right-of-way and have made some estimates of expected costs for the proposed. improvements. Further progress must take into account th~ amount of funding available, and the need for obtaining the easements for the underground pipe through the bluff. . ANAL YSIS: The two parts of this project are: 1. Construct an outflow pipe to the beach from the intersection of Basil Street and Highway 101, with the outfall under the vacant part of 560 Neptune. (Exhibit 1) The system also includes a pipe along Highway 101 with stubouts for future connections across the railroad tracks to the east. The pipe terminates with an inlet within Leucadia Park. with sufficient depth that the low points of the alley to the north and south of the park can be gravity drained. Only the main system is included in this project. the local Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 4 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley 8j., 8.'<~ l.f CMD9SA January 29, 1997 bluffs. Although visible, outfall structures will be relative small and are not expected to disrupt the overall physical integrity and appearance of the seacliffs. .i FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACT: - . . '! . 'J. . f'" l ¡ Allocated funds for this project amounts to $1,690,000 in Flood Control Fee funds. The estimates for the constructión of the outfaJls significantly exceeds the allocated funds. Information developed during plan preparation severely increased the estimate, since pipe depth and pipe size had to be increased to serve the required parameters. The two parts to this plan are equally important, the Basil outfall will provide an outlet where none exists today, while the Avocado outfall will replace the Phoebe pump system, which is inadequate, but operational. Both parts will provide the basis for providing future drainage relief east of the railroad. If only one part of this program is to be constructed at this time it is recommended that the Basil outfall system be constructed first. .j¡ :> ~ RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Staff recommends that City Council refer the project back to staff for a Capital Improvement Program evaluation such that a proper allocation of available funds can be made. Ene. Exhibit 1- Plan for Basil Outfall Exhibit 2- Plan for Avocado Outfall , 3 Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 5 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley ~ -;, ~ ,. - -,. 1> -"- ". _c -"-~'. . ~ . / ¡'J .'J' EXHIBIT 1 .----. -,c. ~ b ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 565 NEPTUNE III 560 NEPTUNE 101 HNY DRAINAGE PROJECT - BASIL STREET OUTFALL Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 6 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley :~ * ji--- i 1-.. ,~ j . " ¡.. i ]I ';' . -, -r. ;:; " :~ f a,:- ..... "-, W'., EXHIBIT 2 \ \ l1li] 1610 NEPTUNE 101 HWY DRAINAGE OUTFALL PIPE - AVOCADO STREET Exhibit # 7 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 7 of 7 Ludmilla Bradley II ITATi Of CAlifORNIA.. THE RESOURCES AGaNeY 1"£1'£ WILSON, ao-- CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION . 41 f..-oNT 1TM8T. 8UITE 2000 IAN fRANCI8OO, CA 8410WJlI VOIC8 ANO TOO (418) 8O4.QOO ~ ...--, '... C~'C~C'..~_..- REGUlAR AND CERTJJ'I'ED MAIL (Article No. P 121 0021128) ~; March 31, 1997 Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: Notice of intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings; Coastal Act Violation File No. V-6-9S-OO8 Dear Ms. Bradley: This letter is to notify you of the intent of the California Coastal Commission to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings as a result of unauthorized development activities on your property at 560 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas. The above referenced violation of the California Coastal Act pertains to development which is inconsistent with special condition requirements of Emergency Development Permit (EDP) no. 6-91-312-G. The unauthorized development consists of: I) construction of bluff stabilization devices at the upper bluff; and 2) installation of a concrete seawall at the base of the bluff on the beach. The subject property (APN 256-084-0700) is located at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, within the Coastal Zone. On December 23, 1991, you were granted an emergency coastal development permit (6-91-312- G).allowing you to undertake temporary measures to stabilize the bluff at your property. On April 6, 1992, Commission staff re-issued the emergency permit to allow you an additional 30 days to submit a regular coastal development permit (CDP) application for the pennanent authorization of your bluff stabilization project. On May 6, 1992, the emergency permit eXpired, and as of the date of this letter, you have failed to submit a complete application for a regular CDP. Hence the emergency work performed on your property in 1991 and 1992 is considered unpermitted and a violation of Section 30600 of the Coastal Act. On June 7, 1995, Commission staff was informed by a member of the public that a concrete seawall had been constructed on the beach at the base of the bluff below your property. By your letter of August 24, 1995, to Commission staff, you confirmed that the seawall was constructed by you, and that you were not willing to apply for a permit to remove the unpermitted stnlcture and restore the area. Through several oral and written communications, which include, but are not limited to letters dated June 28, 1995, September 29, 1995, April 15, 1996, and June 21, 1996;Commission staff has recommended that, in order to resolve this violation administratively, you submit a CDP Exhibit # 8 CCC-97-CD-O2 Page 1 of 3 Ludmilla Bradley '. . ? Ludmilla Bradley, 8 Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings March31,1997 8 .-' , ~ application for either restoration of the property to its pro-violation state or for an after-the -fact authorization of the subject unpcnnitted development. As the Commission staff has not received a complete CDP application, after requesting one from you since 1991, staff has decided to commence a proceeding to request the Commission to issue a Cease and Desist Order pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30810. This order would require you to cease and desist from engaging in any further development activity at the subject property without fll'St obtaining a Coastal Development Pennit to authorize such activity. The order would also prevent you ftom continuing to maintain any development at the property that violates the Coastal Act. ',t ~:; -~. ""1 "I 1-' .I In accordance with the Commission regulations, you have the opportunity to respond to the staff's allegations as set forth in this notice by completing the enclosed Statement of Defense fonn. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13181(a) requires the return of a completed Notice of Defense fonn mandatory. Court decisions require full disclosure of defenses prior to action by administrative agencies like the California Coastal Commission. (aohn v. Watson (1954) 130 Cal. App. 2d 24, 37.) The completed Statement of Defense form must be received by this office no later than April 27. 1997. Should you have any questions, please contact Ravi Subramanian at (415)904-5295. ;; ~;=r- Chief Counsel encl.: Statement of Defense fonn cc (without enclosure): Sherilyn Sarb, Enforcement Supervisor, San Diego Coast Area Office Lee McEachern, Coastal Planner, San Diego Coast Area Office Nancy Cave, Supervisor, Statewide Enforcement Program 2 Exhibit # 8 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 2 of 3 Ludmilla Bradley ;" :. P 121 002 828 , " . I D $~ .)." '--"-'-' .0.'- ,: I aI8o wish to. receive the ( foIowIng seMce8 (for an t extra fee): j ( 1. 0 Addressee's AddI888 ! 2. 0 Restricted DeIIv8ry Consult postmaster for fee. ¡.f 48. Ar1IcIe Number J I: P 121 002 828 E( 4b. Service Type i t 0 Registered ŒJ Certified II: t 0 Express Mal 0 Insured if IX1 Return Receipt for Metchancise 0 COD :I ! 7. Date of Dellve ! 61 >-l Jf ( Do';'e~tic Return Receipt f C'- E . :I -Complete ~ 1 8IICf(or 2 for 8ddIIIon8I ...... . -Complete iIImI 3, .... 8'1C14b. :. " - Print yow II81II8 8'ICI 8dch88 on .. - oIlhiI bm 10 Ih8I we can r8um IhI8 f card 80 you. ; -AIt8ctIIhI8 form to th8 Inn 01 th8 m8IpIece, or on the back if ~ do88 noI pemit. . - Write 'Return R~ RtIque8t.r on the maiIpiece below the artid8 number. = -The A8twn Receipt wIIlhow to whom the 81tic18.. deIIver8d and the d.- e d811v8r8d. 0 J 3. Mlde Addressed to: r Ludmilla Bradley u 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 8. Addressee's and fee is pBid) / Exhibit # 8 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 3 of 3 Ludmilla Bradley '., ... ~~, ','.;, .) :~~'~ . , ,"¡" '\.' ., "..."., , ::'\ ..,',' .. - .. ~"'" .,""" '.. ,-.; -.:';'¡' :. " . '," ,-", ".""'" 'Y ;.-, " ,', -'.. .,,-., "J."- ~'.:,~ ..~,..~. ~a"';:"~, ' '<-, .I', ~,..' , --,'-,":',', ,. ,t' .'....,' /....."",~, , .. ..... ,. ~' .. r-. """'-,-",,"'" ".""','" ...,' ." ~',-" ,- " ' ' It v,,' - '," 'f ' , .I, . . , ,.",. .' . '._. .."" .I," . ." I' " - t 'J , ~ -~.. " I . '.. CCC-97 -CD-O2 lof3 Ludmilla Bradley ~I J .. Exhibit # 9 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 2 of 3 Ludmilla Bradley . 8 . . . . "- - '. ." - .. ...-- -:.. .. .. ... "¡"- t, .~ . ", . "-:-.-.: ," - '" '..-...... ~.:,~.:.::" "-"".~-....---.:} ì"'-., or', ; ,:\,," ..4 ", """", .: .. . ~.' . Exhibit # 9 CCC-97 -CD-O2 Page 3 of 3 Ludmilla Bradley 8 8 CALIFORNIA -- THE RESOURCES AGENCY ALiFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 4 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 S N FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 V ICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RECORDS (contents of this letter and all attachments) March 31,1997 Hans Carl Jensen Subdivision Engineer City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Ludmilla Bradley, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 Our File No. V-6-95-008 Dear Mr. Jensen: Please find enclosed a copy of the letter to Bradley notifying her of our intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings. If you have any further questions you can contact me at (415) 904-5295. Ravi Subramanian Coastal Program Analyst Statewide Enforcement encl.: Copy of letter dated March 31, 1997, from Ralph Faust to Ludmilla Bradley PETE WILSON, Governor " '. 8 TATE OF CALIFORNIA.. THE RESOURCES AGENCY 8 PETE WILSON, Govømor ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION . 5 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 N FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 OICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 8 REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL (Article No. P 121 002828) March 31, 1997 Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 ft=' 'i"', ' !!! r- ::, .'" ' ,l!"- . " ~,.t;,':'R"" rn,:":,,,n,:,:' , """~,' .., ~ COl\t~'~' f:L,",~¿;i~L..~~~'~ T AL SUBJECT: Notice of intent to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings; Coastal Act Violation File No. V-6-95-008 Dear Ms. Bradley: This letter is to notify you of the intent of the California Coastal Commission to commence Cease and Desist Order proceedings as a result of unauthorized development activities on your property at 560 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas. The above referenced violation of the California Coastal Act pertains to development which is inconsistent with special condition requirements of Emergency Development Penn it (EDP) no. 6-91-312-G. The unauthorized development consists of: 1) construction of bluff stabilization devices at the upper bluff; and 2) installation of a concrete seawall at the base of the bluff on the beach. The subject property (APN 256-084-0700) is located at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, within the Coastal Zone. On December 23, 1991, you were granted an emergency coastal development pennit (6-91-312- G) allowing you to undertake temporary measures to stabilize the bluff at your property. On April 6, 1992, Commission staff re-issued the emergency penn it to allow you an additional 30 days to submit a regular coastal development penn it (CDP) application for the penn anent authorization of your bluff stabilization project. On May 6, 1992, the emergency penn it expired, and as of the date of this letter, you have failed to submit a complete application for a regular CDP. Hence the emergency work perfonned on your property in 1991 and 1992 is considered unpennitted and a violation of Section 30600 of the Coastal Act. On June 7, 1995, Commission staff was infonned by a member of the public that a concrete seawall had been constructed on the beach at the base of the bluff below your property. By your letter of August 24, 1995, to Commission staff, you con finned that the seawall was constructed by you, and that you were not willing to apply for a pennit to remove the unpennitted structure and restore the area. Through several oral and written communications, which include, but are not limited to letters dated June 28, 1995, September 29, 1995, April 15, 1996, and June 21, 1996, Commission staff has recommended that, in order to resolve this violation administratively, you submit a CDP 8 Ludmilla Bradley, Notice of Intent to commence Cease and Desist Order Proceedings March3I,1997 8 application for either restoration of the property to its pre-violation state or for an after-the -fact authorization of the subject unpermitted development. As the Commission staff has not received a complete CDP application, after requesting one from you since 1991, staff has decided to commence a proceeding to request the Commission to issue a Cease and Desist Order pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30810. This order would require you to cease and desist from engaging in any further development activity at the subject property without first obtaining a Coastal Development Permit to authorize such activity. The order would also prevent you from continuing to maintain any development at the property that violates the Coastal Act. In accordance with the Commission regulations, you have the opportunity to respond to the staffs allegations as set forth in this notice by completing the enclosed Statement of Defense form. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13181(a) requires the return of a completed Notice of Defense form mandatory. Court decisions require full disclosure of defenses prior to action by administrative agencies like the California Coastal Commission. (Hohn v. Watson (1954) 130 Cal. App. 2d 24, 37.) The completed Statement of Defense form must be received by this office no later than April 27. 1997. Should you have any questions, please contact Ravi Subramanian at (415)904-5295. &;=r- Chief Counsel ",~' ""~'Nr:T' IAL "m~":!~-.", " rn: "'" ,"','" h~~' , CO",.~."""",<",..,.." ,-,"",,"mø, ",' , ' '~ It¡¡"""""'r" f" " Ii ~'Ii biL~~ 161-~" encl.: Statement of Defense form cc (without enclosure): Sherilyn Sarb, Enforcement Supervisor, San Diego Coast Area Office Lee McEachern, Coastal Planner, San Diego Coast Area Office Nancy Cave, Supervisor, Statewide Enforcement Program 2 STATE OF' CAL;FORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY 8 8 PETE WILSON, Gov.mør CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION @ 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TOO (415) 904-5200 STATEMENT OF DEFENSE FORM DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF FURTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCUR WITH THE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT STAFF AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED AND RETURNED THIS FORM, (FURTHER) ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY NEVERTHELESS BE INITIATED AGAINST YOU. IF THAT OCCURS, ANY STATEMENTS THAT YOU MAKE ON THIS FORM WILL BECOME PART OF THE ENFORCEMENT RECORD AND MAYBE USED AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY WISH TO CONSULT WITH OR RETAIN AN ATTORNEY BEFORE YOU COMPLETE THIS FORM OR OTHERWISE CONTACT THE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT STAFF. This form is accompanied by either a cease and desist order issued by the executive director or a notice of intent to initiate cease and desist order proceedings before the commission. This document indicates that you are or may be responsible for or in some way involved in either a violation of the commission's laws or a commission permit. The document summarizes what the (possible) violation involves, who is or may be responsible for it, where and when it (may have) occurred, and other pertinent information concerning the (possible) violation. ,. This form requires you to respond to the (alleged) facts contained in the document, to raise any affIrmative defenses that you believe apply, and to inform the staff of all facts that you believe may exonerate you of any legal responsibility for the (possible) violation or may mitigate your responsibility. This form also requires you to enclose with the completed statement of defense form copies of all written documents, such as letters, photographs, maps, drawings, etc. and written declarations under penalty of perjury that you want the commission to consider as part of this enforcement hearing. You should complete the form (please use additional pages if necessary) and return it no later than April 27,1997, to the commission's enforcement staff at the following address: California Coastal Commission Legal Division, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94105 If you have any questions, please contact as soon as possible Ravi Subramanian of the commission enforcement staff at telephone number (415)904-5295. 1. Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or the notice of intent that you admit (with specific reference to the paragraph number in such document): 7 8 8 2. Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or notice of intent that you deny (with specific reference to paragraph number in such document): 3. Facts or allegations contained in the cease and desist order or notice of intent of which you have no personallrnowledge (with specific reference to paragraph number in such document): ,. 2 8 8 4. Other fads which may exonerate or mitigate your possible responsibility or otherwise explain your relationship to the possible violation (be as specific as you can; if you have or know of any document(s), photograph(s), map(s), letter(s), or other evidence that you believe is/are relevant, please identify it/them by name, date, type, and any other identifying information and provide the original(s) or (a) copy(ies) if you can: 5. Any other information, statement, etc. that you want to offer or make: 3 8 8 6. Documents, exhibits, declarations under penalty of perjury or other materials that you have attached to this form to support your answers or that you want to be made part of the administrative record for this enforcement proceeding (Please list in chronological order by date, author, and title and enclose a copy with this completed form): .. 4 8 8 ST TE.f)f CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor C LlFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SA DIEGO COAST AREA 31 1 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SA DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (61 ) 521-8036 EMERGENCY PERMIT Ms. Ludmilla Bradley (name) December 23. 1991 (date) 560 Neptune Ave. (street name & no.) Encinitas. CA 92024 (city, state, zip) 6-91-312-6 Emergency Permit # 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. San Diego County. Location of Emergency Work Construction of tie-back and shotcrete upper bluff retaining wall and construc- tion of mid-bluff stabilization consisting of soil nails and shotcrete as de-- picted on project plans dated December 4. 1991. work requested --- Dear Applicant: This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the form of failure of the coastal bluff and bluff retreat requires immediate action to prevent or mflTgate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. The Executive Director hereby finds that: ( a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise spec if i ed by the terms of the permit; ( b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Coast 37: 9/81 The work is hereby appro~, subject to the following con~ions: 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the property ~ and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days of the above date. 4. Within 60 days of the above date, the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the above date unless waived by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 5. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the proj ect. 6. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. 7. OTHER: See attached Exhibit A. Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development, a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization, please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVED: c!kÞ~~ Charles Oamm, District Directqr 8 8 EXHIBIT A Additional Conditions of Approval a. Construction of the upper- and mid-bluff structures shall occur consistent with plans entitled "Grading Plan - 560 Neptune Avenue," dated 11/21/91, and shall generally consist of construction of a tie-back and shotcrete retaining wall structure at the upper bluff and soil nail and shotcrete structure on the mid-bluff area. b. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans deleting the engineered revetment proposed for the lower bluff area. Construction of lower bluff improvements shall be approved only under the action on the regular coastal development permit application required under Standard Condition #4 of this emergency permit, and shall consist of a vertical seawall constructed at the toe of seacliff formation. c. The project engineer shall certify, in writing, that it is feasible to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seacliff formation, even if such a seawall is built subsequent to completion of the upper bluff and mid-bluff stabilization allowed pursuant to this emergency permit. This certification shall be submitted to the Executive Director prior to work commencing in reliance upon this emergency permit. d. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of this emergency permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall state that by accepting this emergency permit, the applicant and any successors in interest hereby agree to construct a vertical seawall at the toe of the seacliff formation and as approved by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the application requirements of Condition #4 of this emergency permit. Failure to apply for the regular coastal development permit shall cause this emergency permit to be null and void. \ /' e. The construction or replacement of any accessory structure, including stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc., are not authorized by this permit. . f. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be be used for backfill or construction materials. g. Construction is authorized to continue for a total of 60 days from date of issuance of this permit. Any additional construction shall be the subject of a future emergency permit request. h. Within five (5) days of permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval in writing a detailed construction schedule for the proposed development. 8 8 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM Emergency Permit No. 6-91-312-G Instructions: After reading the attached Emergency Permit. please sign this form and return within 15 working days. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued to me and agree to abide by them. I understand that the emergency work is temporary and a regular Coastal Development Permit is necessary to make it a permanent installation. Signature of property owner or authorized representative Name Address Coast 38: 9/81 (7055A) .8 'e !'eT!: WilSON, Go-, J . S A TEbF CALIFOA.NIA THE RESOURCES ACENC, -~ @. AUFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION S N DIEOO COAST ARfA 3 l' CAMINO DEl RIO NOA.TI-!, SUITE 200 po¡ 01£00, ç.. 92'09-172.5 ( 19) .521-8036 Hand Delivered October 29~ 1991 I ., ,;",', ~_: ;;~'. -, .,!,.' Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Ave. Encinitas. CA 92024 RE: Violation No. Vb-91~9/5bO Neptune Ave. Encinitas Dear Ms. Bradley It has come to our attention that construction of upper bluff stabilization has commenced on the above referenced property without benefit of a coastal development permit. or grading permit from the city of Enc;nitas. Work was observed in progress at the site on the afternoon of October 28. 1991 and Paul Webb of our staff contacted Douglas Jacobson by phone on that day to indicate that work should stop and any work which is completed without permits is in violation of the Coastal Act. . The coastal Act. Section 30600, requires that a coastal development permit be obtained prior to any development, unless the project is specifically exempted. Development as defined in the Coastal Act consists of, "on land, in or under water. the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous. liquid, solid. or thermal waste; grading. removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the intensity of use of land,...." As defined, construction of an upper bluff retaining wall constitutes development and therefore requires a coastal development permit, You should be aware that the Coastal Act. Section 30820. stipulates that any person who vio14tes the Coastal Act may be subject to civil fines, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Additionally, Section 30821, states that IIln addition to any other penalties. any person who intentionally and knowingly performs any development in violation of this division shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per day for each day in which such violation occurs," Receipt of this letter constitutes notification of this apparent violation. . .-----..--~ . -=- I.Â I 'S~d £0 . = 3Ðldd 8£:LI 0£-OI-1661 . ." f -8 e , Ms, Ludmilla Bradley October 29. 1991 Page 2 . You are hereby ordered to stop work at the subject site until a coastal development permit or emergency permit is obtained. This office is under the assumption the work which has proceeded on the property is for the tie-back retaining wall with concrete facing which was the subject of the Commission action on October B. 1991 as Coastal Development Permit Application No. 6-91-233. At that meeting the Commission denied the coastal development permit for the upper bluff structure and the Executive Director subsequently denied the request for an emergency permit for the same structure. Staff has directed you. through your representative Douglas Jacobson. to pursue other means to temporarily stabilize the site and/or structure, including but not necessarily limited to. removal of the portion of the home which is immediately threatened. re.location of the home on the site. other possible means to stabilize the residence; or, if bluff stabilization remains your goal. any future requests for emergency and/or regular permits should address stabilization of the entire bluff, including engineering for any lower bluff stabilization proposed. While the submittal of a permit application may stop the continuing nature of the violation, it does not necessarily guarantee that a permit will be issued. nor does it resolve the unpermitted ~ctivities believed to have been done in violation of the Coastal Act. . Please contact either Paul Webb or Sherilyn Sarb of this office immediately upon receipt of this letter to inform us of your intent regarding the stoppage of work. In the event you indicate your intent is to continue work without proper permits, this office is prepared to seek a temporary restraining order to assure work does not continue to proceed which may result in irreparable damage to coastal resources. Sincerely. cfkA <ff- ~ Charles Damm South Coast District Director cc: óouglas Jacobson Sherilyn Sarb Paul Webb Jamee Patterson Greg Shields ~\, (~\\ C?<1 ~ . ?o 7 I (O742V) . -_._~.--.~~_. .~,,~ .'~~' , 8 8 ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 1619) 521-8036 Filed: 49th Day: 180th Day: Staff: Staff Report: Hearing Date: 9/23/91 11/11/91 3/21/92 PBW-SD 9/24/91 10/8-11 /91 ~r-=--~' 'R;, :'~.'.'1~. ...' :,r- ð) ~:. REGULAR CALENDAR STAFF REPORT AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Application No.: 6-91-233 Applicant: Ludmilla Bradley Agent: Douglas Jacobson Description: Construction of upper bluff erosion control/retaining wall consisting of drilled tie-backs and retaining plates covered with a colored gunite coating; construction of a seawall at base of bluff; stabilization of mid-bluff area. Site: 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256-084-07. Substantive File Documents: Certified County of San Diego Local Coastal Program; Draft City of Encinitas Coastal Bluff Overlay Ordinance; Geotechnical and Geological Study 560 Neptune Avenue (June 30, 1989); Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance Proposed Bradley Residence Remodel (April 10, 1987); Geotechnical Investigation for Bradley Residence (October 1986); Structural Calculations for Bluff Top Protection (July 17, 1991); COP #6-89-136-G STAFF NOTES: Status of Emergency Permit: As of this writing, the emergency permit for this project has not yet been issued, due to indications that the proposed upper wall is not designed to function in the long-term without lower bluff stabilization. This coastal development permit addresses such stabilization. However, the actual construction of any mid-or lower-bluff stabilization measures are not authorized by this permit and shall be the subject of a separate coastal development permit or amendment. The Executive Director had been unwilling to issue the Emergency permit without certification from the engineers that the upper wall would function in the short term (i.e., three to five years) without the protection of a lower wall. Although such certification has been received, the emergency permit has not yet been issued as staff is awaiting approval by the City of the engineering design of the upper bluff structures. The applicant has made the case that the emergency permit should be issued prior to receipt of the regular permit in order to allow earlier commencement of construction on tiebacks, prior to winter rains. 6 -91-233 Page 2 Summary of Staff's Preliminary Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project subject to special conditions requiring entrance into a recorded agreement requiring the submittal and approval of plans and ultimate construction of mid- and lower- bluff protective device(s); a condition requiring the merger of the two lots at the project site; submittal of final engineered plans for the upper bluff structure; certification by an engineering geologist that construction of a vertical seawall located at the toe of the coastal bluff is a feasible alternative; a prohibition on use of beach materials for construction; a lateral access dedication on the beach area below the seawall; a waiver of liability deed restriction; a deed restriction acknowledging coastal development permit requirements for any additional work occurring in the area seaward of the residence to the toe of the structure; establishment of maintenance criteria for the seawall/erosion control structure located at the site; and participation in a community-wide solution to shoreline erosion, should such a program be initiated in Encinitas, including sand replacement to compensate for sand deposited on the beach by normal bluff retreat. In addition, it should be noted that the project application has been accepted without the local governmental approvals normally required as filing documents. In this instance, due to the urgent need for initiation of construction and the policy implications of the project, the Executive Director has waived the requirement for obtaining local approvals as allowed by Section 13053 of the Commission's Administrative Regulations. PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: 1. Approval with Conditions. The Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed developmen~, subject to the conditions below, on the grounds that the ~evel?pment wlll be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Callfornla Co~stal Act of 1976 will not prejudice the ability of the local government havlng jurisdi~tion over the area to prepare a Local Coastal.Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and wlll not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. Standard Conditions. See attached page. 8 8 Ó -91-233 Page 3 III. Special Conditions. The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Lower Bluff Protective Device(s). Prior to the issuance of the permit and not later than 30 days from the date of Commission action, the applicant shall submit a recorded agreement against the subject property, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The recorded agreement shall provide for the following: a. Within six (6) months of the date of Commission action, the applicants shall submit evidence of completion of the application process with the City of Encinitas for any and all necessary City permits required for lower and mid-bluff stabilization devices. For the purposes of this permit, the application process shall include grading permit(s), major use permits(s) and any processing required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. Within one (1) year of date of Commission action, the applicants shall provide evidence of receipt of all necessary local discretionary permits and shall submit a completed application for coastal development permit or amendment to this permit for lower- and mid-bluff protective structures, incorporating a vertical seawall located as close as possible to the toe of the coastal bluff. The application and supporting documents shall include an alternatives analysis discussing all feasible alternatives for lower- and mid-bluff protections. Alternatives shall be identified which minimize the encroachment onto sandy beach areas at the base of the bluff and which minimize visual impacts of the structures. Said alternatives analysis may include alternatives generated during the CEQA review process. The alternatives analysis may not, however, be omitted if the lead agency having responsibility for the project does not require that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. c. Within three (3) years of date of Commission action on this coastal development permit, construction on lower- and mid-bluff structures shall commence. d. Failure to meet any of the identified milestones shall render this permit and any associated emergency permits invalid and may result in the removal of structures authorized under this coastal development permit or emergency permit through future enforcement actions. If it is determined by the Executive Director that the milestones identified in this permit are infeasible, the applicant may seek to modify the imposed deadlines through an amendment to this permit. The recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel(s), and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of such restriction shall be subject to the review and'written approval of the Executive Director. 6-91-233 Page 4 2. Lot Merger. Within one (1) year of the date of Commission action, the applicant shall provide evidence in the form of a certificate of compliance issued by the City of Encinitas indicating that the two legal lots on the project site which comprise APN 256-084-07 have been merged into a single legal lot. 3. Vertical Seawall Feasibility. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, the certification of a registered engineering geologist that the construction of a vertical seawall at the toe of the bluff, as required in Special Condition #1, is feasible at the project site. Feasibility analysis shall consider such topics as geologic stability, worker safety, etc. Feasibility shall not be based on the differing costs between vertical seawalls and rock revetments. 4. Final Plans. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicants shall submit detailed final plans, approved by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department, for the upper bluff stabilization which include a detailed construction schedule for the proposed project and detailed plans for the surface treatment of the proposed upper bluff protection indicating a surface that matches, to the maximum degree feasible, the surrounding bluff area. The treatment shall include covering the structure with materials that match the color and texture of the native bluff materials. The final plans shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical reports [Geotechnical and Geological Study 560 Neptune Avenue (June 30, 1989, with updates); Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance Proposed Bradley Residence Remodel (April 10, 1987); Geotechnical Investigation for Bradley Residence (October 1986); Structural Calculations for Bluff Top Protection (July 17, 1991)] prepared for the project regarding depth of tiebacks, etc. 5. Assumption of Risk. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicant [and landowner] shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide: (a) that the applicant understands that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from wave action, bluff retreat, erosion and failure of shoreline protective devices, (b) that the applicant understands that construction of the upper bluff retaining structure authorized under this permit and the separate emergency permit may result in an increase in the hazard of any such bluff retreat and/or protective device failure, particularly in the absence of additional lower bluff protective structures, and (c) applicant hereby waives any future claims of liability against the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens. 6. Landscaping Plan. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicants shall submit a detailed landscape plan indicating the type, size, extent and 10cat;on of all plant materials proposed to be located either in the bluff setback or on the face of the bluff, the proposed irrigation system and other landscape 8 8 6-91-233 Page 5 features. The plans shall include all improvements proposed seaward of the residence, and no bluff top structures or landscaping shall be permitted within 5 feet of the bluff edge. Drought tolerant plant material shall be utilized to the maximum extent feasible in the bluff setback area. No permanent irrigation systems shall be permitted within 40 feet of the bluff edge. Any existing irrigation system located in this area shall be removed or capped to prevent the introduction of excess water into the bluff. Any revegetation plan determined necessary for erosion control on the bluff face shall incorporate native or naturalizing drought tolerant species capable of surviving without additional irrigation after initial establishment and consistent with coastal bluff areas of San Diego County. Irrigation by hand watering only shall be permitted for the initial establishment of the landscaping. Xeriscape landscaping techniques and materials shall be employed. Said plan shall be submitted to, reviewed and approved in writing by the Executive Director. 7. Future Development. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicants shall execute and record a document, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, stating that the subject permit is for the development of upper bluff stabilization measures only, and that any future additions or structures (including, but not limited to mid- and lower-bluff stabilization measures, seawalls, etc.) seaward of the existing residences located on each parcel subject to this permit or other development, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30106, will require an amendment to permit No. 6-91-233 or will require an additional coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission or from its successor agency. The restriction shall further stipulate that the applicants and any future assigns acknowledge that no future development or redevelopment, including but not limited to the expansion of the existing structure, may occur until the lower wall construction required under Special Condition #1 of permit No. 6-91-233 is completed, and that the site may not be suitable for any future redevelopment, even upon the completion of the shoreline structures. The document shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land binding all successors and assigns in interest to the subject property. 8. Maintenance Activities/Future Alterations. The property owners shall also be responsible for maintenance of the permitted shoreline protective and upper bluff stabilization devices. Any change in the design of the device or future additions/reinforcement seaward of the device will require a coastal development permit. If after inspection, it is apparent repair or maintenance is necessary, the applicant should contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. The applicant shall also be responsible for the removal of debris that is deposited on the beach or in the water as a result of the failure of the shoreline protective device. 9. State Lands Commission Review. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the applicants shall obtain a written determination from the State Lands Commission that: 6-91-233 Page 6 a) No State lands are involved in the development; or, c) State lands are involved in the development, and all permits required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained; or, State lands may be involved in the development, but pending a final determination, an agreement has been made with the State Lands Commission for the project to proceed without prejudice to that determination. b) 10. Public Rights. By acceptance of this permit, each applicant acknowledges, on behalf of him/herself and his/her successors in interest , ' that lssuance of the permit shall not constitute a waiver of any public rights which may exist on their property. The applicant shall also acknowledge that issuance of the permit and construction of the permitted development shall not be used or construed to interfere with any public prescriptive or public trust rights that may exist on the property. 11. Construction Materials. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backfill or construction material. 12. Participation in a Community Wide/Regional Solution. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit and within 30 days of Commission action, the permittee(s) shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide tha the permittee(s) , or successor-in-interest, shall agree to participate in a community-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem in Encinitas, which is essential to sound management of coastal resources. The permittee(s) , or successor-in-interest, agree to participate in an assessment district or other regional solution to the shoreline erosion problem in Encinitas, including any feasible solution that includes, among others, beach nourishment programs, redesign of shoreine protective devices, etc., should one or more of the solutions be selected for application to the Enciitas shoreline erosion problems. The comprehensive program shall be that approved by the Coastal Commission through the LCP process. The requriement for participation in the community-wide solution and the fee payment shall run with the land binding on the property owners's successors and assigns and the above parameters shall be ocumented in a recorded restriction against the deed of the property. This restriction shall be recorded, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances, other than tax liens, which the Executive Director believes may affect the interest being conveyed. Evdence of recordation of this restrictions shall be submited to and acknowledged in writing by the Executive Director prior to issuance of the coastal development permit. 13. Future Revision for Compatibil~ with Community-Wide Solutions. The approved shoreline protective device shall be altered, improved or replaced in 8 8 6-91-233 Page 7 order to be compatible with a community-wide solution to the shoreline erosion prob~em identified in Encinitas. If a solution is implemented, but doesn't req~lre a change to the approved shoreline protecive device, the approved devlce shall s~ructurally connect with any community-wide device, should a structural optlon be selected. IV. Findings and Declarations. The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Detailed Project Description and Site History. Proposed is the construction of a two-phased shoreline erosion control project to occur at the site of a recent bluff failure in the City of Encinitas. Phase 1 of the project will consist of an upper bluff retention structure constructed of drilled tie-backs with anchoring plates bolted to them. A cap of gunite or other concrete coating material would cover the anchor plates and tie-backs. The proposed retaining wall will extend across the entire site, which consists of two legal lots. The wall will extend the full length of the property, or a total of about 100 feet. Maximum height of the wall will be 30 feet, with a reduction of height to about 16 feet at either end. Phase II of the project will include both a shoreline protective device at the base of the bluff and a mid-bluff erosion protection system. At this time, construction methods for these devices have not yet been proposed, however the applicants have proposed two alternatives for the protection. For the seawall to be constructed at the base of the bluff, the applicants have proposed either a rubble revetment, constructed of riprap or similar rocky materials, or "bolsacretta" revetment, consisting of stacked concrete forms colored to match surrounding native materials. The mid-bluff device would consist of "soil nails," covered with either chain link fence materials or a gunite cap. The site of the proposed shoreline erosion project consists of two legal lots on the west side of Neptune Avenue. The southernmost of the two lots contains a single family residence, which has been directly threatened by the failure of the bluff. The northernmost of the two lots is currently vacant. The coastal bluff in this location is approximately 100 feet high, measured from mean sea level. As with the majority of the bluffs in the Encinitas area, the bluff in this location consists of a near-vertical sea cliff comprised of the moderately resistent Torrey Sandstone formation. This formation extends to about 25 feet above MSL. Above the Torrey Sandstone formation, extending to the top of the bluff, are Quaternary-aged marine terrace deposits of eroded sands and sandstones. The geotechnical study submitted in conjunction with this application indicates that there has been an extensive history of shoreline protective devices and protective device failures at the site. A concrete wall along the top of the bluff, probably pre-dating the Coastal Act, failed in 1978-79. A gunite surface was constructed in 1979 and failed in 1981. In approximately 1982, a low concrete and rock retaining wall at the base of the bluff also 6-91-233 Page 8 failed. In 1983, a post and board upper bluff retaining system was constructed. Although sections of this wall began to fail in 1988, the major portions of this device failed in March, 1991. That failure led to this application. This structure consisted of the timber and tieback walls common along the north San Diego County shoreline. No authorization for any of these structures has been sought or received from the Commission. Subsequent to March, 1991 rains, the site suffered a significant failure of the upper bluff, including the failure of the upper bluff retaining structure. The failure encroached to within about five feet of the existing residence on the southerly lot and destroyed the majority of the upper wall. The lower wall has essentially been demolished as a result of repeated block falls in the Torrey Sandstone formation and the upper bluff sloughing. As part of the emergency permit process, the applicants have demonstrated that the existing principal structure is directly threatened by bluff retreat and that protection of the structure is warranted at this time under Section 30235. The site of the failure is located in the coastal bluff area of the City of Encinitas. This area has been the subject of repeated failures in recent years, leading to the Commission's approval of two shoreline protective devices [COP #6-89-136-G (Adams, et al) and COP #6-89-297-G (Englekirk)]. In addition, the Commission has also authorized the retention of a previously existing, unpermitted upper bluff protective structure further to the north of this area [COP #6-88-464 (Frick & lynch)]. 2. part: Geologic Conditions and Hazards. Section 30235 of the Act states, in Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. In addition, Section 30253 of the Act states, in part: New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. a. Seacliff Retreat. Seacliff retreat is a result of wave action at the foot or base of the bluff as well as chemical and mechanical non-wave 8 8 6 -91-233 Page 9 processes in the upper portions of the cliff. The latter processes include surface and sub-surface drainage, and salt crystal weathering. The applicants have submitted several documents prepared over a period of 5 years regarding the seacliff retreat at the project site, including "Geotechnical and Geological Study 560 Neptune Avenue," prepared by Owen Consultants, "Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance Proposed Bradley Residence Remodel" prepared by William Elliot, "Geotechnical Investigation for Bradley Residence by Buchanan-Rahilly, Incorporated and "Structural Calculations for Bluff Top Protection" by Universal Structures. In addition, Owen Consultants has provided extensive updates to their 19B9 study following the most recent failures. These reports address the geologic hazards associated with the proposed project and project site. The reports indicate that the project site is located on bluffs composed of Tertiary-age Eocene Torrey Sandstone, which forms the lowermost portion of the bluff, and Quaternary-age marine terrace deposit of fine to medium grained, poorly cemented sands. Bluff failure in these formations occurs through the undercutting of the base of the seacliff and subsequent block falls, through the undercutting of the terrace deposits initiated by ground water seepage and through deep-seated rotational failure involving both the Torrey sandstones and the marine terrace materials. The failures that have occurred at the site up to this time have occurred as a result of both block falls caused by erosion along the fractures and joints of the Tertiary-age sediments, of sloughing of the Quaternary terrace deposits and by the infiltration of groundwater. The block falls lead to indentations at the base of the bluffs with the potential for the cliff above the indentation to fail. In addition, the pre-existing upper bluff structures were weakened by the sloughage of the materials supporting their foundations. When these structures failed, additional backfill material spilled down the bluff, and additional bluff material was lost as the "deadmen" holding the structure's tiebacks were pulled from the bluff. The terrace deposit failures are the result of the general flattening to a stable angle of the loose, unconsolidated terrace deposits. The failure has resulted in a "cove" at the base of the seacliff formation, widening into a much broader failure in the marine terrace deposits. Topographically, the effect is that of the bluff having been scooped out into a bowl-like formation. The existing residence sits at the top edge of a portion of the bowl. The conclusions of the geotechnical investigations state that the toe of the bluff is subjected to storm wave activity and ground water seepage, causing undermining of the seacliff toe, initiating failures of the terrace sand deposits. Thus the bluff is retreating in response to wave action. Moreover, the erosion of bluff areas located along the southern San Diego county coastline is site-specific, episodic and generally related to climatic changes. Bluff retreat beyond that which has already occurred can be expected in the next few decades without protection. It this regard, it should be noted that the existing home at the site, after the failures, provides 6-91-233 Page 10 relatively minimal setback (five feet or less). The rate of failure may have been accelerated by the construction activities associated with unauthorized shoreline protection devices. Section 30235 of the Act provides for the ability to construct shoreline protective works where existing development is subject to hazard from wave action, bluff retreat or other shoreline hazards. In the case of the subject properties, the failure of the bluff has clearly resulted in a hazard to the principle structure at the project site. Any further retreat of the bluff resulting from block falls or upper bluff sloughing will further endanger the residence at the site. As such, the Commission finds that approval of a shoreline protective structure would be consistent with Sections 30235 of the Act. The Commission is, however, mindful of the conflicting nature of the goals and policies of the Coastal Act, including the conficts inherent in Section 30235 and 30253 of the Act, and this project's accentuation of these conflicts. In the case of the proposed development, the structure is clearly endangered. The bluff-edge has retreated to within five feet of the foundation of the residence, and, due to the oversteepened nature of the upper bluff, future failures are likely. The nature of the development at this location and the proposed protective device, however, present several unique aspects to the project. First, the residence proposed for construction, while servicable, is clearly not at or near the beginning of its economic life-span. Based upon the age and condition of the structure, the Commission can anticipate that a proposal for the redevelopment of the site would be likely to be submitted in the near future, if protection of the site can be accomplished. Sections 30235 and 30253 do not clearly anticipate that existing structures worthy of protection under this Section of the Act would be redeveloped with a reliance on the structures proposed to protect existing residences. In the past, the Commission has used Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Act to support denial of proposals to construct shoreline protection in conjunction with new development, instead requiring new development to be sited and designed so that shoreline protective devices would not be necessary within the proposed structure's economic life span. By allowing protection for a structure in the age and condition of the subject residence, the Commission would, in all likelihood, be protecting the site for future redevelopment as opposed to protecting the existing structures at the site. Second, at this time the applicants are proposing to construct only the upper bluff protection devices, deferring protection of the bluff toe and the mid-bluff area to a second phase. At this time, no scheduling for Phase 2 has been proposed or discussed by the applicant. Based upon the information provided in the geotechnical investigation, the Commission believes that the failure to provided a protected foundation for the device proposed in Phase 1 of the project, places the project and site at jeopardy. 8 8 6 -91-233 Page 11 Finally, the proposed methods of construction raise issues regarding consistency with policies of the Coastal Act. Generally speaking, the majority of Commission actions on shoreline protective devices have begun with the construction of a seawall or revetment at the toe of the coastal bluff. Commission policy has been to require the construction of the seawall as close to the toe of the bluff as possible to provide the minimum encroachment onto public beach. When development occurs in this fashion, the nature of the device protecting the sea cliff formation is known in advance. The construction method and the height of the seawall are based upon the distance between the toe of the bluff and the structure to be protected, the height of the coastal bluff and the precise nature of the underlying soil formations. In the case of this application, upper bluff work would be initiated first, with the remainder of the protection to be provided in a second phase of construction. At this time, construction plans for the lower protection elements are not available, leading the Commission to approve a project that may dictate an otherwise undesirable seawall construction design. Furthermore, the prior design and construction of the upper bluff protection may necessitate protection for the mid-bluff area, as opposed to other, similar projects which have left the mid-bluff unprotected, utilizing backfill at the natural angle of repose. Despite these unique aspects to the project, however, it is very clear that the proposed residence is endangered at this time. Failure to provide protection of some sort to the residence will result in damage to or destruction of the residence in the future. Relocation of the residence elsewhere on the site and/or abandonment of portions of the structure were explored as alternatives to structural solutions. Based upon the topography of the site and its underlying lac~ of stability, the anticipated failure plane would be landward of the site's eastern boundary. That is, as measured against the Commission's usual standard (the 75 year economic life of a new structure), it would be expected that the entire site would be subject to failure and Neptune Avenue, the adjacent street, would be endangered as well. Even if structural solutions are to be employed, however, the proposed project, as submitted, raises significant problems. As stated above, the applicants have proposed to construct only upper bluff structures at this time. No schedule for the remaining phase of the development has been proposed. Given that the geotechnical report states that the remainder of the work should commence within three to five years, the Commission cannot in good conscience allow the upper bluff work to occur without some form of committment to proceed with the remaining phases of the project. Not only is the effectiveness of the project threatened, but the placement of unsupported structures on the face of the bluff places users of the public beach below the property at an increased risk of harm or hazard from bluff failure. Similarly, the Commission cannot allow any redevelopment of the project site absent some form of lower bluff protection. Given the location of the anticipated failure plane, it is impossible for any development on the project 6-91-233 Page 12 site, including the vacant parcel on the northern portion of the site, to meet the Commission's typically imposed geologic setback guidelines. That is, the Commission could not make the finding that there is a safely developable area on the site. As a result, this recommendation endorses the installation of a retaining wall on the upper bluff and further requires construction of additional protection at the toe of the sea cliff formation and on the face of the mid-bluff. Given the severity of the existing failure, the inability to safely site a structure on the property in the absence of proection and the recommendations of experts that lower bluff protection be undertaken after the upper bluff work is completed, the Commission finds itself in the unusual position of requiring a committment to the future construction of a seawall. Special Condition #1 outlines the requirements for this formal committment. This condition would require the recordation of a formal agreement requiring the adherence to a strict schedule for processing local permits, seeking Commission approval for and constructing a seawall and mid-bluff stabilization. While the Commission recognizes that this condition will inevitably result in the construction of another obtrusive shoreline protective device, the hazard to the existing principal structure on the site and the requirements of Section 30235 of the Act lead to this unfortunate conclusion. For reasons that will be described in greater detail below, the condition also requires that the protection of the sea cliff formation be constructed as a vertical seawall. Briefly stated, such construction design minimizes impacts to or displacement of sandy beach area potentially available for use by beach visitors. Special Condition #3 requiring an assessment of the feasibility of vert1cal seawall construct1on is also necessary to ensure that, by the approval of the subject permit request for upper bluff protection, the Commission does not eliminate the applicant's ability to construct a vertical seawall of the type required in Special Condition #1. Special Condition #2 has been proposed to require the merger of the two lots. Due to the unique nature of the site and the failure, with the anticipated failure plane encompassing virtually the entire site, the preparation of the site for redevelopment with more than the absolute minimum use is inappropriate. Although the site consists of two legal lots, they are in common ownership. By requiring that the lots be merged, the Commission is attempting to allow retention of the maximum amount of buffer between any future residence and the advancing bluff edge. By allowing the entire site to be considered for the construction of any future residence, the safest portion of the site may be selected. Simply stated, limiting the use of the site to one residence maximizes the applicant's ability to find a safe, stable construction site when compared to attempting to find "multiple sites. However, it should be noted that any future proposal for redevelopment of the site shall require a site specific analysis of the bluff stability and effectiveness of the stabilization measures at that time. Due to the inherently unstable nature of bluffs and the force of natural shoreline 8 8 6 -91--233 Page 13 erosion processes, there are no guarantees that the measures permitted herein will stabilize the site to the point of allowing significant redevelopment opportun it i es. With regard to construction activities that may have occurred at 560 Neptune Avenue prior to the issuance of this permit or the associated emergency permit, the Commission finds that nothing in this approval endorses the previous structures found at the project site. Those unauthorized construction activities may have contributed to the scope of the failure that occurred, thus requiring more extensive remedial measures than might otherwise have been necessary had the unauthorized construction activities not occurred. Even with shoreline protection, there remains an inherent risk in any development along the beachfront. Therefore, the attached Special Condition #5 requires the applicant to execute an assumption of risk document which limits the Commission's liability in permitting the development. This restriction further acknowledges the increased risk of the partial protection proposed to be constructed as Phase I of the permit. This increased risk would occur if either there is an interim period between completion of Phase 1 and the commencement of Phase 2 or if the Phase 2 structure is not constructed. Pursuant to Section 13166(a)(1) of the Commission's administrative regulations, an application may be filed to remove the attached condition from this permit if new information is discovered which (1) tends to refute one or more findings of the Commission regarding the existence of any hazardous condition affecting the property and (2) could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at or before the original hearing on the permit. In order to avoid additional future impacts to the bluff, Special Condition #7 would provide for increased protection, limiting any improvements on the site to those approved in this application. Special Condition #6 would require the submittal of landscape plans which indicate both the removal of any permanent irrigation systems which may be in place in the setback or on the bluff face and the planting of drought tolerant materials on the face of the bluff, if ultimately required for erosion control. The vegetation, if appropriate, would also serve to soften the impact of the structures, and return some of the character of the natural bluffs. Special Condition #8 has been proposed to place the applicants on notice that they will be responsible for removal of any debris resulting from the failure of the wall system or any of its components. Special Condition #8 also places the applicants on notice that a permit may be required for maintenance to the wall system and its associated structures. Finally, Special Condition #11 has been proposed to prohibit the use of any beach sand or cobbles as construction materials. Given these special conditions, the proposed upper bluff protective device is consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Act. In approving the permit for the subject proposal, the Commission is mindful of the precedential aspects of the development, particularly the perceived precedent in the minds 6-91-233 Page 14 of property owners on the bluffs of Leucadia. Given that all or nearly all of the existing bluff top residences are located in close proximity to the bluff edge, and given the relatively unstable nature of the bluffs northerly of the Stone Steps beach access, the fear that the bluff will become entirely armored with seawalls is legitimate. That is, property owners may view the construction protection complexes of the type and scale of that proposed in this permit as the optimal protection solution, and, given its approval in this location, a solution that is endorsed by the Commission. The unique aspects of the subject site distinguish it from the remainder of the Leucadia bluffs. The site is in a state of failure at this time, with a residence that is directly and immediately in danger of foundation damage resulting from bluff retreat. Given the retreat that has already occurred at the site, the potential for constructing any alternate protective devices has been substantially reduced. The limited room for work afforded by the site has dictated this otherwise objectionable design. Additionally, relocation of the residence to inland portions of the property is not advantageous due to the fact that the entire site is within the anticipated failure plane. At this time, the remainder of the bluffs do not necessarily pose the same limitations on the design considerations for shoreline protection. At this time, the configuration of the bluff at most locations would not warrant a structure of the type approved in this application. Other strategies, including but not limited to the construction of low seawalls to protect poorly cemented sandstone at the base of the bluff, where warranted; installation or construction of bluff dewatering devices; drainage improvements in the bluff top area; underpinning or relocation of existing structures; etc., might well be sufficient to protect the existing structures while avoiding structural solutions of the type and scale proposed in this application. Therefore, the Commission finds that the subject seawall has been approved only as a result of the unique circumstances surrounding this application, and this approval should not be considered precedential for the construction of similar seawalls along the Encinitas bluffs. b. Effect of the Project on the Contribution of Bluff Face Materials to the Sand Supply. The project site is within what has been identified as the Oceanside Littoral Cell, which extends from Point La Jolla to Dana Point (approximately 57 miles). The littoral cell has been described in Manis Impact on the California Coastal lone, a report prepared by Scripps Institution of Oceanography under the direction of Dr. Douglas Inman for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, and states the following: Sedimentation processes along the coastline of California can best be understood in terms of the littoral cell concept: A littoral cell is defined as a segment of coastline that encompasses a complete cycle of sediment supply, littoral transport, and ultimate loss of sediment from the coastal development (Inman and Frautschy, 1966). In most cases a littoral cell is supplied with sediment by the rivers and streams that empty into the ocean within its limits. Once deposited at the coast, the sandy material is sorted out by wave action and incorporated into the beach. At this point the sand becomes involved with the littoral 8 8 Ó -91-233 Page 15 transport along the coast. The longshore transport continues until it is intercepted by a submarine canyon or other form of sink where it is lost from the nearshore environment. ... Littoral cells are usually separate entities with their own inputs, transport rates, and losses to sinks with little interchange between cells, consequently, each cell can be characterized by its own sediment budget. The sediment budget is a determination of all the sediment inputs (credits) and losses (debits) relative to the longshore transport rates within the limits of the cell. The "Shore Protection" report states that numerous studies have been conducted on the Oceanside Littoral Cell by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and the cities located between La Jolla and Dana Point. The beach south of the Oceanside Harbor, including the beach in front of the project site, has sustained severe erosion since construction of the Del Mar Boat Basin in the late 1940's and construction of the harbor in the 1960's. The harbor structures prevent the sand from moving downcoast depriving the southern beaches of sand. The Corps has conducted various beach nourishment projects, but have had limited success and the projects have been only temporary solutions. The purpose of the beach nourishment projects is to provide protection and provide a source of sand for beaches. The most recent and notable was the beach nourishment project in 19B2 which placed 920,000 cubic yards of material (sand) derived from the San Luis Rey River between Third Street to Buena Vista Lagoon. The material completely eroded within one year and ~ppears not to have been deposited downcoast. In 1982, Congress appropriated funds for the design and construction of an experimental jet-pump sand bypass system at the harbor. The objective of the sY$tem 1s to reduce shoaling in the harbor entrance and provide continual beach nourishment to the Oceanside Beach. As is stated in the additional findings attached as Exhibit A, the construction of a vertical seawall can have significant impacts upon the local sand supply adjacent to the seawall. Briefly stated, the vertical seawall can cause increased turbulence, accelerating the pace of sand scour, steepening the beach profile and causing the beach to become narrower. The erosion of the bluff itself can contribute beach sand, as the upper terrace materials consist of beach sand, and any sloughage results in additional sand on the beach. In addition to these long-term impacts upon sand supply, beach sand was used as back-fill material during the construction authorized under the emergency permit. While construction of other forms of protection, including riprap revetments, can reduce the amount of scour, these do not eliminate impacts upon sand supply. They also typically occupy additional beach area that would otherwise be available for beach visitor use. It is imperative that a regional wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem be addressed and solutions developed to protect the beaches. Combined with the decrease of sand supply from coastal rivers and creeks and armoring 6-91-233 Page 16 of the coast, which scours what sand is deposited on the beaches from below the seawalls, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This will, in turn, decrease the public's ability to access the shoreline. It would be appropriate for the Commission to be involved in a regional group along with other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, local jurisdictions, and shoreline property owners to address the shoreline erosion problem, and more importantly, to reach and implement solutions to reintroduce beach equilibrium. Conditions #12 and #13 require the applicants, or successors-in-interest, to participate in a regional solution to the shoreline erosion problem if and when such a program is initiated. This would include participation in an assessment district or other funding mechanism for region-wide solutions, and anticipates such region-wide solutions as beach nourishment projects, bluff dewatering projects, etc. Special Condition #13 also places the applicants on notice that such a comprehensive shoreline erosion program may require changes to the structure approved in this permit to assure compatibility with the comprehensive solution. 3. Public Access. The proposed project is located between the first public road and the sea. Sections 30210-30214 of the Coastal Act state that maximum access and recreation opportunities be provided, consistent with, among other things, public safety, the protection of coastal resources, and the need to prevent overcrowding. Section 30211 of the Act states: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. The proposed project site is located adjacent to a beach park which is used by local residents and visitors for a variety of recreational activities including surfing, strolling, running and sunbathing. The site is located between two of the major public access stairways in the City of Encinitas, Stone Steps, serving a City beach park, and Beacons, serving Leucadia State Beach. Even if the future seawall is designed to follow the contour of the bluffs, the seawall would intrude seaward into an area of historic and present public use and will adversely affect access in several different ways. a. Direct Interference with Public Access Along the Beach. The seawall required under Special Condition #1 would generally follow the contour of the bluff-face, but, because of construction techniques and the need to minimize hazards to workers, it is anticipated that the seawall will extend onto sandy beach areas. The coverage of the beach by the such a wall will force the public to walk further seaward, making the area available for the public smaller and making recreational activities such as walking and jogging more difficult. Currently, wave run-up reaches the base of the bluff during summer higher high tide and during moderate tides in winter months. This inhibits public lateral access; but, lateral access is available at all other times. 8 8 6 -91-233 Page 17 Wave run-up will reach the seaward edge of a revetment more quickly thus reducing the public's ability to reach the shoreline. Although enc~oaching on the beach to a lesser degree than other shoreline protective devices (e.g. rock revetments). beach encroachment by a wall will displace recreational uses, thereby creating a burden on the public. b. Indirect Affects of Shoreline Structures. In addition to the direct interference with public access, there are indirect effects from shoreline structures. The shoreline processes. sand supply and beach erosion rates are affected by shoreline structures and thus alter public access and recreation opportunities. (See Section 2 - Geologic Conditions and Hazards) The precise impact of shoreline structures on the beach is a persistent subject of controversy within the discipline of coastal engineering. However, the Commission is lead to the conclusion that if a seawall works effectively on a retreating shoreline, it results in the loss of the beach. at least seasonally. If the shoreline continues to retreat. however slowly. the seawall will be where the beach would be (absent the seawall). This represents the loss of beach as a direct result of the seawall. (For additional Commission findings refer to Exhibit A - pages 5 & 6). c. Relationship of Project to Tidal Boundary. It is generally accepted that the dividing line between public tidelands and private upland to tidal boundary in California is the mean high water datum (MHW). From an engineering point of view a water boundary determined by tidal definition is not a fixed mark on the ground. such as a roadway or a fence. rather it represents a condition at the water's edge during a particular instant of tidal cycle. The line where that datum intersects the shoreline will vary seasonally. Reference points such as Mean Sea Level and Mean High Water Datum. are calculated and reflect the average height of the tide levels over a period of time. Special Condition #9 requires a State Lands review and determination whether the proposed project involves State Lands and issuance of a State Lands permit, if required. prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit. d. Mitigation of Impacts on Public Access. Development along the shoreline which may burden public access in several respects has been approved by the Commission, but with conditions for mitigating any adverse impacts of the development on access. The Commission's permit history reflects the experience that development can physically impede public access directly, through construction adjacent to the mean high tide line in areas of narrow beaches. or through the placement or construction of protective devices seawalls. rip-rap. and revetments). Since physical impediments adversely impact public access and create private benefit for the property owners. the Commission has found in such cases (in permit findings of #4-87-161 [Pierce Family Trust and Morgan]. #6-87-371 [Van Buskirk]. #5-87-576 [Miser and Cooper]) that a public benefit must arise through mitigation conditions in order that the development will be consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act as stated in Sections 30210. 30211. and 30212. 6-91-233 Page 18 The development proposed in this application includes the construction of a seawall. In this location, property ownership extends to a distinct western property line. The proposed structures will be constructed entirely on private property. Shoreline structures have been shown to have adverse impacts upon the beach. In order to mitigate the known adverse impacts, the Commission typically requires an offer of dedication of lateral public access in order to balance the burden placed on the public with a public benefit. In the case of the subject property, however, the Commission cannot fix the westerly edge of the proposed structure for the purposes of defining a lateral access easement. The Commission will, however, require such an easement in its future actions on the beach level protective device. In addition, at this time the proposed Phase 2 project alternatives include either a rock revetment or a bolsacretta energy dissipator structure. Either of these structures would physically occupy potentially sandy beach area. Because the exact design of the wall is not known at this time, the potential for displacement of public beach park also exists with such structures. As a result, Special Condition #1 requires that any sea cliff protection take the form of a vertical seawall. Though the such a seawall would be required to follow the contour of the bluff to the maximum extent feasible, the seawall will reduce lateral beach access by encroaching onto the beach and will have adverse impacts on the natural shoreline processes. The Commission finds that the probable negative impacts of this seawall must be weighed against the property owners' need to protect the structure behind it. The Commission recognizes that any type of shoreline protective device will probably change the beach profile by steepening it and increasing beach erosion around it; this in turn will interfere with and decrease the amount of sandy beach available for public access. As stated elsewhere in these findings, Section 30235 allows for the use of such a device where it is required to protect an existing structure(s) and where it has been designed to mitigate adverse impacts upon local shoreline sand supply (See Exhibit A - Background Findings). Thus, only as conditioned to require the protection of public access and to acknowledge potential prescriptive rights and the public trust can the Commission find the project consistent with Sections 30235, 30210 and 30212 of the Coastal Act. (See Exhibit A - Background Findings involving effects of seawalls on beaches and public access opportunities.) 4. Visual Impacts. Section 30251 of the Act states: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan 8 8 6 -91-233 Page 19 prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. As stated above, the proposed developments will occurr immediately adjacent to both State and City public beach parks. The proposed stabilization devices will result in a massive, unsightly structure that will have significant impacts upon the views from the beach. Some form of mitigation for the visual impacts of the development is clearly warranted. Special Condition #4 would require the submittal of final plans which also include a treatment plan for the face of the wall structures. The face materials should be textured and colored to match, to the extent feasible, the surrounding bluff materials in order to minimize the impacts to the visual resources of the coastal bluffs. In addition, Special Condition #6 would require the submittal of a landscape plan that will serve to reduce the contrast between this section of the bluff and the surrounding area for those portions of the project site where landscaping is appropriate. These actions will reduce the impacts of the development to the maximum extent feasible. The Commission finds that the subject development, as conditioned, is consistent to the maximum degree feasible with Section 30251 of the Act. 5. Local Coastal Planning. Section 30604 (a) also requires that a coastal development permit shall be issued only if the Commission finds that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) i n conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In this case, such a finding can be made. As stated above, the subject proposal, as conditioned, is consistent to the maximum extent feasible with the applicable policies of Chapter 3 of the Act. The subject site was previously in the County of San Diego Local Coastal Program (LCP) jurisdiction, but is now within the boundaries of the City of Enc;nitas. The City is in the process of preparing for the Commission's review a new or revised LCP for the area. Because of the incorporation of the City, the certified County Local Coastal Program no longer serves as the valid LCP for the area. However, the issues regarding protection of coastal resources in the area have been addressed by the Commission in its review of the County of San Diego LUP and Implementing Ordinances. As such, the Commission will continue to utilize the County LCP documents for guidance in its review of development proposals in the City of Encinitas until such time as a new or revised LCP is submitted by the City. The San Diego County LCP contains special overlay areas where sensitive coastal resources are to be protected. The subject property falls within the "CO" or Coastal Development overlay area. The CO regulations sought to limit the construction of seawalls to those areas that truly were subject to hazard, similar to the requirements of Section 30235 of the Act. In addition, the City of Encinitas has prepared a draft "Coastal Bluff Overlay (CBO)" ordinance which contains many of the provisions of the previously applied CO overlay. 6-91-233 Page 20 As described above under the finding on shoreline hazards, the Commission finds that the sites for which the shoreline protection is proposed are subject to a significant hazard of bluff retreat which threatens existing development. The proposal for shoreline protection is thus consistent with Section 30235 of the Act, and with the basic requirements of the CD and CBO ordinances. The CBO ordinance as currently adopted by the City contains provisions for prohibiting the development of shoreline protective devices in advance of a comprehensive solution for shoreline protection and sand replenishment. The sudden and unexpected bluff retreat at the subject site demands that development occur in advance of the formulation of such comprehensive solutions. The Commission does not find, however, that the construction of these devices in advance of the implementation of a comprehensive solution relieves the property owners or successors in interest from participation in such a program when it is formulated. Special Conditions #12 and #13 would require such participation in the City's comprehensive program. Given these conditions, the Commission finds the proposed development, as conditioned, conforms to Coastal Act Chapter 3 policies and with the draft CBO ordinance in the City's interim zoning code. An emergency permit for the upper bluff stabilization would authoriz the extent of work necessary to address the emergency situation. All other portions should be subject to the regular local governent permit process. Regular permits for emergency work are not issued unapproved by local government. However, there may be time delays during the local government approval process that is anticipated to follow Commission approval. Given the emergency nature of the development, the Executive Director has waived the Commission's normal practice of requiring local approvals prior to acceptance of a coastal development permit application for the regular permit for the emergency work and for the remainder of the work not authorized under the emergency permit. As a result. the project has not been given the benefit of local design reviews and approvals, and all local permits are still pending. During the process of local approval, the project may well be subject to some design modifications at the request of local government. Special Condition #1 recognizes the importance of the local approval process, and will require that, prior to the issuance of the permit. the applicant enter into a recorded agreement to insure that (a) all local governental approvals are obtained and (b) such approvals are sought and obtained in a timely fashion that does not leave the upper bluff structure unprotected beyond its identified, unprotected life expectancy. Given these protections against the circumvention of the local approval process, the potential for prejudicing the City's ability to prepare a certifiable LCP has been lessened. The development's approval, as conditioned, therefore, should not prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to complete a certifiable Local Coastal Program. 8 8 6 -91-233 Page 21 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. ó. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual. and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. (1233R) NoText ", ..... ~ ~. y-- ~ ~ ,~ .. ,.' " 8 - ~ \.T~::... / . ~:':~~t' ~. ." -0" I Commissbn «è California Coasta , I ::- >: ~:: ::; ::~ ~:: ~': ::'; :-: ;:~ ::) ->-- I ,-,~, ," " ," 0' 0' '~-'---..-:"I . ' ' , ," "\ ." '" " ' .., , , '-"" '.., .' " t., ""'-~""""""'-'/<" ,-". 0 ,I ~ ¡ ~'---~c.---ù- ,,-_-Z.t._.--:.:.L~-..:..:. ~ r) n ~ Õ ; õi n 0 1:: !i n 0 3 3 ¡j' õ' " N ~ ---1'-'----'-------'- í ' -, ,'- , .. ~-- / " o~~;Eq¡\.l ,,"OHS " All r"",ror~...-"t .1'...11 bo 9r"J" 60 ...,, ti..!'ac~ ,-..i,..f"rc..,.",,".:' 'hr.", b. <;:r~<1, '~I) ~', ...11 ':Qr,~r.t3 r.\otorc""H"t .~:>11 ~I) -'00("1 c<,..~~d, 3 All ~ioD~ck ~ond~Q' ah.11 be dccb'. Cú,rú,4on pro~.(t..d ~ 1.11 ,,'ci/JL,1I ."chor, ~h.:l~" "PC'( -:c-..t"d, ~, AI~ s,>ot.:r..t.. .hall ..lt~l" ",!"I,-""" 3CCú pot !i 1ð .~.,3 6, .,11 shote,..l.. .hall "'.. c"~or.d ..."", p'....".,; to r.a\d' "'¡"',:n" foil " St~o1 ,..los .....11 ':>0 .p,,~y coat.:: - -- ---;:-'-'--,,~ _1 ! I : _L__~,---:-:-:~" ~-- --- , . ", ~_.._L_- -- J¡-------- -' ' !/ -- ,Ii / f--- - ----..: ' 1/ ,- I!E',"'~CJ~':;E,O "><°, ¡C'HH );" ! /' -------- COl,",qF.O 'i0 ~..TCH BLl,;ff I / -------... ~'D 4¡'C,,'HS CvvEAEO wI l ----... ~CL;LI:~q 'lIdSi' Or. LEFT ;; ------ "P'~SED fCR QETEi,l><ú I/'~---- , .,.. /<-." .--- ROC~/S')ll A~CJ-.O~:> >(/ l' " ,/' ' ,-; ----- """:HC~ ~I.AõE (~[£ DETAIL ,. ':0"£11 pvÇ--COATCC- '~I""'.!>I Lit'" ,.<_n, ',' 0""- '"", '.,..- ~ , - ',' ',' /,'// \/ ,..~,:- -~J~ ~'::;;I BOl,5}oCI!E :1.\ "CAvE CE-¡;L;~¡¡311E~ ~ // ....40E oil I GEL~' OF COt..CPED <.:o-'iC - :x.="-:-l ('COO 1'5 I HiltiMUH) ~ ' 11E:~4C~ ""C"O~S .....!) ,.. 11" TH!~K P( '~fC~((O ~HOTCA~TE ./ r-(:_,~!I ~:) 1'1"1C'4 EX:~'f1~'J ~l.iJ!f "" , ------.... . ' I-: , '" ,', ., ,0, ',', " ,-, ',' " .. ---- /.' / --..-- - -' -- ~ .",., '---'--;-," , "', ::/." \<" - .. " -- - -- - - - - - -,- - - nEv..Tlor~ 'liE" SCALE: "': 1O' ~t.-'I!CTIC*t SoOr.t..e: ," 2 10' ~RAC~ET ~E!IDENCE ~,~ ~£?TL~E "VENUE, eLUfF 5T,,~'LIZA~O~ opnQ~ 2 p".\SE It PH"H, 2: f I , .?f. I ,f FIGURe 1 t:¡¡CIHI""S, CAllr-::o~t\A CONTP.ACTOR: p~C1FIC o!o s~I~. IKC. 1191 IUC1tVUA A~)V1 CA~L9.....t). CA H-fl04 SOIL [!oO<JP<HII: ÇO~1i ~SVl,T"HT$. ~"'H {\I«':O STqUCTU~AL l~aME[~' VAN K. Y~+9. S,E. PEI"FORCED ShOTC~~T[ wI TIEeACK A"CHOR~, ROCK/SOIL ^~CHC;¡5 }lITI! f'V<:: CC~'EO r.",411'~IN( "- ".-...,,- ; r. . I I ¡ , I ~ c, \ I ~ ¡: r t ;( I I > c ,- I I " r - I ~ ¡r I l :: 8 8 ~' ;. c ~'-': í~ :~I ~~~ £.J~~'U~;-~ : Short'li,:f>. Pr;:>tl'r~i:Jn Dc\,'icL'~ .;r,j Thrlr 1rJJrts or' Coz:~::l '\cce~s The Cnastal Act poli:ies related to constr~ction of shoreline protective devices are as fol1oW5~ Section 30235. '. Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, sea~alls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when ,required to $erve coastal-dependent uses or to protect' . existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosions . and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributíng to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded ~here feasible. . . Section 30253. New development shall: (1) ~inimize risks to life and property in are~s °f'high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.. .'.. (2) Assure st~bility and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significant1Y to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices. that would substantially ~lter natural' lðndforms along bluffs and cliffs. . . Refer to previous project description and ~pecific findings on wave Hazards, and Shoreline protective device~. . A. There;s an onqoina debate over the effects of seawalls on shoreline 'stability. The proposed project involves a shoreline structure which will affect the configuration of the shoreline and the beach profile and hav~ an adverse impact on the shoreline. The preci~e impact of shoreline structures . on the beach is a persistent subject of controv~rsy within the discipline of coastal ëngineering, and particularly between coastal engineers and marine geologists. Much of the debate focuses on whether seawalls or other factors (such as the rise of sea level) are the primary cause ~f shoreline 'retreat. This debate tends to obscure the distinction between the long term trends of. the shoreline, and the effects of seawalls on those long-term trends, and the shorter term effects that might not be permanent but mðy significantly alt~r the width and utility of a beach over the course of a year. The long term and short term effects of seawalls will be discussed separJt~ly belo~ St::;~,-Ll¡;[ I'FJT[CTI(j~I/¡\(C(SS r!NU~,:;S pc;~<: 2 The Coastal Act recogni:es that protective devices may be needed to protect existing structure~, that ~uch $rr~cture~ may alter shoreline processes, and that those alterations shou1d be minimized and mitigated. T~e ongoing debate , in the literature does ackno~ledge that seawalls h~ve some effect, at least o~ the supply of sand.' A' succinct statement of the advene effects of seawal1s, and the viewpoint of coastal geolo~sts that view beach processes from the perspective of geologic time, is contained in Savinq the American Beach' A Position Paper bv Concerned Coastal Geoloqists (March 1981, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography) which was signed by 94 experts in the field of coastal' . geology (page 4): These structures are fixed in space and represent considerable effort and expense to construct and maintain, They are designed for as long a life as possible and hence are not easily moved or replaced. They become permanent fixtures in our coastal. sc'enery but their performance is poor in protecting co~~unity and municipalities from beach retreat .and destruction.,. Even more.damaging 'is the fact that thes~ shoreline defense structures frequently enhance erosion by 'reducing beach width, steepening offshore gradients, and, increasing wave heights. As a result, they seriously degrade . the environment and eventually help to destroy t~e areas they were designed to prote~t. ~ It is widely recognized that large structures such as groins and breakwaters will have significant and obvious impacts on sand supply and beach profiles, but even a relatively small structure such as the one proposed can have an , impact on the site and the adjoining area. As stated in a publication by the State Department of Boating and Waterways .(formerly cal1ed Navigation and Ccean Development), Shore Protection ;n California (1976) (page 30): '. While seawalls may protect the upland, they do not hold or protect the beach which is the greatest asset of shorefront property. In some cases, the seawall may be detrimental to the beach in that the downward forces of water, created by the ~aves striking th~ wall rapid)y remove sand from the beach. " This impact is reiterated in the.paper, .Economic Profiling of Beach Fills. by Herman Christiansen whi~h is contained in the proceedings of Coa~tal Sediments ~7 (November 1977). It states (page 1047): - Observations at some of the investigated beaches have shown ,that an optimal profile becomes instable, if structures. such as rock~, groins, revetments, piles, stairs etc.., are placed within the wave action zone of a beach. Steady erosions, caused by complex high turbulent ~urf currents, lead to heavy sand losses. 8 8 ~1\[)r:tL¡/',- fr,ulLCltUN.'I\\..~tS~ F!IIÍJh~..I p.j'.JC ~ In contrJst to He ~'.:r:,pc:ti'¡t' úf c\.Jjj:Jì Qcoloçistj, .J nU;;,~jl'r of COJjtJl engineers Jrgue tliJ:' j("":""'Jl1~ ::re ~yqJtC,~1S of co¿sL:l c:rJSìOr. r¿thcr t~IJ:l causes. At least in part, the perspective or coastðl engin~('rs rtflects their perspe:tivc of a tim~ scali that involves the life of a structure. This viewpoint is perhaps best expressed by th~ renowned expert in beach processes R. G. Dean, who attributes change~--in beach profiles to erosion r¿ther than structures, in this discussion from "Coastal Sediment Processes: Toward Engineering Solutions. in Coastal Sediments 187 (page 2~): Placed along a shoreline with an erosional trend, arrnoring , can perform the intended function of upland stabilization while the adjacent shoreline segments continue to erode. The resulting offset between stabilized and unstabilized segments may be interpreted incorrectly that the armoring has caused the adjacent erosion. Dean's article goes on tQ acknowledge potential adverse effects'and the' responsibility for ffiitigation of those efiects (page 23): .,.Armoring can cause localized additional storm scour, both in front of and at the'ends of the armoring...Under normal wave and "tide conditions, armoring can contribute to the downdrift deficit of seåiment through decreasing the supply on an eroding coast and interruption of supply if the armoring projects ,into the active littoral Zone. If armoring is deemed warranted to protect a threatened structure and if rational assessment concludes that installation of the armo~ng would adversely affect the, shoreline, mitigation in the fonn of periodic additions of beach quality sediment should be considered. "~Research on the effects of seawalls continues, and many of the results are not yet available. Much of the research is anecdotal, with diminished beach width evident, but the major causes not clearly identified. The potential 'role of seawalls remains .disturbing, as noted in the conclusion to .Coasta1 Erosion on the Barrier Islands of Pinellas County, West-central Florida', by William O. Sayre, also in Coastal Sediments 187 (page 104~): In two years of surveying, beac~ erosion and recovery on thé barrier islands of Pinellas County has been measured. An undeveloped island's beach recovered quickly after '-'winter-time and hurricane-caused erosion. A highly' developed beach without a seawall and near a jetty fared" aimost as well, recovering more slo~ly, but showing no net erosion over the t~o year period. The two other sites, on 'highly developed barriers and backed by sea~alls, have' ~uffered greatly. One narrow beach was completely destroyed by a hurricane and only partially recovered. The other was reduced by at 1east a quarter and was artificially nourishtd ~i,,~:I~,-~~,: IJí:L,1[Cílu:L',\CC[~S Flr;Jl,'.~~ I' c; ~ e '1 The Corr.1\i~sicn nGte~ the cc~::i:\uin'J éL':",:tè o':er H,e e::'[::~ of~c~,,~11~. Hie lack of convergence in the 1itcr~ture. and the strong iden:ifi:ati~n of viewpoints with the discipTines of coa~tal engineering and marine geology. The Commission does flot belieY~ that it is entirely òccidcntJ~ U:lt this debate has arisen between discipl~es with such fundam~ntally different perspectives on the time scale involved in analyzing physical processes. The Çommission believes that more information can be shed on this subject through explicit consideration of long't~rm and short term processes active on a beach. B. The effects of a protective device on an erodinq shoreline. The location of a proposed shoreline structure on the seasonal profiles of a beach (that. is. the proximity of the structure to the waves), and the overall erosion pattern of a beach, are two key factors that determine the impact of seawalls. Although debate persists as to whether a shoreline structure is the cause or merely a symptom, it is generally agreed that where a beach is eroding, a seãWall will come to define the boundary between the sea and the upland. H.V. McDonald and D.C. Patterson-state, in PBeach Response to Coastal Works Gold Coast, AustraliaM in Coastal Engineerinq 1984 (page 1537): , . On the persistently eroding beaches at North'Kirra and Palm Beach, the receding beachline has effectively placed the seawall pro~ressively further and further seaward on the . beach profile until no beach exists at all in front of the wall. Clearly, the establishment of fixed seawall alignments on pers1sten~ly ereding sections of beach wi~ lead eventually to loss of the beach as a useful recreational amenity. . . ' Whether or not the seawall or erosion leads to the loss of the beach continues to be debäted in the literature, but the distinction does not alter the . result: when the beach in front of the structure disappears over time the ". natural shoreward migration of the beach is blocked by the structure. .The net effect is documented in a recent National Academy of Sciences Study MResponding to Changes ;n Sea L~vel, Engineering Implications. (1937), which provides (page 74): A common result of sea wall and bulkhead placement along the open coastline is the loss of the beach fronting the structure. This .phenomenon, however, is not well understood. It appears that during a storm the volume of sand eroded at the base of a sea wall is nearly equivalent to the volume of upland erosion prevented by the sea wall. Thus, the offshore profile has a certain .demand. for sand " and this is .satisfied. by erosion of the upland on a naturål beach or as close as possible to the natural area of erosion on an armored shoreline... . 8 8 ~I:'):: ~_l:,: f'I:~jTLCTL\~1/r\=c: ~~ F It;~¡';:'- 1',1:; L' 5 ~ihile the experts cor,:inc;è tJ d1~CUSS l.t1C eXJct ffiJniler in ...':nch SCJl-iJl1s affect shoreline processes, l.h~ Com,l1;ssion must make decis1ons ¿bout specific projects. The Co::-.mi ss ion 6:;¡tcs that the debate focuses on Hie cause of erosion rather than the loss of the beJch, and begs the criti~al fJct~Jl question of '..'hether 'or not the bcJSJI d;s.:~pears. , On an eroding shoreline fronted by a beach, a beach will be present as long as some sand is supplied to the shoreline. As erosion proceeds, from sea level rise or from other causes, the entire profile of the beach also retreats. However, this process stops when the retreating shoreline comes to a seawall. While the shoreline on either side of the seawall continues to retreat, shoreline retreat in front of the seawall stops. Eventually, the shoreline protected by the seawall protrudes into the water, with the winter MHT fixed at the base of the structure. The Commission is led inexorably to the 'conclusion that if the seawall works effectively on a retreating shoreline, it .results in the loss of the beach, at least seasonally. If the shoreline continues to retreat, however slowly, the-seawall will be where the beach ~as, and where the beach would be absent the presence of the seawall. This represents the loss of a beach/as a direct result .of the seawall. The . Comnissïon has observed.this phenomena up and down California's coast, where a seawall has successfully halted the retre~t of the shoreline,'but only at the ~cost of usurping the beach. Although this may occur only slowly, the Commission concludes that it is the inevitable effect of constructing a seawall on an eroding shoreline. For such areas, even as erosion proceeds, a . beach would be present ;n the absence of a seawall. The Com~iss;on's previous observations about the effects of seawalls on access have been upheld in previous decisions. In the case of Whalers. Villaqe-Club v. Cal. Coastal Corrmission (1985) 173 Ca1.App.3d. 240, 259-261 [220 CR 2), Cert. Denied 106 S.Ct. 1962 (1986), the Court of Appeal analyzed in the. . following te~s the legal sufficiency of the adverse impacts discussed in . 'these findings to justify a lateral'acc~ss dedication: .. Respondent challenges the nexùs between the Commission.s finding that the revetment imposes a burden on the public which justifies imposition of the access condition and the evidence in the record. .[Citation omitted.) In paint, respondent argues that the Co~mission found a public Mburden8 because seawalls in general tend to cause additional sand scour on any historically eroding beach but did not find that' this particular revetment cause such damage. [Emph~sis in original.] I , . I There is substantial evidence in the administrative record t9 'support the staff's conclusion that seawalls and revetments tend to cause sand loss from beach areas in front of and adjacent to thel/l even i f th~y protect inrnediate structures. ~1\G;:FLlt;[ 1'¡(Qli=ílJ~;/"'CUS::' f!ND¡riC~ ¡;l;~e (¡ Stucie~ cited lr, ~t.3íf r'c~()I'~~...cclfir;:\ the c,~.:;ff's fi~~'Jb,) HIJt Uby <lrtiíici..111y buiìdin~ u~ : t\(o' ~lG~e of the )~~orl;' area, SCJ'n'Jlls and r~vetn;ent5 oí this type tend to C'::U5C (l land'n'ard retreat of the mean hi9t', tide line,....u Staff reports...referrcd to surveys of the Army Corps of Engineers and other experts concerning shoreline erosion along the California coast and; in particular, beach erosion in Ventura County. The Commission [thus] had sufficient information before it to conclude that, due to construction of this revetment and others up and down the coast, the' erosive nature of the beaches in Ventura County coupled with the tendency of seawalls and revetments to increase the sand loss on beaches with a tendency to recede constitutes a . .cumulative adverse impact and placés a burden on public access to and along State tide and_submerged lands for which corresponding compensation by means of public access is reasonable. [Emphasis;n original; citations omitted.] C. The effects. of shoreline structures on an 'eQuilibriumu ,shoreline. The term equilibrium cannot accurately be applied to a feature that varies as much' as a shoreline. Almost all California beaches vary dramatically in profile between winter and summer; the variation in the width of beach that can' accompany that seasonal change can.be over 200 feet. The persistent analytical problem in dealing with shQre processes in California is to try to discern long-term trends in shoreline change from the normal, seasonal variation. The term "dynamic equilibriumu has- come into use and has been applied to beaches that vary seasonally in width, but are approximatelY the same when summer (or winter) profiles are compared over a number of years. . Essentially, a beach in dynamic equilibrium is one where the supply and lo$s ""of sand are in approximate balance (See Griggs and Jones, 1984). This term must be used with some caution, as there will be some variation in width even seasonally, 'shown graphically by J. W. Johnson in .Seasonal Bottom Changes, '801inas Bay, California., Proceedinqs of the Twelfth Coastal EnQineerinq Conference, September 13-18,1970. That variability can mask long term changes (either erosion or accretion) unless sufficient data is available t~ detect a clear direction. This discussion will be equally applicable to shorelines that are in truly in -dynamic 'eQuilibrilHT1u, that is, not eroding on the long term, and to shorelines that are eroding at a relatively slo~ rate so that seasoni'l changes are approximately the same when viewed in thi! time frame of a few-:Oyears. . , The question of the effects of seawalls on shorelines that are in 'dynamic equi1ibriuml is more comp1icated, and research on the effects is even more anecdotal. At the same time, because the short-term effects may be of great importance, much more rigorous data collection is required in order to establish any clear effects. TIle Corps of Engineers has begun funding 8 8 ~i:..J,<LIt,[ r'iWrl.C110u/r,:C[s~ r:~lült;GS [':1]1: 7 rcscarcrJ cffo~t~ ~r,:o '_r~~ t.:ffc:t', c( sc:J'.-.'.:.:lli throi.:Cjh t:.L'ir Co':':~:Jl Engineerir'9 r.l?~cJ~ch C::~1tc:: (CCí(C). aile of He? rcscJrct, cffcr:s fL.::,ced by CERC is thJt of Professor ~jry CriJC)s of UC Santa Cruz. Frofessor GrigQs is monitoring the profiles of Dcaches in Monterey Bay over the course of several years. and comparing the profiles of be~ches with $eawalls tJ control beaches without seawalls. Prafessaf Grig~ has completed work during the relatively storm-free winter of 1985-86, and presented his results c~ October 30, 1987 before the 1987 Conference of the California Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Professor Griggs is the author of various popular and technical wor(s on beach processes and recently chaired. a technical discussion of the effects of seawalls on beaches at .Coastal Sediments '87ß, a specialty engineering conference in coastal sediment processes. Griggs' work appears to establish two distinct effects of seawalls. first, beach profiles in front of seawalls differ from profi1es along the control beaches selected during the process of beach erosion. Although the beach profiles are similar at their most accreted (su~~er profile) stage and at their most eroded (winter profile) stage, the beaches mo~itored were narrower and steeper in front of seawalls during the period when the beach was erodjng from the surr.mer profile to the. winter profile. . This difference represents a temporal loss in beach width in the short term, even where the time series is of too short a duration to detect erosion patterns on the beach. Second, beach profiles at the end of a seawall are further landwèrd than natural profiles. This effect appears to ~xtend for a distance of about 6/10 the length of the seawall. This effect represents both a spacial ~nd temporal loss of beach width directly attributable to seawall construction. Dr. Griggs' own conclusion about the : effects of seawalls. in a manuscrtpt submitted to the Journal of Coastal Restoration titled .-The 1m~3ct5 of Seawalls on Beaches- is: .' .. . Based on 12 months or surveying at 4 loc~tions in northern Monterey Bay (including a winter of only mild or.moderate wave conditions) where seawalls or revetments abut unprotected beaches, some consistent seasonal beach changes have been documented. These chang~s or . differences in beach profi leš are a result of greater wave reflection from the protective structures than from the adjacent control beaches. All of these changes observed in this study appear to be temporary or seasonal in naturé and are best developed in the fall and winter months during the transition from summer swell to winter storm conditions. The seasonal effects documented include: - 1) loss of the surrrner benn sooner in front of all seawalls relative to adjacent unprotected control beaches. I 2) Erosion of the benn in front of a vertical impenneable seawall (due to greater wave reflection) befor~ benn loss on an adjacent beach bacKed by a permeable sloping revetment. 3) A lack of significant difference in winter beach profiles seaward af sea~~lls or revetments and adjacent contro 1 beaches. ~¡:~-,:-_L!tF- f)r(QHCTIO~jj¡'ìCCESj r:tI~Jl:i::~) f';¡ 'J e D ~) Loss of ~eJch u~ :0 l~a n ~J~1COJ~t frc~ ~c~~~ll~ Jue to reflection frem ~~J of ~tr~ctJrc. 5) late sprin~/s~ITroer berm rebJilding takes place independently of any' protective structure leaving a uniform alongshore berm crest. The Commission concludes frc~ this infor~ation that sea~~lls have serious adverse effects on the width of the beach, even ~hen examined over a relatively short period on a beach that might not be eroding. Although the beach profile at its widest and narrowest may not differ significantly, the beach width and utility ~ill differ markedly during the period when the beach is changing from summer to winter profile. These effects have been observed by the Commissions staff over the years, and can lead to a situation where' there is a narrow but usable beach on an unprotected portion of the beach; while the adjacent. p~otected beach is not passable. The 1981 statement signed by 94 respected ~oastal geologists indicat~s that important public interests in shoreline resources can be harmed through the" introduction of shoreline defense structures. Thus, in evaluating an . individual project. the CorMlission must assume that the principles -reflected in that statement are applicable-. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the Co~mission1s respons1bilities under the Coastal Act to protect the public's interest in shoreline resources. .-- D. 1.. Mechanisms of 1mpact. Concerns involving specific seawall designs . a. vertical seawalls: . , Concerns about adve~se impacts on sand supply particularly apply to ve~1cal seawalls such as the one proposed because they reflect most wave energy. This , ;s a well-known impact of vertical seawalls. For example. the generally accepted .standardD for designing sfioreline structures. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Protection Manual (1983) has several references to the' proficiency.of vertical seawalls to reflect wave energy and as a result scour the beach it fronts (see pages l-1ó. 2-113. 5-4. 6-15). This impact can be lessened somewhat by the placement of rocK (or rubble) at the base of the wall. but nevertheless, the wall will still cause scour and steepening of the beach profile. b. rock revet~ents (rip-rap) - Although they do not have as great an impact as smooth, vertical s~awa"s, rock revetments. such as the one proposed by this application. have effects on" the beach sand in front of and around the structure. A rock seawall operate$ on the principal that the wavels energy is dissipated within the voids of the wall, therefore producing )ess reflected wave energy. However. the rock seawall wil) sti)l reflect enough energy to chan9c the beach profile. steepen 8 8 ~HO~EL!I\[ f'¡(QTfC1!G~I/,\[C[jS ~l~¡~!t~::S f'JC)e '} the be a u',. ò n j C J c:; e .;: u 1 er J to cJ e r J:; 1 u; \ C f tt: c d J,.' ;',:: ú':: ~ t ¿¡ c' ~ , O:¡ cine c h J n i s rn that iJccounts for roc,- \.I..l115 , ìl~';:;.lct on UC.:Jct\~s 1:; st.:teJ 1n "itlt' Role of Wèlve Reflection in Ccasta1 Processes" in CoJstJl Sediments 177 by Rlchard Silvester (page óSJ): Rubble~mound structures can reflect long period wave components with little dissipation and hence short-crested phenomena [waves) in front of and do~ncoast from them should be considered in design and maintenance. Hore~ver, the literature on çoastal engineering repeatedly warns thåt unprotected properties adjacent to the sea~all may experience increased erosion. A rock wall very often protrudes seaward from development and exacerbates this sit~ation. Field observations ~ave ~erified this concern, see for example the paper by Gerald G. Kuhn of. the Scripps Institution of Oceanography entitled "Coastal Erosion alang Oceanside Littoral Call, San Oiegc County. California~ (1981). In this paper. it is written and pictorially illustrated that erosion on properties adjacent to rock seawall ;s intensified when wave run:up is high. This subject is presently being' researched by scientists at Oregon State University., The preliminary results .of that work was reported in ,.Laboratory and Field Investigations of t~e Impact of Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Adjacent PropertiesK by W.G. McDougal. M.A. Sturtevant. and P.D. Komar in coastal Sediments '87. These researchers are investigating the length of shore15ne affected by height~ned erosion adjacent to seawalls. Their conclusion is (page 912): Results to date indicate that erosion at the ends of seawalls increases as the structure length increases. It was observed in both the experimental results and th~ field data cf Walton and Sensabau~h (1978) that the depth of excess erosion is approximately 10% of the' sea""..Jall length. The lab,oratory data also revealed that the along-coast length of exc~ss erosion at each end of the structure is approximately 70% of the structure 1 ength. . 2..Concerns involving both types of seaç.ralls A discussion of the physical processes of wave run-up on a natural shore will' help establish the effects of seawalls on shoreline processes. Sandy beaches are dynamic systems, the individual grains of sand adjust QuicKly to reflect both the overall supply of sediment and the ongoing forces of waves. A typical non-storm profile of the beach looks liKe this: (from .Shore Protection in California, OHOD, 1916) ::'1:[F:lLlU[~ 10;:~¡~,~rllHlli\~CESS F".J¡~;~~, I',\l) e 10 :,'" ""-DwneCrc~I,". ~.", ' ",'I ',j':,:, "0":'" ,:" ' """,,' ,-.' ,'J:,,:',"""""",',"":'::"':,,', ',',," .;, '~!!í\'I' ::..~..."":,.::"".,.:."",,,:::,.,""":"':" - ,.:.,," -' ":." '.1-},~:,,~:;,..::"p'r¿j¡{c 'A~'-:,'N'ormcl""ovc odio~' ',:'::<;'"", "..:' ~~ ~:,tl~>:::::: h~ :¡~;"~:\'i~'>:,:": ",:" :', : "::":'~':~~~.":"~'~:':':~,~::~.~',2.~ , ' .., , ' At this profile. the shore has adjusted to a low-energy wave environment. reflecting the short period, low energy waves, that strike the b~ach. The diagram shows how a beach-adjusts to longer period. higher energy .waves: next "C ,:",,'1.1'" " ..' , ,I frsl ';"l:"""""""" ,,""", ,,' Lo.crin9""~':~:-"";"::"" ~I;'~;":"'~ "" ..:: ' '~" ' ",..:~:::,':'¿;~::f.'::,:,J. . ",.." ,.,'>,"",' ~ ',"'CrtSI-;"""~',",'" "',',""" 'Rc'cssion' .,:~'.:~".~~ :.. " ,:,';,', ' ; ":,--'-"" , " ~¡~':1r~ii" !~~1~~~j> ,~j~'l ?,: i;,:;:H,:, ~l:::ii::'~',: ' ¡ \ ';:{~:~:~. "~,:",,,,";,,;,,"',""I':" ON"" '...,' ,;-,,"',"',..'. 'MHW' M~:~~:~~ ~~,: ~\., S ~:; ir~;~ t~'t:':::~ ~~'ë:; i ~,;~~, ,;"::; ~,: ;L'á~ ,i~;: - ~ ~ ¡'~ ? >~ ~ ~ ::'.,~,~<-'..,':.~',:~Profjlr'B;"'Alltr,slolm wou olloÜ' ,',,":";':'::' '¡'¡;tf' '..::J;;::':,: ' t.I,k:lL. ,~I"""..',',lr' """,', ,"", """~"""'" ""I 1""":0',',' ,:~""-":,,,':"'.""norIilQI"c'~toclion' " ".":,:,,,.." ,'\ "/""~'" ".. " , ' ~ltilütt¡iiíJl~~ff~~ ;}t~, ,', ,':;: I:;:. ,,',:: :~~~~:~ä~{~~~L~ i;{'1!o ¡ ;!};t~;¡~ , . This cross section illustrates several important things about the beaches. adjustmœnt to the higher energy of striking waves. First. the wave energy has eroded material from the foreshore and deposited the material off-shore in a bar. Second. the shoreline profile flattens to absorb the greater amount of wave energy. even with wavei breaking on the bar. These adjustments are fundamental to the shore's adjustment to ~igh wave energy.' The migration of the material to an off-shore bar causes waveS to break in deeper water. and begins the process of ener~y dissipation far from the inland extent of the beach. The dynamic process of erod;n~ materia1 from the foreshore enables the shoreline to absorb wave energy, This process goes on continuously, if a given shor~ proftle is not sufficient to absorb~ave energy without further erosion. additional material is moved from the shore to the bðr to increase the 8 8 ~f:Or:tLl',í: FI~C)HCTIC~i/¡\CC[<:S FIN~)]:;:::' I' J <J e 11 dlstii:1ce b.:-b,'cen the bJr ~r"IJ th~ inlJIìd extent of the ...;;ve ~f:ru~~I, Hie vJ1ue of the bar cannot be ovcr-c,~~hJ~ized it is on the bar thJt '..Ji~,ter ~'J"es break; and the dyn~mic processes of the actuJl shoreline ~re affected by '..J~ve .upru$h. not actuJl brcaking ~a"¿s, . The next diagram .....as made by super:.imposing a revetrr,ent on the shon:! ine profiles that.....e saw in the last diagram: ", ~ . Cln' . , ",."i_, : ' t., Cltll . ", .., {l 'rctnil'_' , ..~." I," i,"';;;.',;."'" " ,\ ", ~',', .-,,~ i' ','" ,,' .,'. - $. . -" , . . I !,.':.:, ',< ~-~:~;~~;?~--:-""":~,-:.:-_. ;-~!~¡: ~:,,: ,",r' ~~~~~T"~~~~ L "",::,':' ~~~::~7~~~"d~~X;;i'::,;:;::,::~;~~ .":'LI.~W.~!; 1~,",':'.', ,~",!"Q ~""':----:,,-:-: .,'-:":' .;;- :¿,.~ ~;~(;" ,;:::' '~;O;íl~-C;-SUW¡lI ~(Öf¡l. . - ~'.' At,CltTlCn, I.,.~:: ,;"':'~'7-";: " .'."'. ._-,-, ¡,' ".' "'._-_ll,C!',ll.,~;'-'-",;,~..:! , .. .. 'I : . " This diagram illustrates 'dramatically the effect of a seawall on the shoreline. The material sho~n if¡ cross-hatching is the material formerly available to" nourish the bar. This material is now unavailable because it is either behind the seawall. or has been replaced by the sea.....all. As a result, the bar receives less nourishment. This makes the bar less effective';n causing waves to break offshore. and results in' greater wave energy reaching the shoreìine. That energy'is then dissipated by uprush and reflection ag~inst the face of the revetment. However, ~irice more energy ccimes on-shore. more energy is reflected and sand is scoured from the base of the revetment. The Commission concludes from the opinion of experts and from an analysis of the process of shoreline dynamics that placement of a seawall within the areas 'of a shore affected by those processes adversely affects shoreline processes in front of ,the seawall as well as property on either side of the seawall. Obviously the impact of a seawal,l is greater the more often it ;s exposed to wave attack, and seawallš located far up the beach have less impact than seawalls lower on the beach. For Site Specific Analysis refer to Specific . Finding in attached staff report. 3. Public Access. Given the adverse effects of seawalls on shoreline processes, the Commission must now turn its attention to the overall impact that t~ese changed shoreline processes will have on public access. As noted in the Commission's findings on the public trust, the public has ownership and .. use rights in the lands of the State seaward' of the ordinary high-water marl,- Seawalls affect the public's ownership and use rights by tending to eventually fix the line of mean high tide at or near the seawall, This interference with a dynamic system then has a number of effects on the public's ownership interests, first, changes in the shoreline profilt, particularly changes in the slope of the profile. alter the useable area under public ownership, A ~I;~ :.~W[ ¡'f.:lJTiC110:;lr,CCl':.', ílt~[~::C,::' ¡J.J (J C 12 be.:lctt thJt re:;ts e1tr,cr t<;.::;,:;n1:i cr p,'nr,J~('ntly :~t" ~:':ci,~r (\r,r.lc thcJn unòer n.:ltural conJitlcns wi11 r,::\c lc:;s t;o;izontJ1 (1ìS:.:lr;~e Let'...¡et:; UIL lines of mean loW' .....ater and mean rl1Gr, 'n'.:lter. 11115 reduces the ;:;ctual i.lreJ in W'h1ch the public can pass on prop~rty ever which it has riçhts of access, and therefore ad~ersely affects public access. The recent work by Gary Griggs demonstrates that a beach in front-9t a 5ea';.'all is narro..u than a beach not affected by a sea.....all along the same stretch of coastline. The effect of that narrowness is,to reduce the area located sea.....ard of the ordinary high water marK (or mean high water mar~) that would otherwise be available for public use. This effect can occur even where the maximum su~roer width of the beach is essentially unchanged. and represents a temporal loss of access due to seawall construction. The second effect on access is through a progressive loss of sand as share material is not available to nourish the bar. The lack of an effective bar can allow such high.wave energy on the shoreline that materials may be lost far offshore where it is no longer available to nourish the beach.' The effe::ts of this on the public are again a loss of useable tidelands area where the public has use rights. Third, seawalls cumulatively affect public access by ca~sing greater erosi~n on adjacent public beaches.' This effect may not become 'clear until sea.....alls are constructed individually along a shoreline until they reach a public beach. The recent work at Oregon State Un~v~rsity demonstrates the magnitude of this impact, which is of greater concern as more ~f California is armored.. Fourth, seawalls, by their occupation'of beach area ~hich may be seasonally either subject to ~ave action or actually below the most land~ard locations of the mean high tide line, interfere directly with areas of the beach in which the public has ownership interest or public trust related rights. Finally, materials attached to the seawall fal) off and roll onto the sandy beach where they may also present physical hazards and obstacles to accesS. This is an inevitable result of flexible structures such as' revetments under. wave attacK. and e~en ~ith the 'most conscientious maintenance efforts, such material rolls down onto the public portions of the shore ~here it interferes at least temporarily with public access. Finally. the Commission finds that because it will formalize the publici's right to use for recreational purposes an area of the beach where permission for use could otherwise De ~ithdrawn, a dedication of an easement in favor of the people of the State of California over [the area as described in the conditions of approval involving recording of an offer to dedicate] will operate directly.to compensate the public for, and thus alleviate, the , burdens described above. The Commission finds that the probable,negative impacts of this sea.....all must be weighed against the property ownerls need to protect the structure behind it. The Commission recognizes that the seawall will probably change the beach profile by steepening it and increasing beach erosion around it; this in turn will interfere with and decrease the amount of sandy beach available for public access. A stated elsewhere in these findings. Section 30235 allows for the use of such a device ~here it is required to protect an existing structure and where it' has been designed to mitigate adverse impacts upon local shoreline sand supply. Although the seawall has been required to be located and designed to minimize encrcJchment onto the beach and impact on adjacent r " ! .. 8 8 SHC'¡~[LlN~ Fí':~~LC1l0¡¡/i,CC[SS FlNDINGS f'J<]f' 13 mit1<]dte propertie~. HIt.: Corr.missiùn fir,~s th~SC r:1èJ,:urcs insuff1citn~ ~J fu11y the effects of the seawa11 on s~~re1inc sJnd supp1y. Thus. on1y JS conditioned to require the deCìcat1on of a pub1;c access c1semcnt can Commission find the project'consistent ~ith Sections 30235,30210 and the Coasta1 Act. the 30212 of This finding only covers the shore-Processes for aspects of the impacts on . public access. For analyses of any historic public use, refer to attached staff staff report's access findings. , " - 0805P , , ., , . -- - "_.'----'--- '.'--' STATE ~F CALIFORNIA e . ' DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RElATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 8 Nç>~O548850 PERMIT Permit Issued To (Insert Employer's Name, Address and Telephone No.) No. 0548850 I PACIFIC GEO SERVICE, INC~, 1196 Magnolia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 I Date 7-18-91 Region 3 L ~ . District 2 (San Diego) 729-5505 Tel. 619-237-7325 . Type of Permit SINGLE PROJECT TRENCH/EXCAVATION PERMIT . Pursuant to labor Code Sections 6500 and 6502, this Permit is issued to the above-named \,' employer for the projects described below. . Slate ~I Uc.- Number A 507952 I Pennlt Valid Ihrough ..., Descriptfon of Project location Add..... City and County Until completion AntIdpated Dales StartIng Completioft .. .. Excavation and shoring of err oded bluff face. 560 Neptune Av . , Encinita 7-31~91 12-30-91 SD ~ This Permit is issued upon the Following conditions: 1. That the work is performed by the same employer. If this is an annual permit the appropriate District Office shall be notified, in writing, of dates and location of job site prior to commencement. , , 2. That employer will comply with all occupational safety and health standards or orders ap- plicable to the,; above projects, and any other lawful orders of the Division. 3. That if any unforeseen condition causes deviation from the plans or statements contained in the Permit Application Form the employer will notify the Division immediately. 4. Any variation from the specification and assertions of the Permit Application Form or violation of safety orders may be cause to revoke the permit. 16-10st12~ð permit shall be posted at or near each place of employment as provided in 8 CAC 341.4. II8ceMd frgn I Roceiwd By D. Jacobson R. Martin ~ ~ 49831 AŠÕ.OO I ~-18-91 ~ 0III0INAI.-0I8J ' DISmCT CIOPY -- CIOPY-cAHUY - CIOPY-wttmI ~(R.... 208') - Investigated by Approved by P{). O~..., Oist. ~ Dale -:;-/~.,qJ 0... '; ¡ e .. 119 80679 .. 8 8 STATE fJF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY - . J:I~~~=¥;~l-:~~n.1-çi>_Y=~.EPo 1;: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST DISrRIC! 1333 CAMINO DEl RIO SOUTH, SUITE 115 SAN DIEGO, CA 92IUB-3~10 (619) 'l97-9740 ~<:"_::"'~>" -:,:..,:\,,~,~,,:, ""." ¡¡ -:,.,;;. May 14, 1991 MAY I 5 loa! '-.-'J, Douglas Jacobson c/o Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Request for Emergency Permit for 560 Neptune Ave., Encinitas Dear Mr. Jacobson: This letter is in response to your letter dated 5/2/91 and as follow-up to our meeting also attended by Paul Webb, Ms. Ludmilla Bradley and Father Basil Konstantinovich in this office on that date, and our phone conversation of 5/9/91. It is our understanding the applicants are requesting an emergency permit for upper bluff stabilization only, to protect the area of the site which was subject to a landslide occurring on March 26, 1991. At that meeting, we identified several.ëiJ:lditiQJlal.---1.tems of inf orma t ion whi ch wou íd be ~~_ci'-J.I~e~~_:=-~ii_JQie- thi s of f ice coul'd continue processing your emergency permit request. - -.- Those items included~~n analysis of the existing residential structure including age, method of construction and foundation . ~... design. Also requested was an~ânalysls of any feasible alternative measures to increase the stability of all or portions of the residential structure. Such alternatives shall include, but not be limited to, underpinning all or a portion of the structure; removal of portions of the structure, specifically addressing the feasibility of removal of those - portions most severely threatened at this time; and, relocation of the structure; (~Also requested were copies of any ~nd all geology/soils reports . . II" . prepared for the subJect site; and~a plan View and cross section of existing conditions, drawn to scale, indicating the bluff configuration in relation to the residential structure, and indicating the anticipated bluff retreat line or angle of repose. The above items were received on 5/7/91. At the 5/2/91 meeting you had indicated a reluctance to commence any engineering for the project until you had an indication from this office that upper bluff stabilization would be approved . . 8 8 ,; Douglas Jacobson May 14, 1991 Page 2 under an emergency permit. At that time we encouraged you to begin the regular permit process through the City of Encinitas for your proposed solution because the type of structure being proposed was not temporary in nature. Our emergency permit regulations are designed to approve only those measures which are considered temporary and necessary to address the emergency situation until a regular coastal development permit can be obtained. After our conversation on 5/9/91, I spoke with Greg Shields at the City and told him we feel the regular permit process is the preferred process for the proposed stabilization, but in any event, this office will rely on the City's engineering expertise to review the proposed measures prior to our being able to authorize any work under an emergency permit or otherwise. Therefore, I encouraged the City to solicit from you engineered plans, rather than wait for Coastal Commission approval. On 5/9/91 I discussed with you the need for engineering of the proposed upper bluff stabilization to determine the appropriate design criteria based on site specific conditions and provide assurance that such a design will, in fact, address the stability problem. As you know, several upper bluff structures have failed on the site in the past decade. Therefore, we shall require that an engineer specifically address the effectiveness of the proposed upper structure in the absence of lower bluff stabilization measures. Again, while this office can recognize the applicant's desire tò commence work on some form of stabilization as soon as possible; it is in everyone's best interest to assure proper engineering,: and to proceed through the regular permit process to the maximum extent possible. This is because, by regulation. any work' authorized by the Executive Director under an emergency permit can only be considered temporary until a regular coastal development permit is obtained. There is no assurance that a regular permit will be approved by the Commission. Additionally. the Commission will require a thorough analysis of alternatives, including. but not limited to. relocation of the threatened structure. Therefore. please keep this office informed of the status of the engineered drawings and review at the City. If you wish to continue to pursue an emergency permit. we will require at a minimum the above cited engineering. as well as a thorough analysis of construction methods. specifically addressing compliance with OSf~ standards on worker safety. Please include . . 8 8 Douglas Jacobson May 14, 1991 Page 3 an analysis of the feasibility of removal of the proposed structures in the event a regular permit is not obtained. We also would encourage analysis of any lesser more temporary alternatives which could be more appropriately addressed by the emergency permit process. Another alternative not requiring a permit is temporary relocation of the residents, until proper engineering and the regular permit process can be completed. Hopefully, this letter clearly identifies the Commission staff's concern regarding the stability of the subject site and desire to assure that the ultimate solution be properly designed and permitted. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call me at the above number. We are also willing to expedite the regular permit process once engineering is complete. Sincerely, J~þ Sherilyn Sarb Supervisor, Permits and Enforcement cc: Charles Damm Ludmilla Bradley Greg Shields Bill Weedman (3797L) . . '" ".l' ¡.~ .;: )~. i /itJe 14 -- California Coastal Commission r I /' make a rccommendatión to the commission ås to whether the appeal . HiSTORY t raises a significant question within the meaning of Section 3O625( b). 1. Repealer of Subc~pter 3 (Sections ,13!~ 1-1313~) fù~d 8-1'"'81; e!fective I~..."'" i.. qu~~~~nl~S~ ~~~~=~~~ ~~~~~: t~~~::~s p~~=~~~~~t ~;~ day thereattel' (ReglS~r II 1, ;';0. ",,). For pnor IUstory, see RegIster?? I j the case of a permit application for a development betWeen the sea and . the fJrStpublicroad pa.raJ.leling the sea (or within 300 feel of the inlan ubchapter 4. Permits for an Approval of extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sca where there Emergency WorJ< is no beach} that there is no significant question with regard to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976. the Commission shall consider the application de novo in accor- dance with the procedures set forth in Sections 13057-13096. (c) The Commission may ask questions of the applicant, any aggrieved person. the Attorney General or the executive director prior to determin- ing whether or not to hear an appeal. A majority vote of the members of the Commission prescnt shall be required to determine that the Commis- sion will not hear an appeal. No'Œ: AuthorilvciLed: Sections 30333, 30620.6, Public Resources Code. Refer. ence: Sections 30603, 30621, Public Resources Code. § 13116. Withdrawal of Appeal. At any time before the Commission commences Ùle roll c~ for a ñnal vote on an appeal. Ùle appellant may withdraw the appeal. The withdraw- al must be in writing or stated on the record and docs not require Commis- sion conCUITence. If the appellant withdraws the appeal, the action of the local government shall automatically become final unless the appeal pe- riod of Pùblic Resources Code Section 30622 has not run. ' No'Œ: Authority ciled: Sections 30333, 30620.6, Public Resources Code. Refer- eoce: Section 30620.6, Public ~s Code. § 13117. Qualifications to Testify Before Commission. Only the applicant, persons who opposed the application before the lo- cal govcmmcnt (,or their reprcsentati ves). and the local government shall be qualified to. testify at the Commission hearings at any stage of the ap- peal process. All other persons may submit comments in writing to the ....., Commission or executive director. copies or summaries of which shall be provided to all Commissioners pursuant to Sections 13060-13061. No'Œ: Authority cited: Sections 30333, 30620.6, Public Resources Code. Reìer. ence: Section 30620.6, Public Rcsoun:es Code. § 13118. Evidence. Evidence before the Commission includes, but is not limited to, the re- cord befon: the local government. Except in unusual circumstances the record will not include a transcript of the local government proceedings unless provided by a pany to the proceedings. No'Œ: AuthoritV ciLed: Sections 30333, 30620.6, Public Resources Code. Reier- encc: Section 3Ó62O.6, Public Resources Code. § 13119. Standerd of Review, The ~tandard of review for any appealable development shall be whether or not Ùle development meets the requirements of Public Re- sources Code Sections 306O4(b) and (c). No'Œ: Authority ciLed: Sections 30333, 30620.6. Public Resources Code. Refer- esx:e: Sections 30603, 30604, Public Resources Code. § 13120. Commission Notification of Final Action. Within ten (10) working days of a fmal Commission action on appeal from a local government deci¡ion. the Commission shall transmit notice of the action taken to Ùle local government, the applicant and the appel- lant. Non: Authority c:iLed: Sections 30333, 30620.6, Public Resources Code. Refer. ence: Section 30620.6. Public Resources Code. ~ Subchapter 3. Applications Filed Under the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 lFormer Division 18 of ilie Public Resources Code) No'Œ: A8IIIarilY cited: Secùons 30331 and 30333. Public Resources Code. . 8 § 13140 Article 1. General § 13136. Scope of Subchapter. This Subchapter governs procedures for processing applications for permits to perform work to resolve problems resulting from a situation falling within the deñniùon of "emergency" in Section 13009 and pur- 3uam to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 30624 fo,r which the Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 30519( b). NoiE: Authont\' cited: Section 30333. Public Resources Code. Reference: Sec. uon 30624, Public Resources Code. HIsro R Y 1. Amendment fùed &-14-81; effccù"e thinieth day thereaflCr (RegÌ5lCr 81, :\0.33). § 13137. Immediate Action Required. It is recognized that in some instances a person or public agency per- forming a public service may need to undertake work to protect life and public propeny, or to maintain public services before the provisions of the Subchapler can be fully complied wiÙl. Where such persons or agen- cies arc authorized to proceed without a permit pursuant to Public Re- sources Code, Section 30611. they shall comply with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 30611 and to the maximum extent fea- sible, with the provisions of this Subchapter. Article 2. Applications § 13138. Method of Application. Applications in cases of .:mergencies shall be made to the executive directOr of !hI: commission by klU:r if time allows, and by telephone or in person if times docs not allow. NoiE: Authont'j cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sec. LJon 30624, Public Resources Code. HiSTORY l. Amendment tiled ð.-I'"'à 1; enccùve thinieth day thereat'1Cr IRegislCr à 1. :-':0.331. § 13139. Necessary Infonnetlon. The infonnalÎon 10 b.: reportc:d during the emergency, if it is possible 10 do so, ono be reponed fully in any case after the emergency asrcquircd in Public Resources Code Section 30611, shall include the following: ! a. The nature of the emergency; (b I The cause: of the emergency, insofar as this can be established; (c) The location of the emergency; (d) The remedial, protective, or preventive work required to deaJ with the emergency; and (e ) The circumstances during the emergency that appeared to justify' the courselS) of action taken, including the probable consequences of failing to take action. Article 3. Procedures § 13140. Verification of Emergency. The executive director of the commission shall verifv the facts, includ- ing the existence :ll1d naCUre of the emergency. insof~ as time allows. NoiE: Authenty cited: Section 30333. Public Resources Code. Reference: Sec- tion 30624, Public Resources Code. . HisroRY I. Amendment filed &-14-81; effccùve thinieth day thereaflCr IRegislCr 81. :-';0.33). . Page 603 (4-1-90\ r'" ...'" . -.... § 13141 . 8 . . BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS \, . 'Ii Title \. - § 13146. Applicant's Statement. The permÜ application fonn provided for in Section 13053.5 shall al. low the applicant an opponunity to state that in his or heropinion the work applied for falls within the criteria established by Public ResoW'Ces Code, Section 30624. Nore Auilioril)' cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sec. tions 30620 and 30624, Public RCSOIU'Ccs Code. HmOR Y 1. Amendment and new NOTE filed 8-2-89; operative 9-1":89 (Regisu:r 89, ~o.32). ' § 13147. Applications Not Thought to Be Administrative. If the commission receives an applic:lIion that is assencd to be for im- . provemems or other development within the criteria established pursuant § 13144. Walve~ of Emergency Permit Requirements. to Public Resources Code Section 30624 and by thissubchapterand if the ~y person wls~ng to take an emerge~cy acuon pursuant. ~o the re- executive director tinds that the application docs not qualify as such, he qu~me~ts of Pub.hc Reso~s.Codc Secuon 30611 shall nouty the ex- or she shall notify the applicant that a regular permit application is re- ecuuve d1rcctor 01 th~ com.au.ssl~n.by telegram of th~ type .and locatIon quired as provided in Subchapter 1 of this chapter. The executive direc- o~the emergency acuon t~en. \\IIthUl three (3) days o.r the dlsast~ or the lor, Wilh the conCWTCnce of the applicant. may accept the application for discovery ofth~ danger. W1th~ sev~n 17) days of taking such acuon, the. filing as a regular permit punuant to Section 13056 and shall adjust the person who notIfied the execuuve dlJ'ector shall send a wnnen statement application fees accordinglv. of the reasons why the action was taken and verification that the action Nore Authority cited: Sectio~ 30333 Public Resources Cod R f . Sec- complied with the expenditure llii:ùW°nh in Public Resources Code uon 30624, Pub.es Code. ' .e. e ermc:e. ~~~ ~~ § 13141. Consultation with executive Director of the Commission. NOTE: Auiliority cited: Sections ~0331 and 30333, Public Resources Code. HISTORY 1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; ~ffective thirtieili day thereafter (Register 77. So. 24), Z. Repca1erfùed 8-14-81; effective thinieÙ1 day thercafterlRegister 8 I. So. 33). § 13142. Criteria for Granting Permit. The executive director shall provide public notice of the proposed emergency action required by Public Resources Code Section 30624, with the extent and type of notice determined on the basis of the natUre of the emergency itself. The executive director may grant an emergency permit upon reasonable terms and conditions. including an expiration date and the necessity for a regular permit application later, if the execu- tive director finds that: tal An emergency exists and requires action more quickly than per- mitted by the procedures for administrative permits. or for ordinary per- mits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days un- less othetWise specified by the terms of the permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has bl:en re- viewed if time allows; and (c) The work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. NOTE: Auiliority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources ~ode. Reference: Sec- tion 30624, Public Resources Code. Huron 1. Amendment filed 1-28-81; dI'ective thirtieili day ~after (Register 81, No.S). . § 13143.. Report to the Commission. (a) The executive director shall repon in writing to the local govern- ment having jurisdiction over the project site and to the commission at cac:h meeting the emergency pennits applied for or issued since the last repon. with a description oCthe natUre oCthe emergency and the work in- volved. Copies of this repon shall be available at the meeting and shall have been mailed at the time that application summaries and staff recom- mendations are nonnally disnibutcd to all persons who have requested such notification in writing. (b) All emergency permits issued after the mailing for the meeting shall be briefly described by the executive director at me mc:c:ung and the written repon required by subparagraph (a) shall be distributcd prior to the next succeeding meeting. (C) The repon of the executive director shall be informational anI y; the decision to issue an emergency permit is solc:ly at the diSC11:uon of the ex- ecutive director of the commission. NOTE: AuiliorilY cited: Sect.ion 30333, Public Resoun;es Code. Reference:: Sec. tioa 30624, Public Resources Code. HuroRY 1. Amendment med 6-10-77; effective thirtieili day thereafter (Register 77, :-.10.24). 2. Amendment filed 8-14-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, So. 33). 3. Amendment of subsection (c\ fi1ed 8-2-89; operative 9-1-89 lRegister 89, :-.10.32). Article 4. Emergency Actions Without a Permit Section 30611. At the next commission meeting following the receipt 0 the written repon. the executive director shall summarize all emergenc: actions takeñ and shall repon to the commission any emergency actiOI thal. in his or her opinion. docs not comply with the requirements of Pub lie Resources Code Sc:ction 30611 and shall recommend appropriate ac lion. For the purposes of this section, any immediate, temporary action~ taken by the California Department ofFish and Game which arc require( to protect the nc:sting areas of the California least tern, an endangered spe cies under the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 2050-2055 an( Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section 670.5, and the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, shall be deemed to be in com. pliance with Public Resources Code Section 30611. Nore Auilioril'o' cited: Sections 30331 and 30333, Public Resources Code.Refer- ence: Division 20, Public Resources Code. HmOR Y I. Amendment filed 4-27-78 as an emergency; effcctive upon, filing (Register7S. ~In ' 2. Certificate of Compliance filed ~12-78 (Register 78, :-.10.32). Subchapter 5. Procedures for Administrative Permits Article 1. General § 13145. Scope of Subchapter. This subchapter governs special procedures for processing applica- tions for permits pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 30624. Nore Auiliority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sec- Lion 30624, Public Resources Code. HmORY 1. Amendment filed ~10-77; effective thinieÙ1 day Ù1ereaftcr ¡Register 77, ~o. 24). 2. Amendment filed 11-3-78 as an emergency; eff~ctive upon filing (Register 78, ~o.-44). 3. Ccrtificatc of Compliance transmitted to OAR 2-2~79 and filed 3-15-79 I RegLSler 79. :\0. 10). 4. .\mendment filed 1-28-81; effective dùnieili day thereafter tRegister 81, ~o. 5). S. Amendment filed ~14-81; effective dùnieili day thereafter ¡Register 81. ~o. 33). Article 2. Application for Administrative Permits ~ The work is here~ approved. subject to the4lt1ioWing conditions: " 1. The enclosed form must be signed by the property owner and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. Only that work specifically requested as described above and for the specific property listed above is authorized. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. 3. The work authorizerl by this r~rmit must be completed within 30 days of the above date. 4. Within 60 days of the above date. the permittee shall apply for a regular coastal permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If a regular permit is not received. the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the above date unless waived by the Director. For Emergency Shoreline Protection Projects: 7. 8. 5. If rock is used in the emergency work. only clean. large rock shall be used. No fill materials or construction spoils shall be used. The rock installation shall be properly engineered to provide adequate protection and to minimize the possibility of rock becoming dislodged and deposited on the beach. 6. In exercising this permit the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that results from the project. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies. OTHER: Condition #4 indicates that the emergency work is considered to be temporary work done in an emergency situation. If the property owner wishes to have the emergency work be a permanent development. a coastal development permit must be obtained. A regular permit would be subject to all of the provisions of the California Coastal Act and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions may include provisions for public access (such as an offer to dedicate sandy beach) and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the property in recognition of the hazard from storm waves. If you have any questions about the provisions of this authorization. please call the Commission's San Diego Area Office. EMERGENCY PERMIT APPROVKD: . Charles Damm. District Director . t \ '. \0 ... -, , 8 THE.INAl. OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON AUG 12,1999 DOCUMENT NUMBER 19'19-0558311 GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 11:11 AM Recording Requested By: City of Encinitas When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256-084-07 Case No. 99-078MUP Permit No. 2628TE W.O. No. 2628TE A. Ludmilla Orloff Bradley ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 560 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of a Major Use Permit by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of ADA/jsg/te2628h.docl 10elOa 1 JAN 90 .' -- the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: Oatedn ¡If¡ /91f! -~ Dated (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS (Notarization not required) by ~.~~ Director of Engineering Services Dated ~ ADA/jsg/te2628h.doc2 10elOa 1 JAN 90 I y . it ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 8 State of ea.¿~ðf t,.L~ Comly of ~~../h ~) , On Ch)t...ll(/~ ¡::¡c¡q before me:?!bt)l)A~. /A /L(œ()~ .ùtJíY)¡ß'1 ¡ot)8i;-/é V N8me and 1Jh fII 0IIIcw (e.g., ..... Doe. NaI8rJ PIIIIIic:') personally appeared ,L{J()m I Lt. -11 ðl<t..ð F-P J3~L( II , N8IneI-» III Sinet(sJ 0 personally known to me - OR ~ 10 me on !he basis of~... .sfactory evidence to be the person(s) . whose name(sJ((is[ate subscribed ~ithin instrument . and ac~d to me that hE(~ey executed the r.- - - - - - - - ;;F~CIAl - - - - - - -1 ~~ir s;'a:~~r:~e: ==~~ a;:=~:r. -:- RANDA G. Mfét~OUR or 1ir'¡!è~ty upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, j NOTARY PUBlIC-CAlI:ORNlAi executed the instrument .. COMM. NO. 1204250 'E . SAN DIEGO COUNlY MY COMM. EXP. JAN. 6, 2003 WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~c2~- ;J:;.~~ s' of",*" P\IIIIIc . OPnoNAL Thof¡gh lire information below is not required by Ia~ II may prove valuable a, persOn. TeIyjng on lire documenf end could pnwenI fraudulent removøI and fNtIachmenI 01 rhis Ionn 10 8IIOIIHH' ðacunent Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Tlde(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attomey-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 01her. . Top oIlhumb here 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other. RIGHT rHU~'8PRINT OF SIGNER Top. of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 01994 National NOlary Association. 8236 Remmel Ave.. P.O. Boa 7184 . Canoga Pall<, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. S9D7 R,anler: CaR Tofl-Flee 1.800-876-6&27 ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 2628TE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: All of Lot 4 and the southeasterly 4.00 feet of Lot 5 in Block "E" of south Coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of california, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17,1926. ALSO that portion Of Block "F" in said South Coast Park NO.3, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along the southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10,1930, and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Northerly along said Easterly line to the southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along the westerly line of said Lots 5 and 4 to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. PARCEL 2: All of Lot 5 (EXCEPTING the Southeasterly 4.00 feet thereof> in Block "E" of South coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of california, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said South Coast Park NO.3, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10,1930, and recorded in Book 1731, Page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego county; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said westerly line to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ADA/jsg/te2628h.doc3 10elOa 1 JAN 90 ,: 8 8 I ¡ ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 2628TE OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any bluff failure or erosion associated with the PROPERTY or the plans, design, construction or maintenance of OWNER's improvements, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. This waiver does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 2. It is further understood and agreed that all of OWNER'S rights under § 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the United States are hereby expressly waived. § 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected by general release. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and demands, causes of all costs of defense against any and all liabilities, claims, action, losses, damages and costs, including thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, ADA/jsg/te2628h.doc4 10elOa 1 JAN 90 employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, 'officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the improvements; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the OWNER's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by OWNER, and the writing is filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of work. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the construction of the improvements; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the improvements; alleged injury to persons or property; and any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, or maintenance of the improvements. By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the improvements, CITY shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of OWNER who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, ADA/jsg/te2628h.doc5 10elOa 1 JAN 90 .' . . ~ ~. , 8 8 , employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 4. OWNER hereby agrees not to develop in any manner the PROPERTY except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms, removal of vegetation and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorization by CITY. 5. This Covenant does not preclude OWNER taking emergency, protective measures as approved by CITY. ADA/jsg/te2628h.doc6 10elOa 1 JAN 90 NoText ., 8 THE ~INAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON AUG 12, 1'39'3 DOCUMENT NUMBER 1999-0558310 GREGORY .J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 11:11 AM Recording Requested By: City of Encinitas When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 ) ) ) ) ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE [Ludmilla Orloff Bradley] Assessor's Parcel No. 256-084-07-00 Case No. 99-078MUP Permit No. 2628TE W.O. No. 2628TE WHEREAS, Ludmilla Orloff Bradley ("PERMITTEE" hereinafter) is the owner of bluff top, ocean front real property which is commonly known as 560 Neptune Avenue ("DOMINANT ESTATE" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), a municipal corporation, holds an interest in beach property ("PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA" hereinafter) located in the vicinity of the DOMINANT ESTATE and more fully described as follows: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, PERMITTEE desires to construct a seawall at a location immediately seaward of the DOMINANT ESTATE ("PROJECT SITE" hereinafter) and must cross and otherwise use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall on the PROJECT SITE. WHEREAS, PERMITTEE desires an entitlement to use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall; NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: A. CITY hereby grants to PERMITTEE an encroachment permit in respect to the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA in accordance with the following: ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc1 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 1 See Attachment C which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. PERMITTEE covenants and agrees to exercise the entitlements herein conveyed in accordance with the following: See Attachment C which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. PERMITTEE agrees that PERMITTEE's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the DOMINANT ESTATE. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the DOMINANT ESTATE any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. By accepting the benefits of this Covenant, PERMITTEE acknowledges that PERMITTEE has no title to the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA and waives all right to that title. F. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. G. Failure of PERMITTEE to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. H. PERMITTEE recogni zes and understands that this Covenant may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the PERMITTEE may be subj ect to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. I. As conditions precedent to PERMITTEE's right to go upon the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA: 1. This Covenant must first be signed by the PERMITTEE and notarized; and then executed by the CITY and recorded wi th the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. Any recording fee shall be paid by PERMITTEE; 2. PERMITTEE must fully satisfy each and every condition precedent to the exercise of PERMITTEE's entitlement to go upon the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA; and 3. PERMITTEE must first comply with the State Coastal .Act ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc2 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 2 f , . 8 8 by either obtaining the approval of the State Coastal Commission, obtaining a waiver thereof, or qualifying for an exemption therefrom, as needed to construct the seawall on public property and traverse the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA to const~uct the seawall. J. This Covenant does not preclude PERMITTEE emergency, protective measures as approved by CITY. from taking K. PERMITTEE agrees to provide written disclosures, and require written consent from, any and all future owners, partners, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of PERMITTEE's interest in the PROPERTY to the effect that this Covenant is acceptable. Provided, however, if such consent is not rendered, it shall in no way affect the enforceability of this Covenant against such party. The consent shall expressly state that the party has received a copy of this Covenant and shall abide by the terms hereof. L. Upon PERMITTEE's transfer of the PROPERTY to a successor in interest, PERMITTEE may apply to the CITY for a release of PERMITTEE's personal obligations set forth in this Covenant. The CITY shall execute the requested release if it is demonstrated that the successor in interest has fully assumed the obligations herein. M. As delegated by the State Lands Commis$ion, the City hereby conveys State Lands Commission permission to the PERMITTEE to traverse the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA to construct the seawall and to construct the seawall on public property. Dated ~ I'f-!!j 0 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: Dated (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached.) I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to the authority conferred by said City Council, that the City is authorized to execute this Covenant. Dated ~ By ~~J~:~y)". Director of Engineering Services (Notarization not required) ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc3 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of C4&Óor ~ Coooty of ~ lJu.:~ on().¡~b..1 ¡1./¡199C>¡ beforeme,~TùJOII ~. M/~e,lJð"71He¿'J P()ßi;iC. V D8I8 NaIll. 8IId 11118 of 0IIIcw C"", ..... 008. NøI8Iy PIIbIic') . personally appeared WO/YJ Ii. Llf O,£w¡:::¡:: ßR4t;Ju V . N8me(8) III ~8) 0 personally known to me - OR ~Ved to me on the basis o~~.. tisfactory evidence to be the person(s) . . whose name( s( I§l;jre subscribed ~ Wi. e within instrument and ackno~ to me that ~~y executed the f~u - - u - - - - - ~;F~~~: ;;A~ - - - ~ ~~~~~~~e: ==~~ a;:rs~~:r ';" RANDA G. MILLJOUR t '. . ' ~. NOTARY PUBlIC-CALIFORNIAi or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,. COMM, NO. 1204250 ~ executed the instrument . .. SAN DIEGO COUNTY MY COMM. EXP, JAN. 6, 2003 WITNESS my hand and offldal seal. jy~~~~ . OPTIONAL 'ThÐf.Ith the /nfonnalion below is not f8qU/rrId Þy law.. II may ptrW8 valuable ID petSOIIS teIy;ng on the dtx:umenIlItrd could ptfJvenI fraudulent removøI and ,."tIacIrment 01 ". føtm to Moth. docunent DescripUon of Attached Document Tltte or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Tltle(s): 0 Partner - 0 limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian. or Conservator 0 O1her. . Top 01 thumb here 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 limited 0 General 0 Attorney-In-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other. RIGHT THU~'BPRINT Of SIGNER Top.oI thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: «:I 1994 National NotaryAssoåation' 8236 Remmel Ave., P.O. 80. 1184' Canoga Pari<, CA91309.1184 Prod. No. 5901 Reonler: Cal ToIl.Ftee 1.800.876.6821 , 8 8 ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION SITE [Ludmilla Orloff Bradley] PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: DOMINANT ESTATE The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: All of Lot 4 and the southeasterly 4.00 feet of Lot 5 in Block "E" of South coast Park No.3, in the City of Encinitas, County of san Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of san Diego county, August 17,1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said South coast Park NO.3, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930, and recorded in Book 1731, Page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Northerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the westerly line of said Lot 5; thence southerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 5 and 4 to the Point of Beginning. EXCEpTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. PARCEL 2: All of Lot 5 <EXCEPTING the Southeasterly 4.00 feet thereof) in Block "E" of south Coast Park NO.3, in the City of Encinitas, county of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of san Diego county, August 17, 1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said south coast Park No.3, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 5; thence southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930, and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said westerly line to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line Of the pacific ocean. ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc4 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 4 A + I I I I .~ I I I c~ I \ \ 0 PACIFIC OCEAN APPROX .SHORELINE AT ZERO TIDE CI) I'z1 E-I Cl)CI)H I'z1C1)CI) 00 9p;~ ""00 =~H 0 E-I..... lit. CI) 0 ~ rz1C1)þGJ ø¡1'z1ø:.... OE-l'tS °rz.9C1)qS E-IO"":;?¡J. ..,OØl ø¡~6°1H ~~rz.H~ æ~~~~ o~i~O ~~rzaCl)qS E-I pf .... E-I~ 0"" Ii( ~ ~ E-I ..... f;1æ~t ~o~t! ~ø¡ 0 :z:ø:0 rzaOH >~H Orza~ 0 pf i ~t)) Z ~ 0"" H ~ E-I ro ~~ 0""0 f;1 ~ 0 4 8: ro SAND &: COBBLE BEACH f = ~ ø¡ Ei 0 0 ~~ ~-IJ pfp" 4 (].J .. (j ~ :>< Ok! H ~ 0 H PROPOSED NEW CONC. SEAWAll WITH TIE-BACK ANCHORS AND BACK DRAIN (53:1: loF. OF TYPE "A" WALL, SEE DETAIL A, SHEET 7) EXT. TW Elo 11 .85 NEW SEAWALL DOWELED TO EXISTING SEAWALL (SEE DOWELING NOTE 3 SHEET 7) f--- - - --0 NEW 4-INCH DIAMETER, 25-FOOT I INCLINED DE-WATERmG WELL (3 T( SEE DETAIL 'H', SHEET 8 LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS tß. MONUMENT roUND AS NOTED EJ fJj NEW REINFORCED SHOTCRETE COVE 5-FOOT DEEP SOIL ANCHORS AT 1 SEE DETAIL 'G', SHEET 8 EXISTING CONC SEAWALL (13':1: HIGH, 7' EXPOSED ABOVE SAND BEACH) Access to jobsite from Moonlight Beach State Beach through Seaside Gardens Park and State Lands located westerly of the mean high tide line, all located southerly and westerly of the jobsite. ---- PROPERTY LINE ,/ --.30 - - EXISTING 2' CONTOURS CONC CONCRETE CP CONCRETE POST WP WOOD POST YO YARD DRAIN NEW CONC. SEAWAll (TYPE "A" ANI SEE DETAILS A &: B, SHEET 7 . (5) 24" DIA. CONC. CAISSON I-T,B (19) TIEBACK (T",TOP, B=BOTTOM) SEE I .1Il OJ tJ1 rO 0.. 0 oqo rl rl oqo m m rl ~ m .. ' .' ..c: 0 ¡..¡ rO :E c 0 .,.. U} ¡..¡ OJ :> III 0 0 "d OJ co N \.0 N OJ +J ...... 0\ U} 'n ...... ~ 0 ,q;:., , 8 8 ATTACHMENT C TO COVENANT REGARDING GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ACCESS ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH TO SEAMALL CONSTRUCTION SITE [Ludmilla Orloff Bradley] DESCRIPTION OF ENCROACHMENT OBLIGATIONS PERMIT AND PERMITTEE's DUTIES AND 1.0 LOCATION OF ENCROACHMENT AREA The location of the beach access encroachment area is depicted on the map which is contained in Attachment B to this Covenant. 2.0 PURPOSE OF ENCROACHMENT: The purpose of the beach access encroachment permit is to enti tie PERMITTEE to use the' PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA as required for the construction of the seawall at the PROJECT SITE. 3.0 USE OF PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA 3.1 PERMITTEE shall submit to the City Engineer a written proposal setting forth the day[s], hour[s] and safety conditions in accordance with which PERMITTEE proposes to use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall. 3.2 The CITY's Engineer shall expeditiously issue written direction setting forth the day[s], hour[s] and safety conditions reasonably necessary to protect the public from PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA during the construction of the seawall. 3.3 PERMITTEE agrees not to go upon or use the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATIONAL AREA for any purpose involving the construction of the seawall at the PROJECT SITE on any day or at any hour, except in complete conformance with the terms and conditions of this Covenant which includes the written directions signed by the CITY's Engineer. 4.0 TERM OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT This COVENANT shall be effective upon its execution by the CITY and shall remain in effect until canceled by the CITY. ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc6 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 6 5.0 OTHER PROVISIONS In consideration of CITY's execution of this Covenant: 5.1 PERMITTEE waives the right to object to the formation of any geologic hazard abatement district, assessment district or maintenance district which includes within its boundaries the DOMINANT ESTATE and which concerns sand replenishment or the stabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE property. 5.2 PERMITTEE agrees that if and when the CITY or a special district determines that it is necessary for the DOMINANT ESTATE to participate in a project which addresses the stabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE property, the PERMITTEE shall either construct the project or pay PERMITTEE's fair share of the cost to construct such project. 5.3 PERMITTEE agrees not to develop in any manner the DOMINANT ESTATE except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorized by CITY. 6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSEQUENCES: WAIVERS . AND ASSUMPTION OF RISKS AND POSSIBLE 6.1 ASSUMPTION ON RISKS BY PERMITTEE. PERMITTEE acknowledges and assumes the risk that: a. the design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall may not result in the stabili za tion of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may result in the destabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may otherwise cause damage to the DOMINANT ESTATE, the public beach, persons, adjacent public or private property, or other property; b. The use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA as set forth in Part 3.0 herein above, may result in the destabilization of the DOMINANT ESTATE and may otherwise cause damage to the DOMINANT ESTATE, the public beach, persons, adjacent public or private property, or property in the vicinity; and c. Aspects of the seawall project may be judicially challenged by third parties. 6.2 WAIVER OF CLAIMS AGAINST CITY. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from the plans, design, ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc7 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 7 8 48 construction, maintenance, functioning or failure of the seawall or from the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA as set forth in Part 3.0 herein above, PERMITTEE unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. 6.3 PERMITTEE's waiver herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA; alleged defects in the plan, design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the seawall; alleged injury to persons or property allegedly caused by, or in any way related to, the seawall or PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC RECREATION AREA; or any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, maintenance or functioning of the seawall. This Section is expressly not intended to act as a limitation to the broad waiver set forth in Section 6.2. 6.4 PERMITTEE agrees that for claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from the CITY's efforts to assist PERMITTEE in constructing a seawall or using the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA, PERMITTEE unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. 6.5 PERMITTEE's waiver set forth in Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 6.6 It is further understood and agreed that all of PERMITTEE's rights under § 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the United States are hereby expressly waived with respect to claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents relating to the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA. Section 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected by general release. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISKS CONSEQUENCES: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AND POSSIBLE 7.1 PERMITTEE TO INDEMNI FY AND HOLD CITY HARMLESS. PERMITTEE agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc8 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 8 employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabili ties, claims, demands, causes of action, los ses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof including attorneys' fees, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of PERMITTEE or PERMITTEE's agents, employees, subcontr?ctors, officials, officers or representatives in respect to the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA. Upon demand, PERMITTEE shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabili ties, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. 7.2 PERMITTEE agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof including attorneys' fees, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, the CITY's efforts or actions to assist PERMITTEE in the seawall construction. 7.3 PERMITTEE's indemnification and hold harmless obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the seawall; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the PERMITTEE's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by PERMITTEE, and the writing is filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of work. 7.4 PERMITTEE's indemnification and hold harmless obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, claims concerning PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA; alleged defects in the plan, design, construction, maintenance, or functioning of the seawall; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the seawall; alleged injury to persons or property allegedly caused by, or in any way related to the seawall or PERMITTEE's use of the PUBLIC RECREATION AREA; or any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, maintenance or functioning of the seawall. This Section is expressly not intended to act as a limitation to the broad indemnification and hold harmless provisions set forth in Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. 7.5 By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the seawall or the use of the PUBLIC BEACH RECREATION AREA, CITY shall not have waived the protection afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of PERMITTEE who shall ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc9 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 9 8 8 remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, harmless as specifically provided above. 7.6 PERMITTEE's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 7.7 The CITY herein expressly does not waive any defenses, irnrnuni ties or other protections from liability afforded to the CITY by the laws of the United States or the State of California, to include without limitation, the California Government Code. ADA/jsg/te2628e.doc10 Version: March 9, 1994 11:40 Page 10 Pro erty Tax Information (tax_stat... Govemlink during 07/0 1-07/18/99) http://www.rad.co.san-diego.ca.us/...ts/generaI/treastax/tax _status.hts . 8 Bart Hartman County Treasurer-Tax Collector 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 162 San Diego, CA 92101 Voice: (619) 236-2424 Fax: (619) 531-6056 Email: Taxman PARCEL NUMBER entered: 256-084-07-00 Parcel Number: 256-084-07-00 Tax Rate Area: 19084 II ".0 I " Owner Name: BRADLEY LUDMILLA 0 IV\wrrU?Ct Wùt'Aú-¥1¡ ')e; e bt»/IBí Mailing and Situs Address (anno1 Bc Shown In Compliancc To (;0\ (Tnllltill Codt Scction 62:'\4.21 Land Values: Improvement Values: Personal Property: Home Owner Exemption: Any Other Exemption: Net Value: 121,531 Base 1% Tax: 32,110 Voter Approved Debt: 0 Fixed Charges: -7,000 Total Tax: 0 Penalty 1: 146,641 Penalty 2: Delinquent Cost: 1.06707 Total Amount Due: 1,564.76 0.00 211.22 $ 1,775.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,775.98 Rate: 1 st Installment: Swtus==================» 2nd Installment: Status ==================> > $ 887.99 PAID ON 12/10 $ 887.99 PAID ON 04/05 For Questions about BASE TAX, VOTER APPROVED DEBT or FIXED CHARGES call (619) 531-5399 Thank YOli. This Bill Is Paid Enter Another Parcel Number: II submit Public Access to Tax Info System 1 of 07/14/19999:18 AM ." 8 8 (! ¡"'I"~ ~~-- City Clerk City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE ORIGINAL Q\: THIS DG}JE~T WAS RECDRDEC O~ D6-JAH-1JC2! OQC~"E~T NUMBER 1992-00~4~6¿ ANNETTE EVANS, COUNTY RE:QÇ¡DER SAM DIEGO COUHTY RECORDER'; ~~cICE When Recorded Mail To: SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY Assessor's Parcel No. 256-084-07 Project No.: 2628-GR A. Ludmilla o. Bradley ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the o~ner of real property which is commonly known as 560 Neptune Avenue ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of issuing the "grading permit for construction of the upper bluff stabilization" by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. '~ 8 8 ~ E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenantr the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. G. Upon OWNER's satisfaction of OWNER's duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a Satisfaction of Covenant. H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of the Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: Da ted pd. /ò #191 I Dated (Notarization of OWNER's signature is attached) ~-----~---~-~~ ~ -- - ---~~-~--- -.. - -.. - -- - -.~ .--J__..- - ---~~- STATE OF CALIFORNIA OUNTV OF ('}o-1-., IQ~ ;jÔ ) }s .. OFFICIAL SEAL Korino M. Dolkas -,,; Notal)' Public .. California - SAN DIEGO COUNTY My Conm. Exp. April 22. 1994 C , personally known to me (Of ßreved to me 011 the ba:.i:. 01 saliSTactory evidence) to De me person- whose name- 75- subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that _he- executed it. CKNOWLEDGMENT -General-Wolco1ts Form 233CA-Rev. 5-82 1982 WOLCOTTS. INC. (price class 8-2) WITNESS my hand and official seal. ÝJ t7Ju.J{ ;/}1. A O~~ ./ Notary Public in and for said State. j .' , 8 8 ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. 2628-GR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Thl' Ian.! t"ciCt"rl'd to herein is situated in the State of California, County of S~n Dic~o, and in described as follows: PARCEL 1: . All of Lot 4 and the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of Lot 5 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17,1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F:' in said South Coast Park No.3, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Northerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the Westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 5 and 4 to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line fo the Pacific Ocean. PARCEL 2: All of Lot 5 (EXCEPTING the Southeasterly 4.00 feet thereof) in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San ~iego County, August 17, 1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said South Coast Park No.3, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the Westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said Westerly line to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. Id/ef ~ . , 8 8 ATTACHMENT "B" TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. 2628-GR OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS The OWNER will comply with all coastal regulations and conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission including submitting and processing an application in order to receive a grant of approval for a permanent protection facility as applicable under the Municipal Code and the California Coastal Act. r,~" .. t " . , \ ~~C¡;C;I b r "1 16. .~~, Loan No, 84-44299? ~RECORDED IN~ OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAlt DIEGO COUNTY. CA. 1984 NOY 28 AM8:00 139 1333 VG R':CORDm R£QU£ST Of fiRST AMERICAN TITU co. WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Mrs. Ludmilla Orloff Bradley 560 Neptune Way Encinitas, CA 92024 I _VERA L LYlE. I L COUNTY I£CORDER....J RF MG UF þ- TXPD ~ SPACE ABOVE THis LINE FOR RECORDER' USE MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: SAME AS ABOVE AP NO. 256-084-07 GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATlO~. receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Fenton Joseph Bradley hereby GRANT(S) to Ludmilla Orloff Bradley, a married woman as her sole and separate property the real property in the City of County of Encinitas San Diego . State of California. described a ~~ undivided 1/2 interest in and to the following; For complete legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein " Dated October 8, 1984 STATE OF CAlIFORNIA4.¡ (.v - ""-. Iss. COUN1Y OF " ¿ _i, J 0" ¡'~lV~!.)->.... \ol~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for ~id State, per- sonallyappeared ~ltt"Li ,\.:'-t-r-- - I:'~' ~f~\( .,------,. ~~~ ------- .. '<. ',\";:r';','. :;;~:E G~;::CfA ~ ,/ peraonallyknowntomelorprovedlomeonthebasisotsat"tactory " ",,-C,' '".,': "",',r',,' ø evid!oce) to be the perso"!s) whose namejsj is/are subscribed 10 the :",:..' '": :':';,'~; :~'",:; ,,1< 1 wlthi~ì;;¡¡rumenta"daCkOOWledgedtomethathe/she/they- executed !:,~.;..""".-' "r ç~c" ',E," Þ~r 12,!33~ I ..::.-..;.~...O:""~~-~-ccoaa, the same, 1 '"\ WITNESS my hand and oHicia! rat , (\ . Signatura '.. '- (1ñ- i) - t:..,-",-,,- ì=- (Thll 0'" fo, official nota,lal -I) U MAIL TAX JrATEMENTS AS OIRECTED ABOVE 1002 (8/8: r '( LEGAL DESCRIPTION ORP~~ NO. 888516-7 . 169 ~Œ@Œ~WŒ[ID JUL 2 2 1991 "',' , , . , EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Thl' !an.! rt.'it'rrl,J to herein is situated in the State of California, County of 53n Dtc~o, and iN described as follows: ENGINEERING DEPT. PARCEL 1: All of Lot 4 and the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of Lot 5 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said South Coast Park No.3, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Northerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Nortþwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the Westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 5 and 4 to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line fo the Pacific Ocean. PARCEL 2: All of Lot 5 (EXCEPTING tht::! Southeasterly 4.00 feet thereon in Block "E:' of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San ~iego County, August 17,1926. ALSO that portion of Block "F" in said South Coast Park No.3, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Southwesterly along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the Easterly line of land conveyed to the County of San Diego by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds, records of San Diego County; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 4.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said prolongation to the Westerly line of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said Westerly line to the PQint of Beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ldlef .~ . '. Fa ¥Z"SQ.PIII/.'Ls ~/Z'1; Æ¡{ R.o.s. (,(¿¡z9 £ COR:.~. ~11. I SURVEYORS NOTE: T/.I1i CALClILATIiO OISTAI/C£ AT RIGJIT AJ.fGt.éS 70 WE UVE urWE:éI.I lPTJ I f l! AA/O Tf.Æ UHE !3£TWéÐl LOTS G j 7 PER MAP 19~!J l.s eðO.OO' IT is TIII$ WWE'I"OKS OPIAIIOU TIIAT LOTS e l1ImJ G I'IBlE unÐJO€O 70 ð€ 50' LO15 e RlaHT ANGLES TO TIIEIR ~é'l.Y' uJÆS. TNIS IS ALOO CONFIRMED ð'f" TII€: OIM€/.ISIOUS :JMJWAI ~ TIÆ WilY' UJÆSOF 71I£5E LO13.71IE Lor UUé ðéTW€êJ/ ~ 5 "G JI.IOWI.! ON 71/1:} SlIRV€:'f" AGltE:€5 wn¡¡ IIIPROVéMÐ1T"5 (æw~ VAlES OF PO$Sl;SIOJI. T/.Ilð R€.ðlIL75 IN A R€LAT/œlJIIIP WIl1IIJ€PT(JI./E: AV€". AðOI..IT (/ FEET DlFFé~ T"AU TIIAT SIIOW# ON MAP 19.35 ð£TWé£1.! LO75 5 f ~. T/.IE UOUUMÐlTJ T/./AT OIVIÐ£ l)./I's A:I~E£. WER€ .sET AT TilE OWNERJ RE.'QUEST AND WéRt:: NOTIUTÐ/O€D ro VIOl-An- ~c. 87(;2.5 OF TIlt:: LAJlO .sURV£r~'J' ACT TIlE UOIJUME1JTS ARE SET ON A FOUR FOOT ()F¡r~T 10 WE COMJ..ION U/J€ OF LOT5 4(5 ' j . -.... . '. . . ""..' .:~>...~¥¡~/,y;~:\:~~.;t~ ATJ./~N4 ------- '- .. ST~E.ET .. ~ ----" ...~-~--€......- Æ3 1\ /=.." I' '" £../LÄ. '\ '- , ,.. r '", '" . /' . "/-t. . /- "-.' //'. .: ~jft- . /t=Þ.1z' R.A4/l. 'CJ1P"LSSO/Jf!!1" /" . PER .ROF:J 10G/ß ' /' ~ê... ~ :.-' ~v -r;-'-' '--1"'~ 8 . -'T~' ,..,- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACTION FORM Q} -"2-3 - tJ r l(o(\ ~ (\011, ~ - ß-4eÁ I ~ DATE APPUCANT NAME APPUCANT ADDRESS PERMIT COORDINATOR q& TO BE COMPLETED BY CASHIER RECEIPT NUMBER CHECK NUMBER CASHIER INITALS ~ ~ dvlt J.. S5~~ ~ ED ENGINEERING SECURITY CASHIER CODE. Sy PROJECT NUMBER AND APPUCANT NAME MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE DESCRIPTION FIELD (FiG ON LAST SCREEN) PROJECT I 1 I AMOUNT TOTAL ENGINEERING DEPOSIT CASHIER CODE. PROJECT NUMBER MUST BE ENTERED INTO PROJECT NUMBER FIELD PROJECT # TOTAL ø 0 0 0.--- mE ss*311,..4o-~i38' , ". ' "'," t: ! ,o.~, ' '¡¡¡if Q:¡: "Q .... "0 '0... ...;, F ' -.1f' t-., ,. ,C"S,'" "(.) :), . ',_,CIa" Uo;~' t-, '"" ',- 'Or ~,%' ' eW, (.) " S' 01 /' 'Dec.~'21. '..w..~._....<. '/ 8 . ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City Of Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand ReplenishmentlStormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering January 18,2001 EI Dorado Bank P.O. Box 230926-0926 Encinitas, CA 92023 Re: Major use Permit 99-078 Beach Encroachment permit 2628TE {560 Neptune AV/Konstantinovich-Bradley} A.P.N. 256-084-07 Use of security for payment of costs Pel111it 2628TE authorizes access across public beaches to the described address for purposes of constructing coastal bluff protection walls and otherwise stabilizing the property. A damage deposit was posted to guarantee restoration of the public beach. The owner has agreed to use the damage deposit to pay for costs incurred by the City of Encinitas in processing the described discretionary and engineering pel111its. Certificate of Deposit S 01-003285, in the amount of $7,500.00, has been endorsed by the Financial Services Manager and will need to be released for payment to the City per the attached agreement. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633-2780, or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, ",. , ;. /" r ,.k / \ I [,rl ~ . I /-L,'...,f I~/,~- ([.#""-7 ¡j Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Field Operations \ /\ " '( .,//,~\ -/ ~~ ' ~,/' \'~" ,/ ' / I,' I. J, ¡ - I ' '.. ¡ 1/ I , -' . -- '."- tj '- ..1 C (..~. ' LeSlie Sue Iter -. ..' . ;-' Financial Services Manager Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Ludmilla O. Bradley, Property Owner enc PGS/jsg/fcaseI1999/99-078cd.doc 1 TEL 760.655.2600 I FAX 76(J.6.l'\-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California <)2024.3653 TOO 760.6.'13.2700 ~ recycled paper r" ENGINÉERlNG 'PARTMENT APPUCANT DEPOSI'CTION FORM. lJif I ~t¡q- ~ 11/ 4LÍldøfF .6-0011 ~ ;)úO ~(! 411 f~ c~ 170~4- 1J; DATE APPUCANT NAME APPUCANT ADDRESS PERMIT COORDINATOR TO BE COMPLETED BY CASHIER RECEIPT NUMBER CHECK NUMBER CASHIER INITALS to l/7 (~ IrP(,-;- eN ED ENGINEERING SECURITY CASHIER CODE. Sy . PROJECT NUMBER AND APPUCANT NAME MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE DESCRIPTION FIELD (F10 ON LAST SCREEN) PROJECT" I I AMOUNT TOTAL ,~ ENGINEERING DEPOSIT CASHIER CODE. PROJECT NUMBER MUST BE ENTERED INTO PROJECT NUMBER FIELD TOTAL NEW DATE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT NAME PRJ# INSTITUTION TYPE AMOUNT REF. ORIGIN EXPIRES EXTENSION REDUCED REDUCEDßNCR BALANCE Aldford, Jon/Cheryl 1849 Valley Independent Bank LolC 20,000.00 00081 8-.lun-90 8-Jun-91 '.NO RENEWAL" 20,000.00 Aschbrenner, Gene 484311 Los Padres Savings Bank Mise Assign 3,417.00 158-09564-6 9-Jul-97 none 3,417.00 Aschbrenner, Gene 484311 American Contractors Indem Bond 13,670.40 52234 10-Jul-97 none 13,670.40 Bank 01 CommercelNo Coast Prebysterian Church? Bank 01 Commerce LolC 26,380.00 90-005-124 31-0ct-90 29.Jul-91 30 DAYS 26,380.00 Barratt American 9O50U American Insurance Co Bond 208,682.00 11141361201 24-Jan-91 none 23-Jul-96 17,461.00 226,143.00 Barratt American 9O50U American Insurance Co Bond 104,341.00 11141361201 24-Jan-91 none 24-Jul-96 8,731.00 113,072.00 Barratt American 9O50H,CS054 American Insurance Co Bond 702,914.00 11141361219 24-Jan-91 none 23-Jul-96 (342,594.00) 360,320.00 Barratt American 9050H,CSO54 American Insurance Co Bond 351,457.00 11141361219 24-Ja0-91 none 24-Jul-96 (171,297.00) 180,160.00 Barratt American DCS054 BOFA LolC 875,369.00 LASB-213598 31-Oec-90 28-May.91 -NO RENEWAL - 875,369.00 Barratt American 8004-G&H American Insurance Co Bond 29,488.00 11133334125 16-0ct-97 none 29,488.00 Barratt American DCS180 American Insurance Co Bond 16,480.00 11133334117 16-Oct-97 none 16,480.00 Barratt American 4744GI American Insurance Co Bond 25,194.00 11133334141 23-0ct-97 none 25,194.00 Barratt American 4744GI American Insurance Co Bond 1,500.00 11133334133 23.0ct-97 none 1,500.00 : Barratt American DCS254 American Insurance Co Bond 4,125.00 11133334158 23-Oct.97 none 4,125.00 Barratt American 4744CN American Insurance Co Bond 5,687.00 11133334166 23-0ct-97 none 5,887.00 :BarrattAmerican? 5334GI Firemans Fund Ins. Co. Bond 746,834.00 11141361219 19-Nov-97 none 746,834.00 Barratt American? 5334GI Firemans Fund Ins. Co. Bond 561,506.50 11141361219 19-Nov-97 none 561,506.50 Barratt American DCSO54 Firemans Fund Ins. Co. Bond 548,845.00 11141361219 22-Aug-S7 none 548,845.00 Barratt American DCS054 Firemans Fund Ins. Co. Bond 363,517.50 11141361219 22-Aug-97 none 363,517.50 Barratt American 4595FM,IR American Insurance Co Bond 9,600.00 11133334281 3O-Dec-97 none 9,600.00 Barratt American 459511 American Insurance Co Bond 14,003.00 11133334299 3O-Dec-97 none 14,003.00 Barratt American 4595GI American Insurance Co Bond 225,143.00 11133334273 30-Dec-97 none 225,143.00 Beachwalk 10, LLC 2674111GI Pacific National Bank CD 33,573.10 1005113424 14-Jul-97 9.Aug-97 auto 9-Jan-98 (25,180.10) 8,393.00 Beachwalk 10, LLC 267411/GI Froniter Pacific Insurance Co Bond 134,292.40 6627-FP 2-Ju~97 none 9-Jan-98 (100,719.40) 33,573.00 Beachwalk 10, LLC 267411/GI Froniter Pacific Insurance Co Bond 146,268.10 6628-FP 2-Ju~97 none 146,268.10 Beck PropertiesiSeacrest Estates 48371VGI, DES225 Wells Fargo Bank CD 91,164.00 1007699507-000 21-Jul-97 20-0ct-97 auto 91,184.00 Beck PropertiesiSeacrest Estates 4837IVGI, DES226 Developers Insurance Co Bond 4,200.00 141332S 9-Jul-97 none 4,200.00 Beck PropertiesiSeacrest Estates 48371VGI, DES227 Developers Insurance Co Bond 819,947.00 141331S 9-Jul-97 none 819,947.00 Beck, Steve & Abamson, Beth 1343G San Diego County Credit Union CD 12,055.00 66023100-40 24-Sep-97 24-0ct-97 auto 12,055.00 Berry, Phillip 4743GI SD Co. Credit Union Savings 16,792.00 6602991602 4-Oct.96 none 16,792.00 Bethlehem Evnglcl Lthm Chrch 1728 ELCA Ln FndlChase Mnhtn LolC 89,700.00 C-1594 18-Apr-89 18-Apr-90 1 YEAR 89,700.00 Bethlehem Evnglcll.lhJn r;j.rch 1738 Luth Credit Union Amer. LaIC 10,000.00 8312G 1-May.89 I-May.90 1 YEAR 10,000.00 Block, Gregory r- vv' Tr 88-245 San Diego Nafl Bank LaIC 11,840.00 1348 8-Jun-90 B-Jun-91 AUTO RENEWAL 11 ,840.00 Bock, Lawrence \J 5O78GI BolA CD 12,000.00 986 18-.1ul-97 lB-Jan-98 auto 12,000.00 ~,......... ,," ~ .... " ø~~ "',7:". "" 111#" ..... ~~. \>. '... .'" '." , ~ Brendle, Stephen 2490IR San Dieguito Nafl Bank LaIC 11,595.00 70000104 15-Aug-91 15-Aug-92 11,595.00 Brylor, E. M. Company 5339GI Wells Fargo Bank CD 27,270.00 1001708981-000 22-Jan-98 21-Feb-98 auto 27,270.00 Brylor, E. M. Company 5339G1 Wells Fargo Bank CD 9,100.00 1001708940-000 22-Jan-98 22-Apr-98 auto 9,100.00 NON - CASH SECURITIES ON FILE - 8. .As 01 6/8/98 -"~- " ,"- -- -. --. ..-.- ""- 'I ~ III W ,Ie II u. Ii - l- e£: W 0 SS#371-40-5138 t~ DIEGUITO N.\ TlONAl BANK 459 ENCINITAS I:IOUlEVARD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 . S 01-003285 ~ U III 1: u 0 ~ ~ U IIJ , ID :J en ~ 0 z December _27 , 19!1i- I I' "<**Walter V. Konstantinovich or Ludmilla O. <**-*~~*Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and no/100**********Î>OLLARS $ **7 ,500.00** PRINCIPAL PAYABLE TO ****The City of Encinitas********",,~**1~*-(-****************** OR ORDER, ON OR AFTER MATURITY. UPON SURRENOER OF THIS CERTIFICATE TO SAIO OFFICE PROPERLY ENOORSEO. MATURITY IS FROM OATE OF ISSUE WITH AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF MATURITY FROM TIME TO TIME,FO!' A,:ò'MILAR PERIOD UNLESS SURRENOEREO BY OWNER WITHIN TEN CAYS AFTER A MATURITY OATE. THIS DEPOSIT BEARS INTEREST AT THE RATE OF .fLo...L.A:)oER ANNUM FROM OATE OF ISSUE TO MATURITY EXCEPT THAT (I) INTEREST FOR ANY RENEWAL PERIOD IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE BANK UPON WRITTEN NOTICE TO DEPOSITOR MAILEO AT LEAST THIRTY CAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH RENEWAL PERIOD: ANO (.) THIS DEPOSIT SHALL BEAR INTEREST FOR' OATE OF ISSUE ANO SHALL NOT BEAR INTEREST THEREAFTER. THIS DEPOSIT INCLUOING CALIFORNIA ANO Tnterest Maturity date: Br a d 1 e y *-******-************'¡:-*""H AS D EPOS ITED "",,", ,"". ,.,.u.. " 118003 285118 I: ~ 2 2 238 2 ~ 31: AUTHaOlua SO.HATu.. FEOEI¡'AL LAW", aNa ALL PR£SEN'I; ~NO to De pa1 at maLur1LY March 26, 1992 . , . ~ DEPARTMENT APPUCANT PROJECT ~FORM APPLJCANT DEPOSIT NAME<->-'~M.,...;A ?;.~{:~'( PROJECT OOMPiEIlON DA TF.. Description AgreemenVCovenant Const. Permit & Insp. Document Exempt Cons!. Permit Grading Plancheck Grading Inspection Final Map Processing Parcel Map Processing Permanent Encroachment Improvement Plan check Temporary Encroachment Improvement Inspection ~ i Vacation Traffic Signal Street Light .omer fft Ie i CCCA.. 3/\5 u:~ ()(; Memo Project Number (A) Applicant ~ AC CN IX: EX 2/...;y¿ GR '-;;'";r...c..-.- cc ~¡+.; GI lUf AI. "3 \;(..i, CA..' FM PM PE IR 1'£ I I VA~- QT QS zz '....¿ ,r;i; (B) Memo Project Expenses DEPOSIT DATE ADOITJON AI. DEPOSIT (C) Overhead Charges (Co! B x %) \ 7/2.1- '1i (D) Tolal City Expense (Col B+C) . Debit 101-0000-213-00 CHECK REQUEST (BILLING) AMOUNT $ ~:C\~""vl-)"!¡'í\<:,~~' \ Security ~1 6\-c.:c:::'<-e:-; SY Debit 101-000-218-00 -.::--- -' 1f í.z,cC' ci:) ~1(JÜ.CC (E) Refund or (Amount Due) (Col A-Col D) ............... .......... ............... ............. ........ """" ................. ......... ...... ............... ................ ............... ......................... .............. ........... ..................... ........ From: Memo Project Number TRANSFER SECTION To: Memo Project Number AUTIiORlZATION: ........................ ........................... ...... ...."............................... .......... ............. .................. ................... ........................... .... .................... ..." ......"........ Project Coordinator TR/OVFI1..83aWPSI 2 (7/1/91-13) Department .' ~ DEPARTMENT APPUCANT PRamcr ~ , APPUCANTDEPOSITNAME \-"r' .1-'\( ,-\ "_t;r'-;'LC \~-'L- PRamcr OOMPU:I1ON DAD (A) Memo Project DescriDrion ~ Agreement/Covenant AC Const. Permit 8. Insp. CN Document DC Exempt Const. Permit EX Grading Plancheck _ï~ ; t GR Grading Inspection GI Final Map Processing PM Parcel Map Processing PM Permanent Encroachment PE Improvement Plancheck IR Temporary Encroachment TE Improvement Inspecrion I I Vacarion VA Traffic Signal QT Street light QS Other ZZ Security SY è( I,: L{ - 1UfAL - Applicant Deoosit "'-~ ('- c C Debit lOl-OOOO-21~ (B) Memo Project ExÐenses DEPOSIT DAD ADDI'I1ONAL DEPOSIT (C) Overhead C1arges (Col B x %) - -7 - i 'f, (D) Total City Expense (Col B+C) CHECK REQUEST (BIWNG) AMOUNT $ , f (E) Refund or (Amount Due) (Co! A-Co! D) .................;................................................................................................................................................................................................................ From: Memo Project Number .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. AUTI:lORIZATION: Project Coordinator TRlO2lFI1-83aWP51 2 (7/1/91-13) TRANSFER SECTION To: Memo Project Number Department ENlvEERING SERVICES DEPARTMEIt ;~".~B"'.I\(/\// ~--/ - ~ -' -_.~~ ='~~ ~.... -'w.. .fN/f{, ", . ~-?&' ~-; ,., .' ~,. iI,l;!: ",' ,,' Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Reid Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering NTRADEP ARTMENT AL TRANSMITTAL FORM Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 0 District Support Services L-D) 0 jV}tU I h (l1 tV; ¿¡ r ¡ Subdivision Engineering (SE) Office of the Director (#1) 0 Traffic Engineering (TE) 0 Field Operations (FO) 0 DEPOSITIFE -~ /FEE - ~ DEPOSITIFEE egarding (Finance Number (Finance Number (Finance Number ransmitted as following: inal Parcel Map 0 Final Map 0 - SubmittaVAmended/Corrected oposed 0 Corrected 0 Approved 0 Interoffice Memo. 0 luelinelRed-lined 0 Checkprint 0 Original 0 Certificate 0 pproved TMlTPM 0 Resolution of Approval 0 Coastal Pennit 0 eliminary Title Report 0 Guarantee 0 Tax Certificate 0 opies of all documents listed in preliminary title reportIV esting Deed 0 raverse Calculations 0 Reference Maps 0 Letter Re: Access 0 orporatelPartnership Papers 0 Property Appraisal 0 Utility Letter. 0 eferred Monumentation Letter 0 Agency Letter: 0 . Jegal Description 0 Plat 0 Recording Fee 0 0 . asement re: Covenant re: Highway 0 Trail 0 Improvements Sewer 0 Park 0 Impact Fees Drainage 0 0 Assessments greement re: Improvements 0 Pvt. Rd. Maint. 0 0 0 0 0 0 mprovement Plan 0 SubmittallPlan Change/As-Built roposed 0 Corrected 0 Approved 0 Mfg. Specs. 0 luelinelRed-lined 0 Checkprint 0 Original 0 TOSS Sections 0 Structural Calculations 0 Cost Estimate 0 ote: See other blocks for additional items, if any. Grading Pia ubmittallPl bange/As-built Proposed Correc cc . 0 rI BluelinelRed-lined Checkprint 0 Original 0 Hydraulic CalculationslMap 0 Cost Estimate 0 Soil Re~ Letter re: Pennission to Grade 0 Structural Calculations 62f Note: See other blocks for additional items, if As Per... For Your... Our Conversation 0 Approval 0 Submittal &,«'uirements Review œr - Use 0 ORIGINATOR: ~~~l' (Name) DATE: TP " " Comments! Additional Space for Document I) Response to Plancheck 0 2) Miscellaneous Exhibit 0 3) Street Vacation Application 0 4) Street Name Change Application 0 5) OIher - ==t 6) Copies to: A<!s1itional Notes: ~ ~ ---- 0 . (CD/CSIFIRElSDWD/OMWDILCWD/G&Eff ICA TV) Sketch (if needed) / Description: (Public/Private) (RoadlDrainage/W ater/SewerlTraillPark/F ac ility) "Jlj;7 tfb Þ" (;::; - -"3?- ivf I JY!; r ? ~ ~rP f7ØP1I P- 1J etJ jJ e:s J " tJ (MasslRoughlPreliminary !Precise) (Erosion ControllPlanting & Irrigation) Public Inquiry!Proposal 0 Signature 0 Our Approval 0 Infonnation 0 /ÎL;:::::"-- ~J (Position) I JSG/ARRIIntra_Trans.doclO2.11.99 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TEL (760) 633-26001FAX (760) 633-2627 I TDD (760) 633-2700 1 of! . 8, 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondido. CA 92029. (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax October 3 I, 2000 Transmittal Via: Hand Delivery City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan A venue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: D ,<; ~ ~~ III P !5 i,c7 ; : ,: :Y t.:; ~ NOV 0 l 2000 -' NGfNEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS Mr. Alan Archibald/Mr. Jeff Garrami Reference: Copies of Supplemental Documents Revised Bradley Bluff Repair 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Enclosed please find the following: 2 Revised "Bluff Repair Plans Sheets I through 9 of9, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca., prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated May 6, 1999", Which include revisions to plan Sheets 1,3,4,6,7,8, and 9, 2 "Bluff Repair Plans Sheet 9 of 9, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca" prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated May 6, 1999" to be replaced by Revised Landscape Irrigation Plan by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated 10/12/00, and provided as Sheet I of 1. 2 .' Copies of Letter Report-"Revised Slope Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca.," prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated October 31, 2000. 2 Copies of "Repairs To Upper Bluff-Evaluation of Effect/Surcharge of New Wall and Backfill on Existing Seawall, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," dated October 23,2000, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction. 2 Copies of letter titled "Supplemental Documents-Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024," prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated October 3 I, 2000. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call me at (760) 738-8800. Respectfully, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anthony-Taylor Company Gregory M. Karen Project Geologist Received By: Date Received: San Diego. CA San Francisco, CA . Houston, TX . . 2 2 ANTH~Y-TAYLOR COIsULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondido. CA 92029. (760) 738.8800. (760) 738-8232 ¡ax September 29, 2000 Transmittal Via: Hand Delivery City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. JeffGamuni Reference: ~ ~ cD ~ Copy of Repair Plans and Documents Revi~ed Bradley Bluff Repair 560 Neptune A venue Encinitas, California 92024 Enclosed please tind the following: " , Copies of Bluff Repair Plan, Sheets I through 4, Bradley Residence, !60 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca., prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated Sept~mber 19, 2000. :2 Copies of Letter Report-Slope StabHity Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca., prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20,2000. 2 Copies of Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas C;lIifomia,"Pages I through 1.1 of 14, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6,2000. 2 Copies ofRevÎsed Statement of Justification, New Seawall and Revised Mid/Upper Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Er.cinitas, California," prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated September 27, 2000. Copies of Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Encinitas, California," dated September 27,2000, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, Copies of Submittal and Request for Fonnal Penn it Processing Revised MidlUpper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encjnitas, California 92024, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated September 27,2000. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call me at (760) 738-8800, Respectfully, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anlhony. r.ylur Company Gregory M. Karen Project Geologist Received By: San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA . . Houston, TX ENtNEERING SERVICES DEPARTM. Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering INTRADEP ARTMENT AL TRANSMITTAL FORM T 0 Subdivision Engineering (SE) .P!f Office of the Director (#1) 0 Traffic Engineering (TE) 0 Field Operations (FO) 0 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 0 District Support Services <-D) 0 4f I Ii /1~/ vZø ATTENTION: Regarding (Finance Number (Finance Number (Finance Number Transmitted as following: -7e)~EE -~~/FEE - ~ DEPOSIT/FEE Final Parcel Map 0 Final Map 0 - SubmittaVAmendedlCorrected Proposed 0 Corrected 0 Approved 0 Interoffice Memo. 0 BluelinelRed-lined 0 Checkprint 0 Original 0 Certificate 0 Approved TM/TPM 0 Resolution of Approval 0 Coastal Permit 0 Preliminary Title Report 0 Guarantee 0 Tax Certificate 0 Copies of all documents listed in preliminary title reportJV esting Deed 0 Traverse Calculations 0 Reference Maps 0 Letter Re: Access 0 Corporate/Partnership Papers 0 Property Appraisal 0 Utility Letter. 0 Deferred Monumentation Letter 0 Agency Letter: 0 Legal Description 0 Plat 0 Recording Fee 0 0 Easement re: Covenant re: Highway 0 Trail 0 Improvements Sewer 0 Park 0 Impact Fees Drainage 0 0 Assessments Agreement re: Improvements 0 Pvt. Rd. Maint. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improvement Plan 0 SubmittaVPlan Change/As-Built Proposed 0 Corrected 0 Approved 0 Mfg. Specs. 0 BluelinelRed-lined 0 Checkprint 0 Original 0 Cross Sections 0 Structural Calculations 0 Cost Estimate 0 Note: See other blocks for additional items, if any. Grading Pla4 Submitt~/As-built Proposed 0 orrected W Approved ~[Y~D BluelinelRed-lined 0 Cteckprint 0 Original Hydraulic CalculationslMap 0 Cost Estimate 0 oil Report 0 Letter re: Permission to Grade 0 Structural Calculations 0 Note: See other blocks for additional items, if any. As Per... Submittal equirements.Y1" For Your... Revie Us;'[j Our Conversation 0 Approval ORIGINATOR: ::1i?¡:¡:::- 6arúJ.M I (Name) ¿JT-17-éJó TP~IDR ~ -t:zt8 " ¿ ,/ t<1F~ ~ APN: DATE: " Comments/Additional Space for Document 1) Response to Plancheck 0 2) Miscellaneous Exhibit 0 3) Street Vacation Application 0 4) Street Name Change Application 0 5) Other 6) Copies to: Additio al Not: ~ (CD/CS/FIRE/SDWD/OMWDILCWD/G&Eff/C V) S~;Z~D:t;i~føl Or draM H J J ~I ~~- 6 - 3'6 /I (:t~~~(~ff ÎØ(lalrJ J (RoadlDrainage/Water /Sew er /T raiVParkIF ac iIi ty) (MassIRoughlPreliminary /Precise) (Erosion ControVPlanting & Irrigation) roposal 0 Our Approval 0 Information 0 (Position) JSG/ARR/Intra_Trans.doc/O2.11.99 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TEL (760) 633-26001FAX (760) 633-2627 / TDD (760) 633-2700 10f1 8 . July 15, 1999 Transmittal Via: Mail City of Encinitas - Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. JeffGarami Reference: Copies of Pertinent Project Soils Reports Bradley Bluff Repair 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 As per your requests of July 13, 1999, please find copies of pertinent project soils reports for your file. Enclosed are the following: 2 Updated Geotechnical Evaluation-Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 11, 1998. 1 Geotechnical and Geologic Study-Bradley Property, prepared by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call me at (760) 738-8800. Respectfully, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anthony-Taylor Company ~e~ r~-.' lOr, ii, ,", 'I 0 !' i} i 'f, Iu r ~-;;~ ]Wi I ENGINEERING SERVICES " CITY OF ENCINITAS .......... ................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT C~~."~~~~~~~A~5 '99 11: 15AM )................. . ..... .... ...... ......................... ................ ... ............ ............ .... .... ............. ....... ... .... ...... ............ ................ ............. ........... C AUTO) ...... ....... .... .... THE FOLLOWING FILECS) ERASED FILE FILE TYPE OPTION 007 MEMORY TX TEL NO. 94360778 PAGE RESULT 01/01 OK I....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ERRORS 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION 505 South Vulcan Avenue En~nita& CA 92024 17606332780 F760633281 B CITY OF ENCINIT AS ENGINEERING SERVICES Fax 1'01 Ludmilla Bradley 7804350778 Frum: Jeff Garami FIDD """ 1 Phanel 7604360778 118181 ~7/1519g Greg Karen Re: Dwg 2628-G-3A cc: C Urgent [:J 'or R8¥1.w [J P"'" Carnme'" [J PI.... "'ply C PI.... ~I. . COmments: Per our corwersation, this is your notice that the named plans have been approved, _II.o.Mlua .. .1" 1.4 1 QQQ PIIUUI ,;:¡VA ~ndnita9 Bluecrint Dick UD the mvlars at our counter and make a .......... """""""""""""""""""""""""""""".'" TRRNSMISSION RESULT REPORT C~~."~~~~~~~R~5 '99 11: 14RM) ................. .......... ............. ........ ................ .......... ................. ............................. .............. ............... ....... ........ ......... .......... ........... C RUT 0 ) .... ................. THE FOLLOWING FILECS) ERRSED FILE FILE TYPE OPTION 006 MEMORY TX TEL NO. 97388232 PRGE 01/01 RESULT OK ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ERRORS 1) HRNG UP OR LINE FRIL 2) BUSY 3) NO RNSWER 4) NO FRCSIMILE CONNECTION 505 South Vulcan Avenue E\Oinita$ CA 92024 T76D63327BO F7606332S18 CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES Fax To: Ludmilla Bradley From: Jeff Garami Fax: 7607388232 Pages: 1 p~ 7607368800 Date: 07/15199 Re: Dwg 2628-G-3A ee: Greg Karen D Urgent [J For Review D ..~.... Comment 0 PJéáSe Reply 0 Please Recycle . Call1lMlntal Per our conversation, this is your notice that the named plans have been approved. effeCtiVe July 14, 1999. Please have Encínitas Blueprint pick up the mylars at our counter and make a " , .... ".. ....'.. U... ...----.--.'-----'------..'L__L -_...._-------_._._.._----~-_._- 8 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas CA 92024 T7606332780 F7606332818 . CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES Fax To: Ludmilla Bradley From: Jeff Garami Fax: 7607388232 Pages: 1 Phone: 7607388800 Date: 07/15/99 Re: Dwg 2628-G-3A CC: Greg Karen 0 Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle . Comments: Per our conversation, this is your notice that the named plans have been approved, effective July 14, 1999. Please have Encinitas Blueprint pick up the mylars at our counter and make a permit package of 4 blueline copies. You, your engineering consultant, and your construction contractor most likely would like to have additional copies; please coordinate. Encinitas Blueprint can deliver the permit package when they return the mylars. From now, I can work with Soil Engineering Construction to complete the remaining paperwork and get them started. 8 8 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas CA 92024 T7606332780 F7606332818 CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES Fax To: Ludmilla Bradley From: Jeff Garami Fax: 7604360778 Pages: 1 Phone: 7604360778 Date: 07/15/99 Re: Dwg 2628-G-3A CC: Greg Karen 0 Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle . Comments: Per our conversation, this is your notice that the named plans have been approved, effective July 14, 1999. Please have Encinitas Blueprint pick up the mylars at our counter and make a permit package of 4 blueline copies. You, your engineering consultant, and your construction contractor most likely would like to have additional copies; please coordinate. Encinitas Blueprint can deliver the permit package when they return the mylars. From now, I can work with Soil Engineering Construction to complete the remaining paperwork and get them started. E¡ftNEERING SERVICES DEPARTM8r RANSMITT AL FORM OM: Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 0 District Support Services L-D) 0 Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Reid Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering Subdivision Engineering (SE) Office of the Director (#1) Traffic Engineering (TE) 0 Field Operations (FO) 0 ATTENTION: [""'MIl/., fJ. Brad/'4j- ~/ 1.# '~'O¡ ( C¿tlk ¡J(~ 4J1"""1-7f1 hr ~J.Þ/f~ ) - -¡¡; )~E - ---> ~~E - ---> DEPOSITIFEE DATE: (Finance Number~z..f' (Finance Number (Finance Number inal Parcel Map 0 Final Map 0 Check heckprint / Approved Copy / Original/Certificate / Rejected eliminary Title Report 0 Traverse Calculations 0 Reference Maps 0 nteroffice Memorandum. 0 Plancheck Comments. 0 egal Description 0 Plat 0 Other: asement re: Covenant re: Highway 0 Trail 0 ovements Sewer 0 Park 0 Impact Fees Drainage 0 0 Assessments greement re: prove ents /' 0 0 0 0 0 mprovement Plan 0 heckprint/ Approved Copy/OriginaVRejected Check Plancheck Comments. 0 rading Plan 0 Check heckprint/Approved Copy/OriginaVRejected Plancheck Comments. 0 TPM/~INIDR: ~~ /)~ " 51'° ~tJA~ ~ APN: " Other Application: (Type) (Check) 0 * (Staff/Consultant/CDlFire/SD WD/OMWD/LCWD) Sketch (if needed): (Public/Private) (Road/Drainage/W ater/Sewer/TraiVPark/F acility) Intermediate Description: Plan Change Description: tructural Calculations 0 Cost Estimate 0 Soil Report 0 (MasslRough/Preliminary/Precise) ydrology Study/Map 0 Cross Sections 0 Exhibit: 0 (Erosion ControVPlanting & Irrigation) s Per... Our conversation 0 My/your inquiry 0 Our Review ß Our Inquiry 0 Our APprova~ ~::~;;. ~~~.;¿.~. £!Please ~~ie ¿; 3~~Ò 0 Uses . if necessa<y riginator: ~ .~ðM j "Copies to: hit!' Messenger 0 Received by: Title: ~ 0 C<J<}~le 0 LocatIOn: Other 0 Date: Telephone: SG/ARR/Generic_Trans.doclO2.11.99 05 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TEL (760) 633-27701FAX (760) 633-2818/ TDD (760) 633-2700 lofl ........... .............................................................. .... TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT """.a¡"""" C JUN 14 ' 99 CIT~ ENCINITAS 08:50AM)""""""""" .. ........ .. ........ ............. ...... .......... ..... ........ ............ .............., ................. .......................................................... ....... ..... C AUTO) .............. ......., THE FOLLOWING FILECS) FILE FILE TYPE 011 MEMORY TX ERASED OPTION TEL NO. 97388232 PAGE 02/02 RESULT OK ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ERRORS 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION OLlth Vulcan Avenue ~nQjnitas CA 92024 32780 F7606332818 Cítyof Encinitas City of Encïnïtas Fax To: Greg Karen Fronc Jeff Garami Fax: 7607388232 Pages: 2 Pho"," 7607388800 Date: 06111/99 Rø: Beach Encroachment Application 2628TE CC: X Urgent D For Review 0 Please Comment X Please Reply D PI.... Reçycle . Comments: .......... .............................................................. TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT .............. C JUN 11 '99 ~ CIT~ ENCINITAS 1215: 16PM)""""""""" .......... ....... ................................ .............. ........................................ ................................................................. ....... . C AUTO) .... ........ . ..... . ... THE FOLLOWING FILECS) FILE FILE TYPE 1211211 MEMORY TX ERASED OPTION TEL NO. 97388232 PAGE 121121/1212 RESULT E-3)3)3) .......... ......................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ................ ..... .. . ..... ERRORS 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION outh Vulcan Avenue Ençinitae CA 92024 32780 F7606332818 . City of Encinitas City of En.ctnitas Fax To: Greg Karen Fram: Jeff Garami Fax: 7607388232 Pag..: 2 p~ 7607388800 Date; 06111199 Re: Beach Encroachment Application 2628TE CCI X Urgent !:I PorReview !:I PI....e Comment X PI.... Reply a Plea.e lteçycle . Comments: 8 8 outh Vulcan Avenue Encinitas CA 92024 :3:32780 F7606332818 City of Encinitas City of Encinitas Fax To: Greg Karen From: Jeff Garami Fax: 7607388232 Pages: 2 Phone: 7607388800 Date: 06/11/99 Re: Beach Encroachment Application 2628TE CC: x Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment x Please Reply 0 Please Recycle . Comments: Please complete the accompanying application and return with original signature and payment of the $700.00 inspection deposit no later than Tuesday @ noon, June 15, 1999, in order to be considered for the consent agenda of the City Council on June 23, 1999. Attachments such as certain covenants and special conditions will be processed for your client's signature after the application is received. TEL 7()()-6,B-2(¡()() / FAX 76()-655-2627 ')()') S, Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras. California ')2()24-5(d.i IDD 76()-6,B-27()() ~ recycled paper 8 8 ßz-.P~ Q: .J- . TRANSMITTAL FORM CITY OF ENCINIT AS 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas. CA 92024-3633 FAX: 633-2818 Comunity Development Engineering Fire Administration Fire Prevention DATE: z- 2.. ~-9 fJ lA .e-/ CL dL s TO: I<~~ P(JbUðI~ ß~,.W.b. nll;J-- CO~1PANY: C,...;) ~ D£( M qy - FROM: )¡, eo ~ g~ /~ 1),' Public \Vorks ~(~ SE~D TO FAX # 7 ÇS--- 7... ï9ý # PP A TT ACHED ç PHONE: 760/633- 277t: 0 Call ASAP 0 Review & Call 0 Review & Return ~.Y.I. 0 Please Handle - 0 Per Our Conversation 0 Please Reply by ¡;jc¡j IA cf I v'S.-llof c¿J- þ( # ~,'/ vI'<.. .."k. i!~~\ 'k "¡4 S . R.o~ f(t~l 4 ~k¿( "¡4~rJ. H,.l~ k /~..t: ~.1. 4 L c;.e> ~c.,kJ ~ MJ1 ~ ð . G:\fax-n.doc ........... ............................................................-.. TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT ............... (FEB 23 ' 98 02' 22PM) . .................. CIT ENCINITAS ..... ...... ............... ........... ............... ............................................................................................................................. ( AUTO) . ....... .............. THE FOLLOWING FILE(S) ERASED FILE FILE TYPE OPTION 014 MEMORY TX TEL NO. 916197552799 PAGE RESULT 00/05 E-3)3)3) .... ...... . ...... .......... ~~~~~~.................................................. .......... .......... .......... ...................... ......................... .. .... ...... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .... .. ........ .. .... . 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: 633-2818 Comunity Development Engineering Fire Administration Fire Prevention (Elf) Public Works SE).;D TO FAX # 7 ÇS-- "2- 79ÿ CITY OF ENGINITAS 505 S. Vulcan A"enue Encinitas. CA. 9202.&-3633 DATE: Z- ~>-9fr TO: RAtto" :-Eo~Jl - Œ~~.I~ "-~ COMPANY: C.-J~; r;f O¿z..[ A1l4V" .. FROM: J../. (!. '~g.~ #- PP A IT ACHED ç PHONE: 760/633- Z77¿ 0 Call ASAP' , 0 Review & Call 0 Review & Return 1!$.+.Y.I. 0 P lease Handle [J Per Our Conversation D please Reply by 8 City of , '---= --~ ." ~'::',=- Encinitas Capital Projects, 0 - Development Review 0 - District Support Services 0 - 8 INTRAD EP AR TMENT AL TRAN SMITT AL FORM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Engineering Records 0 - Field Operations 0 - Office of the City Engineer 0- Permits Counter C!f Traffic Engineering 0- Engineering Records Field Operations Office of the City Engineer -I'ATIENTION:<':<~~ ~~~ee.:-:.':.:,"'~ "-." ..' -- , D- O- 0- :-,,:..,11 DATE:'" \'Z..-'1.1-:-G¡t:à"'.:::" , I' : nsmitted as,follówing:~~"" ~,.., ,"-- "c ""ÓT,æ::: et~~p~ O~r:~~~ê;:, . ' ,~séèf7!.D;~1!~JEJ~-pp~, , BlijèlinelBlåckline'" 0 '~Lo_t LilÎè~dj11Stmenf);' '.~Orig .MProved Ie:ntâtiv~,Màp_{'DiY.~!fugQ~.",g,:~E -ti I{~~iu.tiò~;Õf.APP~ [J~1§Y!t~9i.~~~.~iòrisT, Preliminary;I'ltle Repo..".ql{Refere:n,~'~ps,D';:\ ~ ~~;~~~ ~~¡ 1k~~~i:~1:ftJ;=~~ré:~ ~~;~ l~~ ","0 ....,"""~--,._,-"""-..",....,"" ' ""'."'<""'" ",.,..Æj.".n""':,'J<';;I?'~f1-2~""'~""""'t,""'Ci':-'-'< " . >~~;""-'" ';::~'~""~¥i. """"","""'",..",., "',", ""_'0'-"""" rr: ~~ e ð P l~~ 2~~.'~~~lÞ~ ~ ~::"~ðl:"' ¿~.:.;~i ,-,"~" '~ _._p£' BluelinétBlackliDe.i~ D,~ Rëd~liñèd '°, oi, Original' o€ Adjacent Improvement Rêpòr1.'1 0 <'CÓstEstirIïá.te , Hydraulic Calculations' 0 ,Soils Report'; 0'. Hydrology Map D'60ss Sections o' Capital Projects [J,~ Development Review ~- District Suppon Services 0 - ' - ~egarding (Finance Number ¿ú-z.ß 7" a:r )' ~~~\'t:",/~";:.,,,¡< ;,.~,'i:"~~i;~~,~~~c:,..;:~~:2 ' , Permits Counter 0 - Traffic Engineering 0- 'M .,-.TPM/I'M: --- -..: ", ":_,;,f!.~~:}-~:J{~~~~~~' M :':'~,.~,'-:" ';", " ',' " ; - -:.' '," ..,' .. "'$" -., ,'\j';,,"'~;:.....; , "~' ,c, . .;C'X:: " ".: , ' , C';"'~-'" x ..-, '.',."',":, .. ' .. " ," ': .~;-;::' .d~:in~~Z:p~kfor ad~~~~;:,t~c;;'t,~~;;~~r',.;;..., , ;~~~PQsed. 0 ,i..Corrected, ~,D:!!.t\ppr()ved 0 " , 'BluelinelBlacklineD Red Lined';' DO(Original 0 ; Hydraulic Calculations 0" Cost Estimate, 0 , Hydrology Map 0 Soils Report 0 ' " ' ; Note: See map block for additional items, if any. ',As Per..; Submittal Regpr, e~, e"",nts r Conversation 0 Public InquirylProposal 0 ForYour... Review ~ "Approval SignatureD Comment 0 Information 0 "Please Return' ,"',:"'" Please Call: , , :...:;;y.., ')27 Encinitas ßollk\':ml, ErlCinila" Calif()rnia <)20204 Use 0 TEL 61<).l).H.';O<'O ¡¡.j\); (1').(~2,l)H:I(' @ recycled paper 8 , ~ '----- City of Encinitas 8 INTRADEP ARTMENTAL TRANSMITTAL FORM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT F Capital Projects 0 - R Development Review 0 - 0 District Support Services 0 - M T Capital Projects 0 - 0 Development Review M~ District Support Services 0- Permits Counter rvfUl~ Traffic Engineering 0- Engineering Records 0 - Field Operations 0 - Office of the City Engineer D- Engineering Records D - Field Operations [!f - Office of the City Engineer D- Permits Counter D - Traffic Engineering D- I A1TENTION: I I DATE: I \vd5-O¡ I ~~ -:¡- ~~ ~ ~ t;;t1:\~.s .~. Regarding (Finance Number 2£Q"Z0 - ~ ) " TPM!fM: - - - APN: " ansmitted asfollbwing: Parcel Map 0 Final Map D Submittal Proposed 0 Corrected 0 Approved 0 BluelinelBlacldine 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Approved Tentative Map D Vesting Deed 0 . Resolution of Approval' D Traverse Calculations 0 Preliminary Title Report D Reference Maps 0 CÒpies of all documents listed in prelimináry title report 0 Comments/More Documents: Improvement Plan 0 Submittal . Proposed 0 Corrected D Approved D , BluelinelBlacldine 0 Red-lined 0 Original 0 . Adjacent Improvement Report 0 Cost Estimate 0 Hydraulic Calculations 0 Soils Report 0 Hydrology Map 0 Cross Sections D Note: See map b!Pck for additiona~ items, if any. Grading Plan [! SubmIttal Proposed D Corrected 0 Approved 0 BluelinelBlacldine 0 Red Lined 0 Original 0 Hydraulic Calculations D Cost Estimate Œ1 roe. r>ÅrI~ Hydrology Map 0 Soils Report 0 Sketch (if needed): rr Note: See map block for additional items, if any, As Per... Submittal R~ments 9ur Conversation Cd"" Public InquirylProposal 0 For Your... Review ~ Approval Œr Signature r::r Comment - 0 Information 0 Please Return Please Call: Ori 'nator: ';2- Encini¡as ßouk\'ard. EnLini¡a,- Calif"rni;¡ <)202.; Use 0 Co ies to: TEL 61')-').;+';0<;0/ ¡-,\:>\ oJ')-' ".!-,)H,,/I @ recycled paper . 8 ",- ___..m~ CITY OF ENCINITAS 527 Encinitas Boulevard, suite ~oo Encinitas, california 92024 (6~9) 944-5050 Letter of Transmittal To: willdan Associates 6363 Greenwich Drive, suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 Date oq-"2-1-q\ File No. 'Z £p -z.e ~ From: city of Encinitas Engineering Department for the development Transmi tted herewith are the Proj ect plans known as ~o ~e:.T 5~ w~ U- pursuant to the terms of our contract with plan checking serVice/or the following: Final Map Grading Plan Z. ~ Check Check The enclosed documentation: Final Map Approved Tentative Map Project Conditions (or Resolution of Approval)----- Preliminary Title Report----- copies of all documents listed in the Preliminary Title Report Vesting Deed Traverse Calculations Reference Maps Other If you have any information, please BY~ submittal contains the Grading Plan ~\¡,.)E- J Approved Tentative Map Project Conditions (or Resolution of Approval) Preliminary Title Report ===== soi ls Report Hydrology Map Hydraulic Cales Cost Estimate Checklist Other ~~~. ~~~ ï,:, ~ -r ---:7"" /' ---;:;7 --:;;;r -;7"" your firm, we request Improvement Plan Check following support IlIÐrovement Plan Approved Tentative Map ----- Project Conditions (or Resolution of Approval)----- Preliminary Title Report ----- Adjacent Improve. Report ----- Hydrology Map Hydraulic Cales Cross Sections Cost Estimate Checklist Other comments, questions, or need give us a call at (619) 944-5075. additional TF/05/PWl-83WP~10-1-90/2) . . 8 I=,... , ~--~ ~) CITY OF ENCINITAS TRANSMITTAL FORM r-"~'-' 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD "'5~'-~'" ~ " dg ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ~ : FAX: (619) 632-9836 . PHONE: (619) 944-505q TO: Lù (ltU)Þr~ DATE: 7-~L1( OF: ADDRESS: VIA: Fax # # of Pages Including Cover 0 Mail D Messenger D Other "P vPr ~ R.L ' f)(U,>( ~\ ~~<) ((')6..~éi7 - Comments: CHU-K - '- '5Coo ~~P"\ùtJ L II f' 1i- ,/ t::J 6¡L '5 ~ \.J...>ÞJL-V I -<) T(ù..>(..:rv R." L- I..,{ ~lP 1...-0'" .. , . f.{G, 1\~1v IÍKPW(~ D Call ASAP D Review & Call ~ & Return D F.Y.I. FR~ P~ÁJ D Pe, au, Con VNsa bon D Please Reply by Phone:;: , I I I I ! I . . , I ':'""'"'-j-'""" ,<-'.:_----' .....,..; .- 'I .-+ ..~ '! j o¡~~~1 CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 -TRANSMITT AL FORM FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHON E: (619) 944-5050 ..-:\ TO: PilOt- GJl.ð/j OF: Lt,lfS¡IIt- G¡l/lfYl/íflDJ DATE: 5-1-7f ADDRESS: VIA: Fax # ':543 - 0852- # of Pages Including Cover D Mail LJ Messenger [-J Other Comments: lMCL, (I) fÎur("j~ YJI/JcJTtr f t2ojJðJ7Æ /) /Jir I(;./../ ALT~OJIJTI~r (z) (3) ÚJ/tJT FI L /3f.,l.J F ¡:.. P ¿¡¿,., rr P ~L~ s.s f1wL. / DDUfð J~, ð 135' D ¡.j #ifS paM [) It? trrfÖ TT:) S'~k- ¡/-¿)IJ(£jJCL tù rrff 1lJ t;,tr In,Ub¿NC,7 t)u ¿ )ílð¡"/S (fllJAI f(S fJ fIlM rr-- to /f£L IF you t4A(Æ, If J/ r D Call ASAP D Review & Call D Review & Return ~I. D Please Handle D Per Our Conversation 0 Please Reply by FROM: ~! ý,:;¡ J.J. Phon. '( # - 3WD CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 8 TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHONE: (619) 944-5050 TO: (t4r I fL 1JJ¡¿ l ( 12-& <;~, -\);e~\ ~LJi/vLe> DATE: 3-- d 7 - 9 I OF: ADDRESS: VIA: Fax # ~çq - q<6to l # of Pages Including Cover 3 D Mail D Messenger D Other Comments: D Call ASAP D Review & Call D Review & Return b2(F.Y.I. D Please Handle D Per Our Conversation D Please Reply by FROM:1?:vb 'f\.e1~¡\ ( ~ ÞI.L~l~ Í,JI#~ Dte. Phon. 44:4 -<.<:fi1) CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 8TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHONE: (619) 944-5050 TO: &v~ O~b-R- '1SlND ¿ DATE: 3- J-í -91 OF: ADDRESS: VIA: Fax # ...¡~~ - ~ç~ # of Pages Including Cover -3 0 Mail D Messenger D Other Comments: D Call ASAP D Review & Call D Review & Return ffi.Y,I. D Please Handle D Per Our Conversation D Please Reply by FROM ~'o j\...LJOV\ ,~.\W' ~vì{<L lðï/W.!; Ph. ~,~ qLf4 -S:ù?Q CITY OF ENCINITAS 8 527 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 . TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: (619) 632-9836 PHONE: (619) 944-5050 TO: iiv 1/ lù(~f? OF: tvPr;)'ÍAL- (J?JA i".JlS~I()~ \ DATE: '3-11-61\ ADDRESS: VIA: Fax # 541- OBÇ"L- # of Pages Including Cover 0 Mail 0 Messenger 0 Other Comments: ~.~ '-f ov ~ ri.Jt;, . 0 Call ASAP 0 Review & Call 0 Review & Return ~J. 0 Please Handle 0 Per Our Conversation FROM ~~~ ("8 0 Please Reply by Phon. r44 - 317<:> ., ',8 8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondido, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax October 31, 2000 Project No. 98-1055 City of Encinitas Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Ms. Diane Lanager Subject: Supplemental Documents Revised MidlU pper Bluff Repairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attachments: I) Structural calculations and analysis titled "Ms. Ludmilla Bradley Residence- 560 Neptune Repair To Upper BiulT, Ev.l!t:atj,;¡r. of Effect/Surcharge oiNew Wall and Backfill On Existing; Seawall, Sheets I through 5, of5, "prepan:d by Soii EngmeeriJ1g Construction, dated O~tùber 23.2000. 2:, "Revised Slope Stabiiiry Analyses, Proposed Bluff Repairs. Bradley Residcnce, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CalJfornia," dated October 31, 2000. prepan:d by Scil Engineering Construction. References: l} "Repaif$ to Upper Bluff. Bradley Residence-560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Caiifornia:' Sheets 1 through 4 Cof 4, prepared by SOIl Engineering ConstruCl1on, dated September 19, lOOO. 2) "Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California:'Pages i tiul)ugh 14 of 14, rrepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6, 2000. 3) "Letter Report-Slope Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 5liO Neptune, Avenue, Encinita;. California,," prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20, 2000. . 4) "Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Encinitas, California," dated September 27, 2000, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. Dear Ms. Lanager: We have prepared this letter to discuss the attached supplemental documents relative to engineering issues associated with the revised upper bluff repairs (new beam and lagging wall with gravel fill slope) as outlined by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC), designed to address the conditions of existing bluff failures and the undermining of the shotcrete cover at the project site (Reference 1, above) within the "Upper Bluff Repair" as prepared by Soil Engineering Construction (SEC). The documents attached, (Attachments 1 and 2, above) were prepared by SEC at the Coastal Commissions request for additional clarification and/or documentation. Given that the attachments concern engineering and geotechnical issues, we San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA . Houston, TX . .. II Supplemental Documents 560 Neptune Avenue. Encìnitas Ca. October 31. 2000 Page 2 8 8 Project No. 9&.1055 felt it necessary to provide these documents to the City, so they may be included during the City's review of the project. Attachment: Comments: Attachm.ent: Comments: 1) At the request of Ms. Leslie Ewing of the California Coastal Commission, SEC perfom1ed an evaluation of the effectisurcharge of the new beam and lagging wall with slope backfill on the existing seawall. The requested additional analysis and supporting documentation concerning the potential impact/surcharge the new beam and lagging wall with gravel fill slope has on the existing seawall has been included as Attachment 1, and was prepared by Soil Engineering Constmction. Based on a review oftheir evaluation (Attachincnt 1), they concluded: . "In our opinion, design parameters and design of'LJ"e proposed wall already includes adequate factors of safety. Based on above, there is no effect or impact on the existing seawall." 2) At the request of the geological reviev¡er with the California Coastal Commission, they reqlle~ted. additionaldocurnentation and laboratory dat1/infonnation supporting the soil para.>neters used wit.~in t1-¡e slope stability analysis performed relative to the reconmlt:nded bluff repair and finish slope stability. Based on this request, additional slope stability analysis was performed on tþe finish slope repair conditions (Attachment 2). Soil parameters usekl on the. analyses included a combination of data and on-site shear te~t r~u1ts obtained by Anthony-Taylor Consultants and others, back.c~lcu ations pertònned by SEC, and knowledge and experience relttiv . to site C.onditions within the general area of the project site as reported by SEC. As part of this review, a revised slope stability analysis was performed using updated soil parameters. This revised analysis found a minimum factor of less than 1.5 (Factor of Safety of 1.42 for cross-section A-A') under static conditions. The analysis also found that for distances of 15-feet or greater eastward from the bluff toi the minimum calculated factor of safety increases to 1.5 and above. Though the lowest minimum factor of safety has been calculated to be slightly below the industry standard minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5, We should note that this analysis indicates an I . 8 8 Supplemental [)oçumenl3 ~60 Neptune Avenue, Encinilas Ca. October J 1.2000 Page J Project No. 98.10~~ assumed failure extending approximately la-feet back from the bluff I top. Since the analyses also indicates that the post-construction slope repair configuration ~as a minimum Factor of Safety of 1..5 and greater for a distance qf 15 feet and greater eastward of the bluff top, and given: the highly unstable condition of the existing bluff, and the real financial limitation present relative to the funding the project; and the setback of 40-feet from the bluff top required of all new structures, we request ,hat the slightly lower Factor of Safety found be reviewed and considered acceptable. We should note tlmt the proposeà repairs raise the existing factor of safety from at or near the existing factor of safety of 1.0, to very close to the 1.5 required, and greater for failures extending a distance of I5-feet and greater from the top of bluff. We apprel:Ïate your serious consideration of O~lr request on behalf of Mr. Ludmilla Bradley. . If you have questions or need funher information, please call Mr. Greg Karen, so ViC may discuss this most urgent situation, Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company ~~,L- Grego . aren Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2) are/Brldley/Projec:tIlCíly.Suppie-Doc..IO-J 1.00 II ../-~l~ 8 SOIL ¡:nGln¡:¡:~lnG ~~ 8 / October 31,2000 Mr. Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission - San Diego Area 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, California 92108 Re: Revised Slope Stability Analyses Proposed BlufT Repairs, Bradley Residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Mr. McEachern: In response to questions raised by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding the soil strength parameters used in our previous analyses (dated September 20, 2000) Soil Engineering Constructio~ Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter report presenting the results of our revised slope Stability analyses for the proposed bluff repairs at the subject site. Revised design information used in the analyses were provided to us by Anthony-Taylor Consuhants laboratory testing, by our field observations of the proposed gravel backfill, back calculations for the existing bluff configuration along cross section A-A', and on our extensive experience working on the bluff areas along the Encinitas coastline. The repair plans "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by SEC dated September 6, 2000 was used as the basis for the bluff sections used in the analyses. Slope Stability Analyses Presented herein are the results of our revised bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose of the analyses was to find the minimum fàctors of safety with respect to sliding for the proposed post construction conditions including analyzing the bluff at distances, of 15 and 40 feet eastward from the top of bluft7shotcrete wall. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (GSTABL7 computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross-sections A-A' and B-B', shown on 927 Arguello Street, I'edwood CIty, California 9406J.1J10 (650) J67.9595 . FAX (650) J67.81J9 r .. \,~ 8 8 Mr, Lee McEachern October 31, 2000 Page 2 Figures 1 and 2 (attached), represents the proposed bluff slopes used in our analyses. The computer printouts are included in this review and are attached. Assumed revised design soil parameters used for the gravel backfill are based on our field observations of the angle of repose of the gravel. Field measurements indicate that the gravel backfill's angle of repose is at least 41 degrees. Our analyses assumes that no cohesion is present in the gravel material. In order to densify the toe of the proposed repair, our analyses assumed a denser gravel material with grain sizes ranging from 3/8 to 1-W' and we assumed that these materials possessed a mction angle of 45 degrees and 0 cohesion. Soil strength parameters for the upper Terrace deposits were selected based on previous laboratory testing by Anthony Taylor Consultants and others (See Appendix A), our past experience working on the Encinitas bluff areas and on our back calculation (computer printouts attached) assuming a factor of safety of 1.15 for the existing bluff configuration along cross-section A-A'. Based on our engineering judgment, it is our opinion that the soil strength parameters presented in the following table best represent the existing and proposed materials at this site. Total Unit, , ", " , ,Weight (pel) , "',:,:,::,',,,' ',,:,,',", ',:,!,;,',""-"',: ::",",,'-" ,:,': , ," "", """"':,,{'::;'>'~;\':;¿~i/,,,', Weakly Cemented Terrace Deposits (Upper- Bluff) 110 ' 450' 38 Mid bluff Terrace Deposits 110 150 120 0 100 0 38 Dense Gravel Backfill (3/8" to 1- Y2" Rock) Gravel Backfill (3/4" to 1- W' Rock) 45 41 Torrey Sandstone 120 2000 . - Based on back -calculation analysis, see attached computer printouts. 45 r .... 'f~ 8 8 Mr, Lee McEachern October 31, 2000 Page 3 Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis uses a pseudo-static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each load case are presented below: ':i;';':' '.S,; '.. ." . ..:'~:~::':' '. . ,~' Fäc.or of Safety;: , '.., '" ,/,' : ' , '.., '," ,: 'r" Cross Section A-A' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.42 1.12 Cross Section B-B' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.50 1.20 Cross Section A-A' Post Construction Analyses @ 15 Feet East of the Top of Bluff7Shotcrete Wall Static Analysis- Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.51 1.19 Cross Section A-A' Post Construction Analyses @ 40 Feet East of the Top of Bluff7Shotcrete Wall Static Analysis- Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.76 1.32 Conclusions & Recommendations Based on the findings presented above, it is our opinion that an adequate factor of safety against sliding may be achieved at the site by implementing the proposed repairs depicted in the construction drawings including the addition of the dense gravel section located at the toe of slope/top of proposed wall. It is recommended that the dense gravel section extend across the width of the repair, beginning one foot below the top of wall and extend r \r \ . . 8 Mr. Lee McEachern October 3 I, 2000 Page 4 8 to a vertical elevation of six feet above the top of the proposed wall. The repair plans will be revised to reflect this recommendation. Our analyses indicates that the factors of safety against sliding at distances of about 15 feet eastward fÌ'om the top of blufi7shotcrete wall will possess a factor of safety of 1.5 or higher and that future development of the property will not be adversely affected by the proposed repairs At this time, it is our opinion that the proposed repair plan prepared by SEC is the only viable solution to restore an adequate factor of safety for the protection of the primary residence at the subject site. If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. Respectfully submitted, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. J(; ~ Jl !~54' C.E.G. 847 -'-~"-"-"'\: --G"~ EER I", \\\ -<y'f' ""'" Q , ~ÇJ .,~~\ D. M;';;.~~~~ ", t!:~ ~'. ~ 'i ~~:~ ~:~~ ~~~ LlC. No, EG 847 ,:Ç)~ (j c...)'. EXP. 08/31/02 '. ~ fj.'.' :~J.! 't\P,;.... ...'~",¿-' t\\..,~~....... .,~o~ \\ OF Ct\\"'-- \.,-,-,-,-,--- I ~ ) 110 Ion I , 90; I i I 80 I I 70 i I i 60 I ! I ' I 50 I I 40 I I I I I I i 30: r I I I : 20 10 8 A 8. . A' 110 100 - --- NEPTUNE ? -- ~ A' ENUE go i I I ¡ I I I 'Pi: vS£ ~~t2~t I )ROPOSED STE L ~ND \JODD LAO GINl RET AINING \J AlL \ TIEBACJl:S ï I I (E) 2500 PSI "'ONC BACKFlUl 'E) SEAWALL '^ / TlEBACHS I I I -' rt --., r'j - "1JlO I 0; ! ~? ! -10 I I I a , 20 I ¡ I '? , . 220 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1_110 0 240 -10 260 \ . . 8 ,.' - 8 8 8' - I 110 - 1110 ~ 100 - NEP UNE 100 AVt:..1' II II- r-? ts~ r---. ,- qo -- ? - - IgO - 80 IRO 70 70 L.. ~\J 60 60 P~DPOS 50 AND W[ RE IT AIN: 50 11 ¡:'HAQ at 40 (E' ?, ~ ~.!) 30 -l. (r: "'0 I ~I:."I ._.~' 8J CKFIl ~o ~ "-.IL- I ( :) Sf:¡ I ' - I 1 :t:W;) Tt 110 10 I "-B'I ! ¡ I 8 i 0 0 I 1 'LU rl I I I I -? . . l' =20' . . . 0 20 200 220 240 260 ~ , 1 8 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 8 8 8 - t DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 L:' 2000 en a.. "-" . ! . . :r .... ~ Z W ~ I- en 0:: oet w ~ 1000 i . 0 0 517 10001154 1131 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSt) ~MBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (ps1) FRICTION REM"RKS ANGLE (a) . B-1 0 03.0 TO 3.5 FT 140 45' NATURAL SHW (TERRACE OEPOSrTS) 1.01 5-BUILDING PAD . ANTHONY-TAYLOR CON8ULTANTS 'a~ -=s:.:-..-..::: ~£t- ~- SOd HO~.= ~dLS:£ 00Z-0£-0L ) 8 8 DIRECT SHEAR TEST AESUL TS 3000 ..- a.... 2000 (f). 0- -.....,; ., :¡:. t-. ~ Z I..J Q: t- (f) Q: <. c.aJ ~ 1000 '. a 0 577 1000 11 S.4 1731 2000 2308 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSi=") IS'(MBOL SAMPLE LOCATION C.OHESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (8) . B-1 0 2.5 TO 3.0 FT 125 38' NATURAL SHEAR (TERRAC£: DEPOSITS) LOT 5-BUIl.DI~G PN) . ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS '!:.1!1F'!!' \: ~ ~ ;:... -,- SOd ~~ WdLS:g ØØ~-0E-ØL 8 - ~' CMl88CONSlJI.MNr; ~ IN'\II'iIH,~1 ';"'I,',~I:II:I'\NI~ lillI/III."."" 1'011,\1 ,;I'IINr~;r~: ".w" 'I 1.""""\1 '10""1' ;^NI'II.~Ì<' ,:¡\~~IJI 1(lr 1/'I1~',,"" ,n;~1 ,/,)0 11'110/' "".. ,11".1 June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 N~ptun. Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE CLOT NOS. 4 AND 5) ENC:tN:t'I'AS, CAL!:FORNIA Dear Ms. Bradley: In accordance with your request and those of Mr. Fred Nerlinqer (project structural engineer), we submit this report presenting our findings and recommendations reqardinq the bluff conditions at the subject site. This opportunity to be of service is appreciat_à. you have any questions, please ca2l. Should Very truly yours, OWEN ..' ,. GMK/OKS/ERA:%I1s At:'tachments (Distri~ution on followinq paqe) r.. rl<'.f ~ IN "AN (¡IFt)() I ". ~1",{11 "'I.:;, MÓU(;IJ"'(';(iIJlJ.';I\UI",I/I'i"" ~'d ~~Oèj.::l vldØS ; s:: OOë:-0S::-0 L 8 8 1000 / /' 7" 7 ~ /" /' ./ /' ./ ./ -./ ./ . 7 /' 7 ./ -/ / /' -/ 7' ,/ /' 7 /' i./ 0 0 soo 1000 1600 2000 tlOO 3000 tOOO 6000 4000 ~ ~ i= 0 ffi 3000 a: I- en a: < w ¡ 2000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) sYMBOl. SAMPLe I.OCA TION CO"'£SION 'INn fI"'CTION "."'API tC.S ANGLE '8) .. S-3 0 61. (TQ~~ey SanQ8tcne) Typical Sri ttJ.e l'rac~e Behavior at peak ¡,cad DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS / PROJECT NO. 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO. 2)-2 ~'d v4Qè,:j ~dØS:E ØØ~-ØE-ØL 8 8 fíii\ DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESUL TS ~ CM8M CONSlJl.TANTS / f'fIOJECT NO. 9 S 9 .1. 1 1- NO II! J 1 J J J , J ~ I - - , - - 2000 - _I .. , .ì . - 81! i 1 i II! I . J - ~ .. - ~ ... god 1000 100'0 / ./ ./ /' ./ /' " /' ~ /' /" '" V -7 . /' /' '¿' /' /' /' /' 1000 4000 - u.. C :: ~ " . ~ ~ooo a: ~ en a: < w i 0 0 1000 1600 soo 2000 JIiOO aooo NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPU; I..OCA TION COWKSION p-f) flfIIlCTION R&MAAKS ANGLE C., . 5-4 2000 58° lTorrey Sandstohe) Typical. Dr.itUe F~acturé Béba~ior at Peak. Load D-J ~'~crd.;:j ~'~døs ; g ØØë:-0g-Ø L 8 8 ..'If..',llllë'''..,ëtJJ; II.... J ,,(-. . I:"..:OHI,.".,I;"""','I,""',,I ":"1//",','" fo'lt.t ,'-0. ~ri.lo5 ÙI:I/")~,...I'" 2i, 198ò :15. t..Ut1mi L 1-" 91'"&0 l~~' 560 ~~ptun~ Av~nu~ ~eucadia, Cali Cornia 9202~ SubjêO;:t.: 8radle~ Residence ~ot Adjacent to 560 ~eptune Avenue Leucadia, Calitornia GEOTECHN!CAL INVESTIGATION Dear ~s. a~adley, We ã~~ pleased to submit the aceeœp&n~in~ repor~ which pre$ents the results of our ~eotechnical investigation for the suoj~Ct proJeo;:~. The investi~ation was performed in accordance with our ~roposal dated S.pte~ber lO,l98S. The report presents our conclusions and recoœœendations pertaining to site development, as well as the res~lts of the field and labc~atQry tests upon whicb they are based. This ~pportunity to be of service is ~ppr9ciated. !t you have questions or if .8 can be of further service, pl~ase do no~ hesit5~e to call. .. Very ~ru1T ycu~s. ~C~~~.R~ILLY. INCORPORAtED /~ f:!t?U1 / Michael R. Rah i 11:, . ~ RCE 28l88 ' (2a¿dr~ss.. (31 SJirk W. Zijlstra, A.I,A.~ Architec: ;10$42 of~/".I".:'c!<. 51 San'Otoqo CA i:?11Q 819~ ~~',1t).t.: L'd ~~O(j.:;j ~d~s:e; 002:-0E-0l 8 8 ~~l.. ~C). Hb-LU;'\ ~~\.tt,h...r' ~~. I~H~~ -. .... ..........- ---------... "..' T..\al.E. t Summa~~ or ~n-Pla~e ~Qistur~-Denslt~ and Di~.~~ Shear TftBt R~sulrs S&m~l. ~o. 0 C" .\" D~ns t !;;o." ,"to t sture r:ohesi~n .~n(le of Shellt" ~o. pc t' Content ~ psr Resistance DI!~r...'I!S l-ò 98.8 2.3 190 46.5 1-7 98.4 .L6 135 ~i 2-2 113.2 8. L 3-~~ 100.8 12.5 50 35 % ~ample remolded to a~proxima~ely 90 density at near optim~m ~oisture content. percenc of maximum l&bora~o TABLE: r I S~œmary of 4aboratory Com~action Test Results Sam'91e ~ Description Maximum Dry Density .o~'f Optimum :-!oisr.u "o! 1)~v we i ~h!:. . 3-4. Silty SAND 112.0 12.5 god ~'IOè:J,:j ~'IdZ;S ; g øØZ;-øg-ø L LOOKING NORTH I I ¡- NEW SAND SLURRY I BACKFl4L 1-1 I EXISTING I ¡ I I (UNDE¥ELOPE~) I ~~ ; WALL ? ! ts ~ I ..J ts I 1Sr OF 2+SACK i Y I SAND SWRRY : I I ! I ! S~OPE ! S OPE it I ANGWE OF EPOSE FOR I TER~ACE DEPOSITS(~ê) I I " ,,1 I I at , ' I . ?\ HL I . I I Ii O. I ! Tt I I ¡ ! r--- I I J I . '\ ! , ~? I ! -10 I . I T t E 4. DIA CAISSON 1 i '0 20 40 60 80 100 120 . . .lliJJ J I 90: ! , i I 80 I I 70 I I i 60 I ¡ ! I i WO ! I I 40 ! i I I ' I 30: , I I I I J 20 REPAIR PLAN -- SECTION A-A' A I f- , SECTI N I I . 1 r-' V~RT; 1 =20' 140 160 180 at . 200 -r.-==t---1 i I I I Tt 220 A' 110 J.lQ Q NEPTUNE AVENUE'90 80 70 I I 1 i . ¡ I I 60 50 40 30 20 , , I I ;? : . ---- 110 Q -10 240 260 . . 8 Q 80 70 60 5_0 40 30 20 l 10 0 0 ..' ~ REPAIR PLAN SECTION B- ..3' - L.OOKING NORTH ? ? tsl at at ? ? Tt ? . ? I . 200 Tt 20 40 60 120 140 180 160 80 100 220 .... 8' ? 20 80 70 60 50 ¡ ~.!J . ~~O I 21L- Tt 110 0 240 260 8 8 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES (CO MPUTER PRINTOUTS) 160 _u_----- I _U_--. ¡ 1# FS I a 1,42 . b 1.46 c 1.47 d 1.48 e 1.49 f 1.50 . i 9 1.51 II h 1.51 120 H ~ 1.52] Il.L1.~ I 80 40 OLH 0 STED g. ? .~ Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Static Analysis C:\STED\QUA13.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/26/00 8:46AM -_cf---"c_c===--=--==-'-=-r- - ----,---- C-:C---:-:4:--U----:_-:"-:::'--~--- -c_- -- ¡---- - --_uu- Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. ~[ Load Value I Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Tl 47200- Ibs No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) No.--_!~---_--___~7~0~ Ibsd-- 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 3 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 Soil Desc. Tar/Fill Torrey GravFiU WCemter DenseGr ,- , 4 Tl@lOfl 40 200 -- uU_--u .-- ~ 120 1~ GSTABL7 FSmin=1.42 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method - - -u -- - 8 ---- 8 ---- --_J 240 160 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Static Analysis C:\STED\QUA13.Pl T Run By: JWN 10/26/00 8:46AM - __.-0- _.- 1æ I ~ i I I I i ! 8 40 It 80 0 0 . - - . .--.L- 80 120 . j 160 j - 200 240 40 STED _£. '~ 8 8 c:\sted\qua13.0UT Page 1 ... GSTABL7 ... ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** .* Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/26/00 Time of Run: 8:46AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qua13. Output Filename: C:qua13.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qua13.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 110.0 120.0 2 120.0 125.0 3 100.0 100.0 4 110.0 120.0 5 120.0 120.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load .Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X a 100.20(ft) and X - 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 165.00(ft) and X - 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Y-Left (ft) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 150.0 2000.0 0.0 450.0 0.0 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 14 6 . 60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Friction Angle (deg) 38.0 45.0 41.0 38.0 45.0 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 8 c:\sted\qua13.0UT Page 2 Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.82 41.01 3 122.96 45.46 4 133.45 51.29 5 143.11 58.41 6 151.79 66.69 7 159.35 76.01 8 165.67 86.21 9 170.58 97.00 Circle Center At X = 82.4; Y = 130.7 and Radius, *** 1.423 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight Top Bot (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 6.8 1730.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 2999.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 6360.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 3768.1 0.0 0.0 10.5 12793.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 13142.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 1247.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 115.8 0.0 0,0 2.5 3975.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 9697.2 0.0 0.0 7.2 15899.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 827.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 1383.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 9659.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 2914.9 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.08 48.53 3 134.53 52.11 4 145.08 57.85 5 154.31 65.52 6 161.87 74.83 7 167.49 85.44 8 170.94 96.93. 9 170.94 97.00 Circle Center At X = 110.5; Y = 108.8 and Radius, *** 1.455 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.91 40.63 3 123.25 44.54 4 134.10 49.67 5 144.31 55.97 6 153.77 63.36 7 162.35 71.75 8 169.95 81.03 9 176.49 91.10 10 179.45 97.00 Circle Center At X - 82.6; Y - 144.4 and Radius, 107.9 *** 1.467 *** 94.4 15 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 -21.3 1.6 -2.2 79.1 -94.6 538.2 -415.3 2804.4 -394.6 132.9 25.2 272.7 21.3 2501.8 36.2 3633.2 1314.0 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61. 6 8 8 Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 100.20 38.00 112.07 39.75 123.59 43.11 134.54 48.02 144.71 54.39 153.90 62.11 161.95 71.01 168.70 80.93 174.02 91.69 175.78 97.00 Center At X = 93.7; Y = 124.2 and Radius, *** 1.475 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.14 39.20 3 123.70 42.41 4 134.56 47.52 5 144.40 54.39 6 152.93 62.83 7 159.91 72.59 8 165.14 83.39 9 168.48 94.92 10 168.71 97.00 Circle Center At X = 99.2; Y = 108.4 and Radius, *** 1.488 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.94 49.50 3 134.27 53.44 4 144.91 58.98 5 154.64 66.02 6 163.23 74.39 7 170.52 83.92 8 176.35 94.41 9 177.33 97.00 Circle Center At X = 101.6; Y = 129.1 and Radius, *** 1.498 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.15 47.29 3 134.86 49.94 4 145.71 55.05 5 155.20 62.40 6 162.88 71.62 7 168.38 82.29 8 171.43 93.89 9 171.56 97.00 Circle Center At X - 116.9; Y - 102.1 and Radius, *** 1.509 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.90 49.68 3 134.20 53.71 4 144.85 59.24 5 154.64 66.19 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Circle c:\sted\qua13.0UT Page 3 86.5 70.4 82.4 55.1 8 8 163.39 74.40 170.92 83.74 177,11 94.02 178.39 97.00 Center At X - 99.3; Y - 133.8 and Radius, *** 1.510 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.13 47.92 3 134.78 50.80 4 145.70 55.79 5 155.50 62.70 6 163.86 71.31 7 170.49 81.32 8 175.15 92.38 9 176.15 97.00 Circle Center At X = 113.5; Y = 111.9 and Radius, *** 1.516 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.60 50.84 3 133.54 55.77 4 143.82 61.97 5 153.28 69.34 6 161.80 77.79 7 169.26 87.19 8 175.29 97.00 Circle Center At X = 86.8; Y = 144.8 and Radius, *** 1.523 *** 6 7 8 9 Circle c:\sted\qua13.0UT Page 4 87.4 64.7 100.6 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\QUA13A.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:19PM 160'1----"-¡ - _'H:...:-._j_-...cc='c.:::::=c.-:,:,:::c'- --I- - -'--l'- I: -"-J .. # FS' Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value I a 1.121 Desc. TypeUnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle SUrface:g:~~gg'.:~$. . b 1.15 No. (pá) (pá) (pst) (deg) No. Hofiz Eqk 0 150 g~ c 1.17 Ter/Fill t 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 --~---_:_----_.- d 1.17 Torrey 2: 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 e 1.18 GravFiII 3; 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 f 1.19 WCemter 4: 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 9 1.19 DenseGr S; 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 h 1.19 --.-- ------:--- --- 120 f+L 1.20- 'H---H____~_UH_--_--_H---_-- -_.~----- _---H___mm'- ___~_H_H - j 1.21 -,' a h 80 -----_--m___H__H____~_---------------------__~___H--___- ----------,-----------------1--- n@lOIt 40 , ' , ' --------- --00_--______,00----------___--__00-_-,'--"-------' , , 00 0- H' -,- --0----00 HUH_--_H_,- --.- --00 0 0 __1- ao 120 GSTABL7 FSmln=1.12 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 40 160 STED _F8 '--/. --r- -. . I I ~ I I I 8 7 4 . i I T2@lOIt ._-_o_-_o_--_._~ . I I I 8 --~ 200 240 160 120 i I i i I I I I I I 80 i- 40 0 0 STED -6~ .. Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\QUA13A.PlT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:19PM --1- - - - - ---- ----r-- - - ------- ._-- r---~---------_._.------r.-"" 40 . I I ; I I 8 8 --_J 80 160 200 240 120 8 8 c:\sted\qua13a.OUT Page 1 ... GSTABL7 ... ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: 12:19PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qua13a. Output Filename: C:qual3a.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qual3a.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 lOO.OO ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 3 100.0 100.0 0.0 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coeffic~ent Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = O.O(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 100.20(ft) and X - 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 165.00(ft) Y-Left (ft) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 146.60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 41.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 Coefficient Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 , .. Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 8 c:\sted\qua13a.OUT Page 2 and X - 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.82 41.01 3 122.96 45.46 4 133.45 51.29 5 143.11 58.41 6 151.79 66.69 7 159.35 76.01 8 165.67 86.21 9 170.58 97.00 Circle Center At X = 82.4; Y = 130.7 and Radius, *** 1.123 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight Top Bot (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 6.8 1730.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 2999.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 6360.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 3768.1 0.0 0.0 10.5 12793.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 13142.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 1247.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 115.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 3975.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 9697.2 0.0 0.0 7.2 15899.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 827.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 1383.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 9659.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 2914.9 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.91 40.63 3 123.25 44.54. 4 134.10 49.67 5 144.31 55.97 6 153.77 63.36 7 162.35 71.75 8 169.95 81.03 9 176.49 91.10 10 179.45 97.00 Circle Center At X = 82.6; Y - 144.4 and Radius, 107.9 *** 1.147 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (it) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.07 39.75 3 123.59 43.11 4 134.54 48.02 5 144.71 54.39 6 153.90 62.11 94.4 15 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Surcharge Norm Tan Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 259.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 449.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 954.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 565.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1919.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1971.4 0.0 0.0 15.2 -21.3 187.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 -2.2 17.4 0.0 0.0 79.1 -94.6 596.3 0.0 0.0 538.2 -415.3 1454.6 0.0 0.0 2804.4 -394.6 2384.9 0.0 0.0 132.9 25.2 124.1 0.0 0.0 272.7 21.3 207.5 0.0 0.0 2501.8 36.2 1448.9 0.0 0.0 3633.2 1314.0 437.2 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points 8 e c:\sted\qua13a.OUT Page 3 161.95 71.01 168.70 80.93 174.02 91.69 175.78 97,00 Center At X - 93.7; Y - 124.2 and Radius, *** 1.169 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.08 48.53 3 134.53 52.11 4 145.08 57.85 5 154.31 65.52 6 161.87 74.83 7 167.49 85.44 8 170.94 96.93 9 170.94 97.00 Circle Center At X = 110.5; Y = 108.8 and Radius, *** 1.170 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.94 49.50 3 134.27 53.44 4 144.91 58.98 5 154.64 66.02 6 163.23 74.39 7 170.52 83.92 8 176.35 94.41 9 177.33 97.00 Circle Center At X = 101.6; Y = 129.1 and Radius, *** 1.182 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.37 42.38 3 122.23 47.48 4 132.74 53.28 5 142.85 59.74 6 152.52 66.84 7 161.71 74.56 8 170.38 82.86 9 178.49 91.71 10 182.75 97.00 Circle Center At X = 38.9; Y = 211.1 and Radius, *** 1.187 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.90 49.68 3 134.20 53.71 4 144.85 59.24 5 154.64 66.19 6 163.39 74.40 7 170.92 83.74 8 177.11 94.02 9 178.39 97.00 Circle Center At X - 99.3; Y - 133.8 and Radius, *** 1.188 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 7 8 9 10 Circle 86.5 61.6 82.4 183.6 87.4 8, 8 100.20 38.00 112.14 39.20 123.70 42.41 134.56 47.52 144.40 54.39 152.93 62.83 159.91 72.59 165.14 83.39 168.48 94.92 168.71 97.00 Center At X ~ 99.2; Y. 108.4 and Radius, *** 1.194 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47,24 2 122.60 50.84 3 133.54 55.77 4 143.82 61.97 5 153.28 69.34 6 161.80 77.79 7 169.26 87.19 8 175.29 97.00 Circle Center At X = 86.8; Y = 144.8 and Radius, *** 1.198 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.09 39.66 3 123.69 42.71 4 134.86 47.10 5 145.43 52.78 6 155.26 59.67 7 164.20 67.67 8 172.14 76.66 9 178.97 86.53 10 184.51 97.00 Circle Center At X = 92.1; Y = 139.3 and Radius, *** 1.209 *** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Circle c:\sted\qua13a.OUT page 4 70.4 100.6 101.6 Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Static Analysis C:\STED\Q4.PL2 Run By; JWN 10/26/00 8:45AM 200 ¡ 1:~t~1 -~-~.-~T~~~!~~t~~~~~~?n~~=i~;a~~-:~:~l- L~~d CC_- 7~~~~bS~' b 1'531 pet) pet) ( f) N T2 70500. Ibs . No. ( ( ps (deg) o. T3 70500 Ibs C 1.55 Gravel 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0--- -- . d 1.57 Terrace 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 e 1.58 Torrey 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 f 1.58 Conaete 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 45.0 0 9 1.59 DenseGr 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 h 1.59 WCemTer 6 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 i 1.62 150 II j 1.63 - -r- 8 50 6 100 T3@lOft ----1 j ---- J I I I -- J 250 8 0 0 d_--- ---------______L---- 50 100 150 GSTABL7 FSmln=1.50 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 200 STED .. F8 ----......,; - 200 Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B1 Static Analysis C:\STED\Q4.PLT Run By: JWN 10/26/00 8:45AM ï-~-----~-~P_~-~-~----~---~ ~r --- ---_.~- .--.~.~~__--nr---~ -- 150 I I I , I 100 r 50 0 ' -_-n-- - - 0 ---_~L ~ L _n_-- _n_- 150 100 200 50 STED _F8 . :/ ',--;;;" 1 I I I ¡ I I f I I I I I -i 8 8 -un_' I ! i 250 8 8 c:\sted\q4.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/26/00 Time of Run: 8:45AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:q4. Output Filename: C:q4.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:q4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 107.00 3 107.15 4 107.20 5 113.40 6 162.00 7 175.00 8 162.00 9 113.40 10 107.15 II 107.00 12 120.00 13 122.50 14 127.00 15 134.00 16 120.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 6 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 100.0 100.0 2 110.0 120.0 3 120.0 125.0 4 150.0 150.0 5 120.0 120.0 6 110.0 120.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 163.30 80.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 168.50 88.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 3 173.70 96.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 107.20(ft) and X - 155.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 180.00(ft) and X - 250.00(ft) Y-Left (ft) 16.00 18.00 31. 00 32.00 38.00 78.00 98.00 78.00 38.00 31. 00 18.00 24.00 31. 00 38.00 48.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 0.0 150.0 2000.0 2000.0 0.0 450.0 X-Right (ft) 107.00 107.15 107.20 113.40 162.00 175.00 250.00 250.00 127.00 122.50 120.00 122.50 127.00 134.00 162.00 250.00 Friction Angle (deg) 41.0 38.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 38..0 Y-Right (ft) 18.00 31. 00 32.00 38.00 78.00 98.00 97.00 78.00 38.00 31. 00 24.00 31. 00 38.00 48.00 78.00 20.00 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 4 1 5 5 1 6 6 2 5 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 8 c:\sted\q4.0UT Page 2 Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 16.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First, * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.97 34.73 3 137.95 40.34 4 151.62 48.65 5 163.51 59.36 6 173.19 72.10 7 180.33 86.42 8 183.57 97.89 Circle Center At X = 100.8; Y = 116.6 and Radius, *** 1.501 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight Top Bot (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 6.2 1833.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 8474.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 3118.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 1932.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 10549.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 7120.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 28500.6 0.0 0.0 10.4 23158.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 3399.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 23473.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 4516.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 2634.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 7269.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 2049.4 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.84 35.39 3 137.78 41.10 4 151.69 49.01 5 164.26 58.92 6 175.18 70.61 7 184.21 83.82 8 190.92 97.79 Circle Center At X = 92.7; Y = 136.6 and Radius, 105.6 *** 1.528 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.94 34.89 3 138.10 40.00 4 152.37 47.24 5 165.45 56.44 6 177.09 67.43 7 187.02 79.97 8 195.05 93.81 9 196.62 97.71 Circle Center At X - 95.0; Y - 142.6 and Radius, 111.3 *** 1.555 *** 84.8 14 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 -42.5 82.7 -83.1 2753.2 -2252.4 2008.4 -745.0 1499.5 -319.1 6684.8 -16.4 9631.6 1892.7 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 8 Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 119.15 42.73 134.98 45.06 149.89 50.87 163.12 59.87 174.00 71.61 181.98 85.47 185.76 97.86 Center At X - 116,8; Y - 113.8 and Radius, *** 1.574 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.86 35.30 3 137.95 40.60 4 152.24 47.80 5 165.47 56.80 6 177.42 67.44 7 187.90 79.53 8 196.72 92.88 9 199.06 97.68 Circle Center At X = 89.7; Y = 154.0 and Radius, *** 1.577 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 123.17 33.01 3 138.71 36.81 4 153.34 43.29 5 166.60 52.24 6 178.09 63.38 7 187.43 76.37 8 194.34 90.80 9 196.25 97.72 Circle Center At X = 109.5; Y = 122.6 and Radius, *** 1.584 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.15 42.73 2 134.83 45.91 3 149.51 52.29 4 162.53 61.58 5 173.34 73.38 . 6 181.45 87.17 7 185.01 97.87 Circle Center At X = 111.9; Y = 118.8 and Radius, *** 1.588 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.15 42.73 2 135.12 43.76 3 150.34 48.69 4 163.88 57.22 5 174.90 68.81 6 182.73 82.77 7 186.79 97.84 Circle Center At X - 123.0; Y - 107.1 and Radius, ... 1.591 **. Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Circle c:\sted\q4.0UT Page 3 71.1 123.3 90.6 76.4 64.5 8 8 . . (ft) (ft) 119.15 42.73 135.05 44.55 150.21 49.66 163.96 57.84 175.69 68.73 184.87 81.83 191.09 96.57 191.33 97.78 Center At X - 118.6; Y - 118.2 and Radius, ... 1.619 ... Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 123.19 32.62 3 138.83 35.98 4 153.67 41.98 5 167.25 50.44 6 179.17 61.10 7 189.09 73.66 8 196.70 87.73 9 200.02 97.67 Circle Center At X = 111.6; Y = 124.6 and Radius, ..* 1.632 *** No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Circle c:\sted\q4.0UT paqe 4 75.5 92.8 - Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\Q4A.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:21PM 200 \'-. _I : 7:~I=~-~~-~~T~::f~~t s~~~r~~ ~n~:~~'~i~~~~~~~:=.-= --L~id:==~.7~a.:.~:-.:= 1-.::=---- --- --- '" b 1'20 . pet). pet). f) N T2 70500, Ibs - No. ( ( (ps (deg) 0- T3 70500. Ibs C 1.22 Gravel 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 41,0 0 Hofiz Eqk 0.150 9< d 1.23 Terrace 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 ----- -----..-;-- e 1.26 Torrey 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 f 1.26 Concrete 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 45.0 0 9 1.27 DenseGr 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 45,0 0 h 1.28 WCemTer 6 110.0 120.0 450.0 38,0 0 i 1.28 150 Hj 1.28 ---,--- ,- - ; I I --, 8 50 --,------- ------' -" --- a g I I I I --H--- --------J 100 --------- ------------------,--------------- -----------,- --------------- ------------,------------------- T3@lOft i , i i . ! ,- >-- e I O-H__" 0 : - -- - 16 3 -", -_oj i i 250 - - L.-.. -- ,---- 50 _1 - I 100 150 GSTABL7 FSmin=1.20 Safety Factors Are Calcu.lated By The Modified Bishop Method 200 STED _F8 -~--' 200 .~. I i ! i ! ! ¡ ! I ¡ ¡ i I 150 I I I ! I I i j 100 r I Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\Q4A.PLT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:21PM I ~ .. I. I ~ .~ ~ _~n; n_~~ Un 8 50 ,- I -1 e n ~- ~-~--~-~- ~. I 0 0 I 50 100 150 200 250 STED _F8 .' ...-..- . . -- c:\sted\q4a.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-19B6, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: 12:21PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:q4a. Output Filename: C:q4a.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:q4a.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Pseudo Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 107.00 3 107.15 4 107.20 5 113.40 6 162.00 7 175.00 B 162.00 9 113.40 10 107.15 11 107.00 12 120.00 13 122.50 14 127.00 15 134.00 16 120.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 6 Type(s} of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 6 110.0 120.0 450.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = O.O(psf} TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos ¥-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 163.30 BO.OO 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 16B.50 BB.OO 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 3 173.70 96.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. Y-Left (ft) 16.00 1B.00 31. 00 32.00 3B.00 78.00 98.00 78.00 38.00 31. 00 18.00 24.00 31. 00 38.00 48.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 107.00 107.15 107.20 113.40 162.00 175.00 250.00 250.00 127.00 122.50 120.00 122.50 127.00 134.00 162.00 250.00 Y-Right (ft) 18.00 31. 00 32.00 3B.00 78.00 98.00 97.00 78.00 38.00 31. 00 24.00 31. 00 38.00 48.00 78.00 20.00 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 41.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 Coefficient Soil Type Below Bnd 4 1 5 5 1 6 6 2 5 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 8 c:\sted\q4a.OUT Page 2 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - lO7.20(ft) and X - l55.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - l80.00(ft) and X - 250.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) l6.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First, * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.97 34.73 3 137.95 40.34 4 151.62 48.65 5 163.51 59.36 6 173.19 72.10 7 180.33 86.42 8 183.57 97.89 Circle Center At X = 100.8; Y = 116.6 and Radius, *** 1.195 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight Top Bot (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 6.2 1833.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 8474.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 3118.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 1932.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 10549.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 7120.5 0.0 0,0 13.7 28500.6 0.0 0.0 10.4 23158.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 3399.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 23473.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 4516.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 2634.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 7269.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 2049.4 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00. 2 122.84 35.39 3 137.78 41.10 4 151.69 49.01 5 164.26 58.92 6 175.18 70.61 7 184.21 83.82 8 190.92 97.79 Circle Center At X - 92.7; Y = 136.6 and Radius, 105.6 *** 1.203 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.94 34.89 3 138.10 40.00 4 152.37 47.24 5 165.45 56.44 6 177.09 67.43 84.8 14 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Surcharge Norm Tan Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 275.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1271.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 467.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 289.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1582.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1068.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4275.1 0.0 0.0 29.0 -42.5 3473.8 0.0 0.0 82.7 -83.1 509.9 0.0 0.0 2753.2 -2252.4 3521.0 0.0 0.0 2008.4 -745.0 677.5 0.0 0.0 1499.5 -319.1 395.2 0.0 0.0 6684.8 -16.4 1090.4 0.0 0.0 9631.6 1892.7 307.4 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points . . . . 187.02 79.97 195,05 93.81 196.62 97.71 Center At X - 95.0: y ~ 142.6 and Radius, ... 1.218 ... Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.86 35.30 3 137.95 40.60 4 152.24 47.80 5 165.47 56.80 6 177.42 67.44 7 187.90 79.53 8 196.72 92.88 9 199.06 97.68 Circle Center At X = 89.7; Y = 154.0 and Radius, ... 1.226 ... Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 123.17 33.01 3 138.71 36.81 4 153.34 43.29 5 166.60 52.24 6 178.09 63.38 7 187.43 76.37 8 194.34 90.80 9 196.25 97.72 Circle Center At X = 109.5; Y = 122.6 and Radius, *** 1.257 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.15 42.73 2 134.98 45.06 3 149.89 50.87 4 163.12 59.87 5 174.00 71.61 6 181.98 85.47 7 185.76 97.86 Circle Center At X = 116.8: Y = 113.8 and Radius, *** 1.260 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.15 42.73 2 134.83 45.91 3 149.51 52.29 4 162.53 61.58 5 173.34 73.38 6 181.45 87.17 7 185.01 97.87 Circle Center At X = 111.9: Y - 118.8 and Radius, *** 1.267 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.91 35.04 3 138.17 39.85 4 152.79 46.35 5 166.57 54.47 6 179.35 64.11 7 8 9 Circle c:\sted\q4a.OUT Page 3 111. 3 123.3 90.6 71.1 76.4 8 8 190.95 75.13 201.22 87.39 207.93 97.56 Center At X - 88.3; Y - 171.5 and Radius, *** 1.277 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No, (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.60 36.34 3 137.53 42.09 4 151.86 49.21 5 165.46 57.63 6 178.22 67.29 7 190.03 78.09 8 200.78 89.94 9 206.51 97.58 Circle Center At X = 68.4; Y = 199.2 and Radius, *** 1.277 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.20 32.00 2 122.97 34.68 3 138.31 39.23 4 153.00 45.58 5 166.82 53.65 6 179.57 63.31 7 191.07 74.44 8 201.16 86.86 9 207.90 97.56 Circle Center At X = 92.8; Y = 164.5 and Radius, *** 1.280 *** 7 8 9 Circle c:\sted\q4a.OUT Page 4 140.8 171. 6 133.3 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis @ 15' East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13C.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:37PM 160,.-",'-'--', .--.-- :.-'-'t---"..,,::,:,.., .. I "':' -[' \- . .n.'1 ' ¡ , # FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value II a 1.51 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface :Tl , 47200,lbs II b 1.51 No.' (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) No. ___.:T~ .~~2~.lb~__- c 1.53 Tar/Fill f 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 I d 1.54 Torrey 2: 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 e 1.55 GravFill 3: 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 f 1.59 WCemter 4: 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 9 1.60~~r_- ~~--~~~:~ --~~O.~ _n 0.0 n-- ~~.O. 0 120 H..Lt~I".."'.""""""""'" ...n.............. , .... ........... , .. .. ", .. .. .. .. . 80 l-nnnn n, . I ...... ' .,_u. ......... , . ..............,- Tl@1011 40 ......... d""""""'" . . .. no, .. no . ¡ ol 0 40 80 120 160 GSTABL7 FSmln=1.51 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method STED Æ8 -¡ '---;- .. 7 4 I ¡ I I ! i ....................j I , I I 8 T2@1011 . . . . . . . . I 0 oj . i 8 . L I I I n _J 200 240 160 120 I 80 r 1 I I I 40 0 0 STED _F8 " .~. '-~ Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Static Analysis @ 15' East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13C.PLT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:37PM ---'----'-'--T""'--""----'" I'" r-m ! I 1 I I I 8 8 J 240 ----. 40 80 120 200 160 8 8 c:\sted\qua13c.OUT Page 1 ... GSTABL7 ... .. GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. .. .. Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 .. --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-l986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: l2:37PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qua13c. Output Filename: C:qua13c.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qua13c.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis @ 15' East of Top Bluff BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 110.0 120.0 2 120.0 125.0 3 100.0 100.0 4 110.0 120.0 5 120.0 120.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs). (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X 8 100.20(ft) and X 8 l44.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 174.00(ft) and X - 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y 8 O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Y-Left (ft) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 150.0 2000.0 0.0 450.0 0.0 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 14 6.60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Friction Angle (deg) 38.0 45.0 41.0 38.0 45.0 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 . , Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.13 39.26 3 123.77 42.21 4 134.86 46.78 5 145.19 52.89 6 154.54 60.41 7 162.73 69.18 8 169.59 79.03 9 174.98 89.75 10 177.40 97.00 Circle Center At X = 97.5; Y = 121.5 and Radius, *** 1.509 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Weight Top Bot (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 2154.4 0.0 0.0 4116.5 0.0 0.0 14513.2 0.0 0.0 6895.0 0.0 0.0 6257.2 0.0 0.0 5746.1 0.0 0.0 18392.7 0.0 0.0 219.7 0.0 0.0 2554.5 0.0 0.0 3476.3 0.0 0.0 22890.6 0.0 0.0 15003.0 0.0 0.0 12250.2 0.0 0.0 14325.6 0.0 0.0 2945.8 0.0 0.0 7470.7 0.0 0.0 966.1 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 9 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 111.15 47.24 122.98 49.23 134.40 52.93 145.15 58.26 155.01 65.10 163.77 73.31 171.23 82.71 177.23 93.10 178.78 97.00 Center At X = 103.5; Y = 128.8 and Radius, *** 1.513 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.08 48.53 3 134.65 51.71 4 145.57 56.70 5 155.54 63.37 6 164.32 71.55 7 171.69 81.03 8 177.44 91.56 9 179.36 97.00 Width (ft) 6.8 5.1 11.6 4.3 3.6 3.1 9.1 0.1 1.1 1.4 7.9 4.5 3.7 5.4 1.4 5.4 2.4 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Circle 8 8 c:\sted\qua13c.OUT Page 2 83.6 17 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.6 -60.4 2.5 -2.1 31.8 -24.8 52.2 -50.2 691. 0 -455.0 952.4 -387.9 1102.3 -140.1 2168.2 -59.2 592.5 57.2 3097.4 486.2 1583.9 702.7 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81. 9 8 8 Circle Center At X - 109.1; Y - 122.1 and Radius, ... 1.531 ... Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.06 39.80 3 123.64 42.96 4 134.77 47.44 5 145.31 53.17 6 155.12 60.09 7 164.06 68.10 8 172.01 77.09 9 178.87 86.93 10 184,27 97.00 Circle Center At X ~ 90.7; Y s 141.0 and Radius, *** 1.536 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.90 40.68 3 123.30 44.41 4 134.32 49.17 5 144.86 54.91 6 154.82 61.59 7 164.14 69.16 8 172.72 77.54 9 1BO.50 86.6B 10 1B7.42 96.49 11 1B7.71 97.00 Circle Center At X ~ 76.8; Y = 167.1 and Radius, *** 1.548 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.09 43.04 3 121.6B 48.69 4 131.92 54.94 5 141.79 61.76 6 151.26 69.14 7 160.29 77.04 8 168.85 85.45 9 176.92 94.33 10 179.0B 97.00 Circle Center At X = 18.1; Y = 230.0 and Radius, *** 1.5B6 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10.Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.10 43.01 3 121.72 48.60 4 132.02 54.76 5 141.97 61.47 6 151.54 68.71 7 160.71 76.46 8 169.44 84.69 9 177.71 93.38 10 180.80 97.00 Circle Center At X - 14.0; Y - 240.3 and Radius, *** 1.595 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) c:\sted\qua13c.OUT Page 3 74.8 103.4 131.2 208.9 219.9 8 8 . ' 111.15 47,24 123.15 47.29 134.94 49.54 146.12 53.90 156.31 60.23 165.17 68.33 172.40 77.90 177.76 88.64 180.15 97.00 Center At X 8 116.9; Y = 112.3 and Radius, *** 1.596 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.93 49.52 3 134.37 53.16 4 145.29 58.12 5 155.56 64.34 6 165.03 71.71 7 173.56 80.15 8 181.05 89.53 9 185.69 97.00 Circle Center At X = 97.7; Y = 148.3 and Radius, *** 1.610 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.12 39.40 3 123.81 42.12 4 135.12 46.12 5 145.92 51.35 6 156.08 57.74 7 165.46 65.22 8 173.95 73.70 9 181.45 83.07 10 187.86 93.21 11 189.70 97.00 Circle Center At X = 93.6; Y = 145.7 and Radius, *** 1.612 *** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Circle c:\sted\qua13c.OUT Page 4 65.3 102.0 107.9 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static @ 15' East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13D.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:40PM 160 :. 11 i" .- i I I. : : # FS II.. Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load I : a 1.19; Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit WI Intercept Angle Surfacen ! . b 1.191: . No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) No. Horiz Eqk : ' c 1.20¡¡ Ter/FIII t 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 I : ; t d 1.201' Torrey 2; 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 : : e 1.21 II GravFiII 3, 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 lit 1.2211 WCemter 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 ¡ j 9 1.231: DenseGr 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 ,; ,I_---.~.__._--.._u_-_..--.__.....--n_~._..- : I' h 1.2511 , . . 12 ' 120 h.~ .5 .:d.. .,n i LL1.-~~i Value 47200 Ibs 47200. Ibs .0.150 Q< .C'. 8 7 4 80 ~_. I ; .., . Cu T2@1~ft- '1 -8 Tl@lOft 40 f-d ì , C' 8 0: 0 I 40 I 120 GSTABL7 FSmln=1.19 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method I 80 I 160 200 240 STED Æ. 160 ' ' I ¡ 120 : I 80 ! I i 401.. I I ! i ¡ 0 ,--- 0 STED Æ8 , . --.-/ Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Pseudo Static @ 151 East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13D.PLT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:40PM I I ' a___, - - ..1 40 - L n 120 160 200 l, 80 -, 8 8 240 8 8 c:\sted\qua13d.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, F.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: 12:40PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qual3d. Output Filename: C:qual3d.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qua13d.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static @ 15' East of Top Bluff BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 3 100.0 100.0 0.0 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned . Cavitation Pressure: O.O(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 100.20(ft) and X - 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 174.00(ft) Y-Left (it) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 14 6.60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77 .00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 41.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 Coefficient Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 and X - 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.98 49.23 3 134.40 52.93 4 145.15 58.26 5 155.01 65.10 6 163.77 73.31 7 171.23 82.71 8 177.23 93.10 9 178.78 97.00 Circle Center At X = 103.5; Y = 128.8 and Radius, *** 1.194 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Weight Top Bot (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 4296.8 0.0 0.0 11273.5 0.0 0.0 13322.1 0.0 0.0 144.2 0.0 0.0 1837.2 0.0 0.0 2717.7 0.0 0.0 19994.5 0.0 0.0 11761.5 0.0 0.0 13593.3 0.0 0.0 7043.4 0.0 0.0 8540.8 0.0 0.0 6009.9 0.0 0.0 332.2 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 11 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 100.20 38.00 111.90 40.68 123.30 44.41 134.32 49.17 144.86 54.91 154.82 61.59" 164.14 69.16 172.72 77.54 180.50 86.68 187.42 96.49 187.71 97.00 Center At X = 76.8; Y = 167.1 and Radius, 131.2 *** 1.194 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.13 39.26 3 123.77 42.21 4 134.86 46.78 5 145.19 52.89 6 154.54 60.41 7 162.73 69.18 , . Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Width (ft) 11.8 11. 4 9.6 0.1 1.1 1.4 8.4 4.0 4.8 2.9 4.5 6.0 1.5 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Circle 8 8 c:\sted\qua13d.OUT Page 2 81. 9 13 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 -8.4 2.1 -1.5 30.3 -20.6 58.2 -48.7 991.8 -474.7 1073.8 -190.4 1485.3 132.5 1098.8 80.7 1789.0 329.1 2858.7 1096.3 731.7437.9 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 644.5 0.0 0.0 1691.0 0.0 0.0 1998.3 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 275.6 0.0 0.0 407.6 0.0 0.0 2999.2 0.0 0.0 1764.2 0.0 0.0 2039.0 0.0 0.0 1056.5 0.0 0.0 1281.1 0.0 0.0 901.5 0.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 8 8 c:\sted\qua13d.OUT Page 3 169.59 79.03 174.98 89.75 177.40 97.00 Center At X - 97.5; Y - 121.5 and Radius, *** 1.199 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.06 39.80 3 123.64 42.96 4 134.77 47.44 5 145.31 53.17 6 155.12 60.09 7 164.06 68.10 8 172.01 77.09 9 178.87 86.93 10 184.27 97.00 Circle Center At X = 90.7; Y = 141.0 and Radius, *** 1.201 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.08 48.53 3 134.65 51.71 4 145.57 56.70 5 155.54 63.37 6 164.32 71.55 7 171.69 81.03 8 177.44 91.56 9 179.36 97.00 Circle Center At X = 109.1; Y = 122.1 and Radius, *** 1.213 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.09 43.04 3 121.68 48.69 4 131.92 54.94 5 141.79 61.76 6 151.26 69.14 7 160.29 77.04 8 168.85 85.45 9 176.92 94.33 10 179.08 97.00 Circle Center At X = 18.1; Y = 230.0 and Radius, *** 1.223 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.10 43.01 3 121.72 48.60 4 132.02 54.76 5 141.97 61.47 6 151.54 68.71 7 160.71 76.46 8 169.44 84.69 9 177.71 93.38 10 180.80 97.00 Circle Center At X - 14.0; Y - 240.3 and Radius, *** 1.226 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf 8 9 10 Circle 83.6 103.4 74.8 208.9 219.9 8 8 c:\sted\qua13d.OUT Page 4 No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111. 36 42.41 3 122.29 47.37 4 132.96 52.86 5 143.34 58.87 6 153.42 65.39 7 163.15 72.41 8 172.53 79.89 9 181.53 87.83 10 190.12 96.21 11 190.86 97.00 Circle Center At X = 16.8 ; '{ = 265.4 and Radius, 242.2 *** 1. 245 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf ,{-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.93 49.52 3 134.37 53.16 4 145.29 58.12 5 155.56 64.34 6 165.03 71. 71 7 173.56 80.15 8 181. 05 89.53 9 185.69 97.00 Circle Center At X = 97.7 ; '{ = 148.3 and Radius, 102.0 *** 1. 248 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf '{-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.12 39.40 3 123.81 42.12 4 135.12 46.12 5 145.92 51. 35 6 156.08 57.74 7 165.46 65.22 8 173.95 73.70 9 181. 45 83.07 10 187.86 93.21 11 189.70 97.00 Circle Center At X = 93.6 ; '{ = 145.7 and Radius, 107.9 *** 1. 253 *** Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis @ 40' East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13F.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:45PM 160"u-"" ","j- "-_::--~'-I l'l t I # FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value a 1 761 Desc Type Unit Wt Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface :T 1" , 4,7200,' Ib 5 , . . pet) . :T2 47200, Ibs b 1.77l No. ( (pcf) (PSt), (deg) No. ,..- 'T- ---- ..--,--, - m --, C 1.78 TerlFill t 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 : d 1.82 Torrey 2; 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 : I' e 1.83 GtavFiU 3: 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 : f 1.85 WCemter 4: 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 : 9 1.87 DenseGr 5: 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 : 120 if: 15 ........ '~...... ,m---_____~, ¡,..,..,.." . ' . . I 80 ~. -- ,-- -,' , 'r Tl@10t! 40 ....--" ....,..,....:-.......... --- ----....,...., . ' . . . ,-, d,-- i I 0 l______, 0 STED E8 I 120 160 GSTABL7 FSmln=1.76 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method -,1._- " 80 40 'I ',~ i T2@10ft" d. ,....,....--' l 200 8 --i , I I ~ ~~ I I I J 8 240 160 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Static Analysis @ 401 East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13F.PLT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:45PM - I II - 120 t- I I I ¡ I ! ! ¡ 80 40 ,- oL_- 0 STED E8 .~ 40 _--____h___h--- - h-I_-- --- 80 I I i I i i ¡ -1 I I I I 8 8 120 -- L_- 160 240 L-__---- ----- ------- 200 8 , . 8 c:\sted\qua13f.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. .. ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 .. --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: 12:45PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qua13f. Output Filename: C:qual3f.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qual3f.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis @ 40' East of Top Bluff BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 110.0 120.0 2 120.0 125.0 3 100.0 100.0 4 110.0 120.0 5 120.0 120.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S} 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs)' (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 100.20(ft) and X - 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 199.00(ft} and X - 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Y-Left (ft) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77 .00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 150.0 2000.0 0.0 450.0 0.0 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 14 6.60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Friction Angle (deg) 38.0 45.0 41. 0 38.0 45.0 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77 .00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 , , I> 8 8 c:\sted\qua13f.OUT Page 2 Failure Surfaces Examined, They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. " " Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method" " Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111. 81 41.03 3 123,23 44.72 4 134.42 49.07 5 145.33 54.04 6 155.95 59.64 7 166.22 65.85 8 176.12 72.63 9 185.61 79.97 10 194.67 87.84 11 203.25 96.23 12 203.96 97.00 Circle Center At X = 53.5 ; y = 240.8 and Radius, 208.1 **" 1. 765 *** Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (it) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 6.8 1724.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 4.8 2982.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 9.2 8390.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.2 2556.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 11.2 15845.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 3.2 5388.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 6.4 11873.2 0.0 0.0 58.9 -46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.1 206.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 -1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 1.2 2745.5 0.0 0.0 35.5 -22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.3 3008.9 0.0 0.0 47.2 -30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 9.3 28131. 5 0.0 0.0 810.7 -313.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 3.1 11407.4 0.0 0.0 478.4 -71. 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 7.2 26476.6 0.0 0.0 14 07.2 96.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 9.9 30232.5 0.0 0.0 2159.6 634.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 5.7 13797.3 0.0 0.0 1198.2 576.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 3.8 7819.5 0.0 0.0 711. 0 472.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 9.1 13041.6 0.0 0.0 1403.9 1201. 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 8.6 4689.5 0.0 0.0 948.5 1089.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.7 30.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 84.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.17 38,89' 3 123.99 40.94 4 135.55 44.15 5 146.75 48.47 6 157.46 53.87 7 167.60 60.30 8 177.06 67.68 9 185.74 75.96 10 193.58 85.05 11 200.48 94.87 12 201.69 97.00 Circle Center At X" 97.3 ; Y:z 159.8 and Radius, 121.9 ""* 1.771 "** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.01 40.15 , 8 8 , . c:\sted\qua13f.OUT Page 3 3 123.63 43.15 4 135.00 46.98 5 146.06 51.62 6 156.76 57.05 7 167.04 63.24 8 176.85 70.16 9 186.13 77.77 10 194.83 86.03 11 202.91 94.90 12 204.56 97.00 Circle Center At X - 76.6 ; Y - 201. 5 and Radius, 165.2 *** 1. 776 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.16 38.93 3 123.99 40.95 4 135.59 44.03 5 146.86 48.16 6 157.71 53.29 7 168.04 59.38 8 177.78 66.39 9 186.85 74.26 10 195.16 82.91 11 202.65 92.29 12 205.76 97.00 Circle Center At X = 96.1 ; Y = 169.3 and Radius, 131. 4 *** 1. 824 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.12 39.42 3 123.88 41. 80 4 135.40 45.14 5 146.62 49.40 6 157.45 54.57 7 167.83 60.60 8 177.68 67.45 9 186.93 75.09 10 195.54 83.46 11 203.43 92.49 12 206.76 97.00 Circle Center At X = 89.0 ; Y = 184.0 and Radius, 146.4 *** 1. 826 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111. 97 40.33 3 123.58 43.39 4 134.96 47.17 5 146.09 51. 66 6 156.92 56.84 7 167.39 62.69 8 177.49 69.19 9 187.15 76.30 10 196.35 84.01 11 205.04 92.27 12 209.43 97.00 Circle Center At X - 69.3 ; Y - 225.9 and Radius, 190.4 *** 1.845 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) , 8 8 , . 111.15 47.24 123.09 48.42 134.85 50.82 146.30 54.42 157.31 59.18 167.77 65.06 177.57 71.99 186.60 79.89 194.76 88.69 201.01 97.00 Center At X a 105.9; Y - 162.8 and Radius, *** 1.873 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.27 42.64 3 122.22 47.55 4 133.03 52.74 5 143.72 58.21 6 154.26 63.95 7 164.65 69.95 8 174.88 76.22 9 184.95 82.75 10 194.85 89.53 11 204.58 96.56 12 205.16 97.00 Circle Center At X = -75.9; Y = 474.2 and Radius, *** 1.878 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.96 49.37 3 134.56 52.46 4 145.86 56.49 5 156.79 61.43 6 167.28 67.26 7 177.26 73.93 8 186.65 81.40 9 195.40 89.61 10 202.08 97.00 Circle Center At X = 91.4; Y = 191.3 and Radius, *** 1.888 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.16 39.03' 3 123.99 41.03 4 135.61 44.01 5 146.95 47.93 6 157.94 52.77 7 168.48 58.50 8 178.52 65.07 9 187.98 72.45 10 196.80 80.58 11 204.93 89.41 12 210.83 97.00 Circle Center At X - 93.8; Y - 183.2 and Radius, *** 1.891 *** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Circle c:\sted\qua13f.OUT paqe 4 115.6 470.4 145.5 145.3 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static @ 40' East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13E.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:43PM 160 . , I I : # FS I¡ Soil S~I Total Saturated Cohe~ion Friction Piez. Load : I a 1.32111 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface :g : ~ b 1.331 . No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) No. Horiz Eqk 1: c 1.35! Tar/Fill 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0-.--. : i d 1.3711 Torrey t 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 ¡ I e 1.37 I GravFill 3, 100.0 100.0 0.0 41.0 0 . : f 1.38 !I WCemter 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 I g 1.381 DenseGr 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 45.0 0 I h 1.41' ' 120 ¡ i 1.411 U.1.~1 Value 47200, Ibs 47200. Ibs ~.1~~ 9< Î 80 I I j :td -, Tl@lOft I i 40 l-- ! -- , I 0 c.- -.-- 0 I 160 200 STED £8 L 120 GSTABL7 FSmin=1.32 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method I 80 1 40 .... 8 \ -- - - ï -- --- n' 8 240 160 120 80 40 0 0 STED _F8 ~ .~' Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Pseudo Static @ 401 East of Top Bluff C:\STED\QUA13E.PLT Run By: JWN 10/30/00 12:43PM .u r. uU"UuUun_u nu .. I ". I U U U ~nul nUnU- - T U Unu__u ~ I -1 I I I 8 8 40 80 120 160 200 240 , . , 8 8 c:\sted\qua13e.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** .. GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. .. .. Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 .. --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30/00 Time of Run: 12:43PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:qua13e. Output Filename: C:qua13e.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:qua13e.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static @ 40' East of Top Bluff BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.15 3 100.20 4 107.00 5 144.10 6 146.60 7 159.00 8 146.60 9 144.00 10 130.00 11 107.00 12 118.00 13 100.15 14 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 3 100.0 100.0 0.0 4 110.0 120.0 450.0 5 120.0 120.0 0.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = O.O(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.22 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 100.20(ft) and X - 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X - 199.00(ft) Y-Left (ft) 24.00 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 100.15 100.20 107.00 144.10 14 6.60 159.00 240.00 240.00 144.10 144.00 130.00 130.00 118.00 118.00 Y-Right (ft) 37.00 38.00 44.00 73.00 77.00 97.00 97.00 77.00 73.00 56.00 44.00 44.00 37.00 37.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 5 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 41.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 Coefficient Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . I 8 8 c:\sted\qua13e.OUT Page 2 and X s 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.81 41.03 3 123.23 44.72 4 134.42 49.07 5 145.33 54.04 6 155.95 59.64 7 166.22 65.85 8 176.12 72.63 9 185.61 79.97 10 194.67 87.84 11 203.25 96.23 12 203.96 97.00 Circle Center At X = 53.5; Y = 240.8 and Radius, 208.1 *** 1.316 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Weight Top Bot (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1724.0 0.0 0.0 2982.6 0.0 0.0 8390.0 0.0 0.0 2556.5 0.0 0.0 15845.5 0.0 0.0 5388.2 0.0 0.0 11873.2 0.0 0.0 206.1 0.0 0.0 2745.5 0.0 0.0 3008.9 0.0 0.0 28131.5 0.0 0.0 11407.4 0.0 0.0 26476.6 0.0 0.0 30232.5 0.0 0.0 13797.3 0.0 0.0 7819.5 0.0 0.0 13041.6 0.0 0.0 4689.5 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 12 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 100.20 38.00 112.01 40.15 123.63 43.15 135.00 46.98 146.06 51.62 156.76 57.05 167.04 63.24 176.85 70.16 186.13 77.77 194.83 86.03 202.91 94.90 204.56 97.00 Center At X - 76.6; Y ~ 201.5 and Radius, 165.2 *** 1.332 *** Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Width (ft) 6.8 4.8 9.2 2.2 11.2 3.2 6.4 0.1 1.2 1.3 9.3 3.1 7.2 9.9 5.7 3.8 9.1 8.6 0.7 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle 19 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.9 -46.7 2.5 -1.6 35.5 -22.2 47.2 -30.5 810.7 -313.2 478.4 -71.7 1407.2 96.9 2159.6 634.4 1198.2 576.5 711.0 472.4 1403.9 1201.3 948.5 1089.9 69.5 84.7 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 258.6 0.0 0.0 447.4 0.0 0.0 1258.5 0.0 0.0 383.5 0.0 0.0 2376.8 0.0 0.0 808.2 0.0 0.0 1781.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 411.8 0.0 0.0 451.3 0.0 0.0 4219.7 0.0 0.0 1711.1 0.0 0.0 3971.5 0.0 0.0 4534.9 0.0 0.0 2069.6 0.0 0.0 1172.9 0.0 0.0 1956.2 0.0 0.0 703.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 I 8 8 Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 100.20 38.00 112.17 38.89 123.99 40.94 135.55 44.15 146.75 48.47 157.46 53.87 167.60 60.30 177.06 67.68 185.74 75.96 193.58 85.05 200.48 94.87 201.69 97.00 Center At X = 97.3; Y = 159.8 and Radius, *** 1.349 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 111.97 40.33 3 123.58 43.39 4 134.96 47.17 5 146.09 51.66 6 156.92 56.84 7 167.39 62.69 8 177.49 69.19 9 187.15 76.30 10 196.35 84.01 11 205.04 92.27 12 209.43 97.00 Circle Center At X = 69.3; Y = 225.9 and Radius, *** 1.367 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.12 39.42 3 123.88 41.80 4 135.40 45.14 5 146.62 49.40 6 157.45 54.57 7 167.83 60.60 8 177.68 67.45 9 186.93 75.09 10 195.54 83.46 11 203.43 92.49. 12 206.76 97.00 Circle Center At X = 89.0; Y = 184.0 and Radius, *** 1.371 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.16 38.93 3 123.99 40.95 4 135.59 44.03 5 146.86 48.16 6 157.71 53.29 7 168.04 59.38 8 177.78 66.39 9 186.85 74.26 10 195.16 82.91 11 202.65 92.29 12 205.76 97.00 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle c:\sted\qua13e.OUT Page 3 121.9 190.4 146.4 ~ 8 8 . . c:\sted\qua13e.OUT Page 4 Circle Center At X - 96.1 ; Y - 169.3 and Radius, 131.4 *** 1. 377 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf 'i-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100,20 38.00 2 111.27 42.64 3 122.22 47.55 4 133.03 52.74 5 143.72 58.21 6 154.26 63.95 7 164 . 65 69.95 8 174.88 76.22 9 184.95 82.75 10 194.85 89.53 11 204.58 96.56 12 205.16 97.00 Circle Center At X = -75.9 ; 'i = 474.2 and Radius, 470.4 *** 1.379 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf 'i-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 122.96 49.37 3 134.56 52.46 4 145.86 56.49 5 156.79 61. 43 6 167 .28 67.26 7 177.26 73.93 8 186.65 81. 40 9 195.40 89.61 10 202.08 97.00 Circle Center At X = 91. 4 ; 'i = 191. 3 and Radius, 145.5 *** 1. 406 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf 'i-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.15 47.24 2 123.09 48.42 3 134.85 50.82 4 146.30 54.42 5 157.31 59.18 6 167 . 77 65.06 7 177.57 71. 99 8 186.60 79.89 9 194.76 88.69 10 201. 01 97.00 Circle Center At X = 105.9 ; Y = 162.8 and Radius, 115.6 *** 1.410 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf 'i-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.20 38.00 2 112.16 39.03 3 123.99 41. 03 4 135.61 44.01 5 14 6.95 47.93 6 157.94 52.77 7 168.48 58.50 8 178.52 65.07 9 187.98 72.45 10 196.80 80.58 11 204.93 89.41 12 210.83 97.00 Circle Center At X - 93.8 ; 'i" 183.2 and Radius, 145.3 *** 1. 413 *** Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Back Calculation of Existing Soils C:\STED\Q2.PL2 Run By: JWN 10/30/00 2:40PM ---:~c="=-c-=-=-:T=-::,::=:=,:=:=_,:':'::'-:C=l' .. - . '1 1# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piezj a 1.15 Desc. Type UnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.15 No. . (pcf) (pcf) (pst) (deg) No. c 1.16 terrace 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 d 1.16 toney 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 e 1.17 wcterrac 3 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0 f 1.17 ------------.._- g 1.17 h 1.18 i 1.18 j 1.18 160 120 80 40 0 0--_____-- 0 STED - F;8 ~v a . j I ;.' ~j 2 ----. _L 40 --- ._L. I 80 120 160 GSTABL7 FSmin=1.15 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ~ ---- 8 3 J 8 200 240 160 . .~ I ! ! I I I 120 r i i I 801 r ! 40 0 0 STED _F8 i' "~----" Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Back Calculation of Existing Soils C:\STED\Q2.PL T Run By: JWN 10/30/00 2:40PM I - -.- -- ~'I - -T -~~-~-- ~-~._---.-~_._--_.._---- _J._--~- ------ 40 " 8 .L- .. ------------ 80 120 160 200 I ¡ I I I -1 I r -- -_J 8 240 . . " 8 8 C:\sted\q2.0UT Page 1 *** GSTA8L7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/30100 Time of Run: 2:40PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:q2. Output Filename: C:q2.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:q2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Back Calculation of Existing Soils BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 7 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 130.00 3 144.00 4 156.00 5 162.00 6 156.00 7 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0.00 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0.00 3 110.0 120.0 450.0 38.0 0.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.00(ft) and X = 100.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 167.00(ft) and X = 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111.50 27.42 3 122.58 32.05 4 133.09 37.83 5 142.93 44.70 6 151.97 52.59 7 160.12 61.39 8 167.29 71.02 9 173.38 81.36 10 178.34 92.29 11 179.89 97.00 Circle Center At X - 73.8; Y - 133.1 and Radius, 112.2 Y-Left (ft) 24.00 44.00 56.00 77.00 97.00 77.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 130.00 144.00 156.00 162.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 Y-Right (ft) 44.00 56.00 77.00 97.00 97.00 77.00 24.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Random Specified. . . .. 8 8 C:\sted\q2.0UT Page 2 *** 1.153 *** Individual data on the 15 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 11. 5 2689.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 11.1 6854.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 7,4 6074.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 3.1 2836.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.8 10385.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 1.1 1224.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8.0 12156.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 4.0 8291. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 4.1 11207.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.9 6442.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 5.3 17179.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 3.5 8917.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2.6 5036.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 5.0 5549.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 1.6 403.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111. 48 27.49 3 122.57 32.08 4 133.15 37.74 5 143.13 44.40 6 152.41 52.01 7 160.90 60.49 8 168.52 69.76 9 175.20 79.73 10 180.87 90.31 11 183.65 97.00 Circle Center At X = 70.2 ; Y = 142.8 and Radius, 122.5 *** 1.155 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111. 38 27.82 3 122.35 32.67 4 132.84 38.50 5 142.75 45.26 6 152.01 52.90 7 160.52 61. 36 8 168.22 70.56 9 175.05 80.43 10 180.95 90.88 11 183.70 97.00 Circle Center At X = 64.0 ; Y = 150.0 and Radius, 131. 0 *** 1.158 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111. 54 27.28 3 122.70 31. 69 4 133.37 37.19 5 143.44 43.71 6 152.82 51. 20 7 161. 40 59.59 8 169.11 68.78 9 175.87 78.70 10 181.62 89.23 " . " -' to 8 8 C:\sted\q2.0UT Page 3 141.7 and Radius, 120.9 11 184.90 97.00 Circle Center At X - 72.8; y- *** 1.159 **. Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111.74 26.51 3 123.10 30.35 4 133.95 35.49 5 144.13 41.85 6 153.50 49.34 7 161.95 57.86 8 169.35 67.31 9 175.61 77.54 10 180.64 88.44 11 183.45 97.00 Circle Center At X = 84.3; Y = 126.4 and Radius, ... 1.167 *.. Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111.47 27.53 3 122.57 32.08 4 133.23 37.61 5 143.34 44.07 6 152.83 51.41 7 161.63 59.57 8 169.66 68.48 9 176.86 78.09 10 183.16 88.30 11 187.52 97.00 Circle Center At X = 66.4; Y = 153.4 and Radius, *.. 1.168 ... Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111.17 28.39 3 121.95 33.66 4 132.27 39.78 5 142.07 46.70 6 151.29 54.39 7 159.85 62.80 8 167.72 71.86 9 174.83 81.52 10 181.14 91.73, 11 183.85 97.00 Circle Center At X = 50.9; Y = 165.2 and Radius, ... 1.175 *.. Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111.62 27.01 3 122.88 31.14 4 133.70 36.33 5 143.97 42.55 6 153.58 49.73 7 162.46 57.81 8 170.51 66.70 9 177.67 76.34 10 183.85 86.62 11 188.81 97.00 Circle Center At X - 74.7; Y - 145.3 and Radius, 103.6 133.7 149.5 123.9 ~ . 8 .. " ,. , C:\sted\q2.0UT Page 4 *** 1.178 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111. 48 27.48 3 122.63 31. 94 4 133,34 37.34 5 143.55 43.64 6 153.19 50.80 7 162.17 58.76 8 170.43 67.46 9 177 . 91 76.84 10 184.56 86.83 11 190.13 97.00 Circle Center At X '" 65.4 ; Y '" 159.0 and Radius, 139.3 *** 1.182 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.00 2 111. 82 26.06 3 123.24 29.76 4 134.02 35.02 5 143.96 41. 74 6 152.86 49.79 7 160.54 59.01 8 166.85 69.22 9 171. 67 80.21 10 174.90 91.77 11 175.59 97.00 Circle Center At X = 91.3 ; Y = 108.9 and Radius, 85.3 *** 1.183 *** Cct-25-00 01:48P Robert Harvanc1k 8 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INt, 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 p.t. t".G~ ~ (650) 917-0803 P.02 "" l>~~ """" .., i:,.C_~ "-'L.,. ~m~ ~ CA~ULATE:O BY ~ O.TE 10- ¿ !.- c:.- CHfCl<EDBY ~ OAT" 1.:::::6 -Z';' - ~ SCALE I ~ '# ~ - 0 \. :. ~, . , l,...u~'h,tA 1.~CA-.'" U<.I~f:_.NC-L i "I~""V~L- ,...vt..lvt- Þ1--JC Cl'¡1 '1"A~ I C-ALI F"""¡¡;~. A , ~"(~ t '7~ ,-,,'f»"P~ ""bt.. vt==-F - :f.. y p.. l.A...I ~~ I-=::>N c::=F ~c. a..:::r -I, ~o::"¡E::..C>4f-~ ': f:::-- c:>t= t'J r "-<--' tJ.<.--¡e.. LA"., ~ 1. P. t L- to 1 t ~ ~ e. Y I ¡, T ,~ (-. ¡~, f ¡A- \.,.c,A :..-'\J , ~~( (:-' 1-.1 ~C ?!4::- PÆ.-.~1>k:Æ_-k-i C"-. t ~ 'þ~ '£-~ f I U'-LA~ It-! ~rì (~¡A-,- fJt:-_I. ~ ~) ~E.c.. j "1::::.^"~ &'/-b-~. ~~Ò. w t'H S ~ ~ C'...,,4-Cc....(. ~ t'¥ ( S':'T I (- (:> :. E A Uc:-;A L'-...I !. ') -A-'\J ~ ì - fA '-7 ~~ L -=H S; V LA" TJI---Nr--" J ~ Av""",,'~~ I-r~ v!;. 'f,<::>~ /1h~ f>U~P'~Cl_, ft;..a~ s: ~ v--=:- ~ 7-'-1...-1 ~ -r l~. .tA , !'oJ} N .. .I v ,..... Vv (1'. ) Ç~C-i'~ ~~ ÞICt- ~ ~ C.,,4<)( I~C ,> ) l)L..¡A-. , VoI'1~ '7 g.~"'f-=- Lt. k"1¡ ¡..::or- ~þ'~x, '7 e;... <..,..L. Vt L ¡:::. u t--I t C.A:::)I'-l, I ¡.. I ~ -=>voSL ') -r-t ¡:... I H C; 'PI u.~. '--T\.:=' '-) L';;"~ "~ kTz...A. I,...l--t..-. '- ~ / ~(E) ~". S'É A ~lAJ . ftì-<:::>~ ~t-~ ~~ S ~:~ LA.." '" -t:.L ,ç --'þÞ~ ~~ 1,ì I ( to- "L /t- U- (: ~ e,. ~ <:' C - I lJL..1hc# ~ f~ -1;.E- o..oN't-tL~ I"""'" -a.--~ - u.trNC IT ~.r c.oN(INJ~~ ,) UL-.- ~ . 16'~ V:::>~ ~ ( IN ~. ~ìN A-:-M(C- 'P.:::::>~ «::>"') ~ ~¿. ~ Ie:.. (C)~ '7 C-,4-LC.(. ~..ì il:.c- - ~~~ .,-~- ~) . -p",.ts., VL iuf'Þ.~'~ ,~ ~~ ~N c.-~ 'T"t:- E..~l{. tf-,+ C 'to £...Æ-..N c. ".,. L è.A...J ~""L~ "'64:' "'12-, ~ I::.. It c- TIN ~ C2 D I &.. II U~ c..t:... ~~ OA -') ~ l. . ~ '\.l. '""" '-- 'I"E ~ -r t~ '( -- (~'}" '" '.t.., l. c: 8c>. 0::::> L "O'"(;1,,",,,SIIIU-,I11'>"""". I ct-25-00 01:49P Robert Harvanc1k , 8 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUC11ON, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 SHIEl NO (650) 917-0803 P.03 t- "-tV>. '-!'? t:-£ c. .... fA'< Ct- or S' t:.+4 DATI' 1'0 - è ~- ~ r-~'1'7 DATff~ - 1 ~ - ~ JOB C"LCUL"TEO BY CHECKED BY SC,t,l( E. 't ( !: .. \ 1+ ,..) s: v.o~ t:.... , 'c;l t-. <:::;r'., {:.-.:=f-l~. ') V ~ ~ -' J #-(JL,~ v~ OL-L- If;f'K/L v~ ~ t:-d:.:.. ~V.>lr N ?\Je. p"::).{t:-" ft~~/U - / ç; 1: c;::; I ~ 4 -A - ~ ("'"'t,r-) ~t:... e..::=t (..:oN "L. - 1a ~é..~ ~ r- b~ LÆ:. ~~ c...~, (~ ~ Þ~ië:..-t.- (..A;::)"".J:~ vA r I vL ' S\'1-1P LAF-1 ~ ( ~\::\ ..r ~ l.& ) èt P t~ FILL / .t: E. e..::::r I .- N , , A-'A .. . '\ ~* '~ I -~.T . ......-.,-~ l{ ~ (" u~ c-t c-tt:rt:..- ~ Ri¡;;' I -t~ " c..t. 'F1l-\...- :. ~)c.-t:..ìëL"IT ~Vv~) , . ,. I pI>- Ck.. ""f-, l.\...- ~~~ t" ~ <;", LI L .r '"" ~ c> r.::::::r \~ -ftSç,-, -Tì~ f'- Þ ^ C...t=..., Þ I LA..,., . f'~17 E-~.J: ~ ('e ~ t/~-=- f~" r., It ,~-=- rc.f ~-é S. '-..; ~ ~ è. ~ 0 F ~ 2.- \.::) '=- ~ C'..~ ~ SA' H c:.. Î L{..A--1-.I ~t-# ~ ~ lk A""N c.- to-{ c. ~ 7:.. '" (t ~:-( £..-v """r""',~"",SIotb",.",....., ct-25-00 01:49P Robert Harvanc1k 8 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 81iEEI NO (650) 917-0803 P.04 1.J~ ut t-£...!. I ~f:A-f ~ Z OF ~ ~ DATE to- 2'3,- OQ . ~h DATl I..::::>-l)- <:x::I JOB CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE c~ Ck.- ""t:. ^ ~ , c..... r 4t1:- ~ " \Ie. Ie 2- T -f'c- = z,r t, o~ It q.:;:. tsi. "" ;" ;~~~J ~1-.- ~::J::jr;.~~~:: ~ ... In: T -~-,f! :u.--:(.. /(b ~ ':, ~ 1. : " I:. '" ?Z.o ,/ '72-. cOb.... ,'....:::':). . , + (s I~'é..~ ~f=' ç~ c.-"'~E.. B - e<:.- .it ......, u ~ ~ ~N '---) I Do'H<:' . .~""-" G:;. N t.C) 4. ~) , -* ~Uc... þA ~ - C'~:,;.I L \ .,-) ~ U ~ ~1"(C_~I-::.-t_:TL ~IVv ~71;...." ( ,..1)1/ ~ /.:.r~ ~ I L -(Út '\ J(I"'t) -- ¡loA f".. CÆt'L Ck:- : ~ 'C -A (>=:. f'-T (~ '^: ( ~ r - - ¿L , I ~ r \X., 0;. {z,'3/~'-- Ck~ -c:> 123..~L ( ~ c:, I.f-"r o~ ~ .co ~ l Þt:.. :þ 1l.J ~ (~ ~ ~ (¡ LE ~-"t;:)) . (~~s.~lc7t.( ~~SE:.~ I NL)Lf: ~ ìlE.:b~ I ~ f'J E... 7 tx ~ ~ ~.s I -<:;:) N ~ ~ It- C1::- 4 ~~ L @ (f- 'S'~ Crc:.fo.IE) '72 .. ~ '==- Uu (f) = Il~ .~~( -=-. b~) ':: 8;:::>,4 '==- > (z.~'=- .',.'=>. t(...t€-'L.. SA, ~ - tlAVr*c.. ~'h - '7. ~ - lL~( ~1ic..~ ~ ~~'+'(T !;c..,....",;-~ f c c). ~r C~v~ "'tt;.... uÌ" I t.A~) . 8a,Ú ~/.. 'f:.1. A-t ~~~ I ",02 .~b. ~ I, It... .',..::::> .£:- . It-i~. ~ì1-t'~' Co- (~ I. ~) p..::. ~ ,~ QIf '"P " 1>u = ~4~ 'P'«Jt.IOO"~~,SIor!t,~"Pod"', (~ct-25-00 01:49P Robert Harvanc1k 8 sOIL ENGINEERING CONmUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 (650) 917-0803 P.05 ... tJ.,.*",- ~ ÞE \;, ~ Gt..,. BHEI:T NO --, Of 'S" CALCULATEDI!Y rz:Af DATE [<=>... lJ- ~ CHECKED IV ~Tì DATE 1.0'" 1. 't - C>o SCALE I.~ , Q....¡o t-t .., ..... . f~ <::::;)V~ .::::::IPI Nt ~N I ~~ ~\ 7 N ?~T7rf~ ~ ~ ~~ ~l c¡ N ..c:»tr ?t~~ ~ ~ ~ .A-~' A-$:¡' p..,¡ é. L...u~ ~ ~~9'-"'A-1~ ~ ~ /~ ~ -~ f 'f.::t), ~~~ <::=oN 4rT~u~ .~~ 15". t'-4- ~t~ ~ r ~ A c..::r <::*J t=: ~ ({, ì r ~I c; ~ ~ \,)L....,A. c..v '"I1"/IIJI""'IhHh:"""""" (650) 917-0803 Þ~lA ') ~"t:a.~( CL ~+t~. ~ Qf ~ for Dissimilar Material. 01:49P Robert Harvanc1k 8 TABLE 1 Ultimate Friction Factors and Adhesion Interface Materials Mass CODcrete on the following foundation materials: Clean sound rock.................................. Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand... Clean tine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse saud. silty or clayey gravel.................... Clean fine sand, silty or clayey fine to medium saud............................................ Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt.................. Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidated clay...............................~............ Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty clay........ (Masonry on foundation 88terlals has same friction factors.) Steel sheet piles against the following soils: Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well-graded rock fill with spalls........................... Clean sand. silty sand-gravel mixture. single size hard rock fill.................................. Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay Fine sandy silt, n~nplastic silt.................. Formed concrete or~c~crete sheet piling against the following soils: "' \. Clean gravel, gravel':sand mixture, well-graded rock f11l with spalls........................... Clean sand, silty sand-gravel ~xture, single size hard rock fill.................................. Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt.................. Various structural materials: Masonry on masonry. igneous and metamorphic rocks: Dressed 80ft ro~_QU~,.,~~~__!,oft rock.......... cDfessed -hard rock on dressed sõft-r'ò-êk.~~..... Dressed hard rock on dress-ed -hare!" rock: .. . . . . . . . Masonry on wood (cross grain)..................... Steel on steel at sheet pile interlocks........... Interface Materials (Cohesion) Very soft cohesive 80i1 (0 - 250 psf) SoJ,t cohesive soil (250 - 500 psf) Medium stiff cohesive soil (500 - 1000 pst) Stiff cohesive so11 (lOOO - 2000 pst) Very stiff cohesive 8011 (ZOOO - 4000 pst) 'Þ.1l "']. ¿, (I "'1 ~ ) 7.2-63 P.06 Friction Friction factor, angle.S tanS de reeø 0.70 35 0.55 to 0.60 29 to 31 0.45 to 0.55 24 to 29 0.35 to 0.45 19 to 24 0.30 to 0.35 17 to 19 0.40 to 0.50 22 to 26 0.30 to 0.35 17 to 19 0.40 22 0.30 0.25 0.20 17 14 11 0.40 to 0.50 22 to 26 0.30 to 0.40 17 to 22 0.30 17 0.25 14 0.70 35 0.65 33 0.55 29 0.50 26 0.30 17 Adhesion Ca (psf) 0 - 250 250 - 500 500 - 750 750 - 950 950 - 1.300 Change I, September 1986 II 8 8 ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondida. CA 92029. (760) 738-8800. (760) 738-8232 (ax September 29, 2000 Transmittal Via: Hand Delivery City of Encinitas - Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 ., , _../ \ Attention: \ ¡ r-- .-'- \ - Mr. Jeff Garrami U? ta '" cø Reference: Copy of Repair Plans and Documents Revi~ed Bradley Bluff Repair 560 Neptune A venue Encinitas, California 92024 t;?3 B Enclosed please tinct the following: , ,,---- '\ ..,. \ -- ...--, " . , _: .J "-'-'----- 2 Copies of Bluff Repair Plan, Sheets I through 4, Bradley Residence, "60 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca., prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated Sept~mber 19, 2000. 2 Copies of Letter Report-Slope Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune A venue, Encinitas, Ca., prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20, 2000. 2 Copies of Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune. Avenue, Encinitas Cuifornia,"Pages I through I,~ of 14, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6,2000. 2 Copies of Revised Statement of Justification, New Seawall and Revised Mid/Upper Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Er.cinitas. California," prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated September 27, 2000. 2 Copies of Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Encinitas, California," dated September 27, 2000, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. 2 Copies of Submittal and Request for Formal Permit Processing Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated September 27,2000, If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call me at (760) 738-8800. Respectfully, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anlhony- r.ylor Company Gregory M. Karen Project Geologist Received By: San Diego, CA San Francisco. CA . Housron, TX . , , 8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS II 304 Enterprise Street. Escondido, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax September 27,2000 Project No. 98-1055 City of Encinitas Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Subject: Attachments: 2 Ms. Diane Lanager Submittal and Request for Formal Permit Processing Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 I) "Repairs to Upper muff, Bradley Residence-560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 4, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 19, 2000. 2) "Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Braúky Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas Calitornia,"Pages I thro¡jgh 14 of 14, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6, 2000. 3) "Letter Rt:port-Slope Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California." prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20,2000. 4) "Revised Statel1lt:nt of Justification, New ScawaJl and Re\'lsed Mid/Upper Repairs, Bradley Property, 56C Neptune Avenue, Encjnjt~s, California," prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consuit.ants, dated September 27, 2000. 5) "Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Encinitas, CaIifornia.," dated September 27, 2000, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. Dear Ms. Lanager: We have prepared this letter as a revised request for your assistance in obtaining the authorization of the City of Encinitas for the review and permit processing of the revised emergency bluff repair program at the subject site. The goal of this submittal is to obtain approval for the proposed construction of additional emergency repairs through the California Coastal Commission and submit for final project completion and approval of formal permits with the City of Encinitas. San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA . . Houston, TX 8 8 II Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinìtas, Ca. September 27, 2000 Page 2 98-1055 Status of Previously Bluff Repairs As you are aware, on behalf of the owner, we requested and were mid-way or better through the process of planning and environmental review within the City of Encinitas Planning Department relative to formal approval of the bluff repair program at the project site. This earlier repair program involved the construction of: a lower concrete seawall and its associated foundation caissons, tie-backs, and drain system; the placement of a localized section of shotcrete cover where the new seawall adjoins the neighboring bluff repair revetment located to the north; the retrofit/repair of several tiers of existing landscape retaining walls located within the bluff face; the installation of a soil anchor and mesh erosion control system; and the coloration of the lower seawall and lower shotcrete and existing upper shotcrete cover, to comply with City Planning and Development criteria; and the installation of landscaping plantings and hydro-seed mulch with a temporary irrigation system, The above mentioned bluff repairs were initiated after a detailed and lengthy review by California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff, and after their review, the CCC concurred with the findings that the bluff was in a significant state of failure. The work was authorized under an existing emergency permit. In June 1999, the Commission reviewed and discussed the findings of the Commission's staff report, and the Commission voted to approve the formal permitting of the recommended seawall and bluff repairs, and formal permit processing was underway based on the project. A Notice ofIntent To Issue Permit, dated June 15, 1999, was prepared proceeding towards final project approval with the CCC. At the same time, the project bluff repairs were also being processed under a formal planning review within the City of Encinitas, Planning Department. Based on the emergency approval, once repair funds were located, the above repairs commenced in an effort to mitigate the on-going bluff failures and collapse within the lower bluff. To address this threat, seawall construction proceeded full speed. However, later in construction mid/upper bluff instability developed, followed by the progressive collapse of several tiers of pre-existing wood and concrete walls constructed within the mid- and upper- bluff. As a result of the deteriorated bluff conditions and marginal design of these older bluff improvements, the mid/upper bluff area has recently experienced progressive and worsening erosion and soil loss from below, which has impacted and over-steepened the sensitive natural Terrace Deposits. Upon completion of the lower seawall, northerly shotcrete cover, and the placement of cement/concrete backfill slope behind the seawall, potential undercutting of the bluff from below was mitigated, However, the middle and upper bluff failures had progressed behind the existing shotcrete cover and adjacent to the Bradley residence. 8 8 II Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Rep.!" 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinit.s, Ca. September 27, 2000 PaKe J 98-1055 Based on the changing bluff conditions, the property owner (Ms. Bradley), Soil Engineering Construction, and Anthony-Taylor Consultants representatives discussed potential, cost- effective mitigative repairs to address the increasing mid- and upper bluff failures. These discussions concluded with a repair program involving the installation of: a beam and lagging wall located immediately below the upper shotcrete cover; the installation of a temporary equipment platform; and the installation of several pipe and board landscape retaining walls. Design plans were prepared for these repairs, and were submitted to the City ofEncinitas Engineering Department, and California Coastal Commission staff, Ultimately the repair program was reviewed by Coastal Commission Staff and approved for construction under an emergency coastal development permit. Unfortunately, during this same period, and the months following, the property owner was unable to locate a funding source for the desperately needed bluff repairs. As of this writing, it appears that Ms. Bradley has located a source of funds to perform the needed bluff repairs. However, during the intervening period, the limits and character of the bluff instability has changed, and concel1lS related to worker safety and other issues of bluff instability now preclude construction of an upper beam and lagging wall, located immediately below the existing shotcrete cover. The reasons prompting the revised bluff repair design include: the potential for any new upper wall to gradually be wldercut by erosion and failures tram below; serious issues of worker safety during construction and the heightened potential for injury from collapse of an over-steepened soil cavity behind the shotcrete cover; and the potential for instability within the surrounding bluff areas to affect an upper lagging wall. Therefore, based on existing site conditions and constraints, we have prepared this letter outlining a revised program of emergency bluff repairs designed by Soil Engineering Construction and supported by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, as required repairs to mitigate existing conditions of instability within the failure area along the mid/upper bluff at the project site. As expected, as part of the recommended emergency repairs, formal permits shall be su?mitted and processed in order to finalize the formal Wpnits of the requested bluff repaIrs. ; ! I ' I ' I ' I I I I As of this writing, the seawall approved under the Emergency Permit and Noh~e Of Intent To Issue Permit (California Coastal Commission), and the City of Encinitas (P~an Drawing No. 2628-G-3A) performed under Temporary Encroachment Permit (2628TE) has been completed (See References, Appendix A for relative background documents). As a result of the lower reinforced concrete seawall and the cement/concrete backfill being in place along the base of the bluff, the Torrey Pines Formation and the lower most several feet of the Terrace Deposits are presently protected from scouring, wave action and collapse. However, Existinf! Site Conditions 8 8 II Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Repaln S60 Neptune Avenue, Endnlt." Ca. September 17, 1000 Page 4 98-IOSS the full height of the Terrace Deposits within the northerly half of the bluff face is in a state of failure. Additionally, the lower approximately IO-feet of the Terrace Deposits; the northerly and southerly limits of the failure area; and the cavity extending behind the upper shotcrete structure are in a near-vertical and over-steepened condition. Therefore, as of this writing, the Terrace Deposits (silty sands) within the northerly half of the bluff are highly unstable. These unstable deposits have retreated (landward) within the northerly half of the bluff, to approximately 10- to I5-feet east and behind the existing shotcrete cover. The shotcrete structure is undermined within several feet (horizontally) of the primary residence. Further, the over-steepened and overhanging cavity located within the northerly most building pad is considered highly susceptible to collapse, thereby creating conditions of continued landward mitigation, with a real and imminent threat to impact the existing primary residence, lateral migration into the adjacent properties, and a threat to users of the beach below. Revised Middle-UDDer Bluff ReDairs As a result of the above mentioned bluffinstabi1ity and changes observed within the subject bluff, representatives from Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) and Anthony-Taylor Consultants, have concluded that the existing failure area and bluff instability threatening the residence and upper shotcrete wall can most practically and cost effectively be mitigated using the immediate construction of a new beam and lagging wall extending approximately 50 feet in length and approximately 14 feet in height, located along the base of the natural Terrace deposits and approximately 5-feet easterly of the existing seawall. The new beam and lagging wall shall be constructed using steel beams placed in I8-inch diameter core drilled holes positioned at 8-feet on-center, and extending 6-feet deep into the existing concrete/cement backfill located behind the concrete seawall. Based on structural analysis and design performed by SEC, it has been determined that the steel beam wall will require a 24" by 36" reinforced concrete grade beam (spanning the individual vertical beams) to be constructed, and anchored with intermediate drilled tie-backs extending back into the natural qluff. Pressure treated douglas fir wood lagging consisting of 6 x 12's, 4 by 12's, and 3 x 12's shall then be installed to span between the vertical steel beams. The wood lagging shall be provided with an approximately 1/4-inch wide airspace between the lagging, and a layer of Mirafi filter fabric onto the back of the wood wall in order to enhance drainage and prevent the migration of backfill materials through the lagging wall. The new beam and lagging wall shall then be backfilled with clean angular aggregate at an approximate incline of 1.2: 1 (horizontal to vertical), in order to restore the failed section of the bluff and provide support to the undermined shotcrete cover. Where localized steepened 8 8 11 Submittal and Request Rcvised Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas, Ca. Si!ptember 27, 2000 Page 5 98-1055 conditions may exist (the northerly end of new beam wall), the gravel aggregate will be contained within gabion baskets. The angular gravel aggregate shall be placed to: restore the failure area; support the perimeter of the failure area; and fill below and support the bottom beam of the shotcrete cover. Following this process, the balance of the void space behind the shotcrete wall shall be backfilled with a combination of either crushed gravel, clean sand, or light weight cement shmy grout. Upon completion of the beam wall and bluff restoration, the exposed aggregate slope and the upper shotcrete cover will then be colorized to blend the coloration to the surrounding natural bluff: using the Perm eon coloration system. It is anticipated that in order to perfonTI the recommended bluff restoration construction of the steel beam pile and lagging wall, construction will be perfonncd using a mobile crane to lift equipment and materials from the public beach. It is also anticipated that !be placement of the gravel bacldill shaH be performed using either a telescoping gradaii and/or a conveyer belt system situated near the street; front of the vaçant lot. Discussion of AJtCl'llath'4s : l As pa..rt of th~g~otedHtica1i review 0 f the bluff condhions and mitigative repa,irmeasures, we have considered l.ematives to the OJ1s1ruction of the proposed bluff stabm~tiop mJjll and gravel fill slope. Where requested,.altematives will be addressed in greater.peuiils: , I No Mitigatiyeepairs I! ' The failurel ~. <;:: wmence tht~ reconp;nended repairs (even with the seaWal~¡Pleted, as P. reviously a . " ...~. ~d. wi. 11 C. cntinue ~. lea.. ve the residence and existing uppe. rl '~..~..'h..' Ole. rete. wall in a .state of . ' . imminent thre~t of failure and collapse, Further, contmuedlaq,dward ~easterly) ~ ¡~I ly (no~erly-squth;~rly) ~egression. of the fail~e ar. ea wi..'¡ i uftiþtately Involve nel, ng properties. Th~r fwe, tlns alternative would hkely JeaJq eproperty unusable; c '.' ;Fv e.refinancial h. ~.... .~'þ. for thie owner; allow continued la rt¡i1.gration of the failuf Ii intoneighboringip erties; as well as leave the potenti , :eat to the health and.! of the beach going:, hc from falling materials and debri i~ga~ed, , II" " I ' , : I:: 'i I,' I ocation of Portio~~ f the Threatened Residence ¡:I I ! Ii 'II: relocation of all o~ POll ions of the residence would allow .i! continued ly. ) and laterally (no'. I1h"..,' f.ly-southerly) mitigation of the falIl,!ulûmately ring properties, Thete ore, this alternative would also lea tte property evere financial hard$~i for the owner; allow unmitigated I " mtgtation I Removal 0'- I The remova landward (e i involving n~ unusable; c ' T!III! !¡llllllfill ~ II ' '1Im!llll] 8 8 II Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Repairs !160 Neptune Avenue, Enc:lnitas, Ca. September Z7, ZOOO Page 6 98-1055 into neighboring properties; as well as leave, the potential threat to the health and safety to the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. 1 Below Ground Rear-Yard Retention Systeni With respect to the use of â. below ground retenti~n structure (caissons and grade beams with tie-backs below grade in the rear yard) to mitfßate the existing instability, ,this method of repair is basically prohibited because of the potential for damage to the structural tie. ,backs which provide to support the sho!crete wat1. The drilling of large diameter excavations as would be required with this type of repair operation would have a significant potential to damage the existing wall tie..backs which are a crucial structural element su~poI1ing the shotcrete cover. The repair options \vould also allow the potential for on..go~~ D~~lfaìlures below the shotáe,te cover to eX¡Ond,... J.a. .t. er.a!lY (no.,.rther.tY-..s. OU..I.'herlY)., ..nd all.o'"j.. '4 S..hotc.rete cover to deteriorate and collapse ov~r t' . Therefore, this altçrnative ""Quid re e as~vere financial hardsqip for the owner; ¡an w umnihgated lateral migration Û1t : n ighb(jring prope. rties; as ~] as lea. vc the pütp,n' ar. threat ~C.) the health and safety to! 1i !be~ch going public from tàllijng materials and dçb s u.,'1111ìtigated. ' . I '. , " Soil Conditio"~!ênd S]Qne t\!m~ I In order to. eval ~e the. pqs.t consH~ ",on, stabi1i~.Y of tho e bluff repair,.rep,. .,' ,.tativ~S from Soil Engine~IÌI1 Construction ppffolned slope stability analysi~ usjnij I . GStABL7 ~~uff.mp~~~. .~,ro...! ~'. ~o~:;.¿~. J~ .~:" i~;~:.! x~~~~~ ~~=:: :'~e... ,.1,'. ::..t.il~~ :~ ~:~. ,~~I.i :,1,e. '. ~ø:;~;:so, ~ ,. e::t~:. ~ ~~~~~:f:dn:~è ~ 11~¡~. tJ/ ?; bluff and SO~~ ' , d. itio.ns on. pr.evi I dJac. en! %jec! sites. The finding¡ .. ..' :r. .' s\" found the ml Factor of S (FsO agat st faIlure of the repalfeq 1 pc . ugh sections (A-' / .: LB') under a s~t. . ,~ditions quaIs F,S, =1.48, and 1.4 , spec~i~ly, Further, the . '!)e~ found the m~n' 'Factor Safety (FS) against failur" ~ rtp*ired slopethrou~ ~ion¡s(A-A"B~BI derasei icloadofO.15g,equaJ$ ",¡=,l.J7'lanp 1.17, respectl "I 1, ¡Ii! . li'l II '. Though the n1~' J factor ofaDiiil Iil~ been Iculated to be Slightl~l Ii "the irldustry standard minirp' Factor of Safe' ' " l5, we hould note that this, Hndicåtesan assumed failureæ,¡,xtending apprdx', ~~y 10": t Ii 15-feet back from the b u ~bp. Further~ addi.tional analY.,.', ..s indicates that;ilil : '. e P. 08t- . nstruction slope repair 40' $urat~on qas been found toil, ,i ve a minimum: F ' I' ~ ~()~ Safe' of 1.5 and greater for ~s~" ed#tilwfes extending diS]S of approximát~I': feet. an increasing factors of safejlYl, ;~ tfie blr " ' ,!i .¡ I" I I . 8 8 . Submittal and Request Revised Blurr Repairs !\60 Neptune Avenue, Endnit." Cil. September 17, 1000 Page 6 98.IO!\S into neighboring properties; as well as leave the potential threat to the health and safety to the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. Below Ground Rear-Yard Retention System With respect to the use of a below ground retention structure (caissons and grade beams with tie-backs below grade in the rear yard) to mitigate the existing instability, this method of repair is basically prohibited because of the potential for damage to the structural tie..backs which provide to support the shotcrete wall. The drilling of large diameter ex.::-.avations as would be required with this type of repair op¿:ration would have a significant potential to damage the existing wall tic..backs which are a crucial structural element supporting the shotcrete cover. The repair options \vouid also allow the potential for on..going bluff failures below the shotcrete cover to exl~rKl later:::! ly (northerly-southerly), ~md allow th~: shOtcl'ctl; cover to deteriomte and coJlapse over time. Therei::~re, this alternative would create a severe financial hardship for the O\Vl1er; aHaw I.mmitigated laleraJ migration into neighboring properties; as well as ¡eave the potential threat to the health anù safety to the beach going public from iàlling materials and debris unrnitigated. SoH Conditions and SIQP.e t)!H!.!y'si!'[ In order to evaluate the pnst:::ol1stmction stabiiity of the bluff repair, repres(,~ntatives from Soil Engineering Construction perfoTIned slope stability analysis using the GST ABL 7 computer program based on two cross-sections extending prepared through the completed bluff repair. Design information used in the slope analyses is based on the configuration of the finished slope repair as shown on the project repair plans (Reference 1), supplemental on- site shear testing performed by this office, and SEC's knowledge and experience 1",ith similar bluff and soil conditions on previous adjacent project sites. The findings of the analyses found the minimum Factor of Safety (FS) against failure of the repaired slope through sections (A-A', B-B') under a static conditions equals F.S. =1.48, and 1.47, respectïvely. Further, the analyses found the minimum Factor of Safety (FS) against failure ofthe repaired slope through sections (A-A', 8-8') under a seismic load of 0.15 g, equals F.S. =1.17, and 1.17, respectively. Though the minimum factor of safety has been calculated to be slightly below the industry standard minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5, we should note that this analysis indicates an assumed failure extending approximately 10- to IS-feet back from the bluff top. Fu11her, additional analyses indicates that the same post-construction slope repair confi.guration has been found to have a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 and greater for assumed failures extending distances of approximately 20 feet, and increasing factors of safety from the bluff 8 8 II Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune Avenue, Enelnitas, Ca. September 2'1, 2000 "age 7 98-1055 top. Therefore, given: the highly unstable condition of the existing bluff; the real financial limitation present relative to the funding the project; the findings of the analyses which indicate only slightly below the 1.5 Factor of Safety; and the minimum setback of 40-feet from the bluff top required of all new structures, we request that acceptance of the slightly lower Factor of Safety than the normal standard of 1.5, be reviewed and considered. The proposed repairs, it should be noted, raise the factor of safety trom at or near the existing factor of safety of 1.0, to veIY close to the 1.5 required. fmmmarv/Conciusions The primary residence on the Bradley property is presently under a real and inuninent threat of failure from conditions of unmitigated instability within the mid-;:md upper bluff soils \\;1thìn the subject property. Soil Engineering Construction and Anthony-Taylor Consultants have reviewed the available methods of repair necessary to rrâtigate the conditions of mid/upper bluff instability, and have concluded that the installation of a new beam a.T1d lagging wall is a smmd solution to address the ex~sting site conditions, and which fits into existing site and financial constraints. Further, we have reviewed the design goil paralneters utilized ill the structural caleuiations for the above outlined repair, and have concluded that tJ1C soil engineering parameters used are considered reasonable and applicable for the project site, fu,ð therefore are considered representative based on field and laboratory data coJ1ected to-date, with site conditions and constraints considered. At your request, these revised midlupper-blutI repairs shall be integrated into the final project, as supplemental to the existing mylars or as additional plan sheets, or be supplemented to include all pertinent project information and signature blocks you require so as to become a stand alone plan-set submittal. Please contact Mr. Greg Karen at (760) 738-8800, Ext, 105, at your earliest available moment regarding additional infonnation you may require or tht~ format of submittal you require. Therefore, on behalf of the applicant and property owner, (Ms. Ludmilla Bradley) we request your timely review and consideration of this revised repair program and request approval of pennits relative to the recommended repairs, so that these crucial repairs can be approved and constructed within the shortest possible time frame. Upon telephone request, we can . provide further details relative to the recommended construction. .' - 8 , . . Submittal and Request Revised Bluff Repairs !l60 Neptune Avenue, Eneinitas, Ca, September 27, 2000 Pale 8 98-IO!l!l We appreciate your serious consideration of our request on behalf of Mr. Ludmilla Bradley. If you have questions or need further information, please call Mr. Greg Karen, so we may discuss this most urgent situation. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylm' Company Distribution: (2) (I) Addressee - Hand Delivered Ms. Ludmilla Bradley S6O Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 . --- II 8 8 AN THO. NY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street . Escondido, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax September 27,2000 City of Encinitas' Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Subject: References: . Project No. 98-1055 , ' ,. , , ,..' . Ms. Dianne Lanager . 1:1::' t) 9 ;)¡;¡.r , ¡.. ..." "'., Revised Statement of Justification New Seawall and Revised MidlUpper Bluff Repairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 '¡ I) "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence-560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 4;.!,repareá by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 19,2000. . ~) I "StruClurai Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California, "Pages ! through 14 of 14, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 6, 2000. 3) "Letter Report.Slop... Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encimtas California,," prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated September 20, 2000. 4) MRev!sed Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Encinitas, California," dated September 27,2000, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. Dear Ms. Lanag~r: In accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas, we have prepared this revised statement of j~ification for the project seawall and the proposed construction of new mid/upper bluff~epairs, including a beam and lagging ret~ntion system, with gravel fill slope located within tHe northerly half of the mid/upper bluff at the subject site. 3. Location: The proposed bluff stabilization project including the recently constructed reinforced concrete seawall, and the proposed beam and lagging wall with gravel fill repair will not be detrimental to adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural r~sources. In fact, the proposed improvements will actually improve the protection of the above, as well as the beach below. A. There are no public facilities or services impacted by this project. B. The site is well suited for the proposed structures, considering the fact that a similar seawall system is present south of the property, and a concrete/rock revetment has been constructed north of the property. San Diego, CA . San Francisco, CA . Houston, TX . 8 8 Revised ~tatement or JlIstlflution Existing Seawall &: Revis~'II Mid/Upper Bluff Repain 560 Neptune Annue, Enclnitas Ca. September 17, 1000 rile 1 Project No, 98-1055 C. The project shall have no harmful effects on the environment and natural resources of the City. Size and Operating Characteristics: The seawall and proposed mid/upper bluff repairs will not be detrimental to adjacent uses, and shall blend with anà improve the look of the existing tàilme area and exposed bluff face. 4. ,..., L-. A. B. There will be no impact to public facilities. The suitabilit-y is excellent, considering the fact û1at, at present, adjacent bluff repairs include a similar seawall to L~at built within the project site, and located on adjacent properties towards the south, and the presence of an existing concrete/rock revetment with gunite cover which is io(;ated north of the project site, The seawall shall connect: these two existing protective stn.1ctùres, anà thereby limit the potential for the conditions of on-going blnt!" erosion/retreat from impacting the subject property <lnd neighboring properties. The propost;:d new lower beam and lagging viall will help mitigate the on-going conditions of lateral migration of existing mid/upper bluff L~Iure3 into the surrounding pJ'openies. No harmful âft:cts to the environment and natural resources oft-he City. ... ,). No impact to policies Grthe Encinitas General Plan or provisions of this code. 4. The project complies with all other regulations, conditions and polices imposed by this code. ., . 8 8 Revised Slatemeni or Jllstlfirallon E~lstlng Seawall '" Revised Mid/Upper Blurr Repai" ~60 Neptune Annue, Enelnita, Ca. September 17, 1000 Page J Projed No. 93-IO~~ We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further information, please refer to Project No. 98-1055 to expedite your requests. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company .'/ll~ ...' .. reject Engine~r RCE No. C42590 -~- ;â.L~ Gregor; Ni. ,-arcn Pr~ject Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2) (¡ ) Addressee Ms. Ludmilla Br~dÎey 560 Neptune A venue Encinitas, Ca1ifomia 92024 8 SOil cnC:lncc~lnc: conS¡:~U(¡:IOn,n( ~ 8 Sep~mber 2°12~OO . , MS.LUdmilla~radleY " 560 Neptune v nue EDcini~. C, "¡ °. "I'. 92024 I 'I ,29 Re: ~etter' port - Slope Stability Analyses , ~ropô' Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas DearMs. B4:: : ï Soil Engineþ~ Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter report , I' presenting the1r~ults of our slope stability analyses for the proposed bluff repairs at the subject site.l~e~, ign IDformation used in the analyses were provided to us by Anthony- Taylor Con$u(t8Ilts and are presented herein. In addition the repair plans "Repairs to Upper Bluffl *radley residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by , I SEC dated September 6, 2000 was used as the basis for the bluff sections used in the analyses. Slope StabilitY Analyses Presented herein are the results of our bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose!: of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the proposed post construction conditions. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (GSTABL7 computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross-sections A-A' and B-B', shown on Figures 1 and 2 (attached), represents the proposed bluff slopes used in our analyses. The computer printouts are included in this review and are attached. Assumed design soil parameters used for our analysis were based on IDformation provided to us by Anthony-Taylor Consuhants, and on our past experience working in the area, and are presented in the table on the following page: 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, Colifornia 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 8 8 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley September 20, 2000 Page 2 Material Total Unit Cohesion Friction Weight (pcl) (psI) Angle (degrees) Terrace Deposits (Upper- 110 150 38 Bluff) Gravel Backfill (3/4" to 100 100 45 1- Yz" Rock) Torrey Sandstone 120 2000 45 Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis uses a pseudo-static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each load case are presented below: BlutT Condition Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety Cross Section A-A' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- 1.48 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.17 Cross Section B-B' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- 1.47 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.17 \ 8 8 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley September 20, 2000 Page 2 Conclusions Based on the findings presented above, it is our opinion that an adequate factor of safety against sliding may be achieved at the site by implementing the proposed repairs depicted in the construction drawings. At this time, it is our opinion that the proposed repair plan prepared by SEC is the only viable solution to restore an adequate factor of safety for the protection of the primary residence at the subject site. If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. r"", " ""':l 'il'IIII I 11111 IIII' 1!11 ~I :'!'Ilfllill 8 8 . top. Therefore, given: the highly un limitation present relative to the fi indicate onlY, sqghtly below the 1.5 from the bluff ~p required of all ne lower Factor of! Safety than the no proposed repair~, it should be note factor of safety of 1.0, to very close I "[1 I' I - hie C,4n,llj'I'"',,n "fthe existing bluff; the real financial ing t~q ~ Ipject; the findings of the analyses which ctor of S '~ty; and the minimum setback of 4O-feet tructur~~~¡,}¥e request that acceptance of the slightly standar~::þf 1.5, be reviewed and considered. The 'se the ~'Ftor of safety trom at or near the existing the 1.5 r~' uired. 98-1055 Submittal and RcqU91 I Revised 81ufT Repnin I !l611 Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas, Ca. September 27, 2000 Page 7 Therefore, lo~ i your timely r Hermits :r~~a, ti zkd cons~I1Jct provide f]rth~ ~ ~'~ , II Summarv/f.°nclusio~ I The primarY ~esidence on t.he Bradle roperty is resently under a real and imminent threat of failure ttom conditions of Immit ted justa lity within the mid-émd upper bluff soils , , WIthin th~ SU~, ~e,ct prope~ty: Soil En, fring Ci~ ; struction and An, ~~Ol1Y~ TaYI~,)r, Co~~ultants lpve revJew~d the available meth: pf rep~ ' necessary to rT1ltlgate the, :condltlOns of Ihidíupper b~ff instability, and h~' cpnclud~, that the installation of a q~w beam and ìagging walIlis a sOlmd solution to ' þss the e isting site conditions, and,vþich fits into existing siteatnd financial constraintS, er, W have reviewed me design ~QÌ~ paranleters utilized in thi$û'"'lictural cal¡;ujatio~s q I~he ahoy ?utlined repair, and haveçö.cluded that th, e soil engin,~"e'n,"'",,' 0, " g par,amete, rs USed"." :.""",1.0, n$:"", idet d i,reasonabie and apPlicabId,'"'""",,'.j,,Û,' '. "r the P, roject site, éùìd therefore are considered re , t.atlive b s d on field and laboratory! ata col1ected to-date, wit,lI. ~it~ conditions and co f~: ~ COl" 'red. . : I I I ., I , I 'I ' " , At your requ I' i, these revised mi.: er¡.bluff r airs shall be integrated1¡1~¡' to the final , , , I project, ass plemental to the ~ 1 . g my 1 or as additional plan" $ ,eets, or be suppIeme~ted,9 include all pertiné: 1,I~ect.in£ ,ationand signature bI?,,': Iyou require so ~ to bdco, .~a stand alone plant I -pbmItta! lease contact Mr. Greg ~n at (760) 73818800~ Extl:, ,,:,°5, at your ear1ies~,"" I' " :,ble mo_,., , ,:,' t regarding additional iIÛt"I ~~',I"ation you may requIre q ,: e fonnat of sùbmt ,c¡>u requ~ e ill , I ,", , II I ,', ,"',1' ",' ',' '","', I I '. " ,,' l1alfofthe applic' ,roperl:)¡i,'1 ?¡nero (Ms, Ludnrilla B~,' Ý),W, e request I w and considerati ' ,. s revi$ repair program and requ~t approval of :~o the recommen airs, soli ijit these crucial repairs cab be approved . within the shorte I ib~e tini ~ame. Upon telephone r~quest, we can' etails relative to ommen eå construction. , ' , ,I , , ¡lililMI W'I , . - 8 , - &1 Submittal and Requesl Revised Bluff Repairs S60 Neplune Avenue, Eneinilas, Ca. Seplember 27, 2000 Page 8 98-10SS We appreciate your serious consider If you have questions or need furth discuss this most urgent situation. ~~ of our r. quest on behalf of Mr. Ludmilla Bradley. fonnati þ., please call Mr. Greg Karen, so we may ! Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CO!' An Anthony-Taylor Company . ~~ _.~~ ~ h-- Gregory J. aren Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2) (I) I I I I I ! ,I Addressee. Hand Deb Ms. Ludmilla Bradley S6O Neplune Avenue Encínitas, California 9 ~;Ii . --- 8 ANTHONY -T II IIIII!! I~~!I!!II i . ;'II~I! 8 LOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escon' , CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax September 27, 2000 City of Encinitas Community Development Departl 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Ms. Dianne Lanage Subject: Revised Statement ( New Seawall and R. Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenu Encinitas, Californi References: I) "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradh 4, ;Jreparea by Soil Engineering 2) "Structural Design Calculations, 1 Ùlrollgh 14 of 14, prepared by 3) "Letter Report.Slope Stability Encinitas CaJifomia,," prepared 4) "Revised Geotechnical Update, CaJifomia," dated September 2 Project No. 98-1055 ,-,~ " 9 ...\-i I' . ~~tification i~~1d MidlUJ1Þper Bluff Repairs I ~D24 i . $i~ence-560 N<:ptune Avenue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 0 $tj'uction, dated September 19,2000. ~í la Bradley Rð~jdence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California, "Pages i, !Epgineering Cò)Struction, dated September 6. 2000. , . y es-ProposedBluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Þ I Engineering Construction, dated September 20, 2000. ! ell Property, Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5), Em:initas. prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. Dear Ms. Lanager: In accordance with the requirement$ statement of justification for the pi mid/upper bluff repairs, including ab located within the northerly half of tJ 3. Location: The proposed bluff reinforced concrete seawall, a repair will not be detrimenta natural resources. In fact, t protection of the above, as w A. B. There are no public £. The site is well suited similar seawall syster revetment has been c i I! 'Ii- City of Encinitas, we have prepared this revised Þ seawall and the proposed construction of new ri And lagging retention system, with gravel fill slope ~~d/upper blufr'at the subject site. , . t lization project including the recently constructed ~ propos~d beam and lagging wall with gravel fill Cijacent qses, residences, buildings, structures or oposed m".. ~rovements will actually improve the I the beach luelow, ¡I. . ~t es or sertibes impacted by this project. :11þe propo~J structures, considering the fact that a i resent s~th of the property, and a concrete/rock cted north of the property, i ! i San Diego, CA ~ n Francisco, CA . Houston, TX II 8 Revised Statement or Justlflutlon Elistlnll SelwIn & Revised' Mid/Upper Bluff R~pairs S6O Neptune Annul'., Ineinitas Ca. September 27, 2000 PailI'. 2 c. 4. The project shall ha resources of the City. Size and Operating Characteri will not be detrimental to adj of the existing tàilure area A. B, There will be no imp' The suitability is exce repairs include a si ' tocated on adjacent ""J istl',no collc'røte/ro,å _. Ao, "'0 ""'.'" t e oroject site. 'fh strh~~es, anà ther .t." 9rosiop~retrea~. fj'( I 1'1 propertIes. 1 he r r~itigate trie on-goihg 9tuff faih,l1:cs into tbt: . ,-., ~. No harmful dfe(~ts i to No impmyt to policies oftl~e ,I ' 'I Th,e proj.,,:1:' t, complies With~'" this cod1, 'i ," 1 1 'I' , I 1,'1' I i I' ' , ì': I I " ... ,j. 4. 1~1Ij ~. 8 Project No. 98-1055 nø harmful effects on the environment and natural I I 'c~: The seawall and proposed mid/upper bluff repairs ejt uses, and shall blend with and improve the look e1posed bluff face. I t public facilities. nt considering the fact that, at present, adjacent bluff seawall to that built within the project site, aJld p rties towards the south, 3.nd the p"esence of an v tment wÏth gunite cover which is io ated north of e ,vall shall connect these two exis ng protective : 't the potential for the conditions of [~-going bluff ill acting the subject property find lneighboring )$ :d new lower beam and lagging rpIl will help 01 'ditions of lateral migration of existi ,g mid/\lpper r U1;1dingproperties, . e environtinent and natural res()urces'~ thf City. cl itag General Plan or provisions of,' s code. I 'I I, II r reguultions, conditions and POI¡~r.", j~r,.', ,¡sed by , ,'" I 1 , I' I !, ' , I " . . 8 8 . Revised Sla!emenl or JUIlt'~ealion E.lsling Seawall &. R~"" MId/Upper Bluff Repai 560 Neplune Avenue, E~~.i"s Ca, Seplember 27, 2000 : ' Page 3 ' :! , Project No. 98-1055 . I I We appreciate tt»~ opportunity to information, pl~e refer to Proje Respectfully suJbitted, ANTH 0 Ny-it A YLO R C, An Anthony.. rOy!.JICompany I I I , If 11..., u have questions or need further . xpe Ite your requests, . , .1ichal . reject ~neer RCE No, C42S~O ~, '. ~ lÆ./~ . ~ ..L..':...._-_. Gregor) Nt ,~~n Pr~j ~ct Engine' I . 'llg Geologist ..' . DistribUtion: , ( ~ . Addrcs~ Ms. Ludmilla Br 560 Neptune Av Encinitas, CaHtb J' ,'" 8 SOIL ënC:lnëë~lnc: conSt~UC¡:IOn,n( ~ 8 .' ~,' '. ", ~',;., :', Septerhber :W+~qoo' . , , ,,'. , ',' , , i., . . ! . Ms. Ludmilla .$radley 560 Neptune A,venue Encinitas, Califonua 92024 " '!, t 29 Re: Letter Report - Slope Stability Analyses Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Ms. Bradley: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following letter report presenting the results of our slope stability analyses for the proposed bluff repairs at the subject site. Design information used in the analyses were provided to us by Anthony- Taylor Consultants and are presented herein. In addition the repair plans "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by SEC dated September 6, 2000 was used as the basis for the bluff sections used in the analyses. ~ope Stabi'ity Analyses Presented herein are the results of our bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the proposed post construction conditions. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (GSTABL7 computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross-sections A-A' and B-B', shown on Figures 1 and 2 (attached), represents the proposed bluff slopes used in our analyses. The computer printouts are included in this review and are attached. Assumed design soil parameters used for our analysis were based on information provided to us by Anthony-Taylor Consuhants, and on our past experience working in the area, and are presented in the table on the following page: ./ 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, Colifornia 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 .. 8 8 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley September 20, 2000 Page 2 Material Total Unit Cohesion Friction Weight (pef) (psf) Angle (degrees) Terrace Deposits (Upper- 110 150 38 Bluff) Gravel Backfill (3/4" to 100 100 45 1- W' Rock) Torrey Sandstone 120 2000 45 Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis uses a pseudo-static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each load case are presented below: Bluff Condition Minimum Calculated Factor of Safety Cross Section A-A' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- 1.48 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.17 Cross Section B-B' Post Construction Analyses Static Analysis- 1.47 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.17 , 8 8 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley Septenmer20,2000 Page 2 Conclusions Based on the findings presented above, it is our opinion that an adequate factor of safety against sliding may be achieved at the site by implementing the proposed repairs depicted in the construction drawings. At this time, it is our opinion that the proposed repair plan prepared by SEC is the only viable solution to restore an adequate factor of safety for the protection of the primary residence at the subject site. If you should have any additional requests for information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. r- "-', " "'":l REP AIR PLAN .'- SECTION A-A' A LOOKING NORTH A' - NEW s NO SLURRY 110 BACKFIL L \ 110 \ 100 E ISTING \ (UNDEilELOPE[ ) 100 S OTCRETE/TIE-E ACK "-.. \ NEPTUNE W LL ""'-., tS'/ ts ------ A' ENUE 90 "'-. - ? ? ? ? ,- 90 18 OF 2 SACK ,,7 SA Ifo SLU ~RY ~ /' 80 '" /' 80 (E) CONC, ~",I / SW I LE -........ 70 ~ " 70 ~ OPE ........... ~ V,",'-.... at 60 \ "" 60 S OPE "-... ........ ........ ANG E OF r EPOSE OR ""-.., TERr ACE DE POSITS( 56") 50 ;)ROpos'""n STEr-L BEA., 50 ~Nn \olE on LAC GING ........... DO :lETAIN NG \oIA L \oil ""-....: at ' 40 IEBAC S ~ ~ & 40 ~' ....~NE\oI SLOPE BACKFI L 30 I,... VI ~ 'H~ 30 .~ 'E) 25( 0 PSI f-ONCRE" E ~\ :: ~ 20 ¡ BACKFILL "'--- ""'1u: - - 20 I 1,1 'E) SEJWALL '^ I "'" ~'~ ?1, ,}. ---..... ~ T ? I' ? I 10 i TIEBACHS '....... : ::"~ " " ~, -. - ? 10 ~ ',"," ........ I - i ........ ~ . :... -: --¡ -- "'" I'" ' i ---~ :.~~'~~ Tt SEIJ TluN A-A Tt 01 - n...,J ,//...,', . 0 po-- u~ --- --.:...: . nU"'I¡IL: I ;¿,u - -1 I V RT: 1 =20' -10 I Tt (E) 24" DIA :AISSOr-. -10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 -. " - " " . . - REPAIR PLAN - SECTION B- rl' 8 LOOKING NORTH B' I 110 110 I RESIO NCE NEP UNE 100 (PROJE~ TED) 100 E ISTING t . AVt.r ~Ut. S OTCREÍlQTIE"::¡ L - I---- ACK 1\ -?~ '" ? ts 90 W LL I 7 ? 7 - 1 ./ - 90 . \¡ V ;' (E CONC. 80 5V ALE -- 1'--- /V 80 EX STING (ONC. I f~ r-' ./ 70 ~D 't!Ç.~[ WALLS ~. ,.; at 70 PA mALLY FAILED ~~~ /' ./ 60 EX STING ",/' 60 P¡; OPOSEl STEEL BEAM SLrE " 'f /' A~ D \JOO LAGGJ NG '" ~~ ,;:~SEO ~ K at 50 RE T AININ \JALL \JI /' 50 I ........ "-.J IT ",/' ~ OF RI POSE F jaR ~ :1 . ? ANGL at (E' 2" C bMPACTI to SOIL ~ ? /' TERRI CE OEF OSITS(3 ~.) 40 ~ ? '" 1L ~ ~U/"'t. ~ ~ ". """ /' NE\J SLOPE BACKFI L 30 ,~ 1\ C::IIU ~gV r-- -~. 'viI ( RAVEL :~L a CKFILL ~ ""~ .x ./ =< /' 20 ~ ~fí: 7- 7 ? ? ';, - 20- (I b SEAW ~LL Wi ........ '\ - T EBACKS "'" ~~ ~......... Tt 10 "'- 10 I "" .~~.- .~..'" H'--. --.., I - r/ -- Tt .. . . -, SE~ :TIO \J B -B' 0 Rei . 0 _.- J...oooII"" ... - ~ ""'d ----t .....1 o!ll ~: I'"' ,~L: 1 :LU -- VI RT: l' =20' I -7 7 (E' 24 . 01" CAISS DN II Tt I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 I 160 120 80 40 0 0 STED _F8 ": ! "'-.-"" Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD1.PL T Run By: JWN 9/20/00 9:06AM I ' ." 8 8 40 80 120 240 160 200 160 1# FS I a 1.481 b 1.481 C 1.49 d 1.50 e 1.52 f 1.52 g 1.52 h 1.52 120 I i 1.52 j 1.53 80 40 01 0 STED _F8 .: ,--."" , Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD1.PL2 Run By: JWN 9/20/00 9:06AM Ii. ¡ . Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez'll Load Value Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Tl 47200. Ibs No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (cJeg) No. - T2 47200. Ibs Ter/Fill 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 Torrey 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 GravFiII 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.0 0 nun --, ,-- - 8 1 T2@lOft Tl@lOft 'I .8 I , 2 40 80 120 160 GST ABL7 FSmin=1.48 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 200 240 " 8 . C:\sted\nbrad1.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 9/20/00 Time of Run: 9:06AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:nbrad1. Output Filename: C:nbrad1.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:nbrad1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.10 3 144.10 4 159.00 5 100.00 6 130.00 7 144.00 8 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 110.0 120.0 2 120.0 125.0 3 100.0 100.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.20 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.10(ft) and X = 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = l65.00(ft) and X = 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) l2.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.02 39.35 Y-Left (ft) 24.00 38.00 73.00 97.00 24.00 44.00 56.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 150.0 2000.0 100.0 X-Right (ft) 100.10 144.10 159.00 240.00 130.00 144.00 144.10 240.00 Friction Angle (deg) 38.0 45.0 45.0 Y-Right (ft) 38.00 73.00 97.00 97.00 44.00 56.00 73.00 22.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 ". 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad1.0UT Page 2 3 123.63 42.40 4 134.67 47.10 5 144.92 53.35 6 154.16 61. 01 7 162.19 69.92 8 168.85 79.90 9 174.01 90.74 10 175.94 97.00 Circle Center At X = 97.0 ; Y = 120.3 and Radius, 82.3 *** 1.479 *** Individual data on the 13 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 11. 9 4851. 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 11.6 13025.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 9.0 14302.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.1 3763.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.3 18163.6 0.0 0.0 54.6 -58.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.1 213.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 -2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.8 1848,8 0.0 0.0 23.0 -18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.2 24975.9 0.0 0.0 702.7 -520.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 4.8 15669.5 0.0 0.0 1103.8 -446.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 3.2 10124.0 0.0 0.0 998.4 -112.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 6.7 16191. 6 0.0 0.0 2802.2 -5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 5.2 6620.5 0.0 0.0 3221.1 474.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 1.9 664.6 0.0 0.0 1404.9 618.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 111.83 40.55 3 123.10 44.67 4 133.70 50.29 5 143.44 57.30 6 152.14 65.57 7 159.63 74.94 8 165.78 85.25 9 170.46 96.29 10 170.66 97.00 Circle Center At X = 87.4 ; Y = 124.9 and Radius, 87.8 *** 1. 483 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 111. 90 40.21 3 123.35 43.79 4 134.30 48.70 5 144.59 54.87 6 154.08 62.21 7 162.64 70.63 8 170.14 79.99 9 176.49 90.18 10 179.69 97.00 Circle Center At X = 87.6 ; Y = 138.0 and Radius, 100.8 *** 1. 489 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.07 38.82 3 123.71 41.74 4 134.66 46.65 5 144.58 53.40 '. 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad1.0UT Page 3 153.16 61.79 160.13 71.56 165.28 82.40 168.44 93.98 168.71 97.00 Center At X = 101.6; Y = 105.7 and Radius, *** 1.496 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.49 50.43 3 133.40 55.43 4 143.64 61.68 5 153.09 69.08 6 161.61 77.53 7 169.08 86.92 8 175.33 97.00 Circle Center At X = 85.3; Y = 145.9 and Radius, *** 1.519 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.06 38.96 3 123.78 41.54 4 135.04 45.68 5 145.64 51.32 6 155.37 58.34 7 164.06 66.62 8 171.54 76.00 9 177.68 86.31 10 182.20 97.00 Circle Center At X = 99.1; Y = 126.1 and Radius, *** 1.520 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.99 48.13 3 134.42 51.79 4 144.94 57.57 5 154.15 65.25 6 161.73 74.56 7 167.37 85.15 8 170.89 96.63 9 170.93 97.00 Circle Center At X = 109.8; Y = 109.1 and Radius, *** 1.523 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.84 49.09 3 134.15 53.11 4 144.76 58.71 5 154.47 65.77 6 163.06 74.14 7 170.37 83.66 8 176.23 94.13 9 177.34 97.00 Circle Center At X = 100.6; Y = 129.7 and Radius, *** 1.524 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 6 7 8 9 10 Circle 67.7 102.5 88.1 62.4 83.6 " 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad1.0UT Page 4 111.08 46.73 123.00 48.07 134.39 51.85 144.75 57.90 153.63 65.97 160.65 75.71 165.49 86.69 167.66 97.00 Center At X = 110.7; Y = 104.1 and Radius, *** 1.524 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 122.05 55.46 2 133.48 59.13 3 143.99 64.91 4 153.20 72.60 5 160.78 81.91 6 166.44 92.49 7 167.83 97.00 Circle Center At X = 108.7; Y = 116.5 and Radius, *** 1.526 *** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Circle 57.4 62.5 160 Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD2.PL T Run By: JWN 9120/00 9:07AM I 120 8 80 40 8 0 0 uL 40 80 120 160 200 240 STED _F8 '. I "..~~-' 160 I r II # FS a 1.17 b 1.18 c 1.18 II d 1.19 e 1.19 f 1.20 g 1.21 h 1.21 120 Ii 1.21 - j 1.21 80 40 0 0 STED _F8 - -, ._-V'- Bradley Residence Cross Section A-AI Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD2.PL2 Run By: JWN 9/20/00 9:07AM ¡ I ¡ I Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Tl 47200. Ibs No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) No. !2 47200. Ibs Ter/Fill 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 Honz Eqk 0.150 g< Torrey 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 GravFiII 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.0 0 80 120 160 GST ABL 7 FSmin=1.17 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ---~- - 40 8 1 T2@10ft Tl@lOft 3 8 2 200 240 '. 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad2.0UT *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 9/20/00 Time of Run: 9:07AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:nbrad2. Output Filename: C:nbrad2.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:nbrad2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section A-A' Pseudo Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 100.10 3 144.10 4 159.00 5 100.00 6 130.00 7 144.00 8 100.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 2 120.0 125.0 2000.0 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = O.O(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 147.20 78.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 2 157.14 94.00 47200.0 10.0 20.00 44.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.10(ft) and X = 144.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 165.00(ft) and X = 240.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) 12.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Y-Left (ft) 24.00 38.00 73.00 97.00 24.00 44.00 56.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 100.10 144.10 159.00 240.00 130.00 144.00 144.10 240.00 Y-Right (ft) 38.00 73.00 97.00 97.00 44.00 56.00 73.00 22.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 Coefficient Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 1 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad2.0UT Page 2 Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 100.10 38.00 111.90 40.21 123.35 43.79 134.30 48.70 144.59 54.87 154.08 62.21 162.64 70.63 170.14 79.99 176.49 90.18 179.69 97.00 Center At X = 87.6; Y = 138.0 and Radius, *** 1.174 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight Top Bot (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 11.8 4232.8 0.0 0.0 11.5 11383.7 0.0 0.0 10.9 15987.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 6674.3 0.0 0.0 5.8 10300.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 194.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1004.7 0.0 0.0 9.5 23895.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 15371.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 11267.6 0.0 0.0 7.5 17902.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 8315.6 0.0 0.0 3.2 1201.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.02 39.35 3 123.63 42.40 4 134.67 47.10 5 144.92 53.35 6 154.16 61.01 7 162.19 69.92 8 168.85 79.90 9 174.01 90.74 10 175.94 97.00 Circle Center At X = 97.0; Y = 120.3 and Radius, *** 1.182 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 111.83 40.55 3 123.10 44.67 4 133.70 50.29 5 143.44 57.30 6 152.14 65.57 7 159.63 74.94 8 165.78 85.25 9 170.46 96.29 10 170.66 97.00 Circle Center At X = 87.4; Y = 124.9 and Radius, *** 1.182 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Circle 100.8 13 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Surcharge Norm Tan Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 634.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1707.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2398.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1001.1 0.0 0.0 57.7 -56.7 1545.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 -2.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 13.1 -10.6 150.7 0.0 0.0 744.2 -513.7 3584.4 0.0 0.0 1140.3 -352.9 2305.7 0.0 0.0 1096.6 -30.4 1690.1 0.0 0.0 2789.3 241.4 2685.4 0.0 0.0 2958.6 862.2 1247.3 0.0 0.0 1357.5 817.9 180.2 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points 82.3 87.8 8 8 100.10 38.00 111.44 41.91 122.47 46.66 133.10 52.22 143.30 58.55 152.99 65.62 162.13 73.39 170.67 81.83 178.56 90.87 183.14 97.00 Center At X = 53.7; Y = 191.3 and Radius, *** 1.188 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 111.65 41.27 3 122.87 45.51 4 133.69 50.69 5 144.03 56.79 6 153.81 63.74 7 162.96 71.51 8 171.40 80.03 9 179.09 89.25 10 184.50 97.00 Circle Center At X = 68.0; Y = 173.8 and Radius, *** 1.190 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.49 50.43 3 133.40 55.43 4 143.64 61.68 5 153.09 69.08 6 161.61 77.53 7 169.08 86.92 8 175.33 97.00 Circle Center At X = 85.3; Y = 145.9 and Radius, *** 1.199 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.03 39.26 3 123.72 42.00 4 134.97 46.17 5 145.62 51.71 6 155.49 58.52 7 164.44 66.52 8 172.33 75.56 9 179.03 85.51 10 184.45 96.22 11 184.72 97.00 Circle Center At X = 95.9; Y = 134.2 and Radius, *** 1.207 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.10 38.00 2 112.06 38.96 3 123.78 41.54 4 135.04 45.68 5 145.64 51.32 6 155.37 58.34 7 164.06 66.62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Circle C:\sted\nbrad2.0UT Page 3 160.2 139.5 102.5 96.3 " 8 8 C:\sted\nbrad2.0UT 171.54 76.00 177.68 86.31 182.20 97.00 Center At X = 99.1; Y = 126.1 and Radius, *** 1.208 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.84 49.09 3 134.15 53.11 4 144.76 58.71 5 154.47 65.77 6 163.06 74.14 7 170.37 83.66 8 176.23 94.13 9 177.34 97.00 Circle Center At X = 100.6; Y = 129.7 and Radius, *** 1.209 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 111.08 46.73 2 122.81 49.26 3 134.09 53.36 4 144.71 58.94 5 154.48 65.90 6 163.22 74.13 7 170.77 83.45 8 176.99 93.72 9 178.41 97.00 Circle Center At X = 98.3; Y = 134.4 and Radius, *** 1.210 *** 8 9 10 Circle 88.1 83.6 88.6 Page 4 200 150 100 50 Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD3.PLT Run By: JWN 9/20/00 12:09PM I 8 8 0 ,. . 0 . I 50 100 150 200 250 STED _F8 " ',..".-"..' 200 I'll 1# FS a 1.47 b 1.48 c 1.48 d 1.50 e 1.52 f 1.531 g 1.53 h 1.57 i 1.59 150 j 1.60 100 50 0 0 STED _F8 .........."".' Bradley Residence Cross Section 8-B1 Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD3.PL2 Run By: JWN 9/20/00 12:09PM f I - f Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value Desc. Type Unit WI. Unit WI. Intercept Angle Surface Tl 70500. Ibs (pet) f) d N T2 70500. Ibs No. (pet) (ps ( eg) o. 13 70500 Ibs 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.0 0 . 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 0 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0 0 ~- 15Q.Q.~ 150.Q, 2000:0 45.0 . Q__.I Gravel Terrace Torrey Concrete 2 T3@lOft 3 -1. L L. 50 100 150 GSTABL7 FSmin=1.47 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 200 8 8 250 8 8 c:\sted\nbrad3.0UT Page 1 *** GSTA8L7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 9/20/00 Time of Run: 12:09PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:nbrad3. Output Filename: C:nbrad3.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:nbrad3.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 107.00 3 107.10 4 162.00 5 175.00 6 107.00 7 120.00 8 134.00 9 120.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 100.0 100.0 2 110.0 120.0 3 120.0 125.0 4 150.0 150.0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 163.30 80.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 168.50 88.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 3 173.70 96.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Unifo~ Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X ~ 107.10(ft) and X ~ 155.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X ~ 180.00(ft) and X ~ 250.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y ~ O.OO(ft) 16.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Y-Left (ft) 16.00 18.00 32.00 78.00 98.00 18.00 24.00 48.00 24.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 100.0 150.0 2000.0 2000.0 X-Right (ft) 107.00 107.10 162.00 175.00 250.00 120.00 134.00 162.00 250.00 Friction Angle (deg) 45.0 38.0 45.0 45.0 Y-Right (ft) 18.00 32.00 78.00 98.00 97.00 24.00 48.00 78.00 20.00 Pore Pressure Paramo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8 8 c:\sted\nbrad3.0UT Page 2 (ft) (ft) 107.10 32.00 122.97 34.06 138.12 39.21 151.95 47.26 163.91 57.88 173.54 70.65 180.46 85.08 183.70 97.88 Center At X = 104.9; Y = 112.0 and Radius, *** 1.467 *** Individual data on the 11 slices Water Water Tie Tie Force Force Force Force Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 15.9 8916.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4389.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 11415.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 7787.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 30713.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 24292.2 0.0 0.0 48.5 -67.2 1.9 4720.5 0.0 0.0 104.6 -102.2 9.6 25516.7 0.0 0.0 2510.6 -2133.7 1.5 3959.6 0.0 0.0 1433.2 -691.2 5.5 11153.6 0.0 0.0 8103.5 -1007.4 3.2 2289.9 0.0 0.0 10547.3 1438.4 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.87 34.69 3 138.00 39.91 4 152.07 47.53 5 164.71 57.34 6 175.58 69.08 7 184.39 82.43 8 190.91 97.04 9 191.11 97.79 Circle Center At X = 98.6; Y = 129.5 and Radius, *** 1.482 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.55 36.18 3 137.18 42.65 4 150.66 51.26 5 162.69 61.82 6 172.97 74.08 7 181.28 87.75 8 185.48 97.86 Circle Center At X = 87.8; Y = 134.5 and Radius, *** 1.484 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.65 35.76 3 137.57 41.55 4 151.59 49.26 5 164.47 58.76 6 175.97 69.87 7 185.90 82.42 8 194.09 96.16 9 194.76 97.74 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Circle 80.1 Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.9 104.3 8 8 Page 3 c:\sted\nbrad3.0UT Circle Center At X = 86.6; Y = 150.9 and Radius, *** 1.503 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.95 34.21 3 138.26 38.84 4 152.68 45.78 5 165.86 54.85 6 177.47 65.86 7 187.26 78.52 8 194.97 92.54 9 196.84 97.71 Circle Center At X = 100.8; Y = 135.2 and Radius, *** 1.518 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.08 42.03 2 134.91 44.32 3 149.83 50.11 4 163.06 59.10 5 173.94 70.83 6 181.90 84.71 7 185.88 97.85 Circle Center At X = 116.9; Y = 112.7 and Radius, *** 1.527 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.89 34.60 3 138.15 39.40 4 152.59 46.30 5 165.90 55.17 6 177.84 65.82 7 188.16 78.05 8 196.65 91.62 9 199.34 97.68 Circle Center At X = 96.6; Y = 144.8 and Radius, *** 1.534 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 123.09 32.43 3 138.74 35.80 4 153.49 41.99 5 166.85 50.79 6 178.37 61.90 7 187.64 74.94 8 194.36 89.46 9 196.44 97.71 Circle Center At X = 112.8; Y = 118.4 and Radius, *** 1.568 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.08 42.03 2 134.65 45.68 3 149.41 51.86 4 162.94 60.40 5 174.86 71.07 6 184.85 83.57 7 192.63 97.56 120.6 103.4 70.7 113.3 86.6 . . 8 8 c:\sted\nbrad3.0UT Page 4 8 192.70 97.76 Circle Center At X = 105.1; Y = 137.0 and Radius, *** 1.592 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.08 42.03 2 135.08 42.09 3 150.52 46.28 4 164.36 54.31 5 175.66 65.64 6 183.65 79.50 7 187.79 94.95 8 187.80 97.83 Circle Center At X = 127.0; Y = 102.5 and Radius, *** 1.600 *** 96.0 61. 0 200 Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD4.PL T Run By: JWN 9/20/00 12: 1 OPM !" . i . - ...- ..--.. 150 ...--....... " d--".""""" 8 100 . I 50 ...c. --... ....,un 8 50 150 ..-l- 200 0 0 100 250 STED . £;8 ..,,~' 200 # FS I a 1.17 b 1.17 c 1.18 d 1.18 e 1.20 f 1.20 l ~ g~I' _L!:~~ 150 100 c-. --- u 50 0 l- m 0 STED _F8 .._"../' Bradley Residence Cross Section 8-B1 Pseudo Static Analysis C:\STED\NBRAD4.PL2 Run By: JWN 9/20/00 12:10PM . -=-....:.t -- --------------------- -----j_CC-- . Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type Unit WI. Unit WI. Intercept Angle: Surface No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg); No. 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.0: 0 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0: 0 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 45.0: 0 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 45.0: 0 Gravel Terrace Torrey Concrete Load Value: T1 70500. Ibs T2 70500. Ibs 13 70500. Ibs Horiz Eqk 0.150 g< .U---- _u--- c- -" a i j: de~ h ---0-- . -5u---u 2 -- -- ,--- .u_u__uu_-~u__u--- 13@lOft . ,.. 3 50 100 150 GSTABL7 FSmin=1.17 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 200 8 8 250 8 8 c:\sted\nbrad4.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 9/20/00 Time of Run: 12:10PM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:nbrad4. Output Filename: C:nbrad4.0UT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:nbrad4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Residence Cross Section B-B' Pseudo Static Analysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 100.00 2 107.00 3 107.10 4 162.00 5 175.00 6 107.00 7 120.00 8 134.00 9 120.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 110.0 120.0 150.0 3 120.0 125.0 2000.0 4 150.0 150.0 2000.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = O.O(psf) TIEBACK LOAD(S) 3 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 163.30 80.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 2 168.50 88.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 3 173.70 96.00 70500.0 10.0 15.00 50.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 375 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 75 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 107.10(ft) and X = 155.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00(ft) and X = 250.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) 16.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Y-Left (ft) 16.00 18.00 32.00 78.00 98.00 18.00 24.00 48.00 24.00 X-Right (ft) 107.00 107.10 162.00 175.00 250.00 120.00 134.00 162.00 250.00 Y-Right (ft) 18.00 32.00 78.00 98.00 97.00 24.00 48.00 78.00 20.00 Friction Pore Angle Pressure (deg) Paramo 45.0 0.00 38.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 45.0 0.00 Coefficient Soil Type Below Bnd 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.87 34.69 3 138.00 39.91 4 152.07 47.53 5 164.71 57.34 6 175.58 69.08 7 184.39 82.43 8 190.91 97.04 9 191.11 97.79 Circle Center At X = 98.6; Y = 129.5 and Radius, *** 1.173 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Weight Top Bot (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 8300.9 0.0 0.0 4869.8 0.0 0.0 10218.7 0.0 0.0 7225.5 0.0 0.0 30487.5 0.0 0.0 24418.7 0.0 0.0 7082.1 0.0 0.0 30780.8 0.0 0.0 1862.0 0.0 0.0 21504.1 0.0 0.0 5805.7 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 8 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 107.10 32.00 122.55 36.18 137.18 42.65 150.66 51.26 162.69 61.82 172.97 74.08 181.28 87.75 185.48 97.86 Center At X = 87.8; Y = 134.5 and Radius, 104.3 *** 1.173 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.97 34.06 3 138.12 39.21 4 151.95 47.26 5 163.91 57.88 6 173.54 70.65 7 180.46 85.08 8 183.70 97.88 Circle Center At X = 104.9; Y = 112.0 and Radius, *** 1.177 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.65 35.76 3 137.57 41.55 8 Width (ft) 15.8 4.2 6.9 4.0 14.1 9.9 2.7 10.3 0.6 8.8 6.5 0.2 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Circle 8 c:\sted\nbrad4.0UT Page 2 97.9 12 slices Tie Tie Force Force Norm Tan (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7 -64.3 162.2 -136.6 2682.2 -1806.9 329.7 -89.7 9088.9 -983.7 10273.4 3247.1 353.3 195.0 Coordinate Points Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1245.1 0.0 0.0 730.5 0.0 0.0 1532.8 0.0 0.0 1083.8 0.0 0.0 4573.1 0.0 0.0 3662.8 0.0 0.0 1062.3 0.0 0.0 4617.1 0.0 0.0 279.3 0.0 0.0 3225.6 0.0 0.0 870.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 80.1 ¥ . . 8 . 151.59 49.26 164.47 58.76 175.97 69.87 185.90 82.42 194.09 96.16 194.76 97.74 Center At X = 86.6; Y = 150.9 and Radius, *** 1.177 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.95 34.21 3 138.26 38.84 4 152.68 45.78 5 165.86 54.85 6 177.47 65.86 7 187.26 78.52 8 194.97 92.54 9 196.84 97.71 Circle Center At X = 100.8; Y = 135.2 and Radius, *** 1.197 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.89 34.60 3 138.15 39.40 4 152.59 46.30 5 165.90 55.17 6 177.84 65.82 7 188.16 78.05 8 196.65 91.62 9 199.34 97.68 Circle Center At X = 96.6; Y = 144.8 and Radius, *** 1.201 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.08 42.03 2 134.91 44.32 3 149.83 50.11 4 163.06 59.10 5 173.94 70.83 6 181.90 84.71 7 185.88 97.85 Circle Center At X = 116.9; Y = 112.7 and Radius, *** 1.228 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 122.70 35.54 3 137.84 40.72 4 152.35 47.48 5 166.04 55.74 6 178.78 65.42 7 190.42 76.40 8 200.82 88.56 9 207.01 97.57 Circle Center At X = 81.8; Y = 179.9 and Radius, *** 1.236 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.08 42.03 4 5 6 7 8 9 Circle c:\sted\nbrad4.0UT Page 3 120.6 103.4 113.3 70.7 150.0 ~ 8 8 c:\sted\nbrad4.0UT Page 4 134.65 45.68 149.41 51.86 162.94 60.40 174.86 71.07 184.85 83.57 192.63 97.56 192.70 97.76 Center At X = 105.1; Y = 137.0 and Radius, *** 1.252 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.10 32.00 2 121.99 37.86 3 136.35 44.90 4 150.10 53.10 5 163.13 62.38 6 175.36 72.69 7 186.72 83.96 8 197.12 96.12 9 198.26 97.69 Circle Center At X = 42.6; Y = 217.8 and Radius, *** 1.252 *** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Circle 96.0 196.6 X Y A X I S F T 0.00 31.25 62.50 93.75 125.00 156.25 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 31.25 + 62.50 + 93.75 + A X * * * I 125.00 + *. 07 ..12 ..12*. ... .53 ...... . .....129. S 156.25 + ..... . . . . .. ... 1 . . . . . . .32. . *T 2 . . . . . . ... . . . .14. . . . T 3 ....... ""'" .32.. T .. ..........519. . * . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .132. .3 ... .......... .540. .2 .... . . .........8. ...51 ............... .....6.5 .. . .. . . . . . .. . .8. . . . ... . ..... .. . . .. . . . .8 .......... .T.......... ..... .1. .T....... ......... .2. .T. .. ....... .3.... 187.50 + F 218.75 + ............. . ......... . ......... . T 250.00 + * * .. ~ DATE q-<:;.- c::>~ ~1ì DATE 4-b-~ ~ - ~ ~~ \7" L--v1::::.'t¡ LA 1;l::-~LÆ.) 1=-E-~ t~E.-~ QÆ.-J~-"; ) I,' r¡ ".. ,r; 's;~ t-JEr-IVNL A VLNVL I E.NC-INflA-\Îf:ÀJ~~~:_l.:::iì.PbTë:;~) ",. SOIL ENGINEERING CONS.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB b~8) SHEET NO, I I::.Æ:..;: '"b L~ c...{.., OF /4 , CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SEP 2 9 - 1ek..1=' ~l-e::. <;.. 1-= V?P~ l:./...-ur=- F - ~(~l- \-~~( t...-:e.. "PI u:...... Ã-1"t~ Ú(..Io~ \)LA- V\...J \..k-,.I ( '-r +r ..,.' \ L"L A- c-~ ~ , L.,A-C'~ i;..J r ') '-... ..,1 l:Æ~-ÆA l N (I"t c; ~~ÇlCIN "PL"e.. VbC- (~~ .1'"?EÀ2. ~ L TË..- . ~C--.= N H A-{ \,C' A-1'"t Gf.... ~) ~~Il.- E-NC')\N~IH-C) CC:>H{~V Q:1¡'-=~ I ("-Ie. '. (!;.E.C~) ~ Ç.,t.-_N -fA II v E-.c -A--N~ 1)~. ~ f::. ~~- " CL .f:. A t 1,::t Ix:::> U<J : ~,' ST"fè= v c.;;r v F-..t: .:..) , . , SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB L~J SHEET NO. 2- CALCULATED BY ~ ~'tï ~.£f b..i::AtCL OF 14- DATE '4 -'-- ~~ DATE C¡-Ç.-~ ... CHECKED BY SCALE lft1, So. I Ç." T~ "'1:..1:..<;: IC; N \.....I¥¡--;,/~ s: VC:=ït:>L ttiE-Ni/<:::>N ç, '7 s. -r"f../r¡ F='e.. "F:A I l--I N~ S ~PE- VN~~ ~E A-f""ì..t E.-~I ~II Me; ~~I~ ~Uv, S A1-{"b") -,- ~ Ck.- ':h~ -=" I """M.: £:'F- E.. ~ f ~ I , I"\. ~ 1;. L.- V t=-<f: , N. 1.f+1,s. ,1'f'?è-r a.v LA--t.. Ir"EÆ A ,~~~ T-=- T'=I "'-"f T~ t;..\fIS:.TIHC) Ç,Þ-r ~ ~ Vv +t-f+-~ v.oç;.T 'Jì°..¡T c>r- \1<;'y~"T1 C-~'L( ,Þr1-J,,)... ,~-~--.rh.t-"A;("') , v l"r.~~, ì If.., ~ s. ~ ì ~ ~i../-y -f-t--I'- ';. '"to L 'L-+..¡ V'N "1::. t...~, 'h I 1\./ ~ ~~ t;;'f.F"-.::;:IJ~ 1.:..0 r,=(t--I/ -1.4r-A/r ~,'(,l.N~",IÇ" I t-Jè- \¡I=~ LL 1 S~"-'T4 s.l'ht- ~F" ~-/fc::al ~Æ---Æ"t..-:5~V c:::rv~ ¡ \_;PP= 7¿;;' { s: Vo 1> 1t- l,.; N ~~ ~ E---A-=1t+ e.. )<- ¡ :. "'ï 1 N '::.. 1~.J t 1::t. t-+1 Lt..,. /J...4 j I~, I'¡ 'O12--=-1~~ tr-~ lÆ" lOr TL~27'r~~'1 "P~ I~ v N b 1~,\{ E.- ~ l' Qe.-1,'7INÆl~, ,J v~'hl"'~, r- ~~",E"?~ r~"FÞ~~~A 1~1 Dj fE-c., '~~ ,z...~e. -4t::::L~IJ)~1='~~1:...-b. ~151 VI T7+-T' <:;:) ~F ,~, (.,<::>t>t:- (Ì'""1 b ~ \ po.. ~L,'J ~~ ~, "",,' ~'7 E-' c:>F t..-'N<;'Tlf-.f<) S1ÞT~ ~ .s:~,<A:- " s.\N Ct- 'h~~ ~~~p,....:::>-tr;..;::r +++-.~ ~ ~&:T 't.Þ-~ U<J S; -4=>-r C~ Lx/' A-' <.A..J 4-N 't::... ' -a te-1 S ( "-I A---\...- c.-.,o.- 'y I '-t ~" 1. E:.A-t I N ~ ~ ~ ~ C; ~ ~ ~ ~'-z LA s 1-1- ~ (- -f==-p.. I O(l:::-{ ~ I '1--4 ,1.- V tÆ-:+- po Ie.. f'" ~ L L C-A->tï ,€:.- ( ~ -c> t::::;..(:. 1::. .¿ I ~It-... ~-,- t ¡A.-l...'-j \,./f--{C7 '.b~C¡1_~C' u ~ k'N~ VN 'FE-"~, :' Lk- . Ii -f+.Irr:; T.,t....t..+-.L "b~ CA 'J::::..r-~ 1- ~,o.. (~ Ç¿L-c..ÞL 1;] Ìì'E.M+S: =1= IN-S:-1'ALLfr"rI~N ç:)F ç,~ ~oL'~~ Þ/l.-t.- A-1-.I~ ÚU~..l:.. CAC) C'/ I ~ c:. rc:A:-~ \ N I He; ~lAJ A- ~N ~ A1>~~. T-==oE- oF ~~~ I ,-\.)~T A-"'ß~vL r.:Æ-~~-' L) c..o H .Ç. ì ~ v Q..;:ï ~ C--"O N Co l::--'f:_::"1t:- ~ F__" V'-~ C/\,J , '\ Ie, ""'bl+- I 4=-l¿ C I N(-<=, Þ. y..l s:,¡-IHC) ~ (.;oN c:.. ~~ ~,... <---l:.-~ I \, ~ lX.JO'-1 \..;b rèÆ: ~ '-" I £:-~>~ c..o L L 't 1c-{ ~L I He;. . -. ...-..---...---..---'---" . , SOIL ENGINEERING CONsATION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOBL~ 8'-1 I SHEET NO. . :$ CALCULATED BY ~ ~'ií ~~.~~C-L OF /4 DATE ~-b- 'IQ~ DATE ~ - ~-.;::)..o .. CHECKED BY SCALE \1 .. \ 1I !-þLÆ- Ç, S--ft-;A-lA.J L:.. L- , e, b J -A . .1 (,. - CI 'b u..:;p>.:t ~ I '\ S'?~~ e ~-'C) c..e., i ' l Vc:> H c:.. 7 ~ \:- 1'. t-A>h ~ 'P ~ ~ ~ - ~ -H-1 '5 4- ~ -fh4t.. LI\..J ~ L Go N ~ I É:.. U c..::;r ~ 1- E...::r ~ --:P I Ut:-.c '( -=» ;+ c...;r It- ~ ~ l..-L--t:- -F-o 1=- ,. ( ~ A- C4=-...t:: . .. ........ I<=JJ~ ~~---rn. C)F ~ Is. ~f.1 ~-PAI~ -r-- 1::.~ ~~)c, ~,. ....~ ~\S~ o~ ILt\--?'(fì~) ~ oS: -+h+Vv ~è- ~ ?,ArC4:=- ~ .L- ~ Uù I Ììf$~ \.,' ë{., u~ T -=::0 1:;"'E... IT-=> Ìì of So + T ~ .. ~ -Å-'b:-===>":1:.-. A-LC~ C-.tA--'Y1 ~lÞ~'þ-/'-~ ~~TC--1'"~ ~ S.~-ú'v '!:. 1:- t=> A-- CÅ::::.- F ¡ L '~-t--b. . I T / c;. M'-l -r I C-.-t -p ~ ~ N ~ u.:...,. .-P.~v\~E...-- Rbt....G?.'-~ U~TIC-Al..- ."""'...;;:::10 L-~t~-'-It-1~ Ç¡.þl~ ~ ""P1t.,IQ/"e;. a.:::r ~ '(0..( ~ T ( H C) ~"~:PL ~{~..,., .'E...-~~l~N .~ 'N~(-A-L..--~. r I L.'\.,- l><J I l \..... ~.v'1"P~~ ,Pr1'{ ~~I~ "F-v 7~ ?~S ~ -r~PL s~ ~L .-....... /. <:> ::. "1 <=> ~ ~ I L---i--I-'T . 1:..-'t- ( c;. -r 'H ~ t~"'L vPr.~I1:.- \. I k'r' 1:"2.(H-:")~ ~f>~, to Z-- ; I (H :'vJ":t tx.....t -n+ ~ì. L't-;:Þ £=. ~T .kt.~ ~ \ ""I \ ¡, ~ I C-A ""þ ~ r ~ ""1 E.- Uv t=- I L., v Ut.A L v 1;. VE--N ~ U<-I ( ìt1 S' v.o "þ V- 7 ~ f -<::J '-' ~ ( -T<='Ja 1'1 ~~ r-~ Ü<,..I 'J ~_\ G:)N. .T:-~.S~~ C/'Ou ~"'t.~ VI I L.-1~ IF et.9'-"'1 ¡ ß / -n.:::> 1'--= C":; c I't-~ ) P f= ~ ì \""'i::-. . , ~"?~)c. "b.-l.. of Þ~TT~Ìì =>F ~ -r~ 1:.L ÞT 'f:..l.~ ~ J ~. Or s: 4Þ T ~ ~ Uv c; v "'f"L..i::.. l.t A-1C:.- I t:: ~ ~ 't-¡ \ \ to <..., 'ì <::a ~ r <:I ç:..c, 'ì -8 i; lb ~ ( ~ N ~ 'b ~ &. 7-Yt-N c..£... ( ~ A"P? 1:- c> ,><, \~ L..1 N E... ÞC 'f=-1:. t:A . . . SOIL ENGINEERING CONS.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 .. '1:... ~ s: \ c; N :po k1Z-A " t.::1~ ~ " ~ t N~ r (lA..J T-=> ì? L- (~t:L.. -C\H' , ~) \[1 ~ I~ fc.f ~::::::. ~t3.z;:.> 'vSE- 4¡o C o:;.~ . .. I H- ~ I Lt ('h A- '><) -+~ ~ 4-- Q -c=.::::> 4 ~ <:::::>, 4- ~ ~. .¡:: "- -~ <: LA (t) ~ GÐhEMl:----i s-. \... u ~ 7 "'&""'Uc..rl (A., T .::::. ~ \- ~ t.l- 'b~11A.I I~JT~ A JOB L¡~{. '7 ~I ~E~NO- if CALCULATED BY ~ l--t j I t:;. L--N c.-c OF 1i1 DATE -==, -~ - OOQ DATE 9-:b-~ CHECKED BY ~ì7 SCALE CLLÆ~ ( ~ ~~ ') L~ V~c... ('7\.1£;) ~~Y~l~)(rTj(./fZ¿ ........ ..... _. .. ... ¿ Çp;'C/1 <; TA -Ilk (0. 4 ~J( /!.o t c-f J{/LlJ ),(tb) p :: ~ ~ e,b4 ~ " A.. .}... .... .. ....... 1=>tz..<:,\..d ~l <:>~ ~e... ~ ~-{ Co Ìì I c.., ~~ V ~~ @ (~7<t?1't ;?rA..(J'/'j ~ ,Z-,)LtLt :::... '>.1>~ :; ~ z. '..£.. .....1<.-.. .. ,4-e..::r IN-'). æ. '( ~If ~ L.t'<;'~.' +r ^ t So v lì L t..r¡ Q~t Sf ,W ~\..A...)~~ ~A-~t=/L~ ?~ ~ 1;6 (G,') 11. ï')(Z) rytJ~ "'l2---~ L A- c..:-T I ~ <) Œ.. '! 2- ~ = ~ ' - !'r-~ ~ vlì1E- 'b'£-A-I N~ ~N 1::.1 r I--==>N - 1'4<:> 'Of~ ~v~UI~ C) \:.- t~... ,f ., !J JI ) -::Ii.J :..'V ./1 .J -J-. ~() l) ~ vI~() n fg-::r~ 0 ~ d II ~ ,1 It 1!-~ d ........ ~ \f' ..... . N J, \Ø ~œ Cr- S"'.. Sau ,..,.. a.... ., lie.'" D., ""It ""181\ e . pcp I CP .....1, .r..... cl... lre..I'. I.....I-u'" ... lieU .r"" clue ......10. Ius - U, l.n.I-~.. .he...... lIS - 125 CM IUe, ......1.. ...rt, ...... .rnd-",,-.Ue. Cl.,., .rev.Io, ....1, ...... .ra..I-....-cl.,. cc IV lieU ...... d... ......., ."..n, ..801,. IP 120 - In II' - no 110 - no I" ha.l, IU'" d... '..". 1100 - 120 '."-1...81 ate. IUe, ""'" poorl, 1.811"(110 - us ".-alle .Ia. SII-SC ""'-a18. e", .'a "'cll .U,"U, ,lan.. fl.... CI.,., '."', ,..rl, ....... '.""'C!I""'." Ie II. IDO'p,'e .uc. .... c..,., lilt.. IlL -CI. Mhcu.. .t "'....Ic ,'h .... d.,. a. r.......le cia,. ., I., e. ..... ,1..Uelt,. OL Or.."lc 'lie. ... .ue- d.,.. I... ,IUtlclt,. 1M 1.......le ct.,., diu, 'Iucac 11118, Q 1"'...lc cl.,. .r Up ,1..UcU, 01 Or""lc cI.,. .801 aUe, cl.,. 118C'" 110 - 130 10' - US "-120 1011 - 120 95-120 10 - 100 70 - " " - 10S " - 100 - TABLE 1 Typical Properties of Compacted Soils "'" of o,u- 'IC 1.4 Mo'..ue., c., '.ce..e no ,.1) II - . 14 - U u - 8 .. - t " - t ZI-n II - II IS-II It-II 24 - 12 22-12 24 - 12 )]-21 40 - 14 U - It 4S - 21 ~,S..l '.1... .f C.......lo. Ie J.I td (50 ,.a) 0.) '..c..t .r 0. ill""'l la'l"t 0.4 O.S 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0., 1.1 0.' 1.0 I.) ... .. 2.0 2.8 ... .. ..... I. All ,..,.rtl.. .ra rD. e...UI.. of -se....., 'roctor" ...1- ....It" ...,.. ".... .f II .... CI. ""."" .t. to. ".,111.. 'roc co." _.1_181 """1,. 2. ~,lc81 'C",cII "'reuus.uc. ... ror 'U.cU", 'U...,.. ....1.... .... er. ....,.... rr. ..1. ..c., 0.8 0,' 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 'OSO 2.1 ISSO.. 1.7 1400 2.2 nso I.' 1100 .... . ... .. J.. I SOD )., ZlSO ..... ~,I"I IC....c.. Ch...ec..hUu Caho.I.. CIU.ceh. C., e-- eo....,.. Su... ..ce..) C..Curat.') IIIv.l- ,d lef ..,....) /f.. . II II »)1 »)1 »)4 0.60 0.82 0.12 0.54 ..,.. 11.47 o.u ... .. ,.."lc.1 eo.flld... of r...... ...l1c, 1t.1.1.. )0." S a 10-2 "'" .r ell Yd... 40-10 )O~60 20-60 20 - U 20-40 10 - 40 10 - 40 S - )0 , - 20 a..... ot I...rü. """"Iua k I",c. I.. )00 - SOO 2SO - 400 1011 - 400 100 - JOO 200 - )00 2011 - JOO 100 - )00 100 - )00 ... .. IS or I... 1100 - 200 1011 ~ JoO IS 0. I... , .. I.,. 10 or I... IS or I... s .. I... ). ,-....... v'lue. ... t.. ....tle.. I....... wit.. ,,-,a... a.,...1 c."'lft_c. II 0 >0.74 10-1 4. C») 1..le.c.. .lIec e"ac.a ...,.rc, I. ...... ella. .1Ie vd... ........ (..) I""cu.. I..wltael..c "t. .".11...1. f.. .. ..u..u. ... .. ... .. ... .. »)1 ..... 0 0 JI 0 0 )J 10SO 420 )4 )00 )) 2)0 )1 . 110 )I 460 )I IJO 21 ..... ..... 420 IS 2)0 It .... . ..... )0.67 )10-1 >0.60 )IO.J 0.'1 )10-) 0,74 )10-) 0.67 , a )Io-S 0.86 I . )101 s . )10~7 )10-5 , . )10-7 )IO-J ..... s . )IO-J )10-7 ..... SO-2011 so - 100 so - 100 So-no at-lOll 8 f'C !\ ~} tf1 ~ 6 ~ If {;f - ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ GRANI.A.AR 9JlL Ak. FAILURE SUfRŒ Y.. . - C:O R£3A.1ANT ~ KA:1»fZ(4!5-~) fPp I;~ ì .e;t~ I b~ e...L .s~ , ~ <=>1= 14 CDHESIVE SOL, NO FRICTIONAL AESlSTANŒ ACTIVE PRESSURES ,--- , , 1.0: HEIGHT Of \ -1. TENSION ~ Yo C ~ .:0 , 4A1LJ.J1£ SUfRŒ PA 1:0 82C/r erA=YZ-ZC Pj: YH2¡Z-2CH+ J.j! PASSIVE PAESSUR£S ~ZC CXlMBINED CDHESION AND FRICTION r.c,. hjlWRE / SU~FACE Pj øp:rz+zc Øþ=YZ1aH2(4!5+~)+2CTAN(45+~) . Pp= t-YtfZ+ZCH Pp:C ~)TAH2(4"~)+ZCH1AH (4~) - GM,"IC SOWT1ON fat SLOPING UC8CfIU. ?--=nvE t" .- /~'J R~', f\ /MJJRE SURfG: Pp Zo 8(~)TAH (45+.12) erA :YZ T.wZ("5-M)-2C1AN(45.~) PA : (-¥)1'AN2("5-~)-20f" + 2c2fy erp RIR CDtE8OIiILDS lOlLS WITH 11.0 !i!IM BIO(f1LL, VALUES CIF Kj MID Kp, AND POSITICJNS Œ MlWR£ ME GNO . ...... J MD 4 IlERtnWLY. fOIl DL wme C ..... ,1M[ fIOSmON 01 TH[ flYLUIIE SURFJeE IS DETEMlIN£O BY ANALYZING 11UL WEDGES TO C8TMt IIUI.... VALIÆ OF .. IM)",IIUM v.tLUI: OIF THE CAlES IHO8N 8M)LY£ L IMtaIALS MIl: ~. Z. ~ IDIDIÐIT .. OCD fl a 8D ItEM ~,H ON ~ SUI8fiIŒ IS CDiIfI\.E1Ð.Y -- ~o 5: wu. . VIJmCA . JI) ... IaICES ME .... ow Mat OfF WIU.. M!I.UINT falCES lItE. ~. &8GII THEIlE CC»6, --.~ . DWr ~ I8IIS ME JICTM MID MSSNE *AD, MID MPnME !ILJI8IJIŒ IS A ITUI8HT fIl..ME TMROu8H .-a 01 8LL. crra.; I ~ OF 5IJIÐU - MID CiROUNDWATÐI ~ MIE. Nm' FIGURE 2 Computation of Simple Active and Passive Pressures Chan~e 1. SeDtemb~r 1986 7.2-62 (~.7 ) . . SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB ~r~ ) SHEET NO. 7 Þ4- t~17 12X ~ 11.::;. £:..h4 c...t- OF 14 DATE ~ - ~ - C::»-.;::) DATE 4-b-O~ CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ~~/.;vt- ~ -r1E..kA-~ ~ACA"""'7 ; é- -n ~ 4 ~ c:::> :: + 1>,A (~. ~ -+ ~) - T (I, \' -+ c.:..) - t+ Ç-c;,.2.Ct - 'ì.\ T - '2-lb -r ~ ~ 4-6 . C7! ~.ï :0 4C::.. z..ç- ~ / '-' <;. I F-c:>e. ~ .:.~~ - (" 'i-? ~. 'y) ; ~ 4- b . "Z.4' . ./::.... I - :0 --- t r 1:=. ~ -;> , -. 1- , A ~T v A--. ;:- -: C;-..:;. 2- ¡:::;..- - '"" .::... "-- ~..::,. "" - «::::..- ..... v d...-o Ç.. .~-"" ?p (-ç\) L ="> ~,L. -= ~~-' ~ 1<- ." L. e ,~ 7-=> X.l: ~ ~.~ ~ ~C-t.. - c:>f" F ~.~ .~ boLo 1::., l. ~ ~~.~ k:... 'i.~ £I~ N of- ,. f t:- Of?::, It- C..k::... ~ !(/ I ( ~~ ~ 1> A- C-1 N ') @ ß -'C:) C> <:.., T~ ì~L.- k'N 'ì t C--1.PÄ-1t:.A (Go). (ÌìAX) Tv-,q )c ~ 8ç:) ,~ L U <;. L- /1I'~ I Â . I C, fi:: , I ~ ~ 17 Uc.- ( ~ * ç') G.c>1Ç. ~~ S l"='N f>~ ~ c..:::r~ , A:~:: ~.ß~ ~l,z.. '"f¡ ¡l'><-. I.-I tE. ~ ~/lzÄ:>1--l c,Ju-7?+ ;: 12 ~/. \ /:::- ~ \:'- 'ï Q --I- r'" -:.. ~ ~ . C. '::::::. ß=. ~ .'. <::::>. l:. . /. ~T . L . Z- ,4 r C 0, ~ ~ 1-~(A c: ::::> . ~ I I ~ <. o. 6 ~ I l...j 7l~ ç. ~~/ / . . . C). ~ . A/I ~N , e...;... <::...--::¡- \..:::> 1::::.. \ ~ :=:>P I , ~ N L., c.:. L ÌI '--.J L II ':. ., v-A-foo.J ~ II L . ( ~~I::- U(.... 0,6 1:è:,1 A ') 2--"7~ r;;:..S'¡ <:'::.,(~i~~ 17IN. ';.~ì... ~ As.. ". /'ï Lt' c... / -. \" I ""- ~ b~ t--f..I A- ( - I . ~ ,. ~ '-= ~ ~ z.. ~ ß 2- ¡ 'hl\'i ,) - c~~r ft.,c,A, ~ ~,ì'( I. e,6.z- \c...N!w"",,-¿ d:. "Z. ¡'¡"'tA-1 tt- c::> r '-. ì ~ ~ ~ 1> Þ12- ¡4-N c~ e...: ~ z: <::) ~ ':.. -.:.:; I . "9 =.;;... Iv '" L (Z) C?-~I~ ~ CM=L -hI ~ . . .. --.- "., .. ... --- I . SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION! INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB L~I SHEET NO. b CALCULATED BY ~ ~Ìf ¡;:Æ..r I ~t.Ai C---L,., OF 14 G1- ~ - C:::»-.;:) DATE DATE "7-" - ~ CHECKED BY SCALE T I E.?b At V\:::.. bL'; ~N , c...~N( .~., ..---..--.-.---......--- T ( ~A- cL -H-= L£.. '1:::.1 ~, A:-::::r v <;'t.- 6"'~ I ~ . (~6 (;,.') , C-'C)N.r ~ c. -, 'C) ~ s: -==:::. f> I I ~ 't..J . 'F~ C E<:::> ~c:: t,C- L ~~s i"'~ r:::::;:r-I--=k.t ¡Or 'v A ( ~~ 1) , 1 T , <;. J....-'t-t f I ~ ""þ A-~ " tt--A>t ¡::.- LA...- I t ~.:. A ~!: LX./{ L-\..." '~A-(N- .ful='P'C)~ IN ~/ì-PE..~~I I=>~t.') r C) 1C... '"t-, A-T I ---= -l.¡ . . \ U I 't ~ ~ 11::::.. c...:- "b. ~ '" E.. ~ ( ~ -+ l>=>~~~ ~=NL (lc,) := 1\\' (,,'N.) --.> "t,-C) N b... ~ 17.~ si ,', ~/1::. ~ EAë::- c:> vt::... t:... )c: 1> ~ I ~ C-t., r Iz.c, 11 \Ç) ~ UL.-.o ~ 'I ( C--{ 1'--1 I 'T- '7 ìl-H $. C-c:> v ~ ~ IÇ,.- A- ~ '1{ F> <.--1 ~ ~ I IN ~,~~ ,C>~ ~ ~f7-t 0 F -r ( t..-Ab A U:::... ,/ kH CAl=.e.... ,:" z..S' , fh I 1-4. :) 1 J> M::.-A '"r--¡t:,"".T ~ .ç: A--1 '" ~ L-1.:::. ~ \..; E... / 1=0--:\ ~.sIII~C' ~Uv -, (L-L po. CAc.c 7 ) û<./ I L\.., "ßt.." ,'I' 1:0 Iv- U~ . SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 ~t~ \ C¡N ~ ç' ~ L '1:::.. \ ~ :þ I lÆ... ". JOB Þ~7 SHEET NO, q ~ s: I ~ f=-.N C-E- OF 14 DATE <9- b - 'C::)~ DATE c:¡- b - ~ CALCULATED BY ~ ~1( CHECKED BY SCALE T .\ q~ ~4 , I.~ 1= ~2 .ß~ F1= ~ l:-.t'' \.; <;.. L A-1 ~ c:.... ~.~ \.....I LA- ~ 'b """"y- "t l.o 'h*,,-~ '" /~ ¿ 'ß.'=-J( ~. I~) I 17lN"'~ ~ ( Ibt;;.. =¡ i.f--le) (12, '¡~ ~ Z ~o~ i~...' ~ ,- D¡;t,..-.'Y -= L,"-='==>~... .ì¿;,~ t¿ ~~Cf>~'b - +(0 c>.L (~ ... F s ì) ~ ~ \.,4)I'b..;' G C:.. ß i V1 :t 'fè;E 4 ~ : Uu (¿ ...,... \\ 6 ~~ r~'F. ~ ..."]ß",,? ,i tA ~ ,", t::)- I..:.f ~ (C? ~ i., --.." IN , t è ~/-<=>N I,. b ÞÆ U:::.-F1 tl., ~ þ+-IT .. .ÇLI...J ~ ~ .. J ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~~{~::~ v ~T~!>~1 ') ~ ~~.( . 's'-" '. 'AI t>. . re:. " I ..:::::>. k::- / . ~ CAe- ~ ~ (....t. ~ / "<=::;)1--{. : IT (~ ~i::-.i"'1 ~LA::- I~ C( 'hi T ...c>r C-A- NT' LL \..I f:...-C'-==- b 1:- ¡4->f-¡ , U c; L Ai, ~ <r=-- f2- -n \....I L-,4. A-~, 't>~1 NT ) 1'"l.o r. Á ~ '9')c. .: ~ E 1: ~ (~2.fbb1Í"te:.)? Á ""'-"y 0\- 3, ( Z-i (~ ) (t..{'ì\- ) I <::::> ~ h t.A= LÆ C-A I ~ "-J c.oNc::..~"~A-I~'b. ~~ ~ l = 4/~ i",4 £ -:- "Z./f ~~~ ~ ¡:- i Á IÞ- '-,c." 'C). I , \-'1 .. ' --==-. l::.. . L-(."SC-..:. ., I ~'""O( ~'-c::. '" ..c:> f 4- -- I '-1 . SOIL ENGINEERING CONS.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB b ¿ Ar'b. 8- -; SHEET NO, ( -c:::> ~ ~'17 fè:.-€- ~ I ~ E.A't G.t. OF 14 DATE '9- C - \:;::)...:::> DATE =; - C. -'-Q-<::) CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ~'E So ICI ~ ~ \j(,., ,::::x=ì~ L...,A-C:, ,~. I t-I ('~ "'" .) ~ Ck..... <::>f'2' ~ T ~ S E.- G ~~ T (.:¿:,T7 ca- I II -Ö= Lk....- ~ lA..J"'" K:.-~r i- ll./~) ~ C'-,4-r- (1~!,Cf)(d)(I, ~) ;. '71t~ fs.f ( \ ( I, ~ IK) Ì7 - u..;¿1- ,:,::::>.7L.r- t=-stB.)i..- Iz..,/t ) /I'.ø¥ - .--r5"e:> f I, ð -.c::::. B2. Tì &> .... ~ { . .;::;> ..~'y ;¡A~ L (11 "... y:. . oj 1I s,£..,'. 1>, Ì' ,~ .1=. (?12Æ.- ~ ~ U 'e...t... 1c::..t:..A-~ ').~U ) ~ ~ r IE::.) I )..\.0. 3:- ~1Z- t;E-rT~'f ~'-.J~~F~~ I. 4r:: I~(TC- -1-==;8i ~1:::- ~Er ,-:, vie \..JSL-, lA-S~ (N~" I.~ ::r-..-¡-, J ..f+=.L)(.¡~ v~ ~ç;:'L- () -..::::>/ 5.1'-" ~ ~C- 7 -.c::or/è::.. C-.'t-¡; '0, C:.. I kf-.J~ ~-:::)~ F c....a-::r vç"t,- "FA-C T ~r¿ I ' 0 C- (1=--ot ~ " -ìt-rl:::.) ~ " '--=a (~fi?. 4"--¡t+-i:;.) f L = -:pt, ( C>. ~ ) ( ,. f=-) = I <~ j. t:: ~ ì .s;:~~~ oe "1ìT~'y :: "'7f1'.7~":~/ c- ~(,6;V1? c:::::. ~2'~ ;'-'1"3,', -:::>.£:, ~J z. v ~ E- ~.')( ?'yf/- -==:::> ~ ~ ~ == (ß iLr~ (~'y:.~1 bY-~) b7'-tZ--) ~'y11.::>S:- -::2-;'--1';!. 6. y. ..:. ~ S - "72.- i ~ ¿ cA+'E-~ ~Iì+ ~ ~ 'b~~ : Vv ~ :::::>, 4~ ( (~-=)( b') /. I,) ~ ~=4 ts.+ 17 Co ...::::>. ~ l s;-f (e:. l- I ¡: - '7"'" 4. L ¡,ore',.: - 1>'==>. Iv'~ !:.ß,4 ;lII~lc - . "7 , '- St:ë-~~:: /.'?."J I--J:i - ?-6,~ IVI- < ~2-,<=>IL-f .. c:>.Ic, V Ç.L 4-Y r¿ SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB ß~ 7 SHEET NO. II CALCULATED BY e-H- CHECKED BY ~'1-] I:ÆÇ.I~CL OF 14 DATE q-b- '<::::.~ DATE C7 - G. - <.:;::) >c::::) SCALE . ~.~...~l:k"l>t .....@. W ...;. 'Z-= Z t~+m .-n..v.,.<>'y'" { ~..'. 4-'~~~f ..... ~ - \. ::: {'=ì. 4 (v.. -'C- ...mtzÆq .~." "l-""Þ&¡ '......... 1".. I . ~ ~.~.'..... ::. I ir.2-i ~~ L I g,~ ì~""!..' .' ~ . l . .. m.. . . . . m. . ....~..~..~......~.Y:Jz.... ...'.m......... .'.m... ;:;-;:,~~s;~~~ I . ~~ ~~:;:; ~; :,:~ '::-r,IH ~~~~Y-J~" ",6::Y~~7,~-=a \'::1!;.~~\'" Z~/~mr~fJmZ-:::::.!"~m~m ~~ T~ , ~ . ,;:9 "",( -r:=-e;....~~~" ",,~'::-'~I~~{-,') ,,9'=h~~m~'_.!~_I":<)., r-r I ~ 1z;..E.. c--.o -r-¡ Ì( 'E-A-J ~ t...4:::. -r.a I ~, ¿; ~ ~4im Y'~ " At., '-' \,.>LA '7 ~=~:7'/-:'-'?~",=Ç;. ~i'J}j;~ç~~E~i¿,;,~~~(I~i, mLi~E- J>.ì ,~,F'flf.i'?,3:.. " '?'~,P~"TT~I~C:>~'5.H~i,.¿T'"" kLvÿ-'~ilf c..u-r-~ ,S-fuø.::tv., ì§.t;..",. ,-¡::'~IN.T~~/.~P.?~ .'7£;::'J?,§/1-J~, ..::::>e... ,~,~ "-,,,,~'--:." . . SOIL ENGINEERING CONS.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB b~J SHEET NO. I 2- tvH ~-ry ~ : ( "b..E.A--1 C-£.., OF Ilf q-b-ftQ'C) DATE DATE "7 - ~-~ CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE .'t::.\=.S, J Ç-¡N .. Ic::::>f- C-=.t--~ C..:t:::...~. . l><-A- ~ : ~?-t- Ã1~c.... FC)t:.--h V LA~ <?,?,o..¡~l.--N"T ~7"'~/¿'?~@c.Æ:.NfE...è. J:::>~..."f::=. .~'. ~ L . ...:1i:::~:~::~:.::;:.:::'.:::::~;¡:::::::'.::~:::::::::~~:::.::~::~. ..:~~:~:~~:~:t~?:'.:::~::::::::::l:, ~:::?-;:'.::....,.;..~:~:::L' .... .,.hw...~~ç\c.,J'-I>=.. ,.(I~ L:! J(/I'2~i'1;,:::4).= '?14f!?§ ",j L¿~~m ';þ,I\~ .ctii~£ . .....ttr;c¿" .......m ....~;(;;t;:.fifA"2./t;;<=>bS;Jm' .... c:::; -: } = .a.. (. '. - It =I'u?4ì V¡-~ . . ....... "",0 ,e:,"i"'{+I~J .le...,....... u<:), C7r .. ..... 4>,'<Z>I:S'f,:-G-., ~~:~~,1~~',§/Z=})1z.;~~f~f~~t,~11~~~,t,~:i~~u J. ~I7't)f~'~~~~~~~f~'~f:~ , - 2- :: 0,4L( . <; -:;2,6~ ('-1 ~Cic- .]ì/~( , t:..E. \ N 1=-- t -r " ~(. ~ =. "" Z&~ ~ 'iC}{~j .~(~:~(:;~:;;:.;,~ 4 i=o~ .. f'c..."" 4- ~ t:~ì -p~... ~:L c:... L. f.L. <::> .'1~ . -=:.c:J'~?-J'-t?'?":<:::::>.~? C>. ~ c:> -:! ~ .'. <:) - ~ . ~.lIL-E--~ r ï -I~.-,<;., A ~. .r+1 C::>1J(;.'::þ. 1:.~ç..-'l-j Ç( ~~~~'f-,~IN'--1'7,-,ì7 ~ . = ---::- U ~ L ~ # e). ¡ -::;;>I~ -rr:..-1"1 ofi -~N .r I ~L ~ "". 0 ~'7 = 3.. <1 OS' i c., p.- /;~)(z.-J'" ~. ~ . --= Ië::.. v <:'L (")) -#-- ~\ S. c.-:;.. ,4.s -::.' 4.2-'<:> i l../" , . SOIL ENGINEERING CON.CTION! INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB t:,~ '--7 (~ I 12# ~1¡ I.o:Æ: -', l;;..t....kl CC SHEET NO. OF /4 CHECKED BY DATE q - b - C)-.= DATE e¡- G-~~ CALCULATED BY SCALE c...c.MC-. ~~ I ~N .- ~ ~ s~~ ~.(N ~ ( I - f' -'>-- -- &::>. C) k:.. /" '- V~'y. ::: 1<: 2- 2-- "1'=, ~ C- f>~~v \lc. ~?t~(,- lc iA.J d ... ~ f ~ ; (~ C--) (~) 12-2\1c..~'?t~~L ~ 4=. <=:> k:..,', .c:::::.. ~, ed= V<;"t;.., -n ~ ')c '... ~ 1> po. c..- I N .~.. " e"' d/ II ~ ..~ 'y:. .::. ... '- :: 1'<:;:.> ~ w eo '>< <. ß/I") ~ ß' -<:. ..... .ç .w"'" y c::::.? 4 (C) .~'). . ~ / z..- If .. C;...'=" v ~ .( II U ~ ~ ~. 4 ,1 L Œ. 6 C c.. :t. ...0 F- £ v 1>P <:t '~.í , I, Ç.. ~Œ ~ ~~"h. ~CÆ- ñ IN, ~1:...VL ~p 'h f--.-+-J T ~4- #-~ ~C:. if;..'ïJ ~6 fie., '"C 41 ~~ I z... II " I~ II 16 2~11 ~ c-r74 ... .. ... . IN ..l~.~.~ .(L-J) t~ i -. " .:,~ s.. 1- l/1 CÆ.- ~ I, II VS,E- ~L.A-('s, ~ -* 4- I (". I I 1:f- \' 2-0" -\:t. ~ z,L¡ If S,p LA C-E.!; (~ =F I, ~ Ld) 1::1 . I ~6 ; c::> " ~~'I JOB ~~L 7 SHEET NO. 14 . . SOIL ENGINEERING CONS.CTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 CHECKED BY CALCULATED BY SCALE l)6 , 2- {<- S"6 J /.ÞO "'t.-J' '0 ':l." , Q '.' , ,.,it '=0 I , "-""rJJ " , , , ~ ~ I ~~' . . . . . . @ /.:::::Æ' :.. I ~ ~ CÆ:- OF 14 DATE =,- ~-~~ DATE c¡- b -00Q-c:::::::> B4- (è:è'ì ,,~, """"'~~".,"""""""""",.,"""" ,,'~.~~,............'..,,' ,~~~.~~ .. '~~..~ "b-=:t~ !...~ PL lJi-./ ."#: L..t -r It ~ C c... :t , ,8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondida, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax February 21, 2000 Project No. 98-1055 City of Encinitas Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 (;It''\~YvO 2-/2'3/ 20-' 0 Attention: Mr. Masih Maher O. K ¡vt/V\ Subject: Supplemental Project Information Proposed Upper and Mid-Bluff Repairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 References: I) "Repair to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence-560 Neptune A venue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 4, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated December 8, 1999. 2) "Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California,"Pages 1 through 16 of 16, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated December 8,1999. Dear Mr. Maher: In accordance with our telephone discussion, we have assembled additional project information requested for your review of the proposed bluff repairs. Based on our discussion, we have included a copy of the slope stability analysis through the proposed bluff repair system, and as well as provided a discussion of measures to be implemented to ~dress possible safety concerns on the beach during the repair process. Slope Stability Analysis Using the proposed mid- and upper-bluff repairs, a cross-section was prepared through the completed bluff and repair system configuration for analysis using the PC Stable 5M, stability program from Purdue University. Based on the configuration of the proposed the mid- and upper-bluff conditions, including the presence of the existing shotcrete, tie-back cover, as well as the proposed mid- and upper- erosion control walls, and upper bearn/laggingltie-back wall, the section was evaluated for overall gross stability using the PC StabieSM program. Updated soil parameters for the upper Terrace Deposit materials were also used in the analysis, and are considered as suitable strength parameters based on a review of the shear testing data obtained from samples collected from the site. San Diego, CA . San Francisco, CA . Houston, TX II 8 8 Supplement.1 Projectlnform.tlon 560 ~eptune Avenue, t:ncinilu, C.. FebrulrY 21, 2000 P.ge 2 Project No. 91-1055 Based on the analysis performed, the stability analysis indicates that to achieve the normally accepted factor of safety of 1.5, the ultimate tie-back design load for the most critical wall sections (l7-feet high) must be increased by 50%. We understand that the wall designer has reviewed this design condition, and that the repair plans will be amended to implement this modification into the final drawings. Based on the analysis using the PC Stable 5M program, the gross stability of the mid- and upper bluff repair system shall possess an acceptable Factor of Safety of 1.5, once the increased tie-back load condition has been included within the final project design. Proposed Safety Measures In accordance with our discussion, we have prepared this summary of proposed measures addressing the issues of safety concerns, relative to the beach going public. As we had mentioned, the installation of a semi-permanent barricades, barriers, and flagging on the beach in front of the property during construction is not considered practical nor effective, because of the issue of daily tidal surge and wave action which would damage and/or destory, the barrier during high tide conditions. Further, the construction of such an on-beach barrier, would likely create it's own safety concerns, since wave and tidal action would result in unwanted debris taken out to sea and/or down-beach into public areas. Therefore, based on discussions with the project contractor, it has been concluded that a practical and effective method of addressing public of safety concerns is to install two "Caution, Stay-Back!!, Unstable Cliffs" signs, temporarily mounted to either the existing seawall or on a suitable vertical surface above the sea wall. In addition, we proposed that during construction, yellow "Caution"tape be temporarily fastened across the top of the lower seawall, above the elevation of the high tide and wave zone, where the seawall curves landward. This caution tape will function as additional warning of unstable bluff conditions, during the construction process. We propose that the above measures be performed over and above the normal safety measures under taken by the contractor, which shall consist of the placement of plastic cones and/or barricades placed on the beach during actual construction, as tidal conditions allow. The plastic cones shall be used to delineate a 40-foot wide (as measured, east-west) set-back area from the base of the existing bluff/seawall, II 8 8 Supplemental Projett Information 560 Neptune Avenue, Endnltl" Ca. Februlry 11, 1000 Pile J Project No. 98-1055 This concludes our response to your verbal request for additional project infonnation. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service, If you have questions or need further infonnation, please contact the Mr. Karen, at (760) 738-8800, and refer to Project No. 98- 1055, to expedite your requests. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company ~~íC- Greg K en Project Manager/Geologist Distribution: (2) (1) Addressee Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas, California 92024 Gmklprojccts\Bradley\City-Resp.2.21-OO 8 8 . . . .. "'. .. .. ÞO- .. II '" ~ . m 8 .. ...---.".WNÞO-8 """""þ-þ-þeþeþo- .......... ":S.-.."cacaUlIil . ."O~UI.OUl .. . ... :J ... fÏ - ,..... ~ ~1° 00. ~ ~ ..... ..... ~j. :a 00" ~ ... '" .¡ ~ nt" F~n ..f" Ii .Ma"'" UIID~ =s . .. .., ... .. rei' OO~1 ... . .. lot . -= 00"" I- ZO t-n WI~ CI In " 81 WI c... .,. .. ..,.. ..... .. .. ... NO &IZ 1 ,. ""- =» " ,.;' tt. PC8TABL5J1 .. 8 1»1 Purdue University --------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability AnalY8i.-- simplified Janbu, 8i8Plitl84 818bop or spencer' 8 .e~od at Slic.. un Date: 'ime of Run: 'un By: nput Data Filana..: utput I'ilena.e: lotted Output Filenaae: 02-15-00 lt25pa C:BRAD19.DAT C:BRAD19.00'r C:8RAD19.PLT ROBLEM DESCRIPTIOM BRADLBY UPPER WALL ARALYSIS STATIC CONDITIO. OUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundarie. 8 Total Boundari.s oundary X-Left Y-Latt X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. Cft) Cft) ctt) Cft) BelOW Bnd 1 100.00 24.00 100.10 21.00 1 2 100.10 21.00 130.00 44.00 1 3 130.00 44.00 130.10 47.00 1 4 130.10 47.00 144.00 56.00 1 5 144.00 56.00 144.10 13.00 1 6 144.10 73.00 1'9.00 97.00 1 7 159.00 97.00 240.00 97.00 .1 8 lOO.OO 24.00 240.00 22.00 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- OTROPIC SOIL PARADTERS 2 Type(s) of So11 oil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Por. Pre..ure Plez. ype Unit Wt. unit ft. :tnt.ercept An91e Pr...ure constant. Surtace No. (pc!) (pet) (pst) (489) Param. (pst) 110. 1 110.0 120.0 150.0 38.0 .00 .0 0 i \ 8 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 120.0 120.0 2000.0 45.0 .00 .0 0 EBACK LOAD (S ) 3 Tieback Load(.) Specified i.back No. X-PoS (ft) I-Po. (ft) Load (lb.) spaciftCJ (ft) Inclination (d89) LeftCJth Cft) 1 2 3 144.06 147.20 157.14 66.00 78.00 94.00 150000.0 47200.0 47200.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 20.00 15.00 15.00 55.0 44.0 44.0 aTE - An Equivalent: Lin. Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks ASSUMing A uniform Di.tribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- arching Routine will Be Limited To An Are. Defined By 1 Boundaries f Which The Firat 0 Boundari.. Will Deflect: Surface. Upward --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 X-Left (ft) 144.00 Y-Left (ft) X-Right (~) Y-Right (ft) oundary No. 34.00 144.10 56.00 critical Failure Surface Searcbinc¡ lIethod, using A RandO1ll echnique For Generating CircUlar surface., Has Been Specified. 00 Trial Surfaces Rave Been Generated. 00 Surfaces Initiate FrOa Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced long The Ground Surface Between X - 100.00 ft. and X - 100.00 ft. ach Surfac. Terminate. Between and x. 170.00 ft. X. 240.00 ft. nl.a. Further tiaitationa Were Impo.ed, The Minimum Elevation t Which A surface E~.nð. I. Y - .00 ft. 8.00 ft. Line seqaenta Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 8 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ollowinc¡ Are ai.plared Tbe Ten Mo.t critical or The Trial ailure Surface. SXaa1ned. They Are Ordered - Mo.t critical irate . Satety Factors Are calculated By The Kodltied Bi.bop Metbod. . allure surtac. Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.01 ~ 118.00 24.43 3 135.47 28.73 4 151.61 36.71 5 165.63 48.00 6 176.88 62.06 7 184.81 78.21 8 189.06 '5.70 9 189.09 97.00 irele Center At X - 107.1 , Y - 106.4 and Radius, 82.7 ... 1.498 ... Individual data on 'the 14 .1 ice. Water Watar Tie Tie Earthquake ForC8 Force Force Force Force surcharge th Weiqbt Top Bot Nora Tan Bar ver - Load 11) Lbs(kc¡) Lb. eke¡) Lb8(kc¡) Lbs(Ja¡) Lb. (kg) Lb8(kg) Lbs (1t;)Lbs (kg) .1 16.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 15479.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19384.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ., .1 199.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 12219.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 21006.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 346.8 .0 .0 13.4 -6.8 .0 .0 ;'0 .5 36489.7 .0 .0 1505.9 -5'5.9 .0 .0 .0 .4 41763.7 .0 .0 2921.0 -962.4 .0 .0 .0 .6 37674.7 .0 .0 3774.5 -109.8 .0 .0 .0 .2 51921. 2 .0 .0 9074.1 1368.3 .0 .0 .0 .9 23455.2 .0 .0 7552.0 2462.5 .0 .0 .0 .J 4696.1 .0 .0 5746.1 2485.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .0 .0 346.3 136.5 .0 .0 .0 dilure Surface speciri~ By 9 Coordinate points . 8 8 point x-surf V-Surf No. (tt) (tt) 1 100.00 24.01 2 lll.OO 24.19 3 135.57 28.11 4 151.93 35.62 5 166.36 46.38 6 178.23 59.91 7 187.01 75.62 8 192.32 92.82 9 192.69 97.00 'ircle Center At X - 108.2 : y - 109.4 and Ra41U8, 85.7 ..- 1.537 ..* --------------------------------------------------------------------- allure Surface Specified By 9 coordinate points Point x-surf V-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.01 2 117.97 25.12 J 135.45 29.40 4 151.90 36.70 5 166.80 46.81 6 179.67 59.39 7 190.10 74.06 8 197.77 90.35 9 199.55 97.00 . ircle Center At X - 102.8 J Y - 125.1 and Radius, 101.'2 *.. 1.552 ..* allure Surface øpecified By 9 coordinate Points point. x-Surf Y-8urt No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.01 2 117.1' 24.93 J 135.51 29.00 4 152.04 36.12 8 8 5 167.0' 46.05 e 180.0S '8.47 7 190.69 73.01 8 198.57 89.20 , 200.77 97.00 irel. Center At X - 103.9 , Y - 125.3 and Radiu., 101.3 *** 1.572 .*. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 'ailure surface specifle4 By 9 Coordln.~. Point. Point X-Surf Y-Surf Mo. (tt) (tt) 1 100.00 24.01 2 117.99 24.66 J 135.58 :l8.50 4 152.20 35.39 5 167.34 45.12 6 180.52 57.39 7 191.30 71.80 8 199.36 87.90 9 202.03 97.00 ircle Center At X - 105.4 : Y - 124.9 and Radius, 101.0 *.* 1.595 *** 'ailure Surface specified By 9 coordinate Points Point No. x-Surf (ft) 100.00 118.00 135.66 152.44 167.80 181.26 192.40 200.87 204.54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 ircle Center At X- Y-surf (tt) 24.01 24.29 27.75 34.27 43.65 55.60 69.74 85.63 97.00 107.4 , Y- 125.2 and Radius, 101.5 8 8 ... 1.610 ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- allure Surfac. specified By 9 Coordina1:e .-oint. Point x-Surf ¡-surf NO. (ft) crt) 1 100.00 24.01 2 118.00 23.98 3 135.73 27.10 4 152.63 33.28 5 168.19 42.33 I) 181. 93 53.96 7 193.41 67.82 8 20:Z.29 83.48 9 207.06 97.00 'ircle Center At X . 109.2 ; y- 125.9 aDd Radiu., 102.3 ... 1.635 ... "ailure Surface Specified By 9 coordinate Poin1:s point x-Surf Y-Surt No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.01 2 118.00 23.76 3 135.12 26.94 4 152.50 33.44 5 167.14 43.02 I) 180.88 55.33 " 7 191.42 69.91 8 199.00 86.24 9 201.66 97.00 . ircle Center At X - 110.3 , Y - 111.5 aDd ltadiu., 94.0 ... 1.636 ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- "allure Surface Specified By 9 coordina1:e point. .. 8 8 Point X-Surf Y"Surt No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 24.01 2 118.00 23.93 3 135.75 26.91 4 152.74 32.87 S 168.46 41.63 6 182.46 52.95 7 194.32 66.48 8 203.71 81.84 9 209.73 97.00 . irel. Center A~ X - 10t.S : Y s 128.9 and Radius, 105.3 ... 1.6'2 ..* 'allure Surface Specified By 10 cooriina~. Poin~. Poin~ X-Surf Y-Surf No. Cft) eft) 1 100.00 24.01 2 117.87 26.21 3 135.36 30.46 4 152.25 36.68 5 168.31 44.81 6 183.32 54.74 7 197.10 66.33 8 209.44 79.42 9 220.20 93.85 10 222. 03. 97.00 "ircle Center At X - 90.1 1 Y - i?t.o and Radius, .155.3 .*. 1.690 **. . 8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondido, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax December 23. 1999 Projcct No. 98-1055 City of Encinitas Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Alan Archibald & Ms. Diane Lanager_....) íVl C\~ r-' - -(¡^:\~~.,I,.,\\: .':::\ \c' \\1 \:;.......:~\ ,.,: Request for Emergency Permit Approval\ \ ~\ '. r---'- \ \ 'v\ Revised Mid-Bluff Repairs \ \ r:\ \ C 1. 3 \g;}9 U Stabilization of Existing Shotcrete Cover \\\J.\I\ O£:-.. ~"'" .,... Bradley Property ~)I':Ci ~t,W\ÇE5 r::'H:'lr..L. r .,rl'¡\ìAS 560 Neptune Avenue ~1 GIn OF- \::H' . Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Attachments: 1) "Repair to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence-560 Nep~une A venue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 4, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated December 8, 1999. 2) "Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence, 560 ~eptune, Avenue, Encinitas California,"Pages 1 through 16 of 16, prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, dated December 8, 1999. Dear ìvlr. Archibald and Ms. Lanager: We have prepared this updated letter as a request for your assistance in obtaining the authorization of the City of Encinitas for an Emergency Permit for the construction of a revised mid-bluff retention system. This addition to the proposed repair is necessary to mitigate the expanding conditions of mid- and upper bluff instability which have worsened since a bluff failure on the morning of October 29th, 1999, at the subject site. The failure involved a loss of an additional approximately 50 to 75 cubic yards of natural Terrace Deposit materials from beneath the existing upper shotcrete wall. As a result, the existing shotcrete structure has become significantly undermined along the northerly half of the structure, and is within several feet (horizontally) of the primary residence. As of this writing. the seawall approved under thc Emergency Permit and Notice OfIntent To lssuc Permit (Calitomia Coastal Commission), and the City of Encinitas (Plan Drawing No. 2628-G-3A) performed under Temporary Encroachment Permit (2628TE) nears cùmpletíon (See References. Appendix A for rdative background documents). San Diego, CA . San Francisco, CA . Houston. TX II 8 8 Hcvi,cd :\Iid-illuff Hcpain ~(,U :o.c"tunc Avcnuc, Encinila, CH. n"Ccnt hcr 23, ,,¡,¡') I'HI:C 2 Projcct :'in. 98-1055 However, the most recent mid-bluff failures beneath the shotcrete structure have broadened the area of bluff instability. and created a real and imminent threat to the primary residence, as well as a potential threat to users of the beach below. As a result of these changed bluff conditions. additions to the previously approved mid-bluff repairs are necessary to address and mitigate the current conditions and extent of mid-upper bluff instability. Based on an updated review of the bluff conditions, we have determined that: I) The primary residence at the site (Bradley Residence) is in a state of real and imminent threat of failure resulting from the condition of mid- and upper-bluff instability present at the site, and 2) the upper shotcrete wall has been subject to significant undermining which can not effectively be addressed by the scope of repairs approved and/or considered under previous emergency or formal permit submittals. Therefore, to mitigate the current threat posed by the existing bluff instability, emergency construction is required involving the immediate construction of 2 tiers of 3- to 4-foot high pipe and board erosion control retaining wall (one in lower bluff and one in upper bluff), followed by the immediate construction of a steel beam pile wall. with concrete grade beam, tie-backs, and wood lagging. The purpose and importance of the erosion control walls is to reduce the present high rate of soil loss and erosiOn within the limits of the failure area, and to provide longer-term protection to the new beam and lagging wall from potential erosion and undermining caused by soil loss from below. The following discussion outlines the proposed emergency bluff stabilization measures required to mitigate the existing severe conditions and instability. Erosion Control Retainin2 Walls In order to provide immediate and longer-term support and enhanced stability to the exposed and erosion prone upper bluff deposits within the recent failure area, we recommend that 2 (two) tiers of erosion control retaining wall (post and board) be constructed. One tier of erosion control wall (post and board wall) is proposed for construction along the lower most exposed, and over steepened Terrace Deposits, located immediately within the limits of the failure area, and east of the pre-existing cove at the contact between the Torrey Sandstone Formation and the overlying erodible Terrace Deposits. This lower most erosion wall shall extend approximately 50-feet in length (the width of the present failure area), and extend 3- to 4- feet in exposed height. The construction of this lower erosion control wall is considered urgent and necessary to mitigate the significant rate of soil loss from erosion originating within the lo\vcr bluff: and which migrates as instability and collapse within the overlying (upslope) Terrace Deposits bluff materials. This lower erosion control wall is considered crucial to provide stability to the failure affected slope, by supporting the over- 11 8 8 Re,'i.~1 \lid-8Iuff Repøi.. ~6( ;o.¡el,lune ,'venue. Encinila. Ca. December 23. I ')'f) PHj¡e j Project ~o. 98-IOSS steepened Terrace Deposits from below, and by reducing the instability associated with the erosion and undercutting process. The second tier of erosion control wall (post and board wall) is proposed for construction along the upper section of the Terrace Deposits, within the failure area and adjacent to and below the new proposed beam and lagging wall. This upper most erosion control wall shall extend approximately 60-feet in length, and extend 3 feet in exposed height. The construction of this upper erosion control wall is considered urgent and crucial to: improve the conditions of instability within the failure area immediately below the existing shotcrete wall: provide a stable work area for the construction of the beam and lagging wall; and to reduce the potential for future erosion undermining the new beam and lagging wall from below. The new erosion control walls shall be constructed using 2-inch diameter, Schedule 80 pipe steel driven to a depth of IS-feet below the ground surface, positioned at 4-feet on-center. The 2-inch diameter pipe will then be reinforced with one # 8-rebar, grouted in-place within the core of the pipe, and constructed board lagging will be installed using 2 x 12 pressure treated douglas fir members placed on edge to extend 3 to 4 feet in exposed height. The lagging section of the wood wall shall be provided with approximately 1/4-inch wide airspace between wood lagging elements; application of Mirafi filter fabric backing onto the back of the lagging; and the application of cold tar epoxy paint on all exposed steel pipes (for moisture protection. t'ollowing the wall installation each of the erosion control walls shall be backfilled with non-expansive, imported fill sand. The new proposed erosion control walls, as described above, are similar in look and character to the pre-existing, non- engineered landscape retaining walls which had occupied the mid-bluff prior to recent failures, and which had been proposed and approved for retro-fit repairs using steel posts as part of the previously approved emergency and Intent to Issue Permit, prepared by your office for the project site. Uppcr Bcam and La~~in~ Wall Based on existing bluff conditions and the site constraints, including but not limited to issues of safety and the presence of the existing structure (shotcrete wall), an evaluation of repair options performed by representatives from both Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) and Anthony- Taylor Consultants concluded that the existing failure area and bluff instability threatening the residence and upper shotcrete wall can be effectively mitigated using the immediate construction of a upper-bluff beam and lagging retaining wall, extending II 8 8 Rcvi.cd \lid-Bluff Repain ~(,) Neptune ..\\'cnuc. Encinita. Ca. I>cccmhcr 23. (,)<)" PIII:C" Project :'00. 98-1055 approximately 55 feet in length and ranging from approximately 8 to 17 feet in height, located immediately below the northerly half of the shotcrete structure. The new proposed wall shall be constructed using steel beam piles placed in drilled 24-inch diameter concrete pile foundation (extending approximately 20..feet below grade), and positioned at 8-feet on-center immediately below the section of undermined shotcrete wall. The steel beam wall will be provided with wood beam lagging to span between the individual vertical beam piles. Based on structural load conditions, it has been determined that the vertical steel beam piles wall also shall require structural anchoring using a horizontal, reinforced concrete grade beam (spanning between the individual vertical beams), and drilled tie-back anchors extending back into the natural bluff materials. This new beam and lagging wall is designed to allow for the injection of light weight cement grout backfill within the existing void space (cavity), which has resulted from soil erosion from below and undermining beneath and behind the existing shotcrete retaining wall. Additionally, as mention above, the new steel beam and lagging wall shall also be protected from potential erosion from below, using the construction of approximately 60-feet of erosion control retaining wall, situated 13-feet west, and downslope from the new beam and lagging wall, as mentioned above. In order to perform the recommended construction of the steel beam pile and wood lagging wall, it has been determined that a mobile crane will be required to assist in the lifting of equipment and materials during construction. However, existing void space present beneath and behind the upper shotcrete wall, required the consideration of possible methods to mitigate conditions of loading associated with this lift equipment. As such, the evaluation concluded that it is considered a prudent and to construct a temporary, buried, heavy equipment platform in order to reduce the potential for equipment loading within the vicinity of the existing shotcrete wall and upper bluff. Therefore, the recommended repair plans include the construction of an approximately 25' square platform consisting of a below grade caisson and grade-beam structure, to support the lift equipment during construction. Discussion of Alternatives As part of the geotechnical review of the blutT conditions and mitigative repair measures, we have considered alternatives to the construction of the proposed bluff stabilization wall. Although, where requested, alternatives will be addressed in greater details in the formal permit submittal, we have prepared this brief discussion of alternatives below: 8 8 II Ke\'i.ed Mid-Bluff KepRi.. ~(,n :o.Ieptune ,\venue, .:ncinitR' Ca. neeember 23.11)1)') I'.¡:c ~ Projret :0.10. 98-IM5 No Mitigative Repairs The tàilurc to commence the recommended repairs (even with the completion of repairs to mid- and upper bluff landscape retaining wall repairs, as previously approved) would leave the residence and existing upper shotcrete wall in a state of real and imminent threat of failure and collapse. Further, continued landward (easterly) and laterally (northerly- southerly) mitigation of the failure area would ultimately involve neighboring properties. Therefore, this alternative would likely leave the property unusable, create severe financial hardship for the owner, allow lateral migration into neighboring properties, as well as leave the potential threat to the health and safety of the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. Removal or Relocation of Portions of the Threatened Residence As discussed under No Mitigative Repairs, the removal or relocation of portions or all of the residence would allow the continued landward (easterly) and laterally (northerly..southerly) mitigation of the failure ultimately involving neighboring properties. Therefore, this alternative would also leave the property unusable, create severe financial hardship for the owner, allow unmitigated lateral migration into neighboring properties, as well as leave the potential threat to the health and safety to the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. Below Ground Rear-Yard Retention System With respect to the use of a below ground retention structure (caissons and grade beams with tie-backs below grade in the rear yard) to mitigate the existing instability, this method of repair is basically prohibited because of the potential for damage to the structural tie-backs which provide support the shotcrete wall. The drilling and excavation associated with this type of repair would have a significant potential to damage these structural elements, and would allow the potential for on-going bluff failures below the wall to extend laterally (northerly-southerly) , as well as allow the shotcrete wall to deteriorate or collapse over time. Therefore, this alternative would likely create a severe financial hardship for the owner, allow unmitigated lateral migration into neighboring properties, as well as leave the potential threat to the health and safety to the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. II 8 8 Re,'i.ed 'lid.Rluff Rel'Air. ~(,fJ :'Iieiliune Avenue. Endn;tA' CA. [)eeemher 23. I")')') Pal.:e (, Project :'010. ')8-1055 Summary/Conclusions The primary residence on the Bradley property is presently under a real and imminent threat of failure from conditions of unmitigated instability within the mid-and upper bluff soils within the subject property. We have performed an geotechnical and structural review of the available methods of repair necessary to mitigate this condition, and have concluded that a beam and lagging wall is the only sound solution to address the site conditions and fit within the existing site constraints. Further, we have reviewed the design soil parameters utilized in the structural calculations for the above outlined bluff repairs, and have concluded that the soil engineering parameters used are considered applicable for the project site, and are representative of site conditions based on field and laboratory data collected to-date, with present site conditions and constraints considered. At your request, these revised mid-bluff stabilization repairs can be integrated into the existing project plans, as revision to the existing mylars or additional plan sheets, or be supplemented to include all pertinent project information and signature blocks you require so as to become a stand alone plan-set submittal. Please contact Mr. Greg Karen at (760) 738-8800, Ext, 105, at your earliest available moment regarding additional information you may require or the format of submittal you require. Therefore, on behalf of the applicant and property owner, (Ms. Ludmilla Bradley) we request your timely review and consideration of our request for approval of an emergency permit relative to recommended repairs, and commencing these repairs within the shortest possible time frame. Upon telephone request, we can provide further details relative to the recommended construction. 8) 8 8 Appendix A References 1) Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA., prepared by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. 2) Bradley Residence Bluff Protection Plan-Sheets S-l through S-4, dated November 7, 1991. prepared by Universal Structures, 2770 Via De La Valle, Suite # 203, Del Mar, California, 92014, Signed by Mr. Wan K. Young, California Structural Engineer. 3) Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Bradley Property - Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune A venue. Encinitas, California 92024, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 11, 1998. 4) Bluff Repair Plans for Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated January 26, 1999. 5) Supplemental Clarifications Proposed Seawall and Mid-Bluff Repairs Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Ave., Encinitas California, by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated March 1, 1999. 6) Supplemental Project Discussion-Bradley Bluff Repair, 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas, California, by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated March 11, 1999. 7) Third Party Review-Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California, Case No: 99-078 MUP/CDPIEIA, prepared by Engineering Geology Consultants, dated April 11, 1999. Response to Third Party Document Review Proposed Seawall and Mid-Bluff Repairs Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Ave., Encinitas California, by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated March 1, 1999. II - 8 ¡{evi.ed ~lid-ßlufT ¡{eIIAir. ~60 ~"IIune ,\venue. EndnitA! CA. lIecembcr 23.1999 'Atc 7 Project :'010. 9"IO~~ We appreciate your serious consideration of our request on behalf of Mr. Ludmilla Bradley. [fyou have questions or need further infonnation. please call Mr. Greg Karen, so we may discuss this most urgent situation. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company ~~ Greg Ka en Project Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee - Hand Delivered Attachments: Referenced Plans and Supporting Structural Calculations ,. CALCULATED BY t::Æ ~ì1 F*S\'4..::.1:: N CE.- 1'- DATE 12--6- qq DATE 12- -ß- '::;"1 OF t SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8ION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB t;~ ~ SHEET NO. CHECKED BY SCALE &. 4" ~ -~ 1«:::::> J].s;:... .....~~r,lv..f3. .......t.~..~..LÆ-.."""). ~S~E-:t-..\.Cf:-.,"l ~ 'f'-\~)V1'-lk.¡a..-.V~ \...11£; C-~j e...¡ {'...¡ (~r'~ ~ I C,A. Y F--=12-N' A ' [DJŒr~[~7 ~-- [no) ~r~23 mgg rJ f. N g:;:/;X;-~-T--;-':'~:.'.;- .- ~~-:p A \ T¿ ~ --r --= v' pÞ c.--t-¿.. "L L~ F r - .s. ~ v .s ~ ~ t ~ .b£. A"1-7 1Z---E--~ I t---\ IH~ lX-A vv Uu l I-H-, it¿ r.:...A~ ~ . )::,.ts'IC') ~ ì ~ U:LC- (.:::; q,,? I p~ S \ ì1:,- . i:;..t:.~~i-..( A-1 ~ ~.Þ-1--i Ck..,...... ~lp ! .':'ç;", , ~~ : ~ ~ ~\ "::~~' ::: ::::::~~, c I, '? ";;'/ ~~~L-, : r' ~ t: . 1) '..-'.- . , ' '. 2- .) ::E-(... h &..C). I s:.~. c:t:= I ì::.A-~ IZ-(fþ-=t4 ~E=>TLCA-t'N(C-~ LLi¡'?N . Þ~~_-ÞT'ìL~tA~.~....~.~ A--1--1{ ~t--1 ì --I p.. J v.=t:..- ~"" tJ .....1--.7 /~ -,-" . J .~ I z.. -~ ~ q e:::¡ . . ':') ..':;. ~TC4f-1;. s. ~ S; t..T \C) 'F- .~ lþ).s. '~E:- r L'<:::' /. E c.:-T '-II è.... ( "'I (""T.,\ tr~ ;k1'-1t ~ H )- i A-}~ e... C--Of-¡ i j Lr--I"~ ~ ) ':b..\X-') s:' 'b4~1-7 - '-15 ' t¡ J k Lv s: \--t¡ I C~ .o/P"r LA C-.A-"L u:- "f::. I:.: I '7 N ~ lk- -= i:>~ ~) ~~~~~ ~~ C-;;~~-;j ~J,~~r I ~ vI ~\, 1='-' . b') Æ(S;c:.. l.:?f!¡ ~\T¡-=~ !A!;)") . ~ oJ kt IC- I~ - . l T --='1-1 . ß ) N A'-i j.Ìì f't-1'-.\v ¡... L., . - 1'-\ -f'-. V F.,.,... c.... "11) -. "ì ,Z- ..' (~ :!';,.¡c-..71<::>!--< ~ ~ ..L~: ,!-++ rl~.-.I~I......c.") . /:,#::f"', ~~=~.,,~, ,f/ /.. . '" V ., ,/1,'<-;'; ,},~';ìl..,)/Ú"', ,<:," l'~~':'-"'" .... .~";::-<, "'.';),i. ~-,..-' Ii.;:, i n- , I \.x ~ ... .. '~.'."" '.'." "'..'.'. ..' .. ".! ". . .. .. ",; J ,::.:, .. ..', '.. ~.:'1 ~X¡..:J!:.., /"", "\..,~~(,~.>., ._,,~ <-;;;',/,'/ "",,/ . i \ ",/ "'"".~~""-,..,,..-,_:.,,/" "ODCT20'.1,S,cceSr":Si2CS.' '"". .. , SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR810N, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB þ~~. SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY ~ ~'.Þ.17 1::-E":: I~r--. ~i c:....E--- Ib DATE (z. - s:. - &fer DATE /2. - g- ~Cj OF CHECKED BY SCALE Jlt1ç, l So 7~))E-S 1<7 f.-L Vt'F'~ J'L-=>f>E..- ~,I ~N .s') ÇT1~'..:::o E<:>~ ~IYt-1...C) s.vo1>E- .~~"t:::.~~~ð~..... ...!=::"6l~"""Cft-l-.S.. S:~-r~?rL..... . UL-,ð.-~ I. . '~~~ ~~~~~'j~j~t~~'z~;; n-~ i.:-'f- l5.IIH- ..~ C' 4-1 c... t::.-£-~. . .~m . .13-=-Ir~b/~~ry~tz:?r) .+t-1"r ~ btÆ>~.. t 'y ?~ ~ ..~~~1?'d?L~""1)u~ET~~s.:1~1../9~ I s. .IN .} ~~ ~~~ . s;. '-J~~L~"-dgr~D"=C~~~\'(~ ....... ....... ~1-- A-"'"T t;.... .t--\... . t"f- l ~. . .... ¡ ~c:,~~l~~Ç£.-.~~L~mm ... Ä ~~ c,7 .' 7' P"r Vs. f'='t:..1' Rs>1'"5" ..{'.~... ...~ .. '0;.-1/=- V t.::L... . '" \- CT tr-.+S.. þ ~ '1::J=":;fF--~11 i'-( ~ . T <::::t Ç, ~ILA TJ:- .~ ~ c, ~ I T1t (ç:> \.-1':::. (r/L "PI L,. E..... E-L"Tp.r!t-('!'--\~............'.~. .i-c>..~...f....~-r- Lt.-L- r>L..C)t- =Þ t-"t t:-'I l~~-. c.-oti~..~.. ~~~.. . I C--A '-¡ l .:l. ~ hA--_VV þ. L- -r- / ll-.~. . ..\>Y. t ~. .~SHf"". ~¿5)ifr'... .s. \.-""-" b"7 T--- / \.\" -==L s:. . "'+ï,m ............... .... . .Ç. -<::? ~ \ L:-R..- -:þ I L-f.:-- 2..~"V ""tb c- 1> l.A-- ~ f N '2 ~ >c::::. 'è ¡ '.,A... . , . ~ .. .. . .. . . .. 'bt:--1 L ~ 1'1 ~ e e::. -'C) c e, .:f:. ..~ ".~\SLfT'~ . . ~:c. v::::A -r =:~~{ ~,.::~. . ~ILJ~c,.-i~¡;~" L-= f-. í~ "~,~-~ ~ E-~, ... ~..~..¿;ç~m~;~~~~) };.t...þ?\'I\-+t--;A-~'\",,; b.~ c.:ol"-' S~'-J~~I ... .......... ... .......... LT ..1.<;'. ft-.rç vÌìf.)þ.... ...~A=1.~'S;T(YJ~-rI§~~...~.. Uu/lÁr ~ ~'~CAc~~~~~~v~/ ~';td2~lr~~~~?~;cA~J f'E---e- rC- T í.../ þv J' --=" I '-' c..-.o N ~ I II =- l' \~1'-=[~ ~ \..::::> L ~!~ i==>1l.£- ....~~lA../.. ..1:..t-.. 'j--1/~ID'-..Jr--, ~~, \ ~ ~ F'. -0 ~ (,,~ ¡ c-'O~:! 4::~l,... \>-.(>,. v~. ,'. .~..+bc; J+ ~. ~ :;(.,~f.:I <; \ ~+./..cv "L'- ,~~. ~v~. .A:1>P~>C..!~ 1:"J::.~U(./ S. .:::;:. ~ \ ~ 1> I L ~ l)<--p..--C"\J' lk-~ .1-tM-l.l\./ c-<:) I-i ..~ I : T -= F 'RD UCT 204.1I5,n ,,5""51205.1 ,Paddeo, , SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR810N, INC, 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 ~::ETNO =-i/~~) ¡.~ l:._I.!:..:;..r' <,'::-(~-, OF Ie::. CALCULATED BY r:.;~ .- - ,-;.- ,-;;re::¡' DATE' DATE ':~- i3 - ,.;:f~ CHECKED BY r>LT,: SCALE .~ \ l-¡ 1 -= -t c.. Co- ¿,it-~ 1,A., , .. . ~<:),,~ ~ e.-.-4 . &'=' .~ I '1'-. r: (' 1 '......p- .. . A4t~ ~ l.)L.I.llAJ.. 14C-~~t- .{/oH.s:.~V c.:::=r(~~ C)F ~~(H~~ .'~' .... . ...ro I:::.- ~+>~). !::...~ '-....IT?'r-¡~. . ..tV1 h<?b.... .~C).."k.....-er-- ......~Ly'P--F...'. Tlh¡. 'rl~F"":?1?tì. v><::¡hCt!;.¡ or.......(t.-r)....)::.¡::;""tl V-;...A~ . p j L.--L;' ':.....d-9N1j-t:.~E-þ '7~~¡~ ...l;.¡.:~ A-"\ (--P(~ "~Ir_.~~ U:'~L-.~) 'F ~ ~.-.:::> 1ë;/f¡ t --= ~ E.- ~p I~ 'x. ¿,..';: Z- \: I~ \ S'H;4-- { ./ ~j u Ç. L..- 1> M7~ ~.-::~ ~ : (¡t..-k stp¡-. ..4 - [ë:.Æ~T-,. 2,) ~ (I'- \ ~ "h ~~---c...1 fl4..,., I î... c- L,.+,.. A-f..¡ .': ~ -=' t= ~ t::. -A-. ~. '~~:~<::)J! I ~, Þ1\-c-L:P--/lL..- "ß,t:...f+1~ l,JL,4--t.-v t+H~ vN~t.--c.:-~\ F ~ E-~t~ì 'H-C) ~H-è...~~ ~ !;+~~LL L't....- LA)J.f?ï U<..Æ:.t ~ '+-4 & L\....J tz:.-.t::. ) ""F" I LA..... ~. ì~:; ú~ fc-t- ~~/~{~~;i~:' FC~~:::~)~~'f i',\.~ T-t- LhÆF '4- Æ4>Þ -vo '>< . z,.,', .r V<=:t l' t.... ' s ,,~~ E.. LA:: v Þ-v' 4'1 ... !::::t~~Ù4 F ~~ ~H2~ £ , =" "C ~jt¡,,«~~(;) :" c , .Ç~ U-c::>Sf--=>N o.QulÝ-- 'f' ':,Ÿ ..~~v~Tvl2::.E.... ~ E-- F-Y ~ I ~ ~ . -~ . .. . "¡F-----=lfij CA-~ <n ~ 1'1 ,,/\-: -r :t-~~1~..."'.'. """""""" ".""~ - \J - ==- . A~ /J/ <;Y'" RUlrr~ =: S. vC'1ñ¿¿: // II-' --+- - A 'Ra UCT2Q4.1 ,5" "She~Sl205.1 ,P",eo I SOIL ENGINEERING CONST.ION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB "E:.~~ SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY 1:::4 ~Ì} j2:.-é:r~~ C,~ OF IG. DATE 12.-- ß- ~c:::¡ DATE 12-- &-~j CHECKED BY SCALE v ~ E..-. ~ ............... ............ . ... ............ ........ ~~~~~J ~;;.'~=~Ä>~~~ .'i11. {~ . . ¡G{f . .C-.\./.ß.c.... .... ..'fi~), ..... ......................:mm .. ..... .... """"... ................................. ...... ... ............ '.. ...................................................... ^'" So '-' 11 C- s;.,-,1C;;-Ç-4f-~SL ~~D.!.. --' ~.~I:-~S~k . , (NJY~)(.... ß....'þ-l......'3),:j.-r.-. """<7"'~'t:.-... ~~~.......~~<V.. (l!éf'P~'x. '.. . ..e.- J?C-.'b z. -). ~... .... . ..',,". ..m.\ . . ====>'b,O.:y::.:- ~'C)BG>r C=-lL-- .~~~(::'¿-f?t~--5E-.. ~ ~T==:.~ l ... \ l' ~ t' ,:)~ ~ UL-~ #--, c lPf ~ . .\.-1, ~~'T"7 8:;. T-=- (~'t , T+n ~ lX..J I L-v""bk v~ I -r-~/t~ 1f'J...T-r E:.-~.J'~.A-~Þv ~-=/ v C-=~-(1::..{ ì I ~H ç, ~ -rt"7Jk .oC>r c....cHS ~v c:r /-...=."fo..{ . T'ìz.-ov \ ~ (~N, 1=--=L ~ ~ ç -tì lC- k ~!' v 1"ìE,.....J~"{~PA .. ~> = ~ 1 A = "z.--= (I.' '\) ~ "!:. 4- ,\" == ~ . u ~ ë...,. ... ..~ ~r~1=~t~ . --r+n Ç.. '11::..-£ r.s v 1.::.--£- ;A:- c--::? ~ ~. J'v / A-"f- -:::::> " t: l = '-- E t:; lr= "<..., C; L ~ t.,..... ~ \' \ \...I 11 L- , , I . \;:"" b -Ä. ~ ::;:. ;.. -.:... T~t;... .t=--yu._l... ~'(st(==r ..~~') Tl-f <::::> t:- f1.-c:.:::T¡ vt- .ir~5;.'.(~~ A- c.:::::¡- (i'i c::: ...........................................) . ~ v £.-.1:..:.- l' f'<: \ ç: \ V l-- US 1::- ~\ I . '\ "k I. -A--. ~ ~ 1f = ~~-= .f'cd"ii-fvt~g-Jr--ts ~~~ Iv <;. E-- '=~ I ¡ t..-Æ. A c..Æ:- s: ~ p ~ T -=> . 'bt- 'f..1 c-c....~..[ ç M,:o> ~ I \ I-.~/l .~ çc-A-",~ LC- Ih~-~~C(~~~~;~~s~'~~' ?-='!-+"¡'+-E~ (NC) ç:-=l--~\ ~ ..Þr~~. .. .. ................ , ~~-r «=~ S'~~ 1..E-- k1>P~)c ~b ...~lIt- .1::.r=T7=T') ClF ...k..-..-'.A..../ A¿"[' J .:=,....7(1j- ~ ~.. ..!hC';;.~ .fr~ .1¥-1:~......, .Ic¿~ I=>U-Þ"\..-~s. "'ì ';::)'~~ ~~ '... 'PO UCT204.1 ,SnçreSneC5I205-1 "':0", r SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 D~~ ~ ~t¡ JOB SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE If- tF-l, ""7~ - ~j~11þ n {¡ tf L ~C"-'."I ¡\~ I ,. +, -J/1 f7.. ~-,- T -[ #-- -=to ......FL ¡:¡ ""' '-I f.(j - J -7t-- -' r, /" \.... \; L. bZ-- P,a, ¿.. 'f- /,j;..~ Pk~1" '- / ¥ \ :J;c. . 42; j; ~ A "'b,~l'N ~ ~'H~$ «=>'-.I . 'hH-t . ~l r ,ft" of' " l< e:,t,-y ~ ~ (' :::::. v /ì.+ ~v"J ~. *~ f3:;,' ~ ¡ç- !; 1> ~\ r~.::... ~\ rc-t../¡~)(~)(~) ~.. ~/4'b-= U,~ &c..:::r ( 1+ ') . e It Ì'1::. P '<= L ~ ~;:. L-r 74¿;." ;\ (>c:f-(~ )(~.'I)(~) (7) ~'.e,Iq b<:> Uc. ""a..::::r.{4-t.~. @. ...l~....~...,,~ ..2,..6.6,... ...frcL-1/NC- P43.. ~ .1, \"- t cf- (?. "\')/ ?-=I )(~)J:::: , -£ 1> ~) = '\l.~ ~-;:) U [;. A: ~""T I H-:) @.l(I"'t:.P-=, II-J.-T :: ;> «= 1'þ.'-cr=- ~\ rc-f(~)(=>.T) (?-c)l-~) ~ ~711?-;:o?L/~r:. +c---r (H- ') C!... '( -:.. ~;"6, bf::,' e:/ .(' --'i' P --:z..1 Tþ.; /(1-( :;~ .te--f)(~j2-(-:.$ ,=- (6=) ~ ~~~ Ac.:::T { t+ <; ß Y ~ ::;;::.. 6 . '=- (". -=:> ILL...- 1:. f- (....~ \Jc¡ !Lv L\~ '.., L.... C~:: p-f::.--- ), 'Ra UCT2D',1 ,S"gleShee151205.1IPad,,: ~ i I .~~ c...t.- OF I C::. DATE (2... - ß- .::=[4 DATE /2.. - ß -94 p~; . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB ß~!1 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY ~ ~ ~.J:( DE--N c.~ OF I b DATE 12.-- b - t::1t:q DATE 12- - &. -44 CHECKED BY SCALE G 11 e-. A ~ ~ ~ ... ....1-A-r (;;~;;j~+~=7i-(¡¿;\~¿;)J;t~~?l~);P6/~'~~ t~................ .............................................~...J)V'(c::':r.....'=:)=m7lÇ::..(~~).mm'. .......................... . , /1. Lf.. ";--( ¡S26=? .....~..., "'~?I9'~4t-tJ~S-f<??9mtm /~~I ...é?'~m ' - ( C1 ß /~-?:.?ç.m"Tmm .....,..,.., " "mm, .,. I ~~) '=~(Æb~~fIJ'l.~m,~.s:.. ~ '.::> ¡-tït~e:. "'" AS ~ \..ilì c...- ~.:o ~ .;:.-:;;. -r:::, ,c:::!,oo ~ ~,~,"",~~~)§~E=?~<:::>,'-'=?L ~ . l. ~ 6=. -..=> ( c::... ~ ~-¡L~~.. ..0 ..I.~ 7...~.l.~.:1=-.--=k..,. Vo...C1::- ~-<::Sf r, vo ~ , (~ G"'C)" k:. ~j.c- . - ,,:' ,=-:-?L C.1M= Cic... t-"'-=>k::.. (ì ~ X ' +tt="LS '+--:r.', ,,: " l+t .'.~' , ( 't;--) r rA-l~ '!-'\ tcf(l:e:)(/~')( 6) =f!?\"'I~i::.~ U¡ ~ c..::;rl h- S ~g. ~ TA L -- ~~ ret (I ~')/o :r)( 6)(~) - ¡"'c-"'7' (I-+)ê .~ "~/ 7'A~ ~/~I~ ~ S. , A-c-'1 ("f-') ~ 1-= 7'Þ4 .. "'- z.-. .::::> ~ Lb ~ 7'r ~-r (N C') @. b. bG. 0 t.r ~ u.. c;., l'v~' I ~IC>~<;) u.., ~ A- c....'"T I H .5. . Œ? (:::" b,,(.,.' c \ì ..~ A ~ ~ = l' ~ { ( (b 'T' *~) ;PhZ~,¡¿'i~j~~k~/t;')~P~/ ~.. ¿¿j 1 + - p~ (~. (..~)~ If '~~~).mm ¿ f L.+ I-{ (. I .88-..:::, . ~ Ú ßß I~g.. ...tì'!.;,'\'I~~l?:."'71 tS.b<::> - 111C¡€"/~~ - ~ - 8b(C¡I'= T"O z, b=.~l.~.c..I..~.~ .",.,,",.C?ç..ICjl~ U-~ T - é,..c.!;~.;;;> ~ ¿¡~ {be:¡ J U; r.. =:::::. l<::::::.-=:::..<::)...~" , PROD :2°'.1 ,S"QIeShe." 205.1 ,P""'I . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR810N, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB b 1;z.-~~ SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY 1:'4 ~\ì tz..;t:..; \ -t::,.!:.kí C-E-,.. Ib DATE 12.-- e,- &t. 4 DATE 1;.2. - ß -e, <:::¡ OF CHECKED BY SCALE ~. L ~ (Ç>Q...;;:> L I-L...-= I ~,o L L-c:C.i::- - ~F L.,. c; b-= ~ ~ L -c:> e- \..JCE- fl.-) r IL:L+ Cl:-~ æ ~ ' S-p,A-1...J .0À~l......~ .\:--.::::.. -= L -r,Cé =- \)~. --= L L, l-. - ~=, -.=> L- . "þ.Ì:. t;\ C;i--I oF- Il~~~: I 11:¿? Â- Uc- S:.. Pp.. c.... \ N C ,) C? . \ . II &--a OQ... (Tì A'y- ) ,= b= . (:::;> ',<=- \..J ~ 1:..-b. 1.,0. , t~jt:.: . \ \--~ t- ¡;. '7 i.J-1 t:.. A. 'i c..~e 1::-...:;:) :. I -..=N. t> r~~:::> 11;.. ~L.L . A e. -=. o. ð íìl..1 z.. A-- c: ( . t- T - "'1 <= . --=> ~ .. \C). ß<:=::, , z.. 8>' z.. b... r o,-...,r -frv - OìT(/~t~'~ 1L.-1 ¿ O. \ ./e..., .:'.~, t. 1 A-1:- .' ~-L. u<--r-t..i.". .J .- , A-=='í ~1--1\î2-.-~ ~.f"-..= 'e- ~ -=-f' Ii <:::::oN V '\ L... D v L(! ~~ ¡n..¡ CA.l.=e.- Vu I (~) <::::> b If '~I-A, I 2--/<::;; :: ~;; "1=--A-1--IÌ:> ~ ~~~~ A\ìlì Å- 41'= . T = 2'7~ I:.---N A - t. \'- \ .. ',T-/zr¡.1. ~N) Z. . ",,~(-n'~-L) - o.')\"tt" 0"7', (r 6Gz.. i¿...Njiþ,u.;,1-):; ZVT--=- Il--¡ Iri1 ¿...c,...:::::;::J ¡,¿.¡' íÞ1]. (?f-...::::o "JhiA1 ..: =- z.. => '7 -J¡:. C)f \/l:'~~ l'~ Ilt>t.A ct::.., =":::.. \JÇ.é- (~~) h(~. ]'=- þc> . <:;? L \J~L (- ~/6b61"Â , I ~.~. 1\-,,-,:::\ )l.7 \.k-1 '~t\- ~r C ..."., i < t:_.:;,~ ..~ ,= t...... ?t:.-.c:, I e:..è.-1~ , ; +-C... : . "P--'T: :1, ',-",- /.A- r~ '-'- . '----'" ) A e -=- I. " 6 "'-12- ~ I '-'= , c::> L '2.. ( .' 2- Á-.\' -= .',;- r (n'-= r ~.) ~ (. ~ ~ f '1 ~ . ""b 1/1 . <::::> '- .r .,. : -~-~.. ~.....;.--;......( . f'-r-+ CAJ.-=:,.'~ wl(~;¡) <:) . '= ~, -=>t:.- \.J\L j¡~ ~ :-r ~-."c.--1.~ z-, ~ c. j PROOU T 20~.t !S,p9!e S""5I205.1 IF;::;: . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB 1::. ~. SHEET NO, CALCULATED BY ~ ~1ì -e.æ: r 11::, è:- -N C-t- Ib DATE /'2.-- - 8 -.q 4 DATE 1'2 - e, - .:::¡ C¡ OF CHECKED BY . ~~y¡{-- <=>r I(~C"'=- : . 4=> ~ . 1:::, I -Þ. . = '-.J~ L .. e:, ('~l-A: 'C-. ~.¿;¿I -r=è.- v1-n; ='1 "1::::..~ .~:-' 'Ç...-,: . 'f~:3.~~.... ~,~~~<:~"'.""""---"w" \. ------.Þ \J~L ./);;" ~~~ ,-@~ ~.~ 1-e.° ....'~ ....'.lo~e:f~~::~>r5~:~~~~) . \ , .t;,=/I;b ...... ioii>\j!;;~+~ s-~v ~ . ~. 'Ilf I-r 6=>. <:) ~ 1 VN~1'--t'h~ ~NL c I--=- i: ~".(h~ -t-<:::.N~/~). <: -t . '.... ................,......... O¡=-b , == b,4 -=:. "'1.:>. ;¿sb:... ~ >- 'b-=Nl::. \I"L-E¡~': 1rbV-Ls; "'" " T\'; ~ \1¿.~ ¿ ~~---n.{. : I~ -+ L ß;: 3,ß I = 1'="0. -.:;::) L vNì)=Nì::::::.~ ~1-J.é.- :: ß-= ~i'~~ -f:..=. ~JL (L.c.). = ~ ,~ :;::. .> 1,:::.1--.¡ '.~ (.i/.:.-..f J £. ~ Tjl.e:,e'r~f=?j~~{.<:..t}i . .'. g.t:... ¿:. U--H c. ,-T4 ./ - . . I' I ': .¡.. L/. -::. = )- V ì ~ \I "E-=--\ ~. ~ I ~ S; '--.J ~ ~ A-1;<:::;:)'-I E I ...~.' LA.J. ~ L r~ " -¡-t; \. - l N c~ f'r Vv \' \ Lk.. A- c- t ..c ./ ~'v~ I IPODU 1201-1 '5,19" 5he~SI 205.1 ,"':eO) EÆ.-~ (L:..C~I ;~t- JOB r.. :...:.-~. SHEET NO. . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR810N, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ~Ç.S ¡ C N . ..... ........ ......, -q= r~~l~ ~1L.k-- : . . . . ~:\7"'l . ~~ H "'- \~ ~- \; ì- c..~£ t:- OF Ib rz:.+¡ ~h DATE Iz...-ß-.::::r'9 DATE f ¿ -<8. - c:., c, r('I--(~ l' -~ IN\" ~r ~'l YI~r ..t¥'T. ¡-, -A-;x.. .7'",,=-r,~ .... ....~ l z:.-t..~ ç'1t1:~ ' ) 'f'Æ:¡.....i'Þ,¡"Z ... ~-jJA~...-J-' ?A,~"'" r ~.4-]" . "'~\f'b..§= J-..{4.I~f.t-.:::>....~...")3/.~ .L.. ?II~~ .... -~ I ! r-c:, ( t - "'1) 4- P 1-0 Lo . cD 1ë:-/::. "'i,.." .. .. . /....- R.("<=-'7\,.e:,L £. 1- .~...\<3 ...9.k- "h ~ ~ )(l-:;~ . 2.- .: . ß' í\... f'tJ; '" fl ----' t===--- \ 11.6 , -::.~ "'t" i \ Z~ -!: (~ ~.: "'. /~ ~/. ~ . -+ Ð... ~ -I -----~~-==@ kkl3~~)/)/ZV*...I~ .--=. L. + s: ~~t.:._l j " '74+ .."......,..... -.oF- C'"C'N. c..-t.tc -rL_,"'þ I E. '.~ =~ r(CfEì[Vz.):: , = <=', ~{I"-=r~'J{Ct\L«--'J <:"3b ,/ t TL"'" (¿ ï)/:\tc-f)(/~)/6) " Î~,~ Y¿ ~(::'\-tct)(/~){~'9(~) -:; (6.Jì r~ -=(,¿ \)(~\r<'-fJr.1I6)()) --3(.<:1 L 1'4 "-!-;\-re-í)(2-4.6)/-",)¡-') ~¿4.c¡¡-1 122.. ~ 1\- '" kvE. z,LT( 1~tcfj(~(e} ~LrZ.1 -r'O~ s:. r7ìPlA c.1~ r; ~?¿ I f! .... Pf..¡ 1'4 :- ";ß. -7 Tt:.- 1'10 ~ \-ì. '4¡- k... /lw-..¥ '" 7IO¡ c 3":i+-~/~¿) 't--, ~ !, !:-.tJ ¿~ I - L I 'Io'-~ Y - { . l.;;:::> V'. ~ e {-:: [ (C~AT ¿ &((5,4 k:... \~ 2 ~ &.6 Ie Tl¡,v- ~ T<1~ f4?Lfi.f--l:./rz' "" I, '166;/ L 'PODU T20O-1.S"ç" S-e"1< 205-1IP,::': CALCULATED BY ~ ~17 ~ s;. I ~ I:=.--N Ck.- OF Ib DATE Iz...-ß,-&:f.::r DATE 12- - ß -qc¡ , SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB ~~~ SHEET NO. I CHECKED BY . lì.tÞ-Y ~ Lr /') 4 f::;, i V' ---k - & \...............~....Ìì~ç¿ . ..........1U::q ..~ '- .hl'l'-{' \ ~ c...:;r 1-= f.-.t ~9'~; (~'i5- Ìì .P-)c.. '. .tf"'f;-lSLþr) .+ ..... ...... . Ç>1?-- .~ .....I4'~ç;.f==~)<:)ç=~2:,~(~-:!.."~rl..., . ~f .~.qt::t \ ("1' l.k.t . J~","c;.~:,",":?S~')f "', C?(r~ ì f-1~ .', ~I b. t..,... .12-~JL.1. . , ~~ ~-e.. +r= ß : cz-. fA- = ?tP' +- I -+ L.,.o41C , lb -:/ 44--==' l:~~ ~ Lt.~ hI¡' + 6~..;o b. +- ~, b ~;. U I t-o ,') -- I Z ,z,..' ~\ t:t .--- -->-~þ l-r _c.--..'..-... .--.....-t-.......~-.----~~-- -----.. .... ..................v:;...............(......3.....'.......'.....)...............-...~....................I....I.........::P.....'.........1...1\-................./. -S........+................'..................'...........'.........'."............'.'.'............".....'. .........'...........'...............................................'.................................................................... . ~ -I! 1 ... . . \ \' \ . . . . .. . .. ....... .... ... ........ "". . . .. . ............ .... ....... .' . .. -: I .~;. ."'.!_--- !~ .-;,:l~:"[>tic.¿.'(. :....~......~.. .......~.........-.-...l¡..........:..............)........1.~.......'.~...........................~...................~.... .....~...... lr:¡ I (I \.k ..¡........(J/')/)Ht..............,.J y, ~ ~ ,¿ "1'<'11"1'>*....(.......'...2.....'.....2...........).../....3J................. ..-.-:-..................1>.....7......1....'..'.....'. L,.............'1.......................U..............'............'(.....~.........b....... . . f~ ;.. ::n- (r-ß.¿)?../?rí)(::') "' 1~/"J.'9o<:a&'~J J->..~~.....;.........~~..~..'....~..'...(ê~~...e;y7.~,iO'.6.?ì)......F.....j.I.Ä.6..~. ;~- CD .. eyÇ .~l. 7/~í){?)(s,.)-;.I~II~ . t4. .~ ..... .. ..... .......'b~~ ;;f'\ ..-.:...'~?<:::>ì>1c~ 'b \r"""'- ~ ::: 1 ::::. =t") " ¡it -~ C' \ - 1., ..=:>9'7 ¡V\-E 1 - G . Z ""t:.k....:.,'? l:::. -- ..::>,¡;;",-",,--tj :0.. '- ..~.' .....1'-'1 ~ t c...:::r , -=i-1 :. A-~ tJ....:-'r.. = Iv 1:.- ~ c:>, I:: . PROOU 1204.1 is''g.eShee'5I 205.1IP'ddeol . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB b t-.~) ~ t.-è1¡ /z:Æ -.:: ¡ b f:::- N c:..,.f-.--> OF I~ DATE (¿.- ß - ""'lCj DATE I z... -ß - "1 "7 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE 'þ~S:l C:) N <::>1= Voi-1 ~ ~.~ ~ \..) t:. ~ rf:::l'I::?Q"-I ~ -k1 {c:.. - ~~~r-I~. ~~ .....G~'f~ . .... . í ( ~I<- .. +t. =:...IJ ... J \ I{ PL",f~b{e.)(IÞ/rY;~"', ... ... .Ì]fI'Ø'\'-I..-=-.... -c¡ ................. . ... .......4. ...... ... ...................~lb-== /V! - ~ .. ..lJ~...y "btJ \ )~.... :: (l-I-f)(?l. ~...) ~-fc:);.. ~ I ~ 4<? f~y ""... 1~.'C>L ,\ V!"'::L \.r ~. / i:: ;;~~i:~~ ~~= ¡1 ~ "- ~ of 4 ì'-'1~/ ì) ~';:""7t ì'--1 z... ." ~ ':';~7~~) .'-e' ~"~.~~;(:(~-o",~~') ; cl~ ;:-=-'-t =- 2~!::: I Z..3Z-. It¿¡ .Dc, ~a c¡ LAr-f~ 7J. -:- zLJ co..Sl: ."";, '(,,'-/G~ r,)(z'- -1/1 -f7<-t "'... ~ I 2--tØJ6. 1V1~L .~. ~,-=?'-t"? ..I'-1~k... ....;'....::::::::>,l::. L............ ... .... f ~ !. ~¡-- ìt.12.. 1'-. .f"'~- :; (-;,.=)(z-(,.) ~...~' -';:)~" I ~ C>. ~'V ~-:::; ~,~. s:4-t~ ~IN'f'\\: "W"~ ~ '1 ~ . '= L \Ie-: "2- y +\~k,wc~L ;. ¡~þ~i{!:.=-)(¿b) -= ~ ~ ,=~ tL=- '; "'4 "" 'ì ~ . -=> ~ f':, I~. <=> t<::- , ß-t ~¿. 'v ~ t....- Iì A- 'y-, J l' f<- CA 1-+ c.. ' ~ IN:", 'f- L .,1/2-: l~ Ii / I, r {,N"""V L e!::>( I "j ...=: .....e:::> -< .s. w-..,¥ c::::.. l--4 ( ....::::>. ~ "j .:: 12-- I' ~. -=~~ .ç: \J <',. E- -4f ¿.¡ ,IE- e II ß c ~ ::t:. I C. ~rA:...::< I~ '-" - " .... T-::-'6t-} .~ ~C" ,~'-' -'-,I,. 'ROD 1204-1 (S,ngl,S"~Sl20S-1 """, . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR_ON, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB D~ ~ ~1ì ~ .i I Q i:ë..Ä-{ <::.-L OF 16 DATE 12.. - ß-"9..q DATE 1'- - ß-"1~ SHEET NO, CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE /' ),~--_. --::;.0:;' ~-, :~. 1: ')A.-:::»~ ~~1'E- """""mmm'li ' " " g c c. ,~' \~(~15~ " , 'CTè:ic:....; , ntH ,"\:>.E 'v I:: V<::::o:t""h [...A-.i. T ~1-~CJ--o-t , tlc= 4{~ rS} lz.- ~" I' ,16 ~\' *4 *ç ~.",ç, -tf::6 So f> LA C-Ei vn:- ¿,~~ 4f-4 *r- -w-(; -!f-6 PROOU 12N.1IS'ng"S'eeISl20S'1 ¡Pac"'1 1t-1 ,Iti~~/WJ .' "~'I ~-pV1c.¿i ,,(~~..,.L'J.U), 1<'=" " l-= Z-Y" II 3q . SOil ENGINEERING CONSTR80N, INC, 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB bt~~ cøJ SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY ~ ~Ì7 ~.r I ~ë'N ~f- OF I~ DATE /2.-- e, - q 'î DATE 12- -8, -1C¡ CHECKED BY SCALE ,~¥=~( S'H <::>r ~ ,~()C;(f4C) ; , ( , ,-"T. ~~ ""b=T7=r) J;=~ I ~1?ç¡,T \ ' ~s: '~"'" P~\".,.. "b=~;...: ~<:jl?Z- ~t"SI 17. .... ""(}.,1,.L-::/;ZLlf;-If-(8/?-/fZ'>I) ,...,w"¥ó """""""""""""""'6""""" ,..... J- I { lZ~rrS+ ~~ '.¡. -; 11'7. ~ ì~,-~ v~ t:.- ~ 1".ì ~ ,r. .,"(~c v~~:~~..;b.. ,þ\t,5,~"~,,,.,,:r-."'t.;;..)'I,N~,,~ ~ ~ ":tf:- -,- ~ ~ vl..A->ïr>~rÍo;:. L, I....¡ \ ('It- lìc.. - (.<A ~ 1-) rQg. ~L-r (., I v r::.... U!'L, W+C),~ 'H ') l <;'1'" , .T., "/ -tt-<:> \..Iv E- v é-1¿:,.u <; ,t-.]ì==-I~Si:--'~-:..- ,~ ~f -- T?.. C-t,. ~ <:::>"e, b }~ ~ E:- F l..A--4' '-' ~ 1::-. F A C T~R.. 1- = c... (~ ~\I ~.), Ir1f1::. I. ,= (F->c>t.. ¿/!..,~,.,) ! (.,~, r (., ~ "Tt':f7¿(I. ~ - J ; L t.'?r! ~i ~q 'b " ,,1 ~ ' f.:; ') rS; ,~ 6"\. c:;¡ ,"':¡, I~ U~E.- tv I ~ - v1> St.. c.:::;::¡' ¡"=-J....J '-+-C] S (H ~ . ,....", '" """ '. ~ ---'" 'r.. :: "',t, ""f;z, .:;. (-ð " L... -.,j 3.",~ (,.i- --- ~ - I ~)<I¿ =:>S~ ~z.. ì(..,~ G, ~ =~.r ;;; "ìz-'r~ ~ ~ ..,.. I 2... -+ b ")'. <=>t \.)çE"- ~~, I '~ , c..4tL~ ~t/?~ e ~-"""" .~~ ; w ~ ~ '\-pe-f( ~_!) :: II~\-=. 1"'\+ ' 'tJ Irc,,'y.. '" I ~'€:> " --1-L &1;:.4:.....::¡:Ji '~" ~ 7'5:. - Co- '( h "3. ~ 'i)¿....:::> °, -::. , ....J~L c,x -c:> ~ .s~.N~)~ . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR810N, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367-9595 FAX (650) 367-8139 JOB ~~) t4t ~i7 ~ I b t:/N Q.-E- I~ DATE (2.. - ß- q "7 DATE I Z - ß-C::¡C) OF SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE . ..... .. .. . ... . . . . . . . .... . ., ~ CA:::.. ."'::Þ E/Þ TH @.. -z. ' ~ ~ (?~\¿-c::>~'7~r-;'D.) .. . ...~....::.... ... ...'::-14 ..\-..t~tm ........... ........... .. ...1J",,~~~'1',?']. '14~L. ......... 'm""'" .... . ~Ræq':~.""~'=-.?- . ',1.-1 ~ ..~ . ~¿ ,--===-J l..f~..... .. v ~ E... '=)c. . . .. ... ... ., . ~.CÅ.C- J~~"J"1+..(~ ..ZI.¡. '~~ ' ( ..~\¡ ...Ç..,.. '7~ ..'J.1),'¡') .j,N..'?>,-+---ersf. .. 17w...~ ."'. ...... t:;Ç)"=-'llII::~ . r: tæ.~t:::.:'; ...>~..4 14"3. L. .'ll '.~ . ."I; -¡, .'f.... v -S1E- ...~ "1-. . CAtë: C-k:.. -~ ~~ <2. /-& Þ ~~ ~ . (-A-1'Y~)c....7"-=B.....~. ~ .~).. lA..;'" ~ 1 -:0 [sf Þ~""f =- ~~, \- ìV'.~.~ .s . ~'..::s? '"b =- 44 J . Z--. 'r v, ~ . L ') 2. . <:::> i ~1E. ~ Iti~~UV ~)t.. 'ft.-oÌì (-==~ .~~~~ ~-?~ . '-(-=>. ...b-:::>7-r--=>"'h, kl.,v þft: ~rJlv ...~.. .."t1::-.. .....{¿(')y,..,~~{SIfr. . ~~c.. , ~.. Ll.- sc'Y.7::--r::.-') . .~ ')(. vav~...'"t.L ...C:.y..I?I...Gè....~......~.........CI~......~'.~.~......."""""""'" . .......................... \.) < 1:.- r-:-r ,::1. . ~', . I' N <? . ..l:.. o~.. ~~ì"'"~I~~"'S:H ...~.~ T J....... . A-V\....¡ r:-~ .U-t C-v, ~ ~~V\.¡1:-~ .. -rA-II~~. ~l~EP~ ~~ . ~£:.- t= DRODU T204.1IS,nQieSne.sI205.1,Pajceol . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTR8oN, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 JOB 1:.~ ~ SHEET NO. I ~ CALCULATED BY p4t ~I~~~ I" DATE /z...-ß-q-=, DATE I z.. - ß -4 '7 OF CHECKEDBY-------~~ SCALE .~ :f: '-f'-" 1f"" E.:+< T . OF ~~~ ..A:T lfi=-:v:EcL . ....~... ....... .... ...~\.lt..-. ...."1:..t..--y..~...............~.S'E---"'...,................."""""m ~.~...~ 'i~~~f,~¿.:~~-;~~l>!~ . ~~ILA'ïJ""""""".""""""""'" ~,.c...~~... c-t"-:~ÞV1'..L<:>.... ~~.'?T ../S". kN¡-(C!.-l.t>~(-=- ~ 1;- ¿ '- ~ ........~ ..... { -<:o~ ~ F- "1: I./\...J t:f=--r. . ~ 1't..<:>1>~ "L .. c.....:p.I.-J....~ . -:bv-12-l ~ tÌ72-ve..::::r-v~ T~ ( v PÞ-= ¡:::..::::r~q'-" I 1> It ~ L...<::> ~ . ì::::. F:-i L\..; «-r) "2. \ 'Þ ¡ ~ . 1> I ~S T- ":b~ítt ~1C-<::::::.'Hc.., ': . '71::., 1..Ë.-f't-='n ~ 5l'-A-Þt.- (þ- v t-\- . \ . ~~;~; ~ Z- ~.~. Z I :- ;~;'7\ Ç1-LF~t:.~tL]>~~Lc""T=:'Fj s-~ "b.t:.- .~ vT='P=-~ ,A--L-'1¡.;;:::> s.T "b 1~~,~-:::rL) ,~N J==' I EA:.- h...... -p p-- ::-.;:.r '~ , ~-A--'N t.- ') '~l ... V= ~ 1't/c... 1" I ~ \;;~~'o tjÇ.~o;, ~- . --. L :i. . : Go;j, ~ ~ l L("" I'\". >.;:::) 1<:.... ( { Ú 4 --.;> I c-f = v r L ~ I (bl~ -) f-c'J::- -It ')( ( A-'-". l-b~ . \ i I)'..", /U' t', ~ / ,1 ,f.,..;:"1"3'Ø~' ~,~ '" /; ~o-- i(z, = T5~- AI / ~V /I~y~ . '~ 4 V zg, T ... .$.'~ I ~ ; t.,,1 -+ +-c ( v 1'1 "L- S~:s- {' t:,.;:ï~ A. Yc::...I~Ìì f=-' NT ^ ;4 ~,AI ~ ~ 1.',',-+,"',',',',&1,',',','"1"'" 2,'",~,",",',t,',',;, -; , 7' -..¡ ;; 1-=., ¡ PROOU 204.1 ¡S.""s."", 205.1 ¡p""" 8 . ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,04 EnterprlSc Strl'et . EsClJndido, CA 92029 . (760) 7 \K-KHOO . (760) 7ìH-K2 \2 t:lX REPORT OF COMPRESSION TEST CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PLACIEMENTLOCATION: SEAWALL ARCHITlECTÆNGINIEIER: ---...- JOB/PROJIECT NO.: 98-1055.1 JOB NAMIE: ADDRIESS: BRADLEY RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS BUILDING PIERMIT NO.: 6-99-41-G PLAN FILIE NO.: DA TE CAST' MIX DIESIGN: 9/23199 375 PAE REQUIRED PSI: 4000 SLUMP: 4" SUPPLIER: TICKIET NO.: ESCONDIDO READY MIX 329 BA TCH PLANT' 03 TRUCK NO.: TIME 05:40 LOAD NO.: CUBIC YDS.: 4 AIR CONTlENT: OF: 9.5 CONCRIETIE TlEMP (oF): no NUMBER OF SPECIMIENS: 3 GALLONS OF WA TIER ADDlED: 25 AGE TO BIE TlESTlED: @7 2 @28 @60 (HOLD): @ FIELD DA TA ON: CONCRETE: X GROUT: MORTAR: LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE: OTHER: TYPIE OF FRACTURE: DA TIE RIEC'D IN LAB: SAMPLIES MADE BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants SPIECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR RIEMARKS: LABORATORY DATA CYLINDER CATE TESTED AGE D!MENSIONS (INCHES) AREA (SQ. IN.) LOAD COMPRESSIVE NUMBER (DAYS) (POUNDS' STRENGTH PSI 656 A 9/30/99 7 6"X 12" 28.26 128100 4530 656 B 10/21/99 28 6" X 12" 28.26 148371 5250 6S6C 10/21/99 28 6" X 12' 28.26 141813 5020 Reviewed By: /0 '0 c. Æ/ ~---;z::7 Date: /I-r-rf All sampling and testing conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard Designations C31-91. C3~. C138-92, C143-90, C172-90, C173-93, C231.91b. C470.93a. C511.92. C617-67. C1077-92. C1231. E4.93. E171-67 CONFORMS: ..x YES _NO Distribution: 1) Bradley Residence. 560 Neptune, Encinltas, CA 92026 2) City 01 Encmitas. Building InspectJon Department. 505 S. Vuulcan Avenue, Encinltas. CA 92024.3633 3) 4) DH/LAB/A.C/BRADLEY.7 San [)ie¡~o, CA . San Fr:llKisco, CA . Houston, TX ,. ,8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 2240 Vincy;ml Avcnuc . EsconJiJo, CA 92029 . (760) 73H-RROO . (760) 73H-8232 (¡IX REPORT OF COMPRESSION TEST JOBIPROJECT NO.: 98-1055.1 JOB NAME: BRADLEY RESIDENCE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE. ENCINITAS CONTRACTOR: SOILS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PLACEMENT LOCA TION: TIE BACKS ARCHITECTIENGINEER: BUILDING PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE NO.: 41000 DA TE CAST: MIX DESIGN: 8/13199 REQUIRED PSI: 4000 SLUMP: SUPPLIER: TICKET NO.: BA TCH PLANT: TRUCK NO.: TIME: CONCRETE TEMP (oF): LOAD NO.: CUBIC YDS.: AIR CONTENT: OF: NUMBER OF SPECIMENS: 4 GALLONS OF WA TER ADDED: AGE TO BE TESTED: 2 @7 2 @28 @60 (HOLD): MORTAR: @ ? FIELD DA TA ON: CONCRETE: GROUT: x LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE: OTHER: TYPE OF FRACTURE: DA TE REC'D IN LAB: SAMPLES MADE BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS: LABORATORY DATA CYLINDER DATE TESTED NUMBER 601 A 8/20/99 7 601 B 9/10/99 28 601 C 9/10/99 28 DIMENSIONS (INCHES) AREA (SQ. IN.) 4.20 11.32 4.20 13.80 4.20 14.43 COMPRESSNE STRENGTH PSI 60829 96464 5370 6990 97378 6750 Reviewed By: Date: 9-/0-10, All sampling and testing conducted in aa:oo1anœwtth ASTM Standatd DesIgnations C31.91. C39-88. C138-92. C143-90. C172-90. CW, '. 3rA.,"-' 3,_,.J;~~,h '," -'" . C470-93a. C511-92. C817-87. C1077-92. C1231. E4.93. E171-87 n l'r,,~ ~ r: ;:V' r.,~ J," "',',.,' ~ .H-...,{ "'..... -.l.'.t.l ~ t~ f't :; CONFORMS: .1l YES _NO -""'kf:..._,' Distribution: 1) Bradley Residence. 560 Neptune. EncJnitas. CA 92028 2) City of EncJnllas, Building InspectJon Department. 505 S. Vuulcan Avenue. EncJnllal. CA 92024-3833 ~~ CiTY (~'~~:D~:~~~'~~N~1'l~D DH/LAB/A-C/BRADLEY.\ , '- .' (~I- -,'CO, (I Iv..;,} EsconJido, CA . Orange, CA . Livcrmore, CA . Las Vegas, NV . Houston, TX ....J . 8 8 ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 2240 Vincyard Avenuc . EsconJido, CA 92029 . (760) 73H-RROO . (760) 73H-R232 (ax REPORT OF COMPRESSION TEST JOBIPROJECT NO.: 98-1055.1 JOB NAME: ADDRESS: BRADLEY RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE, ENCINITAS CONTRACTOR: SOILS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PLACEMENT LOCA TION: TIE BACKS ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: BUILDING PERMIT NO.: PLAN FILE NO.: DÀ TE CAST. MIX DESIGN: 8iî 3/99 5 TO 1 WATER RATIO REQUIRED PSI: 4000 SLUMP: SUPPLIER: TICKET NO.: BA TCH PLANT: TRUCK NO.: TIME: LOAD NO.: CONCRETE TEMP (oF): NUMBER OF SPECIMENS: 3 AGE TO BE TESTED: @7 2 FIELD DA TA ON: CONCRETE: CUBIC YDS.: AIR CONTENT: OF: GALLONS OF WA TER ADDED: @28 GROUT: @60 (HOLD): MORTAR: X OTHER: DATE REC'D IN LAB: @ LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE: TYPE OF FRACTURE: SAMPLES MADE BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION OR REMARKS: LABORATORY DATA CYLINDER DATE TESTED NUMBER 600A 8/20/99 600 B 9/10/99 600C 9/10/99 DIMENSIONS (INCHES) AREA (SQ. IN.) 2" X 4" 3.14 2 . X 4" 3.14 2" X 4" 3.14 COMPRESSNE STRENGTH PSI 14986 4770 15718 5010 16203 5160 tt-ICJ - q 9 Reviewed By: Date: All sampling and testing condud8d in accordance with ASTM Standard Designations C31.91, C39-86. C138-92. C143-90, C172.90. C173-93, C231.91b. C470-93a, C511.92. C817.87, C1077.92, C1231, E4-Q3. E171-87 CONFORMS: ..Ã. YES _NO Distribution: 1) Bradley Residence, seo Neptune. Enclnltaa, CA Q2028 2) City or Encinltas, Building Inlpection Department. 505 5. Vuulcan Avenue. Enclnltaa. CA 92024-3633 3) 4) DH/LAB/A.C/BRADlEY.2 Escondido. CA . Orange, CA . Livermore, CA . Las Vegas, NV . Houston, TX .- t8 - - ~ , Bradley Res 560 Neptune Ave ~\.- -Z-, \C\C1'ì Job# 99-041 Monday 7/19/æ Tuesday 712O1æ Wednesday 7121m Thursday 712.21'æ Friday 71Z31æ low tide 8:57am High tide 3:56pm low tide 9:50am High tide 4:52pm low tide 10:48am High tide 5:43pm low tide 12:56am High tide 6:57am low tide 1 :44am High tide 7:58am Break up blocks with hoe-ram Monday 7/26/'æ Tuesday 7127m Wednesday 71281fi1iJ Thursday 712JiJ1fXJ Friday 7 ØJIOO low tide 3:29am High tide 9:51am low tide 3:59am High tide 10:21 am low tide 4:29am High tide 10:51am low tide 4:59am High tide 11 :22am low tide 5::Ðam High tide 11 :54am Break up concrete blocks Offhaul concrete excavate 5' backfill footing excavate 5' backfill footing excavate 42" wall footing Offhaul concrete offhauldebris tie back drilling tie back drilling tie back drilling Monday 8121œ Tuesday f3/'3IOO Wednesday 814m Thursday &599 Friday 8I6Iæ low tide 7:16am High tide 1 :54pm low tide 8:01 am High tide 2:49pm low tide 8:57am High tide 3:51 pm low tide 10:OBam High tide 4:58pm low tide 12:16am High tide 6:31 am drill caissons drill caissons drill caissons tie back & soil nail drilling tie back & soil nail drilUng set steel set steel set steel pour caissons '-.".... þPur caissons pour caissons §~.~~ set-up for tie back drilling Q~r=lr" þ I I :J ? C 1--:::: [)/ I (~ id r- i ,0 Monday ~ ~ ~ 8I9IæV J~ uesday 811~ Wednesday 8I11m Thursday 811~ Friday 8113/æ low tide 2:55am ~~ c,'J igh ti&:Ð:1"- tide 3:37am High tide 9:59am low tide 4: 1 7am High tide 10:37am low tide 4:54am High tide 11 :14am low tide 5:29am High tide 11 :5Oam ',' 't) I ~ 1§ I~ i fonn & pour type 'fork on soil nails strip type A wall form & pour type B wall strip bottom type B bottom& footing VJ () . ;.-= work on soil nails bottom & footing form upper type B rn ,U en C::',c:~.~. . ,0 8 8 ,.. Bradley Res 560 Neptune Ave Job# 99-041 Monday 8/16/æ Tuesday 8/17SiJ Wednesday 8/18.'99 Thursday 8/19199 Friday 8I'2!J/OO low tide 7:11am High tide 1 :4Spm low tide 7:47am High tide 2:33pm low tide 8:33am High tide 3:33pm low tide 9:42am High tide 4:42pm low tide 12:21am High tide 6:54am fonn upper type B wall pour upper type B wall strip type B wall fonn upper type A form and prep upper type A work on soil nails fonn upper type A work on soil nails Monday 81'l.31'i1d Tuesday 8124199 Wednesday 8/25/æ Thursday 81261'ii1iJ Friday 8f27SiJ low tide 2:28am High tide 8;54am low tide 2:59am High tide 9:20am low tide 3:28am High tide 9:47am low tide 3:57am High tide 10:13am low tide 4:26am High tide 10:41am pour upper type A clear out shotcrete cover strip upper type A drill son nails on shotcrete cover drill soil nails on shotaete cover work on soil nails work on mid bluff work on mid bluff Monday 8/'XJ/'æ Tuesday 8131 SiJ Wednesday 9/1 SiJ Thursday 9I'2.Jfæ Friday 9I3SiJ low tide 6:02am High tide 12:22pm low tide 6:39am High tide 1 :O6pm low tide 7:24am High tide 2:01 pm low tide 8:25am High tide 3:11 pm low tide 9:54am High tide 4:32pm dig footing & grade beam for cover set steel at shotcrete cover pour shotcrete cover pour soil cement behind wall pour soil cement behind wall work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff Monday 916SiJ Tuesday 9/7 SiJ Wednesday 9/8SiJ Thursday 919199 Friday 9/1 0199 low tide 1 :54am High tide 8:23am low tide 2:37am High tide 9:00am low tide 3:15am High tide 9:33am low tide 3:49am High tide 10:CSam low tide 4:21 am High tide 10:35am set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope 8 8 Bradley Res Monday low tide 8:57am Monday low tide 3:29am 7/19/æ I Tuesday High tide 3:56pm low tide 9:50am 7 J26Ií:J3 High tide 9:51am Break up concrete blocks Offhaul concrete Monday low tide 7:16am drill caissons set steel pour caissons 8121'JJ High tide 1 :54pm Tuesday low tide 3:59am Offhaul concrete offhaul debris Tuesday low tide 8:01am drill caissons set steel pour caissons \ \... 7f'2(JJ1i¡S IWednesday High tide 4:52pm low tide 10:48am 7/27/00 IWednesday High tide 10:21 am low tide 4:29am 8J3JOO High tide 2:49pm 560 Neptune Ave '----..j Ú '---¿ ---\ ~I ~ \ C'-10., 0. t I . 7/21/00 IThU~y High tide 5:43pm low tide 12:56am 7/22/'æ I Friday High tide 6:57am low tide 1 :44am 7/28/00 ThU~Y High tide 10:51 am low tide 4:59am excavate 5' backfill footing tie back drilling Wednesday low tide 8:57am drill caissons set steel pour caissons set-up for tie back drilling 8/10199 IWednesday High tide 9:59am low tide 4:17am strip type A wall work on soil nails 8/4JOO High tide 3:51 pm "- ~ Job# 99-041 71Z31OO High tide 7:58am Break up blocks with hoe-ram 7l29/OO I Friday High tide 11 :22am low tide S::Ðam excavate 5' backfill footing tie back drilling Thu~y low tide 1 0:00am excavate 42" wall footing tie back drilling 815199 I Friday High tide 4:58pm low tide 12: 16am tie back & soil nail drilling 8/11/00 IThU~y High tide 10:37am low tide 4:54am tie back & soli nail drilling 8/12lfB Friday High tide 11 :14am low tide 5:29am form & pour type B wall bottom & footing strip bottom type B form upper type B 7/XJJOO High tide 11 :54am 8 81&99 High tide 6:31 am 8 8/13t99 High tide 11 :5Oam ~ Bradley Res 560 Neptune Ave Job# 99-041 Monday 8/16fæ Tuesday 8/17/æ Wednesday 8/18/æ Thursday 8/19199 Friday 8l2OlOO low tide 7:11am High tide 1 :45pm low tide 7:47am High tide 2:33pm low tide 8:33am High tide 3:33pm low tide 9:42am High tide 4:42pm low tide 12:21 am High tide 6:54am form upper type B wall pour upper type B wall strip type B wall form upper type A form and prep upper type A work on soil nails form upper type A work on soil nails Monday 81231æ Tuesday 8/24199 Wednesday 8I25lOO Thursday 8/26/æ Friday 8f27/æ low tide 2:28am High tide 8;54am low tide 2:59am High tide 9:20am low tide 3:28am High tide 9:47am low tide 3:57am High tide 10:I3am low tide 4:26am High tide 10:41 am pour upper type A clear out shotcrete cover strip upper type A drill sol nails on shotcrete cover drill soil nails on shotaete cover work on soil nails work on mid bluff work on mid bluff Monday 8ØJ/OO Tuesday 8/31/æ Wednesday 9I1/æ Thursday 9121'J3 Friday 9131æ low tide 6:02am High tide 12:22pm low tide 6:39am High tide 1 :O6pm low tide 7:24am High tide 2:01 pm low tide 8:25am High tide 3:11 pm low tide 9:54am High tide 4:32pm dig footing & grade beam for cover set steel at shotcrete cover pour shotcrete cover pour soli cement behind wall pour soil cement behind wall work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff work on mid bluff Monday 9I6t'æ Tuesday 9n/æ Wednesday 918/æ Thursday 9191æ Friday 9/1 0J99 low tide 1 :54am High tide 8:23am low tide 2:37am High tide 9:00am low tide 3:15am High tide 9:33am low tide 3:49am High tide 10:ll5am low tide 4:21am High tide 10:35am set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope set mesh on slope 8 8 8 SOil ¡:nC:ln¡:i5:tlnc: COnSi::tUCi:IOn,n( ~ 8 BRADLEY RESIDENCE 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE BLUFF REPAIRS CONSTRUCTION E UIPMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. RUBBER TIRE LOADER RUBBER TIRE BACKHOE TEXOMA TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG AIR COMPRESSORS FLA T BED TRUCK & TRAILERS GENERATORS PORTABLE LIGHTS PICK-UP TRUCKS CONCRETE TRUCKS CONCRETE PUMP & TRUCK GROUT PLANTS CONVEYORS WATER TRUCK HIGH PRESSURE WATER JET PUMP AND TRUCK BOOM TRUCK / CRANE c--.-.. - .-.-. "_...,,, --"', - ' " " ? u ¡W9 ' . ' , ,1 I,'; ; - ; \._~, -..,.-. """B,,"._---1 ) :~'-:;:;\"CIS ,.".---.----..-.-. - . - ...---- 927 Arguello Street, P.edwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367.9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 A + I I I I .~ I I I C Lf-- I I , 0 APPROX .SHORELINE AT ZERO TIDE {I) rs1 Eo4 {I){I)H rs1{1){I) U ~ð~ :J:1ICCH u Eo4- ~. {I) U :>t r4{1)þG) lQrs1ìr4"-' UE04'Ø O:q~{I)ftS Eo40"":Z¡~ ....OIQ IQ~ÕU.... ~~:qM~ ~t!)~~r¡: ~t!)~~0 -<~rs1{1)ftS E-t ø. ..-. Eo4~ 0..-. iIC ~ ~ Eo4 .~ t1æfrg tU~t! ;<~IQ :z¡Ø;U UH rs1:Z¡M 8rs1~ U ø. I ~b\ :z¡ c:: O""¡ H ~ Eo4 ru ~~ U'tJ t1 ~ a :J:1 ¡..,¡ ~~ IQ E¡ U a ~~ ~-W ø.f} Q) .. 0 ~~ H E 0 M SAND &: COBBLE BEACH f PROPOSED NEW CONC. SEAWALL WITH TIE-BACK ANCHORS AND BACK DRAIN (53* loF. OF TYPE "A" WALL, SEE DETAIL A, SHEET 7) ---- --3D-- /" . CONC CP WP YO f-- ---0 NEW 4-INCH DIAMETER, 25-FOOT I - - INCLINED DE-WATERING WELL (3 T~ SEE DETAIL 'H', SHEET 8 LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS ~ MONUMENT FOUND AS NoTED EJ {f;j NEW REINFORCED SHOTCRETE COVE: 5-FOOT DEEP SOIL ANCHORS AT 1 SEE DETAIL 'G', SHEET 8 13.5' 1W 1:1 STEPUP ON TOP OF WALL ~ ~k- TQAFF\(.~lltJfE4\O~' 11.85 EXISTING CONC SEAWALL (13':1: HIGH, 7' EXPOSED ABOVE SAND BEACH) Ac ess to jobsite from Moonlight Beach St te Beach through Seaside Gardens Park an State Lands located westerly of the me n high tide line, all located so therly and westerly of the jobsite. PROPERTY LINE EXISTING 2' CONTOURS CONCRETE CONCRETE POST WOOD POST YARD DRAIN NEW CONC. SEAWALL (TYPE "A" ANI SEE DETAILS A &: B, SHEET 7 . (5) 24" DIA. CONC. CAISSON ~T,B (19) TIEBACK (T=TOP, B=BOTTOM) SEE I Uì Q) tJ> m p., 0 ~ rl rl ~ ð'\ ð'\ rl ~ ð'\ ¡f,' t .c: . u H m :E .. ¡:; 0 .,...¡ U) H Q) :> Uì U 0 "0 Q) CD N 1.0 N Q) .¡.J ....... tJ> U) 'n ....... ,::¡; D . F'1;;..<, 8 SOIL ¡:n<:IOi:¡:~ln<: cons¡:~uc¡:lon,"( ~ 8 July 18, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Bradley Residence Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune Avenue Traffic Control Plan Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. We have prepared the attached traffic control plan for access to the job site across the public beach (Moonlight Beach). Please review the attached plan and if you should have , any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, Æ~~ ~ ~ Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. C: Engineering Inspection Mr. Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Services !', I ¡ U:J;) ! : ¡, ; ! ~ L.. ,.--- j ~ UL;¡\LLi,¡>,(j SERVICES CITY 0;: E~,Œ~ITAS 927 Arguello Street, r\edwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 .--:1 ,. . \ . .w ~ I'ICCESS ro seA "'AU.. . PII TH CF TRI.ICICS ro 1£ ClH:D tFT - PIt~ HIU. RIllTE 1EA0f MEA -- =-;-¡; @ w ~i!! ~e f; ~l=: , ~ ~~ I ¿) I. ~ .'i: ~ I IREST-¡ EmTIhU ~ '-..... =. . . I'MICDIi STALU; - - - --. 0 VllU.£Y1IAU.. MEA '. . DaST1HG lEACH DlTRANCE f'REIC I STIIŒT . 4TH S11IIŒT ~ lIP' 41 IØJRS NDTIŒ Tt] 'n£ SU"EIIVISDR !IF' US , ~41D PIŒIII Tt] ACIXSSING CF ICIN..UiHT INCUlmNli :cATCC:C, TDEC:C, AlGI 1I8ATmN CF THt 'oIDII(. s:DGL NJT1F1CA T1Øf SHAlL. IÐT DI:UmE IIJII£ mAN CI£ \ÆEIC "'~ II T AN'( GNEM TDE. AND SAND ... Tt] IE CJT ro II NJNDII.M \IDmI m AS III.J..IN cœsnu:TItIII ~ AND MATERJALS AllEDUATC TO PAS:E. TDES CF J£IOt ACCESS. THE: ADUn: SNNN at PLAN . S11IEET Tn 11tE .£IOt "'ILL 1£ cœlD£D 1FT USJNi IDŒS HID AfIPII!PIQAn: S&WiE CIlU11CNlNG 'T1]D AHIIItR TIlIIVEl. ~ H:CESI AIIEA. F't..IQ4DI IofILI.. IE m£] II.mNG PDIC TVoVEl. H:CESI P!JUDDS. TIlE BEriINNlNIi DID CF SHIFTS. aH:R£T'£ ŒU\IEJUES AlGI []I SDGL.Aa el = 3ItD S11IIŒT I ~I II 1ST mIEET liC 2ND S11IIŒT EXISTIIIi S%GNAGE REGU TtNIi HANlDCAp PERICH'S ACCESS 08 DNWEJI IT CXIIiI11IACTtR \/ILL IE RESTtII!J [:II AT THE DG CF THE: "'DIIC DAY. SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. SOIL ENCINElfRINC ðD TRAFFIC CONTROL PlJ\N LOWER BLUFF SEAWALLS MOONUGHT BEACH ENCINITAS, CA. PLATE 1 .. 8 SOIL cnC:lncc~lnC: conSL~UCLIOn,n( ~ 8 .t July 18, 1999 TO: Director of Community Services Department, City ofEncinitas FROM: John W. Niven Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. SUBJECT: Contractor Responsibility This correspondence is provided to acknowledge that Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC), will be liable for any costs to correct damages to the beach or adjacent areas resulting nom permit work undertaken by SEC for Coastal Development Permit No. 6- 99-41-G, bluff repairs at 560 Neptune Avenue. In addition, SEC recognizes that construction debris washing onto the beaches (during the period of time that SEC is constructing this project) within one-mile north or south of the work site shall be the responsibility of SEC and shall be removed at no expense to the City of Encinitas. Construction debris is defined as any lumber, piling, crates, boxes, containers and other objects which, could be used for construction identical to that being used on the project site. Debris also includes any pre-existing items excavated at the site such as reinforcing steel, concrete and bricks. /~ 7 - /7 ~ c¡ 9 Date ~ ohn W. Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. : ,"-~ì"ì~-"-,-';"- ' ,; ,r; I 'Ie ," ',' " ' ¡"'r" ,; {, /' ", '" ¡ , ,'" } -- --- . : , ' , i ",' " ' ¡ /1'1 '<, --'--...-.:. ¡ í '1' I ~-'"1: ,', ¡'UUIJ"Ul",,2,OIOO9 !/i.i".J L " ,'. Jl-li f:N(-;7;7i~'~:-:--' I '_--:.(~¡:-~~ n'~;':-' ,..r-" UI"ì7"',7oS " :'~'~L'\!:~ ~",i:2t.:__.. , 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 . ~LI;ORNIA ALL-PURPol ACKNOWLEDGMENT I"'" .Œ "'" = "'" m -- -- "'" ~ = -"" -- """'" "'" -- ~ .& ..c<> .ru' """'" - = 1 I ~ State of CAL I FORN I A i~ I I '1 .1 8 County of SAN DIEGO I I I I On 7 / I 9 / 9 9 L,GABRIEL, NOTARY PUBLIC before me, Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g.. "Jane Doe, Notary Public") JOHN W. NIVEN, P,E. personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s) ~ ~ S 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ !¡<; ~ (il ~ ~ II ~M~,,~~~~"œ -~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~ whose name~) I!/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/.~~ executed the same in his....tlir authorized capacity(i~, and that by his/l1M'h.signature(.) on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted, execut the instrument. J ...... ...... ~..~. - "'.",.,.,.;>0-""" .-. .-. ...... .-. ..... J . L. GABRIEl - ',',ornmisslon' 1085157 ~ ~..."" .. i\loîQry PWIc - Caifomia I !! . Sun DIego Comfy - f My COrTrn. ExpireS Feb 4.2000 1 ------------ WIT and and official seal. , j' I~ tl1!. J'-., OPTIONAL Signature of Notary Public I,L . ./ Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Top of thumb here ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ (i¡ [~~~~~'Ç;<;,';gN'~~~~~~~~~'~¿<;,'%~~~~~~~~"@,.."@,.."@,..~~~~~~~-g,;,~..:..c ',,:- ..:..c Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: @ 1995 National Notary Association '8236 RemmetAve., P.O. Box 7184-Canoga Park, CA91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 ~ g ~ g g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.'I I I g ~ ~ @ ~ :~ g g ~ ~ .1 I I I . 8 SOIL ¡:nC:ln¡:¡:~InC: cOnSt~UC¡:IOn,n( ~ 8 July 18, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California , . . RE: Bradley Residence Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune Avenue Concrete Mix Design Submittal , 2. {\ ¡~:fJ ¡:: ¡ , 1:. 'j' ',c,:~..~:):;;-~¿l I . ""._,~.~,,-,,_:~~'--~~'.I.:~~~ Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. Attached, please find concrete mix designs for the seawall and for the proposed slurry behind the seawall, which are submitted for your review and approval. All mix designs meet or exceed the minimum concrete design specifications for this project. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. v~~~ ~i W. Niven, P.E. Vs~~ Engineering Construction, Inc. C: Engineering Inspection 927 Arguello Street, P,edwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 Se~ ~y: SUPERIOR READY ~IX CONCRETE L.?760 740 9550; U~/1O/~~ ~:U/AM;J~#4U~;~age ¿If 8 8 SUPER I OR READY HI;: CONCRETE, L. P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDa, CA 92029 760-745-0556 CONCRETE M7.:: DESIGN 75PAE [ ] 4000 PSI CONTRACTOR; SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: DENVER CAN7ER SEAWALL SOURCE OF CONCRETE: SUPERIOR REhDY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VARIOUS PLACEMENT: .:;" PUMP I PLl.CE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATORATED, 04/16/99 ASTM-C150 TYPE I ¡/V CEJoIENT (MITSUBISHJ), LB ASTM-C33 WASHED CONC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LB ASTM-C33 157 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB ASTM-C33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), La WATER, LB (GAL-US) AIR ENTRAINMENT, \ 705 1320 1286 321 295 ( 35..3) 3.0 +j- 1.0 SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.59 8.04 7.87 1. 97 <4.73 0.81 MASTER BUILDERS POZZ 322N, OZ-US MASTER BUILDERS MICRO AIR, OZ-US WATER/CEMENT RATIO, LBS/LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCf TOTAL 28.2 1.8 0.42 4.00 145,5 REPARED BY : UPERIOR -- --- ------- ------- 27,00 San þy: SU~ERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; ~:U8AM;}~#402;Page 3ft U4! 1 bl ~~ 8 MIX #375PAE 8 MIX AN¡\LYSIS MIX VOLUME, CU FT COARSENESS (Q / (Q + T)) WORKABILITY W - ADJUST PERCENT MORTAR TOTAL FINENESS MODULU~ 27.00 70.9 37,5 41. 2 58.6 5.10 45 :---------:---------:---------;---------J---------¡ , I I I , , I , ¡ I I I I I I I 1 I , I I : : x: : : 1 :---------:---------;---------; ---------: ---------: , I , , I I I I I I : : 0: ~ : ........: I I I I . , , . , . . . . , I I I I I . . . , . . , . , . , . . 1 :---------:---------:---------~-... :::::::::: :::::: : : : ...::::::::;:: : : : : ...:::::;:;;;: : I . . . . . , , . . . . , I , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . I :---------:-...:::::::::: :----:---------:---------: . . . . . . . . . . . I , I . . . . . . . . . . . , . , I , I 1 I I I I I I, . . . . . . . . . 1 I I 1 - , . . . . . . . . , I I I , . . . . . - -.- - 1 I , I I ,-.,.. '---------'---------'---------1---------1 : : : : ^ - TOTAL MIX: ¡ : : : 0 - AGGREGATES: l : : : * - BOTH I 1______---'---------'---------'---______1 , I I I '---------1 40 w 0 R K A B I L 35 30 T .. T Y ,....::::::::::: 25 20 100 60 40 80 C 0 A R S ENE S S 20 ( Q / (Q + r) J a MATERIALS CHAr:l\CTERI STI CS STONE 1 STONE 2 SAND ....----- ------- ------- DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.62 2.63 t PASSING 3/8 .. SIEVE 1.0 93.0 100.0 \ PASSING # a SIEVE 1.0 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 7.14 5,64 2.93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 44.0 11.0 45.0 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE -----.....-..-------. Sen by: ~UfERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; 9:08AM;]~#402;Page 4/7 100 90 p E 80 R C 70 E N 60 T 50 p A 40 S S 30 I N 20 G 10 0 SIEVE 04/16/99 8 MIX #375PAE 8 FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE 1 STONE 2 SAND PASTE TOTAL AGGR ------- ------- ----_... ------- ------- ------- ------- 1-1/2 " 100.0 100.0 1 " 100.0 100.0 100.0 3/4 " 84.0 95.3 93.0 1/2 " 25.0 100.0 78.2 67.0 3/8 " 1.0 93.0 100.0 70.7 55.7 # 4 1.0 22.0 98.0 64,9 47.0 # 8 1.0 83.0 58.6 37.5 # 16 63.0 52,6 28.4 I 30 39.0 45.4 17.6 # 50 18.0 39.2 8.1 # 100 6.0 35.6 2.7 # 200 2.9 100.0 34.7 1.3 # 325 94.1 31. 8 Liquid 60.7 20.5 GRADATION CHART *---*-:---:-;---:-----:-----:-----:---:------:-----:---¡---: 1 1 * 1 I r 1 1 'r I 1 1 1 . I I I . , I I I I I I 1___'_1___'_'___1_____1_____1_____'___1______1 1 1 I I , I I 1 I 1 I '-----1---1---. 1 I I I 1 I I " 1 , 1 , . I 'I 1 . I I I , ,.. :---:-:---X-:---:-----:-----;-----:---¡------:-----:------: 1 I' 1 I I . , 1 I I , 1 I I I , , , , I I I I I .I___I_I___I_X___I_____'-----'_____I___I______I 1 1 , , I I I I 1 1 1-----.---.---. : :: 0: X : : : J : ::: 1___I~I___'_'_--'_----X----_r_____'___I______1 1 I I , I I I" I' 1-----,---.---, , 1 1 I 0' I X I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 . '1___'_1___'_'___'_____1_____1_____'___1______, 1 1 I " , I 1 , I I ,-----,---,---. 1 " 'I 0 I 1 X I I I I . I I I I I ., , , 'I I :---;-;---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---X------:-----r---:---: I 1 1 " I 0 I 1 , 1 I I 'I I' I I 1 1 X X I I , - - - 1 I 1 I " 'r I 1 I 1-'---1-' ---,-----,-----O-----I---'------,-----,---X---: I 1 , I I , I I r I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I '___1_'___1_1 ---1-----1-----'-----0---1------1 r, I 'I I 1 I I I '-----'---I---X 1 I I " , I I 1 1 1 1 I r I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 :-_-:-1___'_1___1_____1_____'_____1__-0---___1 1 I I I I: :: : : : : I ,-----.---,---, , . I I I I 1 1 a I 1 I "__-.'_1___1_1___'_____1______'-----1---'--- 1 I I I I , , I I I I --- ,-----0---0---0 1 3 # # # # 1# 1 :2;3 L / / 4 8 1 3 5 0 0 2 i 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 5 q 1 13 / <1 5 x - ALL COMPONENTS () - AGGREGATES * - BOTH Sen by: 5U~ERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9S5b; U4/10/~~ ~:U~AM;J~#4U2;page ~/{ 8 8 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 760-745-0556 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SP [ ] 4000 PSI CONTRAC~OR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: DENVER CANTER SEAWALL SOURCE OF CONCRETE: SUPERIOR REhDY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VARIOUS PLACEMENT; 3/8" PUMP WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, 04/16/99 STM-C150 TYPE ¡¡IV CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB STM-c33 WASHED CONC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LB STM-C33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB ATER, LB (GAL-US) IR ENTRAINMENT, \ 752 1747 951 385 ( 46.1) 2.0 +/- 1.0 SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.83 10.65 5.82 6.17 0.54 TOTAL 30.1 ASTER BUILDERS POZZ 322M, OZ-US ATER/CEHENT RATIO, LBS/LB LUMP, Irl ONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF 0.51 6.00 142.1 --~~) P EPARED BY ; ---- S FERreR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. - - - - - - -- - - ------- ------- 27.00 04/16/99 9:09AM;J~#402;Page 6/7 Se~ ~y: BUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 95~õ; w 0 R K A B r L I T 'l 8 8 MIX if 68P MIX AN1.LYSIS MIX VOLUME, CU FT COARSENESS (Q / (O + I)) WORKABILITY W - ADJUST PERCENT MORTAR TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 27.00 3.8 54.0 59,0 72.0 3.96 45 : ---______1 ---______1_.___- ----' -----____1 ~ I I 1 ------- - I 1 I , I * ' 1 1 I I I I I I 1 , : 1 I 1 I I I ; :----___.._1_____-----'---------'---------' , I , ,---------, I , I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , r 1 : : : : I """"1 I I 1 I . . . ; : : : : : : : : : : :----~----I---------:---------:-. ....,. ..,... ...1 1 , 1 . . . . , . . , . . . . . , . . . I I . . . : : : : : : : : : : ; I J I I I . 1 I ...::::::::::: : : : .. . : : : : ; : : : : : : I . :---------:-... :::: ;::: :::----:---------I----~----: I . . . . . . . , . . . , I , I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I I . . . . . . . . , . ,I I I 1 I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , I 1 I , , . . . . . . . . , I I 1 1 ,.......... I I 1 I :;: :::----;---------:---------:---------:---______1 I I I I T 1 I I 1 X - OTAL MIX: 1 I 1 J A I I I 0 - GGREGATES : 1 1 1 1 *-BOTH ' I I I 11______---'---______1______---'----- 1 I I I I ----.---------, 40 35 30 25 20 100 60 80 40 20 0 C 0 A R S ENE S S [ Q / (Q + I) J MATERIALS CHAR~CTERISTrCS DENSITY, SP G % PASSING 3/8 "SIEVE % PASSING # 8 SIEVE FINENESS MODULUS PERCENT o~ AGGREGATE STONE SAND ------... ------.. 2.62 2.63 95.0 100,0 1.0 83.0 5.84 2.93 35.3 64.7 NO SEVERE ~XPOSURE se. _by:.S~PERIOR READY :.lIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 ~:':Ob; 100 90 P E 80 R C 70 E N 60 T SO P A 40 S S 30 I N 20 G 10 a SIEVE U4/10/~~ ~:U~AM;J~#40,;~age flf 8 8 MIX ~68P FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE SAND PASTE TOTAL AGGH ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- 1-1/2 " 100.0 100.0 1 " 100.0 100.0 3/4 .. 100.0 100.0 1/2 " 100.0 100.0 100.0 3/8 " 95.0 100.0 98.9 98.2 # 4 20.0 98.0 82.0 70.4 it 8 1.0 83.0 72.0 54.0 # 16 63.0 63.9 ~0.7 # 30 39.0 54.4 25.2 # 50 18.0 46.1 11. 6 # loa 6.0 41.4 3.9 # 200 2.9 100.0 40.2 1.9 It 325 94.6 36.9 Li:¡uid 63.7 24,9 GRADATION CHART *---*-*---*_*___1_____'-----'_____1___1_- , I' 1 , , . , I ----,-----,---,---, , I I " 1 1 . 1 , 'I' . I " . , I, , "I :-__'_1___'_'___1_____'_____1_____'___'__----, I 1 I " 'I I . I I ,------,---,---, I , 1 'I , , r, I "' I 1 I I I , I . 1 I I I . :___.I_'___I_'___X_____I_____I_____I___'__----, I I I I 'I 'I', ,------,---,---. I " I 1 1 1 , 'I , . 1 , I " , 1 I , 1 I , I I I :---:-.'---'-'---o-----x-----'_____I___'__----, "I I '" .-----,---,---, I 1 I " 1 , X 1 1 I 1 , . 'I ., I 1 . 1 I I . :---.'-'---1-1---'_____1_____'_____1___'______1 I I I , I I 1 I . 'I ,-----,---.---. , 'I 'I I I" 1 I I 1 I I " 'I 1 0 I A I . I I : ---: -: ---: -: n_: -----: -----: -----: ---; ------ 1 -----'---'--- , 1 1 I I I I 1 I I. I . 1 I' ,. 1 I 'IX: ::: 1 - - 'I 1 " 1 1 , -,-, ---I -.---, -----.-----0-----1---, ------X-----X------: 1 I I ' 1 , , 'I I 1 I , . . I' , I I I I X , :---'-'___'_.1___'_____1_____'-----'---'- 1 1 I , ., . I 1 I I 'I -----,-----,---.---. I 1 I I I 1 I , 0 , 1 1 I' . 1 I . 1 , , I. X : ---: -: ---: -: _._-: -----: -----: ----- ¡ ---: ------'_____1 ___1___' I 'I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 'I 'I I I 1 I : 1 I I :---:-:-__1.1___1_____1_____'-----'---0--- I :: ~ 1 'I ::: : : : 1 ---,-----,---.---, I I' I' 1 I I' 0 I I :-__,'_'___1_'___1_____1_____1_____'---' I I I , , I I. I I 1 ,------,-----0---0---0 1 3 1 3" # -# if # 1 2 / / / 4 8 1 3 5 0 0 4 2 8 6 0 0 0 a 1 3 2 5 L i q 5 x - ALL COMPONENTS - AGGREGATES * - BOTH a : SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE l.P.760 740 9S5p. 8 8 n7J19!99 11 :34AMjJ~Œ~~#703;P8ge 2/9 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDa, CA 92029 760~745-0556 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN 553 [ ] 2500 PSI CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING PROJECT: BRADLEY RESIDENCE, ENCINITAS SOURCE OF CONCRETE: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE; 520-C-2500 PLACEMENT: TRUCK PLACE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, 07/19/99 ~STM-C150 TYPE II/V CEMENT (MITSUBISHI) , LB ASTM-c33 WASHED CONC. SAND (SUPER10R) , LB ASTM-C33 #57 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB ~STM-c33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB wATER, LB (GAL-US) 4IR ENTRAINMENT, % 520 1374 1522 151 325 ( 38.9) 2.0 +/- 1.0 SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 2.65 8.37 9.31 0,92 5.21 0,54 TOTAL WATER/CEMENT RATIO, LBS/LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF 0.63 4.00 144.2 :Œ1BINED AGGREGATE GRADING CONFORMS TO GRADING "e" STANDARD PECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS. ',REPARED ~UPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. ------- - ------ 27.00 : SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRET~ L.P.760 740 95~~; 8 r'C!j9/99 11 : 34AIv1;Jf.tÚf.L#703j Page 3/9 8 MIX #5553 MIX ANALYSIS MIX VOLUME, CU FT COARSENESS (Q I (Q + I» WORKABILITY W - ADJUST PERCENT MORTAR TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 27,00 61. 7 37,9 36.7 57.2 5,17 45 :---------:---------:---------:---------:---------: 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I t I 1 I , ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I 1______---'---______1______---1---______1______---' I I 1 , I I I I I I I I , 1 I 1 I , : : 0: : : "......: I : X J : .. . : : : : : : : : : : : :---------:---------:---------:-., ,;; ::;:: ::::: ::: I I , I . . . , . . . , . . , I 1 I . . . . . . , . . . , . . , : : : . - . : : : : ; : ; : : ; ; I I . . . , . . . . , . , I I - . . . . . , . . . , . . . i---------:-. ..::::: :::: ::----:---------:---------: : . .. : : : : : : : : : ; ; : t : I . . . . , . - . . . ,I I I I I . , . . , . . . , . . . . . " I I I I , . . , . . . . . . I , I I I ' . . , , , . . , . I I I , : :::::----:---------:---------:---------:----~----: : : : : X - TOTAL MIX: : : : : 0 - AGGREGATES: : : : :*-BOTH : :---------~---------:---------:---------:---------: 40 w 0 R K A B I L I T Y 3S 30 25 20 100 80 60 40 20 a C 0 A R S ENE S S [ Q I (Q t 1) J MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE 1 STONE :2 SAND ------- -----~- ------- DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.62 2.63 % PASSING 3/8 " SIEVE 24.0 95.0 100.0 " PASSING ' 8 SIEVE 1.0 1.0 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 7.11 5.84 2.93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 50.0 4,9 45.0 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE . SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.p.760 740 95~6: 8 100 90 p E 80 R C 70 E N 60 T 50 p A 40 s S 30 I ëJ 20 .. G 10 0 S I EVE (7/19/99 11 : 34AMjJc.l(.jJlL#703jPage 4/9 8 MIX #5553 FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE 1 STONE 2 SAND PASTE TOTAL AGGR ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1-1/2 " 100.0 100.0 100,0 1 " 98.0 99.3 99.0 3/4 If 62,0 86.9 81.0 1/2 " 34.0 100.0 77.2 67.0 3/8 n 24.0 95.0 100.0 73.6 61.7 # 4 2.0 20.0 98.0 62.9 46.1 # 8 1.0 1.0 83.0 57.2 37.9 # 16 63.0 50.6 28.4 # 30 39.0 43.2 17.6 # 50 18.0 36,7 8.1 # 100 6.0 32.9 2.7 # 200 2.9 100.0 32.0 1.3 # 325 95.3 29.6 Liquid 68.5 21. 3 GRADATION CHART *---*-:---:-;---:-----:-----:-----¡'---:------:-----i---:---: I 'I t I I I I I I I I I , I I I I t I I I I I I , ¡---:-:---:-[---:-----:-----:-----:---:------:-----:---:---: : : x ::: : : :: J ¡: : :---:-o---:-:---:-----:---_..:-----:---:------:----~:---:---: : :: x x: : : :: J ::: :---:-:---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---:------:-----:~--i---: : :: 0: >t : ¡ :: : ::: :---:-[---:-0---:-----:-----:-----:---:------:-----:---:---: : :: :: : x j :: : : : ¡ :---:-:---:-:---:----~:-----X~----:-~-:------]-----:---¡---I : :: :: 0 : : }Î ¡ : ::: :---:-:---:-:---:-----0------:-----:---:------:-----:---:---: : :: ¡:: : : : X x : : J :---i-I---¡-:---:-----¡-----o-----¡---:------:-----x---x---: I I I 'I I I I I I , I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I . ;---:-:---t-:---:-----:-----:-----o---:------:-----:---:---x , I I (I t I , I I , I I . ( I I , I I I I , , I 1---:-;---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---0------:-----:---:--- : : ::: : : :: 0 : : : :---:-:---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---:------:-----0---0---0 1 1 3 1 3 # # ~ # # 1 2 3 L I / J 4 8 1 3 5 0 0 2 i 4 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 5 q 5 x - ALL COMPONENTS 0- AGGREGA'rES .. - BOTH : SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 95~R: 8 07/19/99 11 :35AM;J~Œ~#703;Page 5/9 8 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, C1\ 92029 760-745-0556 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN "r65P ( ] 2500 PSI 07/19/99 CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING PROJECT: BRADLEY RESIDENCE, ENCINITAS SOURCE OF CONCRETE: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VARIOUS PLACEMENT; 3/8" PUMP WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.11 11. 33 6.12 46.2) 6.18 0.27 ~STM-C150 TYPE rr/v CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB ASTM-C33 WASaED CONC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LB ASTM-C33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB WATER, LB (GAL-US) AIR ENTRAINMENT, \ 611 1859 1000 385 ( 1.0 ------- ------- MASTER BUILDERS POZZ 322N, OZ-US TOTAL 18.3 27.00 WATER/CEMENT RATIO, LBS/L8 SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UN1T WEIGHT, PCF 0.63 6.00 142.8 ~REPARED BY : 7 :;UPERIOR : SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.p.760 740 955~: 8 w 0 R K A B I L I T '{ C7!19!99 11 :35AM;Jf1~#703;Page 6/9 8 M1X #66fP. MIX ANALYSIS MIX VOLUME, CU FT COARSENESS (Q / (Q + I») WORKABILITY W - ADJUST PERCENT MORTAR TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 27,00 3.8 54.2 55.5 70.4 3.95 45 ]---------:---------:---------:---------:-______A_: I , 1 I I * I I 1 I I I , 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I , I , I I I 1 I I I I :-------~-:---------:--------~:---------:---------: I , I , I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I ........ 1 1 I I I , . . . . . , . . . I ¡ I I I . . . . . , . , . , . , . I 1______---1---______1______---1- ,... ..,..,.." ,I 1 I 1 1 ,.........,.,...., I I I I I 1 I I , I. . . . . . . . . . . I I I ...."........ 1 ¡ , . . . . . . . . . . I I . , . . . . , . . . . , . . :---------:-...::: ::::::::-~--:---------:---------: : . . . : : : : : ; : : : : : : : : : .. . . ; ; : : : : : : : : :: : : : . , , . . . . . . , I 1 I 1 I . , , . . . . . . . I I I I :: ::::----:---------:---------:---------:---------: : : : : ~ - TOTAL HUe: : : : : 0 - AGGREGATES: : i : : *-BDTH : :---------:---------J---------:---------:------~-~: 40 35 . .. : : : : : : : : : : : 30 25 20 100 so 60 40 20 a c 0 A R S ENE S S [ Q / (Q + 1) ] MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE SAND ------- ------- DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.63 \ PASSING 3/8 " SIEVE 95.0 100.0 "PASSING # a SIEVE 1.0 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 5.84 2.93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 35.1 64.9 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE "'-,. "'/: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 95~6: 07/19/99 11 :35AM;J~~#703;Page 7/9 8 8 MIX #665P FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE SAND PASTE TOTAL AGGR ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1-1/2 " 100.0 100,0 1 " 100.0 100.0 3/4 " 100,0 100.0 1/2 " 100.0 100.0 100.0 3/8 " 95.0 100.0 9B. 9 98.2 # 4 20.0 98.0 8LO 70.7 # 8 1.0 83.0 70.4 54.2 # 16 63.0 61. S 40.9 # 30 39.0 51. 8 25.3 # 50 18.0 42.9 11.7 # 100 6.0 37.9 3.9 # 200 2.9 100.0 36.6 1.9 # 325 95.1 33.7 Liquid 67.5 23.9 100 90 p E 80 R C 70 E N 60 'r 50 p A 40 S s 30 I N 20 G 10 0 SIEVE *---*-*---*-*---¡-----:-----:-----¡---:------¡-----i---i---: I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I' I I 1 I I I 1 '___1_'___'_1___1_____1_____1_____1___1______1_____1_-_'___1 I 1 I I I I 1 ¡ I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I' 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---:-:---:-I---x-----I-----:-----:---:------:-----:---1---: I I lit I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 'I' I 1 I 1 I I I I I---i-:---:-i---o-----x------:-----:---:------]-----:---1---1 I I 1 " I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I 1 I , I I I :--~:-:---:-:---:-----¡-----x-----:---:-----~:--~--:---:---: :: :: : 0 : : J : ::: :---:-:---:-:---:-----:-----:-----x---:----~-:-----:---:---: : :: ::: : : : X : : : : J----:---:-:---:-----:-~---o-----:---1------~-----:---:--- : :: ::; : i :: ¡ X X : ;---:-:---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---1------1-----:---:--- : :: : J: : : 0: : :] X :---:-:---:-:---:-----:-----:-----:---1------:-----:---¡---: I I I I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I I I I :---:-:---:-:---;-----:-----:-----:---0------:-----:---i---: : :: ::: : : :: 0 : J : :---:-:---¡-:---:-----:----~:-----:---:------:-----o---0---0 1 1 3 1 3 # # ~ # # ¡ / / 4 8 1 .3 5 4 :2 S 6 0 0 GRADATION CHART 5 x - ALL COMPONENTS 0 .. AGGREGATES * - BOTH 1 a 0 ~ 0 0 3 '2 5 L i q '"+ bv: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556: 8 (17/19/99 11 : 36AM;Je.tÚUL#703;Page 8/9 8 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 760-745-0556 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN ~,s 8 [ ] 2500 PSI CONTRACTOR: SOIL ENGINEERING PROJECT; BRADLEY RESIDENCE, ENCINITAS SOURCE Of CONCRETE: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPt: SAND SLURRY PLACEMENT: TRUCK PLACE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURAIJ'EÞ, 07/19/99 ASTM-C150 TYPE ¡l/V CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB ASTM-C33 WASHED CONC, SAND (SUPERIOR), LB WATER, LB {GAL-US} AIR ENTRAINMENT, % 752 2531 467 ( 56.0) 1.0 t/- 1.0 SURFACE-DRY) YIELD, CU FT 3.83 15.42 7.48 0.27 TOTAL WATER/CEMENT RATIO, L8S/LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF 0.62 8.00 138.9 ---;/ 'REPARED BY : ;UPERIOR READY MIX -- ----~---- -------- -- -- - - - - --- ------- ----- -- 27.00 ,,' "v: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETfC L.P.760 740 95~P,: ..--.-----. w 0 R K A B I L I T Y 8 0'/19/99 11 :36AM;J~#703;Page 9/9 8 MIX #CS-8 MIX ANALYSIS MIX VOLUME, CU FT COARSENESS (Q / (Q + I)) WORKABILITY W - ADJUST PERCENT MORTAR 27.00 0.0 81. 0 86.0 89.1 45 :---------:---------:---------:---------:---______A I I I I I ... I I , I I I I I r I , I t I I , I : : : : : : :---------:.._-------¡---------:---------¡---------: I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I ........, I I I , . . . . , . . . . . , I I I . . . . . . . . . . . , . , : _n_____-: ____n__-: ______n_: -. . .::::: :::::::::: : : : : .. . : ; ; : : : ; : : : : , . I. . . , . . . . . . . I I I .....,........ I : : . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : :---------:-.. .:: ::::::; ::----:---------:--------- . . . . , . , . . . . I I I I . , . . . . . . , . . . . . I I I , . . . . . . . . . . I I I I . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . I I I I. . . . . . , . . . I I I I I . . . . . . , . . . I I I ¡ :::::----1---------:---------:---------:---------: : : : : )It - TOTAL MIX: : : : : a - AGGREGATES: ] : : : *-BOTH : 1---------:---------:---------:---------:---------: 40 35 30 25 20 100 aD 40 60 20 0 C 0 A R S ENE S S [ Q / (Q + 1) ] MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS SAND -------- DENSITY, SP G 5& PASS1NG 3/8 11 SIEVE 'PASSING # 8 SIEVE FINENESS MODULUS PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 2.63 100.0 81.0 0.00 100.0 DRY-RODDED UNIT WEIGHT OF STONE, PCr NO SEVERE EXPOSURE -~ ----~._-~- 8 SOIL ënC:lnëë=tlnc: COnSi:=tUCi:IOnln( ~ 8 July 18, 1999 Department of Engineering City ofEncinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: , , ~ , --..,~~..,~:_-¡\ \ "', ", \ t" l " \ \ U : '¡ ',\ 1"".1"', ',~ i, \ \,I I r (J '.J,'"N ' \.-J Bradley Residence Bluff Repairs 560 Neptune A:v.ettue ,." ,-' J 24- Hour Emergency Name/Phone Contacts L<;-:-;-,\\;;¿;";¿-;i7\~E3 L:~,f "",C,,,, "'('IN' ,þ.,,~ .,' .--<~:~~ ~:~.!~~~----- Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. Attention: We have prepared the following list of responsible persons and the phone numbers that may be contacted in case of an emergency at the Bradley construction site. In case of an emergency, please contact the person(s) listed below. 1. John W. Niven - office (760) 633-3470 home (760) 740:'9159 mobile (760) 801-6079 2. Paul Desfosses - office (760) 633-3470 mobile (760) 801-1589 3. Robert Mahony - office (650) 367-9595 home (650) 359-5536 mobile (650) 222-8236 If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633-3470. C: Engineering Inspection Mr. Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Services 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063-1310 (650) 367-9595 . FAX (650) 367-8139 . 8 8 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 2240 Vineyard Avenue 8 Escondido, CA 92029 8 (760) 738-8800 8 (760) 738-8232 fax June 9, 1999 Project No 98-1055 ~ E J: ~ J ~ 1:9 æ ~ City of Encinitas City Manager's Office 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bob Acher CITY MANAGER'S OFFrCE Subject: Request for Placement on Council Agenda- June 16, or 23, 1999. Discussion of Emergency Seawall and Mid-Bluff Repairs Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Dear Mr. Acher: In accordance with our discussion with your office, we have prepared this letter as a request to be included on the City Council's June agenda. At present, an emergency condition e,dsts which poses an irnIrtinent threat to the subject residence, property improvements, and neighboring natural bluff The present condition also poses a potential hazard to the beach going public which may use the beach area immediately below the subject bluff As or this writing, we have received an emergency coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission, including the approval to construct a concrete seawall and perfonn other bluff stabilization measures. Additionally, Mr. Hans Jensen and Mr. Jeff Garmi of the City of Encinitas Engineering Services Department, have verbally indicated their approval of the construction repair plans designed to mitigate the conditions of on-going bluff collapse and instability. Based on a recent conversation with Mr. Ganni, it is our understanding that the repair plans submitted, are acceptable and will be signed by the City Engineer - Mr. Alan Archibald, upon the delivery of the plans set printed on Mylar, and imprinted with a City Engineer's signature block. Mr. Ganni, has also reported that the City has restrictions regarding beach construction, between Memorial Day and Labor Day. As such, this blanket restriction would apparently prohibit the emergency construction and repairs, necessary to mitigate the present threat from bluff instability. We therefore, request your prompt consideration, to request inclusion on the Council's June agenda, so that we may explain the need for the emergency construction, and request the Council to consider the approval to proceed on the necessary bluff repairs, and mitigate the existing threat. Escondido, CA 8 Orange, CA 8 Livermore, CA 8 Las Vegas, NV 8 Houston, TX ... . 8 8 Requnt for CUy Council Agrnda 560 Nrptunr Avenur, Endnlta.. CL .June 9, 1999 Page Z Project No. 98..11155 We appreciate your prompt assistance with regards to our request. If you have questions or need further information, please call Mr. Greg Karen, at (760) 738-8800. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony-Taylor Company . //ffrdl Ie L. Mi al ~nior pf ect Engineer RCE No. C42590 ;7 ./:)u~;J;} Æ/1- G;egKar~ tf1 . Project Geologist Distribution: (1) (1) (1) Addressee Addressee via Fax: No. (760) 633-2627 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Land Space En ~Jj;~ering - ~ ,., 201 E. Gr8.lld .A:~e., Ste 2-F Escondido, CA 92025 8 {619) 741-2689 phone {619) 741-2616 fax TRANSMITTAL TO: CITY OF ENCINITAS Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 DATE: PROJECT: 11/06/97 2628-G SUBJECT: AS BUILT of 2628-G, sh.#S-4 ATTN: Mr. Alan Archibald Requested By: please find the following transmitted herewith: For: Originals T.O.'s Prints Descriptions Reference Dwgs Check Prints Letter Other Submittal Review/Approval Signature Infonnation Estimates J please Return [{] Two BL. COPIES OF AS BUILT FOR LOWER BLUFF EROSION CONTROL SEAWALL PER CITY DWG. #2628-G SHEET S-4. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT HAW TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS. NoJ tÂ~¡P~ J' d~~f)J~~J- -l~~i~~~~1't\w' ~~t;7 - N aß \991 10 SE?\\CES ENG\NEEp.\~~C\~\\ þ.,S C\1'l Or Received By ~ Ne6an~ p~nl~ch - cc: Ludmilla Bradley LSE Job # Bradley C7/ - 0 I ( ? 8 AprilS, 1994 Hans Carl Jensen Subdivision Engineer City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 Dear Mr. Jensen: .06& Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 630 D Grand Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 (619) 729-5505 (619) 729- 5699 Fax Lic. No. 507952 On behalf of Ms. Ludmilla O. Bradley of 560 Neptune Avenue, we are responding to your letter dated March 15. We have removed the rebar from the beach frontage. Please call if any further work is needed to maintain a safe condition. Sincerely, ~~ President Pacific Geo Service, Inc. DEJ/taj cc: Ms. Ludmilla O. Bradley Pacific Geo Servl, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 1619) 729-5505 (8001479-4436 (619) 729-5699 Fax I~k " 8Æ.cJl-LLj .~wcvI( / Gc; 2- <t - ~~ - Uc. No. 507952 eo", December 3, 1991 Peter M. Douglas Executive Director c/o San Diego Coast 3111 Camino Del Rio San Diego, CA 92108 District Office North, Suite 200 SUBJECT: CITY APPROVES PLANS REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PERMIT Bradley residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Mr. Douglas, Our plans for the entire bluff have been approved by the City of Encinitas Public Works Engineer. They are ready to issue us a grading permit for the upper wall based on the enclosed plans (two copies were submitted to your office on 11/08/91). This design is different from what was submitted on 7/18/91 and presented in our Coastal Development Permit 6-91-233. The earlier plans provided only for upper bluff stabilization. These plans include total bluff engineering. We have proposed structural options that will be "visually unobtrusive protective structures" that conform to designs recently approved by the Coastal Commission: a) City of Encinitas Swami's Beach Access, which won the Orchid award b) pt Lorna Shoreline Protection Project. Our approved plan includes mid-slope soil nails with chain link mesh or Tensar Erosion Mat (the mid-slope area has a 1:1 slope) and, at the lower bluff, colored shot crete cover to the Torrey Sandstone matching the existing contour at the base. In front of the shotcrete cover we propose 4-8 ton riprap out to the front edge of the cove. All cove debris will be removed, with the front base of the riprap placed a minimum of 2 feet into bedrock. As directed during the 10/21/91 meeting with the City of Encinitas and CCC, we have completed the construction sequence (S-4). This is based on the requirements by the Soil Engineer to provide immediate support for the upper bluff. Work on the middle and lower slope cannot be safely executed until the upper bluff is stable. - .' I 8 8 page 2 We will submit wave calculations (wave height, high tide level, storm surge, and level of overtopping), engineering, and plans for the vertical wall option if that is the preferred option indicated by the City. I understand that the vertical wall is the Commission's preferred option. Also, recognizing that a regional bluff protection solution is required in Encinitas, we are actively involved with the City of Encinitas Beach Restoration Task Force. Hopefully that forum will be willing to tackle this important issue. Sincerely, Pacific Geo Service, Inc. ~Ë President cc: Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Pacific Geo Service, Inc. ~ ... 8 8 PAGE 1 +---------------+ : GENERAL NOTES: +---------------+ TIEBACK ANCHORS Tieback Capacity The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the desired tieback capacity in accordance with the tieback testing section of this specification. The contract drawing indicate the location and capacity of the tiebacks. Minimum Unbonded Len~th and Tieback Angle Each tieback shall have a minimum unbonded length of 15 feet. The contract drawing indicate the unbonded length required for each tier of tiebacks. The tieback shall be installed at an angle varying between 100 and 300 for the upper wall section and 450 for the lower soil anchors. Total Tieback Len~th and Minimum Anchor Len~th The minimum total tieback lengths are indicated on the contract drawing. In no case shall the anchor length be less than 10 feet. The tieback must not extend beyond the easement/property line shown on the contract drawing. Materials 1. Tieback tendons shall be fabricated from single or multiple elements of the following: a) b) c) d) Steel bars conforming to ASTM Designation A 722. Seven-wire strand conforming to ASTM Designation A 416.' Wires conforming to ASTM Designation A 421. Compact seven-wire strand conforming to ASTM Designation A 779-80. 2. Anchorages shall be capable of developing 95 percent of the guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile strength of the prestressing steel. The bearing plate shall be fabricated from mild steel and it shall be capable of developing 95 percent of the guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile strength of the prestressing steel. Prestressing steel couplers shall be capable of developing 100 percent of the ultimate strength of the prestressing steel. Centralizers shall be fabricated from material which is nondetrimental to the prestressing steel. The centralizer shall position the tendon in the drill hole so a minimum of 0.5 inch of grout cover is provided. Spacers shall be used to separate elements of multi-element tendons. They shall be fabricated from material which] is nondetrimental to the prestressing steel. 3. 4. 5. 6. . ~ Pacific Geo Avice, I nc. ." 8 8 PAGE 2 7. Type I, I I, or I I I port 1 and cement conformi ng to ASTM C-150 specifications shall be used for grout. If the soluble sulfate content of the soil or the groundwater is greater than 2,000 mg/kg, then Type V cement should be used. 8. Water for mixing grout should be potable. 9. Grout additives which control bleed and retard set may be used. Additives shall be mixed and placed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. 10. The sheath or bond breaker shall be either steel, PVC, polyethelene, or polypropylene pipe or tube. The sheath may surround individual tendon elements or the entire tendon. The material shall be capable of withstanding damage during shipping, handling, and installation. The material is subject to the approval of the engineer. 11. Grease injected under the sheath shall be formulated to provide lubrication and inhibit corrosion. 12. Rods in tieback anchors shall be high-strength with a guaranteed ultimate minimum strength of 150,000 psi and with double corrosion protection. 13. Tendons shall be stored and handled in such a manner as to avoid damage or corrosion. 14. Anchor rods shall not be welded or used for grounding welding equipment. 15. The bearing plate, side plates, seat plates and steel tube of the permanent anchorage assembly shall be galvanized after fabrication. 16. The exposed end of the tieback shall be painted with two coats of commercial quality zinc-rich paint and covered with a galvanized steel tube secured to the bearing plate and filled with grout. Installation 1. Diameters of anchor rods and size of concrete anchor shafts shall be logged and observed by the soils engineer. The drill hole shall be located within 3" of the desired location. The engineer may specify a watertightness test for rock tiebacks. The contractor shall submit for review and approval a description of the watertightness test procedures and equipment. The anchor grout shall have a water--cement ration between 0.39 and 0.50. The grouting equipment should include a mixer capable of producing a grout free of lumps and undispersed cement;. A positive displacement grout pump shall be used. The pump shall be equipped with a pressure gauge to monitor grout pressures. The grouting equipment shall be sized to enable the tieback to be grouted in one continuous operation. Neat cement grouts should be screened to remove lumps. The maximum size of the screen openings shall be 0.250 inches. Mixing and storage times should not cause excessive temperature build up in the grout. The mixer should be capable of continuously agitating the grout. 2. 3. 4. . ~S. '.. (l O~. Gee 8rvice, Inc. Pacific 6. TestinQ 8 8 PAGE 3 5. The anchor grout shall be injected from the lowest point of the tieback. The grout may be placed using grout tubes or drill rods. The grout can be placed before or after insertion of the tendon. The quantity of the grout and the grout pressures shall be recorded. The tieback shall remain undisturbed for a minimum of 3 days or until the grout has cured. 1. At engineer's direction, 10% of total permanent anchors shall be performance tested to 200% of the design load and this test load maintained for 30 minutes. The total deflection during the 200% test shall not exceed 12". The anchor deflection shall not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30 minute period measured after the 200% test load is applied. 2. All remaining tieback anchors shall be proof load tested to 120 percent of design load. Load testing may be performed against temporary bearing yokes which bear directly against existing soil. Bearing pads shall be kept a minimum of 12" away from the edges of the drilled hole to provide for any possible anchorage movement. Piles and wales used in the final wall installation may be used in test loading tieback anchors. If the contractor elects to utilize the installed performing tieback load tests, the piles shall be that pile displacement (deflection) at the points application does not exceed one inch. The load test procedure shall conform to the following: a) After the bond length is grouted and grout is able to withstand test loads, the anchor shall be loaded in increments of 25 percent of the working force to a total load of two times the working force. The load shall be held without evidence of slippage for one minute between increments except for the final load. b) The anchor shall be unloaded after the final load of two times the working force has been held without slippage for 4 minutes. c) If the final load or two times the working force cannot be maintained for 4 minutes without slippage, the anchor shall be replaced. 3. 4. piles for strutted such of load 5. AIR-PLACED CONCRETE (SHOTCRETE) Except as otherwise indicated below, shotcreting materials shall conform to the requirements of SSPWC 201-1 Portland Cement Concrete. 1. Cement shall conform to ASTM C-150 or C-595. . ~ Pacific GeO~rVice, Inc. 8 e PAGE 4 2. Sane shall be washed ane mee~ the following gradation limits: Sieve Size 3/8" no. 4 no. 8 no. 16 no. 30 no. 50 no. 100 % Pass iDE 100 100 100 85 60 30 10 (!::>y weight) 95 - 80 - 50 - 25 - 10 - 2 - Fineness Modulus: ,Moisture Content: 2.7 to 3.1 3% to 6% 3. Concrete shall achieve a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3000 ps i . 4. Concrete admixtures shall include mineral oxides to produce an earthen color of the cured concrete of approximately the same hue as the surrounding coastal bluffs. Additional admixtures may be used except calcium chloride and admixtures containing chloride ion in excess of 0.06% by weight. If more than one admixture is used, said admixtures shall be compatible with each other so that the desireable effect of all admixtures used will be realized. Admixtures shall conform to the requirements of the ASTM designations listed below: Chemical admixtures - ASTM C494 Mineral admixtures - ASTM C618 5. Reinforcement shall conform to ASTM A615, Grade 60. Where indicated on the drawings reinforcement shall be epoxy coated. . Pacific GeO~vice. ~B"'" 'I 0°' Inc. 8 8 aWE.N. GrouRc Omni" Wynn" Espinosa" Northwest . Pacific Geo Service, Inc,. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 fõ) ¡U~ ~ U ~ ~\]J \Jù NOV 2 5 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENG\NEER\NG DEPT. Attention: Mr. Douglas Jacobson Subject: RESPONSE TO PLAN CHECK ITEMS BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Jacobson In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the summary of plan check issues presented by Willdan Associates ( City of Encinitas reviewing consultant). Accordingly, we provide the following response to items and issues in question: * Item 1 (Wall at Bottom): The proposed lower shotcrete system has been designed and planned to be constructed as an erosion control measure only. The shotcrete cover will reduce the rate of lower bluff retreat, and therefore increase overall bluff stabilty. Soil anchors are recommended to provide increased ccmcrete to soH adhesion and reduce the likelyhood of soil scouring behind the shotcrete cover. Since the planned shotcrete wall is not a structural retaining wall, structural design calculations appear unwarranted. * Item 2 (Erosion of Adjacent Properties): Runoff from the proposed upper wall will be control by the installation of 3 shotcrete brow ditch. The brow ditch will collect runoff from the upper bluff and shotcrete sID'face and empty im:o a 6 inch solid down pipe discharging at the base of the sea bluff. This pJ'i]visiofl, in addition to planned drainage improvements to lot areas, should adequately control runoff and minimize the erosion of slope areas and adjoining properties. 6498 Weathers Place. Suite 210 San Diego, California 92121 Tel: (619) 457-8155 Fax: (619) 457-8665 8 8 November 24, 1991 Project No. 91.1.19.1 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding this matter,please call. Very truly yours /:J¿" /þ¡ /¿å~- GREGORY M. KAREN Project Geologist ~~t} ;;( :/nc/J (!JERRY L. MICHAL, P.E. Senior Project Engineer RCE 42590 Expiration: 3-31-92 GMK/jLM:gmk Copies: (3) Addressee Pacific Geo Servli Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (800) 479-4436 (619) 729-5699 Fax Uc. No. 507952 November 21, 1991 Peter M. Douglas Executive Director c/o San Diego Coast 3111 Camino Del Rio San Diego, CA 92108 District Office North, Suite 200 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PERMIT Bradley residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Mr. Douglas, "The Bradley property is in immediate danger with the failed bluff now within 5 feet of the structure. The weather conditions could become severe at any time. We need to take immediate action to prevent loss or damage to life and property. The Encinitas Public Works Department is almost ready to issue us a grading permit. Our plans (forwarded to Leslie Ewing) now include middle and lower bluff construction details plus construction sequence. We request a 60 or 90 day emergency permit for Item 1 of the construction sequence: CONSTRUCT UPPER BLUFF STABILIZATION. When the City is ready to issue our grading permit, they will call Coastal to ask if our permit (emergency or CDP) has been issued. We will submit these plans through the City's Environmental Review and Major Use Permit process as required by our covenant with them. Once the City, has approved the plans for the entire project, we will apply for a new Coastal Development Permit. Sincerely, Pacific t:[v:~ Inc. ~ JJ~~':;:'- President cc: Greg Shields, City of Encinitas , '" i t i f . .' .' .. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (800/479-4436 (619) 729-5699 Fax Uc. No. 507952 Pacific Gee serv. Inc. November 18, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: PROTECTION AT TOP OF BLUFF DURING CONSTR~ON BRADLEY PROPERTY BLUFF STABILIZATION l'62S-tnr~ \, .// 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE------- Dear Mr. Shields, On the grading plan from the last plan check, one comment questioned our method of bluff top protection during construction. Enclosed is a copy of our Alternate Slope Plan prepared by Owen Consultants. This addresses the need to keep large equipment at least 20' away from the edge of the bluff. Also enclosed is a copy of our Cal-Osha permit and our Safety Requirements for the Bradley project which was approved by Cal-Osha at the time they approved our permit {7/18/91}. These address our methods of construction and means of protecting the bluff during construction. We have put carpet along the outer edge of the bluff and chainlink fencing over the bluff face where we are working. Sincerely, Pacific Geo Service, Inc. ~~ presid~~cobson íõ)~ Œ ~ ~ ~ ~\ID \Jù NOV 1 9 1991 CITY OF ENC\N~~KS DEPT. OF PUBLIC ENGINEERING DEPT. . . ~ ~IREMENrS 8awrnLE:Y BLUFF 8'l'ABILIZATION 4r page 1 'Face Inspection and Control (See Sectlon 1546 Ti tIe 8) a) A daily physical inspection shall be made of faces and banks, including the tops, where employees are exposed to falling or rolling materials. The inspection shall be made by a qualified person who shall dislodge or make safe any material dangerous to employees, or shall cause such material to be dislodged or made safe. b) No person shall be permitted to work near a face made unsafe by primary' blasting, ¡:ains, freezing or thawing weather, or earthquakes unti I the face has been ::1spected and :mde safe. c) Overhanginç banks are forbidden. d) Where necessary, an employee shall be ernployed at the face and instructed to give warning when loose rock or other materials are about to fall. 1) The employee shall be provided with a whistle, siren, or other devices that will give adequate warning to employees. 2) The employee shall have no other work to distract his attention fram his duties as defined above. e) When working at night, 3ufficie.'1t illunnTlôbon shall be provided throughout the working area so that movement of 8nployees and equipment can be readily observed. (See Section 1523.) f) Work shall not be permitted on or near any bank or face at night unless the bank or face above the working area is adequately ill~nated to make any movement of rock or other material readily observable. g) Provision shall be made to keep employees away fram dangerous areas that are not working places. Signs shall be posted warning employees to keep away, or such dangerous areas shall be barricaded or otherwise guarded. 2 Protection of Workers at the Face. (See Section 1547, Title 8) a) No work shall be permitted above or below employees at the face if such work endangers their safety. b) Workers at the face shall be protected as follows: 1) On top of the bank, by fencing with guardrails or ropes; by using a railed platform; or by using safety belts and life lines. This does not apply where the bank is less than 20 feet high or the slope below is flatter than 3/4 horjzontal to 1 vertical or where no work is performed within 10 feet of the edge. 2) On the face, by removing loose rock from over the working place and by the use of safety belts and life lines, portable staging, boatswain's chair or skips especially designed for use at faces. If a boatswain's chair is used, the erT'\Ployee shall be attached thereto with a safety bel t and life line equipped with an effecti ve de:.~cent control device. 3 Removal of existing pole wall. a) The top 6-7 feet of the existing backfill excavated by a worker who is pr'otected as 1) attached by safety harness and Ilne to pounds in any direction, and 2) attached to retrieval tripod. b) Retrieval tripod will be ~nimum three 8' long sch 40 steel pipe with hand winch. Hand winch capacity is 1800 Ibs with 2 way motion. Retrieval rope will be ultimate test of 2700 lbs. c) Once upper backfill is removed, the top portion of existing wall will be cut and removed by crane. behind the pole wall shall be follows: anchor with pullout capacity of 5400 ~ Pacific Geo Service, Inc. " . ~ RÐJUlREME1fI'S ~LEY BLUFF SrABILIZATION m8cr page 2 " . ~. d) .T~p row of tiebacks will be lnstalled. e) Lower porLon of backfill will then De n:;¡noved with worker secured as outline in items 1) and 2) above. f) Bottom portion of existing wall will be cut and removed by crane. g) Bottom row of tiebacks will be installed. h) Bluff face will be stabilized during drilling by chain link mesh. 4. Miscellaneous safety items a) Weekly job safety meeting is required of all employees on work site. b) Every employee is required to wear a hardhat on the job site. c) Unsafe work practices or unsafe conditions must be brought to the attention of the job superintendent immediately. d) A ~nimum of two (but preferably three) radios will be operational on the site when men are working on the bluff face and/or when crane is in operation. e) Provide protection at top of vertical protruding reinforcing bars. f) Bluff face will be stabi lized during dd 11 ing by chain link mesh. g) All Subcontractors are required to attend job safety meetings and comply with the safety requirements of this job s:t.e. 5. Drilling Procedure a) Once crane is in position and drill basket has been tested, secure drill and drilling equipment in basket. b) Lift basket and workers to drill location. c) Drillers will install two (2) short soil anchors to secure drill basket for crowding during dri 11 operation. d) Drill tieback, all auger and tools shall be in basket. e) Once drilling is completed, auger is pulled. the basket shall be detached fram the short soil anchors. f) During entire operation, drillers wL ~ ::~e in radio contact with the crane operator and full-time spotter. g) Repeat ite7S b) thru f). 6. Placement of Reintorc8nent on Bluff Face a) Once tiebacks are in place and bluff face ~las chainlink mesh covering it, place vertical bars with bottom ends grouted in at base of vertical section. (see wall base detail, Sheet 3). b) Tieback anchorage reinforcement shall be fabricated above and lowered in place by crane. Anchorage reinforcement shall be tied off to temporary soil nails and secured from above, c) Workers on bluff face shall have approved harness gear. d) Workers shall be 1) attached by safety harness and line to anchor with pullout capacity of 5400 pounds in any direction, and 2) attach~] to retrieval tripod. 7 Recordkeeping on Site a) Daily inspection records shall be kept on the crane, basket, site conditions, personnel harness equipment, and job safety meetings. b) Harnesses, lanyards, ropes, and other personal equipment shall be inspected each day of use. c) Crane shall be inspected and maintained on daily basis. d) Basket shall be inspected and maintai~ed on daily basis. e) Site conditions shall be inspected by job superintendent on daily basis. Pacific Geo Service, ~ Inc. , Pacific Geo servl, Inc. r 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (800) 479-4436 (619) 729-5699 Fax Uc. No. 507952 November 7, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: RESUBMITTAL OF ENGINEERED DRAWINGS/CALCS FOR ENTIRE BLUFF BRADLEY PROPERTY BLUFF STABILIZATION 2628-GR 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE Dear Mr. Shields, Here is the revised plans and calculations for the Bradley project. I have discussed the mid- and lower-slope design with Leslie Ewing, Coastal Engineer for Coastal Commission, From her response, I think we are heading in the right direction at this point. In this plan and calculation package, we present the following items: 1. Revised calculations and drawings for upperbluff tieback wall. a. Footing and drainage swale at base of upperbluff wall. ~-4) b. Swale will drain to bottom of bluff. (5-4> \ c. Reinforcement for cantilever at top and bottom of wall.~-~~~flh~) d. Plan view of tiebacks. (5-2.) e. Soil engineer's certificate on structural drawings.($-~ 2. Middle bluff protection with soil nails and mesh. (S-4) . 3. Lower bluff protection: shotcrete wall at base of cove with riprap out to front of cove. ~-~ We are submitting revised calculations and drawings to both your department and to the CCC San Diego District Office. Please let us know how we can expedite the process. I would be happy to arrange a meeting to resolve any additional items. [2Œ@ŒO\VJŒrnJ NOV 0 8 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS c c: Co â4--i~ C-Ð W\W\ ENGINEERING DEPT. '" ~û;'"'f ~Ff ('~ - ANt: ~az.. ~ f3Æðr ~ f. ~ ~e. e? e '7 fU.11 tP Ii CD <D @) ~ @) 6) @) ( ~ ~ f'. 'Z t"t?rZ.- ~ 11 t?W7 ) LA'{]:fA1,. rz~!.tu. reo"" Aetll/~ ý,j'fOðJ't:. ~ f?1E øm~¡.l$p ~'1 /"'" ~ 4.- - t).//1::/,1' II], '2 I .. l-t~erK~H I ::: ð.E!I "lit) "'0,2$11/' == 4(8 ~ IPr if- ~ 5U~AI!.t:Þé .- /coxo.4 :=: 40 P5"/,:, -/// , I I ~ Ht:7e.¡2:0I'ITAL. Fx=(!t1',8#'.1 .,.4.1/3 X!fz .J.. 40~1..5 )."'0 = 3'51-0 / P5StJ/t/J IN G¡ A /5 % f-.¿,JS f ¡:}xD/tJJ:!.. nt-/(;tE c:;. ~I !l ¡.¡ at æ.. fht:! ?fE = I<.. 3~5 4- ¡( ((p,Oc¡ ) == 41, Z Jt:- 0.8.5 G , {1:/'!.. 1'~i 13::p~É!-T (vIEt: I9r17-Jc-Hýf')[7Jí) BONO ~PAI3/(..lr'( p.>1!. . ~"t:þ (j¡1!ð«í ($ 1,5~ . pt»?8"4 (J~rI6 IJ5(~)- 2"'/':7 I BONQ t...eNVrII te& 0 (;/' cþ t;rollí: 4ÎJ 2 It. ~/, S for r... .. - :::.,/ rD - k5 "i; ð" 1 (Pl!~í' 73' 4- 7- 2 IL.:=: 2'J. (¡; '1 Z K.,t, u~ 84> (o(zoù¡ { t?,,~)Q ~~ tt . '\ ð. K- Ie:- r~~ k::>AI? ~ I. ~"~1,'Z :=:. 70. ~ II..fI c_- 1l- IL. 1'- roe. I Cot' ír\eEAb&e. "1f'K ,Apo;> ~Q1.? ~ <::>,8 ==- 10 ~ ~ 70, ð, t.. (~c:; I~O~I) (q~p::; FtI~ 4 Aj,4-J ~ IÆ. '1' ,Iì"" .~ ~VJl""~Url.~ I j:1f!"'-' I : c:;~e=~ l.~tt I- r:::1/,rt ,ðcj1~N Q. 1z:'>f' or VI k'- \.. '. he Fn rt; Çj' Surc.horðfe 40 f5" - O.I~:: 1,J!, ~~I ~, T:91 ~ ~tßtf. ~ H .. I ==¿>..8.t Ilc?tO,Z, t2b =- (çl!p P"'Ï ñ , I I I '1./ ~ð~í.C2 ~p .At-IC::~ðl2. LINE"" t CPI-GoýZ.& (.(~,Zf-~2,f!J) ~ Ú/(Pl'2.:Z/Z == Z10'Z -r I4-CoÎ -- 500 = 4c.îD I.~ .' , , I' I"ns.V\ Z r:k-? \ G ¡.J rfì I~/N (;( ::: l.î .,I 4.(01 = 'Î.Q4 b~ (z.." d = 1.':711 ~tA. ~ 14~ au",- 4'Î~ Å?:::: 0.4-' U¿;J! ,tt 4~ ún I?oT:ro ~ ð F WAt.L Wk1-\.. t>MI! M ~~¿rNJ ANet-jot..E (..,...£ At?!? !3",-^I"t Œ '11 f'Jð ~tJ T' L..~Vt:::-12. ,Â-Cf10N '2- / I-I£- -/Iu ðLI..1 CCPlv+4°)¡t~/8 ='3440 lo""-I'2'loI.",.¿-,'7" ~ ~ 11~ ¿Ä~= 4'31 M(~~- t!,'f¿ I~/F-¡ A~ ;ttl 1\ \J."'"ll!- ~I ~t,,). í~ IZ 6 ",-It + 40 .,&:)'2-/2- 8 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 FAX: (619) 729-5699 DATE: TIME: F A X TRANSMITTAL ATTENTION: ~~>¡ .._:1ß~b re:J3~J~ number of pages includin9 cover sheet . ~ .f.!.1Sr ~ \. ~C- l.E-~ \ A~v-. I D!~~ j REMARKS: W L ~~ ~~I ~+\v~ f\~S <¡!ry;) Wð\<\..- t..- t'"(Rd,~ - .., -.---- --_.._-_._-~-- BY; ~IJ'~ ~~ ~~~ Pac1fic Geo Service, T ,..,. . ..... ';:.69£6:::.¿E.,9 '-='UI 'S~d . . f~ Inc, , 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 496-6363 Uc. No. 507952 October 21, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: NEED FOR EMERGENCY PERMIT & PROPOSED COVENANT EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEVICE, UPPER BLUFF BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE Dear Mr. Shields, To recap our tel econ 0... R\t:.laï 0 The California Coastal Commission (CCc) denied our Coastal Development Permit application on 10/08/91. The Special Conditions attached to our application by CCC Staff were only partially addressed. It appeared to me that the denial was more of a general statement that 1) the City, the County, and State Legislature need to address the general shoreline problems on the South Coast; 2) the lead agency (City of Encinitas) needs to have their coastal plan intact before applicants come to the CC; and 3) the City needs to decide how to protect the private property and infrastructure along the bluff. 0 Leslie Ewing, Coastal Engineer for CCC stated that the upper bluff at the Bradley residence "could go at any time." 0 Peter Douglas, Exec. Dir. of CCC, stated that "When I visit the site, I see an emergency. Even if the Commission denies this permit application, staff is still inclined to issue an emergency permit." 0 Legal Council to CC told commissioners and Mr. Douglas that the CC would not have liability if an emergency permit were denied. As I understand the issues affecting the Grading Permit and Emergency Permit, the solution lies in our developing a timeline to complete project design submission, permit issuance, and construction so the different agencies and their consultants are relieved of future \ 4IÞ BRADLEY BLUFF STABILIZAT4IÞ PROJECT page 2 liability if no subsequent work is done by the current or future owners. I hereby submit a revised covenant for the property that will include some of the Special Conditions contained in the 9/24/91 Staff Recommendations on our Coastal Development Permit Application to the California Coastal commission. COVENANT A covenant that may be agreeable to the city, the Coastal Commission, and the owner could be as follows: la. Within one (1) year of granting (grading/emergency permit) applicant(s) shall submit General Use Permit application for processing with the City of Encinitas for any and all necessary City permits required for lower- and mid-bluff stabilization devices. For the purposes of this permit, the application process shall include grading permit, major use permit, and any processing required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). lb. Within two (2) years of granting (grading/emergency permit) the applicant(s) shall provide evidence of receipt of all necessary local discretionary permits and shall submit a completed application for coastal development permit for lower- and mid-bluff protection. This application and supporting documents shall include an alternatives analysis discussing all feasible alternatives for lower- and mid-bluff protection. Alternatives shall be identified which minimize the encroachment onto sandy beach areas at the base of the bluff and which minimize visual impacts of the structures. Said alternatives analysis may include alternatives generated during the CEQA review process. ~ Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 4IÞ BRADLEY BLUFF STABILIZAT~ PROJECT page 3 lc. Within three (3) years of granting (grading/emergency permit), construction of the lower- and mid-bluff structures shall commence. ld. Failure on the part of owner/applicant to meet any of the identified milestones shall render this grading/emergency permit and any associated emergency permits invalid and may result in the removal of structures authorized under this grading/emergency permit through future enforcement actions. If it is determined by the (Building Official or Executive Director) that the milestones identified in this permit are infeasible, the applicant may seek to modify the imposed deadlines through an amendment to this permit. As you know, the existing property and structure are at severe risk. We need to proceed with the construction work on site. I hope we can resolve these permit processing issues before long. Thank you for your thoughtful cooperation on this difficult project. Sincerely, Pacific Geo ~ President CC: Sherilyn garb, Paul Webb: Coastal Commission ~ Pacific Geo Service, Inc. I 1 .~ .. 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 49&-6363 Lie. No. 507952 October 7, 1991 Paul Webb Coastal Commission San Diego Coast District Office 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS Application No.: 6-91-233 Bradley residence, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Mr. Webb, Our response to the Special Conditions listed in the staff Report dated 9/24/91 follows. la. Within one (1) year of the date of Commission action, the applicants shall submit evidence of that the application process has begun with the City of Encinitas for any and all necessary City permits required for lower- and mid-bluff stabilization devices. For the purposes of this permit, the application process shall include grading permit, major use permit, and any processing required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). lb. Within two (2) years of Commission action, the applicants shall provide evidence of receipt of all necessary local discretionary permits and shall submit a completed application for coastal development permIt or amendment to this permit for lower- and mid-bluff protection. This application and supporting documents shal~ include an alternatives analysis discussing all feasible alternatives for lower- and mid-bluff protection. Alternatives shall be identified which minimize the encroachment onto sandy beach areas at the base of the bluff and which minimize visual impacts of the structures. Said alternatives analysis may include alternatives generated during the CEQA review process. -2-. 4. Omit. fjJELL-El_£i.Il~_19I... LIpp€?r J31JJJJ--~t9J;?i 1 t~~Jj. on . . . 7 . , . . -aftè:. {;.fte- '5-i-t:-e ~ 'fT&t, -b-e- :3 U i t û b I c ~"8:ftj'- f u t u r e rcàc~clo~mcnt c~cn upon çomplet~ofl ~ ~ :3horclinc atructurca. . . . ... 8 BRADLEY BI,UFF STABILeTION page 2 We have not had time to review this document with Ms. Bradley's attorney, which I am sure you understand the need for. We will appear at the 10/08/91 meeting in Monterey as planned. Sincerely, Pacific Geo Service, 1::t ~ President Inc. . Pacific GeO~erVice, ~ Inc. 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 496--6363 Uc. No. 507952 October 7, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: SECURITY DEPOSIT for 2628-GR EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEVICE, UPPER BLUFF BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE Dear Mr. Shields, In accordance with sections 30.34.020E 5d and Sf, we, the contractor, are providing an estimate for removal of debris from the beach. Our work for upper bluff stabilization will include removal of existing wood pole walls and related debris from the top and mid sections of the slope. We will not need beach access to complete this operation. In addition to the tiebacks we will be installing, the only materials we will import to the site are rebar and concrete. The quantity of shotcrete we will use for bluff face protection is approximately 70 cubic yards. None of this material should roll to the beach. If removal of any debris from the beach is necessary, my estimate includes the use of one 928 Cat front end loader and two 10 cy dump trucks for one day. Over 60 cubic yards of debris could be moved in one day, far in excess of any potential need. The cost for equipment and labor is $2500. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pacific Geo Service, Inc. ~~ President . . , 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 496-6363 Uc. No. 507952 fõ)ŒŒŒDWŒill \Jù SEP 2 6 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. September 25, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: RESPONSE TO WILLDAN ASSOCIATES COMMENTS DATED 8/15/91 BLUFF STABILIZATION, BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE Dear Mr. Shields, Enclosed are our resubmittals for plan check. Willdan Associates' comments follows. The response to 1. Tieback wall location as shown on Ken Long's sheet 1 differs from the '89 soils report because the upper wall failed. See updated soils correspondence (3/27/91 and 7/16/91) and "extent of failure", grading plan (Sheet 1) by Ken Long. 2. See Owen letter dated 9/23/91 and Universal Structures's calculations. 3. See Universal Structures's calculations. 4. See US calculations. 5. Our source for performance testing (to 200%) and proof load testing (to 120%) is Tiebacks by D.E. Weatherby (enclosed). We have kept the three performance tests at 200% and increased the proof load tests to 150% (see tieback schedule, Sheet 3) in accordance with the FHWA Tieback Manual. Sincerely, Pacific G 0 ~J' President encl: OWEN 3/27/91 re: slope failure 7/16/91 update 9/23/91 re: US letter 9/23/91 re: meeting 9/17/91 UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES: 9/08/91 TIEBACKS by USDT/Weatherby 1 ~' 8 "8 ow:" CONSULTN~TS ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 8 September 23, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Pacific Geo SeIVice, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Douglas Jacobsen Subject: RESPONSE TO LEITER BY UNIVERSAL STRUCTURES DATED SEPT. 8, 1991 BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR References: 1. "Repair Plans for Bradley Residence Bluff Protection, Encinitas, California, Sheet 3 of 3," prepared by Ken Long, dated July 10, 1991. 2. Letter prepared by Universal Structures, regarding Bradley Bluff Repair Design Analysis, dated September 8, 1991. 3. "Geotechnical Update Report, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California:' prepared by Owen Consultants, dated July 16, 1991. Dear Mr. Jacobson: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above letter (Reference 2) and provide the following response to items and issues of concern put forth by the review consultant, Willdan Associates. ResDonse to Item 1: We are in agreement with the utilization of trapezoidal distribution for the tie-back repair design analysis. ResDonse to Item 2: We are in agreement with the utilization of a surcharge value of 40 pounds per square foot representing the load associated with the existing single-story residence. 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD. SAN DIEGO, CA 'i2131 f,L l619) ö95-31S0 FAX (619) 6\.':)j1~:<', OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPOr<[ Sf:ACH. AND SAcrlAMENro. CALIFORNI.A ,~ ¥8 8 8 ON.:N CONSULT ANl S Pacific Geo SelVice Inc. September 23, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Page 2 ReSDonse to Item 3: Preliminary pullout testing of 6 inch tie-backs was performed as part of our soil strength and skin friction evaluation. Based on this field testing a design value of 900 pounds per square foot of bonded surface was recommended for design purposes (Reference 3). This soil value was obtained utilizing a factor-of-safety of 2.0 equating a 50 percent reduction of actual tie- back pull-out field test results. It is our opinion the factor of 2.0 is adequate for analysis. However, we recommend additional performance testing of individual tie-backs will be performed during construction. Furthermore, should a larger diameter (8 inch) tie-back be considered an increased load capacity proportional to the increase in bonded surface area (i.e., surface area of 6 inch tie-back per foot equals 1,57 ft. 2 and surface area of 8 inch tie-back per foot equals 2.1 ft.2) could be anticipated. This opportunity to be of selVice is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS ~ "/)1. /4-u-. GREGORY M. KAREN Project Geologist " ~~, \.~) II Ic( / <. .( JERRY L. MICHAL Senior Project Engineer RCE 42590 Expiration 3-31-92 GMKjJLM:ms Attachments Copies: (2) Addressee .. 8 . OW.iNCONSULTANTS ENGINEERS, ARCHITEcrS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 8 September 23, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Pacific Geo Services, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Doug Jacobson Subject: RESPONSE TO ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING SITE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: 1. "Repair Plans for Bradley Residence Bluff Protection, Encinitas, California, Sheet 3 of 3," prepared by Ken Long, dated July 10, 1991. 2. Letter prepared by Universal Structures, regarding Bradley Bluff Repair Design Analysis, dated September 8, 1991. 3. "Geotechnical Update Report, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," prepared by Owen Consultants, dated July 16, 1991. Dear Mr. Jacobson: In accordance with our discussion during the September 17, 1991 meeting with Coastal Commission Representatives, we provide the following response to issues regarding the proposed bluff repairs at the subject site: Issue 1: What is the anticipated life expectancy of the proposed tie~back "emergency repair" system, assuming a delay in the construction of the recommended lower bluff stabilization repairs? Response: A specific life expectancy of the proposed engineered tie-back system cannot be determined. However, based on our knowledge of the site conditions 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 TEL: (619) 695-3150 FAX: (619) 695-3153 OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH, AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA . OW:N CONSULTANTS 8 8 Pacific Geo Services, Inc. September 23, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Page 2 and proposed repairs, the engineered tie-back system may be expected to provide stability to the upper bluff in the absence of a lower bluff repair for a period in excess of 3 to 5 years and is dependant on weather factors. Issue 2: What is the justifications for the proposed stabilization of the bluff areas adjacent the adjoining unimproved lot? Response: During our formulation of the proposed emergency repairs we considered the feasibility of a limited width repair of the upper bluff. However, it is our recommendation that the planned emergency repairs encompass the full bluff width as proposed. This recommendation was determined after consideration of the following concerns/issues: * The necessity to remove all unstable remnants of the previous post and board repairs. The limits of the existing failure area and remaining unstable repair materials encompass the full width of the bluff (except 15 feet along the north portion bluff). The necessary removal of these materials will return the bluff to its pre-construction over steepened and unstable state at which point stabilization will be required. * The concern for future bluff instability as a result of continued erosion and bluff retreat in over steepened areas adjacent a limited bluff repair, It is our opinion that the long term stability of the upper bluff would be jeopardized if a partial width repair was to be constructed. Longitudinal retreat of the bluff top resulting from on-going inland bluff retreat has the potential to detrimentally impact the Bradley residence, planned slope repairs, and adjoining property improvements Issue 3: What type of stabilization repair has been proposed to be constructed along the lower bluff? Response: As outlined previously in our earlier report (Reference 3), several methods of repair have been proposed. Options proposed by Owen to-date , . 8 8 C7N:N CONSULTANTS Pacific Geo Services, Inc. September 23, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Page 3 consist of a rubble mound seawall, and a reinforced concrete stepped-face seawall. Additionally, other potential options under consideration consist of Bolsacretta Wave De-Energizer made entirely of 4,000 psi colored concrete or stacked rip-rap (see attached Figures 1 and 2). Middle sections of the slope are proposed to be stabilized utilizing soil anchors and reinforced mesh or suitable alternates. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS ~44t./~ GREGORY M. KAREN Project Geologist GMKlJLM:ms _~~.tl.L':j i. 1)Il-cJ,~¡i 1ERRY L. MICHAL Senior Project Engineer RCE 42590 Expiration: 3-31-92 Attachments Copies: (3) Addressee QE~ŒR^l NOTES All r..'nforco<,..."t sl),,11 b.. grad.. 60, ,1.11 t;...b..ç~ ,'O¡,-,for'Cf<'.>(>Clt ~h")'1 b.. 9r-!"~" 1~D !c 1 \ cor,cr"t" "..",.forc....,....,.,t ~h" J ¡ ~" ,,~'o"Y co..t~d, All tiob~c~ to"d~~$ ah.ll b.. dovbl. corro,ion Dro~~<t~d t.ll ,-oc</.",l DC\chör~ .h..ll ¡", "po~y co..t",d, 4\1 ",otcrQt.. .h..11 "ttl>.i,., ""ro\r.""" }OOO pol ~ lð oj"),, ~,11 ."otc'<)tf; .",,11~.. cc'\orod ",r,ðr, p'"cod to .....to:!' ...~¡~~"'" ~oji I, St;,o: ",)°, .""111;,,, "PC'"y co~t""-,, , , 3 { ~, G, ,~ r: , I :~ --~-t-- - t -'>- -- , ,-- I T- \ -----j¡ I ..J.._--, ' , ,L..~_~- ," '. ~ : , r\E~~,CK AI-< H{ICK p~ CHaRS .HoD .. ;,~ I "fORCED" & .. 1?" "",_~KOTCS¡EH: jF--- -"-,, ,~( '!I-------~ Ir--- r' :,' ! " -- " '" ' , , '" ) ----------.... ----- .0 "..,-,.-.",ÜC:KI ----- , " ," "" ~ , t,' ,"fICHC"' l "IiCl"O~r ' /" '~~ .. ' . eo,' 00"" - ",' /,' , '~"IEIJP "E(S[C ,<4',<3' <: ~-~ .." "' -'0' oc ,," /_0_" .. 0 o' 0 . "'O."A"/ I L .'~ //' / ,," ,/ " 'W' r ~ " ~"""""",,"'.o""""" ~~. .."."1' ~/ ' .' " ,.- . . ' 0 .....o~i:~:::-J' . .~.' .. - .._"o..~ l,OlS...,'R o. . g - ~/"'" i,;",.m ".. 0 . '" ._~ '__0 ,'_' 0 ,.~..1 M, ~.I MU~) .ED <.;GI<C ,- =::::::t. ' . -.. ..~ ~_.r. j '-.. " , - -- - -- _n, ',.. ~~-,.',-----'" ..-'- - "------, ,- £," , ~ ,,' ---~ -",::,=,---::>-__0":.. ,0' .. '~,., ' ...,.:.--:t:: " '/ "",,0 -' Co, " , I k::~;:::~:"'~~:'L.:i;:~~::,,{ +------------. . ' - 0 , ,0 0 , ' 0 ~-y~,....-<;t] , r '1 -"0 , 0' r, 1 , , '. ,,' [ , , " " \ '" ," . " ; ": , ',' /y, " 0 , " - , C_~_~b~_~_- ~-j 2--~"-~' fiE I~JFORC£O SHOíC";\ETE COLOqED TO ~^TCH BLUfF -"KD "Þ/CHORS COVERED tj! ~Oi)U]ER <'I/ISI' O/'; UCFT EIPOSED FOR RETESTINO <,' ,-) EtEV~,YIOtJ 'IIEW SC,I,U:: "'010' <t~(tG~. $I!!'CT 1<:». $!OM!!: 1":r 10' LL_Lf_~L_,_f FIGURE 1 ßRADLEY RESIDENCE ~60 NEP1UNE AVENUE, BLUFf S7~,~llIl~~OI¡ OPT I o~ 1 PHASE 1: I'HASF. 2: 50lL In.Qf~!'.Ht' OIiI~ÞOi 0(»(5\J-ì,í.l,PiTS. 5A~ DIEGO U¡GI K 1 T¡>.$. C~l1FORI'111>. CO~¡ HtJ,CTOR , P "C 1 'f I (~ QJ¿ 0 S O\'\t ~. I N{; . \ 19 t 1-U<:mD1. l" Þ.~Wl "....1 ,,~rJ, 1'..10 "'t-ftM REINFORCED SHOTCnETE W! TJEðACK ^~CHORS ROCK/SOil IIKCHORS WITH f>y<, roOJ.'FO (',Hltl' ",¡( STRUCTU~AL l"QIN€fR 8 I j('ot;' I f 1- ~ 0 ¡ 1- &0 I I 1- 7 C I I' f' > I) i .ü ¡- ~' 3~ ! l, 10 I I I ) [) I. 0 t ~- "------------ 1- ---.-' i---------'T è~ J! \ -j---~ U_," -P-'---íf---ìL..-J j~ ti !i 1:- 11 I, \1 --, I- 1'- 1! JL if- !tj~-~l\ -i1 i)un ¡¡--~:I'I I J~-- 'I ¡\ I !L_--. L~f-- L- --I) I' ! ~I 1 I' Ir-- ]1- : 'I J 1_- :1=__- L- -JL_-l., --- li-- - --V--F---lr---T! l} - 11 - -il - U - \1 - ;; l: ;! :r ¡: 'i if- I' u 1,. I It i ¡; " ,(.'u_- '. ~ -ll -"-~-.I.. - :.f IL- 11 t' ¡ J' II L , . Il Ii-un j: - ¡ - - t WI '\ ~. " il II !i I :: ,J If- -. J¡ - ¡:- ~~ -J,---_IJ_----).:____"L".. '" 11 1 ~ 1\ 'I 1- -¡I- I 1, If ¡f -- " I I 1 i t . '.. . . . /JV- . .. . . . / -~. . j£ÿ-"Ç,.3~'" .// .;-- ,-- ~~:r-{<C(_~:~9-c/ ,- ~---- ~r~ . ~- ~ " ------ ~ -( r.yV~~~-" r'tt ' :( ----y---< ~ - \ ' \(~r-Æ' ~~ -)~jv-- ./'--)~ , , ----....------L--T-'c '~-~)""\_.J'- /',7 r -< T,_-=,,-,,- - t'-. __1'-_) tLEVATIO., V IEIR SCALf:: ,.. = 10' I BR^DtéY RESIDE~C[ 5&0 N£PTUllt Avr,.lIE, EI-'CI~ITÅS, C^L.lFOI!~ìA. SLUfF S'A6ILIZATON OP1\ON 1 PHASE 1: H--aEAM RETA~~INO WhLl DL.A<" " """. I",.", HJi""""'H "n"'J ~U,","NH~O H--~("h ~,ft' ¡-'Lt~ "J ~- 10' X ¡;" nl'c~ CúcORõD C~AfT! PÃNEl~ .qE I 'IPOKC".~ 'VJ (f>O;:Y ,--:OJ,TED ;:¡EBA~ . ' goer/SOiL ANCHORS W/ f,- H<ICK 1;::illrORCED SHO'fCRE.:E Co-IER RVBeL~ ~\OU"lO OR ¡¡ If-RAP SE"'I'I"ll- FIGURE 2 (H'.';"'£L DÞ~v - 1- ~~ .--.---- ,~"f t II "-,,~ ! J~')'f..,---,- iT---ii__~ ----~-~-/----------------- $T H -. En- PI' ----- . EH5f[;[)E LF.~ 10 ~-tl ---"-- ro-H<'IATlg~l~' INT~'C"'::.--_'{JI.¡ ~.-~,<:...~ ------~----- ¡ -- v -- -- --~------------ V ----.- /k --, /~ ' ' "" CAOt S"SECT I OH ßCAU:: 1"<10' CO~Tf("CT<)J1 : PACIfiC ßEO SER','IŒ, I'~C- 119G M~a*OL^ A"'(~ CÀNlS8~n. Ck ~?~œ 0 20 U--L......L.-J 1 I 1 ~1f S-O I l flHJ HI E r; A' Q'l(fl1 CO",SUlTI>.I<TS, S-'N DIEGO STIWCTU!lAl F:1i<3 I NE£R: . --- r :r;¡: I I H .- .. -' C'~ . , , i ; !' I , r I I l I l ,~ ,r; ) ~1 . t UNIV.ERSAL ~TRUCTURES ~ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT 8.111 Va. De ... Vd8 Del M_. CA 9281.. . .(tlt)1tNI12 FAX 259-6670 September 8, 1991 Mr. Douglas Jacobson, President Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505, Fax 729-5699 Re: Bradley Residence, Encinitas Dear Mr. Jabcobson, In order to respond to the review comments by Willdan Associates~ we need statement from Owens Engineering, Inc. to address the following issues. a 1. Lateral soil pressures for two or more rows of tiebacks is in trapezoidal distribution, see also attached sheet. ~ "'\ IP.I 'f K~ H C(~ flO~: K.... ::: ð', 2~) ~,~ 2. Use of surcharge of 40 psf of the existing single story residence is acceptable. , 3. The pullout test capacity of 1.5 kips/ft. conducted by your company using 6"0 grouted hole can be proportionately increased to 2 kips/ft for 8"0 grouted hole for actual designs. In fact, the trapezoidal pressure distribution will result in less anchoring forces as indicated in the summary table. . We shall be ready to. resubmit the revised calcu¡ations soon after receiving the response from Mr. Jerry Michael. , I ¡ i i . ! \ I I. i' , . \..:) ~ ~ .:-{ .~ , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~' .J ~ . .J ~ .q '"' <) N 'W (L a: ~ : i.."." '- , . " ;, ". , i ;, II? ~ .~ -+- cJ ' oJ ,I/? ~~ .. 00 ' ,<\I t\ II If :t: ... . :z: Ò - .. J-¥t -D " I ':) - 0 V) qJ IV.- Q.: A.." -r,; .' ~., , , , . 8 - 0'" ~. --1 ':1: .... ò 4~ N 00 nJr\Ì /I It ~ :r - Ò - <F- , Ò ~ -i H-i I I ¡ I ' ~ " 8~ '-..# ::r v G "! 0 - '-' ^ <) ... ~ '" ' ()) .~ ~ ~. >0 ~ r~Ù' i ..... ,~ . . 0.... ~. * l "I ~ fí 1,"1 ,* .~ , .... >S ~ a> i -8. ~ . """'" . Î ~ ~ ~ 'i- II, i Q..~ ~ l II ci - ¡ I"" 'I. i - ,~ ~ . :t k " 'J1 I ~ ~ ~ ò I' 4- '-J i (l~ ~ . <t ¡; II - ,;~. j, } 1-- .s ...0 .\, ..' t""'\ ........ .~ ~ -, ~ f ~ J ~ 0' ~ ...~ ¡.... .}ì " R: ~ II 0:- t Q.~ r:t ,. -14..~ Q,.,'fI .::J;: ~ --. ~ " $, ~ -.I ..-1 ð 7.. hi 1 lJ fi1 - -i') I 1ttH+ ..(" ..... CJ ï 4- ... ';' '- "'"' ':t " ,..." - If) 1\1 . 0 ....., ",? v ~ d - -41\1 II r¡ 0- '-' -"'""' :r .J XI 00 -,$ - -trt ....., 1/ (l.~ II a.:.~ II CL ft) \I 0... ~ , ~ --, '-'--"Hl . , : ~..)ð . \-= -0-- \-!' -0-- ~ , :'01' . -::; Ii) .¡:,~ .~' . : i '~,;'i'\.. ~ 0 , ': : . 'e,(') - . . , ..' .."..-- II D! " a: .... f ..... ~ ~ '" ~ -....; . j i ~ ~ " ... ~ ~,~ ~ ....... l'.~ .... ~'", t -- ..s:: + " - ~ 4- 0 ~ ~ ..() ........ ~ , II ~. ~ ~ .~ ~ ] :ïJ ~ '," ~ Q ~~ ~:§ ~ '" $ .... \. ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~~. éš \j ~ .. .- ..-. . KENNETH LONG - CIVIL .INEERING 527 N. Hwy. 101 (Suite E) SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075 Phone 481-7866 jjf.ÞcOINZ¡, f'[,A~ Jf~, ,~ kt,i. " ng,\QIJNq , "'I"""""'."'" , Ú,?Jt,. 'l'Ø, k.. f. 1HDTt.ge,fe. 1fA WALL ~.~, PROOUC12Q4.IIN-ifB~¡,nc, Crolo', Mas< 01471 JOB-~@~14¿1 ( V¡~O ~gru~t. ÑJ~) SHEET NO, - OF 1- CALCULA TED BY ~O f,Jtt DATE 1 ~ 't '[;~ c1 ( CHECKED BY DATE_~~ 07 -41 .'flJ/. SCALE -- - ~ $t~ ~6 &t6J ."'" , $(ðð 1fIIÓD ~ !OO,OðO ~ IDI,"lOó &1Ufl~ØI(..(I()t) t) ð If. íðl~L. 4" 16f., Z{ 1, æ ~ s~p ~ ~ ~~ tID CITY OF ENCINITAS OEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENG\NEER\NG DEPT. -.J 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 49&-6363 Uc. No. 507952 July 18, 1991 Greg Shields Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PROJECT: TIMELINE FOR EMERGENCY (GRADING) PERMIT BLUFF STABILIZATION, BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE Dear Mr. Shields, At our last meeting on 6/07/91, you suggested I provide a timeline for processing the Grading Permit. As I understand, the plans and soils report/addenda are reviewed by your independent geotechnical consultant and engineering plan checker. I hope it is reasonable to request that the preliminary review of the plans and soils reports be completed in two weeks. I would be happy to meet anyone from your office at the site for clarification of what we are proposing. Please let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, ~~ President IõJŒ @ Œ 0 WI Œffi) Uü JUL 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. iii.. ., 8 8 . OW.iN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS July 18, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Pacific Geo Services, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Douglas Jacobsen Subject: ALTERNATE SLOPING PLAN BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA Reference: 1. "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," prepared by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. 2. "Bradley Residence Bluff Protection Plans," prepared by Universal Structures, dated July 10, 1991. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we are providing an alternate sloping plan for the bluff repair at the subject residence. The alternate sloping plan has been prepared following a review of the referenced report and a site visit to the subject property. The site description is as stated in Reference 1 with the exception of a partial slope failure that has occurred in the central portion of the bluff adjacent to the residence. The location and extent of the failure is shown on Sheet 1 of Reference 2. Cross sections of the subject site are shown in Reference 1 and on Sheet 2 of Reference 2. A slope stability analysis has been performed on current site conditions and is included as Appendix B. The Alternate Sloping Plan is included as Appendix A. 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 TEL (619) 695-3150 FAX: (619) 695-3153 OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH. AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA . aNållCONSULTANTS 8 8 Pacific Geo Services, Inc. July 18, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Page 2 This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS ð ~UCf ö!. /71 ~í:" JERRY L. MICHAL Senior Project Engineer RCE 42590 Expiration 3-31-93 JLM:ms Attachment 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DMSION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 7807 CONVOY COURT, SUITE 140 SAN DIEGO, CA 9211 (619) 237-7325 ALTERNATE SLOPING PLAN (TO BE PREPARED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ENGINEER) 1. Date: July 17, 1991 Job Site Address: 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Project Description: Construction of bluff protection Max Depth: -.l2....ft. Max Width: ---1Q!Lft. Proposed Slope Angle: variable horizontal to 1 vertical 6. Soils Report Recommendation: N/A horizontal to 1 vertical 7. Soils Report Prepared by: Martin R. Owen RCE # 23155 8. Soils Safety Factor. 0.901 (critical failure surface) 9. Water Content: NjA 10. Water Table Elevation: At greater then 100 feet below top of slope 11. Dewatering Well Required? (Yes/No) No (If Yes, Describe Number and Locations) 12. Water Seeps, Springs or Perched Water? (Yes/No) No (If Yes, Describe) 13. Expose to Air, Sun or Water? (Yes/No): Yes (If Yes, Describe) Exposed to sun and air during construction 14. Drainage along Top and Face? (Yes/No) (If Yes, Describe) 15. Inclined Bedding Planes? (Yes/No) None observed (If Yes, Describe) 8 8 ALTERNATE SLOPING PLAN (Cont'd) 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 16. Clay Seams? (Yes/No) None observed (If Yes, Describe) 17. Soil Classification: Silty Sands (Terrace Deposits) (If Yes, Describe) 18. Fill Material (Documented)? (Yes/No) None in area of slope repair (If Yes, Describe) 19. Fill Material (Undocumented)? (Yes/No) Yes (If Yes, Describe) Fill materials to be removed during reconstruction of slope face. Differing Strata? (Yes/No) Yes (If Yes, Describe) Topsoils underlain by Terrace Deposits Excavation Method (Blasting, D-9 Cat) Hand excavation Male Corners (Yes/No) No (If Yes, Describe) Restrictions against using jackhammers, pneumatic tools or vibratory equipment in excavation (Yes/No) No vibratory equipment to be used in vicinity of slope face Underming-footings, etc; protection required? (Yes/No) No (If Yes, Describe) Cut Face Protection (mesh netting)? (Yes/No) Yes, chain link mesh to protect slope face Time Intervals for Top of Cut Inspection for Tension Cracks: Daily inspections Existing Underground Facilities? (Yes/No) No (If Yes, Describe) Adjacent Building? (Yes/No) Yes, but at greater than 5 feet from face of slope (If Yes, Describe Protection If Existing Footings Extend Below Bottom Of Proposed Excavation) New or Adjacent Excavation? No 8 8 ALTERNATE SLOPING PLAN (Cont'd) 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Describe Slope Protection From Rain: Soil berm at top of slope to direct rainfall runoff away from slope. Surcharge loading imposed by structures, spoil, or equipment? (Yes/No) None Overlaying material or stored materials? (Yes/No) None Restrictions against storing materials at top of cut? (Yes/No) (If Yes, Describe) Yes, no materials or stockpiles to be placed closer than 15 feet from top of slope Restrictions against positioning cranes, concrete trucks, pumper equipment, etc at top of cut? (Yes/No) Yes, no cranes, concrete trucks or other vehicles within 20 feet of top of slope Vibration from traffic, blasting etc.? (Yes/No) No x= 48 (per soils report) (35 pcf, unless soils report justifies other) BACKFILL INFORMATION: No backfill planned WATERPROOFING METHOD: (Yes/No) No a. Type - N/ A b. Precautions to take during application - N/A c. French Drain? (Yes/No) Yes, at base of qunite slope protection Provide Critical Circle Chart or Equivalent Slope Stability Analysis. See Appendix B. 8 * * PCSTABL5M * * 8 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 5/29/91 12:10 p.m. msd bradee.dat bradee.out bradee.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Bradley Slope Analysis X-section C-C' wi thout earthquake BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 60.00 34.00 63.00 2 2 34.00 63.00 66.00 68.00 2 3 66.00 68.00 70.00 84.00 2 4 70.00 84.00 86.00 96.00 1 5 86.00 96.00 112.00 110.00 1 6 112.00 110.00 124.00 128.00 1 7 124.00 128.00 135.00 143.00 1 8 135.00 143.00 138.00 156.00 1 9 138.00 156.00 145.00 161.00 1 10 145.00 161. 00 176.00 161.00 1 11 176.00 161.00 206.00 160.00 1 12 206.00 160.00 236.00 152.00 1 13 70.00 84.00 236.00 75.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. uni'wt. Intercept Angle 8 Constant Surface Pressure No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paramo (psf) No. 1 122.0 .0 .0 37.0 .00 .0 1 2 130.0 .0 2000.0 58.0 .00 .0 2 A critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft. and X = 70.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 135.00 ft. X = 210.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 25.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 70.00 84.00 2 92.17 95.56 3 113.31 108.90 4 133.29 123.93 5 151. 96 140.55 6 169.21 158.65 7 171.10 161.00 Circle Center At X = -59.3 ; Y = 359.0 and Radius, 303.9 *** 8 .90.1. *** 8 Individual data on the 12 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Li e width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load 'Jo. Ft(m) Lbs (kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs,(kg) Lbs (kg) 1 16.0 3571.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 6.2 2794.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 19.8 6893.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 1.3 401.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 10.7 9215.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 9.3 15754.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 1.7 3577.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 3.0 8313.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 7.0 23283.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 LO 7.0 20003.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 L1 17.2 23981.1 .0 .0 .0 . .0 .0 .0 .0 L2 1.9 271. 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 70.00 84.00 2 94.90 86.24 3 117.49 96.94 4 135.00 114.78 5 145.27 137.58 6 146.92 161. 00 Circle Center At X = 76.3 ; Y = 154.7 and Radius, 70.9 *** 1.153 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 70.00 84.00 2 94.87 86.52 3 118.68 94.17 4 140.36 106.60 5 158.98 123.28 6 173.72 143.48 7 181.' 160.82 8 Circle Center At X = 70.5 ; Y = 203.3 and Radius, 119.3 *** 1.204 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 70.00 84.00 2 94.62 88.37 3 118.39 96.11 4 140.85 107.08 5 161. 58 121. 07 6 180.16 137.79 7 196.24 156.93 8 198.32 160.26 Circle Center At X = 51.4 ' Y = 261.4 and Radius, 178.4 , *** 1. 289 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 70.00 84.00 2 94.84 86.80 3 118.86 93.75 4 . 141. 36 104.64 5 161. 70 119.18 6 179.30 136.93 7 193.66 157.39 8 195.07 160.36 Circle Center At X = 66.2 . Y = 230.9 and Radius, 146.9 , *** 1. 305 *** Failure Surface Specified By' 8 Coordinate Points , . 8 8 ~~ .STRUCTURAL CALCU LATIONS FOR A Bluff Top Protection At Bradley Residence >- . . Prepared for: Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, UA 92024 ,; Project Coordinator & Contractor: Mr. Douglas .\J<Lcobson, President Pacific Ceo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~.,"", : , Prepa red by: OOŒ@ŒITWŒ[ijJ SEP 2 6 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Universal Structures . 2770 VIA DE LA VALLE. SUITE 203 DEL MAR, CA. 92014 ( 6 1 9) 259 - 6122 ENGINEERING DEPT. '" Date: July 17, 1991 -- I, Ii I! !i I, I: Ii il , I I I' .1 I' ! I III rill I: .' 'I " I Ii ¡¡ I ¡ ~ 8 1"~t>N 14 8 I~ ~t.A11ðr-I Ñb, 't1 0 VI ~wFF QLI;-( I ,. . , ;,--/ / .' A"'; I' . . / ,I "IIU >~:~ , \-'yLf~,{~"~~~:~T-=-- ';,r ~ O~t.ß' I r il ~ff. I. rw f It ' \dí~~\A :ï:z¡ 'ï/ Wf' - <f ,Ik I: iIlTLr~' I ; --' ,I - J ,~ ~ ~'~ Ii-"" 111-+,...../ - ::"'::' ,I lit!. ,....... - ~ ,.,.... : IIIM'N 6/1O1t,""""" ...,' ",.,.- ~Iflt ,.I,! /E--- -I- -.;;;-: -' ""0"1 C(U~ r: :.... I , : "....r.., , "" -..,..,...'. M., .,', '..! "LI.~e.n: -,' I' 'f ¡oA' '-T"- -"'r ~ 0 ;/ , :: I -,":'-~I '" ' (' ,~ jJ I í"Ý" ..~,,'f..,¡,.y'..... ........ü - , ' 0 I'¡! ' J ~ )""""r- ¡,/' L1T ",' ,I ;? 'i) I ), &S'l ¡ I. ",!.-- I!~ "/ . '/*,~;./ /, : "}' {J;J,':' -L- --,) ~"p...Nt ,-' I!~ 11 /.....~.... // /, /l~"""""\\ ".."'.e - ~I .,r j' '~~.... 1-- --- - '<1111 (( ç"'/t. .' ,...',' '-'-. :~~.~" I'm - 'r.' .' ----,,--,------ f'~OJ"'e:c í L 0 ~A""lðH . ~ ~L!'I~ 0 fI' -1"" JU.J1 d ~!')!d!~ "",,--14. ~1!P-.!'L ¡¡.CM..~ l~~ 4- ~~'i ' ~¡7 II ~ ,/ ,~: . . .' ~ ~I . r~ .1/ â . ./ ...~; %",d,HfCS-- ~ " ~ - - ~~ --.- I ~I ! ., i..".. -~~. .I . '.j :_- ~~1--~!/~';H( ~~ '-:-.:~ 1(ð1'ð'S~ <$o4of4t'f WAu- ?~"-..~,' ,,'" iiio.- 0.\1 .......i :;..." \\ . ",,~ L~J / :~'. ~~ß . ,- ... \ ... Q ~ I , -......:: " 2L"- ' -a, ! ~ ~\: ' ~ ~. - ~ -- ~ "~' ~ "" ,: ~~-==':~=-+-,-=o,,<L '/ ,z,~~~,~ -1-- -- - . - "',"'9~",==~===~,,::-~""""""-f=:=-'-- ~ ~, ,; j.~- -!-..:.:.~~, - ,: 4', :1, . .-:---- ;' , ~. . ~ " " .. ~". - N.t"~ ' ~' " 1....--- ....... " Pt.-AN: ' ~ \8\- o~ ôJo 'I'~ / ,.~ ~ .r' . , c, e/ .~, I I ' r---t-'fl' If 'ìlQ ~..-tJ I i=9~ r¡-":I], 1 'r~ :l' S f==V" '~'l( ~ ~tJJ.. l:~ ,. ~~d! ~~ ';, ~1j Il':>~ ï , I '! ! : ji-jj,1 r~í1'. ~ ~-1f r ij-':'=;1I" r-~111 ,if t;¡l' Illf' .°.1 1I0J--"JI" ~II, :II~J . I...:;: ~ ~.¿ N ß-j...¿, lJ::!J I!::-..J-:U - ,; 1 J"u" Ir~' I ~-h 2 ~ #+ I ~~" L:~) ,~~JJ 11\'~J ¡~J ~ 10' ~""9:-k'O~~ \~. t l_o'J;",,~-t ',d , MIf'll. ¡. w :::: 1040 éP . H = ~~'-ð.33 f.k~ðD) -,8(,,/ '= /ð.2'" O£$/r;,v $'ttð /8' . WAlL B.EVATJON e1 ~,. ~T pI ~O""T~ ~.sIDII'HQ! ~ A . , '~t t~ ~ I: Ld! . ...Lß ffö~ I ll-d. I I 10' I ~) : A I L ,0:.1:,1 <!) @ i \. .! .' J , j í , I, 1\ :, ""'" ~ .., ~ -~ ~ ~' ~ " \J, ,~ ~ '" .... ~ -!!! s < ~ f ~ ~ .. ~ t ~ '-' . , , 8 ...... ! i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill ~ ~ $'I ~ v ~ " ~ ~ ~ rJ ~ -J ~ '§: "'" ~ \11 $ '"'" t:: ~ ~ \) \- ~ ~ x { \!) UI U. t) 1L - ~ ). ~ ~ 4-' a \U ~ ~ t -~ t1 0 .. & ~ ~ . '" ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 3!H- ~ ~ ¡: , . - ~ It ~ :; , f. å ~ .. ò ~ ~ . 'Q ~ ô' '( , ..." " ~ t. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ . q' ~~~~ I¡, Q ~ 17, ~, : ~ !I. '::i' ~ 0' , -...-/ I 1 ,.,( ( ~ >( ~ .<) ~ ~ t') , ~ ,~- " \.. ~ N VI.) 8 .. "I '$ -< ~ . .... ... 11 '" ~ -< 1;" , ~ ~ ~ \- 'U <:J. 1:) & ~ .... ~ ~ "'" ~ "7 ..¡J :-6 ~ :..---; ~ _/\ ) ~. ~ -- .. c~ ... "" ;" .':t. ~ '" :5- ------. -T' 48 I I I I I J I I I I) ,.; ,;> '-: ~ $ "' -~ ~ ;,. "' ~ ..... ~ , ':: :0. .... 1-1> ~ ".... ~ ~ ..... " II ~~()~ .... è 0' , . " . 1::1 , >- ~ '? .. It¡ \" .. t~ ~~~~ 'I:lt~~ I I I J I I I I I .. .., f'.. " '=' ~ "0 ~ ~ ~ "" .. . ~ ~ . ; .--.. . , ,- t ,~ ~ I, " ~ ~ -~ <{ \) ~ ~ r:>~1 O~II f t?'~l1ðÑ' 8 ~ -1D- -< ...( ~ ~ ~ &. ~ + D'" -() ~ ~\ " '--'---'---"----,---, ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ "), \', ... "<0- I I I I I I I I <:. ... f! 9- '5/JL ~ ~ ~, ~ " ~ " ... 1\0 IQ.. '. , < ~ ~ h 9 .-:; ~"O ~ - 4... , ~ ~ ~{ ~ ~~~~ :-'1\1,) " ~{fl." -'- ,~ ~ " 11 :¡- ;J ~ ~ a ...I OIl f: _ø \... . .'$ 'W I , 1 f~ ~ ~ IJ ~ .'(' '.;) .j r- ~ .~ i5 ~ '" -, ;:¡.- :J ~ ...... ~ 8 ",¡ .. ~ " ... ~ - (' < ~ ~ ~ 1 .L ~ Q::. \aI .., '" ~ ß ! "> ~ IU ? ~ ~ -~ ~ ~" 8 41 C1' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ¡!! ~i , I 6. If ~ ~ .~ t'. ..... .... ) .., ". " 'l) ~ ... ~ ql '\. ~ 3 ~ '" 'Y ~ ~ ~ ~ . .¿ ~ ~ II ... ... u . . C\( 1(1" . ...... ~ ). ~ .r ~ . .. 101 ~~'J.~ f.t ~ è', OJ ':' >'. "~ .. '. ... ~: -":. .. .- I I .1 1 , , ! i II I I ,..--.., , I' ; I ~ 8 ".. . " ..,' ~ Q ~ " - \, ~ . ,....... !¡- ~ .. . lei ~ , ~ (\ 1:1 ... ~ ~ "" { ~ ,~ ~ ~ .111 ~ - -< ~ 8 ~:f1CN C G' I I I I I i +' , CJ I .,) -~~ t- I \ I I I I i I I I I I ... ~ ~ 0- :3 ~ " '" ~ c, ~ '> ... :l. , 1/!L ~ .~ ~ ~ -. .- \J \.J ;/ " ~ ~ ~ . "'I < ~.... .. 1 II,,' (' -.. ~.: tI ... :{ v- I., tI'-. <) "' ~,' ~ to .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ " '" "> ... ') " ~ ~. ~ ~ \ ~ \ , <> ... f --"'-- , t;(ADtßf ~Ff ß c:..,~ ~ 8Á+ ~I!.. ~Ht?e t7 e ~~t?H CD CD Œ) ~ @ g) @) (e:j~ f'. 'Z tæ- 4? n~ ) LA'O!f.M.. F~tAU fi¿>fI1 ~tI'k ýJ~()d,~ ~ f?e ø"'tt¡l~.o ~1 4.- I t;.'2 I Þ- w.~/rK~~ :::: ð.11I'//~ (().Z$)( I' =4{ß :J/I1Pr B- ~ 5(A~1I1!lW!: ". /a:Jxo.4 = 40 PS'lr,. , " #. ¡:.!ðf!.J20,.¡rÀL, F.x '::(jd1I!s'#1..1 +tJ./!3 X1J.Z .J.. 4°""1.$ )"10 = Be¡S40 /1!5SVM IN l7J A 15 % lJu f (Jt/("'¡()~ AN(;/ E Go ~- ;;;::II ~ex¡ II II at a?. fb.e ~ = K.. ~tIf.~+ ¡(( fÞ,oe¡ ) == 47, f It:.. 0.8$ ~ . ß/!!. T~; 13::p~e..í C5tÆE. t1~HYY)~T") BoND 69pAI';,~'r'f ¡=o~ I (P"4> t},l!bUí 1$ 1,5~', fèl!.ð"4 (J~t-k5 /IS(~)- 2~!':1 .. II , BoNo (Þ/GrII fefl.o Il. 1':'1 J. ". -hIT: t.. - 41:3. := \.P cp lOw.. (ò - /1 S "it ð'l ~ (J1t~r' t-, 1-1:.-2'~::: p Z KI, '1, S P1 2 1, (/) Fr u~ eJ 4:> CofzÞtt, 4 f?ø~o ~~ ~t F'~tIF LðAO .;: L ~ " 41, ~~::: 70. f!!> v... tt:'e. J1'~ íH~b~ ~"'~~~1,?v-)( ð.ß:; 101."- ~ 70. ,¿. ð,t,.. (~c: IC::;O~I ) c~,;: F"~ 4 Aj,4-) , ~@@d) ~\ .. O.I~:: 1..& I &; - - ql , He ~~ rn. f~ _.- r;' ". ../ . ' --c: i) ~ ~t~f.. ~ H I :=¿J,8~ 11~¡(O,t't2b =- tPICP ~'1 Pi Surc/'o,.,e ao p.s¡s t:==XI ~rx~ -: [t c,IGoo1l: l.J!> + {PIc, (,1.0'2\ +'11') + 4o¡ter,,; t 1""0 ':::t'- '5t111 # ..-~. F;'l.. -:::: (ú'/cP)('-' .... 4'0.,(. t:t) J£ 10 =- '5" t:?¿fO ~ u ~ E -r "" ~,41..t... 11~ , ~p. . ~ F" ~;i < (t,~otf) "" 7 tJ.? >!- ~ÞlS- ra'ì& ð } 1 Ie... Fr ~ðND ~1"r1 Lt; == ~~ -. 4'1 . I,,:; r¡~ I {~?~ ~ v~ ::: IvlP1 ~ ~ ~1J ~" oJl ~r ~ 9" 6;~ï II F1" u~ ø ~rtPU1""' ~lj ~o ~ LtJ At:> ~ 'Î ð. '?>L I, t; ===:. I t:XP t.- tb~ 'fHet=AO~ f ~"4' d~1tI ~~ Ie;o ~ ( '?£& þ:u)12 qp-/'4- ) ~,{ t2ff" ..I ~"( ~ 1~-.(1,1' ~ lß1t? ,l.. ð'\ b ::::. 1 "0 ~ "7 --L ~ t.. Ó,I'- .~rf)ÐJ1 ' . 8r;;'(2AO~r. i t3l#uFF' f'r1tJT!t110" q¥t eadbar Posttensioning System restressing stèel properties Nominal Ultimate Cross Ultimate Prestressing Force - (kips) Minlmum** Maximum Threadbar Stress Section Strength Weight Elastic Threadbar Diameter (fpu-ksi) Area (fpu A 115) 0.80fpu A ps 0.70f pu A ps 0.60f pu A ps (Ibs./ft.) 8endinft Diameter (inches) (Aps'inches~ Radius ( t) (inches) % 157 0.28 43.5 34.8 30.5 26.1 '¡ 0.98 26 0.693 150 0.85 127.5 102.0 89.3 76.5 3.01 52 1.201 1 160* 0.85 136.0 108.8 95.2 81.6 3.01 49 1.201 1'1. 150 1.25 187.5 150.0' 131.3 112.5 4.39 64 1.457 1V. 160*, 1.25 200.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 4.39 60 1.457 134 150 1.58 237.0 189.6 165.9 142.2 5.56 72 1.630 1% 160* 1.58 252.8 202.3 177.0 151.7 5.56 67 1.630 T i.1 ,: !I I I i ,11 I: ;'1 . Ii I i 'Ii Grade 160 Dywidag Threadbars available on special order when lead time permits. *Prebent bars are required for radii less than the minimum elastic radius. . :, teel stress levels AJldag Threadbar may be stressed to the wable limits of ACI 318. The maximum acking stress (temporary) may not exceed .80 fFJU, and the transfer stress (Iockoff) ay not exceed 0,70 fp". CI 318 does not. stipulate the magnitude f prestress losses or the maximum final ffective (working) prestress level. restress losses' due to shrinkage, lastic shortening and creep of concrete II ~. : I J, as well as steel relaxation and friction must be considered. The final effective (working) prestress level depends on the specific application. In the absence of a detailed ånalysis of the structural system, O,§9J~QJ.aY~~J!S~Jl.~an approximation of theettective (working) prestress leveC ..~-_._.-. , Actual. loss calculations require structural design information not normally present on contract documents. . '" I f, 'i '~ :', ,: (1 {,: ."i , I , \ I' .,' ~ ,! ¡: ,; Plate Anchorage -.---.-'- -.-'- -.- -. . .... _. --- ~ -- Coupling I' '~ f ~ I. ~ .f, " r' .1 i A1T,A¿H M~í8 ~~AD 1£'1' ßLl.lfF prz.,Ao~ &111 ,/ '/ . ,~ . .il f, . Anchorage ¡' .1 I, :1 Ii J ~ ,:. . , Available in mill lengths to 60', threadbars may be cut to specified lengths before shipment to the job site, Or where tircumstances warrant, the threadbars may be shipped to the job site in IniJ.I lengths for field cutting with a portable friction or band saw. Threadbars may be cÒupled for ease of handling or to extend a previously stressed bar.' . Exceeding the strength requirements of ACI 318-77, all Dywidag anchorages and couplers are designed to develop 100% " of the guaranteed ultimate strength of the thread bar. . Standard plate anchors are designed for concrete bearing complying with the . Guide Specifications For Post-Tensioning Materials published by the Post- Tensioning Institute, 1976. Other anchor plates are available"on special order, I II Ii ¡' 'I I: Ii ~: I' tI ! J . . Coupling ~: ¡ ""'" . ,~ ,-' , 't' I';' ,'; 1 , Anchorage Details , . Threadbar Diameter 5/8 1 .". 1114 13/8 (inches) Anchor Plate Size 3x3x3/. ~5x5'hx111v 6 x 7 X 1112 ~7 x 71/2 x PI!. 1/ (Inches) 2x5x1 4 x 6112 X 1'1. 5x8x1112 5X~Y2 X lJ/4 Nut Extension a 1 Hl8 2112 23/4 (Inches) Min. Bar Protrusion b 2112 3 3% 4 (inches) Coupler Details Threadbar Diameter 5/8 (j) 1114 @ (Inches) . Length (inches) C 3112 5112 63/4 85/8 Diameter (inches) d 1118 2 23/8 25/8 ,.. i' ¡, ¡ , I ¡ . , I. . ,\ . t. I,' " I. . DyckerhoH & Widmann, Inc. DYWIDAG PRESTRESSED CONCRETE 529 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. N. Y. 10017. (212) 953-0700 Cable Address: Dywidag New York Telex: RCA 236448 1740 EAST JOPPA ROAD, BALTIMORE, MD 21234 . (301) 882-6111 11526 SORRENTO VALLEY ROAD. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 . (714) 755-6787 Cable Address: Dywidag San Diego 2200 KENSINGTON CT., OAK BROOK, ILL. 60521 . (312) 986-5270 I' ¡ ~u;,'1 ~ N ~LI"1MAI2.'f' AN~!. ~~ '~.,.... 4 ~Aø$ ". , .~6 I ír~1t "";-"11' If "., ~;.-tJ I' i==yC- r¡--:2], 1 I r...:i" L ~ . ~lrl1 J ~. ~ . t? -! I U ~ d! 1\ Q I 'L JI 1.:.... ï '- ¡--' , ~ ,-tJ. .: l!: r c!J ! : V-ÏJ'1 f~í1'. ~ ~-1f r if-":'=jllÚ r~111 " if tW'. tillf' .°.1 'o,~-"'J1" 'i'11 II'.J . ...:;: ~ 19 .¿j (\J , ..¿, 1!::!J l!: .i-:!J - ,'1 rtl,~I" 11\ I ~-iï1H rW~ i .1. L¡:.J] , JJ'.lJ 11\o::JJ ¡W'.!I I ~~. I ; I ! ~ 10' t--'9~'k-'o:"'~ \~. t-_o:--JJ'-'~:-t 10' , /!1A'¡(. ¡, W .:: /O'/-.(p - H = J()4;G'-().33 f.fi~~JjO) _,scPl ;: lð.?71 OF$/(;I{ 6"'J 18' - ' WALL BEVATION ANCHOR I.D. .' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , c, , [fJ/- I . rk-~" .rlk~ : I c I E' ~,. ~T ,- II ijÒ1'L ;t.;.-::!I I /0' I 1) ~u t.1"1 A-e. '1' ANCHOR BOND DIAMETER LENGTH -. ..,- h .- TOTAL LENGTH 44~T DESIGN LOAD PROOF LOAD 70.~"- ~ 4Î.Z 1" 1" 1" 1-~. 1-~" 1-14" 1-~1I 1ft 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1-~' 1-J:¿ . 1- ,~u 1-~h 1" 1" 1" 1- !4" 1-4" 1-:4" 1-~- Z4-FT /I " 'I .. " '1 10.5'<. 'I 7 I J:T I. 3<PFT It> 5. ð .... " " " '1 II " II " I, I. I. " 4. 4 r:" Z4Þ1' d7,Z ~ 10.ð" I, 'I " ~ I, " .34 FT " 'I Z4r:T 47./' '" 7ð,ð IC. II " II ... II 3<:ó Þr II II 'I !/!:1tð f'r 7ð.1!J ~ 1ð'513 " I, ... " " " II " " I, I, 'I " 7o.ð "- £4 1'., 3'" I'T 47. Z " .. " , " " 1/ if), ,:; It. II II> ~ t!J '" " 3~11'01' !? I ~.,. II . " " " " " I' I, " I. , v --- 1- "-- -.. ". "------. t'. wo~ 1 ,~!f I I'-:!J Ll.J I : A ' t L I~:_.l~ ~ @ , ~Dl..t.i 8UAfT fr%ð1tC-l1 le ~tJ'_'f- ANc.Hðt. pufll..E Fi>t. tSf¿11ð~~ ø CD 0 -t @ (!) e IAe?E 11~ í..,tJ!A"~ÂrL *" Appro{ Z; I SL"PE ~' ~ICtI F'1t ~o l " . Iß (i . ~""'-"'... -.-.,. ~I ßO"'D l - %4' ~ &~ ~~~ Fõe. e?eel1 bW(; Ø0Ð0 If *- IJ<?e I ~~ + 7H eeAO gAle. ,,' ~' -------=:::: "~~~~'5' - " ==:-1 . , Zß -...----- --.- - l' =~~-----~..- . . I3DIoJ Þ l ': 3ø' S' ßoÑD l ': .3(0 f -. ------, *' 6~ ~'-'?ÐJ1'" ~ 1H-~6Ae.. ~A~""~ é f'~ ~a- ,,9 ~ ð.tI<.!' ~ 1i1Ø-~.L~~ A' '- ! 1\ , 2,1\ ~rz. I I I. , ~ i' f . i i ! , 4- J/JI4 ... -----' ,þ.t~ 1211 f!;, W tl=k~ Ii' a~-r. ~ . ~1I1'l'I¡l1~'1 ~ r',vL.~t1~V ~~t= ' ~I~~~ - -'TEEL Sut;,v -?;~:::-' . -:--~llEUx.;¡;)TO ~~" Uott. f>lfc Sl£",c;.1/G ~ - ~ . ~ r--_-. . c,e¡,UT, ~. - ---11 "', r- .-;--11, " "'., " '".- , IIJ:.'~ . - f :~:.:. " ò'; . <'p, -' l--t. (71' -'~.. " "'",,"; '-"'.. --~. "-3 '-- ~ßo , " -r:'~~,~-:." "'.ti:-~' --~o~o--9"'E."I~' .,', " vt-_--,..- ./ ~d~- ~ -- - ~'-'-'~~.y€ ~ 4-jl(p ~Et-I,.. ~AIt. -¡, LENtr, 11-{ .r ~~ ~ S(II£D. rrr. 71t~ A,..I(:;th~".¡Ct f>"GT. ~/"" !..o /I rote. ~()~ ~ HUt:) D~rA1- (~rE(;. A-A) çt!~ JE-,(t' eo ræ. !(;JNf. 4 WM.t.. t>rcGrc,~ t;,~!; pacre.J .~ .' . ~. ~ t- ~, ~ - @ T ~ '"t- ,9~ ~i. i~ ~ , ß¡..t(. t:.~EAO D II..- "j') ~ ~ - Lfi ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ I i. !. . ¡ , I j I IS8~ 0-9628947-0-2 ï I.:.') ~ 1lfL roo < , ~ ~ \1\ '-1 . ~..,~ <~ ~. '; t +~ '< @.u1"Lf"at> f\'¿. ~ f'¡v tt \IsJ.o ~ ~of ,~ 6...L.-- . i 6u\..K....-I.fAt:) 1 ÅNG HoeING bk::)~ k.. ~rGo tJ ~~ ..J !ì T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :) ~ ~ - -~ ':I .... ~ ~~ l- -II) ~-l II" \IJ ~~ --I~ t- ...'X C"" 3' " -0 , , I [-1-,1- - ~ 11~1" I I ' pI.. I --fJ I I ~ ~~ tJ\ cJ~ ~~ Ii: \\ - 'T ~~ ¿ ~ ~ ~ ~&. ~ ~ 5;1 xiI ~~ ~r k-I ~ ~ J I . .. ~ ~ ~ \- \-- ~ ~ 11 u tJ~! 1,(1 ðØ(l.I~(¡¡ kAA Fon. l?~s'~O ~l'L ---- r~ot>r It>Þ<O ~ t4.i- "M~r\, ~ ,t I.~ . ... 11:)," ,t.'. c; -:=. ID?7'5"- -- ~1DR~D r'eE~sLlrz.e: f?~~,¡J1? E>u . It.- 1? \D;,1C; \;"~ ~ç 'w= '1.7) iš-z. -::(4..1 U"7£ I ~AS¡::O .ó~ O~$Ic...Þ-> Å~I.,ttl>,A4-I elf ~aI.lArZf:: Frtí (CðNSE:t7. "An E ) Itsf. 1 ~/ t..(. '\./lu::='/S ,,-;, JI. I:Z<;/2.:::: 3cÞ loA n ..,' I' II 1Uþ')4!f-'::~4 d= t-f-~~'ð I¿u= "ØO c.~::~llSl ..ç::.~t5) °IA -::. 4,'3/ As - "3 (P. - 6~ I '2. - 4~1¡tIO - -. -I \1\1. lJ(. E: 4-:ti Co ~ w (. /ks ~ IIÎCP ) CHUIC. ðNE WA1{ ~H£An..: . X I _~F I ~ .~ ý~ :::.15 "- '3 ,,(!.s'- 1# ) =11.+ --q-¿rzlíICAL@ ~.'I +rom ~. i ' I II" "- ,. v(..:. 0,115)( /ð4 '¡t. '3t..P.. to ... "3'3 .~f ~(Arf' 'r ) L:¡1Eõd f'utolGI1.$i1EA-rz. : ~F '2.. 1. ¡¿ 'Iv..::: I;; (3 -1.tn )::. 1~5 I II ~Vt~ O,BÇ,ry."J1i ClA'2,(I'2.j,l.4 ~IO '21 ~ > 10'5 "'- - ~,~ JADJN /:)L"EF faon;.L- W~LL OE51Coo.l ___L. --------~ [pII . (p................ ~ ./' ,----' ~ !J't~ ~t.~~D .. I ¡- -, r-j-ì . - 1--.- I --L.. L,_J - - - - - - -- . l -iJ . t \ \ I S) r ~ - ,1- : - - . - - - - - ~ - ~ -, I . I. I I I - II - - - -f-_..- L. "I ---I: L__-' I I ! " I 1-f2 -- ------I '" ~ . t ?~II -::. ~ ----+--- '" ~ ~tt. /~ ./ " " \IJ \) ~ & oW C) \3 ~ -~ t' .,/ -;1.0'1 .......... " " '- i-.. '. ~ ¿JlA~Oe::. ~ ~Hroe.~eN'r ItJ WA1.-\- ~u.m~ 1'11' ~~LlA{e. WJ<U., . "7.<S ~ Au.. ~f" r~ CPlc,-+-4o~(j,?t.Þ )l. 1.1= , ~~-- ,,()~Ú,l 1.1le;,t1'2.. = L ~t>m'í û~ (f. ~ b::/i' Joe. 4.e:," I4A -- G:)1 , ~/ ÀS -- ð.t>! VI/fí » 4á' I Z" . -. '. ~ð~~ III ~ ~F ,...IL-/, t. '1" ~IA :: A. "J L~{{f -- p .. . , '. ,KENNETH LONG. CIVIL 8GINEERING 527 N. Hwy. 101 (Suite E) SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 Phone 481-7866 ,o,~ ~ ~e~D~ (r;~() NttfO'¡~ Þ-J/f..) SHEET NO. ~ O~ 4- CALCULATED BY t.,O ~ ~ DATE~ CHECKED BY - DATE - SCALE - ...... .. ..,. .. .......... .,...........;., . .. ........ .. ... .. .' ~,.~. . . '. .. . 'Nl>Tl?~fc#~~ J2g.ð.l;.¡~t¡é,tll~ -off !~ to Hí e I ~tD fð rH IS $11¥-. . . ;~j61i';;~~I';~f'~4iAetA (WWr~1 ~~. .q: .~~.Pkor~'d1)r.Òlð\~ Ø.lk. i~~~~';:.Æt,JJ{¡t.... . ! ",Ü~...".b,'.,'..,'h~..',','.',',"ltr().% , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , " , , " , ......".........,..,....,...........,.., '............., , , """""""".., , , , "':: ':"'c 'c.,- , ".,.. ,-' ,'," .. ..», , , 1',,:' ..;, ,; ~:",",; '....."::':<:,...... " ......",........,..", ,.."..,' , ,UiQ£All~?, " j~b,ð..J'~¡; .... fè'..;lk % / 'O;'IJl ' ,ð.tD \~~ : 4 ~ o,IV , c ... """""""'1~"""""""""" ",:,..".."",.......,.., 1, 4ðt .. .. .. .. . t.."", 't?' . 1fð.'lJ1 ~.I:m.. i:t(o,~ ,1.014 NI ,4(4.. ð.OO!J "76.'1 Avli~1'Y¿ ~IÙ e ~.qZCf(!I-j) \Uti-I, HWO/Æ. 1,11 vfS > tlA ~ ¡.o,J. [Õ)Œ@ .Œ n WŒ ill lIù SEP 2 6 1991 ' CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT .OF PUBLIC WORKS ENG\NEERING DEPT. RCl(U;¡ml ~1f'L, GIaIan,...... 01471. . . ." .. .' coutrry OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION & FLOOD COtlTROL . "., z C) z ""' ""' ::0 Z C) 0 m "1:J :-f ~ ~ uo ~ -i- '-i 0 -< c... "0 c: "1)" r-. cm ~ 002 Co ~. 0 2" - c==:¡ :E::¡ ~ ~ O::Þ .... roC/) Ã rn:ï=1J C/) [L J] I rn:ï=1J 3 0 I I cs=a [M] I IS' ~ .' 338 i 0- -----..--. ..--- -- -. . 4S' ,I ~eA J;>tÆi (rj(,t; ~~ ' 'ú) '., .' . u.s. DEPARTMENtr OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT. SPIIERIC ADUUCISTRAT10H SPECIAL STUDIES BRANCH. OFFICE 0.11 OROLOGY. NATIONAL WEATIIER SERVICE ... ... . » . - . : 30' 1111' 45' I IS' ln8 45' 30' IS' 30' .'.' 8 8 + 1168 - -- -, :'" iÁ ,'---.. .- ~-~Ol£i C&1~ ~Ñ~) , " :Þ "'Ij "'Ij tT1 Z 0 H >< >< H I COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL 115 I 8 301 151 338 .-0- ~ ....... 00 V1 II II" 'I'j . Jí)1 I r¡ I 117" 'II; . 101 I r, . 11(/ U 'i' i; " '. -1-1-1-1- .~I' .-,- 15 20 40 50 1 . 3 4 5 'f~ . ',', 2 30 ,> ' Hours Mfnll"~~ , ...... D~ÞJ)1it (r¡~.o J.1~rr.LJÑ~.J '~,::û,~..: . r.: . " "...1',., :, : , ,3.:01,.1.,' ..' , :..¡,.; *Hot Applicable to Oescrt Rcgion ! . .' ... Al)l)I:Nn 1 X X t TV -A- ... ltuvlsUlI I!US ...-. . . . OW.iN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERS, ARCHITEcrS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS œŒ@Œ~WŒ~ JUL 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS July 16, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 ENGINEERING DEPT. Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA Reference: "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, II prepared by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. Dear Ms. Bradley: In accordance with a request by Mr. Doug Jacobsen of Pacific Geo Services, Inc., we are providing this geotechnical update report for the subject property. Based on a review of the pullout tests conducted at the subject site and a review of the referenced report, it is our opinion that the report is still pertinent and applicable to the subject site with the following additions: DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on the pullout tests performed on May 24, 1991, we recommend an allowable tie-back capacity of 900 pounds per square foot for tiebacks founded behind a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extending from the face of the slope at juncture of the terrace deposits and Torrey Sandstone Formation. For design purposes, an equivalent fluid pressure of 48 pcf may be used to determine forces acting on the tie-back system. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on our recent site visits and review of the referenced report, we believe that it is necessary to provide immediate protection to the subject residence by installing the bluff protection system first and then to proceed with the recommended repairs to the remainder of the slope, starting at the base of the slope and working upwards. 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 TEL: (619) 695-3150 FAX (619) 695-3153 OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORf BEACH. AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA . .r , . . OWINCONSULTANTS 8 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley July 16, 1991 Project No. 959.001.2 Page 2 8 This opportunity to be of seIVice is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS ) - f ~/(" ! I' I " 1/"', , (, ~ JERRY L. MICHAL RCE 42590 Expiration 3-31-92 ;Øí ¡¿. O#1Jií MARTIN R. OWEN President RCE 23155, GE 658 Expiration 12-31-93 JLM(MRO:ms Copies: Addressee (1) (4) Pacific Geo SeIVices 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Doug Jacobsen 8 James R.lversen 8 Landscape Architect #1816 (619) 942-1742 1415 MacKinnon Avenue, . Cardiff, CA 92007 Jlme 17, 1991 City of Encinitas Planning Department RE: GreG Shields Bradley Residence at 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California Lots 4 and 5 of South Coast par\ No.3 1935 Nrrl'lT : GreG, I have gone out to the above project TIith DouG Jacobson and saw that the emergency slope repair Dill not affect any existing slope plantings at this ti~e. Also in disc LJ_ssinG the (Y,1er~;ency slope repair '.-¡or': to be cJ one, there Dill be no slope area created to do any nOD slope orosion control planting at this time. I can see t :fu.tu:ce ',-ror':, further on cJOVJl1 the slope, ','rill then cre¿:;.te aree.,s that rrill neee; to ;:)(; c¿:1.reÌlÙly lool:ecJ c;L, SCEle tYIJC) 0 f erosioll control meClE3 LIre us E-;cJ. This fLIt ure ¡.-.-or': ':ril1 thell be dro.\'.'l1 O.s slope planting irriC>'.tion Dlans and be sub~itted th the general use r3it requirements, and lng plans. If you llt;.ve '-1.21.'1 qlwf,,~ions ple;,èc8 feel f:ceec.o cz.:Ül ae ;}t ?':-2-1T:-2. Sincerely, ~/'~/¡~ Ja3es R. Iversen ~...,. ToO,- .:..-11".' ~anuscape Arcn~~ecL, ~lo1o JRI/si illŒ@ŒITWŒ\]J JUL 2 2 1!!1 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. June 8, 1991 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Ms. Bradley, Pacific Geo Se4M ~c. @ Œ 0 W Œ ill 1196 Magnolia Avenue JUN 1 0 1991 Carls bad, CA 92008 . (6191729-5505 CITY OF ENCINITAS (7141496-6363 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Lie. No. 507952 ENGINEERING DEPT. COpy Enclosed are copies of 0 CC guidelines for emergency work (Sec. 13136 - 13144) 0 CC Emergency permit 0 City code for coastal bluff zone 0 checklist for submitting grading plan to City As you have many times this project. Drawing that we are still over or the CC. It will be next many weeks. expressed to me, time is of the essence in of plans is just beginning, I am concerned 1 month away from approval by either the City very important to monitor the bluff over the In view of the time frame needed to complete the emergency plans and plan review, I propose we develop an Emergency Emergency plan. The City of Encinitas does not have a Coastal Plan that has been reviewed or approved by the Coastal Commission. The City, from the documents I've received (and I've enclosed) does not have a procedure for dealing with emergencies where hours and days are of the essence. As you cans see, the Grading Plan requirements are for large projects of non-emergency nature. The City, however, may recognize CC Sec 13144 for an emergency. It may be necessary to take immediate action to stabilize the upper bluff. I propose to 1. Inform Owens and Wan Young. SE of these conditions 2. Provide Cal Osha with Our construction sequence. 3. Inform the CC and the City that immediate action may be necessary. The plan development and review process even for this emergency permit is a long one, It is vital we don't forget the focus. Sincerely, ~~ President . cc: Owen Consultants Universal structures City of Encinitas : Greg Shields Bill Weedman Coastal Comm: Sherilyn Sarb . 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 729-5505 (714) 49&-6363 Uc. No. 507952 May 4, 1991 MAY - 7 19;jì Paul Webb Coastal Commission San Diego Coast District Office 1333 Camino Del Rio South San Diego, CA 92116 SUBJECT: review of preliminary meeting 5/02/91 Bradley residence 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Dear Mr. Webb, Thank you and Ms. Sarb for meeting with Ms. Bradley, Father Basil, and me on short notice. In review, we were asked by you to provide the following: 1. Structural analysis a) status of existing foundation including enclosed patio b) determine angle of repose (see Owen letter 1/29/90) c) feasibility of removing portion of structure and building further back on the slope provide underpinning option for securing residence d) 2. Additional soil reports if available 3. Western extent of property to Mean High Tide 4. Plan view and cross section of existing condition. As the minutes of the meeting 5/01/91 with City of Encinitas indicate (items 3A and 3B), the City has directed us to take the first step with the Coastal Commission. We plan to provide you with the items requested above by Tuesday morning (5/07/91) so you can present our request for the Emergency Permit to the Coastal Commission hearing scheduled this week. Sincere~ ~ 9::0~~O;'-- President cc: Ms. Ludmilla Bradley Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Wan Young, SE . . 8 Pacific Geo Service, Inc. 1196 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (6191 729-5505 (7141496-6363 Uc. No. 507952 May 1, 1991 Greg Shields Public Works City of Encinitas Dear Mr. Shields, Ms. Bradley and I meet with you and the other officials from the City and Coastal Commission in order to expedite the design and construction of the bluff stabilization for the Bradley property. What I present here are two repair options that are in accordance with Owen Consultants report 959.1.1 dated 6/30/89 and current construction practice on the coastal zone, including within the City of Encinitas. Most of the components of the two options can be found from the renovation at Swami's stairway to the area just north of the Bradley property. Today, I hope we can determine the following: 1. Define the permit process a) thru the City departments b) thru the Coastal Commission c) timing 2. Provide us with tentative approval of one of the designs so we can complete the engineering. 3. Define the scope of work to be performed under the permit. Thank you for your assistance. ~l~ Douglas Jacobson President . . , . OWIIICONSUlTANTS ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 8 8 APR - 2 1991 April 1, 1991 Project No, 809.009.1 City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. Subject: BLUFF FAILURE OF MARCH 26, 1991 BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Reference: "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property," by Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. Gentlemen: Representatives of this office inspected the bluff failure which occurred on March 26, 1991 on the subject property. The failure encompasses the geologic conditions outlined in the referenced report and is a reactivation of previous failures on the same property. A near vertical scarp developed within approximately 6 to 8 feet of the rear of the residence. The triggering mechanism of failure is most likely increased weight of the bluff due to rainfall infiltration, It is our opinion that this condition represents a serious hazard to the stability and safety of the existing residence. The upper bluff materials are clearly unstable in a vertical condition and may fail to an angle which includes the residence. Accordingly, until a plan of repairs is implemented we recommend that the residence be immediately vacated. 10065 OLD GR~~D, SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 TEL (619) 695-3WI'V< (619) 695-3153 OFFk~AN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH, AND SACRAMEN LlFORNIA I ( . . . OW¡NCONSUl TANTS . 8 City of Encinitas April 1, 1991 Project No. 809.009.1 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS AíJJiù~ MARTIN R. OWEN President RCE 23144, GE 685 Expiration 12-31-93 MRO:ms Copies: (2) Addressee . . rvlAR 27 '91 13: 50 OWEN GEOTECHNICAL , . OWiNCo.~SULTANTS . ENGINEE~S, ARCHITECTS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS P,2/3 . March 27, 1991 City of Encinitas 527 Encinîtas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Greg Shields Subject: ý\\ A ~ (f-\ BLUFF FAILURE OF _26, 1991 BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Reference: "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property, By Owen Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. Gentlemen: Representatives of this office have inspected the bluff failure which occurred on ""Å-"'{.~ . . - - 26, 1991 on the subject property. The failure encompasses the geologic 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 rEl.: (619) 695-3150 FAX: (619) 695.3153 OFFICI SAN DIEGO. NEWPORT BEACH. AND Sl\.Cr<AMENIAUFORNlA I <-'8 . CJW:NCONSULTANTS ~IAR 27 '91 13: 50 OWEN GEOTECH~HCAL P.3/3 8 conditions outlined in the referenced report and is a reactivation of previous failures on the same property. A near vertical scarp has developed within approximately 6 to 8 feet of the rear of the residence. The triggering mechanism of failure is most likely increased weight of the bluff due to rainfall infiltration. It is our opinion that this condition represents a serious hazard to the stability and safety of the existing residence. The upper bluff materials are clearly unstable in a vertical condition and may fan to an angle which includes the residence. Accordingly, untH a plan of repair is implemented we recommend that the residence be immediately vacated. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to can. Very truly yours, 0 WEN CONSULTANTS MARTIN R. OWEN President RCE 23155, GE 685 Expiration 12-31-93 MRO:ms . . 1991-03-27 14:03 PAGE = 03 , " j , , ,~,': , " ì:' I' A,,'. !,---,-.--- e-.' r '. I .,-" , I, Y ."'/ ' r ' " ,\ I . ~'V '>-/' -;.7' ~ " "" "I 1 "'--,--- -,-----/ ~' . ' ",' :\'" ' '",~". ----- ,'.' , '~,',.'t:,'.',~"",',,""';;;~,".I,,", ','" :,',,'~,+,',' ""',,, '.', ,; "'" ,r.~í'~}~¡~~.;~~i!~,~,'.'~'~!'?:?"^~~~'~~~@~~~~, ' ~:.", , FI!!!I ,.. / ":':":::,,.,:.--:,',', ',' '"" ' ; ,".c'" ,'~"",".' "'~~ Wa.,.,lng1on. D,C. 201580 " '.. -, f, J ~ I';j ,~ t" l:! ~..;¡ "" \~:! V, , ~,'; -¡j t1 þ:¡ ¥~i J,:\ , 'I i¡~ ,j 1; "',. r.} H r:, " ",' t;, "', ", ;;: ;,' ~.. I" ì,: V t: ¡;; n ~l ~,j t:: ~ -I , , ,.. ;',' ~\ ~¡ ¡ 'I., ç~ : ,- ;f1 ~. ~ ,;,¡ :;,J jJ ~~ ,,:, ~~ ,~ ~ ~1 ~~ ~ ,~ '~ ,.".~- Report No. FHWAlRD-82/047 0 FIneI Repod ""'Ir .182 us. DeportmenT Of Transportation FedfK"Ol Hl9hway Adntlnlstrat1on I£rROOUCIO 81 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE us, D!PARIM!H! or COM~ERC¡ , SPRIHCflHO, ~A 11:61 This doeummt is IVli~bll to t~. U.s. public thr~U<F1 the 1¡lIianal Ttchniallnformllio~ Seniti. SpringfiEld. Vitginil 22161 ,{ I ! ' : ! ; i' I, '. ! . ¡ " ".! .' , !-' ... , .\ ! ¡ i 'j í , I I ~ :: ~ , -', " /":" I ' ,. ! .- " -.------- - \.' 1 J!.//,.-j .~ i'\ 'j " \, ,:;----/ !'.: . /: --, .... / - ì~ , ! "";"':..' -, ,~ ,"F"" :' 'j ': /..,1 '.,' "'~"': ">;:"'" . "', , ~ -,--"-,.w.-,,,,------.- ---- I ' r'~"':",?¡:'.':"'~'::';..>\j~ )//. , / -", ,', j .,,' ./ "./- ~"':':~:. ,":\ ',"" , '" :-.--- .' ,...,- ,- ,..- ,,_. --. , ,.-..._" .._._- ...------.- ./ " Technical Report Documentation Page 1. R.,... N.. 2. Go..,..",o..' "ccollio.. No. 3. Aodp;o..". C.,olo, N.. FHWA/RD-82 / 04 7 PM 3 178368 4. Titl. ."" SV..,¡". S, Aop.,' D.,. Ju~v 1982 TIEBACKS 6. P.rlor"'i", Or,o"ia.'io" C.d. 8, P.rlor",i", Or,.niao,i.n Aopor, No. 7. """'.rI.1 D. E. ~eatherby t. Por'.""I". 0,...,..'10" N_. .." A"",... 10. Work U..i' N.. 'TAAISI 35B1-462 Schnabel Foundation Company II, co..troc' or Gr...' No. 4720 Montgomery Lane. Suite 300 DTFH 61-80-C-OO064 Bethesda, Ma~yland 20814 u. T)'p. 01 R.po/' one! r.rio" Co..r." 12. 5,"".'1". A,onc)' H_. on" A"",e.. August 1980 - June 1q82 Office of Research and Development Final Report Federal Highway Administration U. 'S. Departu:ent' of Transportation 14, à"öorl'i'Šc9Co". Washin~ton, D. C. 20590 IS. Su"I....,,'er)' N.,.. FHWA Contract Manager: J. R. Sallberg (HNR-IO) Geotechnical Consultants: E. J. Cording, J. K. Mitchell. H. Schnabel, J. Sigourney Materials and Corrosion Consultants: M~ Schupack, R. Benedict, R. Bald, P. Reinhardt, L. Sudrabin. K. Clear (FHWA) 16. A...lloc' ..: This report summarizes current tieback technology. It contains recommendations for the design, spec if ica t ion. corrosion protection, and testing of permanent and temporary tiebacks. Descriptions of tieback applications. construction techniques, load transfer mechanisms, and creep behavior also are included. The "Executive SulIIT1ary" is FHWA/RD-82/046. 17. Key Wo,", III. DI""lbv'io.. s'o,."'..., tieback; ground anchors; foundation ~~o restrictions. This document is construction; creep; corrosion; available to the public ~hrough performance, proof and creep testing; the National Technical Information specification. Service, Spr ingf ie1d, Virginia 22161 If. $ecutl" CI...II. (.1 "'I. ,_II 20. S.eu,lI, CI.III " (01"'1. po,.) 21. No. 01 P.,.. 2:. Prle. Unclassif led Unclassif led 249 " F.~ DOT F 1700,7 (1-72) R.....cluctlon of complet.cI pole ou,ho,l"ecl ¡ 1 'I ',;!/,: \ \ " , ~ ," ./:; /' i ,,':~~, : . I ..' . .,- \ \ \ ~ ~-, \ ~, , " 1 "/ ¡ ¡ ,I ! ! r' j" " I i , ; , . , "'. : . j ¡ ¡j . '" j ,:" 8 ; I j '-\8 '-'.'If!'>~""'¡"::"'!~~"':""""."""""f-""':"'~'~"->-"""r-.,.-._~ "." .-" -'-,' --f------------------- ----_. -.-.-.... ..._- .--, -.-. . -. ._-.._.- .. '...-----~._-- Î' , Many tieback specifications have specified a minimum and a maximum , elastic movement fer the tiebacks. Typically the minimum elastic movel1lent MI been required to exceed 0.8 times the calculated clastic elongation of the unbonaed length. and the maximum elastic movelÌlt!nt has been required to œ les& than the calculated elastic elong&tion of the unbonded length plus half of the anchor length. The checking of the minimum elastic movement is a reasonable thing to d~ ~cause it verifies that the unbonded length actually has been provided. ~quiring the maximum elastic movement to be less than a calculated elastic elongation. assumes that the skin friction along a straight-shefted tieback iluniform and that the end of the tieba~k dòes not move. Measurements and tieback 'e~ts have ~hown that these assumption~ often are not true. most tiebacks do n?t transfer load to the soil uniformly, even in uniform soil deposits. In a uniform 80il deposit the skin friction along an anchor is a function of strain. The skin friction--strain relationship for the tieback will determine the load transfer rate. Chapter 9 contained a detail discussion of skin friction distributions and load transfer rates. A shaft tie~ck in a uniform soil deposit will normally have elastic movemente less than the calculated elastic elongation of the un bonded length plus half of I' the an~hor length. However, if a shaft tieback is installed in Ii nonuniform ¡ 1011 depo&lJ:, then the skin friction ",ill be affecteC: by the sol1 and the ~ lki~ ~,rié~i~n--strßin relationship for each soil. If weak soils are loc~ted " around the front t)f the anchor, and s tronger soila surround the lower - Í!it portion of the anchor, then the actual elastic movements will exceed the r ~imum allowed. These tiebacks should not be rejected. The 1972 French . ,I . , RP.commendations [";'18] had a criteria for the maximum elastic Dlovement, but 1 that criteria ",as dropped when the 1977 Recommendations [53} were (- developed. The requirement was dropped because many successful inatallations had not been able to me~t the criteria. Interpretation of performance test results will be discussed in the interpretation of tests results section of this chapter. RECOMMENDED PROOF TESTS Each production tieback which is not performance or creep tested should be proof tested. A proof test is a simple test which is used to measure total movement of the tieback during in~remental loading,. The increment'iCof load are the same as those used in the performance test except the maximum , increment is normally equal to 1.20 times the design load. i; : ; i " , ' ¡ If the performance test indicates that the tiebacks are not creep , sus~eptible, and the tiebacks are installed in rock or sandy solls,then the proof tests can ~e run in accordance with the schedule contained in Table 14. The table was designed to enable five tieback tests to be recorded on the same form. The maximum load applied during the test is held constant for 5 minutes and the tieback movement is recorded. If the movement between 1 and 5 minut~s is less than 0.03 inches (0.76 mm) (after allowing for tendon creep [See Page 202]) then the test is discontinued. If the movement exceeds 0.03 inches (0.76 mm), then the load Rhould be maintained until the creep rate can be determined. 190 " . ,';".' ,',' ..n'.-'" , , , '\ , ---""', ,1 '1./,,/. ::: - j [: I ! J ;/' " .' - ,i " "', ,. ,-, , _:, . ' ,.\ ," ~" ¡i <,j , ;. .' / 'i "I i',W:il¡ - -- , I.- 'I"; iFI :.. ~, . ~-I .; , .-----... ,1 1.' : i}~ \ f '."""::--":'j-f:" ..:,-----_. "--"-_:'-- , . . """"',-o-""""""'~'-~,""'-~- "-------------------- -.- \ \,\ '.: 0,' ,.-.--<".~--..,.,.,~. '<""'~'~'" 1- -~ - ~,- -=: H -~~, .., .--..---- ----.--..-' RECOMMENDED CREEP TEST The long-term behavior of tiebacks installed in cohesive soils ~s not well understood. In order to predict the long-term bet!4Vior of tl4!bðd,s installed in clays, the engineer should select at least two tl~b~cks for ~reep testing. Normally, these tests are performed on two of tåe initial three performance-teated tiebacks. The test ar~nngement fo= a creep test is similar to thht used for performance or Iroof tests, except a load cell is used to monitor the tieback load. Table 16 contains a loading s~hedule, and Table 17 gives the deep movement schedule for a creep test. The increme~lts of load are the same aa those used during a performance test. Each observation period starts when. the pump begins to apply load and the one minute reading ia reco~ded one minute aft~r the pump starts. All times in Table 17 are taken from the time when the pump began to apply the load. The load mu~t be 1ncr'eased in le88 than 60 scconcls. Tables 16 and 17 also contain the results of a creep test p,erformed on a postgrollted tieback. installed in a stiff clay with a trace of fine to medium sand, and Figures 103 and 104 show the resIdual anchor movement, and creep curves for the tieback. The 'total moveme~t and residual anchor movement curves ar~ similar to those developed for a performance test. The creep movement at any time Is the change in moveme~t from the movement at 1 minute. . The creep curve Is a plot of the creep movement during each increment of load with respect to the log of time. The creep ~ate is the slope of the line per decade of time. A decade of time Is one log cycle of time. A semilogarithmic plot of creep movements as a function of time was selected because laboratory triaxial creep results are described by similar curves. The Fr~nch Recommendation 153] and the German Standard [56) also use similar creèp curv~s. The length of the observation periods in Table 16 increase as the load increases. This was done 80 that the creep movements are not significantly influenced by the previous loads. The writer has found that previous load history can affect the creep rate. The observation periods were selected so that the tests could be completed in a reasonable amount of Ume, and a virgin creep rate could be eßtabllshed. Since the creep movements are plotted as a function of the log of time, it would take 1,000 minutes to add one addltiol~llog cycle to a temporary tieback test and 3,000 minutes to add one more cycle to a permanent tieback test. Extension of the test for an additional log cycle is not justified, since excessive anchor creep usually is apparent early in the second log cycle. RECOMMENDED ON-SITE TESTING PROGRAM ,The number of creep and performance tests performed on a project depends upon whether the tiebacks are used for temporary or permanent applications; whether the anchor is in rock, cohesive soil, or cohesionless soil; and, the variable nature of the ground. Table 18 gives an indication of the number of creep and performance tests tha~ may be necessary. The engineer should review the grourid conditicns, and specifically identify those tieøacks which 194 flqS- \~ ? "'--f \ C- ~ t- 1- :a.-b \.e.s ------------. - . I. ,- " I - /, ,. í - ~-- : ;. \ " , :~:': , -'- ~'" ' -°, t., - v ... , ," //8 "". ,.~,,_:J'T"~l"'"1"J'I"""'":""'-~ , ,~"""'I""""f7"""'7"..-c."""~",.,,,,1..~"""':"""""".~""""""~'-', " 5~,'-(~~1"""'~'~""'."""";:""",,17""~""~':' """ "---""---'-"--_"""'h'___'""", . " -"- "--""""""""'-"""-"'-r '-;- auld be creep or performance tested. If the inSLAllation method is anged or modified significantly, each new tieback type should be creep or rformance tested. All the remaining tiebacks should be proof t~sted. Table 18. round conditions Temporary rock tiebacks Permanent rock tiebacks Temporary tiebacks in noncohesive s~i18 rcrmanent tiebacks in noncohesive soils Temporary tiebacks in cohes ive soils. Permanent tiebacks in cohesive soils. Recommended tieback testing program. Creep tests (number) None None None None First two tiebacks plus additional groups ~f two if soil conditions vary significantly over the site. First two tiebacks plus additional groups of two if 80i1 conditions vary over the site. Performance tests (number/perc¿ntage) First three tiebacks plus 1% of the re- ¡naining ones. First three tiebacks plus 2% of the remaining ones. First three tiebacks plus ,2% of the remaining ones, First three tiebacks plus 2% of the remaining,ones. \ One of the first three tiebacks plus 5% of the remaining ones. One of the first three tiebacks plus 10% of the remaining ones. '",' ..,i~ "'J' to.. " - .. , , , .., .. , Occasiona1ly~ tiebacks will fail to pass a test, indicating a onstruction problem ora change in soil type. If several tiebacks fail to ss a performance or creep test, then the design load should be reduced, or he installation method should be modified or changed. Minor modificatir~s uch as increasing the anchor length, total tieback length, or adjusting Lhe ngle of the 'tieback are very common. After changing or adjusting the nsta1lation methods, then rerf~rmance or creep tests should be run in ccordance with the recommendations in Table 18. When a proof-tested leback fails, its load-movement curve should be studied and a revised esign load should be assigned to it. Any additional capacity required hou~d be provided by adjacent or additional tiebacks. 199 I.?~ .,../' / ,," J I " ,"""- "', ., ."'.r~.;.i:il"\'" '-, ".' ...8 ',' , .'. _,I i",,'-?'7~: ,I'r" ' ' . " -, ,'. , , , 'T.t~i" ;'~ "~.. ~_.,. -~ " ..~". .,:~~~,..,.,.: .~..:""" "'."'!:-C:"'"' T"¡>" ?'"U~ " " 'I !" , '\ . ' , '¡ : ' The maximum test load may be increased above 1.33 times the design I load. However, in sandy or gravelly so11s an~ rock there i8 no enginee,r1t18 reason, for increasing the overload. In cohesive soils a higher overload will cause higher creep movements at the test load, and delay the initiation of' creep at the lock-off load. Tab]e 19 gives the overloads recommended by the various standards. The writer is not aware of any long-term 'performance problems when the tiebacks have been proof tested to 1.20 times the design load, and creep and performance tested to 1.33 times the design load. When it is not poss! hI e to establish an inde,pendent reference point to measure the movement of each tieback. i.e., wE'.terfront walls, some landslides, retaining wall repairs, and underground caverns, then a maximum test load between 150 an4 200 percent of the design load can be used for the creep and performance tests. Then the remaining tiebacks need only to be stressed and locked-off . " ¡ , Tab!!:! 19. Tieback test overloads. Tieback type Overload Source Temporary and Germany [55) [56), permanent soil 1.5 tieback Temporary tieback 1.3 to 1. 8 depending Switzerland [57] in soil or rock on risk Permanent tiebacks 1.6 to 2.0 depending Swit zerland [57) in soil or rock on risk Temporary and permanent tiebacks 1.25 to 1.5 United States in soil or rock '[59] Temporary tiebacks 1.2 France [53) in soil or rock FIP [58] Permanent tiebacks 1.3 FrAnce [53) in soil or rock FIP [58) " ,W' ", ", ,¡, J, , I ..'11', /. "I ", " " '-. ~~ ....... ;. 200 '/ ./ , ' '-¡ ", " '.', I ~ I, " , ',t,;' I . "! . ,j !'.,:, " ,,",' '. .i4'ÜP1l .ì,tj'Hln""f /'," .b é,dþt fnøm t',: ! 1\: ~ INTERPlŒTATION OF TEST RESULTS Typical total movement, residual anchor movement, and creep curves are shown in this chapter. They were presented in order to familiarize the reader with characteristic curves for common types of tiebacks, and to illustrate typical behavior patterns. The curves reflect the load transfer mechanism for the particular tieback, and they are helpful in evaluating a tieback's ability to carry load. The magnitude of the total~ residual, and elastic movements by the~selves are not significant in determining the adequacy of a tieback. They represent the tieback's response to an applied' load. They can be used to compare the tieback's behavior to other tests at "" ,:::':::'f ::.' "'- !' " ./ ---------- Street Address ¿?(CoÇ I --------------.--- Category qq-ð-=tQ /MUP Name :j I ( (0:2.. Serial # Description Plan cI<. # Year ~~"rlr>c-,,\ , SCANNED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property - Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 FOR: Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 DA TE: September 27,2000 Project No. 98-1055 PREPARED BY: Anthony- Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VII VIII IX X XIII TABLE OF CONTENTS I Scope ...........................................................1 II Introduction .................................................................2 III General Site Conditions ....................................................... 2 IV Previous Retainin2Svstem ..................................................... 3 V Existin2BeachandBluffConditions.............................................4 VI Soil and Geolo2icConditions ...................................................5 Geolo2icSettin2s .............................................................8 Sea Cliff Retreat........................................ ......................8 Shoreline.TidalandWaveCharacteristics.......................................10 ConciusionsandRecommendations ............................................13 Limitations .................................................................21 FIGURES: I Vicinity Map II Site Plan/Geologic Map PLATES: I. II. Repair Plan (Sheet 2 of 4, prepared by SEC) Cross-Sections (Sheet 3 of 4, prepared by SEC) APPENDICES: A References I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street. Escondida, CA 92029 . (760) 738-8800 . (760) 738-8232 fax September 27, 2000 Project No. 98-1055 City of Encinitas Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property - Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue (Lots 4 and 5) Encinitas, California Dear Ms. Bradley: In accordance with your request, we submit this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with regards to revised bluff conditions within and adjacent to at the subject site. I Scope The following scope of services were performed as part of the evaluation: . Review of readily available published and unpublished documents relative to tile site, and general area. Our review included available proprietary and non-proprietary photographs, maps, reports, and other documents pertinent to the subject site and the adjacent site area, (See References, Appendix A); . Reconnaissance observations of site, and exposed soil and bluff conditions, by our engineering and geological personnel; . Review of Chapter 30.34.010, and 30.34.020, Sections A through E., of the City of Encinitas, Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone regulations. . Review of engineering and geologic analysis of data collected; San Diego, CA . San Francisco, CA . Houston, TX :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue. Enelnitas, Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 2 Project No. 98-1055 . Preparation of this report of revised engineering, geological, and geotechnical findings relative to the existing conditions within middle and lower coast areas, with recommendations appropriate mitigative measures. II Introduction In accordance with the your requests, we present herein a discussion of revised geotechnical conditions at the subject site. The purpose of our revised geotechnical updated, is to discuss conditions present within the subject site, <h'1d relative to the design and mitigation of bluff instability presently affecting the middle/upper bluff area, as well as proposed improvements to be constructed within this bluff area. Upon discussion with the property owner, and her construction consulta..l1t (Soil Engineering Construction), we have prepared the follO\VÎng discussion relative to the mitigative actions designed to address hazard(s) and bluff deterioration within the subject site. HI General Site Conditions The following discussion outlines the genera] conditions present at the site. The subject property consists of Lot Nos. 4 a..'ld 5, of Tract 1935, South Coast Park Subdivision Unit No.3, City of Encinitas, State of California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). On-site improvements consist of a roughly 45-year-old, single-story, wood frame and stucco residential structure with enclosed room addition. Exterior improvements include an asphalt driveway and masonry block, retaining wall planters within the front yard. The subject residence and related improvements are located within Lot No.4, while the adjacent lot (Lot No.5) within the study area, remains basically undeveloped. The subject site is bounded by Neptune Avenue on the east, similar single-family residential structures on neighboring properties located to the north and south, and an approximately 95 foot high moderately to steeply sloping coastal bluff along the west. The coastal bluff descends onto a natural sand and gravel beach which lies within the Encinitas Beach County Park. I .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca. Septemher 27, 2000 Pale J Project No. 98-1055 The Bradley property is situated on the western edge of the coastal Plain, and on the western side of the Peninsular Range physiographic province. Site elevations range from a low of sea level at the shoreline's edge, to a high of approximately 98 feet within the subject building pads. Neptune Avenue, located towards the east, lies roughly 4 to 5 feet below the existing pad elevation. Currently, the top of the existing bluff face, is situated approximately 5 feet from the principal structure and room addition constructed onto the rear of the residenœ. The existing upper bluff face has been provided with shotcrete/tie-back retaining wall stmcture, which covers the upper most approximately 30-feet of the b]uffface. The shotcrete/tie-back structure extends the approximate full width of Lot Nos. 4 and 5. A concrete drainage s'.;;¡ale '.\lith drain in]et box has been integrated into the bottom of the shotcretc/tie-back wal]. The mid-section of the bluff is charactl,:rized by naturally weathered exposure of dense sand, with remnants of several wood landscape retaining walls. As of this 'writing, the northerly most half of the upper shotcrctc/tie-back cover is seriously ¡mdcrmjned, but at present appears to remain intact and in fair to good condition. The lower most section (approximately lower 25 feet) of th~ existîngbluff face is presently amlored from direct wave action by a reinforced concrete seø.wa.ll and localized shotcrete cover constructed as shO\'Vn on the project plans prepared by !big tìrmand currently held within the City of Encinitas. Two localized sections of3- to 4-tèet high pipe and board landscape wall also remain present between th~ seawtùl, and upper shotcrete cover. The pipe and board waHs rep~sent locally restored/retrofitted landscape retaining walls, which partially support ~ver-steepened natural Terrace Deposits. :. I IV Previous RetainiD1~ Svstem As of this writing, a majority of the previously constructed wood anq concrete post retaining walls have been impacted by the conditions of on-going ntidlUpper bluff failures, with the exception of those previously mentioned above. I In 1992, the existing shotcrete/tie-back wall system protecting the u~per bluff face, was constructed based on an engineered plan (References 16 and 17, Appendix A), and was designed to be the first phase of a comprehensive (top-to-bottom) bluff repair program. The upper shotcrete/tie-back wall system was completed in 1992, with the apparent exception of the installation of the safety railing and the colorized protective surface coating. I .11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !II Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff S6O Neptune Avenue, Encinitas. Ca. September 27, 2000 Page 4 Project No. 98-IOSS v Existini! Beach and Bluff Condition~ At zero tide, the waterline of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 TO 60 feet from the base of the existing bluff. During periods of moderate to high tide, ocean swells often impact the base of the existing bluff. The near-shore beach environment west of the property generally consists of a gently, westward sloping wave-cut sheWreef composed of a moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation. These cemented sandstones are visible as localized outcrops exposed beneath- unconsolidated sand and cobble beach deposits, and extend to from the lower most 20 to 25-foot high, near-vertical to vertical lower section of the bluÍf Ülce. The new seawall and localized shotcrete cover constructed in 1999 currently prott:,cts the lower Torrey Sandstones from wave action between elevation of approximatdy..3 feet to plus +15.5 fed, mean sea level. Uneonfonnably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of 25 feet to the bluff top, are QuatemlliJi..aged marine terrace deposits c.cllsisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandStones. These materials are slightly cemented, massive, tine to mediurrl.o&,rraim:d -silty sands and sandstones whil.::h have naturally weathered ~md !ocaHy failed into a slope ranging from vertical to approximately 1-1/2: 1 (horizontal to \íertical). Surface drainage \\'Íthin the blufftac:e, is generally controlled within upper 25 feet of the bluff: where the shotcrete/tie-backwall has been constructed. 'ùIface. nmdff from the shotcrete wall is drained into an existing concrete swaie 'ld drain box, located along the base of the wall, which empties into a 4-inch diam'r, PVC down pipe discharging to near the bél$e of the bluff face. The remaining Irrtions of the bluff face are characterized by sheet-flow type drainage, directedflin a westerly (dovv11slope) direction. ' I" fi Surface drainage and building I1Jl1offfrom the building pad areas (Ld~::Nos. 4 and 5) appears to generally be control~ed. Runoff appears to be directed ir#o the existing ,II system of roof gutters, downspouts, and drain inlets which empty into <train pipes that discharge onto Neptune A venue, located on the east side of the property. , The southerly half of the exposed bluff face is characterized by sp~se, or poorly established, localized growths of ground cover. The remaining natural slope which is within the failure area, is devoid of any plant species. :. I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I mHH Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff SClO Neptune Avenuc, Encinitas, Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 5 Project No. 98-11155 At present, lower bluff protection exists along the shoreline on the neighboring properties, located to the north and south. Within the property to the north, the lower portion of the bluff face has been provided with a concrete and rock revetment, supplemented with a section of concrete gunite cover sprayed onto the exposed lower 20 feet of the blufftace. In general, the existing concrete and rock revetment appears to be performing as intended, with no significant damage or distress conditions evident. To the south, the neighboring properties have been provided with an approximately I3-foot high (approximately 7-feet readily exposed), approximately 3- to 5-foot wide concrete gravity wall which has been tied into the base of the bluff face. Based on previous site visits performed during the construction of these gravity walls, we understand that these structures have been provided with tie-backs and drain svstems. These walls have also been texturized and colorized to match the: - sulTounding natural Torrey Sandstone materials, exposed along the blufTface. Based on our site observations, in August and December, 1998, the gravity walls constructed along these sections of the bluff tàce appear to be perfonning as intended, with no visible signs of deterióration, scouring or undennining. VI Soil and (!,eologic Conditions As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed the geologic maps and excavation logs performed as part of previous exploratory investigations at the site (see References, Appendix A). We have also performed supplemental geologic reconnaissanœ observations. Based on our review of previous exploration logs, our staff s previous experience in this general area, information provided by the owners engineering and construction consultant (Soil Engineering Construction), and updated site observations, we present below a summary of soil conditions within the project site. I I Debris Materials (Db) An accumulation of loose bluff soils is present as slope debris above the new seawall and the remaining retrofitted/repaired pipe and board walls. These materials represent the remnants of bluff failure debris from the process of undercutting/undermining of the of upper shotcrete cover. Artificial Fill (At) Minor amounts of fill soils remain as soil backfill behind the existing terraced system of some sections of the remaining wood retaining walls, located primarily within the mid-section of the bluff south of the main failure area. :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ! Revised Geotechnical Ulltlate Bradley Property.Coa~tal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinita~. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 6 Project No. 98-IO~~ Soils exposures within this area appear to consist of brown, silty, fine to medium-grained sands most probably derived from the on-site terrace deposits. The maximum thickness of the backfill materials is estimated to range from 4 feet. Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were noted to overlie the Torrey Sandstone materials which are exposed along the base of the coast bluff. These materials consist of loose, unconsolidated, sand fU1d gravel/cobble deposits subject to ongoing transport as a result of wave ahd tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits are estimated to range from approximately 3 to 5 feet thick. I Quaternary Terrace Deposit*i(Qt) ! Quaternary-aged Ten'ace deposits are exposed in the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 25 feet, and extend to the top of the slope (lot areas). The terrace deposits exposed on-site consist of poorly to moderately well consolidated, Jocally slightly to model"àtely well cemented, light yellow to orange-brown, dark brov.'Il and gray-brown silty fine to medium sands and sandstones. These sands are generally massive with an apparent slight dip ranging from roughly 3 to 10 degrees to the south-southwest. No evidence was found to suggest the presence of any faulting, jointing, or fracturing within the terrace deposits. These on-site deposits have been identified by other names including the Linda Vista Formation and the Sv,reitzer Formation (References 23 and 24). For the purposes of simplicity, we have utilized the general terms "Quaternary T~rrace deposits" or "Terrace deposits." Torrey Sandstone Formation (Tt) Materials of the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation underlie terrace deposits throughout the site, and are exposed as localized shoreline outcrops beneath the beach deposits and new seawall, as well as vertical to near- vertical cliff exposures visible above the new seawall, located along the base of the bluff face along the southerly portion of the site. These materials consist generally of well consolidated, moderately to locally well cemented, massive yellow-brown to gray-brown silty and clayey fine- to coarse-grained sandstone, interbedded with occasional siltstone and claystone layers. I -II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :' I Revised Geotechniul UpdMte Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Endnitas, CM. September 27, 2000 Page 7 Project No. 98-1055 Bedding features observed within the unit suggest dips ranging from 5 to 15 degrees toward the north-northwest. Several to numerous joints and fractures were noted exposed within the cliff face below Lot No.5. These features strike in a northerly direction and dip steeply (70 to 85 degrees) towards the east and west. Where these joint features experience direct wave and tidal actions, they can accelerate bluff retreat by allowing undercutting of the lower bluff face. Also noted du...;ng recent exposures most soil materials have been removed from the slope, with the exception of several feet of silty sand (slough) which has accumulated above the new seawall. Ancient faults observed belo~ Lot No.5, located immediately north of the property have been reported 4)' others (References 14, 24 an~ 26, Appendix A). These faults are generally considered to lie within a fault zone possessing an overall strike in a north-northeasterly direction, and dipping at angles of approximately 50 to 90 degrees towards the east and west. T)TJically, the cemented, generally resistant Torrey Sandstone forms straight sections of near-vertical beach cliffs except where weakeneq by fracturing, jointing, or fauìting. To a great extent, the overall rate of retreat or recession of the terrae(: deposits forming much of the bluffs within the site, is largely controlled by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. Given the presence of the new seawall the rate of retreat of the lower Torrey S~dstone should be slowed significantly. Groundwater Continuous minor to moderate water seepage was observed eJIlanating from the lower, southwesterly portion of the bluff face, primarily i~ the vicinity of the contact between the terrace deposits and the Torrey Sahdstone. This lower bluff water seepage is now presently collected by ¡the system of subdrains and outlet pipes installed behind the new concret~ seawall. The source of the observed seepage is most likely water from land$cape irrigation and other urban sources accumulating and becoming locally perched on less permeable strata elements. I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!I Revlse!d Geotechnical Update! Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avcnue. Endnitas, Ca. September 27, 2000 PageS VII VIII Projett No. 98-1055 Geolo~ic Settin~s Conditions related to general and regional geologic conditions at the site remain unchanged from the those previously reported and discussed in our project report titled Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, dated December 11, 1998, (Reference 6, Appendix A). Sea Cliff Retreat Many factors atTect the retreat rate of coastal sea cliff<;. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, th~ amount of induration of the cliff-forming sedimentary rocks, the degree and prientation of fracturing/jointing/faulting, the amount of uncontrolled drainage $off from adjoining up-slope areas and other sources, and the frequency and intenßi . of wave and storm action, etc. For similar bluffs and environments, other propr et. and non-proprietary sD.ldies indicate that bluff erosion and retreat can be expete to be on the order of 0.2 - 0.3 feet per year. This rate is generally supported by a v ew of aerial photographic records. A review of the Army Corps of Engineers, , 0 eline Reconnaissance for EnGinitas, dated March i 996, suggests that the averag ~ r te of retreat for the shoreline (including the 1 site) is estimated by to 0.9-feet per year. Given the limited cementat~on within the Ten-ace deposits and the unprotected conditions of mid/upper bluff is Þ~terials, we estimate that the blUff.' erosion rate a.t !tie site (if unmitigated) Couldi.r~, <>P.' .. the order of 0.2 to 0.3-feet per year (southerly portiqn of the bluff), to greater Ù1 ~.Oftfeet per year (northerly portion of the bluff for the ¡ncar-term duration). Tbe ?racier of the retreat is believed to be the progressive back-failure of the over-ste ' ed Terrace deposits throughout the mid and upper hh~ff areas below the project' ~:¡We should note that actual retreat will likely be epi~odic, largely be related to ex 'we, erosion, and failure ~fthe o~e:-steepened Ten-ace Deposits, and accelerated b II )~~eorologica1 and geologIc condItions. III J,j" 'i: ;~¡ !i I I During our site reconnaissance observations of the existing bluff face r '. we noted the following conditions affecting the erosion rate of the bluff mate 'I '1' ¡within the I' I site area. ,.1. :1' l ' 'I " I' ,.!! ,. I'!' ' '!JJ Stabilizing Characteristics . , , The lower approximat~ly 20. feF,., t of the sea cliff is presentlt, f. .~.. in.. posed of moderately cemented and resistant Torrey Sandstone materi~l~; : , " .. I -II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11~" I Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Enctnitas, Ca. September 27, 2000 Page 9 Project No. 98-1055 . The basal sections of the sea cliff along the southern portion of Lot No.4 appear only slightly jointed and fractured within the subject property; . Existing up-slope runoff from the building pad areas is directed away from the slope and towards Nept\l1le 1\ venue. Vegetation and irrigation of the slope is presently limited; . . . At present, the existing shotcrete/tie-back cover is severely undennined and inadequately supp0l1ed because of soil loss fTom below. Howt:ver, the structural condition of the shotcrete cover appears to be in fair to good condition, given the existing site conditions; . The lower seawall constructed along the base of the subject bluff is in..place, and presently functions to armQr the exposed lower the Toney Sandstone from direct wave action. Therefore has potential for undercutting and collapse of the lower bluff by scouring and wave action ftom the beach presently appears to be mitigated. Destabilizing Characteristics . Signiticam episodes of bluiT e[osion and failure are progressing at this present time; . Previous bluff erosion, retreat anp failures within the Terrace Deposits have created severe undermining an~ over-steepening of the Terrace Deposits within the northerly half of the bluff face. At present, the Terrace Deposits exposed within the entire northerly half of the bluft: (especialiy the area located above the cove), is in a severe state of retreat resulting from over- steepened and/or overhanging bluff soils, which exceed the angle of repose of the natural materials. As such, continped erosion and bluff failures are . . I Immment. ' Landsliding and Slope Stability Based on our review of pertinent documents, a$ well as our site reconnaissance observations, there are no indications of deep-seat~d landsliding on or adjacent to the subject property. However, previous retaining wall failures have been documented, believed to have primarily resulted from conditions of insufficient design and/or construction of the previous failed structures, :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i !1t11!'f'fJ I Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff S60 Neptune Avenue, Encinit8s. Ca. SeptE:mber 27, 20110 Page 10 ProJtet No. 98-t05S Cliff Stability and Erosion Future sea cliff or bluff retreat at the subject site is dependant on the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone and the effectiveness, and life-span of any protective structures installed along the lower bluff face. In its CUITent state, it is our opinion that the upper most 2/3rds of the blufff=ace is considered to be highly unstable and subject to on-going failures and collapse. This opinion is SLJPP0l1ed by our observation of a large, near-vertical t«j> overhanging section of the T efface Deposits immediately beneath and behind the upper shotcrete cover, as well as 'Nithin the lower bluff areas, above the new seawall. IX Shoreline. Tidal. Æ!!LW ave CharaJterjsti~ The existing seawall was been designed and constructed based on applicable shoreline, tidal, and wave characteristics; pertinent to the project site area. Based on our review of existing site conditions, the following discussion outlines existing site conditions, some of which remain unchanged from conditions previously reported (Reference 6, Appendix A). 1. I Based on storm data, the maxih1um significant wave height for the near-shore location (water depth = 33. I feet, MLLW) within the general site area (Reach 2), as collected between 1904 and 199 i, hlli¡ been recorded as 2f.9 feet, with an calcuiated maximum near-shore ",-ave height of24.9, based on a 100-year frequency period. A wave height of II-feet (based near-shorç wave height data and near..shore water depth = 33.1-MLLW, based on st09 event, 1982- 1983), was used âS the basi$ for the design of the existíng ~eawall, with frequency (period) of over-topping, estimated at 10-years, I I i Mean Sea Level (MSL) based on San Diego Tidal Characteri~tics (La Jolla) equals +2.75 feet, relative to MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water) elevation. Characteristic normal tidal ranges within the San Diego (La ,Jona) area as referenced to Mean Lower Low Water Level (MLL W ) have been reported to range from 0.0 feet (MLL W) to 5.3 feet (MHHW), with the maximum tidal ranging from the lowest observed water level of -2.6 feet (Dec¡~ 1933), to the highest observed water level of7.8 (Aug., 1983). 2. I .11 I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale II Project No. 911-1055 3. Based on our experience and'a réview of available documents, we estimate that the erosion rate within the lower bluff (Torrey Sandstone) with the existing seawall in place at thé site to be less than 0.025 feet per year. We also estimate that following cþnstruction of the mitigative full bluff repairs (seawall, mid/upper beam and ¡lagging wall, and gravel fill) the rate of retreat within the Terrace deposits tq be approximately 0.05-feet per year within the northerly portion of the mid/uþper bluff, and approximately O.l-feet per year within the southerly portion of the mid/upper bluff. 4. A review of gradational evaluation of the Torrey Sandstone which comprises the lower 25 feet of the bluff face, indicates that this formation consists predominantly of moderately cemented, silty to clean medium to coarse grain sandstone, containing approxi~ately 5 to 20 percent fines (80 to 95 % sand). The natural Ten-ace Deposits :which comprises the upper approximately 70 to 75 feet of the blutI is priniarily composed of slightly cemented, fine to medium silty sand, comprised of approximately 5 to 30 percent fines (70 to 95 % sand). 5. The design and construction of the bluff repairs (existing lower concrete seawall, with beam and lagging wall and gravel fill, should create no adverse conditions or etIect on the adjacent properties, located north and south. The doweling of the seawall into the adjacent seawall (to the south), and bluff (to the north), should reduce potential erosion near the ends of the seawall. Therefore, the completed seawall and mid/upper bluff repairs will not adversely atIect conditions or structures on the adjacent properties. 6. The existing new seawall has been founded approximately 3-feet into the dense Torrey Sandstone, and also is locally (the cove area) founded on deepened reinforced concrete caissons penetrating 16-feet into the underlying dense Torrey Sandstone. As such, the potential for scouring to undermine the base of the wall has been reduced. Additionally, the very dense, moderately to well cemented character of the Torrey Sandstone, and the existing sand and cobble beaK:h deposits also reduce the potential for such scourIng. 7. A design life of approximately 23 years or greater is anticipated for the lower seawall structure, as well as the mid/upper bluff repairs, if properly constructed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, and those of the design engineers (Soil Engineering Construction). It is further I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H,; 11 ': I'. Revised Geotechnlul Upd~te Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinita~. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 12 Project No. 98-1055 anticipated that, the typical maintenance provisions shall include the establishment and maintenance of proper surface drainage and erosion control within the mid- and upper-bluff areas, and the annual inspection of the proposed seawall and lower beam and lagging wall, as well as the gravel slope and existing shotcrete cover, with repairs provided as necessary. 8. Based on our review, it is. cpr. opinion that the recommended bluff repairs including the existing seawall, and the revised mid/upper bluff repairs consisting of the lower bea.nl1. and lagging wall with gravel fill slope, is the only practical and cost effe~tive repair which meets the existing site and engineering constraints. No~ of the project altematives including: no repair actions; the relocation of thteatened structures; and/or beach nourishment would. be expected to provide long teml protection of the on-site and off-site bluff and the adjacent property illlprovements. The implementation of no repair actions is considered to b~ an unacceptable alternative, since such actions \viil allow the continued deterioration of the mid/upper bluff face and, with time, allow the continued undennining of the up-slope terrace deposits, walls, and the principal structure. Further, lUl-mitigated bluff erosion/retreat, will allow the existing instability to migrate into adjaccQt neighboring properties. The relocation of some, (or all) of the existing pri '"ipal stmcture is also considered unacceptable, since un-mitigated bluff f9 at would be allowed continued undermining which threatens the neigh' ring bluff, as would also allow the shotcrete cover to further deteriorate in i' unsupported condition. Further, continued conditions of unmitigated bi ff failure and undermining shall significantly impact the value of the prope ~ and increase the pot.ential for additional fàilures (includ. ing possibly the ~' ,°.....1....1 apse of the shotcrete cover) which would in-tum increase the threat to e health and safety of the beach going public. : ! The proposed limits of lower and mid/upper bluff mitigativ~ repairs, are discussed below, and are also shown on the attached Repair Plan, Plate I, and Cross-Sections, Plate II, prepared by Soil Engineering Constl1Jction. 9. 10. The lower bluff retaining wall recommended herein, is designe~ to withstand storm conditions comparable to the winter storms of 1982-19ß3; :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II Rcvi~ed Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coa~tal Bluff !l60 Neptune Avenue, Encìnitas, Ca. Scltember 27, 2000 Pale IJ Project No. 9...t~ x Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our revised geotechnical update, it is our opinion that the absence of a properly designed and constructed lower bluff protection system, has allowed continued lower and mid/upper bluff retreat, thereby creating the existing unstable bluff conditions, which has: de-stabilize to the existìng shotcrete cover; a significant real potential to impact the principle residence and adjacent vacant property; a potential to migrate into other surrounding bluff materials on-site and within neighboring properties; and threatens the potential health and safety of the beach going public. As of this writing, the potential for undercutting and collapse of the base of the lower blllffhas been mitigated by the ins1rlllation of a new reinforced concrete seawall, constructed as part: of the previous project submittal. However, the existing conditions of mid/upper bluff instability have yet to be mitigated, and the previously proposed mid/upper bluff repairs (the retrolitting of several existing landscape walls, and the installation of soil anchors and erosion mesh), can not longer effectively address the magnitude the existing instability.. Therefore, we recommend that a program of revised mid/upper bluff repairs be i~plemented as S. 00 n. as praçtical and reas.. ible. The. scope of the rc\. rised I.nid/U pper ~IIU... ff repairs are discussed below. The proposed mid/upper mitigative hI uff repairs (1 :wer beam and lagging wall with angular gravel fill), shall be designed and construct. based on t.l}e following considerations and reasons: i I i . The proper implementation of the revised mitigative r airs shall be substantially effective fOf the purpose of bluff erosion/fail e protection, applicable to the specific conditions encountered and known about the project site and repair area. . Without the proper implementation of the revised mid/upper bluff stabilization measures as discussed herein, there exists an on-going demonstrative hazard to the stability of the upper shotcrete structures, and a significant potential threat to the principal structure. . The seawall (existing) and the associated mid/upper bluff mitigative measures will not directly, or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on site or off site. Further, the existing seawall and the proposed mid/upper bluff measures shall be design to properly terminate into, and connect with the adjacent structures and bluff materials, so as to limit the potential for such erosion or failure to develop. :. I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I If Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca. ~ptember 27, 2000 Pale 14 'rojeet No. 98-1055 . The mitigative bluff repairs shall be designed mId constructed to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and will restore and enhance the visual quality within the existing visually degraded area. The proposed repairs will not, where feasible cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the bluff face, and shall visually blend with the existing shoreline and protective structures and the sUITounding biuft~ iDeated north and south of the project site. . Further, the mitigative bluff and iower seawall and IYtid/upper bluff repair measures will not unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for use or access. " A review of anticipated 75-year slope stability analysis has been perfO1med for post..constructi(;J1 bluff conditions (assurning proper maintenance and construction), and assuming unmitigated lower bluff conditions at the site. Our evaluation indicates that with proper constmction and maintenance of the proposed seawall and other recommended bluff repairs, as shown on the project plans (Reference 3, Appendix A), it i~, estimated that bluff retreat at the site is estimated to range from approxinptdy 0.05- to O.l-lèt:t per year or less. This rate ofhluffretreat equals approx~mateiY 3.75 to Î.75-feet of bluff ioss over 75-years. Our evaluation of bluff retreat rates for unmitigated bluff conditions (without bluff protective), indicates an approximate retreat rate of 0.2 to 0.3 feet per year. This rate of bluff retreat equals approximately 15- to 22.5-feet of blutl loss over 75 years. The above estimated retreat for unmitigated bluffconditÎons (no protectíverepaìrs) is based on general retreat rates relative to the site and general area, and does not include retreat caused by catastroph:ic failures or other unforeseen significant soillosses/failures from significant storm events or othe' acts of nature. . No specific building improvements are proposed as p<i1'1: of the bluff protection outlined for the site. The purpose of the bluff protection include: 1) To mitigate an existing imminent threat to the principle structure resulting from recent and on-going lower and upper ,bluff failures, 2) To mitigate an existing imminent threat of expanded off-sitþ bluff instability resulting from the recent and on-going failures within the! midi upper bluff located on the project site, 3) To mitigate an imminent threþt to the health and safety of the beach going public created by site bluff instability. :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Geotechnical Uldate Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff S6(I Neptune Averue, Enclnjta~, Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale IS :H14 I. Project No. 98-IOS5 Following the proposed mid/upper bluff repairs, the b!utT is planned for the installation of a approved landscaping, and the installation of a irrigation system shown on the revised project landscape plans. However, the irrigation system proposed on the bluff face, has been included as a temporary irrigation system only. This system has been provided at the request of the City of Encinitas, and the system is planned to be utilized for a period of approximately one~year, in order to establish the growth of City approved bluff species, heip reduce soiJ erosion, and to en.}lance the aesthetics of the finished project. No permanent in-igation systems are plarmed to be installed at the site. . D""<>d 0"; (-yur """-'J'if"" """'u,,,tin-n >1nd <>-'nal\'Sl'" it i.. our ""'o~e~('Ol"'.IlaJ rll-)'!"'~I'n .u..~.)" h, !'~'--~", ...v...." ~'>~.""", "'-' J "',. ..') í:" 1 .3,;, u . ~ - -.I.I.} , that the project can be designed and located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribllt,~ to ¡:ignificant geologic instability throughout the lÍte span of the project. This opinion is based on the assumption that the recommended bhdf protection st."1lctures sh~lI be loeated and constructed in accordance with the pro~ect plans (Referenc~ 3, Appendix A), that this finn shall provide all rccoIT'il'i:lended quality contrpl inspection services during the construction/repair procçss, any supplement4Ü recommendations provided by this fiml during or at~er construc,tion ,~e iInplemented, and adequate provisions fì)f monitod~1Jg and maintenance:'j' are provided over its life span. ',' , ',' , ',' ',' : " , " , , I , " . , As of thi~ writing, the recon~"n~l~ded seawall has been constructed alon~ the base of the bluf1i$S illustTated based on tlhe previous design plans, (Referenqe ~, Appendix A) wíth 1:&. e required coastal C. o1T~nission emerg. =.. . approvals, This ~...,.~.e. Wal.l is al. so shown' ,existing on the attached, Repair Plan, Plate I, prepared by Sbil Engineering Constru ion The new seawall and its related structural elements, d backdrain system re designed and ponstructed in general accordance with tqeprojcct plans and pre. us updated geotechn~ca1 report (Reference 6, Appendix A).¡ 1Ïherefore, no additio I discussion relat~ve ~o the new seawall shall be provided except where nece~sazy so as to outline 1lie relationship of existing conditions to revised mitigative repalfS. ! , .. New Seawall Protection :. I I I I I I I I I ¡ I I I I I I I I, ] ill In'. II'II! "' Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff S60 Neptune Avenue, Encinita., Ca. September 27, 2000 Page 16 Project No. 98-1055 Revised MidlUpper Bluff Repairs We support the recommendation that the conditions of existing bluff instability can be mitigated with the construction of the proposed lower beam and lagging wall system designed by Soil Engineering Construction, and shown on the project plans and supported by structural calculation and stability analyses (References 2, 3, 4, Appendix A). Further, we recommend the mid/upper bluff repairs proceed as soon as possible, during the first available significant period of favorable weather and tidal conditions, with appropriate approval under an emergency coastal development permit, and with required agency approvals. Based on our discussions with representatives from tht~ designtìrm (Soil Engineering Construction), and our review of the bluff repair plans by SEC~ we provide the following summary of revised repair measures. As a result of changes observed within the subjec~ bluff, representatives from Soil Engineering Construction (SEÇ) and Anthony- ]\lylor Consultants evaluated the existing failure and bluff instability, and have c~ncluded that the existing bluff instability can practically and effective1y be it"nitigated With. the immediate construction of a new beam artd lagging wall ex'~nding approximately 50 feet in length ,and approximately 14 teet in height, locat~d along the base of the natural Terrace deposits (approximately 5-feet east ofthe,t1ew seawall). 'I I The new beam and lagging walt shall be construct' using steel beams placed in 18- inch diameter core drilled holes 'positioned at 8-fee on-center, and extending 6-feet deep into the existing conQrete/qement backfillloc ed behind the concrete seawall. Based on structural analY$ís anp design performed by SEC, it has been determined that the steel beam wall will require a 24" by 36" reinforced concrete grade beam (spanning the individual. vertifal beams) to b~ 90nstructed, and anchored with intermediate drilled tie-backs extending back into'the natural bluff. Pressure treated douglas fir wood lagging ~ sishng of 6 x 12's, 4 by 12's, and 3 x 12's shall then be installed to span between t e :vertical steel beams. The wood lagging shall be provided with an approxim ely 1/4-inch wide airspace between the lagging, and a layer of Mirafi filter fabric ntd the back of the wpod wall. The new beam and laggiqg ap is proposed for backfill with clean angular gravel aggregate at an approximat iricline of 1.2: I to 1.5 (horizontal to vertical). The gravel fill is proposed to e~ coþstruction, restore the failed section of the bluff and support to the existing sh tc~ete cover, reduce the time required to complete :. I I I I I I I I !I I I I I I I I I ]'] , 11!:II! Uf Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue. Encinitas. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 17 Project No. 98-1055 construction, and reduce safety concerns associateed with working below the existing undermined shotcrete cover and overhanging bluff soils. Where steepened conditions may exist during construction of the gravel fill slope, the aggregate is proposed to be constructed into gabion baskets. Once the gravel fill is in-placed to: the fill shall restore the failure area and fill below and support the bottom beam of the shotcrete cover. Once the gravel fill is placed, the balance of the void space behind the shotcrete wall shall be backfilled with a combination of either light weight slurry grout, and clean sand backfill. Upon completion of the beam and lagging wall and restoration of the failure area, the gravel aggregate slope and the upper shotcrete cover will then be colorized to blend to the extent possible, with the coloration of the surrounding natural bluff, using the Permeon coloration system. Following the repairs. the bluff in planned to be provided with a approved landscaping and a temporary landscape irrigation system. It is anticipated that in order to perform the recommended bluff restoration, construction of the steel beam pile and lagging wall shall be performed using a mobile crane to lift equipment and materials from the public beach. It is also anticipated that the placement of the gravel backfill shall be performed using either a telescoping gradall and/or perhaps other conveyer system situated in the street in front of the vacant lot on the property. For the design of the proposed mid/upper bluff repairs founded in dense, undisturbed Torrey Sandstone materials, the following geotec~cal design soil parameters should be used: Cohesion = 2000 psf Friction Angle = 55 degrees Total Unit Weight = 120 pcf. Minimum Foundation Embedment = 3 ft. ~ = 0.07 Ko=O.13 ~= 14 :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wi' Iii I: 19 I Revised Geotechnical Update Brldley Property-Coastal Blufr S6O Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas. Ca. September 27. 2000 Pile 18 Project No. 98-1055 For the design of the proposed mid/upper bluff repairs vlÌthin the mid-bluff areas, and founded in generally undisturbed Terrace Deposit materials, the following geotechnical parameters should be used: Cohesion = 150 psf * Friction Angie = 38 * Total Unit \Veight = 110 pcf Bearing Capacity, pcf = (400 x dianleter, ft.) + (1000 x embedment, ft.) Minimum Embedment Depth = ] 5 feet. Skin Friction, psf= (8 x embedment, ft.) ¥~ = 0.25 Ko = 0.40 y~ = 4.0 (*) Denotes updated design values based on suþplementallaboratory testing, and test data collected and reported by Soil Engineering Construction. Discussion of Alternatives As part of the geotechnical review of the bluff conditions and mitigative repair measures, we have considered alternatives to the construction of the proposed bluff stabilization wall and gravel fill slope. Where requested, alternatives will be addressed in greater details: No Mitigative Repairs The failure to commence the recommend(!d repairs (even with the seawall completed, as previously approved) will c~tinue to leave the residence and existing upper shotcrete wall in a state of rebl and imminent threat of failure and collapse. Further, continued landward (easterly) and laterally (northerly- :. I I I I I I I I I I , I ! I I I I I I II Revised Geotechnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Eneinitl~. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 19 Project No. 98-1655 southerly) mitigation of the Ülilure area will ultimately involve neighboring properties. Therefore, this alternative would likely leave the property unusable; create severe financial hardship for the owner; allow continued lateral migration of the failure area into neighboring properties; as ',vell as leave the potential threat to the health and safety of the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. Removal or Relocation of Portions of the Threatened Residence The removal or relocation of all or portions of the residence would allow the continued landward (easterly) and laterally (northerly-southerly) mitigation of the failure ultimately involving neighboring properties. Theretore, this alternative would also leave the property unusable; create severe financial hardship for the owner; allow unmitigated lateral migration into neighboring properties; as well as leave the potentia] threat to the health and saf.~ty to the beach going public from falling materials and debris unmitigated. Below Ground Rear-Yard Reteiltion System I , I ~Vith respect to ,the ~se of a ~elow ground .retention struct~rejca~s~on.s and grade bearns wIth tIe-backs be]o\;o,' grade III the rear yard) t nlltIgare the existíng instability, this method of repair is ba~i(:ally prohibited because of lb. e P.otcntial for damage ~O....the sn:uctural ~~e-back..<; which p~OVi!e suppo~ the shotcreie wan. The drIllIng of large dlanleter excavatiOns as wotlid be required with this type of repair operation would have a signifi. ant potential to damage the existing wall tie-backs which are a crucjal strw:;tUral elements sUPPOrtil1g the shotcrete cover. The repair options would also allow the potential for on-going bluff failures below the shotcrete ¿over to extend laterally (northerlYlsoutherly), and allow the shotcrete cover to deteriorate and collapse over time. Therefore, this alternative would Ibreate a severe financial hardship for the owner; allow unmitigated lateral¡ migration into neighboring properties; as well as leave the. potential threat t~.the health and safety to the beach going public from fulling materifs and debris unmitigated.' I I I :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111, ¡¡ II Revised Geotechllical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff :560 Neptune Avenue. Enclnilas. Ca. September 27, 2000 PaIr 20 Project No. 98-1055 Soil Conditions and Slope Analysis In order to evaluate the post construction stability of the bluff repair, representatives from Soil Engineering Construction performed slope stability analysis using the GST ABL 7 computer program based on two cross-sections extending prepared through the completed bluff repair. Design information used in th~~ slope analyses is based the configuration of the finished sJopcrepair as ShOtNH on the project repair plans (Reference 1), supplemental on-site shear testing perfom1ed by this office, and SEC's knowledge and experience witb simi.1ô.r bluff and soil çondrLicm.s on previous adjacent pr~ject sites. The findings of the analyses found the minimun1 Factor of Safety (FS) against failure of the repaired slope through sections (A-A', B-B') under a static conditions equals F.S. =1.48, and 1.47, respectively. Further, the analyses found the minimum Factor of Safety (FS) against failure of the r~paired slope thrûugh sections (A..1\', RoB') UlHk:f a sdsmic load of 0.15 g, equals F,S. =1.17, and ] 17 J'esr.'c"tJ'"",h. .. ) - ,.) -". .., ""'J. Though the minimUIll factor of safety has been calculated to be slightly below the industry standard minirnum Factor of Safety of 1.5, we should note that this analyses indicates as assumed fai!ure extending approximately 10- to IS-feet back from the bluff top. Further, additional analyses indicates that the same post-construction slope' repair configuration has been :round to have a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 and greater for assumed failures extending distances of approximately 20 feet, and greater back from the bluff top. Therefore, given: the highly unstable condition of the existing bluff; the real financial limitation present relative to the fùll(ijng th~ project; the findings of the analyses which indicate only slightly below the; 1.5 Factor of Safety; and the minimum setback of 40-feet fTom the bluff top requ.red of all new structures. Once recognized by all p;mies involved, given the project considerations and constraints as outlined above, an ¡acceptance of the slightly lower Factor of Safety than the normal standard oil.5, coUld be reviewed and considered. Site Observationsrresting I : The recommendations prov~ded in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by exploratory bþrings performed by others, as well !as our on-site observations, and experienc~ of our staff on this project. The site conditions should be checked in the field durirtg construction by a representative of Anthony-Taylor Consultants. We recommend that oQ-site excavations and fill placemtpt be observed by a representative of this firm. Construction observations and fieldi~ensity testing 'I! of fill should be performed by a representative of this firm to ensfe that the fill J !i I' :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tltl1. t'lf! - 1:1\' Revised Geotethnical Update Bradley Property-Coastal Blllff ~6O Neptune Avenue, Encinitas. Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 21 Project No. 98-10~~ I I I I I I , I placed during construction are placedland compacted, in accordance with appropriate design recommendations and recom~endations of this firm. I Surface drainage should be contr!led at all times. The drainage of the upper building pad area of the property sho Id be maintained such that the surface waters are directed away from the bluff f: ceo Excessive irrigation, ponding of surface waters, and concentration& of rain d/or irrigation waters should be avoided. The provision for adequate surface draina;ge features is essential to minimize erosion of the slope and ponding of water adjacent to foundations. As the project repair plans are reviewed and specification refined, this office should review any revisions proposed and/or implemented. At such time as repairs may be initiated, this office should be retained to perform field observation and inspection services related to the construction. \Ve accept no responsibility for work or services performed by others. XII Limitations This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface condition~ do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by exploratory excavations (by o~ers) cmd site observation~ performed at the site. Our recommendations are based on the technical information gathered, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in thcb geotechnical field. We do not provide a guarantee or warranty (either expressed or implied) of the performance of the project,. only that our engineering work and judgements meet the general standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions cannot be discounted. Any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any required supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our pre~ent understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors tnay have to be evaluated. Any design changes and repair shall be revieWed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be changes in $tructuralloading conditions, postponed development for more than one year, or clUlnges in ownership. III1 II Lt,- ¡, I'll' :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Geotechnlçal Uldate Bradley Property-Coastal Bluff 560 Neptune Avenue, Enelnltal, Ca. September 27, 2000 Pale 22 Project No. 98-1055 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or owner's representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein, and incorporated into the plans, are forwarded to the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is also subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further information, please refer to Project No. 98-1055 to expedite your requests. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Antlrony-Taylor Company ~Æ ~ -~ Greg K en Project Engineering Geologist - Distribution: 1 2 2 Addressee (Mail) City of Encinitas Engineering Department (Hand Delivered) City of Encinitas Planning DjPartment (Hand Delivered) I i I I I I I :'~I r K', " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VICINITY MAP -: , L--- N ~ NOT TO SCALE SITE PLAN 0 I I I I I I / I I I I ¡ I I PACIFIC I OCEAN I I I I I I , \ , 0 APPROX .5HOREl.INE AT ZERO 11OE JFOUND 3/4- IRON PIPE FOUND 3/4- W /PLUG 'MK'D. L.S 37888 IRON PIPÉ BtNCH MARK-EL 97.70 W/PLUG t.tK'D. -LS 3788- . N 6729'18"E --- ----------------- - ....... - I I I LOT 5 SAND &: COBBLE BEACH I I I EXISTING UNDEVELOPED LOT NEW CONCRETE SEAWALL (EXISTING) NEW CONC. GRAVITY SEAWALL WITH TIE-BACK ANCHORS AND BACK DRAIN 10' 0 20' I I. I SCALE: 18=20' i1. t.tONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED PROPERTY UNE EXISTING 2' CONTOURS CONCRETE CONCRETE POST WOOD POST YARD DRAIN EXISTING CONC SEAWAll. (13':t HIGH, 7' EXPOSED) ".-30-- CONC CP WP YO FIG. NO. JOB NAME: BRADLEY RESIDENCE-BLUFF REPAIR . ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS SITE ADDRESS: 560 NEPTUNE AVE., ENCINITAS, CA ... .... "... f.~r~ -::oJ &nOI '1'»08800 ...... ØIooMW ... ... 1442 [. UIIc8III A~"" 8712 Pr..t. A~ Or...., CA Uv--.. CA 17141 ~0470 11001 8M-7MO .......... 3170 All IBM LMe..1IO6 L88 V..... IN - 17011 ~ II 2000 1 055CR I.DWL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17) I I III References Appendix A I) Anthony-Taylor Consultants, "Revised Statement of Justification, New Seawall and Revised Mid/Upper Repairs, Bradley Property, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," dated September 27, 2000. 2) Soil Engineering Construction, "Letter Report-Slope Stability Analyses-Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California," dated September 20,2000. 3) Soil Engineering Construction. "Repairs to Upper Bluff, Bradley Residence-560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas California," Sheets I through 4 of 4, dated September 19,2000. 4) Soil Engineering Construction, "Structural Design Calculations, Ludmilla Bradley Residence. 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California,"Pages I through 14 of 14, dated September 6,2000. 5) Anthony-Taylor Consultants, "Repair Plan, Bradley Residence, 560 Neptune, Avenue, Encinitas California, Sheets I through 9, of 9," dated May 6,1999. 6) Anthony Taylor Consultants,"Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Bradley Property - Coastal Bluff, 560 Neptune Avenue, (Lots 4, and 5) Encinitas, California," dated December 11,1998. 7) California Coastal Commission (Mr. Lee McEachern) letter titled: "Coastal Development Pennit Application # 6-97-116/Coastal Commission Cease and Desist Order. # 97-CD-02," dated June 23, .998. 8) Ms. Ludmilla Bradley letter titled: "Coastal Development Pennit Application # 6-97-116," dated June 16, 1998. 9) California Coastal Commission (Mr. Lee McEachern) letter titled: "Bluff Protection 560-Neptune Avenue", dated February 11, 1998. 10) Ms. Ludmilla Bradley letter titled: "Erosion Control at the base of the bluff at 560 Neptune Avenue., Encinitas," dated January 21, 1998. II) California Coastal Commission (Mr. Lee McEachern) letter titled: "Coastal Development Pennit Application # 6-97-116," dated December 5, 1997. 12) Land Space Engineering (Mr. Aleksander Pantich) letter titled: "Erosion control seawall at 560 Neptune Avenue., Encinitas," dated December 9, 1997. 13) Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone Chapter 30.34.020 Sections A through E. 14) Owen Consultants report titled "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property- 560 Neptune Avenue (Lot Nos. 4 and 5) Encinitas. California," dated June 1989. 15) U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers report titled "Reconnaissance Report - Encinitas Shoreline, San Diego County, California," dated March 1996. 16) Long, K., plan titled: "Grading Plan for 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California" City approval date December 4, 1991. Young, W.K., structural repair plan titled: "Bradley Residence Bluff Stabilization Project, Lower, Middle, and Upper Bluff Protection," City approval dated December 4, 1991. I I I I I 18) 19) I 20) I 21) 22) I 23) I 24) 25) I 26) I I I I I I I I I References Appendix A Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 55,373-A. Aerial Fotobank, Inc, Archives, flown June 19, 1976. Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 25,984. Aerial Fotobank, Inc, Archives. flown July 26, 1983. County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 16-41, Scale: I inch = 200 tèet, dated July, 1960. County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326-1677, Scale: I inch = 200 feet, dated September 17,1975. Final Subdivision Map for South Coast Park, Unit No.3, Map No. 1935. Abbott, P.L., (Ed) 1985, " On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego, County California," San Diego Association of Geologists Publication, dated April 13, 1985. Eisenberg, L.I." "Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California," Master of Science Thesis, SDSU, dated 9-20-83. Tan, S.S. "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California," California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. Dated 1986. Weber. F.H., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California," California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12 LA, dated July 1, 1982. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 lõH (ë5 Œ 0 WI Œ\ID Uü JUL 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. I I I I I I I I I ! I I '-I I I I I I I I . OW.:N CONSULTANTS ENGINEERS. ARCH/TEefS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Ms. Ludmilla Bradley 560 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE (LOT NOS. 4 AND 5) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Bradley: In accordance with your request and those of Mr. Fred Nerlinger (project structural engineer), we submit this report presenting our findings and recommendations regarding the bluff conditions at the subject site. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. you have any questions, please call. Should Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS GREGORY M. KAREN Senior Staff Geologist DANIEL K. STEUSSY Engineering Manager RCE 41140 Expiration 3-31-91 MARTIN R. OWEN President RCE 23155, GE 658 Expiration 12-31-89 GMKjDKSjERA:ms Attachments (Distribution on following page) 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD, SAN D/EGO, CA 92131 TEL: (619) 695-3150 FAX: (619) 695-3153 OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH, AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWINCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959,1.1 Page 2 Copies: (2) Addressee (3) Frederick Engineering 390 Oak Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attn: Mr. Fred Nerlinger I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I . ow.:" CONSULTANTS ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL STUDY BRADLEY PROPERTY 560 NEPTUNE AVENUE (LOT NOS, 4 AND 5) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This office conducted a geotechnical and geological investigation of the subject property in response to the failure of a portion of an existing retaining wall system. The scope of our investigation included a review of existing reports and available literature, site visits by our personnel, subsurface investigation to supplement that of others, on-site measurements to reconstruct cross-sections through the property, engineering and geologic analysis, and the preparation of this report, Based upon our investigation, it is our professional opinion that the failure of the retaining wall system and subsequent erosion of slope base materials by wave action presents a demonstrable hazard to the existing up-slope retaining structures and, thus, adjacent principal structure. For this reason, we recommend the design and construction of a shore protection structure at the base of the bluff, and slope protec- tion measures for fill slopes above the existing failure area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with requests from the owner of the subject property, Ms. Ludmilla Bradley, and the pro- ject structural engineer, Mr. Fred Nerlinger of Frede- rick Engineering, we present herein the subject re- port. The purpose of our geotechnical and geological investigation is two-fold: (1) to assess the ha- zard(s) to existing structures on the property caused by the failure of a portion of a retaining wall sys- tem; and (2) to provide recommendations for mitigation of the hazard(s) as deemed necessary by this office. 10065 OLD GROVE ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 TEL: (619) 695-3150 FAX: (619) 695-3153 OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORr BEACH, AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWINCONSULTANJ'i Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 2 The scope of work for this study consisted of the following: * Research and review of readily available non-proprietary aerial photographs, maps, and reports pertinent to the subject site (see References at end of report); * Geological reconnaissance and mapping of site and sea bluff conditions, and sub- surface exploration and limited soil sam- pling during May 1989; * Review of Chapter 30.34.020, pages 34-1 through 34-7, sections A through 0, the City of Encini tas, Coastal Bluff Overlay regulations, dated March 7, 1989; * Telephone communications with Mr. Bill Weedman of the City of Encinitas and Mr. Paul Webb of the California Coastal Com- mission; * Telephone communications and a meeting with Mr. Fred Nerlinger of Frederick Engi- neering, project structure engineer; * Engineering and geologic analysis of field and laboratory data; * Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding current site conditions and repair alternatives to mitigate the poten- tial for damage to existing structures. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 3D, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 3 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 site Description The subj ect property generally consists of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 of Tract 1935, South Coast Park Subdivision Unit No.3, City of Encinitas, State of California (see site Location Map, Figure 1). On-site improvements consist of a roughly 33- year-old single story wood frame and stucco residential structure (Bradley residence) with enclosed room addition and associated exterior improvements such as an asphalt driveway and a concrete block planter. A post-and-board re- taining system has been constructed on the na- tural sea bluff adjacent to the residence. The adjoining lot (Lot 5), located immediately to the north, remains undeveloped (see site Plan, Figure 2) . The subject site is bounded by Neptune Avenue on the east, similar single-family residential structures on the north and south, and an ap- proximately 95 foot high moderately to steeply sloping bluff on the west. The bluff descends onto a sand and gravel beach which lies within the Encinitas County Beach Park. The Bradley property is situated on the western edge of the Coastal Plain, and on the western side of the Peninsular Range physiographic provi- nce. si te elevations range from a low of sea level at the water's edge below and to the west, to a high of approximately 98 feet at pad ele- vation. Neptune Avenue on the east lies roughly 4 to 5 feet below pad grade. Currently, the top of the bluff (slope) is situ- ated approximately 13 feet from the principal structure and is defined by the upper most sec- tion of a multi-tiered post and board retaining system. The bluff top along Lot No.5, to the I I I I I I :1 II I I I I I I I I I I I . OWIII CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 4 north, is variable and is primarily defined by the natural weathering and erosion of the terrace and weathered soil deposits exposed in this portion of the slope. 3.2 History of Retaininq System Prior to the construction of the present re- taining system, other structures in the form of retaining walls and guni te surfaces have been utilized to protect and support the natural sea bluff. However, only debris remnants of these earlier repairs remain. The existing system, constructed in 1983 under a major use permit provided by the County of San Diego, originally consisted of four separate tiers of treated post (telephone pole)-and-board sections. Reportedly, each of the vertical retaining posts are embedded a minimum depth of one-third the post length. Reportedly, these posts are anchored up-slope using tie-backs consisting of reinforced concrete filled trenches roughly 10 feet in length. The retaining wall sections were then backfilled, and an elevated wood staircase for beach access was constructed. During high tide and swell conditions of the summer of 1988, the lower-most retaining wall located at the base of the sea bluff failed, leaving the up-slope staircase and backfill materials hanging unsupported. Currently, a large soil and debris pile from the pre-existing lower wall temporarily functions as a catch for falling slope debris (see Photographs 1 through 5, Figures A-1 through A-3, 2, and 4). 3.3 Beach and Bluff Conditions At zero tide, the water line of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 50 feet from the base of the sea bluff. During periods of moderate to high tides, ocean swells often impact the base of I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 3D, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 5 the slope. The near-shore beach environment west of the property generally consists of a gently westward sloping wave-cut shelf/reef composed of moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation. These cemented sandstones are visible as localized outcrops exposed from beneath unconsolidated sand and gravel beach deposits and extend to form a 20 to 25 foot high near-vertical sea cliff at the base of the slope. Unconformably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of 25 feet to the bluff top are Quaternary-aged marine terrace deposits consisting of moderately weathe- red and eroded sands and sandstones. These materials are slightly cemented, massive, fine- to medium-grained silty sands and sandstones which have naturally weathered into slopes rang- ing from locally vertical to approximately 1- 1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical), The existing drainage at and adj acent to the bluff appears to be down the slope west of the bluff top, and towards Neptune Avenue across the pad area east of the bluff top. The bluff ex- posure is not well vegetated except for localized regions of ground cover behind retaining struc- tures, and natural slope areas which support native plant species. 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As part of our investigation we have excavated and logged six exploratory test borings (see site Plan, Figure 2, and Boring Logs, Figures B-1 through B-6). We have also performed geologic mapping and site reconnaissance. We have also reviewed the geotech- nical investigation performed at the property by Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc. and William J, Elliott, CEG (References I, 2, and 3). Boring logs from the Buc- hanan-Rahilly report are reproduced herein and are I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I . CMIIIICONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 6 presented in Appendix C. Soils encountered on-site during our investigation consisted of debris fills, artificial backfill, weathered soil deposits, Quater- nary-aged terrace deposits and the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation. A brief description of each of the soils encountered is provided below. See site Plan, Figure 2, for the general extent of individual soil units. 4.1 Debris Fill (Db) Loose backfill materials and significant quan- tities of debris (concrete, wood, steel, etc.) are present at the base of the sea bluff in the vicinity of the pre-existing retaining wall. These materials represent remnants of construc- tion materials and backfill soils used to build the lower-most retaining wall, Our observations suggest that these materials are very unstable in their current state and are subject to erosion and degradation caused by tidal and wave action. The eventual removal of this debris by natural shoreline processes can be anticipated. 4.2 Artificial Fill (Af) Fill soils were encountered in Test Borings OB- lA, OB-2 and OB-3, and were primarily placed as retaining wall backfill on slope areas. These materials generally consist of brown silty fine- to medium-grained sands apparently derived from weathered on-site soils, The maximum thickness of backfill materials is estimated to range from 9 feet to as great as 15 feet. Though it appears some efforts were undertaken to compact the backfill material, the actual extent and quality of these soils is, as of this time, undetermined. A thorough analysis of these soils would require extensive subsurface exploration and laboratory testing and is beyond the scope of this study. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . QWØCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 7 4.3 Weathered Soil Deposits (not shown on site Plan) Weathered soil deposits (topsoil) were encoun- tered to an approximate depth of 6.5 feet in Test Boring OB-1B and are visible within the upper 5 to 8 feet of the natural bluff exposed on the property immediately to the north. These materi- als consist of dark brown silty sands and are basically limited to the upper-most portion of the sea bluff. 4.4 Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were encountered overlying Torrey Sandstone materials at the base of the sea bluff. These materials consist of loosely consolidated sand and gravel/cobble deposits subject to on- going transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits are estimated to range from 3 to 5 feet thick at the time of our recent site visit. 4.5 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (ot) Quaternary-aged terrace deposits are exposed in the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 25 feet and extend to the top of the slope (lot area) where they are blanketed by natural soil deposits (topsoils). The terrace deposits ex- posed on-site consist of poorly to moderately well consolidated and locally slightly to modera- tely well cemented, light yellow to orange-brown, dark brown and gray-brown silty fine to medium sands and sandstones. These sands are generally massive with an apparent slight dip ranging from roughly 3 to 10 degrees to the south-southwest as indicated by bedding attitudes taken from within the lower portion of these deposits. No evidence was found to suggest the presence of any fault- ing, jointing, or fracturing within the terrace deposits. These on-site deposits have been I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959,1.1 Page 8 identified by other names including the LindaV- ista Formation and the Sweitzer Formation (Refer- ences 12 and 17). For the purposes of simpli- city, we have utilized the general terms "Quater- nary Terrace deposits" or "terrace deposits." 4.6 Torrey Sandstone Formation (Tt) Materials of the Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone Formation underlie terrace deposits throughout the site and are exposed as localized outcrops from beneath beach deposits and as a vertical to near-vertical sea cliff at the base of the bluff. These materials consist generally of well con- solidated, moderately to locally well cemented, massive yellow-brown to gray-brown silty and clayey fine- to coarse-grained sandstone inter- bedded with occasional siltstone and claystone layers. Bedding features observed wi thin the unit suggest dips ranging from 5 to 15 degrees toward the north-northwest. Several to numerous joints and fractures were noted exposed within the cliff face below Lot No.5. These features strike in a northerly direction and dip steeply (70 to 85 degrees) towards the east and west. Also noted during our site reconnaissance was a fault trace within the Torrey Sandstone, visible from behind debris materials at the base of the slope below Lot No.4 (see Photograph 6, Figure A-3). This fault trends northeast and dips at approximately 85 degrees towards the west with an apparent offset of several inches (north side up). No displacement of the overlying terrace deposits was observed, Ancient faults observed below Lot No.5 and immediately north of the property have been previously reported by others (References 12 and 17, Appendix D). These faults are generally I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I . ow.."NCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 9 considered to lie within a fault zone possessing an overall strike in a north-northeasterly direc- tion, and dipping at angles of approximately 50 to 90 degrees towards the east and west. Typically, the cemented generally resistant Torrey Sandstone forms straight sections of near- vertical beach cliffs except where weakened by fracturing, jointing, or faulting. To a large extent the overall rate of retreat or recession of the terrace deposits forming bluffs at the subject site area is controlled by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. 4.7 Groundwater Continuous groundwater seepage was observed emanating from the lower portion of the sea bluff in the vicinity of the contact between the ter- race deposits and the Torrey Sandstone. In addi tion, groundwater was also encountered at approximately the same elevation (69.5 feet below pad elevation) within an exploratory test boring (BB-1) performed by Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc., in 1986 (see Appendix C and Site Plan, Figure 2). The source of the observed seepage is most likely water from landscape irrigation and other urban sources accumulating and becoming locally perched on less permeable strata. 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTINGS 5.1 Reqional Geoloqic Setting The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province, a California geomorphic province with a long and active history in Southern Calif- ornia. The Peninsular Range Province is charac- terized by northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones. The moun- tain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of Jurassic metavolcanic and meta I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWØICONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 10 sedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rock of the Southern California batholith. Later Cretac- eous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sediments have been deposited to the west of the mountain ran- ges. The upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary rocks flanking the western margin of the moun- tains are generally comprised of detrital marine, lagoonal, and non-marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones, and conglomerates. These sedimentary formations are generally flat-lying or dip gently to the southwest, except for local- ly deformed areas such as Mount Soledad in La Jolla. The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinito Faults are the major tectonic fea- tures. Both are strike-slip faults with predomi- nantly right-lateral movements. The major tec- tonic activity appears to be a result of right- lateral movements on faults within the San An- dreas Fault system. 5.2 Reqional and Local Faulting The principal seismic considerations for improve- ments of the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically-induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency of fault activity and proximity of the fault to the subject property. The pos- sibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely since no active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of active faulting was noted during our investigation. Review of geologic literature indicates that minor fault features have been mapped within the Torrey Sandstone Formation immediately north of the site. These features represent a general I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OW!NCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 11 faul t zone which reportedly extends from below Lot No.5 to several hundred feet towards the north. Attitudes on faults mapped in this zone suggest an overall strike of north-northeast and dips of 50 to 90 degrees both east and west. The nearest major active faults are the Elsinore Fault and off-shore Coronado Banks Fault, located approximately 25 miles northeast and about 20 miles southwest of the site, respectively. The closest significant potentially active fault is the off-shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5 to 10 miles west of the site. 5.3 Seismicity The seismic hazard most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faul ts . The Coronado Banks Fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking should an earthquake occur on the fault. A maximum probable event on the Coronado Banks Fault could produce a peak horizontal accelera- tion of less than about 0.2g at the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. 5.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose near-saturated granular soils at depths shallower than about 100 feet are the most sus- ceptible to liquefaction. It is our opinion that the on-site natural materials (Torrey Sandstone Formation and terrace deposits) are not consi- dered susceptible to liquefaction or sudden loss of soil strength. The unconsolidated beach sand I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I . OWIN CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 12 deposits at the base of the bluff are generally susceptible to liquefaction. However, these shallow deposits (3 to 5 feet thick) are proposed for removal in areas of the repairs recommended later in this report. 5.5 Sea Cliff Retreat Many factors affect the recession (retreat) rate of coastal sea cliffs composed of formational materials similar to the one existing along the westerly property boundary. Some of these fac- tors include, but are not limited to, the amount of induration of the cliff-forming sedimentary rocks, degree of orientation of fracturing, amount of uncontrolled drainage runoff from adjoining up-slope areas and other sources, frequency and intensity of wave and storm action, etc. For similar bluffs and environments, other proprietary studies (Reference 10) have indicated that a conservative bluff retreat rate can be expected of 0.2-0.3 feet per year, or 10-15 feet in about 50 years. This rate is supported by review of aerial photographic records. Given the poorly cemented nature of the terrace deposits, unprotected bluffs composed of this material may retreat relatively faster than protected bluffs or more cemented formations. We should note that bluff retreat is episodic, site-specific, and strongly related to meteorological conditions, geologic conditions, and erosional agents. Field reconnaissance observations of the existing sea cliff with regard to these concerns indicate the following stabilizing and destabilizing characteristics of the subject cliff in its current state: I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I . - CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 13 5.5.1 5.5.2 Stabilizinq Characteristics * The lower 20 to 30 foot section of the sea cliff is composed of modera- tely cemented and resistant Torrey Sandstone materials; * The basal sections of the sea cliff along the southern portion of Lot No.4 appear only slightly jointed and fractured within the subject property; * Existing up-slope runoff from the building pad areas is directed away from the slope and towards Neptune Avenue. Vegetation and irrigation of the slope areas appears limited. Destabilizinq Characteristics * Significant (8 feet thick by 15+ feet wide) backfill materials hang unsupported in a highly unstable configuration at a height of 30 to 40 feet above the public beach. Failure of these materials could create a hazard to the beach-going public below and possibly result in undermining of foundational soil from beneath the up-slope retaining system and principal structure; * An unstable debris pile 15 to 18 feet high is situated at the base of the sea bluff within the public thoroughfare; * Several to numerous joints, frac- tures and faults are present within the Torrey Sandstone materials ex- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OW!IICONSUlTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 14 posed at the base of the sea bluff below Lot No.5, and portions of Lot No.4; * Large quantities of backfill materi- als are present behind the remaining retaining wall sections. These materials contribute significantly to the load the individual wall sections have to retain. * The remaining retaining wall sec- tions above the failure rely in part on lateral support from downslope fill soils, the removal of which would likely destabilize the wall (s) (see Cross-Section, Figure 4). * The existing indentation of the base of the bluff at the property may focus wave energies during high tide periods, thus accelerating loss of slope base materials in the area of concern. 5.6 Landslidinq and Slope Stability Based on our review of pertinent documents and our site reconnaissance there are no indications of deep-seated landsliding on or adjacent to the subject property. Slope stability analyses by others (see Reference 3) indicates that the slop- es have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 against deep-seated failure for static condi- tions. However, several shallow slope failures are known to have occurred previously within the upper portion of the bluff. It is our understan- ding that all the failures to date have involved the failure of a retaining or protection device. Specifically, a concrete wall along the top of the bluff failed in the winter of 1978-79. A gunite surface was then constructed in 1979 to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWiINCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 15 replace the wall. The gunite cover subsequently failed in 1981. In approximately 1982 a low concrete and rock retaining wall at the base of the bluff also failed. In 1983, the existing post and board retaining system was constructed. Subsequently, the lower section failed during the summer months of 1988. Site observations suggest significant quantities of native silty backfill materials were placed in the areas behind and up-slope from the pre-exist- ing lower retaining wall. Our observations indi- cate that pressure from these backfill materials may have contributed to the wall's failure. Other factors in the failure likely include in- adequate wall design and/or construction, storm wave loading, and possible overtoppings of the wall by wave action. 5.7 Cliff Stability and Erosion Future sea cliff or bluff retreat at the subject site will largely depend on the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone and the effectiveness of and lifespan of the existing post-and-board- system. In its current state, it is our opinion that the lower one-half of the bluff comprised of fill materials is unstable and the remaining post-and-board system is in jeopardy of failure resulting from possible movement of the "hanging" backfill wedge. The potential for cliff erosion caused by water from the bluff top is minimal because pad areas above generally drain towards the east (Neptune Avenue) and overall irrigation of the slope face appears, at the time of our visits, limited. The potential for cliff erosion and potential cliff instability caused by wave and tidal action at the base of the bluff is considered high. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWiNCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 16 6.1 Conclusions Based on the results of our investigation, it is our professional opinion that the failure of the lower retaining wall system and subsequent ero- sion of slope base materials presents a demonst- rable hazard to the existing up-slope retaining structures and, thus, adjacent principal struc- ture. without remediation, it is our opinion that further loss of slope fill materials will likely jeopardize the slope-retaining capability of the up-slope retaining walls, We therefore conclude that repair of the fill slope and in- stallation of a protective seawall at the base of the bluff will be required to mitigate the failu- re. The initiating cause for the present state of slope conditions was, in our opinion, the failure of the pre-existing lower retaining wall system to adequately withstand forces imposed on the wall by high water levels combined with wave loadings. Pressure of backfill materials, inade- quate wall design and/or construction, storm wave loading, possible overtopping of the wall by wave action, or a combination have likely contributed to the wallts failure. The remaining retaining walls up-slope above the failure area appear to rely in part on lateral support from downslope fill soils. Therefore, the present pattern of erosion and sloughing of the downslope fill materials will likely destabi- lize the upper walls, resulting in a threat of instability to the residence structure above. 6.2 Recommendations for Repairs Based upon our investigation, we recommend that repairs to the subject bluff proceed immediately. It is our opinion that two types of repairs are I I I I I I I I , 'I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANJe Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 17 necessary: one, the existing fill slope needs to be repaired so that the stability of the retain- ing walls and principal structure is attained; and two, the base of the bluff requires protec- tion from storm wave action by a seawall to mini- mize additional erosion and loss of support to bluff and fill soils above, 6.2.1 Slope Repair We recommend the selection of one of the following two alternate methods of slope repair, which should be installed in con- junction with a seawall at the base of the bluff: 6.2.1.1 Tied-back retaining. wall Figures 6 & 7) (see This alternative will require design and construction of an earth retaining structure at the location shown on Figures 6 and 7, and subsequent backfill of the slope above with a compacted soil- cement mixture. The retaining structure would be tied-back into the slope as generally pictured in Figure 7, and would be freely draining. A similar design to the existing post-and-board retaining structures would be acceptable, provided it was designed to with- stand expected loadings and was provided with filter fabric behind the wall to restrict washing out of backfill soils. Backfill soils should be granular and non-expansive. They should be mixed with at least 5 percent Portland cement and compacted to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 18 90 percent of relative dry den- sity. Compacted soils should be properly benched into existing terrace deposits. Additionally, we recommend the removal and replacement of unsup- ported backfill materials located below the lowest remaining post- and-board section. This proce- dure, along with all repairs, should be handled by a qualified, licensed contractor specializing in bluff repairs and reconstruc- tion. The unsupported materials should be considered highly un- stable and susceptible to down- slope movement. Accordingly, downslope operations prior to the removal of these materials should be eliminated, if feasible. Remo- val operations should be performed with utmost care to protect work- ers and existing structures. The installation of temporary tie- backs during backfill removal may need to be considered. Following construction, the slope should be planted with drought resistant, deep-rooted vegetation. The type of vegetation, the ir- rigation system, and irrigation schedule should be designed by a landscape architect for the slope conditions and the soil type used during construction. For embedment of foundations in the Torrey Sandstone materials, the following geotechnical para- meters should be used: I I I I I I , I !. I I I I I I I I I I I . OWiNCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 19 Cohesion = 2000 pst Friction angle = 60° Total unit weight = 120 pcf Minimum pier embedment = 10' Bearing capacity = 60,000 pst Ka = 0.07 Ko = 0.13 Kp = 14 Geotechnical design parameters for the terrace deposits into which the retaining wall may be founded are as follows: Cohesion = 0 pst Friction angle = 37° Total unit weight = 110 pcf Bearing capacity, pcf = (400 x diameter, ft.) + (1000 x embedment, ft.) Skin Friction, pst = embedment, ft.) (8 x Ka = 0.25 Ko = 0.40 Kp = 4.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 20 Geotechnical parameters for soil- cement backfill materials may be assumed for the purposes of design to the following (to be verified at time of construction): Cohesion = 500 psf Friction angle = 40. Total unit weight = 120 pcf Kit = 0.22 Ko = 0.36 Kp = 4.6 6.2.1.2 Tied-Back Gunite Slope Protection (see Figures 6 and 8) This alternative will require slope repair with a gunite coat- ing, tied-back into the existing slope generally as shown in Figure 8. Proper drainage of soils be- hind the wall will be required. The tied-back gunite slope protec- tion system should be designed by a qualified engineer and construc- ted by a qualified engineering contractor experienced in gunite protection of coastal bluffs. Tie-back capacities should be calculated from the above soil parameters given for terrace depo- sits. An analysis of the previous gunite failure in 1988 should be carried out prior to final selec- tion of this alternative. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . O\NÐI CXJNSUL T ANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 21 6.2.2 Seawall We recommend that a seawall be constructed at the base of the bluff as illustrated in Figure 6, in conjunction with one of the slope repair alternatives outlined above. It is our opinion that a seawall is re- quired to mitigate the continued erosion of fill materials which currently support retaining walls on the slope and the prin- cipal structure at the top of the bluff. The seawall structure should accomplish the following design objectives: 4. 1. Provide long-term (50 to 75 years) protection of slope fills and retaining structures from the erosional effects of wave loading by absorbing wave energy and mini- mizing wave run-up; 2. Provide continuity to the shore- line configuration so that wave energy is not focused into the central portion of the property, as it is presently; 3. Provide protection of the Torrey Sandstone unit at the base of the bluff in the central portion of the property to minimize erosion and loss of support for the ter- race deposits above; Minimize erosion and scour of beach sand deposits in front of the structure during high water wave loading; I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ~CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1,1 Page 22 5. Minimize erosional effects on adj acent stretches of coastline from the influence of the seawall structure. 6. Minimize the possibility of wall overtopping by storm waves, this failure of the wall by temporary hydraulic back-pressure. We have reviewed several types of seawall designs as a part of our investigation. We have concluded that the two alterna- tives which most economically accomplish the above design obj ecti ves, yet still "fit" the existing bluff profile, are (1) a rubble mound seawall and (2) a rein- forced concrete stepped-face seawall. The proposed location of the seawall, regard- less of type, is illustrated on Figure 6. General cross-sections of each wall type are illustrated on Figures 7-9. The attached illustrations are general in nature and are not intended to represent final design configurations. Final sea- wall design details and dimensions must follow a rigorous analysis of storm wave conditions expected at this particular location. One of the most important design factors is the minimum height of the seawall. This height will be dependant in part on the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Design life of the structure Design storm wave height and type Design storm wave incident angle Acceptability of overtopping Shape and slope of wall Slope of beach I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959,1.1 Page 23 7. 8. 9. Porosity of structure Effect of maximum tides Tsunami prediction 6.3 General Repair Recommendations We recommend that permitting and construction of repairs proceed as soon as possible to minimize the potential for progressive failure of the remaining retaining wall systems. It is our opinion that the slope repair should receive first priority for repair, followed immediately by seawall construction. We assume no responsibility for the stability or performance of the existing retaining wall systems. The design and construction of these walls should be checked prior to repairs. Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The drainage of the upper building pad area of the property should always be maintained such that surface waters are directed away from the bluff face. Excessive irrigation, ponding of surface waters, and concentrations of rain and/or irrigation waters should be avoided. The provision of adequate surface drainage fea- tures is essential to minimize erosion of the slope and ponding of water adjacent to founda- tions. In addition to positive lot drainage, drainage improvements often employed include roof gutters (with downspouts discharging away from foundations into suitable devices), subdrains around buildings, and shallow area drains. Plans and specifications for the proposed repair methods should be prepared by a qualified engi- neer and reviewed by this office prior to con- struction. Improvements may require approval by controlling agencies. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWINCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 24 At such time as repairs may be initiated, this office should be retained to review plans, speci- fications, etc., and to perform field observation services. We accept no responsibility for work or services performed by others. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our observations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during con- struction by a representative of Owen Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final pro- ject drawings should also be reviewed by this office prior to construction. We assume no responsibility or liability for work performed by others. The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field study, laboratory tests, and our under- standing of the proposed construction. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are dif- ferent from those assumed in the preparation of this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may review the situation and make supplementary recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed structure changes from that described in this report, our firm should also be notified. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices within the greater San Diego area. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWi!ICONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 25 We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site. Therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS 7. 8. 9. Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 26 REFERENCES 1. "Supplemental Letter, Estimated Sea Bluff Stability for 75 Years - 1987 to 2062, Proposed Bradley Residence Remodeling, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California," 92024, prepared by William J. Elliott, dated June 3, 1989. 2. "Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance, Proposed Bradley Residence Remodeling and Existing Rear-Yard Slope and Bluff Protection, 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Cali- fornia," prepared by William J. Elliott, dated April 10, 1987. 3. "preliminary Geotechnical Excavation, Bradley Resi- dence, Lot Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California," prepared by Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc., dated October 27, 1986. 4. Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 25,984, Aerial Fotobank, Inc. Archives, flown July 26, 1983 (Map View). 5. Photographic Enlargement of Aerial Photograph Negative No. 55,373-AAerial Fotobank, Inc. Archives, flown June 19, 1976 (Oblique View). 6. "County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 16-41, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet, dated July, 1960." "County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326- 1677, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet, dated September 17, 1975." "Final Subdivision Map for South Coast Park unit No. 3, Map No. 1935." Abbott, P.L., (Ed.) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego County, California," San Diego Association of Geologists Publ- ication, dated April 13, 1985. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . C7MNCONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 27 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Artim, E.R., 1985, "Erosion and Retreat of Sea Cliffs, San Diego County, California," published research excerpt from "California's Battered Coast, Proceedings from a Conference on Coastal Erosion, San Diego, Cali- fornia," edited by Jim McGrath, dated September, 1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986, "Processes, Loca- tions, and Rates of Coastal Cliff Erosion from 1947 to present, Dana Point to the United States, Mexico Bor- der and The Stratigraphy of Contributing Coastal Cliffs and Bluffs at San Onofre, Camp Pendleton, and Torrey Pines," prepared by AIINA for the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW09-86-C-0011, September 1986. Eisenberg, L. I., 1983, "Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe Quad- rangles, San Diego County, California," Master of Science Thesis, SDSU, dated 9-20-83. Kuhn, G.G., 1977, "Coastal Zone Geology and Related Sea Cliff Erosion, San Dieguito River to San Elijo Lagoon, San Diego County, California: Integrated Planning Organization Contract #11596-0880E," County of San Diego, California. Kuhn, G.G. and F.P. Shepard, 1983, "Coastal Erosion in San Diego County, California," in Guidebook t.o Selected Geoloqic Features, Coastal Area of Southern San Dieqo County, SDAGjAEG October, 1983, G.T. Farrand, Editor. Tan, S.S., 1986, "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, Shore Protection Manual, Volumes I and II. Weber, F.H., 1982, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides~ and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California," CDMG Open File Report 82-12 LA, dated July 1, 1982. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . OWIIICONSULTANTS Ms. Ludmilla Bradley June 30, 1989 Project No. 959.1.1 Page 28 18. Wiegel, R.L., 1984, Oceanographical Enqineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 532pp. 19. Wilson, K,L" 1972, "Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Ray and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego County, California," unpublished thesis, SDSU, dated December, 1972, 20. Ziony, J.I., Wentworth, C.M. Buchanan-Banks, J.M., and Wagner, H.C., 1974, preliminary map showing recency of faul ting in coastal Southern Cal i fornia: U. S . Geological Survey Map MF-585, Scale: 1:250,000. I I I , \, I """"..- \ :~~':.:..-- _.- :::=:-.-"::" ..-..- ~-J:' . II~~~:'-:_! I ~AFì I , ~ I I I .: . I I I I I ...-- -- un_-- I I N I SCALE (MLES) 0 1 I I I SITE LOCATION MAP - BRADLEY RESIDENCE BLUFF REPAIR fß OJeMNCONSULTANTS / PROJECT No. 969.1,1 / FIGURE No.. 1 C 8 SHORELINE (ZERO TIDE) -- PACIFIC OCEAN A 0 0 -$-88-2 C' .: / ",<0 -- { \ \ \ . UNDEVEL~D LOT / I lOti 100~ -$-88-1 PAD ELEV,= 98 FT.::I: ? PAD-ELEV.=98 FT,::I: LOT 4 ROOM ADDITION ? / 't' ~f // ~?(. ,OB-18 '\ t~OB-1A . / APPARENT TIE-BACK -- ~ -- ft.. <0° 8d (SAND) at 0 <0 ","" At Db Bd at @U Tt LEGEND ARTIFICIAL FILL C C' ~ 1 LOCA TION OF CROSS SECTION EXISTING POST AND BOARD RETAINING WALL -r- ATTITUDE OF BEDDING 17 - DEBRIS FROM RETAINING WALL FAILURE BEACH DEPOSITS A mTUDE OF SHEAR -:; (:::¡= PARALLEL SHEAR) 80 - . -. - BOTTOM OF BLUFF QUA TERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS 1975 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS - 100 - (PRE-SLOPE REPAIRS) TERRACE DEPOSITS OVERLAID BY TOPSOIL/WEA THERED SOIL DEPOSITS TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE 08-5-+ 88-3-$- 8-5 . SOIL SAMPLE OWEN BORING BUCHANAN BORING GEOLOGIC CONTACT (QUERIED - ? - - WHERE UNCERTAIN) ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE ....".. ATTITUDE OF JOINT 85 LOT 5 I I w ::> B' Z w > « w Z ::> t- el. W Z 0 20 SCAlE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 40 SITE PLAN PROJECT NO. 959.1.1 , SEEPAGE - -$- B8-3 --- fl If( I A' C7NJNCJa\JSULTANTS BRADLEY RESIDENCE BLUFF REPAIR 560 NEPTUNE A VENUE FIGURE NO.2 A 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bd ,_,-,-'- - Tt 10 30 APPARENT TIE-BACK at 1 1 Tt 50 ¡ 70 110 130 90 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 SEE FIGURE NO, 4 FOR LEGEND 1 1 _---r------- -----, -r RM I RESIDENCE I I ADD I (PROJECTED 3 FEET SOUTH) I ts -1_1- 1-1 -1 OB-1 B (PROJ, 10 FT, SOUTH) at 1 1 1 Tt BB-1 (PROJ, 40 FT. SOUTH) 150 170 190 -I I I I I A' ts -1-1 NEPTUNE AVE.~ 100 \ 1 1 210 Tt 230 C7MIICONSULTANTS 90 80 at 70 60 50 40 30 ? 20 10 0 250 CROSS SECTION A-A' BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINIT AS. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 969,1,1 FIGURE NO.3 -- --- T - - RESIDENCE - - T I (PROJECTED NORTH 13 FT.) I 8 100 9Q 80 UNSUPPORTED BACKFILL- 40 at 30 1 1 20 10 Tt 0 0 70 130 150 90 110 30 50 10 LEGEND Af ARTIFICIAL FILL -1- GEOLOGIC CONTACT (QlÆRED WHERE UNCERTAIN) ts TOPSOIL/WEA THERED SOIL DEPOSITS .1 OWEN BORING Db DEBRIS FROM PREVIOUS RETAINING WALL OB-6 Bd .1 BUCHANAN BORING BEACH DEPOSITS BB-3 at QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS 8-5. LOCATION OF SOIL SAMPLE Tt TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE 0/" 0-- SEEPAGE 8B-1 ts -1 1 at 1 Tt 170 190 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS AP_PROXjt..t_ATE ts ,- 1 210 B' 100 1 80 80 70 60 at 50 40 30 1 J,e Tt I 10 0 230 OWJN CONSULTANTS CROSS SECTION 8-8' BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINIT A8L CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO, 969.1.1 FIGURE NO, 4 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Db ~ - AREA OF FRACTURED '" .' TORREY SANDSTONE '. ... S 3 ~'<!-~!.:.. - .. c 10 0 BO 10_1 1---1---1---1---0 ~~ B 4- Tt (PROJ. 20 F T. NORTH) 0 20 40 60 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 SEE FIGURE NO.4 FOR LEGEND 1 1 1 - Tt 80 100 120 L at 1 140 LOT 5 ts 1-1-1-1-1-1 at 1 1- 1- 1 1 Tt 160 200 220 180 aMII CONSULTANTS C' 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 to 0 CROSS SECTION C-C' BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINIT AS. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 958,1.1 FIGURE NO.5 SHORELINE (ZERO TIDE) --- B PACIFIC OCEAN A c ITt I ., . 'If / at / / / I I ,;,° ,," Bd ($AND) 0 ,- /' I Bd GRAVEL I I I l \ -\. " at ./ / ./ . I I L_- 0 .:> ,," 0 ., LEGEND mJ FACE OF RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL (ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2) TOP OF SEAWALL NOTE: LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE 3, STEPPED-FACE SEAWALL, APPROXIMATELY SAME AS FOR RUBBER MOUND SEAWALL - --- - PROJECTED BASE OF RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL UNDER BEACH f¿E ............. LOCATION OF TIED-BACK RETAINING WALL (REPAIR ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 3 ONLY) ~ ~ EXTENT OF TIED-BACK GUNITE SLOPE PROTECTION (REPAIR ALTERNATIVE 2 ONLY) ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE ft PAD ELEV.= 98 FT,:I: --- PAD ELEV.=98 FT.:I: LOT 4 ROOM ADDITION -- ,oo~ I I C' W :J B' Z w > ~ W Z :J t- o. W Z A' 20 0 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET N ..0 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS It 1ft I OWIN CONSUlTANTS BRADLEY RESIDENCE BLUFF REPAIR 560 NEPTUNE A VENUE PROJECT NO. 858,1.1 FIGURE NO." 100 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 BRADLEY RESIDENCE REPAIR AL TERNA TIVE 1 RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL AND TIED-BACK FILL SLOPE (AS SEEN THROUGH CROSS-SECTION B - B' OF FIGURE 6) - - - - - T-- -- I 1 COMPACTED SOIL-CEMENT BACKFILL BENCHED INTO TERRACE DEPOSITS at DIIAENSIONS/DETAILS TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL ANAL YSIS FIL TER-BACKED, FREEL Y-DRAINING TIED-BACK RETAINING WALL 10 0 Bd ---- 1. -- ? 0 10 30 MINIMUM ELEVATION OF TOP OF WALL TO BE VERIFIED BY DESfGN WAVE HEIGHT AND RUNUP ANALYSIS 1 1 SMALL STONE COMPACTED FILL Tt Tt 50 70 130 150 90 110 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE RESIDENCE (PROJECTED) 100 ts 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 1- 1 20 10 0 170 190 210 C\\8I C OI\JSU L T ANTS BRADLEY RESIDENCE BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINT AS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO, 858.1.1 FIGURE NO.7 100 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Bd ---- 1. -- 1 10 30 .j '.~ ,: BRADLEY RESIDENCE REPAIR ALTERNATIVE 1 RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL AND TIED-BACK FILL SLOPE (AS SEEN THROUGH CROSS-SECTION B - B' OF FIGURE 6) - - - T-- - --- I RESIDENCE (PROJECTED) ts 1 COMPACTED SOIL-CEMENT BACKFILL BENCHED INTO TERRACE DEPOSITS at FIL TER-BACKED, FREEL Y'DRAINING TIED-BACK RETAINING WALL ? DIMENSIONS/DETAILS TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL ANAL YSIS MINIMUM ELEVATION OF TOP OF WALL TO BE VERIFIED BY DESIGN WAVE HEIGHT AND RUNUP ANALYSIS ? 1 1- ? SMALL STONE COMPACTED FILL Tt Tt 50 70 80 130 150 170 180 110 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 zo 40 ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATION!, APPROXIMATE 100 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 210 O\WII C OOSU LT AN1S BRADLEY RESIDENCE BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINTAS. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO, 959.1.1 FIGURE NO.7 BRADLEY RESIDENCE REPAIR AL TERNA TIVE 2 RUBBLE MOUND SEAWALL AND TIED-BACK GUNITE SLOPE PROTECTION (AS SEEN THROUGH CROSS-SECTION B - B' OF FIGURE 8) 10 TIED-BACK GUNITE SI;OPE PROTECTION (SEE FIGURE 6 FOR AREA EXTENTJ -------- T - - RESIDENCE I (PROJECTED) r- 100 I ~ Is 100 80 80 80 EXISTING PILE/TIEBACK SYSTEMS 80 70 1 70 60 60 so so 40 40 30 3-0 MINIMUM-ELEVATION OF-TOP OF WALL TO BE VERIFIED BY DESIGN WAVE ~ DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS HEIGHT AND RUN-UP ANALYSIS ............. TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1 1 1 -1 1 20 20 SMALL STONE LARGE RIPRAP STONE COMPACTED FILL 10 Tt 0 Bd -- ? ----- 1 0 Tt 0 10 30 SO 70 90 110 130 150 170 .190 210 @ CIIMIII CONSULTANTS SCAlE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 BRADLEY RESIDENCE BRADLEY BLUFF REPAIR ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA ALL DIMENSiONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE PROJECT NO, 868,1.1 FIGURE No. 8 100 70 60 so 40 30-l DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL 20-1 ANALYSIS 10 -I L EMBEDMENT DETERMiNED BY STRUCTURAL ANAL YS'S 0 Bd --- ? --- ., Tt 0 10 30 '1 FREELY DRAINING FILTER-BAC~~~;'INING WALL----- TIED-BACK ~ ? 1- 1 1 Tt SO 90 110 130 70 SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 20 FEET 0 20 40 ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE at '1 1- ------ ,- RESIDENCE I (PROJECTED) 100 1 ts 90 80 at 70 60 1 SO 40 30 20 10 Tt 0 150 170 190 BRADLEY RESIDENCE REPAIR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE STEPPED-FACE SEAWALl- WITH TIED-BACK SLOPE (AS SEEN THROUGH CROSS SECTIONs-a' OF FIGURE 8) @ GWlllCONSULTANTS BRADLEY RESIDENCE BRADLEY -BLUFF REPAIR ENCINIT A. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 858~ 1.1 FIGURE NO.8 I I I I -I I II I I I I I ,..1 I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I] I I' I I I i ¡PROTECTIVE IW ALL AND iGUNITE ;COVER ON ¡PROPERTY ITO NORTH BRADLEY RESIDENCE I BRADLEY PROPERTY NUMBER 1: BLUFF OVERVIEW (LOOKING SOUTHWEST) PHOTOGRAPHS CNeN CONSULTANTS /Pi?OJECTNO 959.1.1 I / / FIGURE NO A-1 I I I I I I I' I :1 I II I I I I I .1 I I I I UNSUPPORTED FILL DEBRIS PILE BRADLEY RESIDENCE NUMBER 2: BRADLEY SLOPE (LOOKING EAST) PHOTOGRAPHS / Pi"?OJECT NO 959.1.1 I / FiGURE NO A-2 , OWiN CONSULTANTS I I I I I I I I i Ii I I I I I ,I I I I I BRADLEY RESIDENCE UNSUPPORTED FILL NUMBER 3; BRADLEY SLOPE (LOOKING EAST) PHOTOGRAPHS C7NiNCONSULTANTS /PI?OJECTNO 959.1.1 LOWEST REMAINING RET AINING SECTION EXPOSED NATURAL TERRACE DEPOSITS / FIGURE NO A-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRADLEY RESIDENCE NUMBER 4: BRADLEY SLOPE (LOOKING EAST) PHOTOGRAPHS ON=-NCONSULTANTS / Pi<OJECT NO 959.1.1 I / I FIGURE NO A-4 I I BRADLEY RESIDENCE I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL BLUFF TOP LOT NO.5 DEBRIS PILE PUBLIC BEACH PROPERTY TO NORTH ¡ NUMBER 5: BEACH AND BLUFF CONDITIONS (LOOKING NORTHEAST) PHOTOGRAPHS OYr-N CONSULTANTS / Pi?OJECT NO 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO A-5 I BRADLEY RESIDENCE I I 1- I I I I I I I I I 1 I I "1 - /' '\~ . , ' '-;.,' ";.::,'-- --'..-'.'-' .- '\ ï . \ . ...;' - -' ¡ - . NUMBER 7: FRACTURED SANDSTONE ALONG BASE OF SEA BLUFF LOT NO.5 (LOOKING NORTHEAST) I I PHOTOGRAPHS c:MeN CONSULT,AJ\JTS / Pi<OJECT NO 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO A-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I - I I I I I I FAULT EXPOSURE BRADLEY RESIDENCE DEBRIS PILE NUMBER 6: SEA BLUFF LOT NO.4 (LOOKING NORTHEAST) PHOTOGRAPHS / Pi<OJECT NO 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO A-6 OYi-lN CONSULTANTS II I I I I I I I I l.- I I I I I 'I - I I I I APÆNDIX B I DR I 80 I I - I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 2 I I 2 I I 3 I I I PR OJECT NO. ILUNG COMPANY: M.R. OWEN CONSTRUCTION 6 INCHES RING DIAMETER: UJ ~ UJ ....J >- ~ ....J a. 0 t: UJ* C/) a. ¿ 0 C/) a:'-' c/)'; ¿ <t u.. z~ ::>~ <tC/) <t ..... UJü ....J . C/) C/) ~Z ()~ C/) 3: Dc. C/)UJ ....J~ UJ ,-, -~ 0 ::: 0 >- °Z -::> <t a: ....J a: ¿O 0'-' CD 0 CD 0 () C/) SM DRIVE WEIGHT ($): NA RIG: HAND AUGER DROP: DATE: 5-16-89 ELEVATION: ~ ~ UJ UJ 1::; :r: ~ a. UJ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 TEST BORING NO.1 A SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL. Light yellowish brown silty sand, dry to slightly moist, loose tõïñedium dense @ 0.5 ft. Contain-few to several gravel to 2 inches @ 2.0 ft. Refusal¡ moved over 2.0 ft. to the north Total Depth. 2.0 ft. No Water No Caving Possible Tie-Back Location as Suggested by P~esence of Backfill TEST BORING LOG 959.1.1 BRADLEY RES. B-1 OWÆNCONSULTANTS I DRILLING COMPANY: BORING DIAMETER: I I :I: t- a- UJ 0 1-0 I I I I I 10- I I 15- I I 20- I I 25- I I 30 I I IF ROJECT NO. I '"' t- UJ UJ ~ UJ ...J a- ¿ ~ V) UJ > a:: 0 UJ ...J a- :E ~ V) " ~ CD - - - - - - I-- 5- - - - - - - - - - I-- - f-- - - - - - - - - - - I-- - I-- I-- - - - - - - - - - - i- - i- - i- - i- 959.1.1 M.R. OWEN CONSTRUCTION DRIVE WEIGHT (S): t- O 0 LL ..... V) ;:: 0 ...J CD >- t- V) z::, UJu Oc. ~ >- a:: 0 '"' UJ~ a::~ ::)t- t-Z V)UJ -t- Oz :EO 0 V) V)': ~V) ...JO 0 . V) ...J . -::) o~ V) RIG: HAND AUGER DATE: 5-16-89 ELEVATION: :!:98 ft. DROP: NA TEST BORING NO. 1B SOIL DESCRIPTION SM FILL. Light yellowish brown silty sand, slightly moist, loose SM TOPSOIL/WEATHEPæD SOIL DEPOSITS @ 1.0 ft. Dark brown silty sand, slightly moist to moist, loose to medium dense, absence of gravel, few rootlets TERRACE DEPOSITS. Dark brown to brown silty sand, moist, medium dense to dense, moderately weathered @ a.o ft. Becomes reddish brown to ye'llowish brown silty sandstone, moist, dense, less weathered Total Depth. 11.0 ft. No Water No Caving Backfilled 5-16-89 I TEST BORING LOG I FIGURE NO. B-2 BRADLEY RES. ~ ow.:N CONSULTANTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRilLING COMPANY: BORING DIAMETER: RIG: HAND AUGER M.R. OWEN CONSTRUCTION DATE: 5-16-89 ElEV A TION: 6 INCHES DRIVE WEIGHT ($): DROP: UJ I- I- UJ -1 0 >- ~ en UJ -1 tL t: UJ~ UJ tL Z 0 [/) a:~ [/)'; ~ z « LL z::, :;)1- <{[/) « "'" -1 . [/) [/) UJo I-Z oq J: [/) ;: 0,3 [/)UJ [/) I- UJ -I- -1' tL <:) ::: 0 >- °Z -:;) UJ <{ c: -1 c: zQ O~ 0 CD 0 CD 0 () [/) 0 SM TEST BORING NO. 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION Dark brown silty sand, TOPSOIL, @ 0,5 ft. FILL: Light yellowish brown to pale orange-brown silty sand, moist, medium dense to dense, a few white to light gray siltstone clasts 5 @ 4.0 ft. Grades from yellow to orange, a few white to light gray siltstone/sandstone clasts 10 SM @ 9.5 ft. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Gray-brown silty sand, slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense, medium-grained Total Depth: 10.5 ft. No Water No Caving Backfilled 5-16-89 15 20 25 30 TEST BORING LOG PROJECT NO. 959,1.1 B-3 BRADLEY RES. OWiNCONSULTANTS I DRilLING COMPANY: BORING DIAMETER: M.R. OWEN CONSTRUCTION RIG:HAND AUGER WITH 6" CASING DATE: 6-14-89 I 4 INCHES DRIVE WEIGHT (S): NA DROP: NA ELEVATION: 3.0 ft. I u.J I- I- u.J -J 0 >- ,..., c:i u.J -J Il. t:: u.J~ Il. ::2' 0 CIJ""": w ::2' CIJ a:'-' <CIJ ~ < LI.. z:::, ::>1- < ..... -J . CIJ CIJ wu I-Z ()l? J: CIJ 0.9; ClJW I- " w 3: -I- -JCI:! Il. ~ 0 >- °z -::> w <{ a: -J a: ::2'0 0'-' 0 (IJ 0 (IJ 0 () CIJ 0 TEST BORING NO.4 I SOIL DESCRIPTION BEACH DEPOSITS; Dark gray sand and gravel, saturated, loose, medium dense, unconsolidated I @ 3.5 ft. Torrey Sandstone, orange-brown to light gray silty sandstone, wet to saturated, dense, locally stained reddish-brown with iron oxide - I 5 Total Depth; 3.75 ft. Ocean Water @ 0.5 ft. Sluffing to Total Depth I I 10 I I 15 I I 20 I I 25 I I 30 I I TEST BORING LOG P OJECT NO. 959.1.1 BRADLEY RES. I B-5 OW.iNCONSULTANTS I DRILLING COMPANY: BORING DIAMETER: I I J: f- e.. w 0 ~o I I I I I 10- I I 15- I I 20- I I 25- I .1 I 30 I ,...., f- W W ~ - - - 5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W --l e.. ::E <I: CI'J CJ <I: Q) W --l e.. ::E <I: CI'J W > a: 0 4 INCHES M.R. OWEN CONSTRUCTION ELEVATION: 3.0 ft. f- a a LJ.. ..... CI'J ~ a --l Q) >- t:: CI'J Z""" Wù 00. ~ >- a: 0 '-- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-- I-- ~ ~ - i-- - 10:-- '-- - - - I PROJECT NO. 959.1.1 DRIVE WEIGHT ($): - I ,...., wa!1 rr~ ::>f- f-Z Cl'JW -f- °z ::Eo (,) RIG:HAND AUGER WITH 6" CASING DATE: 6-14-89 NA DROP: NA CI'J CI'J"': <l:CI'J --l . (,)q --l~ -::> O~ CI'J TEST BORING NO.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION BEACH DEPOSITS: Dark gray sand and gravel deposits, saturated, loose to medium dense, unconsolidated @ 3.0 ft. Torrey Sandstone Formation, gray silty and clayey ~ sandstone, saturated, medium dense to dense, moderately I ~ weathered; encounter sandstone fragments in auger bucket Total Depth: 3.75 ft. Ocean Water @ 0.5 ft. Sloughing to Total Depth I- TEST BORING LOG BRADLEY RES~ I FIGURE NO. B-6 OWJN CONSULTANTS DRILLING COMPANY: M.R:' OWEN CONSTRUCTION RIG: HAND AUGER DATE: 5-16-89 BORING DIAMETER: 5 INCHES DRIVE WEIGHT (S): DROP: ELEV ATION: ,.., lJ.J I- TEST BORING NO. 3 lJ.J -I >- ,.., en I- -I c.. 0 t: lJ.J~ lJ.J c.. 2 0 C/J'"': lJ.J C/J a:'-' 1:; ::E -t LL z::, ::JI- -tC/J .... -I . -t C/J C/J lJ.Ju I-Z aC? J: C/J 3: Oc. C/JlJ.J C/J I- lJ.J '-' -I- -I' c.. " ::: 0 >- Oz -::J lJ.J -t a: -I a: ::EO 0,-, 0 CD CD 0 a C/J 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION f--O - '-- SM FILL: Brown silty sand, dry to slightly moist, loo&e to medium dense, a few rocks - I-- I - - - - t- I 5- - - I-- I - I-- @ 7.5 ft, Encounter a&phalt chunks - - - - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Gray-brown silty sandstone, medium grain, slightl~ I moist to moist, medium dense to dense 10 " - I-- I Total Depth: 10.0 ft. - I-- No Water No Caving - - Backfilled 5-16-89 I - - 15- - - - I-- I - I-- - - I - - 20- - I - - - I-- - - I - - 25- - I - - - I-- I - - - - 30 I I TEST BORI-NG LOG PI OJECT NO. 959.1.1 I BRADLEY RES. FIGURE NO. B-4 (ji) O""" CONSULTANlS ' I I I I I I I I I I I II e- I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C TEST BORING LOGS performed by BUCHANAN-RAHILLY, INC. in report dated October 27, 1986 Annotated by William J. Elliott CEG in April 1987 I I' 'I J: """ """ a..zw w-w a u.. I - I - 2 I ~ ~ 4 'I ~ - 6 - - I I . .10 I- ~ 12 I,) I - "" 14 ~ I- 16 - ,-I I- ~ 18 - I I - - 20 - 22 I 24 - I- I I- 26 - I- I t- 28 - I- - - 8 - - - - - 0 Z w .. a.. ::E '" rn a:: >- w C1 ~ 0 '" .. ~ 0 Q J: ~~ """ ~ .. - \ B-2 Buchanan-Rahi ll~'. 111(8. Test Boring No.1 ELEVATION :!:lOa DATE DRILLED' n_1-RF. EQUIPMENT Mobile B-61 8-inch H.S. Auçar MATERI AL DESCRIPTION Lindavista Formation Medium dense, dry to damp, r~à-brown, silty to slightly clayey S&~ Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) very dense, damp, red-bro\m, silty SAND Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) Torrey Sandstone l- Very dense, darn~, light yellow-brown to light brown, silty medium to coarse S&~ I- Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) ~- - - -- .- Z. Ow -u"" :(zrn... 0:"'~8 """"""0 w~..u.. zrnCD ww a..c:: 12 r- r- I- r- r- ~ 50 - - - ~ 58 r- - - - l- I- i- ~ ... rn Zu.; Wu a a.. >- ð ~ w. 0:""" Z ~w rnr- -z 00 ::Eu O:rn w- J::/) >-w 0""" 1 2 3 I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECI FIC BQAING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE CF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES I Log of Test Boring No.1 Property Aaj acem:. to 56ü ¡.jetJtuul: rtii¿i.lüe Drawn by MRR IChecked by: I Fi Ie No. 86-:05 Date: 10-17-86 Figure No. A-I I I : - .-:--.-- \ I ,I ---'. B-3 Buehanan.Rahill~'. 111(.. - d cr Lc;¡ of Test Borinç No. 1 continued z. >- >- w Ow I- a.e z c.:J I- -u"'" ¿;; w. .,.. 0 ~ ~Z(/)I- Z u: crl- cr(/) ¡:: I- w ...J cr«~8 Wu ::Jz w... Cl.ZW ...J 0 ~ :!:100 DATE DRILLED In-l An 1-1-0 I-W J:(/) w-w Cl. ELEVATION 0 a.; (/)- 0 U" ~ J: w!Q...JU" -z I-W « I- EOUI PMENT Mobile B-61 "/ 8-inch H.S. Auç~r Z(/)!D >- 00 0.... ww ð (/) ...J Cl.cr ~u ~30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION silty, mediur;¡ to coarse SAND, as before .. - ..32 very dense, damp, light b!:'olm rnedi:.1rn to coarse ~ 4 SAND with trace of silt 44 '- I- ,-34 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) i- ... - f- _36 f- - ~38 - ... :- . - ~40 - i- f- ~ . ~42 i- 5 ~ 93 - ~44 - - - - -46 - '- - ~48 - - 1-50 - - - - ~." -52 '- ~ 6 50/3. 5 "98.8 2.3 - 54 - - - - I- -56 - - - ... - - '-56 - I- ~ - - NOTE' TME LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE CF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES Log of Test Boring NO.1, Continued ~roperty Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue Drawn by MRR TChecked by: , File No. 66-105 r Date: 10-17 86 I Figure No.A-2 I.. 1- I. 1-- I! I' I" . I I I I I I I I" I I , ' I ì I -I I I I I -, 1,,\ I I I _I I I I I I~ 'I 1: I- ~zw w-w C u. - 60 62 l- I- 64 - f- I- 66 I- I- 68 - - 70 - -72 - 74 - - - 76 - - .. 78 - - I- 80 f- I- 62 .. I- f- 84 - - - 86- - I- 88 - I- - . - - - - - - - 0 z W ....J a. :E « '" 0:: >- w " l- S ~ 0 Q 1: ~ I- d ....J ~ B-4 Buehanan.Hahjll~'. ,,,(.. Log of Test Boring No.1, continued ELEVATION :tlOO DATE DRILLED 10-1_R6 EQUIPMENT M()hil~ R-õl \1/ R-inrl1 H S. A1JÇJP?" MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Torrey Sandstone, Continued Very dense, damp, light yellow-broi'll medium to coarse SAND with trace of silt Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) sz. Water table z. Ow -U"'" <z"'..... 0::.« :!: 8 ",""0 w ~ ...H.. Z(/)aJ ~~ r- I- 50/5" 1-- .. .. r- r- I- 100/5 I I I- I- I- I- I- .. r- I- I- I- - I- I- I- >- ... éñ Zu.; Wu ca. >- ~ 98.4 . or\! W. 0::1- ::¡z ...W (/)... -z 00 :Eu o:(/) W - I(/) "'W 01- 7 8 ----- very hard drilling Torrey Sandstone (Tt) ~- ., . . - Near Refusal at 87 Feet 4,6 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE RE~ESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES Drawn by MRR Log of Test Boring No.1, Conti¡-¡ued ?rc~erty ~j~cent to 560 Ne)tune Avenue ¡Checked by: I Fi Ie No. 86-105 I Date: 10-17-86 I Figure No, A-3 I I \ I ! .1 ~ I- Q.zw w-w a u.. I - 2 I !I I - - 4 6 - 8 I - 10 - ; -I,,) I - 12 - - 14 - I - 16- - - 18 I - I- 20 I - - 22 I - - 24- I - - - I 1\ - - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - - d z W ...J Q. ::E « rJ) a: >- w e,: I- 0 « ...J ~ ~ ~ B-5 Buchanan-Rahill". ',1(-. ... Log of Test Boring No.2 ELEVATION HOO DATE DRILLED 10-3-86 EOUI PMENT l-bbile B-61 wi a-inch H.S. Auger MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lindavista Formation Medium dense to very dense, dry to d~~~, red- browTI, silty SAND Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) Torrey Sandstone Very dense, damp, light yellow-bro~TI medium to coarse SAND with trace silt Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) ~. -, . . Near Refusal at 23 Feet .... z. Ow -U""" ~zrJ)1- a:«~0 þool-OO W~-Iu.. ZrJ)CD ww Q.a: ... - 14 - - - - ... 35 44 - ... I- 53 - - - - - >- þoo ¡¡; Zu.: Wu °a,; >- ~ 113.2 . ,<! w. c="" -z ;::.:.1 r.n"" -z 0:) :E:.; a:(/) w.... ;trJ) "-w 0.... 1 2 3 8.1 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURF.-cE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECI FIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE CI' SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES I Drawn bv MRR Lo~ of Test Boring No.2 ?ro~erty Adjacent to 560 Ne?tune Avenue 'Checked by: I Fi Ie No. 86-10::; I Date: ,-0-,-7-86 I Figure No. A-4 I I ~--- \ 1 I I I I -I 'I I '1,\ -, , -, ,- I 'I .1 I _I I -I -Ii :1 ;: I- o.zw w-w C ¡., 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 6 b z w ..j 0. :E < rn a: >- w ø I- 0 < ...J 3: 0 C J: I- ...J -, B-6 Buchanan-Rahill)'. 111(-. Log of Test Boring No.3 ELEVATION EOUI PMENT ::100 DATE DRILLED i 0-1-<111 Mobile 8-61 8-inch H.S. AuGer z. >- Ow >- ~ -u"'" u; W ~z(/»- z¡., c::~ S;:: c::<3:0 -z Wu ;:::\,;J >-1-00 Co. !:(/) lJJ~...J¡" (/)~ -z '-w Z(/)a:J >- 00 0>- lJJW ð :E:..> c.c:: 21 1 2 3 4 5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lindavista Formation Medium dense to dense, dry to damp, dark red- brown, silty SAND Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) Torrey Sandstone , Very dense, damp, light yellow-bro.m, meàium to coarse Sh~ with trace of silt Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) Bottom of Boring at 23.5 Feet 30 63 54 NOTE' THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLI£S ONLY AT THE SPECII'IC BORING OR TReNCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIvE OF SUSSURI'ACE CONDITIONS AT OTHeR LOCATIONS AND TIMes Leg of Test Boring No.3 Property Adjacent to ~50 ;.ctJCUllIo! i\V~nue Drawn by MRi1 IChecked by: IFile No. 86-~05 I Date: 10-17-86 I Figure No,A-5 I I ~I -I I I I I I I I -I I I .1 :1 I I I APPENDIX D I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I 3000 500 / / 7 /' / /- ~ / / / / ~ // "" V./ / ./ // /./ /'./ / p 7/ 77 V./ /"" v /./ // ~ Þ þ' /' / 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2500 2000 u.. en E:. J: I- <.:) Z w 1500 a: I- en a: « w J: en 1000 0 0 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) -SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COI:iESION (psf) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (O) . 8-1 0 39.5° (Terrace Deposits) â 8-2 0 37.0° (Terrace Deposits) DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ew:-.. CONSULTANTS / PROJECT No. 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO. D-l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8000 / / / / ~/ / / / / / / 7 / .7 / / / / / / 7 7 7 / / / 1/ 6000 4000 U- t/) ~ J: l- e> æ 3000 a: l- t/) a: « w J: t/) 2000 1000 0 0 600 1000 1600 2000 2600 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (pst) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE (OJ . S-3 0 61° (Torrey Sandstone) Typical Brittle Fracture Behavior at Peak Load DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 0\*St CONSULTANTS / PROJECT NO. 959.1.1 / FIGURE No. D-2 I .1 6000 I I 6000 I 4000 I u. (I) e:. :I: I I- c.::I æ 3000 CC I- I (I) CC ex: w :I: (I) I 2000 I I looq I I I I I I / ;/ /' / / / /' / / /' / ./ v /' . /' /' ~ /' /' /' lL 500 1000 1600 2000 2600 3000 0 0 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION. COHESION (pst) FRICTION REMAR KS ANGLE (O) . S-4 2000 58° (Torrey Sandstone) Typical Brittle Fracture Behavior at Peak Load DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS O\WNCONSULTANTS / PROJECT NO. 959.1.1 / FIGURE NO. D-3 I I I I I I I I i-I ..1 I I I I I I I I I APÆNDIX E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I . OWÐICONSULTANTS APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I. GENERAL These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechinical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may rej ect the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557-78. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSUlTANTS Appendix E (Continued) III. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 5. 6. 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. 2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioninq: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture- condi tioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant. I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS Appendix E (Continued) IV. 3. V. 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. FILL MATERIAL 1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. 2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material wi th a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near- horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformi ty of material and moisture in each layer. I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS -1 Appendix E (Continued) 4. 5. VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier material. Moisture- conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. 3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accompl ished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or as shown herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _CONSULTANTS ~ Appendix E (Continued) material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. VII. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. NoText NoText