The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-5968 GC I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5968PE ........... _ ............ = 06= 9O3is s==........................................... PARCEL NO. : 256- 371 -1800 PLAN NO.: 5968 -G JOB SITE ADDRESS: 172 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME STANLEY CANTER FAMILY TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 230910 PHONE NO.: CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92023- CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760 - 633 -3470 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: UNITED CAPITOL INSURANCE CO POLICY NO. : GLA1002862 POLICY EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. P E N .: 760 - 633 -3470 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 4/28/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: MIKE VALLES ------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------- - - - - -- 1. PERMIT FEE 200.00 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 800.00 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- Affects Seaside Garden Park @ boundary with State Lands. PLACEMENT: CIP WALL 40LF IN LENGTH ALONG BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF & 13FT HIGH & ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL; 2EA ROW ISFT -25FT ROCK ANCHOR; FINISHED & EXPOSED SURFACE TEXTURED & COLORED TO RESEMBLE NATURAL SURROUNDINGS; ALL PER MUP 93 -163. DOCS: COVENANTS RE: ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL/ HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE. COASTAL PMT 6- 98 -39. AS- BUILTS. - --- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. - Q�lf IGN1 TURE PRINT NAME 28 (7j DATE IGNED 7(00 - %� 6 3 3 - 3Y70 TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER contractor C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5969PE .......................... ............................... e..................... PARCEL NO. : 256- 371 -1900 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 164 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME DENVER FAMILY TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 164 NEPTUNE AVE. CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: PLAN NO.: 5969 -G PHONE NO.: CA ZIP: 92024- CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760- 633 -3470 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: UNITED CAPITOL INSURANCE CO POLICY NO. : GLA1002862 POLICY EXP DATE: 7/01/01 ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. P E N .: 760 - 633 -3470 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 4/28/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: MIKE VALLES 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT . PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 200.00 800.00 .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- Affects Seaside Garden Park @ boundary with State Lands. PLACEMENT: CIP WALL 40LF IN LENGTH ALONG BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF & 13FT HIGH & ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL; 2EA ROW 15FT -25FT ROCK ANCHOR; FINISHED & EXPOSED SURFACE TEXTURED & COLORED TO RESEMBLE NATURAL SURROUNDINGS; ALL PER MUP 93 -163. DOCS: COVENANTS RE: ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL/ HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE. COASTAL PMT 6- 98 -39. AS- BUILTS. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. A PRINT NAME qlash� DATE StGfNED T LEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER contractor C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5968TE sacscasscasavxxaaaaaaas cacascuccxcasacccccscaacaxascce ssaasxssccccccccaacsaaca. PARCEL NO. : 256- 371- 1800,1900 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 172 -164 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME CANTER (STANLEY) /DENVER MAILING ADDRESS: 560 COAST HWY 101 N CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING LICENSE NO.: 268082 INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: UNITED POLICY NO. : GLA1002862 ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 4/28/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 INSPECTOR: MIKE VALLES 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT . ----------------- - - - - -- Affects Moonlight Bei ACCESS TO JOBSITE ACI GRANT OF BEACH ACCES! ACCESS, EQUIPMENT, BI USE PERMIT 93 -163. PI OUT SPECIAL PERMISSI, - - -- INSPECTION - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION PLAN NO.: BECOV (PAUL /DARLENE) N5 PHONE NO.: 760- 633 -3470 Zip: 92024- CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760- 633 -3470 LICENSE TYPE: A CAPITOL INSURANCE CO POLICY EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 CONSTRUCTION INC. NE D. 760- 633 -3470 PERMIT ISSUED BY: as, PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------- --- --------- -- -- -- .00 700.00 2,500.00 --------------------------- ands, & Seaside Garden Park. 4CLUDED: COVENANT RE: VORK SCHEDULE /BEACH CONDITIONS. MAJOR DAY & LABOR DAY WITH - -� SSION & CITY COUNCIL. I Gy INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXA PENALTY OF PERJURY THAI ALL Inc tnrv..m ... .. E 10�W lJ , DJrUfJ PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHE DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER �E. Zs A 9 DATE SI NED -16o - 633 -3g7b TELEPHONE NUMBER contractor C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5968TE aa...a.ec ..aa va. ......svacc.ccacaccc= cccccceecccc cc.aasccc.caccc ............... PARCEL NO. : 256- 371- 1800,1900 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 172 -164 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME CANTER (STANLEY) /DENVER MAILING ADDRESS: 560 COAST HWY 101 N CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA PLAN NO.: BECOV (PAUL /DARLENE) #5 PHONE NO.: 760- 633 -3470 ZIP: 92024- CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 760 - 633 -3470 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: UNITED CAPITOL INSURANCE CO POLICY NO. : GLA1002862 POLICY EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 ENGINEER : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. NE 760- 633 -3470 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 4/28/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/01 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: MIKE VALLES PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 700.00 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT 2,500.00 ---- --------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- Affects Moonlight Beach State Park & other State Lands, & Seaside Garden Park. ACCESS TO JOBSITE ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED: COVENANT RE: GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS /CONTRACTOR LIABILITY LETTER /WORK SCHEDULE /BEACH ACCESS, EQUIPMENT, BARRIER PLANS /STANDARD & SPECIAL CONDITIONS. MAJOR USE PERMIT 93 -163. PERMIT INVALID BETWEEN MEMORIAL DAY & LABOR DAY WITH- OUT SPECIAL PERMISSION OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL. - - -- INSPECTION ------- --- ------ DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. E ,_10 J14 LI) , Gy r OC41) PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHE zs A 9 DATE SI NED -760 - 633 -3470 TELEPHONE NUMBER contractor City Of Encinitas COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD AND SPECL4L CONDITIONS BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 5968TE 1. Permittee's Construction Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Public Liability Insurance, naming the City of Encinitas as an additional insured, in the amount of $1,000,000. 2. Permittee shall post a Financial Deposit Instrument from a Financial Institution approved by the City, in the amount of $2.500.00, 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. 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 City Property. The plan shall include times the City Property will be used, types of vehicles which will be used, the number of trips vehicles will make. Tentative Work Schedule received April 22, 1999. Equipment List received April 22, 1999. Beach Access Plan received April 22, 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 April 22, 1999. 6. Contractor shall present a Beach Barrier Plan to protect the public from equipment movement, construction activity, and the construction site. Document received April 22, 1999. The Engineering Inspector may request changes to the Plan on as- needed basis. CS /ES /jsg /te5968s.doc1 TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 �* recycled paper 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. 8. The storage status of Contractor equipment within the City limits shall be determined and the location mutually agreed upon prior to access to the Public Beach. Use of Corporation Yards for storage shall be negotiated directly with the Director of Public Works separately from any Permit processing; compensation will be due the City. 9. A solid waste container of sufficient size shall be made available and conveniently accessible to Lifeguard Services so that debris removed from the Public Beach may be immediately and safely stored. This container shall be lockable with a duplicate key given to the Lifeguard Supervisor. Contractor shall be responsible for regular monitoring, maintenance and cleaning of this facility. 10. Contractor shall obtain special permission from the City Council for access and use of the Public Beach on City - recognized Holidays, Sundays, between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Mondays through Saturdays, per Chapter 9.32 of the Municipal Code, and between Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. 11. Advance notifications shall be provided to the Office of the Lifeguard Supervisor (760) 633- 2748, a minimum of 48 hours prior to each access period through Moonlight Beach State Park. Notification shall include date(s), time(s), equipment types, and duration of work. A single notification shall not include more than one week of work at any given time. 12. The access and use of any Contractor vehicle(1 12) on the Public Beach shall be approved by the Engineering Inspector and Lifeguard Supervisor immediately prior to such access. Only vehicles (112) with placards or stickers indicating official approval will enter the Public Beach. 13. Contractor shall delineate the accessway through Moonlight Beach State Park to the satisfaction of the Engineering Inspector and Lifeguard Supervisor. When children are present, flagmen will be required to route Contractor traffic. Special consideration will be given when crowds are present, including prohibition of access. 14. Contractor shall not block at any time access to the Public Beach for emergency personnel or vehicles. 15. The operation of Contractor vehicles (212) while on the Public Beach shall be conducted in a reasonable, safe and prudent manner. 16. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site to which access is authorized by this Permit, the Contractor shall apply to the Traffic Engineering Division and receive approval for the proposed haul route. The Contractor shall comply with all conditions and requirements the Traffic Engineering Division may impose with regards to the hauling operation. CS /ES /jsg /te5968s.doc2 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 dewater 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 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 hours 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 with the exception of the rip -rap itself. 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 /te5968s.dcc3 27. Violations of any Standard or Special Condition will result in notification of the Sheriffs Department for appropriate action. A Stop Work Order on the Permit will be immediately issued by the Engineering Inspector or Lifeguard Supervisor. 28. These Conditions do not exempt the Contractor or Agency of any future fees or charges for access through the Beach area. 29. Permittee or Permittee's Contractor, on behalf of Permittee, has read, understands and agrees to comply with all Beach Encroachment Permit Standard and Special Conditions and guarantees to save, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Encinitas and all its agents, officers, employers and officials against all liabilities, judgements, costs and expenses which may in any manner or form arise in consequent of the issue of this Permit or any work performed in consequence thereof. �- Z-�"L 41-261 of Permittee) w. N (Name of Permittee Printed) CS /ES /jsg /t:e5968s.doc4 (Date) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FEES ACTION FORM DATE Ll2 pE�2 �! APPLICANT NAME �'t, / APPLICANT ADDRESS 67,krif`j--j43414 47f04 tAS ✓kF&4.5 /NI/ -j eL-" , Permit Coordinator KC /jsg /0ct151998 PERMIT NUMBER RECEIPT NUMBER CHECK NUMBER Cy IOSI - �0�3/% / a ? -ff 31 CASHIER INITALS V Y W DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CODE ACCOUNT NUMBER AgreemenUCovenant AC 101-0000- 345-0100 Construction CN 101 -0000 -345 -0200 Exempt Organizations EX 101-0000.345-0400 Grading Plancheck GR 101. 0000- 34S-0700 Grading Inspection GI 101 -0000. 345 -0800 Final Map Processing FM 101-0000 - 34511600 Parcel Map Processing PM 101-0000.3450600 Permanent Encroachment PE 101. 0000 - 345 -1100 Improvement Plancheck IR 101-0000-345 -Og00 Improvement inspection II 101. 0000 -345 -1000 Temporary Encroachment TE 101- 0000 -345 -1200 Street Vacation VA 101-0000 - 3451500 Street Name Change SN 101-0000 - 345 -1300 A.P.N. Report PN 1014)000- 345 -2100 Security Deposit CASHIER: SEE NOTES ON BACK �✓� f TOTAL Permit Coordinator KC /jsg /0ct151998 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACTION FORM DATE APPLICANT NAME APPLICANT ADDRESS PERMIT COORDINATOR TO BE COMPLETED BY CASHIER RECEIPT NUMBER CHECK NUMBER CASHIER INITALS ENGINEERING DEPOSIT CASHIER CODE z ED ROJECT NUMBER MUST BE ENTERED JTO PROJECT NUMBER FIELD PROJECT i AMC TOTAL 1i /T- r ENGINEERING SECURITY CASHIER CODE = SY PROJECT NUMBER AND APPLICANT NAME MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE DESCRIPTION FIELD (F70 ON LAST SCREEN) PROJECT i AMOUNT i TOTAL L� City Of Encinitas April 14, 1999 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 cleanings, 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 are made. If the time frame for a new addition is short, you will be notified by telephone for support actions. Sincerely, Phil Cotton Park and Beach Superintendent cc: David Wigginton, Community Services Director Pam Alexander, Recreation Superintendent Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Supervisor John Freaken, Park Supervisor Larry Giles, Senior Lifeguard Gus Castillo Bob Keeley- Landscape West, Inc. Dan Jensen- Landscape West, Inc. Jeff Gamnii� City Engineering Dept. File/Originator TEL - 60.633. 22600 ) FAX -60-633--'627 505 S. Vul v Avenue. Fnanits. California 92024-3633 Too -60- 633.2700 0 ryCNd pep r Date Times Site Location Activity No. of People 4/12 -5/17 6:30PM- 7:30PM OakCrest Pk. OakCrest Pk.Canine Learning Center /BsktbLCt. Dog Training 10 4/24/99 6AM -IPM MLB MLB /Gotclia Kids Surf Contest Surf Contest 48 4/24/99 Noon -2PM EVP EVP /View Area/Wedding/TamaraHooker Wedding 50 4/30/99 3:30- 5:30PM Private Private /Lou's Records - Band Live Performance 50 5/1/99 10:30AM -7PM Orpheus Orpheus /Cvrd.Picnic/AleciaNelson B'dayParty 50 5/2/99 7AM -4PM MLB MLB Beach Area - Marylou Drummy Surf Contest 50 5/6/99 9AM -3PM EVP EVP /Cinco de Mayo City Employee Picnic Picnic 100 5/8/99 9AM -3PM MLB MLB /Beach Area/Car Club Meet Car Club Meet 25 5/15/99 6AM -3PM OakCrest OakCrest Ilk./Lyons Rummage Sale/P.Drew Rummage Sale 7 5/15/99 IAM -8PM MLB MLB /Concert - Robert Semple Concert 300 5/15/99 6:30AM- 9:30AM Private Private /Ilwy 101 /Solana Bch. Chambers - Fiesta del Sol Triathlon Bike /Swim/Run 600 51J 6/99 -SPM FJ MLB LI3 /V -gall Clinic /J. Tu ay V Ball "Iou 30 iSO 5/23/99 11:30AM- 5:30PM Glen Park Glen Park/Cvrd.Picnic/Carrie Barrett Soc.Reception 40 5/23/99 8AM -5PM MLB MLB /Audio Show -Evan Beal Audio Show 200 5/23/99 6AM -8PM Private Private /Fiesta de Mayo /Chamber of Commerce Cinco de Mayo event 10,000 6/17/99 9AM -3PM OakCrest Pk. OakCrest Pk.Olivenhain Pioneer Elem.School End of School Party 50 6/20/99 8AM -I OPM MLB MLB /Dave Breuer - Fathers Resource Center Fathers' Day Celebration 300 6/24/99 2PM -4PM Private Private /Los Ninos 24th Annual Walk Walk 100 4/14/99 11:34 AM 6/26/99 l 130AM- 4:30PM Oak Crest Park OakCrest Pk. Picnic Area- East/Zoe Trolinger Wedding Reception 175 7/10/99 7AM -9PM Glen Park Glen Park/Carolyn SwitzalV /Cvrd.Picnic Wedding 50 7/17/99 L0AM -6PM Glen Park Glen Park/Angela Martinez -Cvrd Pic.Area B'day Party 60 8/7/99 5PM -8PM EVP EVP- Viewpoint/Larry Pink Wedding <100 8/7/99 1 PM -3PM Encinitas View Point Park lncinitas Viewpoint Pk. /Joe CorderNiew Pt. Wedding 150 8/8/99 I OAM- 5:30PM OakCrest Park OakCrest Park/Elks Lodge /Eugene Quigley Elks Picnic <100 8/8/99 1 OAM -3PM Glen Pk. Glen Park/S.D.Class Reunion/'69 /Kathy Smith Class Reunion `69 50 9/12/99 8AM -5PM MLB NILB /V -Ball Clinic /J.Tuyay V /Ball Clinic 30 9/18/99 6AM -4PM MLB MLB/Nat'l Woodie Show /Bch Area/Upper I'kg.Lot David Doherty 728 -1616 Car Show 500 9/19/99 6AM4PM MLB MLB /Pkg.Lot/Porsche Club Car Show Car Show 250 9/25/99 4PM- 5:30PM MLB MLB /Debbie Lewis - On Beach Wedding 200 9/26/99 11AM -8PM OakCrest Pk. OakCrest Pk. /Cvrd.Picnic /Wm. Sullivan Reunion <150 9/26/99 ? Private 1'rivate /Oktoberfesl/Chamber Oktobertest 7 10/2/99 5AM -5PM MLB MLB - Encinitas Day Celebration 1 Encinitas Day Celebration 35,000 10/8/99 Noon -8PM MLB NILB /Royal Triple "S" Event (Set Up) Skate /Surf Expo 7 10/9/99 7AM- Sunset MLB MLB /Royal 'Triple "S" Event Skate /Surf Expo 15000 4/14/99 11:34 AM SOIL encmaainc rune- om.r -m^n ss April 21, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Lower Bluff Seawall 164 & 172 Neptune Avenr 24 -Hour Emergency Name /Phone Contacts Attention: Mr. Greg Shields �p� As per your request we have prepared the following list of responsible persons and the phone numbers that may be contacted in case of an emergency at the Johnson/Downing construction site. In case of an emergency, please contact the person(s) listed below. John W. Niven (Project Manager)- Robert Mahony office (760) 633 -3470 pager(619)979 -9822 home (760) 740 -9159 mobile (760) 801 -6079 office (760) 633 -3470 mobile (760) 801 -1589 office (650) 367 -9595 mobile (415) 860 -8478 home(650)359 -5536 We hope this satisfies your needs at this time. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very t yours, I 2-4r )— Ahn W. Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction c: Engineering Inspection Mr. Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Services 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 soa enclnEE-iinc April 16, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Coastal Development Permit No. 6 -96 -39 Denver & Canter Residences 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue Traffic Control Plan Attention: Mr. Greg Shields As per your request 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 the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, do W. Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction c: Engineering Inspection Mr. Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Services a. vzi Nrgueiio greet, iteow000 C.iry, Colitornio 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 I Vr ACCESS TO SEA WALL • PATH f TRI TO E COED OT PROPOSED HALL ROUTE ABANDONED CLLVERT� LOTTfNV()OD CiEE% CiLVERT i 1 @ W V➢(TER REH jAP PAVED U VOLLEYBALL E ACH ROAD AREA AREA E • • � o�tc / • EMLOYEE AREA PARUY I REST- • E]OSTINE HAIDIGIPPED R� PARIOIE STALLS AREA EXOTOG RAMP O EXOTDG FENCE NwvE L A ONININ OF N IADIS NOTSCE TO THE SOSRV®R OF LYEON. = • 633-O 40 PR®R TO NSESSDG LL N ,,T EACH OICLUIUNG MTEm, n1ECO. AND DLIRATON RF TE WORK. A SOXiE IGTInCATN STMLL NET V4211DE NOTE TI mE WEEK OF WOK AT ANY OVEN TEE. L CE33LE Alm SAME DEBT TO E CUT TO A N Mm WIDTH SO AS TO ALLOW CONSTBCTITN EClOPf Alm 1MTyWALS A E,mTE ROOM TO PAS S JL*M TINES OF JEAOR ACCESS. THE ROITE %I NR PLAN FRON I STM17 TO THE JEAON WILL E CMDQN D CFF USBC TRAP COTES AND APPROPRIATE SIOMCd CAUTDXM TOO AND/OR CCNTROU OG TRAVEL TIRO FM ACCESS AREA FLAGON VRL E PROVIDED ZL G PENT TRAVEL ACCESS PERO]DS. THE ELOOOTG An ERR 6 S1m-T2. a3mcRETE DELIVERIES Alm OR SOOLAR 71N 1. NWT EXISTING SIOIAGE REGI ATTNG Foier -AP PERSON'S A ESS REMOVE➢ OR DANA ED By COETRACTTR WILL E RESTORED OR REPLACED AT THE EKE OF THE WORT DAY, STN STIECCf II 4TH STREET Exanlc ¢r_vEaT w 3RD STREET BID MEET r an SIRE}_, EAOI FROM ■ STREET '"IL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION. INC. ENGINEERING LOWER BLUFF SEAWALLS CONSTRUC770NA� MOONLIGHT BEACH o ENCINITAS, PLATE 1 CA. . SOIL Enaniainc rr�nrreurr�r,n 5-26i. TO: Director of Community Services Department, City of Encinitas 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 from permit work undertaken by SEC for Coastal Development Permit No. 6- 96-39, lower bluff seawall at 164 & 172 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. I W. Niven, P.E. Engineering Construction, Inc. v Lzo �2- Date 921 Arguello 5rreer, Redwood Ciry, Colifornio 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of SAN DIEGO On APRIL 20, 1999 Date before me, L . GABR 1 EL , NOTARY PUBL 1 C Name arW Title of 015oar (e.g., -Jane Doe. Notary Pubn,' personally appeared JOHN M. RIVEN, P. E. •4P*1SSr191?A*""r%@ &4DW- FAproved to me on thebasis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(A whose name(!) is /" subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /*"" executed the same in his/h%*"ir authorized capacity(M), and that by his /11ARIIE1r signature(*) on the instrument the person( *), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, execute he instrument. WITN SS-Ty hand and official seal. L. GAERI EL OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required bylaw it may prove valuable to persons ralying 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: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Document Date: APRIL 16, 1999 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: JOHN W. RIVEN NONE ® Individual ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General • Attorney -in -Fact • Trustee • Guardian or Conservator • Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: SOIL ENGINEERING CONS ..INC. 1 Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Aftomey -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other. Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: 01995 Nellonal Notary Aesooalion . 8236 Remmel Ave.. P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Perk, CA 91309-7184 Prof. No. 5907 heater: Call Toll Free 1- 800 -878 -6827 SOIL Enclinininc 164 & 172 NEPTUNE AVENUE LOWER BLUFF SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1. RUBBER TIRE LOADER 2. RUBBER TIRE BACKHOE 3. TEXOMA TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG 4. AIR COMPRESSORS 5. FLAT BED & TRAILERS 6. GENERATORS 7. PORTABLE LIGHTS 8. PICK -UP TRUCKS 9. CONCRETE TRUCKS 10. CONCRETE PUMP AND TRUCK 11. GROUT PLANTS 12. CONVEYORS %2 ,, vzi Argueuo xreet, redwood City, California 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 i Soil Engineering Construction, Inc Denver Canter Res. 164 & 172 Neptune Encinitas Ca. Work Schedule April 26 to May 28 Denver Res Johl 99 -013 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 547 -1.7 641 -1.4 741 -1.0 846 -0.6 953 -0.2 Start 53o Start 600 Start 700 Start 700 Start loo Stop 1530 Stop ism Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK form first s' form first s' pour first s' strip forma form seconds' form second 5' !� _ S. t �g� M rte_ -y ., 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 1224 0.2 1307 0.1 1347 0.1 1426 0.2 1506 0.5 Start 700 Start 700 Start 800 Start li3o Start 1130 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1630 Stop 1730 Stop 1830 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK excavate footing excavate footing excavate footing form first 5' form first 5' tie steel tie steel tie steel 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 547 -1.7 641 -1.4 741 -1.0 846 -0.6 953 -0.2 Start 53o Start 600 Start 700 Start 700 Start loo Stop 1530 Stop ism Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK form first s' form first s' pour first s' strip forma form seconds' form second 5' Deaver ltd Jobl 99 -013 . €ate JOINWHAM 26 :xR�r'1$ 27 28 29 30 t7st> 1 5 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 1402 -0.1 1434 0.2 1501 0.4 1527 0.7 1551 1.0 Start 700 Start 700 Start 700 Start 700 Start 700 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK prep steel and forms in yard prep steel and forma in yard prep steel and forms in yard prep steel gad forms in yard prep steel and forms in yard s r1c .e a., P$u 4 5 6 r, rrf 7 ver {4 8 Thee Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 553 A2 633 0.0 722 0.2 821 0.4 931 0.5 Start 700 Start loo Start 700 Start loo Start 700 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 Stop 1530 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK iwta0 tiebacks in"ll tiebacks install tiebacks install tiebacks escavate footing Deaver Res 1ob199 -013 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 1355 -1.0 1430 -1.0 1504 -1.0 1539 -.5 1615 0.0 Start 1055 Start 1130 Start 1201 Start 1239 Start 1315 Stop 1655 Stop 1730 Stop 1804 Stop 1839 Stop 1915 TASK TASK TASK TASK TASK form second 5' form second 5' farm second 5' strip forms clean up SOIL I - April 16, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Concrete Mix Design Submittal 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue (Denver & Canter Residences) Coastal Development Permit No. 6 -96-39 Attention: Mr. Greg Shields Attached, please find two concrete mix designs submitted for your approval. identification numbers are 375 PAL and 68P (Superior Ready Mix Concrete) and/or exceed the minimum concrete design specifications for this project. If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. Very truly yours, ��Y- Z--"— John W. Niven, P.E. c: Engineering Inspection The concrete mix design Both mix designs meet Y21 Arguello greet, Redwood City, California 94063 -1010 (650) 067 -9595 • FAX (650) 567 -8109 Sent bye: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; 04/16/99 9:07AM;)gj[f #402; Page 2/7 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 760 - 745 -0556 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN 375PAE [ ] 4000 PSI CONTRACTOR SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT : DENVER CANTER SEAWALL SOURCE OF CONCRETE SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE VARIOUS PLACEMENT : 4" PUMP /PLACE WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED ASTM -C150 TYPE II /V CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB ASTM -C33 WASHED CONC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LB ASTM -C33 #57 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LS ASTM -C33 #8 RDCK (SUPERIOR), LS WATER, L8 (GAL-US) AIR ENTRAINMENT, % MASTER BUILDERS POZZ 322N, OZ -US MASTER BUILDERS MICRO AIR, OZ-US WATER /CEMENT RATIO, LBS /LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT. PCF PREPARED BY SUPERIOR READY MkK CONCRETE, L.P. 04/16/99 SURFACE -DRY) YIELD, CU FT 705 3.59 1320 8.04 1286 7.87 321 1.97 295 ( 35.3) 4.73 3.0 +/- 1.0 0.81 TOTAL 27.00 28.2 1.8 0.42 4.00 145.5 Sent by: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; MIX #375PAE MIX ANALYSIS 04/16/99 9:06AM;)91& #402; Page 3/7 MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS MIX VOLUME, CU FT STONE 2 27.00 DENSITY, SP G 2.62 COARSENESS (Q / (Q + I)) 70.9 1.0 93.0 WORKABILITY $ PASSING # 8 SIEVE 37.5 1.0 83.0 W - ADJUST 7.14 41.2 2.93 PERCENT of AGGREGATE PERCENT MORTAR 11.0 58.6 TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 5.10 45 '---- - - - - -, , i W 0 O R r A B r r ........, r L 30 i---------- ...:::::::::::--- -' r --- ---- - - ---i I i .............. i i i T.............. ' , r , 25 _ -- --- - - - - -- ------- -- I--- ------ { - - - -- - - -' x - TOTAL MIX i r 0 - AGGREGATES * - BOTH � 20 i--------- i--------- i---- -- --- i---- ----- i -_-- - ---- ' 100 so 60 40 20 0 C O A R S E N E S S Q/ (Q + I) ] MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS NO SEVERE EXPOSURE STONE I - --- - -- STONE 2 SAND DENSITY, SP G 2.62 - - - - --- 2.62 ----- -- 2.63 t PASSING 3/8 SIEVE 1.0 93.0 100.0 $ PASSING # 8 SIEVE - 1.0 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 7.14 5.84 2.93 PERCENT of AGGREGATE 44.0 11.0 45.0 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE Sent by: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; P E R C E N T P A S S I N G MIX #375PAE 04/16/99 9:06AM; ffa #402;Psge 4/7 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 # 30 - - 39.0 45.4 17.6 # SD - - 18.0 39.2 8.1 # 100 - - 6.0 35.6 2.7 9 200 - - 2.9 100.0 34.7 1.3 # 325 - - 94.1 31.8 - Liquid - - - 60.7 20.5 GRADATION CHART DO -- - -- I I 1 1 1 90 i--- i- i--- i- i-__ i- -__ °i----- i----- i---i----- -'-- " `'- --i---i 80 1 1 1 I 70 i--- i- i---i- x --- i----- i----- i ----`i---i------ ;-- ---j-- -i'--i i i i O i x 60 '-- ^'-' - - - -' - - - -' ---- -- - - -- I I I--- r- i-- 'i- - - - ^X^ I- 1 - - -i I- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 x 1 1 50 __ -_ - -1 1 1 r r r 1 o i x 40 1 1 1 -- I r - -I 1 - - -1 -- / 1 1 x - - - - -- -- ' 1 I . 1 i i i i i O 1 I 1 x -x 1 30 i--- i'i- -`i- i- -- i--- --i--- ^ o^-' - -i i------ x --- I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 �- - - - -I- I - - -a- - 1 O 1 I D I 1 1 ------ 1 ----- 0-- -o - - -a 1 1 3 1 3 # # # # # 1 2 3 L SIEVE / // 4 8 1 3 5 0 0 2 i 5 4 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 5 q x - ALL COMPONENTS o - AGGREGATES " - BOTH Sent by: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; 04116/99 9:08AM;lgirm g402;Page 5/7 SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. 1508 MISSION ROAD ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 760- 745 -0556 68P [ 1 4000 PSI CONCRETE MIX DESIGN CONTRACTOR SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT : DENVER CANTER SEAWALL SOURCE OF CONCRETE SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE VARIOUS PLACEMENT 3/8" PUMP WEIGHTS PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, SURFACE -DRY) 04/16/99 ASTM -C15O TYPE II /V CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB 752 YIELD, CU FT ASTM -C33 WASHED CONC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LB 1747 3.83 ASTM -C33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LB 10.65 WATER, LB (GAL -US) 951 5.82 385 AIR ENTRAINMENT, % ( 46.1) 6,17 2 MASTER BUILDERS POZZ 322N, OZ -US WATER /CEMENT RATIO, LSS /LB SLUMP, IN CONCRETE UNIT WEIGHT, PCF PREPARED BY SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, L.P, 0 +I- 1.0 0.54 TOTAL 27.00 30.1 0.51 6.00 142.1 Sent by: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; MIX 968P MIX ANALYSIS 04116/99 9:09AM;)affx #402;Page 617 MIX VOLUME, CU FT 27.00 COARSENESS (Q / (Q + 1)) 3.8 WORKABILITY 54.0 W - ADJUST 59.0 PERCENT MORTAR 72,0 TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 3.96 45 1- -- ------ -- ----- --i-- -- ----- j---- ----- i W D R ........ , K 35 i -- -"-----i--------- i--------- ' - . A ................. , ' B L30 --------- ..............- '-''-- --- - -- ' -_-•- i I Y 25 - '--------- ' ------------ '--------- i x - TOTAL MIX i 0 - AGGREGATES * - BOTH ' 100 80 60 40 20 0 C O A R S E N E S S [ Q/ (Q + I) MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE SAND DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.63 % PASSING 3/8 SIEVE 95.0 100.0 % PASSING # 8 SIEVE 110 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 5.84 2.93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 35.3 64,7 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE Sent by: SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE L.P.760 740 9556; 04/16/99 9:D9AM;Je[iu k402;Page 7/7 MIX #68P 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 98.9 98.2 # 4 20.0 98.0 82.0 70.4 # 8 1.0 83.0 72.0 54.0 # 16 - 63.0 63.9 40.7 # 30 - 39.0 54.4 25.2 # 50 - 18.0 46.1 11.6 # 100 - 6.0 41.4 3.9 # 200 - 2.9 100.0 40.2 1.9 # 325 - 94.6 36.9 - Liquid - - 63.7 24.9 - GRADATION CHART 100 * " ^+-*-- -*-*--- i-- ---i__---i-----i---'" - ---'-'__-'---' 1 I r 1 I 1 90 '___I_i_- _1_1___1_____1_____ k ' 1 1 -_ -I P E so I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1-^'- _i - - -i-' R C70 '--- '- '- --'-' - -- '- _- --' ---' _____' -i-- -i--"i E N 60 i- - j-�___i -i - 'i-----'---- --'�-- _'- -----'-_ ^- I r r _ P r 1 I r I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 % A 40 --- ' -' ---' ' - -- ' - - - -- 1 1 1 1 x--- - -x - -- 1 1 - 1 O ' ' 1 1 1 1 I I 1 N 20 ' _ G 10 i___I_1___11- __I_____1__ -_ I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ___ �___; o_ I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 D : ----- 0 --- 0_ - -0 1 1 3 1 3 # # # # 1 2 3 L SIEVE / // 4 8 1 3 5 0 0 2 i 5 4 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 5 q X - ALL COMPONENTS 0 - AGGREGATES * - BOTH SOIL enclniainc April 16, 1999 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Enciritas, California RE: Tieback Anchor Grout Specifications 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue (Denver & Canter Residences) Coastal Development Permit No. 6 -96 -39 Attention: Mr. Greg Shields The following tieback anchor grout specification is provided for your approval. The minimum compressive strength of the proposed tieback anchor grout is 2000 pounds per square inch, and the water /cement ratio is 0.45. MATERIAL UNITS WEIGHT (lbs.) Sp. Gr. Abs. Vol. Cement I Sack 94 3.15 1 Water 5 Gal. 41.7 1 .68 Total - 136.7 - 1.68 If you should have any questions, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. V truly yours V John W. Niven P.E. "o C: Engineering Inspection 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 efts ..r- ....r... --- - i '1'�er�V�� > s. Joe SHEET NO. OF I� CALCULATED BY 'Q "� DATE CHECKED BY - , DATE SCALE rc NF �µ� ��•� �tic,t�I -kS cq gtoZ4 i -T Nalw Sri Lk-^w Ida, .Still. .�it•451N C. Ca14iT72vC —Tf- $4 ( I"C C's- r '4 t '. & t "J+ , l 2.1. Et1�ltil�i!'fZINC7 �dV AIx�IHS S � J�ELI -`� E�4�IIJ6F�i�lf`1S1 II •b N`1"F� �W S v cT 13 � l °}q 3 3.) itxl'l�1,Soo��_ GYIIr FIFSINf.�izC I bLIL ITloxl• A,) A(kC, -oI f4 Et�,I-TI.oN / Ax'u S, Nrtti 'I7A -1-+v! kk, — N A V FArG Ib— 7, Z JN'b l4T 1 ors i A*`t, 1 {{ STI2V C -T G. l A-kl, A'�P Lit GR'g(h� h£S 1 Chi l � CAI 1 S'rTa V t= T /ar,I // 'u=- c ter-. SEC. I \ (c- INt `oF M 1-1V 4L, A vV E_ / I- u GI N l -7-A4 • o aOFESS /n.. SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 't e&NQE-t—> I✓E S SHEET Ho. of q to CALCULATED BY DATE �/ CHECKED BY c " DATE) � ZI - -1 -I -Pt•c, a�s�C�N tt 70 P�TEC�T l�v bw IN T-t�HT of "IZTIt4C7 4c='v i Epe+'1 G�PLTlN�oVC flc -�svil >�osldy . oC�iPi0r1.1 "'i11�TV N'+1'p 7 ToP>r� LX.y4 v EC i'ty.v rc, a4LP1E_�4�p ��T �FjE -T I N `fa S *ot+ p 1-r FN It. i4 A-r 70 E - 1F: -r tt' IC MoT �1Le- fEc�tFib► r ST)*-MOL -f --AF r(rPE' 7ir� 7 S"TTty C��TLI:., Y�PosEA t+�,�w 1S T� b>� $JILrT fob �vtl, �LiL� of A.' L7 I& A'+1'r r cit P A-17" T *� t C� ht s'7TL v C- '1-Fita S 1 v I.TR hl e o V s T °lam IS°'T7{ of rr I H S Pr�� -TES La 1�4 n-u>f�. # IT? Z' *Ll� ?T� M IL' /W E, T-4 kJ 1✓ $Lv�F S1GC�T1G.1 C�NiY11 N e-S MITI ioX `r7i'1_ LA, "7 1- �� rJ�.Trit�iSv 1� F�f.l S °!L, � CN �1�v V I V'F7 �l� iCI IiL� I bfctc tsF -ta Ar-5 '1- E.e�c -¢— `b jS1TS (VtiC'< ISM 4`uA s /4 -rt'Sa S 1 -7-An L I S k' " Fi►. fs 1 o iz S q 1—. 1--, t- T? p,-7- r —44 j SG V q r� EAR S V c" : v � l� Fes+•+ t E� C f = I p ,,Y� 1 s -r_ sE, / -b li-^ 1 N� j 1r'�o�S 1} '(-��. - r4YP�)c S(i•oPrr� S'SC-7-r.ol-4 SEA $•1� L1- , {{•d+c��F�� 1 Tom �S 7° "g>✓ YtLoTEc�F�ta S��f� Gs�>✓ —IriL oC'I:Ar'1-1 A1-C-7-r-L=>N ti-*i PrVk-E -A SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 Joe pEN Vim_ t'-ea- SHEET NO OF I� Q CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY 1-7 01 1::w� ol° REV �l o P I NS, -t Ls (-2k P A- 1z-A—h LT E. �4 F0�. 1zoc k, rN•+ �I� r troc lc q' (k• It,� s*s,c,,, RE✓ ,4CS.%xn ✓tb- . ot-& V *--APIr" . +�` MPaC7eNEi r�R� IoN TL Gt= �ic =2C SMrpCTbN{� �Iz. R�Y.T�SFi oP bS-flrj� -L �/oGt o� Chsj'tatTo ME" Taw `r1{ -rs %v,-oc4-- A-i. f �a�RS L'� Ar't�' uc, l e, r //s djr 'r = r7"u. a L/Z z 39 0 aF S I 'ja-% i T 1 S AMT r IJ i5 t-V teE'id cn i- A-fT� 1 Te P Z L' 1n CT u n F4 6z- 2 =Tz I Pt =71 ZZ � �c Ir• �I•G � = >LSE, �z,e Li c� _ a.L' i,-- ? I 7VL� 1a'o c--.,c c--.,c I'Te — �' Y / k- c ATrp -, , S v�P� � -, L 70 cC 410 --} -- ALL-, . —re LEGAL DESCRIPTION PI _ S E I. PI fl PP D ok . P I� t P LA-4 4 0 �a S7/ ° / y _ c N N Table 2 'tz>eNu� rr�� .� 1(a4 )4vrrQKL air 4ludistrand Anchor with 0.6" dia. 2707rSi and St 157011770 strand respectively Working toad relive s . Data) Working bad Native Table I Ultimate Yield `No. strands nal section load to the ultimate load load to the yield ThreadDar Anchor (Technical Data) .• -. • �- Fu l _ Noml- Cross Ultimate Wording road relat" Yield Working load relative Steel Grade hall sec load ad to the ultimate load (Fv/1.6T) Fy7175 bad to the yield bad sq.in. KIP dta area p . KIP KIP Kip KIP Fyn 0.75Fv 0.6Fr mmr kN_ kN As f. As F'M 6 F'q.7 F0.3 F,12.0 fv A► (fyl1 331 (Frn 67) FV1.75 KSI Inch a% in. KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP Wmm1 mm mma kN kh! kN kN kN_ kN kN kN _ kN ISO r1 0.85 1271 79.7 75.0 70.8 63.8 104.6 78.5 62.8 598 83511030 26.5 551 568 355 334 316 284 460 345 278 263 150 11a • 1.25 187.5 117.2 110.3 104.2 93.8 153.8 115.4 92.3 67.9 835/1030 32 -0 804 828 518 487 460 414 671 503 403 384 150 1.378 1.58 237.0 148.1 139.4 131.7 118.5 194.3 1457 116.6 111.0 835/1030 38.0 1016 1048 655 617 583 524 850 637 I 510 I 486 178 1 0.65 151.3 946 89.0 84.1 75.7 1329 99.7 797 TS.9 108011230 26.5 551 618 424 399 377 339 595 448 357 1 340 I 19 0.6 4 123. 1113.2 6950 178 I 1 Y,4 125 222.5 139.1 130.9 123.8 111.3 195.4 146.6 117.2 111.7 IOSWI230 32.0 804 989 618 582 549 495 868 651 521 1 496 i 178 1 -378 1.58 281.2 175.8 165.4 156.2 140.6 246.9 1852 148.1 1411 1080/1230 36 -0 1018 1252 783 735 696 626 1099 824 I 659 ! 628 12754 12046 1084 1 1842.6 1382.0 1105.6 1052.9 37 0.6 I 5180 9169 Table 2 4ludistrand Anchor with 0.6" dia. 2707rSi and St 157011770 strand respectively Working toad relive (Technical Data) Working bad Native of Noms r103s Ultimate Yield `No. strands nal section load to the ultimate load load to the yield bad dia. I area Fu ! F, 0.75 FV 0 6 Fy A. % A, F0.6 F0.7 I F„l1.8 F„720 If Aa (Fvll.33) (Fv/1.6T) Fy7175 etch sq.in. KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP Kip KIP KIP mm mmr kN_ kN kN kN kN kN kN M i.N 1 .. 0 -6 _ 0.217 58.5 29.3 36.6 345 32.5 493 374 29.9 _ 285 ' 1 0.6 I 140 248 155 I 146 138 124 220 165 132 I 126 4 0.6 0.868 234.4 146.5 137.9 1302 1172 1992 i 149.4 ! 119.5 1118 4 0.6 ! 560 991 619 583 551 496 879 659 527 502 9 0.6 ! 1.953 5273 329.6 3102 I 292.4 263.7 4482 3362 i 268.9 255.1 9 0.6 I 1260 2230 1394 1312 1239 ills 1978 1487 1187 i 1130 l 12 0 -6 2.604 713.1 4394 413.6 3906 351 6 597.6 4482 358.6 3A1 5 X12 0.6 I 1680 2974 1858 1749 i 1652 1487 2838 1983 ` 1583 1507 15 0.6 i 3.255 8789 5493 5170 488.3 1 439.5 7470 560.3 I 448.2 426.9 .15 0.6 2100 3717 2323 I 2186 ( 2065 1858 3297 2479 1978 1884 19 0.6 4 123. 1113.2 6950 I 654.8 618.4 5566 946.2 709.7 5677 5407 19 0.6 2660 4708 2943 2769 1 2616 2354 4176 3132 2506 2386 27 0.6 5.857 1582.2 988.9 930.7 i 879.0 791 1 13446 1008.5 W68 768.3 X27 06 3780 6691 4182 3936 3717 3346 5935 4451 I 3561 3391 37 0.6 8.029 2168.2 1355 1 12754 12046 1084 1 1842.6 1382.0 1105.6 1052.9 37 0.6 I 5180 9169 5731 i 5393 5094 4584 8133 6100 4880 4647 61 06 1.3237 3574.6 2234 1 2107.7 1985 9 17873 3o379 2278.4 1822.7 1735.9 61 0.6 8540 t51t8 9448 8892 8398 1 7558 13408 I 10056 8045 7662 trnm ins +roar By omm.n4 one or more simnds standard %rtes Qe above. anchor tendons 01 Also ova.Uort are ancn�, tendons Irnm dmeren' sea atrann •.,,.n a• n a ,..,. n a... w.. Any Y ^IMmebiple we can be lormeO SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 'b�c -S1 � K 'dF TI �ifii�Ck C -T II hGt C To TiL- TrrrT t� A;b- �a I roe 'tA-*-41�F� S. SHEET HD. }� I' or (� CALCULATED BY �I� DATE CHECKED BY 1•�'�' I DATE -rti,s7V,-6. T. I t%� '/o ` U, L �a,l . � IC ,•o �. -rt-z T V° i4r�� r '�i •l • P7• L UOCAC_ -oF1r C,oa* aC =.(p `t. •l ('t -'L I- => IJSF., 20.E �. -rah vct' 1 I . I 5� , 1!a 1 `bL Lk-A& X5 LAS Got�>Z aS I ot+t PIL.oT�G ,4c R o.(a3 Icy 127•TL ✓SE. o,'r . - °IT. � 446L c,l� ." . sr i1t2�6oe s.;) (o . ") r, = 3 e, , L L- lyg.oL'N 47i C_oNTI —^ t2� S oPTIoy A-H C. 15 U.,,/ (t) 1-71N O,(o �1fF � 2la kiI Z7t_MF$S G�vU� bF—' vTI L -1 F v C. f 1 1 C7 I? �o i �-7 1 k r A b A-P- Ul - � Lo rz L? e S t -=�IJ t- " SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 L.� S7-f c F T 1 t—� A-OAr-S JOB t-t S . SHEET NO OF IO CALCULATED 9Y 7 DATE I - 1-' y CHECKED BY �r f .-� DATE 1- 2- // - - f Q/j �d� alb , - vc>:. 4" � �t�• I��''" Ir~-ro sa- +�,tTo�.1� H ba��SaPJb. �� NTH AsC Tn+Tr�T iv ST+. - cr Tlrvrs I�GI� sty t��l c ET�i�F -I TI v� l�1tS�Rf 2r I+�k (TE t 7 s Lr 6. a 1T 'tb. Llo L1 = L 1N ✓it Y�� a -t�� %n �o N E ` � Pk.� (-rTc --T -4 IS b&4- =5 t�+->, 1, 447 vv--� / ,oru\. A-s —1` : t T I t+ A- c T 'i'1 I �+ , at�P � }Laic � � - A•�Fi S 1 �� / I k l.�c- ..A-(.�. 1/611 l�e,o / 3.0 �z /t�.7r� Z 1.3 iii °> �L �kC k SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 FAX (650) 367.8139 �QEoVT %C�P_ A'I+ C4{ —f_C T� '►SFr C�'7�+�T ��o�T' ..vP Ta L2 'V Lf' * -t,t.o %.v, C�v 9-tr -t rn e�' -L" Joe Q�.Ph Fi(� Yom= . SHEET NO Or rI ^O q CALCULATED BY .y y DATE CHECKED BY �u� DATE ' — Z T7 --90) -r o a . 'Te p ,T- %7 � -t'Ir" T! t+ S of N d �•E.. Y ° � 1?o++�F>p � t+E. yt"�TFR_ /H r�R Ts�4 A-t;l�- c, j2 ov 7-7 Yt S 'j'/ A-� bti LL A,(, die -11.4 -r- DES V-7 U c� V-- -t-r ILI w ¢7 RL I LAJ sf sLC`jH 6, t iH -L �%A..�NcC LqJt ` �f 3 1H—- G 12," 2, CC. T- Lk, °>/�( �.L•o/IlU� /4j ` =.�7 i IZ 0.4.o IG� %o ksi) LG _ a N c 3..c) .�C,°.ya�6o j• si )(L - 3!� izl iH SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 JOB SHEET NO la OF CALCULATED BY Py "- DATE .y CHECKED BY Ff1X ; DATE 2 - 1.P'L -� C"t& - c t �c� I ►/., �� cT aF P v* k C7 t to d �ry� �G� `7 Ic VS>✓ Cis 2 IZ CG F- ckv Ir` �t*l -v �-n F� $ Y L+ C--JS c RECORDING REQUESTED BT MA-HN 6 HAHN (WSJ) HAHN A HAHN (WSJ) a...., P. O. Bin B " "'•' Pasadena, CA 91109 J N.— rDr. Paul •I. uDenver, Trustee u—• Colima MediCal Canter •••••• 9209 Colima Rd., Suite 3200 r... Whittier, CA 90605 .,. L J V I� a x F, E z'. t O Q L T_ GO se. •.E 1722 (�86 340267 IM AG L I M I AL 9. 30 L —c(rW RECORDER j _RF _AR "G OF OC TXP 1 A.P_N_ 256- 371 -02 SPACE ABOVE TRIS LIRE FOR RECORDER'S USE Grant Deed The undersigned Grantor i0 declare l Icorrect Documentary transfer ta. is 3 N rust, which is not ( ) computed on full value of pr, and is exempt from ( ) computed on full value less v f Palo. Doc. Transfer Tax. (X) Unincorporated area: ( ) — and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERA PAUL I. DENVER an / Ji fe, hereby GRANT( to /\ PAUL I. DENVER, A ` / TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 1986, BY DENVER, AS TRUSTORS, the following described real propem County of San Diego Lot 5 in Block "A' -unty of San Diego, State t thereof No. 1800, filed it rder of San Diego County, (Address: if Dated Dtau or Carl 1. County of 09 Angeles On thl. the 17th day of h,ly 1986 before ma, the ,oderwigned Notary Public, personally appeared PAUL T. DENVER and DART.FNF DENVP.A O personally known w me pro.ed to me on the b.e,. of..trshcwry evidence W be the psr.ows) Whose nameul are subscribed to Lhe tthm tn.tryy.vQ�r,tn and .ckno..ledred th.l b'6Ly e.ecuted It WITNESS pylhand and olTtnal eel)/) N.LerYs Slgnature �� a z ��errvar arlene Denver 2 a-,My OFFIMAL SEAL I J DENISE L. HAINES Not." ptlbl¢ C.IIIoW,. i v J a Comm E.o Jun. 21. 1989 I Title Order No. EscroR, Loan or Attorney Flt* No. f r'— TO 39vd 83AN3Q I7n"d E29Z1`E96T9 Lt1:0T 6661/61/1`8 RECOROINC RKQULNTKO dlV HAHN & HAHN (WSJ) V i a a I� a I E z'. C O_ Q V V� O GO San HE 1722 86 340267 1988 Ague 1 I AN 97 30 COUNTY ftECOywR 1 _RF _AR MG OF OC T %P A.P.N_ 256- 371 -02 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINK FOR RECORDER '9 USE Grant Deed LM,a rover rVwn,anaD ev fnu•TOn• aeC4.ITT 99.1 . telela The undersigned Grantor (s) declare Is) under penalty of perjury that the fotloring to true and correct: Documentary transfer tax is $ NONF (This conveyance is to a trust, which i9 not ( ) computed on full value of propery conveyed, or pursuant to a sale, and is exempt from ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. DOC. Transfer Tax. ) (X) Unincorporated area: ( ) City of and ' FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, PAUL I. DENVER and DARLENE DENVER, Husband and Wife, hereby CRANT(5'1 to PAUL I. DENVER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENVER FAMILY TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 1986, BY PAUL I. DENVER AND DARLENE M. DENVER, AS TRUSTORS, the following described real property in the County of San Diego , State cf California: Lot 5 in Block "A" of SEASIDE GARDENS, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. (Address: 164 Neptune, Encinitas, CA 92024.) Dated 11:1v atau of t; allferni. County of s Angeles On thin the '17th day of IUIy 1986 berara me. the undersigned Notary Public. personally appeared PAUL I. DEIlYER_ and DART.FNF hBNMr.B ❑ personally known to me ,�] proved to me on the bens of w,i factory evidence w be the peso Mal ..hose name(.) art ,b.,ibad to th• ithin irist;y WlQ��ant, and • kno,eledged that �Qy executed it WITNESS pylhand and olhntal serf , Notary's Sig --ture Arlene Denver OFFICIAL SEAL ` DENISE L. HAINES 2 e Notary VUl1brCelrlonu♦ • a. j • PIInClpal On,Ce In •+•— Sen nans.mno HAHN & HAHN (WSJ) MV Comm Eno June a 21 21, . 198a s•.ee. -� P. O. Bin B ' « "•' Pasadena, CA 91109 save .)Denver, rDr. Paul 1. Trustee Colima Medical Canter •.••••• 9209 Colima Rd., Suite 3200 < :�µ CA 90605 LWhittier, J V i a a I� a I E z'. C O_ Q V V� O GO San HE 1722 86 340267 1988 Ague 1 I AN 97 30 COUNTY ftECOywR 1 _RF _AR MG OF OC T %P A.P.N_ 256- 371 -02 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINK FOR RECORDER '9 USE Grant Deed LM,a rover rVwn,anaD ev fnu•TOn• aeC4.ITT 99.1 . telela The undersigned Grantor (s) declare Is) under penalty of perjury that the fotloring to true and correct: Documentary transfer tax is $ NONF (This conveyance is to a trust, which i9 not ( ) computed on full value of propery conveyed, or pursuant to a sale, and is exempt from ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. DOC. Transfer Tax. ) (X) Unincorporated area: ( ) City of and ' FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, PAUL I. DENVER and DARLENE DENVER, Husband and Wife, hereby CRANT(5'1 to PAUL I. DENVER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENVER FAMILY TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 1986, BY PAUL I. DENVER AND DARLENE M. DENVER, AS TRUSTORS, the following described real property in the County of San Diego , State cf California: Lot 5 in Block "A" of SEASIDE GARDENS, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. (Address: 164 Neptune, Encinitas, CA 92024.) Dated 11:1v atau of t; allferni. County of s Angeles On thin the '17th day of IUIy 1986 berara me. the undersigned Notary Public. personally appeared PAUL I. DEIlYER_ and DART.FNF hBNMr.B ❑ personally known to me ,�] proved to me on the bens of w,i factory evidence w be the peso Mal ..hose name(.) art ,b.,ibad to th• ithin irist;y WlQ��ant, and • kno,eledged that �Qy executed it WITNESS pylhand and olhntal serf , Notary's Sig --ture Arlene Denver . ..... o., ...,., n.. .... I -.,- Title Order No. Escrow. I.oan or Attorney File No. f T:? 39'ed 63ANAG I-nVd ESSZVE96T9 Lt1:01 666T /6T /b0 OFFICIAL SEAL ` DENISE L. HAINES 2 e Notary VUl1brCelrlonu♦ • a. j • PIInClpal On,Ce In • Sen nans.mno MV Comm Eno June a 21 21, . 198a -� . ..... o., ...,., n.. .... I -.,- Title Order No. Escrow. I.oan or Attorney File No. f T:? 39'ed 63ANAG I-nVd ESSZVE96T9 Lt1:01 666T /6T /b0 $]IPA We SBy -B�f g�- s6�181 2215 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND NAIL TO: f PrDf PIA+ .: nf; c- d /-A'vA U.S4�— n% SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF I _ "'.U.R AGREEMENT IMPOSING RESTRICTIOUn�Y'- ,+,r.rAl ; /j /LL Fin 0H REAL PROPERTY NO FFE This dgreecent 1s made this 23rd day of September 1985, by Or. and hereinafter referred to as 'Permitue', and the Mrs• Paul Denver , bun a ,an e9 • of 'd1EREAS, Terolttee is the owner __�1______________ O rSan Oiego;o erm ee �n the coun of described real property h the fallowing APH 256 - 371 -19 164 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 920 STATE E JU BLOCK SEASIDE TGAREOF ;'10I. 18 N 0 C FILED a I THE OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ACCOAOI ACCORDING TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST S. 1924. CoutiTY RECOP.OER OF WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance. Peroittee has sought in Appllcatlon No. 584.84 a coastal use pernit or site plan for the following described dev0OT1 KC A S17IGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NHEREAS, the County of San Oiego as a condition to granting said application requlres that the belw conditions be imposedfor tthe ben pyt Of the public and surrounding landowners. and without a9 Permlttes no permit could be issued: ligati and of NOW 'HEREFORE. In consideration of the granting of said app on the benefit conferred thereby on the subject property• Pe follows heresy covenants and agrees with and Coun,,eof San [DDiego subject ero party. n�hr'ecntrtctlon upon the on hall use, deed to the Prop•rtY re strlction snail G aeaed attached to and a Dart of The applicants themselves and any successors in interest understand that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from antses- erosion- landslides, and other coastal hazards and the app liability from those hoards and unconditionally valve any claim of liability on the part of the County or any other regulatory agency for any damage from such hazards. OPL 1496 Rev. I/ 24/84 ('uP ) • r r a 1 �yn7l' a � jl. , ,#]IPA We 2216 Peril the acknowledges Uat any vloLttan of Uts deed resirlctton rill -9nftltee a violation of said ordinance and Stte PI Persoastal Ose per he No. SBa., and Will sublets Per+itue or any other Person violating iM dead nstr ct on to suit. IT IS FURTHER RECOGNIZED Uat this agreemnt and dead nd alll succesorsa and with the lend and shall bind Per,tttee, should cotenant running orison a! the subject Property assigns of Pernesttea. If all ,e arty P hereafter be conveyed, the canreyance shall contain the restriction create Y this agreemist. r r •I { � go i �n^y e t f' � _ c a �- �. her "I tiee e area tree s other + +^ Denal ttee east sign here and the r, the Owner ilYSt sign above.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SS COUNTY OF SAN MGM /y �frCnvAER .r / 3'j before ^. . the ��7�,r ~/• -' to the Year , i On Is .7r` -`� dad of u c n an rur said State, personally appeared undo S, gne�+ Notary W ,01 *M—ee-t�a< Goo "r T {personally known W /4 LIAM Ctdf ream 1 CO be the 7as /v'v L t e be the person who within lnstrumnt on behalf aoftmeaid bt PLnning and Land luuUd Land of the Departm nt of Planning and Land Use and known to 9! Co executed Ue use and acknowledged to ,e that wch oep executed the Sam• ppiICIAL sLAb WITNESS MY Send Ind off tclal seal. Seal Signature L �/ DPL f496 Rev. 1/24/84 (WP1 qe'a' :EllWtt mw ZL ism e 'o --- w t v X10 1' 1 •� ,wacewaMa wa•vael[a a. _ J. Nol,ard Sturman ATTOOZWY 11131 aAfn.ae. M.11 Txi4Nra • yfN O1xN .1x. .wp�w M.PI. Y ♦ q1 �w,a fei w rOr. Stanley Canter 1919 W. Beverly Boulevard 1101 Loa Angeles, California L 90001 rill, h.Nr, K.. rA ll. K., • sl -ism FILE/PACE Re. x , 100[ 1911 RECOAM " "ST Of Lw Mad I2 2s .'81 O 011 ALL i1,1LII01. 11.11 Ile C1C7:&I;M C1 VERA L LYLk RECORDER "Act At ON9 "Is uMt IOn RACOw O[n't ve[ GRANT DEED hr m.krJ...e 1n61.x IL« IM .L.vww..uq Mxn.L. M• P L_.._........ _, L QronllWnl Iw JM f.Al 1.Lw• ••f 1M L,... -1 n, pnryr,q w ,,.L n, _. _. .__...._._......_. Y.. {]{ , npxMrI 1.A d+ 1.4 .,,L. 4.. 1N 1.1...1 fu.. 1. . +..oleo.,. a .•.. dw �� 4Ml.lvl, a,.•nI III. )(IN A t'ALL'AIII, /. I).\<IIIfJ14TI0S. rn,4 .1 .L:rY L M „ly .. L...L 1a,•l 5TAN:.EY CANTER M,rhT CIIAKTISI I. STANLEY CANTER, as Trustee of tho�tan }sy Canter Family Trust, U /D /T dated ;;/y-',',,. —, 1911 IL.I Ban .1 d rv.ne, San Dlago .( ly0(e.x{.I Lot A In Block A of Saaaide Cardona of San Diego, State of California according to the sup thereof Number 1800, filed in the office of the County R Commeorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1921, only known as 1"72 Neptune, Encinitas, California r Stanley enter — ATATr. IIV CAIJYOM \I. IlASTI IM'. IoM Ana•1 a• _ _} u Arlo lfi4ti1 ti —. .ItiwL. ..1 -•I.. Ir.., 1•x1.1::. W 1r ..4 ,...,r .-I t1.x. StMluy Caater w1. 11. y..�_ _ •�•...._la..W -1JN 1.1E .i11. Y.,1.•.« .MI,.� y, wxN 1L. rr ,R.x.1.y J AM.ry 1 i 11 ' I 1 ,1 If •.,n m„An[ ILAL OR STAMP x Lw W OFMCTAL [[AL 7 NOWARO STURuM wil NKS•C4 QNAA LEI bomb twilit 1V rn M M �a .M. 1111 ll IM{ r., MAII. I'M iTA11:41'ti. lu MANTI Aelba'N It% iANJAee•1.W; 11vi.1 IV 4111•AXTY Ne mill %n. MAIL A ?alArC{IL ARID 4141 law. Ylal fIC \1. I RECORDING REQUESTED BY 19 AND 'WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO NAME F PAUL I. is DARLENE DENVER STREET hGORESS 15516 Los Molinos Street Hacienda Heights, Ca 91745 CITY, STATE L !.R J TITLE ORDER NO b ?'l-d ESCRO, NO 817 -S Al 61fJL S-" h0-= 298730 FILE /PAGE N0. RECORDED RE( DESi 6f _ BOOK CALIFORNIA WORLD1TIITLE COMPANY S EP j G 8.00 AM'80 SAN DIEGOACOUN T, CALIF. VERA L LYLE RECORDER SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT DEED !".00 THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $ 162.80 TRANSFER TAX PAID ❑ computed on full value of property conveyed, or SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER MXcomputed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, VICTOR L. LORAUX and GRETA L. LORAUX, Husband and Wife hereby GRANT(S) to PAUL I. DENVER and DARLENE DENVER, Husband and Wife as Community Property the following described real property in the County of San Diego State of California Lot 5 in Block "A" Of SEASIDE GARDENS in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. Dated July 11, 1980 View Lo ux STATE OF CALiF�r 1 , IJ ret8 L. Lnravv uaiirornia, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. Dated July 11, 1980 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY F an Dierzg l S8. On I� j `% '9'O Jl before me. the unders ed, a ISIC96 Public in and for said State, personally appeared Victor L T.Oranx and Grata T.• Tora,, known to me to be the person a whose name 8 aresubscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my nano and olticial sea. Signature 02L e& anaron M. Campbell is to it �r'FD {„ 0,FICIAI SEAT '- " rZ SHARON M. CA61i'3, LLtA �'!•a�: �•i� rOTAkT pralll: CAU"'IRM BA.Y WEfb rdUHTY 1 my Camrntaslon Eaebaa June 7, 1981 (Th., par for oILCUI nourW Map MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGEIICY _ GRAY DAVIS, Gav�nror CALIFOR11It COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO. CA 92106 -1726 (619) 6214036 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. Page 6 -98 -39 1 of 7 On November 5, 1998 , the California Coastal Commission granted to Stariley Cantor and Paul Denver this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, approximately 80 ft. long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a single - family residence. Site: On public beach fronting 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and Qa*44_�9_0�& IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT O! The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of Q V \ this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. G s Date Signature of Permittee 11 r�� COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. 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 terns 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. 6. 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. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, final seawall, site, landscape, irrigation and drainage plans that include the following measures to mitigate the impacts of the seawall and address overall site stability. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY 0AV1S Gawrror CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA I 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH,' SUITE 300 SAN DIEGO, CA 921W'1725 } (619) 5212036 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Pagel of 7 On November 5, 1998 , the California Coastal Commission granted to Stanley Cantor and Paul Denver this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, approximately 80 ft. long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a single - family residence. Site: On public beach fronting 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and l IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned pemtittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. Date Signature of Permittee COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. 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. 6. 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. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, final seawall, site, landscape, irrigation and drainage plans that include the following measures to mitigate the impacts of the seawall and address overall site stability. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 3 of 7 natural bluffs, including provision of a color board indicating the color of the fill material. b. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff. c. Any existing permanent irrigation system located within the geologic setback area (40 feet from the bluff edge) shall be removed or capped. d. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the site shall be collected and directed away from the bluff edge towards the street and shall avoid ponding of the pad area. e. Existing accessory structures in the geologic setback area shall be detailed and drawn to scale on the final approved site plan. Modifications which would serve to increase the blufftop setback for such accessory structures shall be permitted. f. During construction of the approved development, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backfill or for any other purpose as construction material. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, each applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of $10,757.25 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in -lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structure. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject site(s) is that described in the staff report dated 10/20/98 prepared for coastal development permit #6- 98 -39. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG, or a Commission - approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall solely be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission- approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in -lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Conunission. In the event the MOA is terminated, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 4 of 7 3. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer for the site and seawall which provides for the following: a_ An evaluation taken every three years of the condition and performance of the seawall, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the seawall including an assessment of the color and texture of the wall. b. Measurements taken every three years of the distance between each residence and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be the same as those identified on the as -built plans required in Special Condition #7 of this permit, and identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. so that annual measurements can be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years can provide information on bluff retreat. c. Measurements taken every three years of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall face, at both ends of the seawall and at 20 -foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall face./bluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. d. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission on May 1 every three years (first report to be submitted three years after construction of the project is completed, and every three years thereafter), for the life of the project. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in sections a, b, and c above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and provide some analysis of trends, annual retreat or rate of retreat, and the stability of the overall bluff face, including the upper bluff area, and the impact of the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall, which do not include the construction of structures on the face of the bluff. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plan shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall execute and record a deed restriction COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 5 of 7 against the two blufftop parcels in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no additional bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face or beach unless the alternatives required below are demonstrated to be infeasible. In the event any bluff or additional shoreline protective work is considered on public property in the future, the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of filing an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Commission and the City of Encinitas with sufficient evidence enabling it to consider all alternatives to bluff or shoreline protective works that will eliminate additional impacts to public resources, including, but not limited to, removal of accessory structures (patios, decks, etc.), installation of a below -grade retention system seaward of the residential structures on the applicant's property, underpinning of the residential structures, relocation of portions of the residences that are threatened, or other remedial measures capable of stabilizing the principle structure and providing reasonable use of the property, without construction of bluff or shoreline stabilization devices on the adjacent public resource, i.e coastal bluffs and beaches. The document shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances and shall run with the land and bind all successors and assigns. 5. Groundwater Impacts. Plans for the installation of hydraugers in the bluff, the construction of wells along the eastern property line, or other similar means to reduce the potential for groundwater to reach the bluff face, shall be submitted to the Executive Director for review and written approval, if, from examination of soil borings and site inspections during seawall construction, the project engineer should determine that groundwater and its potential to trigger block failures exists. Said groundwater system shall be installed concurrent with construction of the seawall. In addition, a maintenance program for such groundwater removal systems shall also be submitted and receive written approval of the Executive Director. However, any changes to the approved seawall proposed as a result of the presence of groundwater, shall require the review and approval of the Commission through an amendment to this coastal development permit Said program shall assure the system approved herein is maintained for efficient operation at all times. 6. Assumption of Risk: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, 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 bluff collapse and erosion and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazards; and (b) the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 6 of 7 This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal Commission - approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 7. Storm Design/As -Built Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective device is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982 -83. Within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit as -built plans of the approved seawall which includes measurements of the distance between each residence and bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) taken at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. to allow annual measurements to be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years to provide informatin on bluff retreat. In addition, within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer, acceptable to the Executive Director, verifying the seawall has been constructed in conformance with the approved plans for the project. 8. Staging Areas/Access Corridors/Timing of Construction. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final plans indicating the location and access corridors to the construction site and staging areas. The final plans shall indicate that: a. No staging of equipment or materials shall occur on sandy beach or public parking areas. During both the construction and the removal stages of the project, the permittee shall not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time. b. Access corridors shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on public access to and along the shoreline. c. No work shall occur on the beach between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day of any year. d. The applicant shall submit evidence that the approved plans/notes have been incorporated into construction bid documents. The staging site shall be removed and/or restored immediately following completion of the development. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 7 of 7 to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Prior to commencement of construction, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director a copy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, or letter of permission, or evidence that no Corps permit is necessary. Any mitigation measures or other changes to the project required through said permit shall be reported to the Executive Director and shall become part of the project. Such modifications, if any, may require an amendment to this permit or a separate coastal development permit. 10. Future Maintenance/Debris Removal. Within 15 days of completion of construction of the protective device the permittee shall remove all debris deposited on the beach or in the water during and after construction of the shoreline protective devices or resulting from failure or damage of the shoreline protective device. In addition, the permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements set forth below. Maintenance of the seawall shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future additions/reinforcement of the seawall beyond minor regrouting or other exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations to restore the seawall to its original condition as approved herein, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases, if after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, the pemvttee shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. (Document2) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govrrror CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 700 0 SAN DIEGO, CA 92105 -1771 )319) 571 -0076 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 1 of 7 On November 5, 1998 , the California Coastal Commission granted to Stanley Cantor and Paul Denver this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, approximately 80 ft. long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a single - family residence. Site: On public beach fronting 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. Date Signature of Permittee COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. 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. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, final seawall, site, landscape, irrigation and drainage plans that include the following measures to mitigate the impacts of the seawall and address overall site stability. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 3 of 7 natural bluffs, including provision of a color board indicating the color of the fill material. b. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff. c. Any existing permanent irrigation system located within the geologic setback area (40 feet from the bluff edge) shall be removed or capped. d. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the site shall be collected and directed away from the bluff edge towards the street and shall avoid ponding of the pad area. e. Existing accessory structures in the geologic setback area shall be detailed and drawn to scale on the final approved site plan. Modifications which would serve to increase the blufftop setback for such accessory structures shall be permitted. f. During construction of the approved development, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backfill or for any other purpose as construction material. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, each applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of $1 0,757.25 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in -lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structure. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject site(s) is that described in the staff report dated 10/20/98 prepared for coastal development permit #6- 98 -39. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG, or a Commission - approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall solely be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission- approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in -lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. In the event the MOA is terminated, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 4 of 7 3. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer for the site and seawall which provides for the following: a. An evaluation taken every three years of the condition and performance of the seawall, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the seawall including an assessment of the color and texture of the wall. b. Measurements taken every three years of the distance between each residence and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be the same as those identified on the as-built plans required in Special Condition #7 of this permit, and identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. so that annual measurements can be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years can provide information on bluff retreat. c. Measurements taken every three years of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall face, at both ends of the seawall and at 20 -foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall faceibluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. d. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission on May 1 every three years (first report to be submitted three years after construction of the project is completed, and every three years thereafter), for the life of the project. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in sections a, b, and c above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and provide some analysis of trends, annual retreat or rate of retreat, and the stability of the overall bluff face, including the upper bluff area, and the impact of the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall, which do not include the construction of structures on the face of the bluff. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plan shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall execute and record a deed restriction COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 5 of 7 against the two blufftop parcels in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no additional bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face or beach unless the alternatives required below are demonstrated to be infeasible. In the event any bluff or additional shoreline protective work is considered on public property in the future, the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of filing an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Commission and the City of Encinitas with sufficient evidence enabling it to consider all alternatives to bluff or shoreline protective works that will eliminate additional impacts to public resources, including, but not limited to, removal of accessory structures (patios, decks, etc.), installation of a below -grade retention system seaward of the residential structures on the applicant's property, underpinning of the residential structures, relocation of portions of the residences that are threatened, or other remedial measures capable of stabilizing the principle structure and providing reasonable use of the property, without construction of bluff or shoreline stabilization devices on the adjacent public resource, i.e coastal bluffs and beaches. The document shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances and shall run with the land and bind all successors and assigns. 5. Groundwater Impacts. Plans for the installation of hydraugers in the bluff, the construction of wells along the eastern property line, or other similar means to reduce the potential for groundwater to reach the bluff face, shall be submitted to the Executive Director for review and written approval, if, from examination of soil borings and site inspections during seawall construction, the project engineer should determine that groundwater and its potential to trigger block failures exists. Said groundwater system shall be installed concurrent with construction of the seawall. In addition, a maintenance program for such groundwater removal systems shall also be submitted and receive written approval of the Executive Director. However, any changes to the approved seawall proposed as a result of the presence of groundwater, shall require the review and approval of the Commission through an amendment to this coastal development permit. Said program shall assure the system approved herein is maintained for efficient operation at all times. 6. Assumption of Risk: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, 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 bluff collapse and erosion and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazards; and (b) the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 6 of 7 This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal Commission - approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 7. Storm Design/As -Built Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective device is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982 -83. Within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit as -built plans of the approved seawall which includes measurements of the distance between each residence and bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) taken at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. to allow annual measurements to be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years to provide informatin on bluff retreat. In addition, within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer, acceptable to the Executive Director, verifying the seawall has been constructed in conformance with the approved plans for the project. 8. Staging Areas/Access Corridors/Timing of Construction. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final plans indicating the location and access corridors to the construction site and staging areas. The final plans shall indicate that: a. No staging of equipment or materials shall occur on sandy beach or public parking areas. During both the construction and the removal stages of the project, the permittee shall not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time. b. Access corridors shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on public access to and along the shoreline. c. No work shall occur on the beach between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day of any year. d. The applicant shall submit evidence that the approved plans /notes have been incorporated into construction bid documents. The staging site shall be removed and/or restored immediately following completion of the development. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 7 of 7 to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Prior to commencement of construction, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director a copy of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, or letter of permission, or evidence that no Corps permit is necessary. Any mitigation measures or other changes to the project required through said permit shall be reported to the Executive Director and shall become part of the project. Such modifications, if any, may require an amendment to this permit or a separate coastal development permit. 10. Future Maintenance/Debris Removal. Within 15 days of completion of construction of the protective device the permittee shall remove all debris deposited on the beach or in the water during and after construction of the shoreline protective devices or resulting from failure or damage of the shoreline protective device. In addition, the permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements set forth below. Maintenance of the seawall shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future add itions/reinforcement of the seawall beyond minor regrouting or other exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations to restore the seawall to its original condition as approved herein, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases, if after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, the permittee shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. ([bcumcn@) SfXn of ewuwnNU - nle neaovncE>t AGENCY - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION !An DIEGO AREA 2111 GAYINO DEL MO NORM 3G 200 SA DIEGO. U 12104172E (fill $214036 EXHIBIT A Date January 11, 1999 Application No. 6 -98 -39 Page 1 of 7 REVISED NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT On November 5, 1998 , the California Coastal Commission approved the application of Stanley Cantor & Paul Denver , subject to the attached standard and special conditions, for the development described below: Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, approximately 80 R long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a single - family residence. Site: On public beach fronting 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. The permit will be held in the San Diego District Office of the Commission, pending fulfillment of Special Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 . When these conditions have been satisfied, the permit will be issued. DEBORAH N. LEE DEPUTY DIRECTOR BY EN NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. 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. 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. 6. 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. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, final seawall, site, landscape, irrigation and drainage plans that include the following measures to mitigate the impacts of the seawall and address overall site stability. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent natural bluffs, including provision of a color board indicating the color of the fill material. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMI l tvu. Page 3 of 7 b. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff. c. Any existing permanent irrigation system located within the geologic setback area (40 feet from the bluff edge) shall be removed or capped. d. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the site shall be collected and directed away from the bluff edge towards the street and shall avoid ponding of the pad area. e. Existing accessory structures in the geologic setback area shall be detailed and to e approved Modifications serve to increase the bluft p setback for such accessory structures shall be permitted. f. During construction of the approved development, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Localsand, nmuction material, line rocks shall not be used for backfill or for any other purpose The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No o thichanges oastal developmenshall permi unless the Executive e Commission D for determines approved no�tent amendment is required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT+ each applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of 510,757.25 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in -lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structure. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject site(s) is that described in the staff report dated 10/20/98 prepared for coastal development permit #6- 98 -39. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG, or a Commission - approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall solely be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission- approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in -lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. In the event the MOA is terminated, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 4 of 7 3. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer for the site and seawall which provides for the following: a_ An evaluation taken every three years of the condition and performance of the seawall, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the seawall including an assessment of the color and texture of the wall. b. Measurements taken every three years of the distance between each residence and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be the same as those identified on the as -built plans required in Special Condition #7 of this permit, and identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. so that annual measurements can be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years can provide information on bluff retreat_ c. .Measurements taken every three years of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall face, at both ends of the seawall and at 20 -foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall face/bluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. d. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission on May 1 every three years (first report to be submitted three years after construction of the project is completed, and every three years thereafter), for the life of the project. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in sections a, b, and c above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and provide some analysis of trends, annual retreat or rate of retreat, and the stability of the overall bluff face, including the upper bluff area, and the impact of the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall, which do not include the construction of structures on the face of the bluff. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plan shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall execute and record a deed restriction against the two blufftop parcels in a form and content acceptable to the Executive NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-" Page 5 of 7 Director, which shall provide that no additional bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face or beach unless the alternatives required below are demonstrated to be infeasible. In the event any bluff or additional shoreline protective work is considered on public property in the future, the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of filing an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Commission and the City of Encinitas with sufficient evidence enabling it to consider all alternatives to bluff or shoreline protective works that will eliminate additional impacts to public resources, including, but not limited to, removal of accessory structures (patios, decks, etc.), installation of a below -grade retention system seaward of the residential structures on the applicant's property, underpinning of the residential structures, relocation of portions of the residences that are threatened, or other remedial measures capable of stabilizing the principle structure and providing reasonable use of the property, without construction of bluff or shoreline stabilization devices on the adjacent public resource, i.e coastal bluffs and beaches. The document shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances and shall run with the land and bind all successors and assigns. 5. Groundwater Impacts. Plans for the installation of hydraugers in the bluff, the construction of wells along the eastern property line, or other similar means to reduce the potential for groundwater to reach the bluff face, shall be submitted to the Executive Director for review and written approval, if, from examination of soil borings and site inspections during seawall construction, the project engineer should determine that groundwater and its potential to trigger block failures exists. Said groundwater system shall be installed concurrent with construction of the seawall. In addition, a maintenance program for such groundwater removal systems shall also be submitted and receive written approval of the Executive Director. However, any changes to the approved seawall proposed as a result of the presence of groundwater, shall require the review and approval of the Commission through an amendment to this coastal development permit. Said program shall assure the system approved herein is maintained for efficient operation at all times. 6. Assumption of Risk: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, 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 bluff collapse and erosion and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazards; and (b) the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction shall not be removed or changed without a Coastal Commission - approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 6 of 7 7. Storm Design/As -Built Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective device is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter stoners of 1982 -83. Within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit as -built plans of the approved seawall which includes measurements of the distance between each residence and bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) taken at 6 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, etc. to allow annual measurements to be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons between years to provide informatin on bluff retreat. In addition, within 60 days following completion of the project, the permittee shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer, acceptable to the Executive Director, verifying the seawall has been constructed in conformance with the approved plans for the project. 8. Staging Areas/Access Corridors/timing of Construction. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final plans indicating the location and access corridors to the construction site and staging areas. The final plans shall indicate that: a. No staging of equipment or materials shall occur on sandy beach or public parking areas. During both the construction and the removal stages of the project, the permittee shall not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time. b. Access corridors shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on public access to and along the shoreline. C. No work shall occur on the beach between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day of any year. d. The applicant shall submit evidence that the approved plans/notes have been incorporated into construction bid documents. The staging site shall be removed and/or restored immediately following completion of the development- The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 7 of 7 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Prior to commencement of construction, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director a copy of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, or letter of permission, or evidence that no Corps permit is necessary. Any mitigation measures or other changes to the project required through said permit shall be reported to the Executive Director and shall become part of the project. Such modifications, if any, may require an amendment to this permit or a separate coastal development permit. 10. Future Maintenance/Debris Removal. Within 15 days of completion of construction of the protective device the permittee shall remove all debris deposited on the beach or in the water during and after construction of the shoreline protective devices or resulting from failure or damage of the shoreline protective device. In addition, the permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements set forth below. Maintenance of the seawall shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future additions/reinforcement of the seawall beyond minor regrouting or other exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations to restore the seawall to its original condition as approved herein, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases, if after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, the permittee shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. (\1TIGE;LSHARx\pwp,�S= DievONOW96- 39NOIM' d1- 11- 99.d.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO. CA 92108 -1725 (619) 521-8036 'q'3 - Filed: 49th Day: 180th Day: 270th Day Staff: Staff Report Hearing Date 11/19/93 1/17/94 5/28/94 8/26/94 LJM —SD 7/22/94 8/9 -12/94 PETE WILSON, Gor —' Z Pit REGULAR CALENDAR STAFF REPORT AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Application No.: 6 -93 -135 Applicant: Paul Denver & Stanley Cantor Agent: David Skelly Description: Construction of a 13 ft. high, approximately 80 ft. long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a single— family residence. Site: Bluff fronting 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256 - 371 -18, 19 STAFF NOTES: Summary of Staff's Preliminary Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the proposed development due to its inconsistency with Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Coastal Act in that the necessity for the proposed protection has not been documented and geologic stability for adjacent properties has not been assured. Because of Permit Streamlining Act timing requirements, this application must be acted upon by the Commission at its August 1994 hearing. Substantive File Documents: Certified County of San Diego Local Coastal Program (LCP); City of Encinitas Draft Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances; City of Encinitas Resolution No. PC- 93 -33; Environmental Initial Study by Michael Brandman Associates dated October 4, 1993; Geotechnical and Geological Investigation 137, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue by Earth Systems Design Group dated February 13, 1993; Geotechni cal /Coastal Engineering Supplement by Skelly Engineering dated July 30, 1993; Supplemental Bluff Stability Review for 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue by Earth Systems Engineering Group dated June 17, 1994; CDP Nos. 6 -93 -36 /Clayton, 6 -93 -85 /Auerbach et al and 6 -93 -131 /Richards et al; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (September 1991) State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region (CCSTHS), and all Technical Support Documents prepared for this study; San Diego Association of Governments (July 1993) Shoreline Preservation Strategy (including technical report appendices, The Planners Handbook, Beachfill Guidelines, and Seacliffs, Setbacks and Seawalls Report); Stone, Katherine E. and Benjamin Kaufman 6 -93 -135 Page 2 (July 1988) "Sand Rights: A Legal System to Protect the 'Shores of the Sea' ", Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation association, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 8 - 14; Tait, J.F. and Gary B. Griggs (1390) "Beach Response to the Presence of a Seawall," Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 11 - 28; Personal Communication between Leslie Ewing and Gayle Cosulich, Zeiser - Kling Consultants, Inc. (January 12, 1994) ; Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (November 3, 1993) "Shoreline Erosion Evaluation Encinitas Coastline, San Diego County, California" prepared for Mr. and Mrs. Richard Cramer (Project No. 1404- ECO1); Everts, Craig (1991) "Seacliff Retreat and coarse Sediment Yields in Southern California," Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91, Specialty Conference /WR Div. /ASCE, Seattle WA; Sunamura, T. (1983) "Processes of Sea Cliff and Platform Erosion," in CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion, P.D. Komar (ed), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; Beach Bluff Erosion Technical Report for the City of Encinitas by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. dated January 24, 1994; CDP Nos. F8964, F9833 and 6 -84 -461. PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: Den! al. The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on the grounds that the development will not be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and would prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of the Coastal Act. II. Findings and Declarations. The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Detailed Project Description /History. This proposal involves the construction of a 13 ft, high, approximately 80 ft. long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two adjacent 6,800 sq. ft. blufftop lots, each containing a single- family residence. The proposed seawall will consist of a series of five foot wide pre -cast concrete panels, approximately 13 inches thick. The face of the proposed seawall will be coated with an approximately 3 -inch thick shotcrete application that will be colored and textured to allow for a more natural appearance. No riprap or toe -stone is proposed. The subject development is proposed to be located at the base of an approximately 80 ft. high coastal bluff on the west side of Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas. The site and the surrounding blufftop lots are developed with both single- ans multi - family residences. The beach and bluffs in this area are public property, currently in the ownership of the City of Encinitas. No improvements currently exist on the bluffs fronting the subject site. The existing residences are currently sited 22 to 24 ft. (172 Neptune Avenue) and 28 ft. (164 Neptune Avenue) from the bluff edge. 6 -93 -135 Page 3 In April of 1980, the Commission approved a permit for the construction of an approximately 5,000 sq. ft., two —story single— family residence sited 31 ft. from the edge of the bluff at 172 Neptune Avenue (ref. CDP #F8964). The permit was approved with a number of special conditions. However, the conditions were never satisfied and the permit subsequently expired. Both the existing residences were approved for construction by the Commission. In June of 1981, the Commission approved the construction of an approximately 4,440 sq. ft., two —story single— family residence with an attached three —car garage at 172 Neptune Avenue (ref. CDP #F9833). The residence was approved to be sited approximately 26 ft. from the bluff edge with a special condition requiring the applicant to record the standard waiver of liability deed restriction. In October of 1985, the Commission approved a permit for the construction of 3,891 sq. ft., four — level, single — family residence at 164 Neptune Avenue (ref CDP #6 -84 -461). This permit was approved with conditions which required the applicant to record the standard waiver of liability, submit drainage plans and revised site plans indicating a minimum 25 ft. blufftop setback for the residence. Subsequently, in January of 1987, an amendment to this permit was approved reducing the size of the residence to 3,137 sq. ft. and only two — levels. 2. Geologic Conditions and Hazards. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act states, in part: 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 Coastal 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. The project site consists of two adjacent lots located on the west side of Neptune Avenue, just south of Roseta.Street in the City of Encinitas. The two lots are owned by private individuals, while the coastal bluff and beach fronting these properties is in public ownership. The subject seawall is 6 -93 -135 Page 4 proposed on public property in an area that is relatively devoid of bluff and shoreline structures. In reviewing requests for shoreline protection, the Commission must assess the need to protect the private residential development and the potential adverse impacts to public resources associated with construction of shore /bluff protection. Given a situation such as exists in the subject development, where a public beach is backed by urban development which proposes protection with coastal armoring, degradation of the beach in front of and adjacent to such armoring is likely. A number of adverse impacts to public resources can be associated with the construction of shoreline structures. These include the loss to the public of the sandy beach area that is displaced by the structure, "permanently" fixing the back of the beach, which leads to narrowing and eventual disappearance of the beach in front if the structure, a reduction /elimination of sand contribution to the beach, sand loss from the beach due to wave reflection and scour, accelerated erosion on adjacent unprotected properties and the adverse visual impacts associated with construction of a shore /bluff protective device on the contrasting natural bluffs. As such, the construction of bluff and shoreline protection devices raises consistency concerns with a number of Coastal Act policies, including Sections 30210, 30211, 30212, 30235, 30240, 30251 and 30253. Such impacts on the beach and sand supply have been documented on other recent Commission actions involving proposals for shoreline /bluff protection in this area. In March of this year, the Commission approved CDP #6 -93 -85 /Auerbach, et al for the construction of a seawall fronting six non — continuous properties located approximately 1,000 ft. north of the subject site. In its finding for approval, the Commission documented specific adverse impacts the proposed shoreline protection would have on the beach and sand supply and required mitigation for such impacts as a condition of approval. The Commission made a similar finding for several other seawall developments located several blocks north of the subject site (ref. CDP Nos. 6- 93 -36 —G /Clayton, 6 -93 -131 /Richards, et al, and 6- 93- 136 /Favero). As cited above, Coastal Act Section 30235 does allow for the construction of bluff /shoreline protection, if it has been documented that a need exists to protect an existing principal structure that is threatened due to bluff erosion /failure and if the proposed protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. The applicant has submitted several documents regarding seacliff retreat at the subject site. These reports /plans indicate that the existing residential setback from the bluff edge for 164 Neptune Avenue is 28 ft. and 22 -24 ft. for 172 Neptune Avenue. As noted in the previous section, these two residences were previously approved for construction by the Commission. The residence at 164 Neptune Avenue was approved with a blufftop setback of 25 ft. As stated above, the current setback from the bluff edge for this residence is 28 ft., indicating that the residence was probably constructed further back than the permitted 25 ft. As such, it is unclear if any erosion of the bluff fronting this residence has occurred since its construction. The residence at 172 Neptune Avenue was approved to be sited 26 ft. from the bluff edge. Currently 6 -93 -135 Page 5 the residence is located approximately 22 to 24 ft. from the edge of the bluff, indicating that there has been some erosion of the upper bluff. The submitted geotechnical reports indicate that there is evidence that suggests ongoing erosion and undermining of the lower portion of the bluff face at the subject site. However, the reports also indicate that there is no evidence indicating deep seated landsliding on or adjacent to the subject site. The applicant has submitted two differing stability analysis' for the site. The first shows the factor of safety for deep seated overall stability ranging from 2.27 to 2.28, much greater than the typically utilized factor of safety of I.S. The second slope stability analysis' submitted for the two sites indicates that the bluff fronting these two properties has an estimated static factor of safety of 1.05 to 1.59, indicating that the slope is generally unstable in its present condition and that if "the bluff is subject to continuous erosion of the face and the base of the bluff, storm related damage and /or a seismic event, than unstable condition may increase, causing a typical block and /or rotational landslide failure and other related distress." The reason for the discrepancy between the two analysis' has not been explained by the applicant's engineer. However, in reviewing the submitted slope stability analyses, the proposed critical failure surface would intersect the top of the bluff, seaward of the existing residences. In addition, based on the submitted bluff profiles, if the upper bluff were to continue to erode to a stable angle of repose (approximately 35 degrees), neither of the two residences would likely be threatened. Additionally, in review of documents submitted to the Commission in review of the construction of the residence at 164 Neptune Avenue, plans /reports indicate that the residence was constructed utilizing a pier and grade beam foundation along the western portion of the residence with the piers extending to a depth of greater than 12 feet to provide a greater factor of safety for the residence. The geotechnical reports have not addressed this factor. In addition, other than some noted undermining of the base of the bluff within the Torrey Sandstone formations, the condition of the bluff appears to be similar to the condition described in the the soils /geotechnical reports submitted for the construction of the residences. As such, it has not been documented that the existing residences are in imminent danger from bluff erosion and /or bluff failure and in need of bluff /shore protection at the present time. In approving new development on blufftop lots, structures are required to be setback an appropriate distance (based on a site specific geotechnical report) from the edge of the bluff. This is based on the fact that coastal bluffs recede due to the natural process of erosion involving either wave action or other subaerial factors. This "geologic setback area" is so designated to accommodate the natural erosion of the bluff. In other words, on blufftop lots, residences are set back from the bluff edge to allow the natural process of erosion to occur on the site without causing the residence to be threatened. Therefore, when evidence of some erosion of the setback area is documented, this does not necessarily document the need for bluff or shore protection. It is only when the principal residence has been documented to be in danger from such erosion, that protection is allowed under Coastal Act 6 -93 -135 Page 6 Policies. In this case, such documentation has not been provided. Therefore, the proposed development is inconsistent with Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. In addition, the Commission is concerned with the proposed development's impact on adjacent unprotected properties and the potential consequences should a substantial failure occur on these properties. Numerous studies have indicated that when continuous protection is not provided, unprotected adjacent properties experience a greater retreat rate than would occur if the protective device were not present. This is due primarily to wave reflection off the protective structure and from increased turbulence at the terminus of the seawall. According to James F. Tait and Gary B. Griggs in Beach Response IQ the _Presence of a Seawall (A Comoarison of Field Observations) "[tlhe most prominent example of lasting impacts of seawalls on the shore is the creation of end scour via updrift sand impoundment and downdrift wave reflection. Such end scour exposes the back beach, bluff, or dune areas to higher swash energies and wave erosion." As such, as the base of the bluff continues to erode on the unprotected adjacent properties, failure of the bluff is likely. Thus, future failures could "spill over" onto the adjacent unprotected properties, prompting requests for much more substantial and environmentally damaging seawalls to protect the residences. In response to these concerns, the applicant's engineer has noted that the proposed seawall has incorporated a number of features into its design to reduce the potential for accelerated erosion on adjacent unprotected properties. These include minimal thickness of the seawall, which will reduce the turbulence at the end of the wall which can lead to accelerated erosion of adjacent unprotected bluffs. The engineer has also indicated that the ends of the wall will be shaped to reflect lateral splash away from the bluff, helping to reduce wave reflection onto adjacent unprotected bluffs. Although the proposed seawall design includes the design features described above to reduce impacts of the wall on adjacent properties, at best, the above described impacts can be reduced, but not eliminated. In addition, the reduction in end turbulence due to minimal thickness of the wall is only a temporary effect. The proposed seawall design also includes return walls at the end of the seawall which go into the bluff perpendicular to the wall and the bluff face. These return walls are important components of a seawall as they protect the wall from wave flanking, which could lead to erosion behind the wall. Regardless of whether accelerated erosion were to occur on the adjacent unprotected properties, these adjacent bluffs will continue to erode due to the same forces that are causing them to erode currently. As this occur, more surface area of the return wall is exposed to wave attack leading to increased turbulence and accelerated erosion of the adjacent unprotected bluff. According to information contained in the Planners Handbook (dated March 1993), which is included as Technical Appendix III of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on October 10, 1993, "[a] longer return wall will increase the magnitude of the reflected wave energy, On a coast where the shoreline is retreating there will be strong incentives to extend the length of the return wall landward as adjacent property is eroded, thereby increasing the return wall, and its effects on neighboring property, with time." 6 -93 -135 Page 7 As the applicant has not documented that the existing residences are imminently threatened from erosion or, bluff failure and because the proposed seawall will contribute to significant erosion and geologic instability on adjacent properties, the proposed project cannot be found consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the project must be denied. 3. 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) in conformity with the provisions of Chapter. 3 of the Coastal Act. In this case, such a finding cannot be made. 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 Encinitas. The City has recently submitted its LCP for review by the Commission, however, that review has not yet been completed. As shoreline erosion along the coast rarely affects just one individual property, 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 sandy supply from coastal rivers and creeks and armoring of the coast, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This will, in turn, decrease the public's ability to access the shoreline. The City of Encinitas has indicated the need and desire to develop a comprehensive program addressing the shoreline erosion problem in the City. Towards this end, the City has recently funded a study of the problem of coastal erosion in the City and a means of addressing such problems with both structural and non - structural solutions. The City's current position pursuant to their adopted ordinances is to require a comprehensive program prior to approval of any structural solution to bluff retreat. The proposed project however has been approved by the City, without benefit of a comprehensive solution in place, due to the City's finding that an "emergency" exists on the site. In addition, the City of Encinitas has expressed its intent to vigorously pursue the formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) as a means of initiating, funding constructing and maintaining projects to stabilize coastal bluffs. In approving other recent seawall requests several blocks north of the subject site, the Commission acknowledged the GHAD as a potential means of addressing issues related to gaps between seawall segments, comprehensive review of the entire bluff (upper, mid and lower) and mitigation for impacts on the beach (ref. CDP Nos. 6- 93 -85/ Auerbach, 6 -93 -131 /Richards and 6- 93- 136 /Favero). In an effort to allow the applicants to begin construction on the walls (which were documented to be required to protect the existing structures) while the GHAD was being formed and as an incentive to homeowners to actively pursue formation of the GHAD, the Commission allowed conditions of approval of the permits to be deferred for six months. However, to date, no information on this process has been submitted. The subject 6 -93 -135 Page 8 proposal differs from these previous permit actions in that the undermining of the base of the bluff fronting the subject site is not significant, the proposed protection in this application has not been documented as necessary to protect existing development and the distance between the seawall proposed in this application and previously approved protection to the north is greater than 1,000 ft. In other words, previously, because of geologic conditions, the Commission was forced to deal with these issues, without the CHAD in place. In this particular case, the same geologic conditions do not exist, in that the applicant has not documented that the existing structures are in imminent danger from erosion or bluff failure and therefore, approval of the proposal without the CHAD in place would not be prudent. As evidence has not been submitted to document that existing principal structures are in danger from erosion and because the proposed seawall does not assure structural and geologic stability on site and in surrounding areas, the proposed seawall raises direct conflicts with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed development could prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to prepare a certifiable local coastal program and the permit is denied. 4. Consistency With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). Section 13096 of the Commission's Code of Regulations requires Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the activity may have on the environment. As previously stated, the proposed development could result in impacts to coastal resources in the form of adverse impacts to shoreline sand supply and geologic stability which would result in unmitigable environmental impacts. There are feasible alternatives available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the proposal may have on the environment. These feasible alternatives include the no project alternative which would allow the bluffs to continue to erode, as it has not been documented that protection is necessary at this time; reducing erosion at the top of the bluff by assuring all drainage is directed away from the bluff edge; removing any existing permanent irrigation within the geologic setback area; installation of a means of reducing groundwater from reaching the bluff face; and other non — structural means to assure continued security for the residences from threats from bluff erosion /failure. In addition, in review of submitted site plans that include other blufftop properties in the surrounding area, it should be noted that other residences in the area are located approximately the same distance from the bluff as the residences subject to this permit revl'ew. It may be that this area should be included in the area of the GHAD currently being pursued by both the City and blufftop residents in the area. As such, any proposed solution to bluff 6 -93 -135 Page 9 erosion should be addressed for all the residences in the area and not on an individual basis. Therefore, as currently proposed, the Commission finds the project does not mitigate the identified impacts, and is not the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and cannot be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. Thus, the proposed project must be denied. (3135R) _ M •a o I` n fE • 1� t 1 . i■ C t • fF 1 1 1 s• .D e q . _ A A z' IFIlc n !` �n w ly1tY.: !1 •aa =y�tA !f V 1 r V ■ d l„ EXHIBIT NO. I APPLICATI ON IU N i Ty j*71a p72 GG'✓— �JG4W �� CaYldnw Co■ Cpmmllron March 8, 1999 SOIL Enahrinmc r^nc Ms. Diane Langager - Planning Department City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Updated Geotechnical Information Denver & Canter Residences, 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California References: "Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune III Project, 137, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca. 92024 ", prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, dated February 13, 1993. 2. "Seawall, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, Geotechnical/Coastal Engineering Supplement ", prepared by Skelly Engineering, dated 3. "Supplemental Blu G ie Avenue, Encinitas, Californi roup, dated June 17, 1994. El 5. Dear Ms. Langager: `Response to Cali, Various Documen 164/172 Neptune 7 by Geosoils,Inc.,c "Repairs to Lowet through 3, by Soil Review of #6- 98 -39, i ", prepared ing sheet 1 17, 1999. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared the following geotechnical update report for the subject properties. The purpose of this update report is to review the findings presented in the referenced reports, observe the current site conditions and to provide additional recommendations as it relates to the design and construction of a seawall along the lower bluff below the subject properties. In addition, we have provided additional findings to address the requirements of Section 30.34.020 C & D of the Municipal Code. 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 Ms. Diane Langager March 8, 1999 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject properties are located at 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas. The sites consist of relatively level building pad areas (El. +80' +/- M.S.L.). The eastern portions of the lots slope down to Neptune Avenue, which is approximately 20 lower than the main building pad areas. Both lots are occupied by two -story single family residences with appurtenant improvements. The project site is bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences on the north and south and on the west by an approximately 80 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea bluff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will consist of seawall 80 lineal feet in length (40 feet across each property) along the base of the existing bluff. The proposed seawall will consist of a reinforced cast -in -place concrete wall with two rows of rock anchors approximately 15 to 25 feet long. The proposed seawall will be constructed to an elevation of +13' M.S.L. The exposed surfaces of the seawall will be textured and colored to resemble the surrounding bluff areas. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review of the referenced reports and on our familiarity with these properties, it is our opinion that the findings presented in those reports are generally still valid for the proposed project. Additional findings required by the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, which are applicable to the project, are presented herein. It is recommended that in order to protect the lower bluff from further ongoing erosion and potential lower bluff block failures, the proposed seawall should be constructed at the site. It is recommended that the seawall be a minimum of two feet thick at its base and extend a minimum of 3 feet into the bedrock. Based on the information contained in reference No. 2, the top of the seawall should be at +13' M.S.L.. The wall should be designed to resist a force of 3.9 kips per lineal foot. This load should be applied in the middle of the wall. For the purposes of the design, the passive pressure due to the embedment of the wall should be neglected. The rock anchors should be designed assuming a bond stress of 16 pounds per square inch. Ms. Diane Langager March 8, 1999 Page 3 In order to satisfy requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, we offer the following responses. 1. SEC accepts and agrees with all of the previously reviewed geotechnical data relative to this project, except for the following exception: The estimated life span of the proposed seawall, without substantial maintenance, is estimated at 22.5 years. This estimate has been accepted by the California Coastal Commission as an average of the estimates of certified engineering geologists who have worked on similar projects on the Encinitas Bluffs. 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 certify 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 over its lifetime. 3. We certify that the proposed development is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982 -83. We hope the above information satisfies your requests at this tore. If you should need any additional information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Sincerely, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, Inc. k Robert Mahony G.E. 55 E.G. 47 QROf ESS /py �a �pONA(p 9� 4 2 � w No. GE 554 m * EXP.06 /30/01 cF 'Pr9t 0rECNN1�P �\Q FOF ca11F�� G1pfEERl�yG, \ll . rC.•Z0.44, C y FQ LIC. No. 847 ! l %.r :EXP. 08131/00 . Q. % OFCA1�F��?~ J hn W. Niven R.C.E.57517 N0. C57517 EXP.1213MI MAR -08 -99 MON 16:19 SKELLY ENGINEERING 7609428379 P.01 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER March 5, 1999 Mr. Blair Knoll City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 RE Denver /Canter Seawall MUP 93 -163 Dear Mr. Knoll, I have been retained by Drs. Denver and Canter as an independent engineer to review the design and observe the construction of their proposed seawall. I was the engineer of record for the original wall design. I have reviewed the plans dated January 27. 1999 prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. and find that they very similar to the original plans submitted to the City several years ago. The'new design is the same as the old design from a structural engineering viewpoint The height and proposed foot print are identical. Both walls are steel reinforced concrete. The only difference is that the old design relied on precast panel whereas the new wall is cast in place. The new wall design is in substantial conformance with the existing soils reports and City of Encinitas Planning Department findings. If you have any questions or require additional information please call me at the number below. Sincerely, David W Skelly RCE #47857 cc: Soils Engineering Drs. Denver & Canter 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148 ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONEIFAX 760 942 -8379 �' Sv O October 1, 1998 W.O. 2549 -A -SC Dr. Stan Cantor and Dr. Paul Denver 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Dr, Stan Cantor /Dr. Paul Denver Subject: Response to California Coastal Commission and Second Party Review of Various Documents, Coastal Development Permit Application #6- 98 -39, 164/172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Reference: "Coastal Development Permit Application #6 -98 -39 - 164/172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas," dated August 4, 1998, by California Coastal Commission. Gentlemen: This letter /report has been prepared by GeoSoils. Inc. (GSI) in order to respond to the issues raised by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in their referenced letter dated August 4, 1998. The scope of our services has included a review of existing field conditions, a review of the referenced letter by the CCC, a review of the documents provided by the CCC (Appendix), a review of supplemental documents and supporting data (Appendix), and preparation of this response letter /report. The purpose of GSI's review and response was to provide answers to the questions /concerns identified by the CCC staff in their referenced letter. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject properties are located on the coastal bluffs in the Encinitas area of San Diego County, California. The earth materials underlying the sites are Quaternary-age terrace deposits consisting of weakly cemented, silty to medium grained sands, of a generally massive structural nature. Below an elevation of approximately 28 to 29 feet MSL, as exposed in the bluff face, and underlying the terrace deposits at depth, is the Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone. This formation consists of moderately to well cemented, clayey fine to medium - grained sandstone, that are thickly- bedded and cross - bedded. Overall, the Torrey Sandstone dips gently (50) to the northwest (Tan and Kennedy, 1996). The study area is approximately 2 miles east of the active offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault eustatic" or "true" sea -level rise. During the past 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from more than 350± feet below the present to possibly as high as about 31 - feet above. If all of the glacial ice presently on the earth were to melt, sea level would rise about 240± feet from the present level (Barry, 1981). Tectonic activity can also account for significant relative changes in sea level in a local area. Past movement along the Rose Canyon fault zone and associated faults, which served to uplift Mount Soledad and formed Point La Jolla, also created a zone of structural weakness along which the La Jolla Submarine Canyon has been incised. The Torrey Pines block, with its relatively horizontally stratified Eocene -age formations and wave -cut terraces, has experienced more than 450 feet of tectonic uplift in the last 2 million years, while the tilted and uplifted Soledad Mountain block has undergone more than 750 feet of tectonic uplift in the same period (Kern, 1977). Sea -level changes during the last 18,000 years have resulted in an approximately 400 -foot rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Wisconsin ice age started to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the continental ice caps (Curray, 1960; 1961). Sea -level data show a relatively rapid rise of about 1 meter per century from about 18,000 years before present to about 8,000 years ago, as indicated in Masters and Fleming (1983). About 8,000 years ago, the rate of sea -level rise slowed, ultimately to a relatively constant rate of about 10 centimeters per century since about 6,000 years ago (Curray, 1960; 1965; Inman and Veeh, 1966). More importantly, the world coastline, including that of California and the subject site, has been shaped largely within this 6,000 -year period, with the sea at or within 16 feet of its present level (Bird, 1985). Most recently, Campbell, et al (1998), note that even in the absence of anthropogenic climate forcing, a natural warming trend will continue world -wide until about the year 2400 A.D. This warming trend will likely increase the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, and contribute to more volatile weather patterns. Such conditions will further exasperate sea cliff erosion in the future. GENERAL BACKGROUND San Dieguito Engineering, Inc. (SDE) prepared a report for 172 Neptune Avenue, in Encinitas in 1979. SDE (1979), stated on Page Three, "No adverse structural features or evidence of large scale mass movements were found on the site during our investigation. This indicates favorable conditions with respect to deep seated ground failures." SIDE (1979) Page Six, also stated "The terrace sands are friable and subject to severe erosion under the presence of water ..... The significance of possible natural erosional processes on the bluff with respect to time and degree of influence on the proposed project cannot be established in concise terms." SDE (1979), on Page Eight, states "Foundations for the new proposed residence should be paced as far a possible from the top edge of the bluff." The plans at that time indicated a 25 -foot setback from the bluff top. Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File: e1wp7\2 50012 54 9a.rlc Page 3 In 1994, Earth Systems Engineering Group (ESEG) provided a supplemental bluff stability review of the subject properties. ESEG (1994a) states on Page No. 4 that "...This undermining produced an arch -like overhang that exposed some tension cracks and fracturing on the top. The rate of retreat of the terrace deposits is controlled by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. Slope stability analyses by ESEG conclude that the bluff is unstable, and that there was a growing potential for slope instability. On Page No. 8 ESEG (1994) indicates that protection of the base of the sea bluff is highly recommended to reduce the sea bluff retreat and protect the up -slope structures and the beach -going public from hazards that the sea cliff possess in the present condition. They quote the study performed by ZKC (1994) for the City of Encinitas, which classifies the study area as a high risk zone with cliffs undergoing continuous retreat. ESEG (1994b) is a letter to the CCC disagreeing with CCC's findings regarding the proposed seawall, documenting similar conditions in a similar geologic setting one -block away to the north and south that have required seawall protection. SE (1996a) documents a failure of the bluff below the study area, further substantiating the need for a seawall. SE (1996b) provides additional slope stability analyses to documenting the bluff instability. This report clearly shows the most critical failure surface extends under the principal structures (houses), and has a FOS of less than 1.0 (actually 0.976); indicating that the slope is failing. SE (1996c) is a letter regarding design concerns on the subject properties and adjoining properties. SE (1997) is a letter clarifying for the CCC some misunderstandings of the technicalities of slope stability analyses by SE and others. SE (1998a) is a letter regarding the lack of potential impact of the proposed seawall on adjacent unprotected bluffs. SE (1998b) is a letter regarding measured retreat rates at the subject properties reported between 1.3 feet to 2.0 feet annually. GSI would like to point out than in November of 1996, Mr. Bill Rick, a civil engineer and member of the CCC made a motion to approve the proposed seawall as a result of Mr. Rick's personal inspection of the site and area (verbal communication with Dr. Cantor and Dr. Denver). Furthermore, in October of 1997, although no longer on the CCC, Mr. Rick felt sorongly, he voluntarily testified at a CCC hearing in favor of the subject property owner etition for the seawall. REVIEW RESPONSE GeoSoils, Inc.'s responses follow the order in which they were raised in the referenced letter. This letter, from the California Coastal Commission, is included as Appendix B. CCC Bullet No. 1. "...What are the changing conditions of the bluff itself which could lead to the change in slope stability? We are aware of the recent changes in beach material and possible change in the anticipated long -term erosion rate of the toe of the bluff; Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File: e: \wp7\2500\2549a.nc Page 5 however, we are not aware of the changes to the bluff itself which have led to heightened concern for slope stability." GSI Response No 1 Our field review indicates that there are patched vertical- oriented bluff - parallel cracks in the masonry walls on both the north and south, east -west trending property lines of 172 Neptune that have widened and re- opened, and localized cracks in the brick decking at 172 Neptune that generally run north -south (±bluff - parallel). The opening of the patched cracks (tensional features, in GSI's opinion, related to tension cracks), and the cracked brick indicate that the bluff is in the process of failing. This substantiates the low FOS for slope stability by others. If the Torrey Sandstone were to fail, and tension cracks and failures have been documented in the Torrey Sandstone (see narrative above), the FOS of the slope would become even less, and overall slope failure most certainly would occur. Please refer to ZKC (1994) Figure D -6. CCC Bullet No. 2. "Based on the available information, is it possible to determine that the existing homes are now in danger from erosion and if not, to estimate a time frame for concern ?" GSI Response No, 2 As discussed above, the indications of tension cracks in the upper bluff noted by GSI, and reported tension cracks and failures in the lower bluff, indicate that the existing homes are now in danger from erosion. For the reasons discussed in the narratives (above), and based on GSI's field review, the time for concern is now. CCC Bullet No. 3. "If the bluff is potentially unstable, what are the reasons for the instability and will the proposed seawall address the concerns? The analysis by Mr. Skelly shows a failure plane which originates higher than the proposed seawall. Will the proposed seawall design improve overall slope stability? Are there other alternatives that would increase slope and structural stability without a shoreline or bluff stabilization device? If so, what are they ?" GSI Response No. 3 The reason the bluff is unstable has been discussed in the preceding sections. Reference is made to USACE (1996) Figure D -6. The proposed seawall mitigates the chain of events that leads to bluff failure. The proposed seawall design will Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File. e \wpT25OM2549a.rtc Page 6 improve overall bluff stability (see Figure D -6 in USACE, 1996). With respect to other alternatives that would increase slope and structural stability without a shoreline or bluff stabilization device, two methods may be considered, but do not increase slope and structural stability. First, compaction grouting of the terrace deposits would increase the strength parameters of these sediments, but is not recommended in proximity to slopes, such as exist onsite, as severe slope failures may occur during grout injection, and therefore, is not considered good engineering practice; and second, the existing residences could be founded on grade beams and /or underpinned and be supported by deep caissons in the underlying Torrey Sandstone, however, this method would do nothing for increasing slope stability from the caissons to the slope face, and may actually provide a conduit for water to enter the terrace deposits/Torrey Sandstone contact, actually decreasing slope stability (saturated soils reduce the shear strength of the soils by about a half). Based on the above discussion, there appear to be no other alternatives that would increase slope and structural stability without a shoreline or bluff stabilization device. CCC Bullet No. 4. "If the bluff is potentially unstable, what is the connection between this instability and shoreline conditions and a threat to the existing blufftop homes? Is it reasonable to link the potential change in stability to changes in littoral supplies? How would sand replenishment contribute to bluff stability for these sites ?" GSI Response No. 4 The shoreline conditions that are pertinent to the instability and threat to the existing blufftop homes include: a narrow beach that allows wave energy, to be "seismically" transmitted to the failing terrace deposits exasperating this condition; a narrow beach that allows wave energy to be transmitted to cobble attack on the lower bluff, resulting in undercutting the lower bluff, decreasing slope stability and increasing the likelihood of lower bluff failure, leading to overall bluff failure (Figure D -6, USACE, 1996). Yes, it is reasonable to link the potential change in stability to changes in littoral supplies (i.e., narrowing of the beach, and subsequent effects on the bluff). Sand replenishment would contribute to bluff stability to these sites, however, in order for it to be effective, it would need to be of regional extent, enough sand would need to be available, and it would need to be replenished and maintained annually. As such, sand replenishment is really not a viable alternative. CCC Bullet No. 5.. "One of the existing homes was constructed with a caisson foundation. How does the foundation design factor into the analysis of the slope stability or concern about the risk to structures? Would a deepened caisson or underpinning of the homes Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File- e: \wp7T25002549aAc Page 7 with a slab -on -grade foundation increase structural stability to the point that the bluff would not need immediate stabilization? Can it be estimated how long before bluff stabilization would be necessary if such an alternative were utilized ?" GSI Response No 5 Based on our review, it is apparent that the caissons were not designed to hold up the slope. The 12 foot deep caissons on 164 Neptune were designed using standards of practice at that time; these former standards have proven to be inadequate based on past performances and current standards of practice. Deepened caissons and /or underpinning have been discussed previously (GSI Response No. 3). It can not be accurately estimated how long bluff stabilization could be delayed, if any, should deep foundations be employed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on GeoSoils, Inc.'s review of data provided by the California Coastal Commission, review of available geologic data in the site vicinity (Appendix), and field review, it is GeoSoils, Inc.'s opinion that the proposed seawall is warranted and recommended from a geologic viewpoint, as the principal structures are in imminent danger- Furthermore, all the previous geotechnical and coastal consultants also agree that a seawall is recommended. Also, all of the consultants are in agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants (1994), Flick (1994), and United States Army Corp. of Engineers (1996). It should be noted that GeoSoils, Inc. reviewed Skelly Engineering (1996b) and is in agreement with the slope stability analyses presented by Skelly Engineering. In addition, tension cracks are developing in the upper terrace deposits, and such features and failures have been reported in the underlying Torrey Sandstone in the study area. Should a seawall not be constructed, and the Torrey Sandstone fail, it is inevitable that the upper bluff would also fail. GeoSoils, Inc. would also like to point out that due to the proximity and active nature of the Rose Canyon fault zone, and potential for seismic shaking, should an event occur on this fault, seismic slope instability would also be mitigated by the proposed seawall. Also, as a result of the global warming trend, which will further raise sea level, and contribute to more volatile and severe weather (waves, precipitation duration, etc.), and the potential for local tsunami to be generated by the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone; and considering all of the above, the construction of the proposed seawall is a reasonably conservative course of action. In conclusion, since the slope stability studies performed by Skelly Engineering, and independently evaluated by GeoSoils, Inc. confirm that the failure plane lies under the principal structures on the properties located at 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue and mean that the principal structures are in imminent danger, therefore the proposed seawall should be built now, as it is a geologic certainty that the bluff will fail without the seawall, as a result of the recent acceleration of the mechanism of sea bluff retreat.. Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File: eAwp7\2500\2549a.rtc Page 8 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site are believed representative of the total area; however, soils materials may vary in characteristics between observed areas or test excavations. Since our investigation is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analyses by others, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. It is possible that variations in the soil conditions could exist beyond the points observed in this investigation. Also, changes in groundwater conditions could occur at some time in the near future due to variations in temperature, regional rainfall, and other factors. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities. CLOSURE This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. John P. Franklin Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 JPF /mo Attachments: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Letter from the California Coastal Commission Distribution: (2) Addressee (each) (2) California Coastal Commission - Mr. Lee McEachern (2) Mr. Bob Campbell Cantor /Denver W.O. 2549 -A -SC 164 & 172 Neptune Ave., Encinitas October 1, 1998 File: e:\ wp7\2500\2549aric Page 9 APPENDIX A References Anderson, J.G., Rockwell, T., and Agnew, D.C., 1987, A study of the seismic hazard in San Diego. Barry, R.G., 1981, Trends in snow and ice research, EOS 62, 46, p. 1139 -44. Bird, Eric C.F., 1985, Coastline changes, a global review, John Wiley & Sons. California Coastal Commission, 1998, Coastal development permit application #6 -98 -39 - 164/172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, dated August 4. Campbell, Ian D., Celina, Apps, Michael J., Rutter, Nathaniel W., Bush, Andrew B.G., 1998, Geology, v.26, no. 5, pp. 471 -473, 4 figures, dated May. Clarke, SH., Green, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., Vedder, J.G., and Legg, M.R., 1987, Geologic map of the inner - southern California continental margin, in eds., Green, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., California continental margin geologic map series, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Cooper, W.S., 1959, Coastal sand dunes of California, Geological Society of America Memoir. Curray, J.R., 1960, Sediments and history of Holocene transgression, continental shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico, pp. 221 -266, in F.P. Shepard, F.B. Phlefer, and T.H. van Andel (eds.), Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, 1951 -1958, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 394pp. 1961, Late Quaternary sea level: a discussion, Geological Society of America Bulletin 72, pp. 1707 -1712. 1965, Late Quaternary history, continental shelves of the United States, pp. 723 -735 in H.E. Wright, Jr. and D.G. Frey (eds.), The Quaternary of the United States, Princeton University Press, 922pp. Earth Systems Design Group, 1993, Geotechnical and geological investigation, Neptune III Project, 137, 144, 150, 164, and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Job No. E0083, dated February 13. Earth Systems Engineering Group, 1994a, Supplemental bluff stability review, Lots 164 & 174 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Job Np. EE -0176, dated June 17. 1994b, CDP 6 -93 -135, Paul Denver and Stanley Cantor properties, 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated August 5. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Aubrey, D.G., 1991, Sea levels, land levels, and tide gauges, Springer - Verlag Publishers, New York, New Yors, 237 pp., 113 figures. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1980, Erosion of rock shores at La Jolla, California, in Marine Geology, v. 37. 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification, in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no. 7. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Flick, R.E., ed., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region, vol. II, California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments. Fulton, K., 1981, A manual for researching historical coastal erosion, in Kuhn, G.G., ed., California Sea Grant Report No. T -CSGCP -003. Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., 1987, Geology of the inner California continental margin, area 1 of 7, 1:250,000 scale maps. Howell, D.G., Stuart, C.G., Platt, J.P., and Hill, D.J., 1974, Possible strike -slip faulting in the southern California Borderland, in Geological Society of America Geology, v. 2, no. 2. Inman, D.L., 1976, Summary report of man's impact on the California coastal zone; prepared for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, State of California. Inman, D.L., and Veeh, H.H., 1966, Dating the 10- fathom terrace off Hawaii, American Geophysical Union, Trans. 47, 125. Johnson, C.S., 1998, Evidence suggests coastal tsunami, North County Times, dated August 23. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Sea -cliff erosion at Sunset Cliffs, San Diego, b California Geology, v. 26, February. Cantor /Denver Appendix Fi1e:eAwp7T2500\2549aAc Page 2 Kern, J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California, in Geological Society of America Bulletin 88. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications, published by University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England. 1983, Newly discovered evidence from the San Diego County area of some principles of coastal retreat, in Shore and Beach, v. 51, no. 1. 1980, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Edge, B.L., ed., Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management held in Hollywood, Florida, on 17 -20 November, 1980, published by American Society of Civil Engineers, v. III. -, 1979a, Accelerated beach -cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern California, in California Geology, March. 1979b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils San Diego region. Lee, L.J., Schug, D.L., and Raines, G.L., 1990, Seacliff stabilization, Seacliff Park (Swami's), beach access stairway, Encinitas, California, in Geotechnical engineering case histories in San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologist October 20 field trip guide book. Legg, M.R., 1985, Geologic structure and tectonics of the inner continental borderland offshore northern Baja California, Mexico, unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of California, Santa Barbara. 1989, Faulting and seismotectonics of the inner continental borderland west of San Diego, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system." Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental perils - San Diego region, published by San Diego Association of Geologists. Lindivall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system." Cantor /Denver Appendix File:eAwp7%2500\2549a.nc Page 3 Masters, P.M., and N.C. Fleming, 1983, Quaternary coastlines and marine archaeology: towards the prehistory of land bridges and continental shelves, Academic Press, New York, 641 pp. Munk, W.H., and Traylor, M.A., 1947, Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking underwater topography to beach erosion, Journal of Geology, v. LV, no. 1. Nowak - Meulmester & Associates, 1993, Structural calculations, Cantor residence retaining wall, 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, NMA Job #93 -050, undated. Nowak - Meulmester & Associates, and Skelly Engineering, 1993, Seawall & lower bluff stabilization, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, two sets of plans (one for each address), two sheets each, dated August 13. San Dieguito Soils, Inc., 1979, Report of soils and geologic reconnaissance proposed residential site, Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated December 24. 1984, Review and update of soil and geologic report, proposed residential site, Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated October 23. Schumm, S.A., and Mosley, P.M., 1973, Slope morphology, published by Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Inc. Shackleton, N.J., and Opdyke, N.D., 1976, Oxygen- isotope and paleomagnetic stratigraphy of Pacific core v28 -239, late Pliocene to latest Pleistocene, Geological Society of America, Memoir 145. Shepard, F.P., and Kuhn, G.G., 1983, History of sea arches and remnant stacks of La Jolla, California, and their bearing on similar features elsewhere, Marine Geology, v. 51 Shepard, F.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, 1947, Wave erosion along the southern California coast, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 58., Shore and Beach, 1989, October. Skelly Engineering, 1993a, Seawall, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, Geotechnical /Coastal Engineering Supplement, dated July 30. 1993b, Map Seawall & Lower Bluff Stabilization, 164 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Job No. 93 -049, dated August 13. 1993c, CDP Denver /Cantor, 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, CDP 452 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, dated December 3. 1996a, Letter regarding bluff fronting property on Neptune Avenue, dated September 25. Cantor /Denver Appendix File:e: \wp7\2500\2549a.nc Page 4 1996b, Letter regarding bluff fronting property on Neptune Avenue, dated September 27. 1996c, Letter responding to request for information regarding the impact of proposed seawall project on adjacent unprotected bluffs, dated October 2. , 1997, Letter regarding coastal development permit application, dated November 27. 1998a, Letter responding to request for information regarding the impact of proposed seawall project on adjacent unprotected bluffs, dated March 30. , 1998b, Letter regarding bluff retreat monitoring program, dated April 30. Sunamura, T., 1977, A relationship between wave - induced cliff erosion and erosive forces of waves, Journal of Geology, v. 85. Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike slip faults in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666 -1703 Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., Geologic map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 75 quadrangles, San Diego County, California, 1:24,000 scale map. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, cooperative agreement EMF -83 -k -0148. 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone in southern California, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG OFR 93 -02) Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts, Clarendon Press, Oxford. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1996, Encinitas shoreline, San Diego County, California, reconnaissance report, dated March. Webber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north - central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slop failures and pre - development landslides, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82 -12 LA Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego County, California, unpublished masters thesis submitted to the University of California, Riverside. Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., 1994, Final beach bluff erosion report, RFP #93 -01, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California, PN 93181 -00, dated January 24. Cantor /Denver Appendix File: e: \wp7\2500\2549aAC Page 5 Ernest R. Artim Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Project Number 93 -65a September 14, 1993 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Attention: Mr. Tom Curriden Associate Planner Subject: Third Party Review of Response by Geotechnical Consultant Regarding 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California CASE NUMBER: 93 -163 MUP /EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 007039 REQ. NO: 0000007630 FINANCE NUMBER: 1598EN APPLICANT: Denver /Canter PROJECT LOCATION: 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue References: 1. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91 -19. 2. Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune III Project, 137, 144, 150, 164, and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Earth Systems Design Group, dated February 13, 1993, Job No. E0083. 3. Seawall 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Skelly Engineering, dated July 30, 1993. 4. Third Party Review of Geotechnical Information for 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue; by Ernest R. Artim, dated August 24, 1993, number 93 -65. 5. Response to Third Party Review Geotechnical Information for 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue CASE# 93 -163 MUP /EIA; by Skelly Engineering, dated September 8, 1993. 355 Greenwood Place • Bonita • California 91902 • (619) 421 -3464 Page 2 Project Number 93 -65a September 14, 1993 INTRODUCTION We are pleased to submit the following review of the response (reference 5) by the geotechnical consultant to our third party review (reference 4). our review has been performed to see if the reference reports 2, 3, and 5 provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended by Ordinance 91 -19 (reference 1). We understand based upon our review of reference 5 as well as a telephone conversation with Mr. David Skelly of Skelly Engineering, that he has assumed geotechnical responsibility for the project and all reports and data listed above within reference reports 2, 3, and 5. We have received by FAX on September 14, 1993 a letter from Mr. Chris Post of Earth Systems Design Group containing written documentation to verify that the registration for the engineering geologist was valid and current at the time the report was issued and signed but an outdated registration stamp was used in error. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In general, the reference reports 2 and 3 in conjunction with the response (reference 5) appear to adequately address the site soil and geological conditions, as well as the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS The reports submitted by the geotechnical consultant provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended by Ordinance 91 -19. As with other projects along the sea bluffs, an as built map and geotechnical report signed by both the engineer and by the engineering geologist shall be submitted to the City within 15 working days after completion of the project. Page 3 Project Number 93 -65a September 14, 1993 Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, Ernest R. Artim CEG 1084; exp. 6 -30 -94 Distribution: (3) addressee EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP September 9, 1993 ..Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions" Tom Curriden Planning Department City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92024 -3633 ___ .. MGM/\ Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Neptune III - 138, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Curriden, I am writing in response to Mr. Ernest Artim' plan check comment regarding the expired stamp of our Geologist, Mr. Andrew Farkas. The Registered Geologist stamp, under the name of Andrew Farkas, C.E.G. #1185, that appears on the cover page of the subject report has a permanently cast -expiration date of 6- 30-92. Mr. Farkas has renewed his license with an expiration of 6 -30-94 but did not obtain a new stamp. Instead he has been crossing out the 92 and, in pen, adding the 94. On the subject report however, this was not done leaving one with the impression that his license has expired. I assure you this is not the case. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide you with documentation on this matter as ME Farkas has been hospitalized for the past several months after experiencing a stroke which has left him completely paralyzed on one side of his body and in and out of a comma. We have lost contact with Mrs. Farkas as she has moved out of their home due to financial pressures. If I can be of further assistance please call me directly at (619) 471 -6351. Respectfully, S ms Eneering Group Chris A. Post General Manager tx: Dave Skelly Ernest Artim Bob Trenin Neptune III Homeowners File 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite B, San Marcos, Co. 92069, Phone 16191 471 -6351, Fox 16191 471 -7572 CIVIL, STRUCTURAL AND SOILS ENGINEERING . GEOLOGY - SURVEY - CERTIFIED INSPECTION . SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING - FEASIBILITY STUDIES SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER COMMENT C (see page 5, 2 b.(3)) "The proposed seawall will not directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion on adjacent properties. The ends of the proposed wall will not cause additional erosion to adjacent properties. The ends of the wall will extend back towards the house at a 90 degree angle. The ends of the wall will be shaped and textured to reduce the reflection of wave energy along the shore." COMMENT D (see page 8, k`5) "The proposed construction activity will take place on the beach and will not impact the stability of the beach or adjacent bluff. Equipment will not be left on the beach between tide cycles. Because the wall is made from concrete panels cast off site very little actual construction time on the beach is required. Public safety precautions will be implemented during the installation of the wall." I hope these statements address the concerns of the reviewer. If you need any additional information please call me. Sincerely David W. Skelly RCE # 47857, exp 12/31/95 oQRpFESS /pN` \ 9 n `" . No C 47857 rY+ � m {cam Exp. 1 a, 45' CAS 619 S.VULCAN AVE, f 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PNONElFAx 619 942 -B379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SEELLY COASTAL ENGINEER September S, 1993 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 SW. Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Attention: Tom Curriden Subject: Response to Third Party Review Geotechnical Information for 164 and 172 Neptune CASE # 93 -163 MUP /EIA The following is in direct response to comments made by Mr. Artim in his August 24, 1993 letter. I am currently the engineer of record for this project. The geotechnical report was supplemented by an additional report entitled "Seawall, 164 and 172 Neptune, Geotechnical /Coastal Engineering Supplement ". That report contains the information requested by Mr. Artim in his letter. I am a licensed civil engineer and have over 17 years experience in coastal engineering. I would like to apologize for not numbering the pages of that report. However, it is short enough for you to count the pages. All the page numbers referred to in this reply are from the supplemental report. The geotechnical report submitted was performed by an engineering geologist with a valid registration. Mr. Chris Post, of Earth Systems Design Group, said that the wrong stamp was used and that he would contact Mr. Artim. COMMENT A (see, page 6, section D) "This document has been prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in coastal processes and is a supplement to the existing geotechnical reports. As the engineer of record I certify that the proposed seawall will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff and will not endanger life or property. The proposed seawall will be reasonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime." COMMENT B (see, page 9, 1st paragraph) "In my expert professional opinion, the location, geometry, and installation of the proposed seawall will not contribute to geologic instability over its lifetime. The geotechnical report contains a stability analysis." 619 S.VULCAN AVE, it 2I4B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHoNE/FAx 619 942 -8379 Ernest R. Artim Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Project Number 93 -65 August 24, 1993 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Attention: Mr. Tom Curriden Associate Planner Subject: Third Party Review of Geotechnical Report Prepared for 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas CASE NUMBER: 93 -163 MUP /EIA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 007039 REQ. NO: 0000007630 FINANCE NUMBER: 1598EN APPLICANT: Denver /Canter PROJECT LOCATION: 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue References: 1. City of Encinitas, Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91 -19. 2. Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune III Project, 137, 144, 150, 164, and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Earth Systems Design Group, dated February 13, 1993, Job No. E0083. 3. Seawall 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Skelly Engineering, dated July 30, 1993. 4. Seawall and Lower Bluff Stabilization, 164 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California; by Nowak - Meulmester and Associates, dated 13 August 1993, Job No. 93 -049 (plans and calculations). 5. Seawall and Lower Bluff Stabilization, 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California; by Nowak - Meulmester and Associates dated 13 August 1993, Job No. 93 -050 (plans and calculations). 8. City of Encinitas Documents including the following: Project Review Request, Permit Application Form, Statement of Justification, Application Supplement, and Application for EIS. 355 Greenwood Place • Bonita • California 91902 • (619) 421 -3464 Page 2 Project Number 93 -65 August 24, 1993 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization dated August 17, 1993, we are pleased to submit the following review of the geotechnical site report. Our review has been performed to see if the report provides information to adequately meet the meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D as amended by Ordinance 91 -19 (reference 1). We note that the report (reference 2) dated February 13, 1993 has been signed by an engineering geologist whose stamp indicates expiration date of 6- 30 -92. This report is not valid unless and until it has been reviewed and signed by a engineering geologist with current registration. The report (reference 2) addresses several sites along the west side of Neptune Avenue; however, our review is limited to those aspects that affect 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In general, the reference report 2 appears to adequately address the site soil and geological conditions, except for key items requested within reference 1. The site soil and geologic conditions described in the reference report appear to be complete except for the exclusion of the items listed in the next section. REVIEW DETAIL COMMENTS In accordance with the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020 C and D, as amended by Ordinance 91 -19, certain key criteria are requested to be contained in soils and geotechnical reports. Certain items that do not appear to have been addressed, or that may have a negative impact for the site and adjacent sites, are listed below: A. Each report shall certify that the development proposed will have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and that any proposed structure or facility is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its lifetime. Page 3 Project Number 93 -65 August 24, 1993 B. The report shall also express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed or located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. C. Protective devices at the bluff base shall be designed so that additional erosion will not occur at the ends because of the devices. The report needs a discussion regarding this factor. D. Impact of construction activity on the stability of the site and adjacent areas. The report needs a discussion regarding this factor. CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS While sections of the consultants report (reference 2) appear to be complete, other aspects of the report, as outlined above, require response in the form of professional opinions, and certification statements. The report is not valid until signed by an engineering geologist with current registration. Should you have any questions, or require additional service, please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, 'A Ernest Artim CEG 1084; exp. 6 -30 -94 Distribution: (3) addressee Exp.Ne. 8J301084 N4 >; _ ' Recording Requested By: ) City of Encinitas ) When Recorded Mail To: ) City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92029 ) THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUKENT WAS RECORDED ON MAY 04, 1999 DOD" MO)EER 1999 - 0299010 GREGORY J. SMITH, COIAITY RECORDER SAN DIEGO CM REM'S OFFICE TDE: 10:30 AM SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel No. 256- 371 -18 Case No. 93- 163MUP Permit No. 5968PE W.O. No. Fee A. Stanley Canter, as Trustee of the Stanley Canter Family Trust, U /D /T dated April 15, 1981, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 172 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 ADA /jsg /pe5968h.docl 10el0a 1 JAN 90 opportu�}yt,{�,q;resond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROP" dkf V6 st 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 CAND GREED: Dated Dated (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated by Alan D. Archibald, P.E. (Notarization not required) Director of Engineering Services ADA /jsg /pe5968h.doc2 10e10a 1 JAN 90 11 t State of L County of a �}t% On /` ` before me o. (n PAJ-4()fC P-l!f6a -C- (DATE) OIAMEmTLE OF OFFICERJ.a.'JANE DOE, NOTARY PUSUC -I personally appeared 1-5/1]X)41C IN AMFISI Of SIGNERISII f ❑ personally known to me -OR -�D OFFICIAL SEAL RANDA G. MILLJOUR 2 e NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA COMM. NO. 1204250 .N DIEGO COUNTY MY COMM. EXP. JAN. 6, 2003 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the sons) whose name(s) Is! re subscribed to the within instrument and owledged to me that e/ he /they uted the same in hi_ er /their authorized c ity(ies), and that b his/ er / their signatures) n the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. (SEAL) I�'i �w(/ 1 —/A & -1 ;1 (SIGN E OFF NOT ) ITlil:11! l KOHI101AI/Jtil The information requested below and in the column to the right is OPTIONAL. Recording of this document is not required by law and is also optional. It could, however, prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to any unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Tals or Type of Document Number Of Pages Date of Oocurnent Sgrterlsl O(her Then Named Above I I' WOLCOTTS FORM $3240 R.r. 3-21 Iprm. clw 8-1A) ®1201 WOLCOTTS FORMS, INC. A.I.I. PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH SIGNER CAPACITYIREPRESENTATION/TWO FINGERPRINTS RIGHT THUMBPRINT (Optional) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNERS) ❑INDIVIOUAL(S) ❑CORPORATE OFFICER(S) nlTUSI DPARTNER(S) OLIMI ED CGENERAL OATTORNEY IN FACT V USTEE(S) A RDIA NICONSERVATOR DOTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: IName of Per.on(.) or Entityfieel RIGHT THUMBPRINT (Optional) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNERISI OINDIVIDUAL(S) OCORPORATE OFFICER(S) (TpI(A OPARTNER(S) ❑LIMITED ❑GENERAL OATTORNEY IN FACT OTRUSTEEIS) O GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR ❑OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (Name of Person[.) or Enfty(iss) II 67775 6324 III e ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT N0. 596SPE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 4 in Block A of Seaside Gardens, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. Excepting therefrom any portion thereof heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. ADA /jsg /pe5968h.doc3 10e10a 1 JAN 90 ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 596SPE 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 against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense 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 /pe5968h.doc4 10e10a 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 /pe5968h.doc5 10e10a 1 JAN 90 ' 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 /pe5968h.doc6 10e10a 1 JAN 90 Recording Requested By City of Encinitas When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92029 U'is DCC # 1999 - 04999010 MAY 04, 1999 10 :30 AM DINO 4 FI 13 SAN DIEGO COWTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY REMW FEES: 26.00 SPACE ABOVE 111111111111111 1999.02 eoio COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HAP14LESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE V I Assessor's Parcel No. 256 - 371 -18 Case No. 93- 163MUP Permit No. 5968PE W.O. No. Fee A. Stanley Canter, as Trustee of the Stanley Canter Family Trust, U /D /T dated April 15, 1981, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 172 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 ADA /jsg /pe5968h.doc1 10e10a 1 JAN 90 10 111111111111111111 1999 - 0299013 Recording Requested By: 4900 City of Encinitas ) When Recorded Mail T DCC # 1999 - 029901; MAY 04, 1999 10:30 AM ai o. ) OFFICIAL RECORDS City Clerk ) SAN DIEGO CDUNT4 RECORDER S OFFICE City of Encinitas ) RED, J. SMITH, CQA(fV � 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) 99�� ((y�� CORDER Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'_$ USE 0, COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: na HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE I Possessor's Parcel �� No. 256- 371 -19 Case No. 93- 163MUP Permit No. 5969VE W.O. No. Fee A. Paul I. Denver, as Trustee of the Denver Family Trust dated April 4, 1986, by Paul I. Denver and Darlene M. Denver, as Trustors, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 164 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 ADA /jsg /pe5969h.doc1 10e10a 1 JAN 90 Recording Requested By: City of Encinitas When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92029 THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON MAY 04, 1W) DOCUMENT NUMBER 1999-0299013 xBOR4 J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORBER SAN DIEBO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 10:30 AN SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HAMMESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel Case No. 93- 163MUP No. 256- 371 -19 Permit No. 5969PE W.O. No. Fee A. Paul I. Denver, as Trustee of the Denver Family Trust dated April 9, 1986, by Paul I. Denver and Darlene M. Denver, as Trustors, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 169 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 ADA /jsg /pe5969h.doc1 10el0a 1 JAN 90 this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunitk..'-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. 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. N.[KN 0M PLO] DIVA aI7.LM:@21 DIP OWNER Dated 7�l 9 i State of County of j QC��t1 On /q% before me,/Id1l�/] �•,U / <d�i�P �U��% <_ IRATE) (NAME/TITLE OF OFFICER,...'~ DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC'I personally appeared tf)*& T. a4ue— IW4'� Lc` xf, (NAMEISI OF SIGNERISII ❑ personally known to me -0RA:1--) OFFICIAL SEAL RANDA G. MILLJOUR LI NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA COMM. NO. 1204250 — SAN DIEGO COUNTY MY COMM. EXP. JAN. 4 2003 Witness my hand and official seal Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pe !s) whose name (s) I ar�ubscribed to the within instrument and acknow�edcred to me that he /sh h,T~,ey�_ xecuted�thrw same In his /her hei authorized capacity and that by his /he signatures) on the instrument the person(s), Or the entity upon behalf of which the personfs) acted, executed the instrument. ISEALI t/ /r..��i l� (SIGN RE OF NOTARIV ATTENTION NOTARY The information requested below and in the column to the right is OPTIONAL. Recording of this document is not required by law and is also optional. It could, however, prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to any unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: TKk or Type of OGclrmOnt Number of Paper Date of Document Sionerls) Other Then Named Above WOLCOTTS FORM BGIISO Rev. A9{ Iprlce class 9-IAI 01994 WOLCOTTS FOAMS. INC. ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH SIGNER CAPACITYAEPRESENTATIONRWO FINGERPRINTS RIGHT THUMBPRINT IOptionel) 1 �I CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIONERISI OINDIVIDUAL(S) ❑CORPORATE OFFICERISI OPARTNERISI ❑LIMITED ❑GENERAL OATTORNEY IN FACT �STEANI CGUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR DOTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: INeme of Peraonlsl or EntitYfesl RIGHT THUMBPRINT (Optional) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNERIS) OINDIVIDUAL(SI ❑CORPORATE OFFICERS) IntlEfl OPARTNERISI ❑LIMITED ❑GENERAL OATTORNEY IN FACT OTRUSTEE(S) O GU ARDIAN /CONSERVATOR OOTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Warm of Perwnlsl or Entnylles) / II67775 63240 s ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 5969PE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 5 in Block A of Seaside Gardens, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1800, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6, 1924. Excepting therefrom any portion thereof heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. RDA /jsg /pe5969h.doc3 10e10a 1 JAN 90 ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PERMIT NO. 5969PE 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 against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense 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 /pe5969h.doc4 10e10a 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 /pe5969h.doc5 10e10a 1 JAN 90 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. 9. 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 /pe5969h.doc6 10e10a 1 JAN 90 t SKELLY ENGINEERING January 25, 2001 Drs. Paul Denver & Stanley Canter 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: Seawall Inspection 164 & 172 Neptune Ave, Encinitas, CA. Dear Sirs: nni i� FEB 5 2001 , — - -- - At your request we are please to present this letter report concerning our recent inspection of the seawall below the subject property. The seawall was inspected on January 23, 2001 at low tide. The seawall is a cast in placed steel reinforced concrete wall. The wall has been sculpted and colored to match the adjacent natural bluff. The following photograph shows the condition of the wall on the day of the inspection. 619S. VULCAN AVE, #214B ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHOHEJ760 942 -8379 FAX 942 -3686 t SKELLY ENGINEERING The wall is less than two years old and in excellent condition. The drains in the wall appear to be functioning as intended. The concrete at the base of the wall shows typical signs of cobble abrasion with some loss of color. The unprotected bluff on either end of the wall shows no signs of differential erosion or exacerbated erosion due to the presence of the wall. In summary, the wall is in excellent condition and requires no maintenance or repair at this time. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at the number below. Sincerely, David W. Skelly MS,PE RCE#47857 ds:ks 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #214B ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONEJ 76O 942 -8379 Fax 942.3686 Jeff Garami - e: Denver /Canter MUP 931 r3— From: Diane Langager To: Jeff Garami Date: 11/18/99 11:51 AM Subject: Re: Denver /Canter MUP 93 -163 They need coastal commission approval before I can sign off.... As far as I know they have not received it yet. Page 1 <:�-+� ql �� (--?4 ---� jwv�,&�9 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAN 7606333472 SEC z hill W CAL/04M -T ff RMEMaint •onbaY _ CALTORNIA COAS-TAL C ®fm m13610rl •s+a o�too wA I'll CAUm =L IUD 0=m uvrre w Die= a +n uiA COA,.STtll. ❑'1»?.OPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98-39 Page 1 of 7 On November 5, 1998 , the Califurnir: CO23t9l COtrlmie3ion granted to Stan lei Cantor and Paul Dever this izmu for the development descn'bed below, subject to the attactwd Standard and 5pcclal Conditions. Demipaon: Consauction o:, a 13 ft, high, a rox taly 80 fL long seawall at tbo base of a coastal bluff frosting h" picp :ti:a, oath wntaining a slagie- family residence. Site: On public bearb fronting 164 erd 172 Ncptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Dioso County. Issued on behalf of the Celdbraia Coastal Commix3lon by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Dirwor and IMPORTANT- THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL. A COPY OF THE PERMIT WrFH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDOW T HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE CO1^USSION OFFICE. ACI''N0591.,FDGMENf 1w vA.raitpacd pmwttse acimowic4n receipt of this pa ct and agaves to abide by all terms and contSi�;^z � ivSW cof. r Mly�� MAY 5 1999 I1 Dam' SI&u ttre of Pemlimm CALIFORNIA GOASTAI COMM15510N SAN D :EGO COAST DISTRICT 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7006333372 SEC Fn COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, G -98 -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Nodce of Receipt and Acknowirdflmeazt. The permit is not valid and davolopt=At shall not commenca until a copy of tbo p.—=4 signed by the permitko or authorized agent, acknowledging rrccipt of the p^trit and acceptance of the term and conditions, is rctumed to the Commimion oOke. 2. FiMiratio a. If developer at has rot carAc±ea- -4d, the permit will expire two years from the dam on which iho Commission voted an the apocatiou. Development shall be punucd in a diligaat trt== turd eomplated in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiradoo date. 3. Compliance. All developmcur must oscuz in strict compliance with the proposal as set lbtth below. Any devialion from th-4 ug}rervod pleas must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may requlro Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any queTtions of Intent or interpretation of any coadidoa will be resolved by the Executive Director or thr Cornmissiom 5. Lwper cue. Me Cormniasion std Shrv.0 ba allowed to import tho Site and the developmesrt during construction, sulrert to 24 -hour advenoe nodce. 6. Assipnmern The permit may ba asAtmed to any qualified lsenon. provided assignee files with the Commission an afl:davi-, scripting all terms and conditions of tite penult. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Lmd. ihm terms sad coaditians ahall be perpcwA], lad it is the intrmEion of thin CarnzWmion and the permittee to bind all futum OW11cm end PW CVr5 Of the 0,11N,-at PM M. to the terms and coudidons. SPECIP.L CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following condition: I. Ftnsl Plans. PRIOR TO THIS ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PEIiW7. the applieaot ahnU submit for review and wnthm approval of the Executive Director, final seawall, site, Iratd9eape, irrigation and drainage plans that include the following recanxrra to mitigarrr tho impacts of the seawall and adrfraa overall site stability. Said plane shall first be apn vwcd by the City of Encinitas and include the following! e. Sufbcient "I regarding th© corimuctioa method and technology utilized for timmrin<q and coloting dio seawall. Said plaza shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that dto seawall color end wxvum closely mambes the adjacent 1 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7600339472 SEC gym. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -99 -39 Page 3 of 7 natural bluffs, including provision of o color bowd indicating the color of the fill material. b. The seawall ahaQ conform as closely c, roamble to the aatttral contour of the bluff. c. Airy existing permancnt irrigation system located within the geologic setback area (40 feet from the bluff edge) shall be removed or upped. d All runoff from Impervious surface on fire site shall be eolloewd and directed away fiom the bluff edge towards tho street and shall avoid pouding of the pad area. c. Exiatiag accessory 9mictutea in the geologic setha k area shall be dewled and dmu7t to scale on the 9ael approved sitr alga. Modifications which would serve to increase the blufilvp sotback for such awry' saUCMMs shall be permitted. f. During construction of the approved develaptaent, diaturbaum to sand and intertidal areas shall be rriia�d to the Maximum CCW feasible. All ettcavated beach nand shall be rcdeposited on the bomb. Local saad, cobbles or aboreline rocks shall not be used for backfifl or for any other purpose as constitution mstcriaL The permittee shall undertake the develo*unt in aceor4an with the approved plans. Any proposed changes oo the approved pleps s1kati be reported to the Executive Director. No chaages to tba plans aball occur withuut a Coastal Commission approved amendment to tais coastal development permit unless the 13=outiva Director d+nasmines that oa amendment is required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Send Sunni, PR1OR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PP_RM1T, each applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and cotton acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of S 10,757.25 bm been deposited In an interest bearma account denignmad by the Encutive Director, in -lieu of providing rind to replace the sand and beach errrt first would be lost due to the imports of the proposed pmtectivo etrocrurs. The methodnlogy uaod to dorermfne the appropriate mitigation fee for the sobjeoi sitc(e) is that dea � W in tho staff report dated 1012wgg prepared for coastal developrnern pettnit #6- 93 -39. All rote= eamsd shall be payable to the account for the purpmm stated below. 'ilia purpose of the weamu shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid 0!.?IDAC, so a Cettwlmion appoved alsa::ule onrh , to the motomtion of th. tmnhan within San Diego County. The Rmds &hail solely be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's b.acbas, not to find opaetium, maiutensaco or planning studies. The fun& shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Cosatsl Cort mission. Ili¢ Atnds shall be released u provided for in a MOA bemom SANDAG, or a Commi"ion•approvod alternate entity, and the Commission, sating forth tans turd condition., to a9sure that the in -lieu foe will be expended in the manner intended by the Commies ion. In the eves the MOA is terminated, the Commission can appoint art altci�nzivc entity to administer the fund. 10/31/2000 15:N FAX 7606333472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 6 -98 -39 Page 4 of 7 3. Monimri Proms_. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERvII7, the applimmt sbal! uubmit to the E,xacueive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring P►yllrum PrcPmvd by A licensed Volagist or geotcchnical engineer for the cite and seawall which provides for the following: a. Aa evaluation taken every thima suers of the condition and perfolmamm of the seawall. addressing whetbor any aignificem weslheriag or damage has occurred that would adversely impact tlm future psfformance of the seawall including an aasessolent of the color and teiilac of the wall, K Measu =cats taken every thrco ycora of the distance betweea each rcsldemta and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) at 6 or more Iocatioah. The locations for these mczwuremsata sball be the same an those idtvtifred on the es-bat plans required in Special Condition N7 of this pertnit, and idantified through petmen:nt mwkarL, benchmUrks, survey position, writUm dcroription. stn. an that annual measuremeata can be taken at the mmo bluff location and eompeABoaa between years can provide information on bluff roarer. c. Meazuremenb taken every three years of any diffbrential retreat between the nanrrnl bluff face and the seawall fpse, at both ends of the smwall and ra 20.1oot intervals (mmdrnum) slang the top of tlto seawall fambluff face iatrrsemon. Ths program shall describe the method by which such measuremants shall be taken. d. ProvisiQns for submittal of a report to epee Executive Director of the Coastal Cornsni"ion on May 1 Ivory tbrct•, yr= (&rat MWM to be submitted Huse years after cousavctioa of the pmject is ooarpletild, and every three yeah thereafter). fur die life of tiro project. Each MI)nrl shall b` prepared by a Uccused gcolagist or geow- bmizel mglaecr. The report alrek contain the meaatamtojeats and evaluation required m sections o. b, mud c above. The report duw also rtmsma IM all me==zmts and provide come analysis of trends, terminal MMM or rata of mtrsat, and th9 stability of tits oventll bluff face, including the upper bluff aura, and rho impact of the 365ws11 an the bluffs rn either aide of the wall, which do ant iocludo tbo construc$on of savcama on the fhce of the bluff in addition, tech report shall contain recommendations, if any, for aecMtary mains ante, rte, changes or modification to the project. The perrn'ttee shall and riche monitoring is accorxteoeo with the approved plan. Any Proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plan shall occur without a C048194 Commission approved arnmdmert to this coastal developm= permit tudess the F:xmnvo Director determines tiler ao atncndm= is rmquuO. 4. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shA ll execute and record a deed restriction 10/91/2000 15:24 FAX 7600333472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -98 -39 Paee S of 7 against the twv bluffiop parcels in a form and content aweptable to the FUIP"vo Director, which shall provide that no additionsl bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constnrcted on the f4acent public bluff face or beach unless the altcmetivOS required belnw are demonstrated to be infemible. In the event any bluff or additional shoreline protective work is coaaidcrcd on public property in the future. the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of Sling an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Coromiaslon and the City of Encinitas with suf£xieut evidence enabling it m consider ail altenadlvcz to bluff or shoreline protective, works tbu will elfmirratc additional impacts to public roaowc.a, including, but not limited to, removal of acceadorY etttrctures (patios, docks, em.), installation of s beloar -grade retention system seawtad of the residential stavat uea on the applicant's property, underpinning of the resideattal structures, relaeation of portions of the residences that are threaened, or odw remedial rneasuces ctmable of stabilizing ttm principle structure and providing reasonable %I- I ,C 9, the property, vail'Act onn3tructinn rr"lufior shocaliee stabilization devices ou the adjacent public roaowcce Le coastal bluffs and bwohas The document shall be recorded froo of all prior licttz and ancumbnurcm and shall rim with the land and bind all succeasuta and aaslgne. S. Crrovndvoer lmparta. Plane fbr ttio ittam110tiott of h,Ydrsugm in the blu& the construction of wells don3 the eastern lo pmy liana,,, or other siaular meaoa to reduce the potential for groundwater to reach the bluff P --.eo, $ball be submitted to the Eteoutiva Director for review and written approval, i& from examination of soil baring and site inspections during seawall construction, the project enF1nm should determinc that groundwater and its potential to trigger block Ibllures exists. Said groundwater system shall be installed concurrent with eoassoctioa of tiro seawall. In addition, a maintenance program for such growtdw= removal systcras abali also be submitted and receive written approval of the Exacutivo Director. However, anY chaaged to the approved seawall proposed as a result of rho pmence of gtotmdwater, shall regalia the review and approval of the Comatiaaioa througb an etnwarim=w this eoaeral development permit Said program sball asnso the system epprov A Lout is mAdntainod for a&cimt operation at all tirres 6. ASSurnoton of Rink: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPN(FNT PEILMIT, the applicant fanr'.l landowner) shall execute and record a deed resbiction, in o fomt and corfreat ttecsptablo to the Executive Director, which shall provide: (a) that the applicmt understands that the nits May be subject to axuwndittatY hazard from bluff collapse and erosion and the applicant assume$ the liabuhtY f1rom ouch hazards; and (b) the applicant uncondltlotaslly waives any claim of liability on the pan of the Commission ur its suceassors in inure2t for damage from such beards and eg M to tndetunify and hold harmless the Commission, its officer, agents, and ertrployets relative to the Commission's aWmvul of the project for any damage due to annual hazards, The deed restriction shell tun with the Lund, bindin all successors and auism and aball be recorded fYee of prior liens that the Executitivc Director dakrmincs may aHbct the enforceability of tha ruotrict106. r 10/31/2000 15:24 FAX 7008353472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMENT pFF NflT NO. 6-90.39 Page 6 of 7 This deed restriction shall out be removed or cbaullo Without COA3W Coom Direcaoa.r approved amendment to this coastal dCvClopn=t pE iai the detertr Ines that no ttmendmartt is mquirad. 7. Storm Desi As-Bullt Pleas. PRIOR TO ilk ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, d;e app icard shall submit cettifieatiort by is registered oivU engineer that the proposed sborelino protective device b designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1992 -93. Within 60 days following completion of the projtOU the permutes shall submit wbuilt plena of the approved seawall which inCludea t.'taa Umments of the distance between each msidence and bluff edge (as defined by Scchon 13577 of the Califvmia Coda of Regulations) taken at 6 or more l0ceric` The locations for these toeaauremeata shall be identified through permanent marken. ba>rhrnarks, survey Pe°t on, written dawrfptien. etc. to allow annual mcastucments to be takme at the same bluff location and carapariaoDs between yea=s to provide iaformatia on bhl8'rulrolt. in addition within 60 days fulluwisg cornplONDa of the Pmjoc% the peemittee [hall submit cattification b9 a registered civil ongina€r, sccePtable to the Executive Director. verifying the seawall has beef 00n= oted in o,ufarsnrtee with the approved plane for the project. 8• Staging Areas/Access CarridoMMIT1lna of Conat uc ion PRIOR TO THE IsSUANCE OF TIIE COASTAL DEVELOP PERMIT. the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for rrri: w and writ o approval, final plans indicating the location and access corridors iC the coastra:tiou a1w and stsgtng seas. The Seal plans shall indicate tbz: a_ No staging of equipment or mstcrials sh&U occur on sandy beach or public pudr 2a areas. During both the coasU ien and the =oval stegm of the project, the pa mittee shall not adore any coastructinu materiab ra west: Where it will be or could Potexoally be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be plat4 swn d or otherwise loeaaad in the intertidal mnu at TmY b rro. b. Accasa corridors shall ba located in a tncW-s thst ltaa the least impact on public ecce55 to and along the showlinc. c. No work aha6 occur on the beach benvma Memorial Day weekend and Labar DaY Of any year. d. The applicant shall subarit evidence thot 6'te approved planslnntas have been incorporated into construction bid docwncrtts. Ybv staging site shall be removed ardlor restored immodiawly follow nq completion of" development. The pernittee shall widertako the dovelopttceot its accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plaice almll be rapotted to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a CDarrml Commission approved amendmen 0, 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7008333472 SEC COASTAL DEvELOPMiIT PERMIT NO. 6 -93.39 Page 7 of 7 to this coastal development pout unicss tLe a— cative Diector deterrniaes that no s nendment is req&ed- 9. U.S. Army Co tpt of Fnginean Permit. Prior to contruencemcat of con5trtrrdon. the permittae shall provide to the &emdve Director a copy of a U.S. Army Corps of Engitloers pecuit, or letwr of permission, or evidence that no Corps permit Is necemmy. Any mitigation mcwtuos or other chmges to the prvjoet rvgWrad through sold permit ahall be repotted to the Executive Director and shall become part of the project Such modi fications, if any, may requuc an amaadm.tast to tins pmmh or a separem eoatttal devcloptnentpermit 10. Future MainteuancafDebris RentaV @I. ttlrtWn 15 days of completion of conamretion of the protmdvc devim the permitter shall remove all debris deposited on the beach or in the water during end after construction of the ahordine protective devices or resulting from failure or damage of the shoreline protective device. in addition, the permittee shall ntaintaln the perMined scawell In its approved state cmapt to the extent necessary to comply with the requalumew rat forth bdow. Malatenance of the seawall shall include maiatalnlag the color, tax= aQ4 integrity. Any change is the draft of the project or future additiom/reinforeoment of the seawall beyond minor mgmuttng or other exempt mainteriarce as defined in Section 13252 of the CLbfomia Code of Regulations to restore the seawall to its original condition el approved herein, will require a coastal development perroit. However, in atl case!, if aftis inspection. it is apparent that repair and mainmance is neeeasary, rho pe7mittec abPA contact the Commission office to dctermins whether pamuts era accessary. (owuc. Ql 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7808353472 SEC �,jI I,•.• m c W'a•.0 . � IrcowJmp •Owe' ann mum CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ux o coo AltLA Jill Ch" a[l I® maTM, aU1T2 CC W aae4 d •rm►Ift/ pill mJe1, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMfrNO, 6 -98.39 Page I of 7 On November 5, 1998 the Califomia Coastal Commission granted to Stanley Cantor and PaW Denver this permit for the development described below, subject to the anacbcd Standard and Special Coadldons- Description' Construction of a 13 ft. hleh, approximately 80 ft long seawall at the base of a coastal bluff fronting two properties, each containing a aingle- family residence. Site: On public beach fronting 154t rind 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Exomitive Dissctor and IMPORTANT: THIS PF.Rhf1T IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THG PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thu undersigned pennittec acknowledges receipt of this permit and agtew to abide by all terms and conditions thcroof, s IDS MAY 5 1999 Date Signature of Permitter CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMIS51ON SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7000333472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PP.RMTT NO. 6-9t -39 Page 2 of 7 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Ackaowledlgaent. The permit is not valid and development shall not commepce until a copy of the permit, signed by the permltteo or ai tborized agesrt, acknowledging receipt of the permit and aeoeptanee of the terms and conditions, is returned to, the Commission office. 2. Expiration If development has not commenced, the permit will wtpine two years froth the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development ahall be pursued in it diligent nrunncr and camplcted in a reasonable period of time. Application for ertemien of the permit must be made prior to the expiation data. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliuxt with the proposal m act forth below. Any devlation Prom the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the alaff and may require Comtttiesion approval. 4. Interpretation. Any que3dons of inttat or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. S. Impectiorm The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to airy qualified person, provided a3sipoce files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all tome and conditions of the permit. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions ahall be perpcnral, and it is the icttmion of the Ckiminis3ion and the pentrittee to bind all Nture owners and possessors of the subject property to the tarms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is sub*t to rite following conditions: 1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO TiIE ISSUANCR OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMWT PERMIT, the applicant shall aubmlt for review end written approval of the Executive Director, 6rta! seawall, site, landscape, irrigation and drainage plans that include tho following measures to mitigate the impacts of the seawall and Addte38 overall sits nubility. Said plans shall fist be approved by the City of PaciniUs and include the following: a. Sufficient drail regarding the construction method and technology utilizad for texturing and coloring the seawall. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and vvcture closely matches the adjacent 1►sID 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7808333472 SEC COASTAL DEVFLOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -96 -39 Page 3 of 7 natural bluffs. including provision of i, color board iadleating the color of the fill material. b. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff' C. Any existing permanent irrigation syutem located within the geologic setback area (40 feet fiom the bluff edge) shalt be rcrnovrd or capped. d. Ail runoff from Impervious surfaces on the site shall be call acted and directed away from the bluff edge Towards the 5truct and shall avoid pending of the pad arcs. e. Existing accessory structturs in the geologic setback area "I be detailed and drawn to scale on the final approved site pith. Modifieadona which would serve to increase the blufftop setback for such accamDry structures shall be permitted. F. During conatruction of the approved dtrvolopment, disturbance to stumd and intertidal areas shall be ramnimimcd to the raaximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backfill or for any other purpose u construction material. The permitter shalI undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plana shall be reported to the Executive Dlrecmr. No changes to the plane shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved ttmemdmont to thin coastal development permit unless the Exeetttive Director determines that no amendment is required. 2. Mitigption for Impacts T Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, each applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of 510,757.25 bm been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Dircctvr, in -lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that wound be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structw-e. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject sitc(s) is that described in the staff report dated 10/2o/98 prepared for coastal development permit 46- 98 -39. All interest earned shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The purpose of the account shall be to establiPh a beach and replenishment fund to aid SAN DAG, er a Commission - approved ahenlstp gushy, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall sn!7Iy be used to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fnlyd operations, maintenance or planning studies. The fonds shall be rolmed only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of tltc Coastal Commission. The finds shall be released as providod for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission- apprwcd alternsto cnnty, and the Commission. setting forth terms and conditions to ensure that the in -lieu fee will bo expended in the manner intended by the Commission. In the event the MOA is mrntirtated, the Commission can appoint an altomative entity to administer the fwtd. M to /31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7006333472 SEC ___ Z COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6.98 -39 Page 4 of 7 3. Monitoring Prouram. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to rife Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a lleenaed geologist or geotechnical engineer for the site and seawall which provides for the following; a. An evaluation taken every three ycrus of the condition and performance of the seawall, addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the flatus perfomunco of the seawall including an assessment of uhe color snd texture of the wall. b. Measurements taken every three yeers of the distance between each residence and the bluff edgo (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) at 6 or more locations. The locations for these man uremea% shall be the same as those identified on the a&-built plans required in Special Condition H7 of this permit, and identified through pmmamnt marker, bcaelunarks, survey position, wrlluam dororiptlon, etc. so that annual measurements can be taken at the acres bluff location and comparisons between years run provide information on bluff irCeat. c. Measurements taken every three ycars of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall frrr, at both ends of the seawall and at 20•foot intervals (meoftum) along the top of the seawall fscoAblufiface inteesoolion. The program shall dcocribc the method by which such measurements shall be taken. Pro-, isioas for submittal of a report to the Exeetaiva Director of the Coeatal Commission on May 1 every Herz~ ycurs (first report to be submitted throe yeah after onnstruction of the project is Complotod, and every three year d%rM %=). for the life of the project. Each report shall bz prepared by a licensed geologist or geoccchaical engineer. Tho report !ball contain the meeatlrernents and evaluation required In suctions a, b, and a above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and provide some analysis of trends, annual retreat or rata of rettroat, and the stability of the overall bluff face, including %be upper bluff area, and Ube impact of the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall, which do not include the construction of structures on the face of the bluff. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for neceeaery maintenance, repair, changes or modifeations to the project. The petmittea shall undertake monitoring In esoocdanco with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall bo reported to the Executive Director, No changes to the plan shall occur without a Coeuwl Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Euxcwstivo Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. Future Response to Erosion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DLVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall cxoarte and lecmd a deed restriction 10/31/2000 15:24 FAX 7606333472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMBNT PERNUI NO. 6A8 -39 .� Page 5 of 7 against the two bluffiop parcels in a form and con.ent acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no additional bluff or shoreline protective devic s shall be constructed on the adjaccat public bluff f"o or beach unless the alteasativee royuircd below are demonstrated to be infeasible. in the event sty bluff or additional shoreline protective work is considered on public proparry in the future, the applicants acknowledge that as a condition of filing an application for a coastal development permit, the applicants must provide the Commission and the City of Encinitas with sufficient evidence enabling it to consider all alternatives to bluff or shoreline protective works that will eliminate additional impacts to public resources, including, but not United to, removal of acces60ry structures (patios, decks, etc), installation of a below•grsde retention system seaward of the residential structures on the applicant's property, underpinning of the maidantial structures, ralocation of portions of the msidcnwm that arc threatened, or other remedial mcaaures capable of stabilizing the principle ettuchme and providing reasonable use of the property, without construction of bluff or shoreline stabilization devices on the adjacent public resource, i.o coastal bluffle and beaches. The document shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrsnces and shall nut with the land and hind all succomurs and wsigns. 5. Groundwater Impacts Plans for the installation of hydraugers in the bluff, the constracuon of weU3 along the eastern property line, or other similar means to reduce the potential far groundwater to reach the bluff Nee, shall be submitted to the Executive Ditector for review and written approval, if, from examination of soil borings and site Inspections during seawall construction, the projoet ongineer should determine that groundwater and its potentinl to trigger block fhiluucs WSW. Said groundwater system shall be installed concurrent with construction of the seawall. In addition, a maintenance program for such groundwater removed systems shall also be submitted and receive written approval of the Executive Director. however, any changes to the approved seawall proposed as a result of die presence of groundwater. shall require the review and approval of the Commission through an amendment to this coastal development permit. Said program shall assure the system gpprovw Heroin is maintained for efYlcicat operation at all times. 6. Assumption of Risk: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMi'WT PERMIT, the applicant [and landowner] shall execute and record a decd restriction, in a form and cootent acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide: (e) that the applicant understands that the situ may be subject to extraordinary hazard from bluff collapso and erosion and the applicant assumes the liability from such hauuds; and (b) the applicant unconditionally waives Any Claim of liability on the part of the Commission or its succcaacm in interest for damage from such hazards and agrees to indemnify and hold batmlosa the Commission, its otihccrs, agents, and eraployees relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hsmrda. The dead restriction shall tun with the land, binding all eueceasors and aesigna, and shall be recorded free of prior hens that the Excu"vc Director determines may affect the eoforccability of the restriction. Z 1. 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7606333472 SEC COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMM NO. 6 -98 -39 Page 6 of 7 This decd raatrietioo al ll not be rcmtrvcd or changed wlthnut a Coastal Commission - approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director detertnittes that nn amendment Is required. 7. Storm Dcsign/As -Built Plane. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT HERMIT, the applicant shall submit certification by a registarW civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective device is designed to withstand storms eamparable to the winter storms of 1982 -83. Within 60 days following completion of tho project, U= perminee shall submit as -built Places of the approved seawall which includes mzmuretnents of the dimlertce between each residence and bluff edge (as defined by Sertivn 13577 of the Ca ifarnia Code of Regulations) taken at 6 or more locations. The locations fbr these rlleaeutvu=ts ahal1 be identified drrough is rm Lnr markers, benchmarks, survey position, wriman description. ate. to allow annual mcasracments to be taken at the same bluff location and comparisons betw= years to provide informatin on bluff retreat. In addition, within 60 days following completioa of the prgjeet, the petmittee shall submit certification by a rcgistctcd civil ongincer, acceptable to the Executive Director, verifying the seawall has been constructed in conformance with the approved plans for the project. S. Stapunm Areasi/Accam Corridorw7f I A of Construction PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, tiro applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final plans indicating the location and access corridors to the construction situ and staging areas. The 6na1 plans shall indicate that: a. No staging of equiptnem or materials shall occur on sandy beach or public panting Ueus. During both the construction end the removal stages of ttm project, the PC =e shall not store any construction materials or waate where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion. In addition, no machinery shall be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time. b. Access corridors shall be locatrd in a manner that has the least impact on public access to and along the shoreline. c, No work shell occur on the beach between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day of any year. d. The applloaet shall subtalt ovidemce that the approved plttna/notes have been incorporated into construction bid documents. The 6taging site shall be tunovod and/or restored immediately following completion of the development. The permin" shall undenako tho development in accordance with the &Moved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans ball be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plane 3he11 occur without a Coastal Commission approved vncndmcni 10/31 /2000 15:24 FAX 7606333472 SL(" COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PEn1IT NO. 5.98.39 v . Page 7 of 7 to this coastal development pennit unless the Exerutivc Director determines that no amendment is required. 9. U S. Army Corps of Perms Permit Prior w comme icemew of wasrruction, the pctnuttee shall provide to the Executive Dhector a copy of a U.S. Army Catps of Engineers permit, or letter ofpumissiort, or evidence that no Corps permit is necessary. Any mitigadon maasursa or other changes to the project required through said parmlt shall be reported to the Executive Director and shall become part of the project. Such modifications, If any, may require an amendment to this permit or a separate coastal development permit, 10- Future Mairncrunw/Dcbrin Rxmoval. Within 15 days of completion of construcuon of the protective device the permitive shall remove all debris deposited on the beech or in the water during and after construction of the ehareline protective devices or resulting from failure or d6mage of tho ahoralino protective device. In sddition, the permittee shall maintain ttto permitted seawall in its approved state except to the extent necessary to comply with tho rcquirerncnts set forth below, - MAintmanea of tht: seawall shell include maintaining the color, textutc and integrity. Any chautge in this design of the project or firttue additiona/rcinforccmect of the stawall beyond minor regrouting or other exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Rcguialiorm to restore tiro seawull to its original condition as approved herein, will require a coa3W development permit. However, In all cases, if after inspection, it is epperwt that repair and maintenance is necessary, the permittee ahell contact the Commission oMce to dctermino whcdtcr permita tits noocmary. E] 1 DATE CITY OF ENCINITAS TRANS. DATE JOURNAL TRANSACTION ENTRY FORM )CUMENT # 2OUP DESCRIPTION BATCH NO, FINANCE PERIOD TANS. LATE ACCOUNT NUMBER MEMO PROJ. # DEBIT CREDIT TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION REFERENCE Originator: Finance Approval: Total Debits Total Credits Approval: Entered By: G: \FORMWe2.xIs Batch Count EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions" February 13, 1993 138, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue c/o Mr. Paul Denver 164 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Re: Job No. E0083 GROUP Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune III Project, 137, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Dear Homeowners, At your request Earth Systems Design Group has prepared a topographic map of your properties extending from Neptune Avenue to the beach and has performed a geotechnical investigation of the coastal bluff with respect to stability. Our findings and recommendations are presented herein. The field observations indicate that the coastal bluff along the subject properties exposes two geologic units. Each of these units has, and likely will experience stability problems in the future that may effect safety and property value. This phase of our analysis only addresses the design of a rip rap seawall as directed by the homeowners. The upper zone (terrace deposits) has been evaluated within the geotechnical report; however, specific recommendations relative to the stabilization of the upper slope is not addressed herein. If there are any questions or issues that need clarification please contact this firm at any time. Principal Engine RCE #35007 CEL /lN? GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A • SAN n 1 Andrew E. Farkas EG #1185 (619) 471 -6351 N.C.E.E. 01170 • CA. R.C.E. IC -22096 • AR2. R.0 -E. 011971 • NEV. R.C.E. I J7 • WA. C.E. IID776 CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, AND SOILS ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY . SURVEY • CERTIFIED INSFECTION . SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING . FEASIBILITY STUDIES • CONTRACT MANAGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION PAGE 2.0 SCOPE 1 3.0 GENERAL SITE COVDITIONS 1 3.1 Site Description I 3.2 Beach and Blu "f Cc,nditians 3.3 Subsurface and Surface Exploration 3 3.4 Laboratory Testing 3 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CO\DITIONZ 3 4.1 Weathered Soil Deposits (Topsoi'_) 4.2 Quaternary T. mace Dc,.a ;.' Torrey .. : armation (Tt; 4 4.4 Deach D::,.osit:: (M" 5 4.5 5 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING, 5 5.1 Regional Geologic Setting 5 5.2 Regional and Local FaulLi. g C 5.3 Seismicity 6 5.4 Liq :a-I 5 5.5 Ground Failurc 5.5 Sca Cif F..::reat 7 5.6.1 StabIlizine CharacterL;t :cs 7 5.6.2 Destabilizing CharacterisUcs 7 -8 5.7 Landsliding and slope Stabil'% P. 5.8 Cliff Stabilit nd ^; :: icr. g_n 5.9 Slope Stability- Analysis: 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION'S 9 6.1 Conclusions 9 G.2 Recommendations 10 .additional Exploration 10 -11 Closure 11 APPENDIV APPENDIX A References APPENDLt S General EartLaork and Grading Cuidelinoc PLATE VICINITY MAP 1 GENERAL SITE PLA" CR* ^E%- SECTIONS 3 -7 LOG Or CORrTCS DI -21Aa DIRECT SHEAR. TEST RESULTS C1 -C2 SLOPE STABILITY CIRCLES D1 -D2 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION NEPTUNE III PROJECT, 138, 144, 150, 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request we have performed a geotechnical and geological investigation of the site located at 138, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the hazard(s) to existing structures on top of the bluff and provide conclusions and recommendations pertinent to the subject site. 2.0 SCOPE The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: * Review of readily available published and unpublished reports and documents relative to the subject site (see References, Appendix A); s Geological reconnaissance and mapping of the site and sea bluff conditions: s Logging and samplhio of one exploratory boring to a depth of 51.0 feet below pad elevation; a Laboratory testing of representative soil samples; * Engineering and Geologic analysis of field and laboratory data: Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding site conditions and repair alternatives to reduce erosion and the potential for future slope failure. 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Description The subject site is identified as lot nos. 138, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and Site Plan, Figure 2). The existing improvements consist of two and three -story wood frame and stucco buildings with concrete driveways, brick planters and Project No. E -0084 Page No. 2 concrete patios constructed on multi- leveled pads. The site is bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, to the north and south by single family residential structures and to the west, by an approximately 75 feet high steeply westerly sloping sea bluff. The bluff descends onto a sand and gravel beach. Site elevations range from sea level at the westerly project limit, to a high of approximately 79 feet at pad elevation. Neptune Avenue on the east lies roughly 20 feet below building pad grade. Currently, the top edge of the bluff (slope) is situated approximately 18 to 22 feet from the residential structures at the subject site. 3.2 Beach and Bluff Conditions During our site reconnaissance, we observed evidence that suggests on -going erosion and bluff retreat on the subject site and extending to the adjacent properties to the north and south. Characteristics such as, a very unstable, near vertical upper bluff cut, extending approximately 40 feet down from the top edge of the bluff at an estimated rate of Iz to 1 (horizontal to vertical) to the near vertical slope. This section is comprised of weekly cemented to culiesionless sands and sandstones. The slope descends to a near vertical 10 to 12 foot high wall built on top of the more dense Torrey Sandstone. Additional characteristics are, the undermining of the lower portion of the bluff face, which is exposed to direct wave action. No evidence of jointed sandstone and \or sandstone blocks were observed at the base of the bluff, although sume minor tension cracks were found running parallel to the face of the bluff (in a generally north south direction) just above the undermined sandstone. Additionally, erosion gullies were observed on the upper portion of the bluff possibly caused in part by exposure to precipitation, wind, landscape maintenance and loss of support from the lower portion of bluff. At zero tide, the water line of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 50 feet measured laterally from the base of the sea bluff. During periods of high tides ocean swells often impact the base of the bluff. The near -shore beach environment west of the site generally consists of a gently westward sloping wave -cut shelf of moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone. These cemented sandstones were noted to be massive, fine to medium grained, cross- bedded and competent. This unit is visible as an outcrop exposed from beneath sand, gravel and cobble beach deposits and extends to form a 25 to 26 foot high near vertical sea cliff at the base of the bluff. The lower portion of this unit exhibits Project No. E -0084 Page No. 3 undermining caused possibly by the impact of the wave induced movement of the sand, gravel and cobbles and the wave itself against the bluff during high tide. This undermining extends from the base to approximately 5 feet high. Unconformably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of 29.0 feet to the bluff top, are the Quaternary -aged terrace deposits, consisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandstones. These materials are weakly cemented, massive. fine to medium- grained silty sands and sandstones which are naturally weathered and eroded into slopes ranging from 11 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) . to near vertical. Some scattered vegetation was observed in this portion of the sea bluff consisting of ice plant shrubs and small trees. 3.3 Subsurface and Surface E- ploration As part of our investigation. we have performed site reconnaissance, geologic mapping, logging and sampling of one 51 feet deep boring and surface sampling on the face of the sea bluff on the subject site (see Site Plan, Figure 2, Sea Bluff Face Log and Plates B -1 and B -la). 3.4 Laboratow Testing The followin; laboratory tests were performed: * Dry Density and 1loisturc Content (ASTM: D 2216) * Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) * Maximum Density /Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557.78) 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Soils encountered on -site during our investigation consisted of fill soils, Quaternary -aged terrace deposits, the Eocenc -aged Torrey Sandstone and beach sand deposits. A brief description of each of the soils encountered i;; provided below:. 4.1 Fill Soils Fill soils were encountered within the uppermost seven feet in the exploratory boring (see boring Log, Plate 9-1) and consisted of medium dense., very moist brown, medium grained Project No. E -0084 Page No. 4 slightly silty sand. 4.2 Terrace Deposits NO Quaternary -aged terrace deposits were found underlying the fill soils and extended to the full depth of the exploratory boring. Also, these soils were observed exposed on the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 28 to 29 feet and extend to near the lop edge of the slope. These deposits consist of poorly to moderately cemented sands and locally slightly- to moderately well cemented light yellow to orange - brown, dark brown and gray brown silty fine to medium grained sands and sandstones. These deposits are generally massive. No evidence that suggest, faulting, fracturing or jointing was found within these deposits. 4.3 Torrey Sandstone Tt The Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone is exposed on -site underlying the terrace deposits in the lower portion of the sea bluff from beneath the beach deposits to an elevation of approximately 28 to 29 feet in a near - vertical to vertical cliff. This formation consists generally of well consolidated, moderately to well cemented, massive and cross- bedded gray to light brown, yellow brown and red brown clayey fine to medium grained sandstone with occasional thin layers of claystone and siltslone and localized concretions. No evidence of fracturing and /vr jointing was observed within this unit on the subject site. undermining of the base of the sea bluff by wave action, was considered to contribute to a large extent to the instability of the bluff. This undermining produced an arch like overhang that exposed some tension cracks on the top. The rate of retreat of the terrace deposits is controlled by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. Our review of the available literature, indicates that no faults have been mapped within these deposits in the vicinity of the subject site. 4.4 Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were encountered overlying the Torrey Sandstone at the base of the sea bluff. These materials consist of loosely consolidated sand and gravel- cobble deposits. These deposits are subject to cyclic seasonal changes in thickness, type of material and degree of slope inclination as a response to changes in wave energy during the summer calm and winter storm conditions. In addition, these deposits are subject to an on -going transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits were estimated to range from three to five feet thick at tha time of our investigation. Project No. E -0084 Page No. 5 4.5 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our exploration. A relatively high moisture content was observed accumulated as perched water within the terrace deposits at the contact with the less permeable Torrey Sandstone. The origin of this water is most likely from landscape irrigation and the recent rains. Other, more distant sources may also contribute to the water build up. In addition, water staining was observed on the face of the bluff from about 10 to 17 feet in elevation (the approximate elevation or the base of the bluff is four feet MS L). 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5.1 Re¢ional Geologic Setting The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province, of Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of Jurassic metavolcanic and r. ietasedimentary rocks and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Later Cretaceous. Tertiary, and Quaternary sediments have been deposited to the west flank of the mountain ranges. The upper Cretaceous. Tertiary and Quaternary rocks flanking the western margin of the mountain:; are generally comprised of detrital marine, Iagoonal and non - marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones and conglomerates. These sedimentary formations are generally flat -lying or clip gently to the northwest in the subject area. The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults are two major tectonic systems close to the site. Both are strike -slip faults with predominantly right - lateral movements. 5.2 Re¢ional and Local Faultint The principal seismic considerations for improvements in the subject project, 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 aad proximity- of the fault to the subject property. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no Project No. E -0084 Page No. 6 active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of active faulting was noted during our investigation. The nearest major active faults are the off -shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault, the Elsinore Fault, and the off -shore Coronado Bank Fault located approximately 4 to 10 miles west, 25 miles northeast and 15 to 20 southwest miles respectively. 5.3 Seismicity The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking should an earthquake occur on the fault. :1 maximum probable event of 6.5 on the Richter Magnitude Scale on the Rose Canyon Fault could produce r. peak her rzontal ground acceleration of less than 0.4g 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. Research and historical data indicate that loose puorly graded saturated granular soils are the most susceptible to liquefaction. It is our opinion that the on -site natural matcrials are not considered susceptible to liquefaction or sudder, loss of soil strength. The unconsolidated beach sand dc:pusits at the base of the bluff are generally susceptible to liquefaction. however, these shallow deposits (three to five feet thick), are proposed to be removed in areas of repair-c. 5.5 Ground Failure Failure within the upper section of this bluff (terrace deposits) is a distinct possibility should a significant earthquake occur along the Pose Canyon Fault or other active faults ir: the SO: thzr.; California Region. r.c C •�. /`li 1.1• A aci____'.li Many factors afl'ac; the retreat rate of coastal sea cliffs composed of material similar to the one existing along the westerly property boundary. Some of these factors include but are not limited to, the degree of induration of the sedimentary materials composing the sea bluff, the degree of weathering of Project No. E -0034 Page No. 7 the materials, frequency and intensity of wave and storm action, degree of orientation of fracturing, amount of uncontrolled drainage runoff from adjoining up -slope areas and other sources. Studies performed for similar bluffs and environments (Reference 1), have indicated that a conservative bluff retreat of 0.2 -0.3 feet per year, or 10 -15 feet in about 50 years may occur in this site. This rate is supported by 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. Bluff retreat is episodic , site - specific and strongly related to meteorological conditions, geologic conditions and erosional agents. Field reconnaissance of the sea bluff on the subject site suggest the fulluwing stabilizing and destabilizing characteristics under the c:nrrent condition: 5.6.1 Stabilizinx Characteristic:: • The lower 26 feet of the sea cliff is composed of moderately cemented and competent Torrey Sandstone materials; * Landscape and slope vegetation irrigation is localized ac,d minimal. E:dstinx runoff from the huilding t.id:: is directed away rro:v Aupc arc=s. Destabilizin- Chara;:,cristic_ * Tension fracturing that occur near the base of the bluff; Erosion and undermining of the lower portion of the Torrey Sandstone by wave action, creating an unstable condition: of the arec. I presenting fracturing. Failuro of these materials could create hazard c_:;dition tc the Leach- -ooine public below an' possibl result in loss or undermining cf founl._::onal soils from beneath th,_ up -slope structures. * The Torrey Sandstone typically fails in the form of large blocks that separate from the near - vertical cliff, often leaving the overlying poorly cemented and poorly consolidated terrace deposits with no down -slope support thus creating a landslide condition and a hazard to the public Project No. E -0084 Page No. 8 below and to the up -slope structures; The inadequacy of erosion protection either natural or artificial leaving the face of the sea bluff exposed to weathering from factors such as climatic changes, rain runoff, animal burrowing etc; and from human activity such as up -slope landscape watering, non - planned construction etc., thus eroding and /or weakening the natural condition of the materials on the face of the sea bluff. 5.7 Landsliding and Slope Stability Based on our review of pertinent documents and our site reconnaissance there are no indication of deep seated landslidine on or adjac -n.t to the subject site. However, shallow slope failures arc known to have occurred previously within the upper portion of the bluff on several properties to the north of the subject site where similar conditions are present. Our site observation, reconnaissance and present evidence of failures within the upper portion of the sea bluff on the subject site, suggest that these failures are related largely- to loss of support caused by failures within the Torrey Sandstone.. 5.8 C i Stability and Erosicn Future sea bluff retreat at the subject site under the present conditions will depend on the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. It is our opiiiion that the erosion of the base of the sea cliff ca,i.>cd by wave actiut;, weathering and human activity, creats a constantly growing potential for slope instability. The poteutial for erosion and slope instability is considered high. 5.0 Slope Stability Analysis A slope stability analysis was performed on a typical section using test results from relatively undisturbed samples obtained on the fac.- of the bluff . The analysis was performed using the STABL4 program, based on the simplified Janbu Method cl Slices assualine a rotational type failure. The program calculates loo potential failure surfaces using 10 origination and 10 termination points at the base and top of the section calculated respectively. The analysis shows factors of safety for deep seated, overall stability ranging from 2.27 to 2.28 for deep seated stability. (see Slope Stability Analysis, �. a Project No. E -0084 Page No. 9 Plates D1 and D2), which indicates that the slope is veaerall, stable. However, based on further analysis of the face of the slope it is our opinion that shallow failures are likely to occur in the furture. The calculated factor of safety for this section of the slope are on the order of 1.07. Our analysis indicates that unless some steps are taken to permanently support the slope they will remain marginally stable and may be subject to continued erosion, classic landslide failure or similar distress induced by a siesmic event and /or excersive storm rel.:ted damage. It is evi&- A that the stability anah si r flt;cls e: <isti:,e conditions less than gross stal:ilit3. E.0 CON'CLUSIONS AND RrCOMMENDAT10DS 6.1 Conclusions Based on the results of our field investigation, review of pertinent literature, ac:real photographs, topographic maps and our experience in the arc:;, it is our professional opinion that bluff recession is moat likely to occur as a slow continuous erosion al the base causing blocks to fall. This condition in turn trill r•_aull fi, lack c;f support to the above terrace deposits, and causin •• f;:° c• k 1.,: t:, behind ii,:: .;intact at an approximate 1:1 or iiclination (t:.:izalntal tc •i el•tii:.tI/. 1. .ice ,.u.,..iJL iCi,i -;cllta a p;lrmanci.l ugLprLL as ca: as to ll'.2 e.cistir. - Stract.:l'ES anil L;11i 1•; vements up slope as to the bczch vein; p:;hlic below. It should be noted that other factors such as surface water runoff, human activity and animal burrowing mad increase the erosion and the potential for bluff retreat. The rate of coritinuiri. erosion at the base of the bluff is difficult to assess and is greatly' affected by storms, earthquake shaking and /or changes in groundwater cunditions. We therefor- conclude tL.a protactiuln of the base of the sea bluff and repair /protection of the upper portion of the bluff iz highly recolnmenclr:fl to reduca the sea bluff retreat and protect the up-s1,)i:: s�:- .tctures and !lle .)e:ah a ^o p7!Jl1C from the hazards that the sea cliff poses ill the present condition. 6.2 recommendations Based upu,: u'" i.::- ,.;;i i�;,, It is our opinion that a properly designed seawall at the base of the bluff would significantly Project No. E -0034 Pao e 1'o. 10 reduce further erosion, blockfal and loss of support to the bluff and soils above. 4:c also consider that the upper portion of the bluff is in a critically state in the present condition and repairs,'protecticn to t!-.e subject bluff should be performed immediately. Although a sea;.aL' will likely reduce the erosion of the Io;ce: Portion and the sloughing of the terrace deposits, the •sal may not improve the avor all stability of the bluff. The bluff portion above the wall may still have factors of safety against slope failure of less than 1.5. The follo:cin- dcsisi. i:zria are presented ._r . p oa "^ preliminary dcc:en of the wall: # Th c .._awall should be placed as close Lu the bluff as possible; The foundation for the seawall at the base of the seacliff should extend to a minimum elevation zero (LILLY:) or a minimum depth of 4 feet into L,:&ock, whichever is deeper; * T:,c seawall should be designed for an active pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pr assur a of 20 pcf f. om the top of Ux Torrey sandstone to the bottom of tba :call; TL- a wall should be provided with a back drainage system and /or hocks to prevent bui'.dup of hydrOStatic p :,.--Sures: # Seawall anchors dr led and anchored into the Torrey Sandstone should be designed for an allowable friction value of 750 psf. This friction should be used only on that portion of tho anchor that continues beyond a line cxteudine up from the bottom of tho :call at an azZIc o" 60 degrees With the horizontal. Anchors should extend into the formation at an angle of appro::fmatcL- 10 to 15 degrees dosn'from the horizontal. Additional L'aolcr^ •' 4 T. 3s ..,.,r cover., only 1_! ::c:;. 1 "�, l �. :•l '5^ o" ••� tuns .:ven':e, thcncf_rc, Aar. addltiOrll . : :�J �: ator3' bOr]:]e CIAO iIl•i be performed at a later date to . CrC. "� : :.......!'.. :'. ...,i'. co :.tli•: � _ lot::. 1 • �hcs.. :'c have presented cross- socticau cf sites tc illustrate the sea bluff topography ]:coed ::per -.•. r:: of the bluff. Project No. 1i -0084 Page No. 11 Closure 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 eneineerine work and judgments rendered meet c,: rent prcf-ssioi:al standardz. The rccommcnvatic::_ _on,sincd in to : -, report are based or, our site exploratica, laboratory tcstc, and our understanding of C:c p.- oposed construction. if any soil COnd:t2J::s ar., encc:.ntarEd ct th:: :' a waiiCl: are different from those _ : hi tl: preparatic:: :: t: -s rzrort our °I:... :hou!, bz i �^i.i.ai8t ^if r,t)tifi6G �l - the An, 11!1 a In :, "itar• :f .:f p:::: ..: a'.. c Ci. :::e CS froru that this report, o::r f::.. ;,c,cld also !,c prepared in acccrNanc_ w: fl, venerally accepted pe.)t ::chnical cnZinecring; pracli::cs within Califurnia. No ther warranty, _ _ :', Or -i_ mtive a-, to the conclusions and craft iunal advice included is this report. opportunity to be f r: _ ac ___ D '1:' :..p i,: :::r:aa�d. $1YC •,,n ,,. -. _ 'J:: a:7y. y1`:'tiorls, please do not 1:C�aa... t,: .,L::,uCt th:.) office. r: APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Artim, E.R., 1985, "Eroc:ion ana' Retreat of Sea Cliffs, San Diego County ", published research cxcerFt from California's Battered Coast, Proceedings from a Confcrc;.,;;: Coastal Erosion, San Diego, California ", edited by Jim McGrath, dated September, 1985. 2. EisenLerg, L.S., 1983, "Plcictcczr :c Marine Tcrrac and Eocene Geology, Encinitas, a.11 P,:: :rcl.: Santa rc Quadrangles, San Diego County, California ", Master cf Science Thesis, SDSU, dated September 20, 1983. 3. Weber, F.H., 1982, "Recent Slol:e railures, .ancient Landslides, and related Geology of the forth- Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California ", CDMG Opcn File R. purt 82 -12 LA, dated July 1, 1982. 4. Abbot, P.L., (Editor) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego County, California, ", San Diego Association of Geolosists Publication, dated April 13, 1985. 5. Tan, S.S., 198C, "Landslide llazard. is the Encinitas Qn dr:r:gle, Sari Diego County, California", California Division of Stine:: and Geology, Open File Report. C. Kuhn, C.C. and r.P. "Coastal E 5'hct:ard, 1 ^' %�, rosic:. ::: San Diego County, California ", in CuidLbiul. to Sclecicd Gc.,logic reatures, Coastal Area of Southern San Diego County, SDAC/.IEC OctoLci•, 1983, G.T. Farrand Editor. 7. U.S. Army Corps :1 En6inee: 1934, SLor-, Protection Manual, Volumes I and I1. 8. Kuhil, C.C. and 1'.P. . ^.1.: p "rd, 1984, "5 Cliff::, Beach" ::red Coastal Valleys of San Died , Califorvlia ", L'nic. Calif. Press. 9. Kern, K.P.., 1983, "Earthq.:al:L., a.:d raults in San Diego:, Pickle Press, San Diego Califor•n:a. 10. Ziony, J.I., Wentworth, C.M., Ducl.ar.,:n- Banks, J.M. and 11.C. Wagner, 1974, "Preliminary Map Shou•ir.o Rcccncy of Faulting in Coastal Southern California ", U.S. Co.aogical Survey Map Mr -585, Scale: 1:850,000. 11. "Earth Systcros Dcsibn Tcj oeraphic Survey, scale: I inch equals 40 feet, dated rebruav, 11, 1993. 12. "Earth SyzLc i ;:: ll Bien Crauj; aerie! ph,;1 ".rajals seule I inch equals 300', flown June 8, 1992 ". 3. "Ceotechnical and Ccologic Investigation Neptune II Project, 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Micinitas, California ", prepared by Earth Systems Design Croup, November, 1092. 1. t. II. APPENDIX B GENERAL EAP,TIMIOU AND GRADI "!G GUIDELINES These guidelines present gcu r l 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 s 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 gcotechnical report. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION'' AND TESTING Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnicat 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 reject 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 or equivalent. III. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 1. Clcarinc and CruLbinK: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwisc disposed of. 2. Processing: The existh,,; ;;round which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of C i:ul:os. Existing ground satisfactory should Le over - excavated as specified in the following section. O'carification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lump:: or clods and IV 4.. M 1L '.41 fist -, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Over- excavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, cxtending to Such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be over - excavated down to firm ;round, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioninx: Over - excavated and processed soils should be watered, dried -back, blended, and /or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5. Recompaction: Over - excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture- conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. C. Renchine: 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 over - excavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed arcas, removal areas, and too -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 tlic consultant. Soils of pour gradation, expansion, or straigth characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to z;crve as satisfactory fill material. 2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with 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 spccificall;; approved by the consultant. m VI. 3. Importing of fill material: If necessary for grading, the import: material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTIOA' 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 uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. 2. Fill Moisture: Fill 1pLyers 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 above 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 desioncd for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, 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. It the coraplction of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 5. 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 exccca'ine 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, Aiould be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or as shown Lorci::. The suhdrain lucatioa or materials should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon a U' approval, direct changes in subdr—'ri line, grade, or material. All subdrains should be survc; cd 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 b; the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of '1112 fill portion of tho slope. `-b a n c VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue. Scn Marcos. Calilornlo 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fc. (619) 471 -7572 DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. NO.: A9100841 DWG PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: PLATE VICINITY MAP NEPTUNE III PROJECT ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA Z m 0 v a A C E EARTH SYSTEMS DESICN CROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue, Son Marcos, Col ilornia 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWC. NO.:A9100841DW0 PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: ® INDICATES BORING LOCATION PLATE 2 GENERAL SITE PLAN NEPTUNE III PROJEICT ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 00 ^O V7 N N O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I¢ 'I, o coot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 Z Ld 0 W J . v 00 O O 0 L C c L c � a O U U O O L T U L N 0 a L c L � L C N T U ; L O T U 0 L L L O M.— 0) '— 0 L O L O 7 O C7 d ' I I I I i I I � ' I ' ' c I G 1 r- I PLATE 3 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP CROSS SECTION ,�_�, 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Pa I� Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 -- NEPTUNE III PROJECT DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. NO.: A9100841,DWG PROJECT: E0084 I REVISION: ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA v v a] D o na rn �• � D� o U i y m 10 a P 00 ° < u y � 3 n v b 5 C7 z m Z O D ulD V °o cz b C7 z 0 Z Z C D M U 0® D 0 0 o A 2 n0 D I M I EXISTING rscs�oRESIDENCE - - - - - 80 _ — �— — 8C C 70— 70 i i 60- —60 GRADE / 50 / Qt ao — �� 'T=T =�r- -� — as / Tt 30 -- —f— ---- - - - -30 / 1 1 20—-------------- - - - -20 / I 10------------------ - - - -10 PROFILE:MID LOT SECTION 'B -B' -- - - -- -- SGIE:I = M LEGEND Qt Quaternary Terrace Deposits Tt - - - - - - Tertiary Torrey Sandstone - ? - ? - - -- Geologic Contact (Queried where uncertain) EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue. San Marcos. California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 fae (619) 471 -7572 DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. N0. !A9)00841.DWG PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: N N � N C C O O C y O U U V) C O L T U L C 91 > U 3 L C u ) C L 9! — 0 L 0 L 0 CY (7 Or ' ' I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I O r I PLATE 5 CROSS SECTION 'C -C' NEPTUNE III PROJECT ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA I I,I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I'I Z ',1\ I0� I I I I �R z IW 1 ; l o I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I,I O O W h O O t0 Ifl O O a h C N O O EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue. San Marcos. California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 fae (619) 471 -7572 DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. N0. !A9)00841.DWG PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: N N � N C C O O C y O U U V) C O L T U L C 91 > U 3 L C u ) C L 9! — 0 L 0 L 0 CY (7 Or ' ' I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I O r I PLATE 5 CROSS SECTION 'C -C' NEPTUNE III PROJECT ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA °m ° e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fi l I I I I I ILLJ II I I I I I I Iw 11 I I I I I I I� V) 10 I I t o �' o 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 n A PF A IF 7 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP CROSS SECTIC�P� —� 1529 A Deno Avenue. Son Marcos. California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Pa. (619) 471 -7572 - - - - - -- — iiwp7p�� ^piIc�/'w$ DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. NO.:A9100841.DWC NEPTUNE III PIf1111JJEC PROJECT. E0084 REVISION: ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA N 0 0 C Cl a a) � N D C L y N U 0 ) u C O � T U u l L F - 0 O C C y 0 U 3 W O > U O 0 C D J d 0 O O r O W O ' I � 1 v I i i i 1 I I I Cl. 0 O . H I c I PF A IF 7 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP CROSS SECTIC�P� —� 1529 A Deno Avenue. Son Marcos. California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Pa. (619) 471 -7572 - - - - - -- — iiwp7p�� ^piIc�/'w$ DATE: 04 -08 -93 DWG. NO.:A9100841.DWC NEPTUNE III PIf1111JJEC PROJECT. E0084 REVISION: ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA EAR Th SYSTEMS DESIGN GR 0 UP 1529 A Grand Avenue, Son Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fox (619) 471 -7572 LOG OR BORING NO. 8 -1 DATE OBSERVED 2 -10 -93 METHOD OF DRILLING 4" DIA.`HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOCATION: #164 NEPTUNE AVE. NEPTUNE III TOTAL DEPTH: 51 ft. LOGGED BY HGE GROUND ELEVATION 74.50 WORK ORDER NO. E0084 8 ai a w DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 SM ? --4L-- F I LL: SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, BROWN, VERY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE. 5 26 — SM —� —�-- --- -?- --� TERRACE DEPOSITS SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, YELLOWISH AND REDISH BROWN, DAMP TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE. SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, GRAY BROWN DAMP TO MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. * CAVED BETWEEN 15 AND 20 ft. PLATE B1 10 29 15 26 20 27 EARTH 3' YSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 =1 DATE OBSERVED 2 -10 -93 METHOD OF DRILLING 4" DIA.'HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOCATION: #164 NEPTUNE AVE. NEPTUNE III TOTAL DEPTH: 51 ft. LOGGED BY HGE GROUND ELEVATION 74.50 WORK ORDER NO. E0084 W 'g� §� H DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 25 �k �k NO SAMPLE RECOVERY, BLOW COUNTS INVALID SAND, CLAYEY, MEDIUM TO COARSE, GRAY BROWN, VERY MOIST DENSE. * INVALID TOTAL DEPTH 51.0 ft. NO WATER CAVING AT 15 TO 20 ft. BACKFILLED 9/10/93 PLATE B1a 24 30 29 35 * SC r20305 22 6" 5 EARTH SYSTEMS 1529 A Grand Avenue. Son Phone (619) 471 -6351 DESIGN GROUP Marcos, California 92069 Fax (619) 471 -7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 6.0 61 C� 41' -42' 490 36.5' 5.0 4.0 N a x Z 3.0 w a: a 2.0 1.0. 0 grT- -44-1 �:FIFF44-- 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6,0 NORMAL PRESURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION N REMARKS 0 X A 61 ® 15' -16' 61 ® 25' -26' 70 150 " 39.0 38.5' PROJECT NO. 61 C� 41' -42' 490 36.5' � -W 5.( 4.( i 3.( w N 6 W S U1 2.( ( PROJECT NO EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 0 1.O 2.O 3.0 4.0 5.0 5. NORMAL PRESURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE (') REMARKS e +6' MSL 4100 23.0' TORREY SANDSTONE �a O D o m m a n 0 0 m p NWi.5 0 I In b U p O m $ C1 n 2 O D m 0 0 m A v w m m C-) z C �z D M N n = D O M C z m Dn q N n A 3 � 1 y O w 2 0 3n a � bn t; CI W r D F' S!2 (PD 40 3c 20 — 0 10 20 30 I,�_ ►Tti 71. —f—+--40 —I— — - -4 - 4- -20 i l l rt —fI � -1- -I- 40 50 60 70 80 -{ I}-� � I� -10 II — L—.L -0 90 100 110 120 PROFILE:M[D LOT . 1'a SECTION 'A -A' J F_ SEISMIC COEF. 0 .15 .25 D FACTOR OF 2.275 1.858 1.646 F-9 SAFETY LEGEND Qt - - - - - - Quaternary Terrace Deposits Tt - - - - -- Tertiary Torrey Sandstone - ? - ? - - -- Geologic Contact (Queried where uncertain) M10MCE —Ir � -80 70— —- 1—— t'��r7'� —� —I —� 1��'r —t� -70 I 60 I I I cxtsr'rd 1I {{{II —I— — 60 I� II I� L ��II y /L�— I1 I� J�— I— I� �— L� 50 —L— I I -1 I I ,1 I Qt1 1 I —� 4FAIDIRE CIRCLE —rJp I 40 3c 20 — 0 10 20 30 I,�_ ►Tti 71. —f—+--40 —I— — - -4 - 4- -20 i l l rt —fI � -1- -I- 40 50 60 70 80 -{ I}-� � I� -10 II — L—.L -0 90 100 110 120 PROFILE:M[D LOT . 1'a SECTION 'A -A' J F_ SEISMIC COEF. 0 .15 .25 D FACTOR OF 2.275 1.858 1.646 F-9 SAFETY LEGEND Qt - - - - - - Quaternary Terrace Deposits Tt - - - - -- Tertiary Torrey Sandstone - ? - ? - - -- Geologic Contact (Queried where uncertain) -f. o o D e b4 y b H S ° 70-- 1— 60— I T'-- �1'— I T��'1— T- i El" � I— ""'!" E:tsrc IT —t� �i —T � —I T 8D 70 60 —So m f J °� 2 5D— -1 I —i 1fl i ,I x C I E CIRCLE FAIL R 30— T l _ I T—— �_ — T —F_3D _� —'� T t— t�'— I— T —I- 2D --1 20 z10 --i —�I ,D —20 I T —70 8 90 00 110 120 —0 -� `q 0 — O — ; O 41� = IOU PROFILE MID LOT SECTION . 2. -B -B' n D LEGEND z D D SEISMIC COEF. 0 .15 .25 p {______quaternory Terrace Deposits 0 r FACTOR OF 2.268 1.860 1.627 Tt ------ Tertiary Torrey Sandstone SAFETY - ? -? - - -- Geologic (Queried Contact where uncertain) Q N SUPPLEMENTAL BLUFF STABILITY REVIEW LOTS 164 & 172 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 'Specialists In Crotechnical Renicdiatin». and Earth Retrn.fion. Solutions EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP _i'ai JRa: RNA ADD SDILS E%INLLRINL - IEXXY - QOTECNNICAL REIEDIAIIW - RECONStRW ION I&MCDENt - LYRTIEIED INSPECIION - 5011 AM YAIINIAt TEW ING SUPPLEMENTAL BLUFF STABILITY REVIEW LOTS 164 & 174 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 19114:4711110la0lA MR. PAUL DENVER MR. STANLEY CANTER 164 & 174 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 DATE: JUNE 17, 1994 1141- 13aliul. 03 EE -0176 Ia:1:l7:1:4 :4ONWi EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 1529 GRAND AVE STE B SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 (619)471 -6351 • EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP "Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions' 1529 Grand Avenue, Sidle B, Son Marcos. Co. 92069 Phone 16191 471.6351, Fax 16191 471.7572 June 20, 1994 Mr. Paul Denver/Mr. Stanley Canter 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 Subject: Supplemental Bluff Stability Review, Lots 164 & 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. Project No. EE -0176 References: 1. "Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Neptune Project: 138, 144, 150, 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. ", prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, dated March 31, 1993. 2. "Final Beach Bluff Erosion Report, RFP #93 -01 City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. ", Prepared by Zeizer Kling Consultants Inc., dated January 24, 1994. 3. "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California ", Tan Siang, dated 1986, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No 86 -8. 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request Earth Systems Engineering Group has performed a supplemental slope stability analysis investigation of the coastal bluff conditions at the subject sites located at 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure No. 1). The purpose of this supplement investigation was to evaluate the potential hazard(s) that an unstable bluff presents to existing structures on top of the bluff and provide conclusions and recommendations pertinent to the subject site. 2. SCOPE The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: ' Review of the readily available published and unpublished reports and documents relative to the subject site; 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite B. San Marcos, Co. 92069, Phone 16191 471 -6351, Fax (619) 471 -7572 CIVIL, STRUCTURAL AND SOILS ENGINEERING GEOLOGY . SURVEY - CERTIFIED INSPECTION - SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING - FEASIBILITY STUDIES EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP -swa.we. i. a..en aee...e,e.. swuew Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Pmject No. EE -0176 Page No. 2 * Geological reconnaissance and mapping of the site and sea bluff conditions; * Engineering analysis of the information obtained and * Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding site conditions and the potential for slope failure. 3. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Description The subject site consists of two single - family structures and improvements, located at 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas California (see Vicinity Map, Figure l and Site Plan, Figure 2). The improvements consist of two three -story wood frame and stucco building with concrete driveways, brick planters and concrete patios constructed on multi- leveled pads. The site is bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, to the north and south by similar single - family residential structures, and to the west, by an approximately 75 feet high steeply westerly sloping sea bluff. The bluff descends onto a sand and gravel beach. Site elevations range from sea level at the westerly project limit to an approximate 79 feet above MSL at pad elevations. Neptune Avenue lies roughly 20 feet below building pad grade. At the time of our recent site visit the top edge of the bluff is located approximately 20 to 25 feet from the residential structures at the subject site. 3.2 BEACH AND BLUFF CONDITIONS During our site reconnaissance, we observed evidence that suggests on- going erosion and possible potential for lower bluff retreat and upper bluff failure at the subject site and extending to the adjacent properties to the north and south. We observed characteristics such as a very unstable, near vertical upper bluff cut, extending approximately 50 feet down from the top edge of the bluff at an estimated gradient ranging from 1 % to l (horizontal to vertical) to near - vertical. EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP Sp,elalYY 1n Fw h R.1-0. Selv[uni Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -0176 Page No. 3 This section is comprised of weakly cemented to cohesionless sands and sandstones. The slope descends to a near - vertical 25- to 26- foot high "wall" comprised of the more dense Torrey Sandstone. Additional characteristics are the continuous undermining of the lower portion of the bluff face, which is exposed to direct wave action. No surficial evidence of jointed sandstone and/or sandstone blocks were observed in the upper portion of the Torrey Sandstone. Some tension cracks were found running parallel to the face of the bluff (in a generally north south direction) just above the undermined sandstone. Additionally, erosional gullies were observed on the upper portion of the bluff, possibly caused in pan by exposure to precipitation, wind, landscape maintenance and loss of support from the lower portion of bluff. A landslide within similar materials was mapped in the vicinity of the subject site (approximately 400 feet to the south) Reference 2. At zero tide, the water line of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 50 feet westward from the base of the sea bluff. During periods of high tides, ocean swells often impact the base of the bluff. The near -shore beach environment west of the site generally consists of a gently westward sloping wave -cut shelf of moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone. These cemented sandstones were noted to be massive, fine to medium grained, cross - bedded and competent. This unit is visible as an outcrop exposed from beneath sand, gravel and cobble beach deposits and extends to form a 25- to 26 -foot high near vertical sea cliff at the base of the bluff. The lower portion of this unit exhibits undermining caused by the impact of the wave induced movement of the sand, gravel and cobbles and the wave itself against the bluff during high tide. This undermining extends from the base to approximately 5 feet high. Unconformably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally extending from an elevation of 29.0 feet to the bluff top, exists the Quaternary-aged terrace deposits, consisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandstones. These materials are weakly cemented, massive, fine -to medium - grained silty sands and sandstones which are naturally weathered and eroded into slopes ranging from 1 % to 1 (horizontal to vertical) to near vertical. Some scattered vegetation was observed in this portion of the sea bluff consisting of ice plant shrubs and small trees. EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 5},Na[L4 /n ls,l/, RI��„tio„ SuNlbni Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -0176 Page No. 4 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As part of our investigation, we have performed site reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the face of the sea bluff on the subject site (see Site Plan. Figure 2). The on -site materials observed on the bluff face during our recent investigation, consisted of Quaternary-aged terrace deposits, the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone and beach sand deposits. A brief description of each of the soils encountered is provided below. 4.1 Terrace Deposits (0t) Quatemary-aged terrace deposits were observed exposed on the bluff face overlying the Torrey Sandstone, above an approximate elevation of 28 to 29 feet and extend to near the top edge of the slope. These deposits consist of poorly to moderately cemented light yellow to orange- brown. dark brown and gray brown silty fine to medium grained sands and sandstones. These deposits are generally massive. No evidence indicative of faulting, fracturing or jointing was found within these deposits. Evidence of erosion and a relatively high steepness (40 to 45 degrees from horizontal) was observed on the face of the bluff at the time of our site visit. 4.2 Torrey Sandstone (TO The Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone is exposed on -site underlying the terrace deposits in the lower portion of the sea bluff from beneath the beach deposits to an elevation of approximately 28 to 29 feet in a near - vertical to vertical cliff. This formation consists generally of well consolidated, moderately to well cemented, massive and cross - bedded gray to light brown, yellow brown and red brown clayey fine to medium grained sandstone with occasional thin layers of claystone and siltstone and localized concretions. No evidence of major fracturing and/orjointing was observed within this unit on the subject site. Undermining of the base of the sea bluff by wave action, was considered to contribute to a large extent to the instability of the bluff. This undermining produced an arch -like overhang that exposed some tension cracks and fracturing on the top. The rate of retreat of the terrace deposits is controlled by the rate of the retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP Sy..WYY M SARA A.Yn 9elutYN Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE•0176 Page No. 5 Our review of the available literature, indicates that no faults have been mapped within these deposits in the vicinity of the subject site. 4.3 Beach Deposits (Bd) Beach deposits were encountered overlying the Torrey Sandstone at the base of the sea bluff. These materials consist of loosely consolidated sand and gravel - cobble deposits. These deposits are subject to cyclic seasonal changes in thickness, type of material and degree of slope inclination as a response to changes in wave energy during the summer calm and winter storm conditions. In addition, these deposits are subject to an on -going transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits were estimated to range from three to eight feet thick at the time of our investigation. 4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our exploration. A relatively high moisture content was observed accumulated as perched, non -free water within the terrace deposits at the contact with the less permeable Torrey Sandstone. The origin of this water is most likely from landscape irrigation and rains. Other, more distant sources may also contribute to these elevated moisture conditions. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS A series slope stability analyses were performed on typical sections of the subject site, utilizing data obtained from References 1 and 2. Using reference 2, we utilized typical data for the area and included saturated and unsaturated data for the rock material and planes of weakness. The results of the analyses, obtained without the input of earthquake factors of acceleration, and utilizing the Modified Method of Bishop are as follows: EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP S}ra{aNY In HM bbnMn 3elulYn Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -0176 Page No. 6 SATURATED STATE (Without Earthquake Acceleration Factor) UNSATURATED STATE (Without Earthquake Acceleration Factor) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH SATURATED ROCK 1.05 ALONG PLANE OF WEAKNESS SATURATED 0.63 UNSATURATED STATE (Without Earthquake Acceleration Factor) With the input of an earthquake acceleration of 0.25, the results obtained were: UNSATURATED STATE (Earthquake Acceleration Factor = 0.25) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK 1.18 We also computed the slope stability factor of safety for the subject site. utilizing data from Reference 1. The results obtained were: UNSATURATED STATE (Without Earthquake Acceleration Factor) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK With the introduction of an earthquake acceleration factor of 0.25 the results obtained were: FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK 1.59 ALONG PLANE OF WEAKNESS UNSATURATED 1.05 With the input of an earthquake acceleration of 0.25, the results obtained were: UNSATURATED STATE (Earthquake Acceleration Factor = 0.25) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK 1.18 We also computed the slope stability factor of safety for the subject site. utilizing data from Reference 1. The results obtained were: UNSATURATED STATE (Without Earthquake Acceleration Factor) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK With the introduction of an earthquake acceleration factor of 0.25 the results obtained were: EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 'so•�� m ea.m Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -0176 Page No. 7 UNSATURATED STATE (Earthquake Acceleration Factor = 0.25) FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED THROUGH UNSATURATED ROCK 0.77 These analyses indicate that the slope is generally unstable in its present condition. If the bluff is subject to continuous erosion of the face and the base of the bluff, storm related damage and/or a seismic event, then unstable condition may increase, causing a typical block and/or rotational landslide failure and other related distress. 6.0 DISCUSSION Based on our review of the referenced reports, available data, maps, and our slope stability analysis, is our opinion that the coastal bluff at the subject site appears to be significantly unstable, and unless it is protected to minimize the influence of the erosion and weathering agents on the bluff's base and face, it's present condition will most likely deteriorate to the point of possibly undergoing a block failure or /and a landslide that would in turn affect the existing structures on top of the bluff and constitute a hazard to the beach -going public below. It is very important to mention that the erosion and weathering factors are significantly increased by storm conditions. This translates into increased instability of the bluff under those conditions. A very significant factor that affects in a negative way the overall stability of the bluff is ground acceleration, that is notable in the factors of safety obtained in our slope stability analysis for the same data with and without ground acceleration, (the value used in the calculation represents a conservative number, Reference 2 lists values up to "maximum probable" of 0.358 and "maximum credible" of 0.44g for this area). Being in an area prone to earthquake events at any time, the effect of this factor should be considered immediate and of very significant importance to the decrease in overall stability and possible failure of the bluff at the subject site. We concur with the opinions stated in our previously issued Reference 1, Section 5.8 (Cliff Stability and Erosion). "The erosion of the base of the sea cliff caused by wave action, weathering and human activity, creates a constantly growing potential for slope instability. EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -0176 Page No. g The potential for erosion and slope instability is considered high" and on Section 6.1 (Conclusions); "Based on the results of our field investigations, review of pertinent literature, aerial photographs, topographic maps and our experience in the area, it is our professional opinion that bluff recession is most likely to occur as a slow continuous erosion at the base causing blocks to fall. This condition in turn will result in lack of support to the above terrace deposits, and possibly causing failures behind the contact at an approximate 1:1 or flatter inclination (horizontal to vertical). This condition represents a permanent hazard to the existing structures and improvements up slope as well as to the beach -going public below. It should be noted that other factors such as surface water runoff, human activity and animal burrowing may increase the erosion and the potential for bluff retreat ". "The rate of continuing erosion at the base of the bluff is difficult to assess and is greatly affected by storms, earthquake shaking and/or changes in groundwater conditions. We therefore conclude that protection of the base of the sea bluff and repair /protection of the upper portion of the bluff is highly recommended to reduce the sea bluff retreat and protect the up -slope structures and the beach -going public from the hazards that the sea cliff possess in the present condition A recent study, performed by Zeier Kling Consultants, dated January 24, 1994 (Reference 2) presents a very complete study of the coastal area of Encinitas, with emphasis on bluff retreat, present and historically. This study classifies our area of study as being contained within the "Moonlight Subunit ", which is categorized as a high risk zone subunit with a 75 feet, 75 -year structural zone of hazard, and considered "active" which is described as: cliffs that consist of bedrock exposed to continuous retreat under the influence of both marine and subaerial erosion agents and processes ". (Reference 2, Sections 2.1 and Plate I). 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our investigation, and review of the pertinent documents and references it is our opinion that mitigation of the erosion and weathering factors and stabilization of the bluff, is of immediate importance to reduce the possibility of bluff failure and the hazards that this would originate to the structures above and the beach going public below. We consider that a properly designed seawall would be the most appropriate method to increase the stability of the lower bluff, by reducing erosion and weathering of the base and face of the bluff. EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP S}ee,alvY !n [arO, MehnNn 4elunew Lots 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Project No. EE -00176 Page No. 9 We recommend that the seawall be designed by a qualified structural engineer following the recommended criteria presented in Reference 1. Although a seawall may protect and improve the stability of the lower portion of the wall, it may not improve the overall stability of the bluff. The section above the wall may still not have favorable factors of safety against slope failure due to the nature of the materials that compose this section. This situation may be addressed via heightening of the seawall and/or other measures to improve the upper bluff's stability. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our limited field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils in the greater Southern California area. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is therefore necessary that all observations, conclusions and recommendations be verified at the time repair operations begin. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued (if required). This limited supplemental investigation was performed to more fully assess potential instabilities of the subject slope and to provide opinions as to repair of the slope. Investigation of the overall stability of the general vicinity, which could also contribute to current or future damage, is beyond the scope of our work This opportunity to be of service is appreciated, should you have any questions, please call. Respectfully Submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP e� BRUCE W. TAY OR President QROFESSip 18, UJ M 034318 \* \ 4, glzk RCE #34318 4 -3o-V c VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 1529 B Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 DATE: 06 -14 -94 DWG. No.: A9101761.DWG JOB No.: EE0176 I REVIEWED BY: SJB FIGURE No NI ICa7P►111 1 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 1 EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 1529 B Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7372 _DATE: 06 -14 -94 DWG. No.: A9101761.DWG JOB No.: EE0176 REVIEWED BY: SJB i� PACIFIC OCEAN v FIGURE No SITE PLAN 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 2 r ■■■.■■ ■■■■■■ ��■■■■ MESSMER ■ummmm■■ ■■u■®"■ ■■m■■■m, ■■■■■■■M MESSIMMEM ■■■m MOMEMMOM Lmmmmlmmmm ■■■■ EMEMENEE ONMEMEEM EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 1529 B Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7372 _DATE: 06 -14 -94 DWG. No.: A9101761.DWG JOB No.: EE0176 REVIEWED BY: SJB i� PACIFIC OCEAN v FIGURE No SITE PLAN 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 2 NORSEMEN MESSIMMEM MOMEMMOM EMEMENEE ONMEMEEM MEMEMEM EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP 1529 B Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7372 _DATE: 06 -14 -94 DWG. No.: A9101761.DWG JOB No.: EE0176 REVIEWED BY: SJB i� PACIFIC OCEAN v FIGURE No SITE PLAN 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 2 EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP '3}easWY !n l�M blntiw TMUtuu' APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C: \GSLOPE \NEP- 615C.GSL Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 12:58:33 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 100 500 30 O 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 100 1500 35 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 142.00 120.00 122.00 1.5940 6 13 0 EE -0176 lots 164 & 172 Neptune Ave. DATA FROMIREFERENCE 2 THROUGH ROCK UNSATURATED C: \GSLOPE \NEP -61 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. m rAil 20 0 GSL Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C: \GSLOPE \NEP- 615G.GSL Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 13 :02:38 Material Unit # 1 - Terrace Deposits 100 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 100 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 X- centre Y- centre Radius 0 142.00 120.00 122.00 EE -0176 DATA FROMIREFERENCE 2 Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value 400 15 0 0 1250 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha f Safety Warnings 1.0535 5 13 0 lots 164 8 172 Neptune Ave. THROUGH ROCK SATURATED C : \GSLOPE \NEP -61 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. Ei•1 m P01 0 GSL Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C : \GSLOPE \NEP.615H Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 13:06:03 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 100 400 15 0 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 100 S00 10 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 142.00 120.00 122.00 0.6283 6 13 0 EE -0176 lots 164 & 172 Neptune Ave. DATA FROMIREFERENCE 2 ALONG WEAK. PLANE - SATURATED Me m m 20 IE C : \GSLOPE \NEP.61 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C: \GSLOPE \NEP615J.GSL Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 13:09 :35 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 100 500 30 0 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 100 750 20 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 142.00 120.00 122.00 1.0537 6 13 0 EE -0176 lots 164 & 172 Neptune Ave. DATA FROMIREFERENCE 2 ALONG WEAK. PLANE - UNSATURATED m me EEl Ir;i] 0 GSL 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C: \GSLOPE \nep- 615h.GSL Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 17 :19:24 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 100 500 30 0 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 100 1500 35 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 142.00 120.00 122.00 1.1835 5 13 0 EE -0176 6 -3 -94 0.25 lots 164 & 172 Neptune Ave. THROUGH ROCK UNSATURATED 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. m m ime 20 0 GSL 0 Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. File C: \GSLOPE \nep615z.GSL Output dated 06 -15 -1994 at 17 :53:06 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 128 150 38.5 0 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 128 490 36.5 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 144.00 120.00 120.00 1.1139 6 12 0 EE -0176 lots 164 S 172 Neptune Ave. DATA FROMIREFERENCE 1 NO EARTHQUAKE ACCEL. 9.1*1 m CS0] fti] 0 GSL 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. Results are for Bishop's Modified Method unless otherwise noted. 'File C : \GSLOPE \NEP615X.GSL Output dated 06 -16 -1994 at 09 :38:03 Material Unit Wt Cohesion Friction Piezo Ru Angle Surface Value # 1 - Terrace Deposits 128 150 38.5 0 0 # 2 - Torrey Sandstone 128 490 36.5 0 0 # 3 -HARD BOTTOM -1 0 0 0 0 X- centre Y- centre Radius Factor Iterations Slices M Alpha of Safety Warnings 144.00 120.00 120.00 0.7723 8 12 0 EE -0176 lots 164 & 172 Neptune Ave. DATA FROMIREFERENCE 1 EARTHQUAKE ACCEL. 0.25 m [S6] 40 20 0 GSL 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 There are no explicit external forces in the data set. SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID N. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER SEAWALL 164 and 172 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Geotechnical /Coastal Engineering Supplement Major Use Permit Application City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave Encinitas CA 92024 Coastal Development Permit Application California Coastal Commission San Diego Coast Area 3111 Camino Del Rio North Suite 200 San Diego CA 92108 -1725 July 30, 1993 Prepared for Dr. & Mrs Paul Denver and Dr. & Mrs Stanley Canter 619 S. VULCAN AVE, if 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONEIFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER Supplement to the Permit Application 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Encinitas INTRODUCTION This report and appendixes are a supplement to the geotechnical report, design drawings and accompanying permit application. The applicants would like to install a seawall at the base of the bluff in front of their adjacent properties at 164 and 172 Neptune Ave. Neighboring properties to the north in the 400 block of Neptune Avenue have received emergency permits for lower and upper bluff stabilization. This section of coastal bluffs is experiencing erosion due to the long term narrowing of the beach. The beach narrowing is the result of the reduction in the amount of sand reaching the shoreline within this littoral cell. Currently, the beach is accessible only at lower tide levels. There has been a decreasing amount of sand on the beaches over the last several decades. The bluffs are vulnerable to more and more frequent direct wave and cobble attack. Photographs one and two show the condition of the bluff face in front of the properties in July 1993. Photo one shows the residences, 164 Neptune (Denver) and 172 Neptune (Canter), at the top right corner of the photo. The photo also shows the severely undercut lower bluff. Photo two is a close up of the lower bluff directly in front of the residences. The undercut base of the bluff and the cobbles that pummel the lower bluff are clearly shown. Historically the erosion rate of this section of coastline has been slow. However, recent failures of the lower bluff and upper bluff has occurred on nearby properties to the north (Milis property). Because the bluff is undercut about 4 feet at this location there is significant likelihood of bluff failure. The bluff failure will jeopardize the residences above and the beach goers below. The location of this proposed project is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The site plan, Figure 2, shows the mean high tide line (MHT 1924). Sheet one of the design drawings shows the location of the wall. A site specific geotechnical study was recently performed by Earth System Design Group. Their report is appended to this application. The conclusions of the geotechnical investigation are that bluff erosion and failure will continue to occur and that this represents a hazard to the existing structures and the beach going public. The report recommends a properly designed seawall to significantly reduce the hazard and erosion. 619 S.VULCAN AVE, # 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PNoNE/FAx 619 942 -8379 PHOTOGRAPH 1 JULY 1993 R RESIDENCE PHOTOGRAPH 2 JULY 1993 b n �r c VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE EART11 SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP 1529 A Uond Avenue. Son uurcoe, Col Ifo nia 92069 Phone (619) 471 -6351 far (619) 471 -7572 GATE: Oa -08 -93 DWG. NO.: A9100841.DWG PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP NEPTUNE III PROJECT ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA. A w 0 v w v a 0 =o IJ ce, IND ICATES BORING LOCATION FIGURE 2 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP GENERAL SITE PLAN A Grand Avenue. Son Marcos. Col ilornio 92089 Phan: 08— 371 -6351 far (NO.: 3710084 NEPTUNE UNE III PROJECT DATE: 04 —OS -93 DWG. N0.: A91 D0841.DWG I PROJECT: E0084 REVISION: ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER CITY OF ENCMITAS MAJOR USE PERMIT CHAPTER 30.34 INFORMATION Section C. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND APPROVAL 2 a. A geotechnical report has been written for this property. "GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION NEPTUNE III PROJECT 138, 144, 150, 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE, ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA" March 31, 1993 was prepared by Earth Systems Design Group. 2 b. (1) The geotechnical report is site specific. The report recommends a seawall and gives some design information. Seawalls have been used locally as a substantially effective measure for the intended propose of bluff erosion /failure protection. There are currently emergency permits for upper bluff stabilization structures and seawalls for the properties to the north of the residences. 2 b. (2) The analysis and conclusions of the geotechnical report demonstrate a threat to the principal structure. Section 6.0 of the geotechnical report clearly states this. 2 b. (3) The proposed seawall will not directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion on adjacent properties. The ends of the proposed wall will not cause additional erosion to adjacent properties. The ends of the wall will extend back towards the residences at a 90 degree angle. The ends of the wall will be shaped and textured to reduce the reflection of wave energy. 2 b. (4) The wall, as designed, appears much like the existing bluff in color and texture (see design drawings and notes for details). The wall will be visually compatible with the surrounding natural bluff area and other local seawalls currently in the permit process (Soil Engineering). 2 b. (5) The proposed seawall will not impact the coastal processes ( waves, tides, sand movement) in any manner different than the existing natural bluff. Because of its geometry, the proposed wall will be slightly less reflective than the existing natural bluff (see design drawings). The wall will not impact lateral beach access. The width of the finished wall is about 15 inches from the bluff face. The proposed wall will provide an additional measure of safety from bluff failure for the public. 6I9 S.VULCAN AVE, 1214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHoxEIFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SEELLY COASTAL ENGINEER 2 c. The proposed wall is compatible with the wall concept approved by the City Council for this area. Section D. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS This document has been prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in coastal processes and is a supplement to the existing geotechnical report. As the engineer of record I certify that the proposed seawall will have no adverse affect on the stability of the bluff and will not endanger life or property. The proposed seawall will be reasonably safe from failure and erosion over its lifetime. 1. See geotechnical report. 2. This section of coastline has been extensively studied. Recent reports by US Army Corps of Engineers (CCSTWS reports) and SANDAG have clearly established this area as currently experiencing extensive, critical erosion. Properties to the north, in the 400 block of Neptune Avenue, in an identical geological setting have received emergency permits for bluff stabilization from the California Coastal Commission. 3. See geotechnical report. 4. Major bluff failures have occurred on properties near to the applicants. The seawall will help stabilize the lower bluff which will in turn help stabilize the upper bluff. The potential for landslide activity will be reduced by the proposed development. 5. The proposed construction activity will take place on the beach and will not impact the stability of the beach or adjacent bluff. Equipment will not be left on the beach between tide cycles. Because the wall is made from concrete panels, cast off site, very little actual construction time on the beach is required. Public safety precautions will be implemented during the installation of the wall. 6. The proposed seawall has been designed for drainage (see design drawings) . The proposed wall will not impact ground or surface water conditions. 7. Sub - aerial erosion of the upper bluff will be reduced through landscaping efforts. Construction activities will take place on the beach and will not cause erosion problems. B. The proposed seawall will eliminate the scour at the base 619 S.VULCAN AVE, / 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHOHEIFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER of the natural bluff. The action of wind and rain on the upper bluff will be reduced by landscaping efforts. 9. See geotechnical report. The site may experience an earthquake. However, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements will eliminate or significantly reduce structural damage. 11. See geotechnical report. There are no anticipated adverse impacts as a result of the construction of the proposed seawall. In my expert professional opinion, the location, geometry, and installation of the proposed seawall will not contribute to geologic instability over its lifetime. The geotechnical report contains a stability analysis. David W. Skelly RCE #47857 �Q OfESS! pH9l w No. C 47857 Pt I os x} 619 S. VULCAN AVE, # 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONEIFAX 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SEELLY COASTAL ENGINEER CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR SHORELINE DEVICES The following comments apply specifically to the CCC procedural memo "Information needed for processing applications for shoreline protection devices": 1. Written approval from the State Lands Commission. State Lands Commission will be informed during the City of Encinitas environmental review. 2. Project plans. The project plans are shown on the accompanying design drawings. Mean High Tide is shown on Figure 2 of this report and on the design drawings. The proposed project does not extend onto the adjacent properties. The bench mark for all the plans is San Diego Vertical Control Monument O.C. 141, located on the east side of HWY 101, 150' south of the centerline of E1 Portal Street in the City of Encinitas, CA, Elevation 63.913 M.S.L. Installation and construction access is from Moonlight Beach which is approximately 0.2 miles to the south of the site. 3 Geotechnical Report. A geotechnical report has been written for this property. "GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION NEPTUNE III PROJECT 138, 144, 150, 164 AND 172 NEPTUNE AVE, ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA" March 31, 1993 by Earth Systems Design Group. The following additional engineering information is added: * Design wave height and design constraints. The design wave height chosen is a maximum storm wave from the winter of 1982 -83 "El Nino" storms. The design wave has a deep water significant wave height of 21.0 feet, a period of 21 seconds and an azimuth of 283 degrees (from CCSTWS 86 -6). However, this wave will break offshore before reaching the wall. The largest wave forces exerted on the wall will occur when the still water elevation is the highest and waves break directly onto the cliff face. The maximum water elevation is about +8' MSL making the maximum breaker height about 8 feet. Using methods detailed in the Shore Protection Manual, a typical design wave impact and debris force exerted on a sea wall or sea cliff is 5,000 lbs /ft of wall. 619 S. VULCAN AVE, 1 2148, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHoNEIFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER * Maximum expected wave height. A typical breaker height associated with the January 1983 storms is about 18 feet. This wave would break several hundred feet from the bluff toe and have only moderate impact on the bluff and proposed seawall. The design wave for the seawall was chosen as the maximum possible wave that could break on the wall when the beach is in an eroded condition. The wave will be a six second wave with a height of eight feet. * Frequency of overtopping. The proposed seawall height has been chosen such that no overtopping will occur for storms of less than 50 years recurrence interval. The design height of the wall was determined by taking the maximum sea level ( +7' MSL), adding the amplitude (not height) of the largest wave ( +4') and allowing for 2 feet "free board" for a total of 7 +4 +2= +13 MSL. * Normal and maximum tidal ranges. The maximum spring tide range is about 10 feet, that is a high tide of +8.0' MLLW and a low tide of -2.0' MLLW. The normal spring tide range is about 7.5 feet, that is a high of +6.5' MLLW and a low of -1.0' MLLW. More important than the maximum tidal range is the maximum still water level. Maximum water level is a function of the tide, wave setup, wind setup, storm surge, and climatic events (El Nino) . A design maximum still water level for this stretch of coast is +9.5' MLLW or +7' MSL (direct observation). * Erosion rate with /without seawall. The erosion at the base (undercutting) of the cliff will be arrested by the proposed seawall. The seawall and tie backs will increase the forces holding the fractured bluff face in place and reduce the erosion rate of the bluff face. The current erosion rate is commonly expressed statistically in feet per year. Because of the nature of bluff erosion this is a poor statistical description. The nature of the bluff failure is catastrophic and episodic. The local bluff has been stable for the preceding few decades. Only in the past decade has the bluff been actively retreating at some locations. * Effect of seawall on adjoining property. There are no anticipated impacts to the adjoining properties as a result of the installation of the proposed seawall. The ends of the wall are configured as to not impact the adjacent property (see design drawings). The ends of the wall turn back into the property at a 90 degree angle. 619 S.VULCAN AVE, # 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONElFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER * Potential effect of scouring at the base. The proposed seawall will arrest the erosion at the base of the sea bluffs. The foundation of the wall extends 3 -4 feet below the maximum scour depth over the life of the wall. * Design life of seawall /maintenance provisions. The seawall is made from pre -cast concrete panels which have a normal design life of +30 years. Due to the harsh and dynamic environment the design life may be less. The panels are covered with a blown concrete facade which may require patching after extreme event storms. The blown concrete will be colored to match the natural color of the bluff. Additional coloring may be required during the life of the seawall. * Alternatives to the project and chosen design. a) Do Nothing. The bluff along this section of coastline have experienced increased erosion in the past decade. The bluff in front of these properties is undercut several feet. Failure of the lower bluff at these properties will jeopardize the residences. Chunks of bluff material could fall on a beach user below. The liability for such a failure is of concern. There is no benefit to the property owner, the City of Encinitas and the State of California by choosing the "do nothing" alternative. b) Relocation of the Residences. The residences at 164 and 172 Neptune are relatively new, unique custom homes. A house mover visited the properties and determined that both houses could be moved with some difficulty. Both home would require extensive and expensive foundation modification when repositioned. The mover stated that the homes will, "most likely ", not be the same structurally once they are moved. Moving may cause structural damage such as cracks and compromised framing members. The house mover offered no warranty on the condition of the house once it is moved. The contractor's verbal estimate to move a house, build a new foundation, replace the fireplace and patio is in the range of $170,000 to $200,000 per house. Given the lack of guarantee from the house mover and the cost, moving the house is not considered a viable alternative. c) Beach Nourishment. Beach nourishment may, for a very short time, temporarily slow the erosion at the base of the bluff. However, nourishment will not stabilize the fractured bluff face and will quickly be lost down coast due to the wave driven longshore transport of sand. To provide adequate scour protection from a series of storms the beach would need to be about 200 feet wide (SANDAG 1992, Dr. Craig 619 S.VULCAN AVE, # 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHoNEIFAx 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER Everts). A beach nourishment project, with enough volume of sand to last for more than one storm, requires nourishing at least 1 mile of coastline (60,000 yd'). The cost to properly nourish (for only one years protection) the beach in this area of Encinitas is ($7 /yd' X 60,000 yd') $420,000. Beach nourishment would require annual re- nourishment. To insure success, beach nourishment should be done throughout the entire Oceanside Littoral Cell. Beach nourishment, due to cost, is not a viable alternative. d) Armor Stone. The City of Encinitas will not allow the placement of rip rap on the beach. * Effects on public access. The seawall will not adversely effect public access to or along adjacent public tidelands. The seawall will look just like the bluff in color and texture. The seawall will provide a higher degree of safety from bluff failure, at this property, than currently exists. From the standpoint of safety the seawall will have a beneficial impact on public access. * Construction /staging area and technique of construction. No construction staging area is required. The seawall is made of pre -cast panels. The panels will be placed into an excavated footing and secured to the bluff with rock anchors. Anchor installation will take place during time windows around low tide. No equipment or parts /materials will remain on the beach between work windows /tides. The project is subject to a City of Encinitas Beach Encroachment permit. * Maintenance provisions including methods and materials. The seawall will require a minimum of maintenance. The wall should be inspected annually. The only maintenance required will be coloring or patching of the shot crete facade. This maintenance is typical of the seawalls currently being permitted for construction in this area. * Monitoring report. The seawall will have a minimal impact on the environment. Therefore, a monitoring report is not considered necessary. If CCC staff determines otherwise, the applicants are amenable to suggestions on how to monitor the seawall. 619 S. VULCAN AVE, 1 2148, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHONEIFAK 619 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W. SEELLY COASTAL ENGINEER ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO PERMIT APPLICATION 1. Proof of applicants legal interest. A copy of the Grant Deeds are provided. 2. Assessors parcel map. A copy of the assessor's parcel map showing the applicants property and the neighbors within 100 feet, is provided. 3. Local approvals. A Local Agency Review Form has been filled out and is provided herein. A Major Use Permit from the City of Encinitas is pending. 4. Stamped envelopes. Stamped envelopes, meeting the specifications of the CCC, addressed to the owners and occupants of the residences within 100 feet of 452 Neptune Ave are provide. 5. Stamped envelopes to interested parties. Any party expressing interest in this project will be added to the mailing list. There are currently no interested parties aside from the nearby neighbors (already listed), the City of Encinitas, and the CCC. 6. A vicinity map and location map. See figures one, two and in this report and the design drawings. 7. Copies of project plans. Two copies of the project plans are attached. 8. Applicant Fee. According to Mr. Lee McEachern the fee is $600.00. A check is attached to this application. 9. No septic improvements. 10. Final Environmental Impact Statement. This project as proposed does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. The City of Encinitas is performing the initial environmental review in consideration of a negative declaration. 11. Other permits. State Lands Commission has been informed of the pending application. 619 S. VULCAN AVE, / 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHoNEIFAx 6I9 942 -8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID V. SRELLY COASTAL EHO.ZWMM 12. Geology and soils report. The Earth Systems Geotechnical Report is appended to the application. In my expert opinion the above information is true and accurate. If you have any question please call me. Respectfully, , A. '4 David W. Skelly, MS,PE RCEI 47857 s� 0VESS1 p�gl r \\ Erp. gy — 619 S.VULCAN AVE, # 214B, ENCINITAS CA 92024 PHOEEIFAX 619 942 -8379